Cybersquatting

February 27, 2014

James Dean, Inc.’s Indiana Trademark Infringement Litigation Against Twitter Removed to Federal Court

Indianapolis, Indiana – Illinois and Missouri trademark attorneys for James Dean, Inc. of Indiana sued in Indiana state court alleging that Twitter, Inc. of California infringed the trademark James Dean, which has been issued by the U.S. Trademark Office by allowing the registration of the Twitter handle @JamesDean. The case was removed from the Superior Court of the County of Hamilton, Indiana to the Southern District of Indiana.

Plaintiff James Dean, Inc. filed a trademark complaint against Twitter, as well as the fictitious persons, John Doe Defendants 1-5 Company, in an Indiana state court. In the complaint, Plaintiff alleged that it is the exclusive owner of the name, likeness, voice, right of publicity and endorsement, worldwide trademarks, copyrights, and other intellectual property including but not limited to visual and aural depictions, artifacts, memorabilia, and life-story rights, and/or trade dress of the late movie star James Dean.

James Dean, Inc. further alleges that Twitter has allowed the registration and operation of a Twitter account, using the handle @JamesDean, located at https://twitter.com/JamesDean, which is purportedly in violation of Plaintiff’s rights.

In the complaint, filed by an Indiana trademark lawyer, James Dean, Inc. asserted nine causes of action against Twitter:

• Count I – Trademark Infringement Under Section 32(1) or 3(A) of the Lanham Act;
• Count II – False Endorsement Under Lanham Act § 43(A);
• Count III – Indiana State Statutory Right of Publicity;
• Count IV – Common Law Right of Publicity;
• Count V – Common Law Unfair Competition;
• Count VI – Unjust Enrichment;
• Count VII – Conversion;
• Count VIII – Deception; and
• Count IX – Indiana Crime Victims’ Act.

For relief, James Dean, Inc. sought damages, including treble damages, costs, and attorney’s fees as set out in the Indiana Right of Publicity Statute, Lanham Act and other statutes. In addition, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief.

Twitter removed the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal-question jurisdiction) and 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction). To support the former basis for federal jurisdiction, Twitter noted federal questions inherent in the filing of a claim under the Lanham Act. Twitter also claimed supplemental jurisdiction for the remaining claims under Indiana law.

To support the latter basis for jurisdiction in an Indiana federal court, Twitter asserted that the two prongs for diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction were met. First, James Dean, Inc. is a citizen of Indiana, as it has alleged that it is incorporated under the laws of the State of Indiana with its principal place of business in Indiana, while Twitter claims to be a citizen of two states: Delaware and California. Second, while Twitter “strongly contests liability and does not believe Plaintiff is entitled to any relief whatsoever,” it indicated that, were liability to be found, the amount in controversy could exceed $75,000, given that James Dean, Inc. is suing for “all damages” allowed by the applicable statutes, which can include actual damages, treble damages, punitive damages, statutory damages and attorneys’ fees.

Practice Tip:

James Dean was born on February 8, 1931, in Marion, Indiana. He grew up in Fairmount, Indiana, about 60 miles northeast of Indianapolis. Dean starred in East of Eden, Rebel Without a Cause and Giant, receiving two Academy Award nominations for Best Actor.

In 1955, Dean died in an automobile accident. As a result of the nearly 60 years that have passed since his death, it is unlikely that those who follow @JamesDean believe that the tweets have been written by James Dean himself. Nonetheless, celebrity licensing agency CMG Worldwide, based out of Carmel, Indiana, is attempting to recover the James Dean Twitter account.

CMG, which also represents such celebrity images as Marilyn Monroe, Jackie Robinson and Babe Ruth, has attempted “on numerous occasions” to make Twitter take action to block and identify owners of various unauthorized accounts. Those accounts could give the impression, it says, that the users have permission from the estates of the celebrities or CMG and “result in immeasurable and irreparable damage.”

Finally, most of the James Dean trademarks that were registered by the U.S. Trademark Office have been either abandoned or cancelled. It will be interesting to see to what degree this fact influences the court, should liability be established and a calculation of damages be appropriate.

February 21, 2014

Rieth-Riley Sues Superior Asphalt for Cybersquatting

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, Indiana – An Indiana trademark attorney for Rieth-Riley Construction Co., Inc. of Goshen, Indiana (“Rieth-Riley”) sued in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Jeffrey Kresnak and Superior Asphalt, Inc. (“Superior”), both of Michigan, infringed the RIETH-RILEY trademark, Trademark Registration No. 1,659,123, which has been issued by the U.S. Trademark Office.

