Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: June 2012 - Domain Name Dispute Lawsuits

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.


BOX ACQUISITIONS, LLC v. BOX PACKAGING PRODUCTS, LLC, ET AL.
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
1:12-CV-04021
FILED: 05/23/2012

Keep in mind that a single act of cybersquatting carries with it an award of attorneys’ fees that you have spent plus liquidated damages up to $100,000.00 per domain name.  If you have a competitor that is infringing on your trademark, either a registered trademark or a common-law trademark that you may have acquired over time, then it may be very economically worthwhile to pursue the matter.  Oftentimes these are settled without the necessity of a lawsuit.

The Plaintiff claims that it owns “Box Packaging” and “Box Partners” as registered trademarks.  The Defendants are alleged to have acquired domain names containing these phrases for purposes of competing against the Plaintiff. 

The Plaintiff alleges false domain name registration, trademark infringement, unfair competition, false designation of origin, cybersquatting, deceptive trade practices, and consumer fraud.  The prayer for relief requests the entry of preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining Defendants from further infringement.  The prayer for relief also requests the transfer of the subject domain names, and the reimbursement of exemplary damages, costs for this action, reasonable attorneys’ fees and disbursements, and statutory damages in the amount of $100,000.00 per infringing domain name.  Traverse Internet Law Cross Reference Number 1565.

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: May 2012 - Domain Name Dispute Lawsuits

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.


TIFFANY, LLC v. THE PARTNERSHIPS, ET AL.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
1:12-CV-21352-FAM
FILED: 4/10/2012

If the owner of a domain name can be located in the United States the remedy can be to obtain transfer of the domain names and obtain an appropriate monetary payment.  However, most of these situations today arise from hidden ownership in foreign countries and the best that you can expect is to receive the domain name in litigation.

Tiffany is involved in manufacturing and distributing high quality luxury goods under multiple famous common-law and registered trademarks.  Defendants are alleged to have registered eight domain names with the “Tiffany” name contained in each and are using the domain names to intentionally divert customers from Plaintiff’s websites to the Defendants’ websites.

The Plaintiff alleges trademark counterfeiting and infringement, false designation of origin, and cybersquatting.  The prayer for relief requests the entry of preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining Defendants from further infringement, the transfer of the subject domain names, the entry of an order requiring Defendants to account for and pay Plaintiff for all profits and damages resulting from trademark infringement, counterfeiting activities, and cybersquatting activities.  Prayer for relief also requests the entry of an award of Plaintiff’s costs and reasonable attorneys’ and investigative fees.  Traverse Internet Law Cross Reference Number 1560.

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: April 2012 - Domain Name Dispute Lawsuits

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.


CARMEL v. IMMIHELP, LLC
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA (PHOENIX)
2:12-CV-00558-DGC
FILED: 3/16/2012

When you use the domain name dispute process remember that a party who is not satisfied with the result has a short period of time in which to file a lawsuit against you to dispute the result. Generally, the Courts are not in any way bound by the findings of the arbitrator in the domain name dispute and can re-assess and re-evaluate the case in its entirety.

This is a lawsuit by the owner of a domain name against a party who accused him of being a cybersquatter and won the domain name dispute. The Plaintiff has filed a lawsuit for a declaratory judgment and disposition that he is the proper owner of the domain name.

The Plaintiff alleges reverse domain name hijacking. The prayer for relief requests the transfer of the infringing domain name and the payment of reasonable fees and costs associated with the preparation and litigation of the case. Traverse Internet Law Cross Reference Number 1554.

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: March 2012 - Domain Name Dispute Lawsuits

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.


NEW ISLAND CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. v. WWW.NEWISLANDCAPITAL.COM
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON (SEATTLE)
2:12-CV-00320-JLR
FILED: 2/24/2012

The “competition” involved by the Defendant appears to be the “passive holding” of the domain name. There does not appear to be any active business competition occurring through the use of the domain name and no bona fide goods or services are being offered. There is a split of authority as to whether passive holding can constitute “bad faith use” but the best practice is to avoid acquiring domain names that conflict with an established and valuable trademark.

The Plaintiff is an investment advisor focused on achieving positive mission-focused investments in the sustainable agriculture, communities, alternative energy, and environment sectors. The Plaintiff holds a registered trademark in the term “New Island Capital”. The Defendant has acquired the domain name and is using it to compete against the Plaintiff in bad faith.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. The prayer for relief requests Defendant be enjoined from further use of the infringing domain name, the transfer of the infringing domain name, and any other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Traverse Internet Law Cross Reference Number 1550.

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: February 2012 - Domain Name Dispute Lawsuits

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.


RCI TM CORP., ET AL. v. BAR LAW ENTERPRISES, LLC, ET AL.
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA (ORLANDO)
6:12-CV-00014-ACC-GJK
FILED: 1/4/2012

Whenever you are going to use a name for a product, service, or business, make sure that you get “clearance” to do so. The potential damages for cybersquatting are up to $100,000.00 per domain name, plus you will have liability for paying the Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees.

The Plaintiff and Defendant are both involved in the real estate industry. The Plaintiffs operate an exchange service for condominium owners and hold trademarks in the term “RCI”, which is short for “Resort Condominiums International”. The Defendants own and operate a website at “www.resortcondosinternational.com”.

The lawsuit alleges federal trademark infringement, federal trademark counterfeiting, false designation of origin, trademark dilution, cybersquatting, deceptive and unfair trade practices, and unfair competition. The prayer for relief requests Defendants be enjoined from the use of infringing marks, asks for the entry of an award of all treble, statutory, punitive, and exemplary damages, costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, and any other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Traverse Internet Law Cross Reference Number 1544.

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: January 2012 - Domain Name Dispute Lawsuits

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.


TWO MEN AND A TRUCK/INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. SKY MOVING AND STORAGE, INC., ET AL.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA (FT. LAUDERDALE)
0:11-CV-62667-WJZ
FILED: 12/15/2011

The economic cost of getting caught cybersquatting is huge and if you are in the business of buying any domain names you need to be careful not to infringe on the trademark, either registered or common law, of potential competitors.

The Plaintiff is the largest franchised local moving company in the United States. Defendants allegedly acquired confusing domain names similar to the name used by the Plaintiff.

The lawsuit alleges infringement of federally registered trademarks, false designation of origin, unfair competition, and trademark dilution. The prayer for relief requests Defendants be enjoined from the use of infringing marks, asks for compensatory and punitive damages, costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, and any other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Traverse Internet Law Cross Reference Number 1542.