Dozier Internet Law Lawsuit Updates

Dozier Internet Law, an AV rated law firm, was founded by John W. Dozier, Jr., who has the highest rating available by Martindale Hubbell (AV), is recognized as "preeminent" in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers, is a "Super Lawyer" and a member of the "Legal Elite", all peer ratings from lawyers and judges. Dozier Internet Law provides a summary of many of the latest lawsuits filed nationwide relating to the law of the Internet. All references to facts and the causes of action are allegations only as set forth in the plaintiff's lawsuit, the validity of which are yet to be adjudicated. Inclusion in the list does not imply that Dozier Internet Law is involved in the litigation.

CASSETICA SOFTWARE, INC. v. COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS (CHICAGO) 1:09-CV-00003

FILED: 1/02/2009

While this case looks like a straightforward copyright infringement matter in which a party licensing software has exceeded the authorized scope of use, the hacking statute is used because the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant unlawfully accessed its computers when it downloaded the software without a proper license agreement. This is the proper statute to alleged unauthorized access of a computer. It is very easy to get caught up in accessing a computer without authorization, particularly in light of recent interpretations of the law as they relate to violating website user agreements, and having a claim of "hacking" asserted against your business carries with it repercussions beyond the lawsuit itself. Be particularly careful when accessing websites to make sure you are following the terms of user agreements.

Plaintiff is in the business of creating and developing software products and selling the license and rights to computer users. Defendant is in the business of providing information technology and business services to both public and private entities. Plaintiff alleges that since 2002 the Defendant has been illegally distributing copies of its program to its subsidiary corporations in violation of an "enterprise agreement" that did not give consent for the Defendant to use software with its subsidiaries.

The lawsuit includes a claim for copyright infringement, common law copyright infringement, breach of contract, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (hacking), conversion, trespass to chattels, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff requests injunctive relief, approximately $500,000.00 in compensatory damages, its attorneys' fees, interest and costs. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1278.

MAGICJACK LP v. JOIPHONE LLC, ET AL. SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA (WEST PALM BEACH) 9:08-CV-81570

FILED: 12/29/2008

This appears to be another example of the "comparison" websites run by affiliate marketers that not only use the trademark of a company to drive traffic but also falsely compare products and services. This is a relatively sophisticated method of generating significant revenue for an affiliate marketer and is just now getting high profile attention as an illegal practice.

The Plaintiff markets and sells a highly popular voiceover Internet protocol (VoIP). The device provides customers with several features, including a phone number and the ability to make and receive unlimited local and long distance calls over the Internet. The Defendant is alleged to be operating a website which contains false and misleading statements. According to the lawsuit, Defendants have created "nonexistent" deficiencies in the product or are alleging superior features of competing products and acting as affiliate marketers for competitors. Defendants are also alleged to be buying sponsored links on Google that warn against buying the Plaintiff's product and direct people to its own "review" website which contains false and misleading statements.

Plaintiff claims false advertising, trademark infringement, violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and common law trademark infringement. The prayer for relief requests extensive declaratory judgments, the entry of injunctive relief attempting to prohibit future statements about the Plaintiff, the disgorgement of Defendants' profits, compensatory damages, triple damages, attorneys' fees and costs. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1264.

CRAIGSLIST, INC. v. JODY GRAFFUNDER AND JOHN DOE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SAN JOSE) 5:08-CV-05062

FILED: 11/05/2008

This lawsuit is primarily about the violation of the user agreement on the Craigslist website and is brought under the Federal hacking statute that was used in the MySpace suicide case to obtain a criminal conviction. Hacking does not require a malicious intent. Indeed, the hacking statutes that exist are more in line with "trespass" laws. The label of being a "hacker" is often being attached to individuals and businesses who never attempted any malicious act. Make sure that when you are accessing websites you follow the terms of the user agreement and avoid copying websites to build applications by "scraping" the data from websites.