Rieth-Riley, founded in 1916, provides many services under the Rieth-Riley brand, including highway construction, asphalt and concrete paving, site preparation and excavation, bridge construction, underground utilities and drainage construction, asphalt and concrete recycling, curb and sidewalk construction, mining and aggregate processing, and providing sand, gravel and other aggregates for construction projects.

Superior, in business for over 30 years, is in the asphalt manufacturing, supplying, paving and maintenance business. It provides its services to residential, commercial, manufacturing and municipal customers. Defendant Kresnak owns Superior. Rieth-Riley indicates that it considers Superior to be a competitor.

Both companies maintain websites to promote their companies. Rieth-Riley operates its website at www.riethriley.com. Superior operates its site at www.superiorasphalt.com/. Rieth-Riley contends that Superior also purchased and began operating “rieth-riley.net” in violation of Rieth-Riley’s intellectual property rights in the trademarked name; it further indicates that this accused domain name resolves to Superior’s website. Rieth-Riley states that it attempted to reach an agreement with Defendants to cease using the accused website but that, in response, Defendants indicated that they would do so for $10,000.

Rieth-Riley contends that Defendants are unlawfully profiting through their use of the Rieth-Riley trademark. Specifically, Superior is accused of using the rieth-riley.net domain name with a bad-faith intent to profit by redirecting Internet traffic intended for the Rieth-Riley website to Superior’s website.

Rieth-Riley also states that Defendants’ unauthorized use of the Domain Name is likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive the consuming public as to the affiliation, connection, association or sponsorship of Superior with Rieth-Riley or the Rieth-Riley Mark, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of Superior’s goods, services or activities by Rieth-Riley or the Rieth-Riley brand.

Finally, Rieth-Riley asserts that this use was with notice and actual knowledge of Rieth-Riley’s prior rights and, as a result, Superior’s acts constitute knowing and willful violations of the Lanham Act.

In this Indiana trademark litigation, the following counts are asserted:

• Count I: Federal Trademark Infringement
• Count II: Unfair Competition
• Count III: Cyberpiracy

Rieth-Riley asks the court for:

• preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining the infringement of the Rieth-Riley trademark;
• preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining Defendants from engaging in acts of false designation of origin and false description, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1125;
• preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining conduct which causes, or is likely to cause, confusion, mistake, deception, or misunderstanding as to the source, affiliation, connection or association of Defendants’ products or services;
• preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining the operation of any web site utilizing the accused domain name or the Rieth-Riley trademark;
• a judgment against Defendants for statutory damages;
• a judgment against Defendants for (1) all profits attributable to Defendants’ unauthorized use of the accused domain name, (2) damages sustained by Rieth-Riley on account of Defendants’ unlawful activities, and (3) treble damages;
• an order transferring the accused domain name to Plaintiff;
• an order for the destruction of any infringing items bearing the Rieth-Riley trademark; and
• costs and attorneys’ fees.

Practice Tip:

Plaintiff indicates that it attempted to obtain an agreement from Defendants to cease using the accused domain name. Despite this effort, Plaintiff contends that Defendants continued to use the allegedly infringing website name. This lawsuit for trademark infringement, unfair competition and cyberpiracy followed.

Another approach available to a plaintiff in such a situation is to seek a transfer the domain name under the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (“UDRP”). This policy was established to resolve “The Trademark Dilemma” inherent in the largely unpoliced sales of domain names — the registration of a trademark without the consent of the trademark owner.

As part of the process of registering a domain name, registrants must, among other things, 1) “represent and warrant” that registering the name “will not infringe upon or otherwise violate the rights of any third party” and 2) agree to have the matter heard as an UDRP proceeding if any third party asserts that the domain name violates its trademark rights.

The UDRP is an administrative procedure. A UDRP limits itself to matters concerning abusive registrations and will not intervene in genuine disputes over trademark rights. To prevail in a UDRP proceeding, the complainant must establish three elements:

1) The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
2) The registrant does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and
3) The registrant registered the domain name and is using it in “bad faith.”

August 9, 2013

North American Van Lines Sues North American Master Lines for Infringement of “northAmerican” Mark

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, Indiana — Trademark lawyers for North American Van Lines, Inc. of Ft. Wayne, Indiana sued North American Master Lines, Inc. of Hallandale, Florida alleging infringement of two trademarks for NORTHAMERICAN, Registration Nos. 0917431 and 0915264, which have been registered by the U.S. Trademark Office.

