## Facts

- America Online, Inc. (AOL) operated an online service and email system, owned the “AOL” service mark, and used the “aol.com” domain.
- LCGM, Inc. and related defendants marketed pornographic websites by sending millions of unsolicited bulk email advertisements to AOL members through AOL’s network.
- Defendants falsified email header information, including making messages appear to originate from “@aol.com,” and used routing and third-party servers to disguise the source of the mailings.
- AOL received more than 450,000 member complaints over roughly five months, including complaints that the messages were offensive and appeared connected to AOL.
- AOL asserted that the volume and characteristics of the mailings burdened its computer systems and required additional resources and upgrades to address congestion and filtering.

## Issues

1. Whether forged “@aol.com” origin information in bulk email advertising constituted false designation of origin under Lanham Act § 43(a).
2. Whether defendants’ use of AOL’s marks and association with pornographic content constituted dilution by tarnishment under the Lanham Act.
3. Whether sending bulk email through AOL’s systems with falsified routing information constituted unauthorized access and impairment in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
4. Whether the same conduct violated the Virginia Computer Crimes Act.
5. Whether the mass unsolicited mailings constituted trespass to chattels against AOL’s computer systems under Virginia common law.
6. Whether summary judgment was appropriate on a common-law conspiracy claim and on damages.

## Decision

- The court granted AOL’s motion for summary judgment on Counts I–VI: Lanham Act false designation, Lanham Act dilution, CFAA (unauthorized access and impairment), Virginia Computer Crimes Act violations, and trespass to chattels.
- The court denied summary judgment on Count VII (common-law conspiracy) because genuine disputes of material fact remained as to the existence and scope of an agreement.
- The court denied summary judgment as to damages, finding factual issues remained regarding the amount and nature of AOL’s losses.
- The court indicated AOL was entitled to injunctive relief to prevent similar future conduct.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; the nonmovant must present specific facts showing a triable issue.
- Falsifying email headers to make messages appear to originate from or be affiliated with a trademark owner can constitute a false or misleading designation of origin likely to cause confusion under Lanham Act § 43(a).
- Use of a famous mark in a manner that links it to pornographic content may support dilution by tarnishment by lessening the mark’s capacity to identify and distinguish the owner’s services.
- Using a computer network in ways prohibited by the provider’s policies and technical restrictions, and sending high-volume traffic that burdens systems and causes compensable loss, can satisfy CFAA provisions addressing unauthorized access and impairment.
- Unauthorized conduct that disrupts or impairs computer operations can violate state computer-crime statutes such as the Virginia Computer Crimes Act.
- Intentional, unauthorized intermeddling with another’s computer systems that materially burdens performance and causes resource expenditures can constitute trespass to chattels.

## Conclusion

The court held that forged-header, high-volume unsolicited email advertising tied to pornographic content established liability as a matter of law for false designation of origin, dilution, federal and state computer-access violations, and trespass to chattels, while leaving conspiracy and damages for later resolution.


America Online, Inc. v. LCGM, Inc., 46 F. Supp. 2d 444 (E.D. Va. 1998)