This is one of ten cases filed by Craigslist going after "auto posting" software and service providers and those involved with the distribution of software that is used on Craigslist. Craigslist alleges that in order for the software to be developed the Defendants had to access and copy its website to develop, test, implement, use and provide the software, programs, devices, and services. This access was unauthorized and contrary to the user agreement on the Craigslist website.

These lawsuits state claims for direct copyright infringement, vicarious copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, violations of the DMCA, violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, violations of California state law, trademark infringement, state trademark infringement, breach of contract, inducing to breach a contract, intentional interference with contractual relations, and fraud. The request for injunctive relief is extensive and the Plaintiff requests an order prohibiting the Defendants from using Craigslist. In addition, the court is requested to enter an order to create a constructive trust and require the Defendants to pay all profits derived from their conduct into such trust for distribution to the Plaintiff as well as an award of compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1247.

XCENTRIC VENTURES, L.L.C. v. OPINION CORP., ET AL. DISTRICT OF ARIZONA (PHOENIX) 2:08-CV-01841

FILED: 10/7/2008

The Plaintiff is suing for trademark infringement for the use of Plaintiff's trademark in a sub-domain and in metatags. This continues a significant trend of recent litigation occurring between competitors relating to the use of a business name. The web host is being sued because it "failed to adopt and reasonably implement a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of services provided to customers who are repeat infringers". Given these facts, if true, this case is a good example of the circumstances under which a web host or other service provider has copyright infringement liability from hosting a website.

The Plaintiff, owner of the famous "www.ripoffreport.com" website, sued the Defendant and its web host for allegedly copying copyrighted works from the Rip-Off-Report site and publishing those works on the "Pissed Consumer" website. Additionally, Plaintiff claims that the use of the term "rip-off-report" as a sub-domain on the Defendants' website and use in metatags on the “Pissed Consumer” site is trademark infringement.

The lawsuit includes a claim for copyright infringement against the website, a claim for vicarious copyright infringement against the web host, a claim of trademark infringement against the website, a claim for cyberpiracy against the website for use of the Rip-Off-Report trademark in its sub-domain, and a claim for unfair competition and initial interest confusion trademark infringement. Plaintiff requests a permanent injunction prohibiting further copyright infringement against both Defendants, actual damages, statutory damages, triple damages, its costs, attorneys' fees, and the forfeiture or cancellation of the sub-domain name. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1232.

TECHNOMARINE SA v. AUTHENTICWATCHES.COM INC AND JOHN DOE 1 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK (FOLEY SQUARE) FILED: 9/11/2008

1:08-CV-07916

Very common problem today online. The Defendants stole the Plaintiff's website and, as savvy Internet business people know, a replica website cannot only divert traffic away but also "sandbox" or otherwise penalize the organic search results generated by the original website. So the theft of a website is a double edged sword that has more than one direct business consequence.

Technomarine is a Swiss based corporation famous for its watches and the worldwide owner of the "Technomarine" trademark. The defendant allegedly copied all or portions of the website of Technomarine and started selling "grey market" Technomarine-branded watches for sale to the public.

The lawsuit is brought for "federal unfair competition", trademark infringement and copyright infringement under the US Trademark Act. Damages, attorney's fees, triple damages, punitive damages, and other relief is included in the prayer for relief by the Plaintiff's for "Defendants use of copies of the copyrighted work". Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1222.

SEGA OF AMERICA, INC. v. DOES 1-10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (LOS ANGELES) 2:08-CV-05699

FILED: 08/29/2008

The Plaintiff goes to great length to explain in this lawsuit that the "early screenshots and some video of what was still very much a work in progress" had been taken and further states that the "FTP files do not accurately portray the ultimate appearance or functionality" of the video game. It makes you wonder whether the purpose of this lawsuit is to seek redress for damages or a notice to the public that the unauthorized version making the rounds is far inferior to the actual game which is scheduled for release during the holiday season of 2008. This case may be the perfect example of a lawsuit being used for public relations purposes.

