ST. LOUIS – A federal judge has denied St. Louis University's request for a temporary restraining order against a fourth-year surgical resident who created a website bearing the university's name, allegedly in violation of trademark protections.
According to an order filed Sept. 22, U.S. District Judge Henry Edward Autrey of the Eastern District of Missouri found no evidence that the university suffered any actual harm "through confusion, dilution or mistake" regarding the website slucomplianceproject.org that was created by Dr. Mandy Rice.
The university filed the trademark dilution, cyberpiracy and misuse of a benevolent society suit against Rice over the website she created and also named her husband, Dr. Michael Todd Rice, over his creation of a Facebook page bearing the same name as the website.
In the meantime, Rice is suing the university in St. Louis City Circuit Court over the School of Medicine's decision to have her repeat her fourth year of surgical residency rather than promoting her to fifth year with the rest of her class.
Autrey's order indicates that after the university became aware of the online sites, it contacted the Rices' attorney Sept. 6, asking they cease and desist in their use of the "SLU" acronym, but they refused to comply.
The university argues that the website and Facebook page were created as "an attempt to influence and affect the outcome of Mandy Rice's lawsuit for her personal gain, including tainting potential jurors who may decide Mandy Rice's pending lawsuit against SLU and for settlement leverage as opposed to true criticism and commentary which might otherwise be protected."
Among the factors that Autrey took into consideration in denying the temporary restraining order was "balance of the harms."
He wrote that the defendants and their online sites have claimed they are expressing their views and opposition to the way SLU operates.
"Plaintiff has not controverted this affidavit with any evidence that SLU has experienced any harm from Defendant’s website," Autrey wrote. "Ordering Defendants to cease expressing their opinions in the website has serious First Amendment implications that outweigh Plaintiff’s speculative harm."