Taubman Sucks!

TaubmanSucks.com
WillowBendSucks.com
WillowBendMallSucks.com
ShopsAtWillowBendSucks.com
TheShopsAtWillowBendSucks.com
GiffordKrassGrohSprinkleSucks.com

Act 55: We Appeal the Order

Although I've had some help, I've basically been defending myself against this lawsuit – which, I've discovered, is a lot like trying to undertake do-it-yourself brain surgery. (Fortunately, the process is so mind-numbing that I don't need an anaesthetic.) But for appeals purposes, I'm actually represented by a honest-to-goodness lawyer, in the person of Paul Levy of Public Citizen, who is handling my appeal for free.

This is Paul's motion to stay the preliminary injunction that forced me to remove my TaubmanSucks.com site from the Web. If the appeal is successful, I'll be able to restore the TaubmanSucks.com site back onto the Web, where it will remain online for the duration of the lawsuit (and well beyond that, if I win – which I fully expect to do).

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

THE TAUBMAN COMPANY )

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, )

)

Plaintiff-Appellee, )

)

v. ) Nos. 01-2648 and 01-2725

)

WEBFEATS and HENRY MISHKOFF )

)

Defendants-Appellants. )

MOTION TO STAY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
AND TO EXPEDITE APPEAL

Pursuant to Rule 8(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, and Circuit Rule 27(f), defendants-appellants move the Court to expedite the appeal from, and to stay the effectiveness of, the preliminary injunction issued by the district court on December 7, 2001, which required defendants to remove from the Internet a web site in which they criticized the plaintiff-appellee, its attorneys, and the decisions of the district court in this case. As we argue in the accompanying memorandum of law, the preliminary injunction is a prior restraint that violates the First Amendment, and in any event is not warranted by the Lanham Act because the use of a trademarked name to identify the person who is being criticized, such as in the name "Taubman Sucks," does not violate the Taubman trademark.

The relevant orders and other portions of the record, including the complete web site at issue, which is copied onto the compact disks attached to the Affidavit of Jason Stele, are furnished with this motion. A stay has previously been sought below and was denied by the district court in an opinion dated December 26, 2001; a copy of that order is also attached.

Once the plaintiff has been deprived of the benefit of its preliminary injunction, fairness requires that the appeal itself be expedited. And, because the appeal from the first preliminary injunction (dated October 11, 2001) has been consolidated with the appeal from the second preliminary injunction, it is urged that both appeals be expedited.

Respectfully submitted,

Paul Alan Levy
Allison M. Zieve

Public Citizen Litigation Group
1600 - 20th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009
(202) 588-1000

Attorneys for Appellants

January 15, 2002