Sega is a publisher and distributer of video games, and Sega employees posted an early version of "Sonic Unleashed" on a FTP server behind password protection. The same day that the video game files were posted, a Sega employee accidentally posted the password to the confidential FTP page and although this security breach was discovered within an hour, unknown Defendants are claimed to have accessed the server and repeatedly copied and distributed the FTP files on the web.

Sega of America, Inc. has sued unknown Defendants, identified as "John Doe" defendants, for copyright infringement. Sega is asking for the entry of injunctive and monetary relief, and in particular a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants and all other acting in concert or participation with them from infringing or assisting further infringement of the Sega copyright protected files. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1203.

COSTAR REALTY INFORMATION, INC. ET AL. v. WAYNE MASCIA ASSOCIATES DISTRICT OF MARYLAND (GREENBELT) 8:08-CV-02248

FILED: 8/28/2008

This lawsuit is another example of the use of the hacking laws to deal with those accessing a website without permission. In this instance, it appears that the lack of permission came from the fact that the login name and passwords were obtained from third parties. Word to the wise: Don’t use someone else's membership…and make sure your employees know better!

Plaintiff CoStar Realty Information, Inc. has sued Wayne Mascia Associates for obtaining user names and passwords and logging into the Plaintiff's proprietary commercial real estate information subscription service. Once logged in, Defendant is alleged to have made unauthorized copies and displays of CoStar's copyrighted databases and copyrighted photographs.

The lawsuit alleges breach of contract, copyright infringement, and computer hacking under 18 U.S.C. 1030. The Plaintiffs pray for entry of an award of statutory damages of no less than $150,000.00 per copyrighted work, additional compensatory damages, and the entry of a preliminary and permanent injunction providing a broad range of relief. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1204.

HARRY AND DAVID v. HOUDINI, INC. DISTRICT OF OREGON (MEDFORD) 1:08-CV-03088

FILED: 8/15/2008

This is another pay-per-click keyword search lawsuit with a couple of nuances. First, there is use of the trademark deep in the URL used by the advertiser. Second, the traffic is being "trapped" so that the back button on a browser cannot be properly used. Both are issues to be considered in your advertising practices because they arguably build the "initial interest confusion" case for trademark infringement. If you lure a customer into your store, and then lock the doors, it looks really bad. Stay away from browser trapping.

Harry and David sued the Defendant for triggering ads using the "Harry and David" name. In addition, there is a reference to "Harry and David" buried in the URL string which the Plaintiffs are suggesting is another misuse of its trademark. Plaintiff also alleges a partial "mouse trapping" or "browser trapping" practice by the Defendants when traffic comes to its site.

Harry and David has sued for federal trademark infringement, federal unfair competition, federal trademark dilution, state trademark infringement, and state trademark dilution, requested triple damages and the entry of an injunction prohibiting Defendant from using the "Harry and David" marks for any advertisement for the sale of any product, together with an award of its attorney's fees and court costs. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1205.

JONES DAY v. BLOCKSHOPPER.COM, ET AL. NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS (CHICAGO) 1:08-CV-04572

FILED: 8/12/2008

This case reminds me to suggest that a business be very careful about allowing your affiliate marketers to operate "directories" or "comparison" or "review" websites. Pure aggregators of information can claim that they are fairly using the trademarks of businesses. However, there appears to be abuses occuring online in which seemingly independent and fair use of business names is really a direct commercial use, which opens up potential legal issues. "Review" websites are almost always fronts for trademark infringement, product disparagement, defamation or unfair competition and once businesses and their lawyers figure out what is going on expect to see a spike in lawsuits against these sites and owners.

Jones Day, one of the largest law firms in the world, sued the owners of a website that gathers and publishes details of private residential real estate transactions. Jones Day alleged that the Defendants were publishing this information in a scheme to solicit advertisements and garner advertising income. The website, according to the Plaintiff, uses the service marks of others, links to website owned by others, and uses material from websites belonging to others, and the site attempts to create the false impression that the Defendants are affiliated or endorsed by the Plaintiff.

