Most likely, if you've gotten to this site, then you've seen some misleading marketing by Aristotle International, which used to include an attack web site at this address (after we filed a complaint against them for infringing on our trademark, they handed over the url to us at NGP). Here's our release from the conclusion of the lawsuit:

Aristotle International Loses Lawsuit

Court Rules Against Claim About Democratic Competitor NGP VAN

(Washington, DC, September 23, 2011) – Aristotle International has lost its long running lawsuit against NGP VAN. U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan ruled against Aristotle’s false advertising claim against NGP VAN, Inc. Aristotle has waged what the Judge called a “remarkably aggressive and comprehensive” advertising campaign over the last six years against NGP VAN with the lawsuit as the centerpiece, including a host of what the Judge called “Aristotle’s obviously slanted advertisements.” Aristotle had repeatedly insisted that it would win.

“Aristotle has now lost in the courtroom, just as it lost in the Democratic marketplace,” said NGP VAN CEO Stu Trevelyan. “NGP VAN is a proudly Democratic firm.”

The Judge called Aristotle’s arguments “underwhelming”, “unconvincing”, and “too weak”, and wrote of one, “This argument makes little sense”. Regarding Aristotle “surprisingly” failing to offer evidence for its claims, the Judge wrote, “No surveys were offered. No experts testified. No customers testified. Aristotle's market perspective remains unproven.” The Judge wrote that Aristotle’s lack of evidence of confusion or deception doomed their case: “In the end, that silence is deafening.”

Evidence in the lawsuit showed that Aristotle had information from both internal and external surveys (http://personaldemocracy.com/who2hire-landing-page/who-hire-pdf-politica...) that its software and service were considered inferior to NGP VAN’s. Over the past 14 years, Aristotle has lost many of its Federal Democratic customers to NGP VAN, with over 80 clients switching. Aristotle’s partisan Federal software customers are now overwhelmingly Republican.

Evidence in the case also showed that Aristotle held focus groups to determine how to use the lawsuit to conduct a negative campaign aimed at NGP VAN’s Democratic clients. Aristotle’s marketing campaign against NGP VAN about the lawsuit included an attack web site, dozens of hit pieces of direct mail and email to thousands of NGP VAN customers, numerous push poll ‘surveys’, as well as the use of several PR firms to put out numerous press releases and pitch reporters.

The suit against NGP VAN is one of several lawsuits Aristotle has filed over the years against competitors, business partners, former staff, and even magazines which gave their products bad reviews. See for example http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/10495/corporate-vigilante

In this suit, filed in 2005, Aristotle alleged (along with other claims that Aristotle later abandoned) that NGP VAN’s marketing was misleading, because NGP VAN advertises that the company is a Democratic firm, while also serving non-partisan trade association and corporate PACs. NGP VAN serves thousands of Democratic campaigns (and no Republican campaigns), and has consistently advertised serving non-partisan trade association and corporate PACs. The judge agreed that NGP VAN’s marketing itself as being proudly partisan and Democratic is not misleading.

The judge also dismissed a counter claim by NGP VAN, filed several years into the lawsuit, that had sought to enjoin Aristotle from continuing to publish negative attacks that Aristotle had made during its negative advertising campaign.

NGP VAN is the leading technology provider to progressive campaigns and organizations, offering an integrated platform that combines the best fundraising, compliance, field, organizing, and new media products. NGP VAN counts thousands of campaigns and organizations among their clients, including all the national Democratic committees, thousands of Democratic campaigns, hundreds of labor unions, progressive and non-partisan PACs, and other organizations.

The full text of the Judge’s decision can be found at http://www.askngp.com/Decision

# # #
 
Verbatim Excerpts from Judge Thomas F. Hogan’s “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law”

(Regarding Aristotle’s “ad campaign”)
Such efforts have been remarkably aggressive and comprehensive. (p.14)

Although Mr. Phillips testified that NGP's market understanding was incorrect (TR III 46- 48), surprisingly, Aristotle offered no evidence beyond such testimony supporting this opinion. No survey evidence was offered, no expert testified, and there appears to be little evidence--discussed in greater detail in Part II(B)(3), infra-in the record that customers or other entities in the marketplace disagree with NGP's understanding. (p. 23)

(Regarding several of Aristotle’s arguments)
Thus, this datum is underwhelming as an indicia of deceptive intent. (p. 31)
This argument is also unconvincing. (p. 31)
This argument makes little sense, however. (p. 32)

There are too many credible, innocent explanations for NGP's behaviors. The individual pieces of evidence are too weak. The threads between them are too thin. Aristotle simply weaves too delicate a web to support the burden it must bear. (p. 36)

During this case, Aristotle has tried hard to deploy legal arguments that channel the Court away from considering whether there is credible evidence that consumers were likely confused or deceived by NGP's advertising. The reason for this is simple-the record is almost silent on this issue. In the end, that silence is deafening. (p. 36)

There is no evidence that, after discussing the issues with NGP, that any such customer took any action evidencing that the customer felt deceived or confused by NGP's advertising. In fact, such a pattern seems just as probative—if not more so - that Aristotle's ads were the ones creating the confusion. (p. 39)

The evidence in this case, even taken as a whole, satisfies neither these nor any reasonable standard proving likely deception among NGP's customers or the marketplace generally. No surveys were offered. No experts testified. No customers testified. Aristotle's market perspective remains unproven. What evidence there is at best provides weak anecdotal evidence that a few specific persons might have felt deceived or confused by NGP's ads, but for all the Court knows, Aristotle's obviously slanted advertisements that triggered many such reactions could have been a or the source of that confusion. (p. 40-41)

Thus, Aristotle has not demonstrated that NGP's advertising is either false or misleading, or likely deceptive. (p. 41)

For more information on NGP VAN, visit us at www.ngpvan.com