By Nate Raymond 

When Internet Brands Inc sued James Heilman and William Holliday last month in state court in Los Angeles, not many people noticed that the new media company had effectively launched a war with the non-profit group behind Wikipedia. Internet Brands didn't name Wikimedia Foundation. But its complaint alleged that Heilman and Holliday attempted to convince users of Wikitravel.org, which is owned by Internet Brands, to switch to a travel guide under the auspices of Wikimedia.

Wikimedia read between the lines of the Internet Brands lawsuit, however, and was none too pleased. On Wednesday, its lawyers at Cooley countered with a lawsuit against Internet Brands in San Francisco Superior Court, seeking a declaration that any user-generated content at Wikitravel.org can be moved to another site under the licenses that govern content on Internet Brands' websites.

The new filing is a rare foray into litigation for Wikimedia, which, according to a search of the Westlaw database, has filed just one lawsuit since it was founded in 2003. Wikimedia has said it intervened because it believed it was the real target of the Internet Brands lawsuit and because Heilman and Holliday are both volunteer content creators who should be protected. "The foundation felt very strongly it needed to intervene here and protect these two volunteers, who'd have to pay lawyers, and secondly to protect integrity of the wiki movement," said Wikimedia counsel Michael Rhodes of Cooley.

The foundation's suit also marks one of the few U.S. cases centered around so-called Creative Commons copyright licenses. According to Wikimedia's complaint, Internet Brands' site, Wikitravel.org, has always operated under Creative Commons licenses -- free copyright licenses that give Internet sites the right to copy, distribute or sell content, so long as the author is credited. Michael Carroll, a professor at American University's Washington College of Law, said that such licenses have been tested in litigation outside of the United States but haven't been the subject of many U.S. court cases. "What Wikimedia is asking is to make clear (that) the license is bulletproof on this point," Carroll said. (Carroll is a founding board member of Creative Commons but said he was speaking in an individual capacity.)

The rivalry between Wikitravel.org and Wikimedia has become increasingly intense. Internet Brands purchased Wikitravel.org from two independent Web developers in 2005 for $1.7 million, according to Internet Brands' complaint. According to Internet Brands, Heilman, a member of Wikimedia Canada's board, registered as a user at Wikitravel. A month later, he reached out to Wikimedia about creating a new travel site, Wikimedia's own complaint said. Wikimedia allegedly began gauging user interest through what it called a "request for comment," asking users if they would be interested in moving their content from Wikitravel to a new Wikimedia website called the Wiki Travel Guide. In June, the administrators of Wikivoyage, a site of users who had broken away from Wikitravel, voted to fold its content into the new Wikimedia site, and in the interim, Wikivoyage's site is being used for the "migration," according to an online FAQ.

The cross-complaints make it clear that Internet Brands and Wikimedia don't see eye-to-eye about money. Though the two engaged in talks about a collaboration, Wikimedia said it balked when Internet Brands suggested a new wiki travel site that would be run as a "semi for-profit" company. Internet Brands' complaint said that it refused Wikimedia's request to "donate" the Wikitravel website. The Internet Brands suit accused Heilman and Holliday, a Wikitravel administrator who allegedly encouraged users to migrate to the new Wikimedia-backed website, of trademark infringement, unfair competition and civil conspiracy.

Wikimedia intervened because it believes it is the real target, according to a blog post by the foundation's deputy general counsel, Kelly Kay. "Our community and potential new community members are key to the success of all of our projects," she wrote. "We will steadfastly and proudly defend our community's right to free speech, and we will support these volunteer community members in their legal defense."

In a statement Thursday, Internet Brands said it "has been a tireless supporter of free speech, open discourse and community publishing." The company said it had spent millions of dollars developing the Wikitravel website and believed its intellectual property rights had been violated. An Internet Brands spokesman said the company was retaining counsel to defend it in Wikimedia's lawsuit. Its Los Angeles case is being handled by Wendy Giberti of iGeneral Counsel.

Follow us on Twitter @AlisonFrankel, @nateraymond, @ReutersLegal  | Like us on Facebook