The lawsuit alleges service mark infringement, federal false designation of origin, federal service mark dilution, unfair business practices, common law infringement and unfair competition. Jones Day has requested that the court enter extensive preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, award triple damages, profits, costs and attorney's fees, as well as punitive damages. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1206.

JUICY COUTURE, INC. v. LIME BLUE, LLC, ET AL. CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (LOS ANGELES) 2:08-cv-04860

FILED: 7/24/2008

This situation is perhaps one of the scariest scenarios that can evolve when a company relies heavily upon the public perception of the quality of its brand and its trademark.

The Plaintiff is a clothing brand with extensive registered trademarks in the term "juicy" and related marks. Defendant is "juicycampus.com", the well known website that has come under legal scrutiny and high profile negative publicity because of the propagation on the website of vicious, false and outrageous claims made between college students. The state of New Jersey has recently brought consumer protection litigation against the site. The Plaintiff alleges that the site has decided to get into the clothing business and is selling competing clothing products using the "juicy" trademark.

The lawsuit claims trademark infringement, false designation of origin, dilution, and unfair competition. Extensive injunction relief, as well as monetary damages and the award of costs and attorney's fees, is requested in the lawsuit by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has also requested that the court order seizures of merchandise that is infringing on its mark. Dozier Internet Law Corss-Reference Number #1197.

BELLAGIO, LLC v. HEAVENLY BLISS WEDDING CHAPEL 3, LLC AND JUPITER J. DESPHY, IV DISTRICT OF NEVADA (LAS VEGAS) 2:08-cv-00923

FILED: 7/16/2008

This lawsuit by Bellagio against a small Las Vegas wedding chapel raises some interesting issues. This strikes me as more of a "trespass" matter than a trademark infringement matter since Bellagio does not want a competing wedding chapel using its property. At any rate, unless this wedding chapel becomes extremely popular as the wedding chapel of choice in Las Vegas, you can expect this matter to be resolved fairly quickly. This is a true David versus Goliath case.

The Plaintiff, a well known Las Vegas casino, has sued the Defendant, a small, local wedding chapel, based on Defendants offering wedding packages through which they would perform wedding ceremonies at the Bellagio. Images of these weddings at the Bellagio were apparently available on the Defendants' website.

Bellagio has asked for the entry of a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting the Defendants from using the Bellagio trademark, entering onto or using its real estate for commercial purposes, and making any false or misleading statements regarding Plaintiff's approval or sponsorship of Defendants' goods and services, and further asks the court for compensatory, consequential, incidental, and punitive damages and an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Dozier Internet Law Cross Reference Number 1198

ROSETTA STONE LTD. v. ROCKET LANGUAGES LTD. CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (LOS ANGELES) 2:08-cv-00402

FILED: 7/02/2008

This is one of the first lawsuits I have seen filed against "comparison shopping" websites that are selling competing products but allegedly using the trademark to drive traffic to the "comparison reviews" site. This is a tactic that is being used more often by affiliate marketers. The use of the trademark in the ad appears to be very creative and it appears that the Defendants have set up a "commercial free speech" defense, although such a claim is very unlikely to succeed given the commercial nature of the use of the trademark.

Plaintiff is a leading developer of computer software for teaching and learning foreign languages. This lawsuit alleges that the Defendants used the term "Rosetta Stone", which is a registered trademark of the Plaintiff, to trigger ads as a keyword in the Google AdWords program and Yahoo's Marketing Solutions program. Defendants are also allegedly using the "Rosetta Stone" trademark in the title and description of the ads and then leading consumers to "comparison reviews" which are allegedly illegitimate and fabricated solely for purposes of selling competing products.

This lawsuit alleges trademark infringement, trademark dilution, unfair competition, false advertising, contributory trademark infringement, and vicarious trademark infringement. Preliminary injunctive relief is requested as well as an award of damages, attorney's fees, court costs and interest. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1199.

