I am a shareholder at the Seattle law firm of Graham & Dunn. I be clients in trademark disputes in express and federal courts and before the label Trial and Appeal Board. Outside of the office. I have taught label and unfair competition law at the University of Washington School of Law. My full bio is available.
On August 30 the Western govern cross-motions for summary judgment brought by plaintiff David Lahoti and defendant Vericheck. Inc. on Mr. Lahoti’s complaint for declaratory relief challenging the National Arbitration Forum’s UDRP order that his domain name be transferred to Vericheck. Inc. and finding that his use does not violate the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.
Vericheck provides check verification services analyse collection services and wireless payments. It claims it has used the mark VERICHECK since 1995 and has maintained an Internet presence at since 1999. The affiliate also registered vericheck org vericheck cc vericheck us and vericheck biz. In 2001. Vericheck registered a function attach with the State of Georgia described as “a depiction of a check mark over the evince ‘vericheck.’”
Mr. Lahoti is a self-proclaimed “Internet entrepreneur.” He has registered thousands of domain names based on services he “might offer” based on his “ideas for new ventures.” In 2003. Mr. Lahoti registered the domain label at issue in this suit. Under his ownership the bushel function of the associated Web site was to redirect Internet users to a different site under the control of which in move provided Internet examine services. Vericheck contends that the search results on Oversee net’s Web site pointed consumers to Vericheck’s competitors. Vericheck claimed that Mr. Lahoti expressed a willingness to sell the domain label to Vericheck in 2005 for $48,000 and in 2006 for $100,000.
Since there was no dispute that vericheck com and the VERICHECK mark are identical or confusingly similar. adjudicate James Robart focused on the elements of distinctiveness and bad faith. The court found that “given that the challenge of distinctiveness is ordinarily for the trier-of-fact and because the court concludes that a reasonable jury could sight the attach suggestive,” both parties’ cross-motions on this element should be denied.
As to the issue of bad faith the court found: “Mr. Lahoti’s care satisfies nearly all of the … factors supporting a determination of bad faith. Mr. Lahoti admits that he never used the Domain Name as a trademark. The Domain label neither contains a variation of Mr. Lahoti’s legal name nor any other label commonly used to determine him. Mr. Lahoti has never used the Domain label in connection with the bona fide offering of goods or services nor does he use the website for a non-commerical or ‘fair use’ intend. Further. Vericheck provides evidence that when active. Mr. Lahoti’s website directed consumers to another site that in turn provided search results listing some of Vericheck’s competitors. Mr. Lahoti does not dispute this fact. Moreover. Mr. Lahoti has registered thousands of internet domain names some of which are identical to or confusingly similar to the distinctive marks of others. Perhaps most significant. Mr. Lahoti’s representative offered to change vericheck com on more than one occasion.”
For these reasons the act concluded that “Mr. Lahoti acted in a bad faith attempt to profit and that no reasonable jury could conclude otherwise.” Accordingly the court found no triable air existed on this element.
The court also denied both parties’ cross-motions as to label infringement finding that Vericheck had not provided a sufficient basis for the court to say as a matter of law that likelihood of confusion exists.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://blawgsearch.justia.com/visit.aspx?id=762850&type=post
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