North American Van Lines asserts that, as early as 1946, it has used the mark “northAmerican” in conjunction with its packing and transportation services and that it has provided such services in all fifty states and the District of Colombia. It owns two registrations for the mark, both of which were issued in 1971.

North American Master Lines provides packing and transportation services across the United States. It offers local and interstate services for residential, business and military customers.

North American Van Lines claims that North American Master Lines previously did business as “1^st Choice Van Lines, Inc.” and that it changed its name to North American Master Lines in October 2012. North American Master Lines also registered and is using the “NorthAmericanMasterLines.com” domain name.

North American Van Lines has filed a lawsuit alleging trademark infringement, unfair competition and cybersquatting. It states in its complaint that North American Master Lines was aware of the “northAmerican” marks and used them to profit from the consumer goodwill related to those marks. It claims that it has received complaints from consumers who were confused regarding whether North American Master Lines was affiliated with North American Van Lines. It also asserts that it sent a cease-and-desist letter to North American Master Lines but received no response.

The complaint lists the following counts:

· Count I: Cybersquatting Under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d) with Respect to the NORTHAMERICAN Marks

· Count II: Trademark Infringement of the NORTHAMERICAN Marks Under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)

· Count III: Unfair Competition and False Designation of Origin of NORTHAMERICAN Marks Under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)

· Count VI [sic]: Unfair Competition and Trademark Infringement of the NORTHAMERICAN Marks Under Common Law

North American Van Lines asks for a judgment that North American Master Lines has infringed upon the “northAmerican” marks; the transfer of the domain name “NorthAmericanMasterLines.com”; an injunction; an order directing North American Master Lines to engage in corrective advertising; an accounting and disgorgement of profits resulting from unlawful acts; damages, including treble damages; statutory damages up to $100,000 for domain-name infringement; and attorney fees and costs.

Practice Tip: Under U.S. trademark law, geographic terms or signs cannot be registered as trademarks if they are geographically descriptive of where the goods (or services) originate. However, a geographical indication, as defined by the World Trade Organization, can also identify a particular good, not merely a geographic area. In such a case, a geographic term has been used to identify the provider of a good and, over time, consumers begin to use that geographic term not only as a descriptor of the geographic source, but also of a particular company. In such a case, the term has acquired “secondary meaning” — the capacity to identify the provider of the good — and can be protected as a trademark.

May 21, 2012

The Mainstreet Collection, Inc. Sues Main Street Collection, LLC for Trademark Infringement of MAINSTREET COLLECTION MARK

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis; IN – Trademark attorneys for Mainstreet Collection of Washington, North Carolina filed a trademark infringement suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Main Street Collection, LLC and Melissa Card of Fishers, Indiana infringed trademark registration no. 4,034,192 for the mark MSC MAINSTREET COLLECTION registered by the US Trademark Office.

The complaint states that the plaintiff is a successful gift product company that sells crafts, kitchenware, handbags and other gift items at over 6000 gift shops such as Hallmark®. The plaintiff also maintains a website at www.gowhimsey.com and a facebook page. The plaintiff states it has used the MSC mark at issue since at least 2000. The complaint alleges that the defendants also sell gift items. The complaint states that the defendants maintain a website at www.themainstreetcollection.com that utilizes a mark MAINSTREET COLLECTION that is very similar to the plaintiff’s. The complaint states that the plaintiff attempted to have the defendants transfer www.themainstreetcollection.com domain name to the plaintiff, but the defendants refused. The complaint states that customers have been contacting the defendants who are actually seeking to do business with the plaintiff. The complaint makes claims of trademark infringement and cybersquatting and seeks an injunction, damages, transfer of the www.themainstreetcollection.com domain name, attorney fees and costs.

Practice Tip: The claim of trademark infringement here is based entirely on maintaining a website. As we have previously blogged, it can be difficult to obtain personal jurisdiction when basing a claim solely on web presence. The plaintiff here, however, has avoided is issue by filing suit in the defendants’ home jurisdiction.

April 18, 2012

Cosmetic Warriors Sues Lush Day Spa for Trademark Infringement of “LUSH”

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Evansville; IN – Trademark attorneys for Cosmetic Warriors Limited of the United Kingdom filed a trademark infringement suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging Lush Day Spa of Evansville, Indiana infringed trademark registration no. 3987808 for the mark LUSH which has been registered with the US Trademark Office.