INTEL CORPORATION v. E.I., LLC NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SAN FRANCISCO) 3:08-cv-03165

FILED: 7/01/2008

This case is a perfect example of why getting "trademark clearance" is critically important. It is also a perfect example of why it is essential that the business organization understand the legal issues surrounding the use of a name. How important was it to Intel that on the Defendant's website there are recommendations for the use of Intel's hardware products? This starts to suggest to users of Intelevent, the argument would go, that there is an implied relationship and, coupled with the domain name similarity, consumers are confused and mislead. It is wise to get proper and complete clearance of a product or service name, and company name, well prior to the launch, and to understand the scope and extent of how far potentially competing common law and registered trademarks go so that you can avoid the misfortune of evolving your business into a category of goods or services of another. If a website business person decided that pushing Intel products was a good idea, that unfortunately is the kind of unanticipated action that can get a company sued.

Intel Corporation has sued the Defendant because the Defendant is using the domain name "intelevent.com" and the Plaintiff believes that this infringes on its trademark for "Intel". Intel is allegedly a world famous company that develops, manufactures and sells a wide variety of computer, communications, and internet related products and services including components used for website design and hosting, marketing, consulting, business management, financial services, and new technology development. The Defendant maintains the website at "intelevent.com" and provides software and consulting related services to event management under the mark. Intelevent's website recommends the use of Intel's hardware products for use with Intelevent's software.

Intel has sued for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, federal trademark dilution, injury to business reputation, unfair competition and various other common law claims. The Plaintiff has requested the entry of a broad injunction and an award of compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees and court costs. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1200.

THE PROFESSIONAL GOLFERS' ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA v. SCOTTISH GOLF HOLIDAYS, INC. SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 1:08-cv-00446

FILED: 06/30/08

While many of the allegations in this lawsuit appear, if true, to raise serious problems for the Defendant, some of the allegations appear a bit over-reaching since the practices are common in the professional golf industry, but it is clear that running a travel site implicates a broad range of laws.

The PGA of America owns a trademark in the "Ryder Cup", which is a golf competition held every two years between the best United States professional golfers and European golfers. The Defendant, Scottish Golf Holidays, Inc., is alleged to have undertaken a broad range of trademark infringement and false advertising efforts in selling vacation packages and unauthorized tickets to the Ryder Cup competition coming up this fall in the United States.

The PGA has sued for breach of contract, trademark infringement, unfair competition, trademark dilution, deceptive trade practices, false advertising, common law trademark infringement, common law unfair competition, common law trademark dilution, and requested a broad range of court ordered relief. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1194.

HEARTS ON FIRE COMPANY, LLC v. BLUE NILE, INC. DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS (BOSTON) 1:08-cv-11053

FILED: 06/20/08

This is not your standard pay-per-click lawsuit. The most important issue in this case is that the use of the trademark on Defendant's site was in such a way as to offer that product to consumers in a type of "bait and switch" environment. The Plaintiff is also alleging that the Defendant is using its trademark in other "keywords, keyword tags, metatags, and sponsored links on the internet to divert internet consumers...", which suggests that the Plaintiff believes there is a much broader use of the trademark term for search engine optimization and organic results. The bottom line is that trademarks can be used in many, many different ways online to create a competitive advantage, some uses of which are obvious, and some uses of which are very well disguised and exceptionally difficult to identify.

Hearts on Fire Company, LLC has filed suit against Blue Nile, a competing online diamond and jewelry retailer. Blue Nile is alleged to be keying its ads off of the "Hearts On Fire" registered trademark owned by the Plaintiff and using those words in the text of its ad, even though it does not sell the Plaintiff's products on its site. Defendant is also alleged to be using the term on its own site but when the trademark term is selected, products other than the Plaintiff's are presented.

Defendant has been sued for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and unfair and deceptive acts and practices. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1195.

