Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer
GEORGE HENDERSON LAW CORPORATION v. LABNET, INC. AND DOES 1-20
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (LOS ANGELES)
2:09-CV-09165
FILED: 12/14/2009
LABNET, INC. v. GEORGE HENDERSON LAW CORPORATION AND THE LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE HENDERSON
DISTRICT OF COLORADO (DENVER)
1:09-CV-02963
FILED: 12/18/2009
When you have a very weak trademark it is best to be very conservative in handling enforcement actions against potential infringers. Remember, the less meritorious your case, the more likely it is that someone is going to challenge you and your trademark.
George Henderson Law Corporation, the Plaintiff in the first case, is a law firm. LabNet, Inc., the Defendant in the first case and the Plaintiff in the second case, is an entity that claims a trademark in the term “work law”. The law firm received a cease and desist letter from LabNet claiming ownership of the term “work law” as a trademark, particularly in the context of being contained in domain names the law firm was using. George Henderson Law Corporation filed suit in the Federal Court in California on December 14, 2009, and LabNet filed suit in the Federal Court in Colorado on December 18, 2009.
The lawsuit filed by George Henderson Law Corporation includes requests for extensive declaratory judgments ruling LabNet’s trademarks as invalid and that Plaintiff’s use of the mark is fair and requests for attorneys’ costs and fees in an amount to be determined at trial and additional and further relief based on the rulings of the declaratory judgments and that the Court deems to be just and proper.
In the lawsuit filed by LabNet, Defendants have been sued for infringement of a federally registered trademark, common law trademark infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition, trademark dilution, violation of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, and violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff requests indemnification against all third party claims, temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief, that Defendants cease and desist any and all use of Plaintiff’s marks, that Defendants be adjudged to have violated the Lanham Act and Colorado Consumer Protection Act, an accounting of Defendant’s gains as a result of wrongful acts against Plaintiff, actual damages, punitive and exemplary damages, ordering Defendants to send letters to clients indicating no association whatsoever to Plaintiff, destruction of Defendant’s infringing products and services, granting Plaintiff the remedies provided by 15 U.S.C. §§ 1116 and 1118, costs, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and such other and further relief that the Court may deem just and equitable. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1397, 1398.
JEFFREY WALTER v. VILLE DE PARIS
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (HOUSTON)
4:09-CV-03939
FILED: 12/08/2009
Even if you lose a UDRP proceeding, a lawsuit can be filed and most Courts will totally disregard the UDRP proceeding and determine the case all over again on the merits and the Court’s view of the law.
The Plaintiff owns the domain name “parvi.org”. The Defendant is the city of Paris, France. Paris brought a UDRP proceeding and prevailed. This lawsuit was brought to establish rights by the Plaintiff in the domain name to the exclusion of the Defendant.
The lawsuit filed by Plaintiff includes claims for reverse domain hi-jacking, tortuous interference, and conversion. The Plaintiff requests declaration by the Court that Plaintiff’s registration of the domain name is lawful and does not infringe on any trade or service mark right the Defendant may claim in the United States, that the UDRP decision was an improper interpretation of the contractual rights of Plaintiff, actual damages according to proof at trial but no less than $100,000, punitive damages according to proof at trial, reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1396.
