Login | May 06, 2025
Body by Jake eBay defamation case remanded
TRACEY BLAIR
Legal News Reporter
Published: September 17, 2015
A Wayne County trial court erred when it granted summary judgment to an exercise equipment manufacturer in a defamation and deceptive trade practices case, the 9th District Court of Appeals recently ruled.
Jascar Enterprises, LLC sued Body by Jake Enterprises LLC for defamation, deceptive trade practices, false advertising, intentional interference with contract, negligence and interference with a prospective economic advantage.
According to case summary, Jascar, operated by Jason Carrick, resells goods that it buys in lots from a wholesale distributor called GENCO. Jascar sells some of the items it buys from GENCO online through eBay and at retails stores.
In 2010, Darcy Dominguez, formerly Body by Jake’s vice president of direct response, noticed that Jascar had “dozens” of “brand new” Body by Jake’s Tower 200 Full-Body Exercise Gym models on eBay. She reported the listings to eBay, stating no authorized retailers were allowed to sell the items online.
After she submitted the infringement notice, the listing of the Tower 200s were changed to “used.”
Dominguez then accused Jascar of scamming the system because “no one would have this many used Tower 200 units.”
EBay then notified Jascar four of its listings were being removed as “fake or counterfeit.” Carrick claimed the items Jascar tried to sell were bought from Sears and were not counterfeit.
However, Dominguez said Sears had no record of selling the Tower 200s to Jascar.
After EBay removed Jascar from its platinum power seller program for one year, Jascar alleged its eBay sales plummeted due to Body by Jake’s statements.
The 9th District found the trial court misunderstood the evidence when rendering judgment on the defamation and violation of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act claims.
The appellate court also agreed with Jascar that the trial court erred in finding Body by Jake established a qualified privilege defense.
“ (Body by Jake) argues that its claims were not based on the statement Ms. Dominguez made in her initial Notice of Claimed Infringement, but on the email exchange she had with eBay after eBay rejected her complaint,” 9th District Judge Jennifer Hensal wrote in her opinion. “The trial court, however, only considered the statements Ms. Dominguez made in her initial notice when it considered whether summary judgment was appropriate.”
The matter was remanded on Jascar’s claims alleging defamation and deceptive trade practices.
Ninth District Judge Beth Whitmore concurred.
Appellate Judge Donna Carr dissented with part of the decision, stating that all six claims must be remanded.
Jascar also claimed the trial court failed to render judgment on all the claims in its first amended complaint, improperly made findings of fact where there were genuine issues of material fact and rendered judgment on the Lanham Act false advertising claim based on a misunderstanding of the evidence.
The case is cited Jascar Ents., LLC v. Body by Jake Ents., LLC, 2015-Ohio-3281.