Cybersquatting Cases

Disclaimer

Attorney Advertising. This blog is ATTORNEY ADVERTISING in those jurisdictions in which I am admitted to practice. It is not legal advice. If it were legal advice, it would be followed by a bill.

No Attorney Client Relationship. I provide this blog for general informational purposes only. I am an attorney and some of the information on this blog relates to legal topics, but no attorney client relationship is created when you use this blog. By using the blog, you agree that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between you and Keith Henning.

Not Legal Advice. The information contained in this site is for entertainment purposes only; it is not intended to constitute legal advice. The information on this blog is general only and limited to the instances discussed. I do not warrant or guarantee the accuracy, completeness, adequacy or timeliness of the information contained in this site, and users of information from this site do so at their own risk. This blog is not a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified attorney licensed in your state.

Email is Not Notice. . Email May Not Be Used to Provide Notice. Communications made through the blog's messaging system or email does not constitute legal notice.

Dell Cybersquatting Case

Posted on 11/30/2007 by Keith Henning

Last week, the U.S. District Court for Southern Florida unsealed a lawsuit that Dell filed in October. See story here: Dell Takes Cybersquatters to Court. The cybersquatting/typosquatting lawsuit is unique in that they are going after several registrars as being “responsible for registering and profiting off of nearly 1,100 domains that were “confusingly similar” to Dell’s [...]

Filed under: 2007 Trademark Cases, Cybersquatting Cases, Trademark | No Comments »

General Media Comm., Inc. v. Crazy Troll, LLC - an interesting reverse domain hijacking case

Posted on 01/26/2007 by Keith Henning

(I found this unpublished case interesting because it was about reverse domain hijacking, used the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, and most imporantly, Penthouse was the plaintiff. Enjoy. - dkh)
General Media Comm., Inc. v. Crazy Troll, LLCS, 2007 WL 102988 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).
Not for Publication
United States District Court, S.D. New York.
GENERAL MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
CRAZY TROLL, [...]

Filed under: 2007 Trademark Cases, Cybersquatting Cases, Trademark | No Comments »

Her, Inc. v. RE/MAX First Choice, LLC

Posted on 01/22/2007 by Keith Henning

You won’t find a more thorough analysis of every factor in a cybersquatting case than this one.
— F.Supp.2d —-, 2007 WL 43747 (S.D.Ohio)
United States District Court,
S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division.
HER, INC., et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
RE/MAX FIRST CHOICE, LLC, et al., Defendants.
No. 206-CV-492.

Jan. 5, 2007.
John F. Marsh, J. Kenneth Thien, Karen K. Hammond, Monique Bradley Lampke, Porter Wright Morris & [...]

Filed under: 2007 Trademark Cases, Cybersquatting Cases, Trademark | 1 Comment »

UTube.com v. YouTube.com

Posted on 01/17/2007 by Keith Henning

YouTube Sued Over Domain Use
YouTube is being sued by an industrial equipment maker whose domain name is Utube.com. Universal Tube and Rollform Equipment said it has been deluged by confused video searchers causing numerous crashes of its site and costing it business. The company’s site once drew a steady 1,500 unique users monthly, Utube said, [...]

Filed under: Cybersquatting Cases | No Comments »

The Bear Stearns Companies, Inc. v. Lavalle

Posted on 10/14/2006 by Keith Henning

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division.
THE BEAR STEARNS COMPANIES INC., et al, Plaintiffs,
v.
Nye LAVALLE, Defendant.

No. Civ.A.3:00-CV-1900-D.
Oct. 27, 2003.
Michael A. Swartzendruber, Fulbright & Jaworski, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiffs.
Nye Lavalle, Atlanta, GA, pro se.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
FITZWATER, J.
Plaintiffs The Bear Stearns Companies Inc. (”Bear Stearns”) and EMC Mortgage Corporation (”EMC”) apply for a preliminary injunction to preclude [...]

Filed under: Cybersquatting Cases | 1 Comment »