Metropolitan Regional Information Systems, Inc. v. American Home Realty Network, Inc.
948 F. Supp. 2d 538
D. Maryland2013Background
- MRIS sued AHRN and its CEO for copyright infringement, Lanham Act false advertising, and tort claims over alleged MRIS content reproduction on Neighborcity.com.
- The court entered a preliminary injunction against AHRN and clarified it to cover MRIS’s photographs, later narrowing the scope.
- AHRN asserted First Amended Counterclaims against MRIS, NAR, and Does 1–25 seeking various causes of action.
- The court granted-in-part MRIS’s and NAR’s motions to dismiss, and allowed AHRN to amend regarding Counts II–IV.
- Counts I, V, VI, and VII were dismissed with prejudice; Counts II–IV were dismissed without prejudice, with leave to amend.
- AHRN was given 14 days to file second amended counterclaims addressing Counts II, III, and IV.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lanham Act § 43(a) applicability | MRIS/NAR asserted false statements about copyrightability. | AHRN claimed false advertising by MRIS/NAR. | Lanham Act claims dismissed; statements deemed nonactionable opinions and not commercial advertising. |
| Sherman Act § 1 viability | Counterclaims alleged concerted action to harm AHRN. | No actionable agreement; Noerr-Pennington immunity. | Counts I (Lanham Act) and §1 claims rejected; leave to amend Counts II–IV granted. |
| Maryland unfair competition viability | Statements and litigation actions constitute unfair competition. | No unfair conduct established; actions lawful copyright enforcement. | Maryland unfair competition claims dismissed without prejudice. |
| California unfair competition viability | Same core conduct violated California law. | Lack of California-based injury and insufficient pleading. | California UCL claim dismissed without prejudice. |
| Sherman Act § 2 monopolization viability | MRIS monopoly power via MLS data; essential facility theory. | AHRN not a competitor; market boundaries unclear. | Count V dismissed with prejudice; essential facilities theory rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- PBM Prods., LLC v. Mead Johnson & Co., 639 F.3d 111 (4th Cir. 2011) (Lanham Act false advertising requires a plausible, material misrepresentation)
- Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (U.S. 2003) (limits Lanham Act to false statements in advertising or promotion)
- Porous Media Corp. v. Pall Corp., 173 F.3d 1109 (8th Cir. 1999) (tests for commercial speech under Lanham Act)
- Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prods. Corp., 463 U.S. 60 (U.S. 1983) (three-factor test for commercial speech)
- Dial A Car, Inc. v. Transportation, Inc., 884 F.Supp.584 (D.D.C.1995) (expressions of opinion not actionable under Lanham Act)
- Coastal Abstract Serv., Inc. v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 173 F.3d 725 (9th Cir. 1999) (false statements must be verifiable facts)