The complaint states that Cosmetic Warriors operates a retail store in California and operates, www.lush.com, a website selling its bath, hair care, and beauty products, which are described as “made from natural, wholesome ingredients.” The complaint states that the Bartnicks operate an Evansville retail shop called Lush Day Spa. Cosmetic Warriors alleges it has been using the mark “Lush” since 1996 and alleges the mark is distinctive and is an indicator of Cosmetic Warrior’s brand. The complaint states that the defendants began operating the Lush Day Spa on July 18, 2011 and offers salon services and products. The complaint alleges the defendant operate a website at www.thelushdayspa.com and a facebook page under the same name. Cosmetic Warriors states that it has contacted the defendants and demanded they discontinue use of the Lush mark, but that the defendants have failed to discontinue. Cosmetic Warriors alleges the defendant’s use of “Lush” is virtually identical to its trademark and confusingly similar. The complaint makes claims of federal trademark infringement, unfair competition, deceptive consumer sales, and state law unfair competition and seeks an injunction, transfer of the domain name www.thelushdayspa.com, an accounting, damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and costs.

Practice Tip: The plaintiff seems very concerned with the defendant’s website, which is said to be a confusingly similar domain name, however, it has not alleged a cause of action for cybersquatting. The Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act of 1999 created a cause of action for registering, trafficking or using a domain name that is confusingly similar or dilutive to the trademark of another.

March 13, 2012

Reindeer Logistics Sues McKnight Logistics For Trademark Infringement of Reindeer Auto Relocation Mark

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, IN – Trademark attorneys for Reindeer Logistics, Inc. of Zionsville, Indiana filed a trademark infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging McKnight Logistics, Inc. of Temecula, California infringed trademark registration no. 3542813 for the mark REINDEER AUTO RELOCATION, which was filed with the US Trademark Office.

The complaint states that Reindeer uses its mark Reindeer Auto Relocation in association with “high quality auto relocation services.” The complaint alleges that the defendant, McKnight, operates a website at www.reindeerautotransport.com to advertise auto relocation services and to “consummate” transactions. Reindeer discovered this allegedly infringing website in February 2012, and its trademark attorneys sent a cease-and-desist letter to McKnight. The complaint states that McKnight continues to use the infringing website and slogan. Reindeer alleges that the only possible purpose of McKnight’s use of that website and slogan are to “illegally divert traffic from Reindeer’s site and/or to confuse the public.” The complaint makes claims of trademark infringement, violation of federal anti-cybersquatting act, federal and state unfair competition and trademark dilution. Trademark attorneys seek an injunction, an accounting of profits, damages, attorney fees and costs.

Practice Tip: The plaintiff here makes a claim under the anti-cyberquatting act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d), which establishes a cause of action for registering or operating a domain name that is confusingly similar to a registered trademark or name.

November 10, 2011

Eli Lilly & Company Sues Yanchep Veterinary Clinic, Proprietary Limited Company, for Trademark Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis IN – Trademark lawyers for Eli Lilly and Company of Indianapolis, Indiana filed a trademark infringement suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging Yanchep Veterinary Clinic, Proprietary Limited Company, Petsvetshop, Proprietary Limited Company,, Paul Sorensen and Dr. Cymantha Sorensen, all of Yanchep, Australia infringed trademark registration no. 3,370,168 for the mark COMFORTIS, which has been registered in the US Trademark Office.

The COMFORTIS mark is used by Lilly’s Elanco Animal Health Division in connection with the manufacturing and sales of flea-control products Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for lilly.jpg for dogs available only through a veterinarian’s prescription. Lilly maintains a website that instructs on the safe use of the product, but does not sell the product online. Lilly sells the product worldwide, including in Australia. The complaint alleges that the defendants are directly selling Comfortis in the United States through their websites. The complaint alleges that the defendants are selling the Australian version of Comfortis, which does not comply with various FDA requirements including that it only be sold by a licensed veterinarian. The complaint states that Lilly sent the defendants a letter in March 2010 demanding that they cease their sales of Comfortis. The defendants stopped selling Comfortis to United States customers for a brief period, but then resumed. The complaint makes claims of trademark infringement, unfair competition, cybersquatting, and Indiana state law unfair competition. Lilly is seeking an injunction, damages, the transfer of domain names, and for the defendants to send a letter to all U.S. customers who bought Comfortis from the defendants instructing that the product should not be used.

Practice Tip: All of the defendants here are Australian citizens or companies. Expect them, if they file an appearance at all in the case, to raise issues of jurisdiction.