Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer
The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.
DOMINION ENTERPRISES v. DOMINIONENTERPRISES.ORG
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA (ALEXANDRIA)
1:09-CV-00172
FILED: 2/17/2009
Even though the owner of a domain name is unknown you still have the ability to file a lawsuit and obtain possession of the domain name through legal action at the geographic location of the registrar or registry.
Domain Enterprises is a partnership organized under the laws of Virginia and has, for almost twenty years, been a leading marketing services company serving a wide range of consumers and industries. Defendant, dominionenterprises.org, is a domain name owned by a third party. Plaintiff alleges that the registrant undertook an elaborate scheme to deceive consumers by registering the domain name and then launching a website that looked, for most material purposes, as if it was the Plaintiff’s own website.
This lawsuit was brought in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia as an “in rem” action, although the court relief is broad, the remedy sought is the transfer of the domain name to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has sued for a violation of the Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, trademark infringement, and federal unfair competition. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1290.
HELLS ANGELS MOTORCYCLE CORPORATION v. FAWN MYERS., ET AL.
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (FRESNO)
1:09-CV-00261
FILED: 2/11/2009
To get a very clear perspective on how things have changed, even the Hell’s Angels is obtaining registered trademarks and using the courts to address intellectual property infringement. One might have historically surmised that a personal visit would achieve the objective at much lower costs.
The Plaintiff, Hells Angels Motorcycle Corporation, is a “non-profit mutual benefit corporation”. Defendant Fawn Myers is an individual residing in Visalia, California. The Defendant is alleged to have purchased over twenty domain names that infringed on the Plaintiff’s trademark and attempted to sell those on eBay.
The lawsuit claims “cyberpiracy”, trademark infringement, false designation of origin, dilution, California common law trademark infringement, and unfair competition. Extensive preliminary and permanent injunctive relief is requested including claims for compensatory damages, triple damages, statutory damages of up to $100,000.00 per domain name, reasonable attorneys’ fees, prejudgment interest, and court costs. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1286.
WEB MARKETING SERVICES, L.L.C. v. SHURFINE FOODS, INC.
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA (NEW ORLEANS)
2:09-CV-02449
FILED: 2/06/2009
One of the worst things you can do as a business is fire off a bunch of cease and desist letters or have someone else on your behalf make decisions and send out demand letters relating to alleged trademark infringement and/or cybersquatting issues. Not only does this approach put you at risk of attacks, but it also puts you at a very real risk of being sued in some foreign jurisdiction. In this case, a very weak trademark infringement claim was asserted by an Oregon corporation against a Louisiana business, and the Oregon corporation promptly got sued in Louisiana. For those of you who have never been to the state of Louisiana, “home cooking” is a specialty. Putting yourself in a position in which you are playing on the other party’s turf is not desirable.
The Plaintiff is the operator of the website “www.surepharmacy.com”. It is a Louisiana corporation. Shurfine Foods, the Defendant, is an Oregon corporation engaged in the business of providing wholesale retail grocery store products and operating retail grocery stores. “Shurfine” had allegedly threatened litigation against the Plaintiff because the Plaintiff’s operation at “surepharmacy” allegedly was trademark infringement on the “shurfine” trademark of the Defendant.
The Plaintiff filed suit requesting the court to declare that it is not infringing the trademarks of the Defendant. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1282.
PPG INDUSTRIES, INC. AND PPG ARCHITECTURAL FINISHES, INC. v. SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO.
WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA (PITTSBURGH)
2:09-CV-00124
FILED: 2/02/2009
The clear lesson to be learned in this case is that even the big boys sometimes apparently fail to get “trademark clearance” prior to domain name purchases. Had a quality search been conducted, Sherwin-Williams certainly would have become aware of the use of the “trademark term” by the Plaintiff and likely avoided this litigation.
PPG is a distributor of architectural paint products and services in the United States and claims to own a common law trademark in the term “colors of inspiration”. The lawsuit alleges that PPG “owns a valid and subsisting U.S. trademark application”, which means that they have applied for a U.S. registered trademark but don’t have one yet. The Defendant is the well known paint retailer. Sherwin-Williams is alleged to have acquired domain names incorporating the “colors of inspiration” mark in 2007 and 2008 and is using the domain names in connection with an online color-matching service.
Plaintiff has sued for trademark infringement, unfair competition, cybersquatting, unfair business practices, and state trademark infringement. The relief requested includes a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting Defendant from using the trademark term, an award of monetary damages including profits, attorneys’ fees and costs, triple damages, statutory damages under the cybersquatting act, punitive damages, and an award requiring the transfer of the domain names to the Plaintiff. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1283.
No comments:
Post a Comment