NIKE, INC. v. EASTERN MOUNTAIN SPORTS, INC. DISTRICT OF OREGON (PORTLAND) 3:08-cv-00716

FILED: 06/12/08

Once again this is another lawsuit alleging trademark infringement from pay-per-click advertising. Notice that there are all four of the potential trademark infringement claims included in this suit. The first claim relates to using the trademark as a keyword to present an ad, the second claim relates to the use of the trademark in the title of the ad, the third claim alleges trademark infringement for the body of the text of the ad, and the fourth claim alleges trademark infringement from the domain name displayed in the ad, which may or may not be the actual domain to which the ad is resolving, depending upon the search engine advertising platform being used.

Eastern Mountain Sports, Inc. is sued by Nike for using its "DRI-FIT" trademark to trigger pay-per-click search engine ads. The Defendant is also alleged to have used this trademark in the titles of their pay-per-click ads, in the descriptive text, and/or in the domain names listed in the advertisements. Nike alleges that the Defendant does not offer for sale any of Plaintiff's DRI-FIT products and does not sell any of Plaintiff's products at all, but uses this trademark to sell competing or alternative products.

The lawsuit alleges trademark infringement, unfair competition, and trademark dilution. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1196.

DEGRAZIA FOUNDATION V. MASTERWORKS ART GROUP, INC. DISTRICT OF ARIZONA (TUCSON)

4:08-CV-00094

Plaintiff, DeGrazia Foundation, is a nonprofit corporation that was incorporated in 1977 to preserve the "Gallery in the Sun" complex which was designed and built by world famous artist Ettore "Ted" DeGrazia. The complex, which is a national historic site, is situated on ten acres in the Santa Catalina Mountains in Tucson, Arizona, is visited by an average of 65,000 people each year and is promoted on its website www.degrazia.org. Plaintiff registered the trade name "DeGrazia Gallery in the Sun" with the Arizona Secretary of State's Office. Defendant is the owner of an art gallery in Tampa, Florida that recently began using the mark "Galerie du Soleil" which is the French translation of "Gallery of the Sun" and has purchased the domain name "Galerie-du-Soliel.com."

Plaintiff filed suit in federal court in Arizona arguing that Defendant is infringing on its trademark pursuant to the doctrine of foreign equivalents. This dictates that a foreign word within a trademark that is from a language familiar to an appreciable segment of American consumers is first translated into English before it is compared for trademark infringement purposes. Plaintiff argues that "Galerie du Soleil" is confusingly similar to "Gallery of the Sun" in connection with gallery services. Plaintiff's suit claims Defendant’s acts constitute trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition in violation of federal and state law. Plaintiff seeks damages and to prevent Defendant from using any name or mark that contains "Galerie du Soleil," "Gallery of the Sun," or "Gallery in the Sun" or any variation thereof in connection with its gallery. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1001.

SELA ROOFING AND REMODELING, INC. V. STIO ROOFING AND CONSTRUCTION, LLC ET AL DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

0:08-CV-00275

Plaintiff Sela Roofing and Remodeling, Inc., founded in 1982, is the leading roofing, siding, window and gutter contractor in the Twin Cities area. Plaintiff is the registrant of the domain name "selaroofing.com." Defendant Stio Roofing and Construction, LLC was formed in 2007 by one of Plaintiff's former employees. Defendant Michael Ricker allegedly registered the domain name "selaremodeling.com" and began using the name to direct traffic to its website "stioroofingandconstruction.com" which features a photo gallery of remodeling projects which Plaintiff claims it completed and Defendants are holding out as their own.

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in federal court in Minnesota alleging that Defendants are violating the federal Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act by using a domain name that includes Plaintiff's name, engaging in deceptive trade practices in violation of state law, and engaging in common law trademark infringement. Cybersquatters are persons who, in bad faith, exploit famous or distinctive trademarks that have been developed and are owned by others. Plaintiff alleges that it acquired common law trademark rights to its "Sela" marks and that Defendants' use of the marks is confusingly similar and deceptive to consumers and potential customers. Plaintiff’s suit seeks damages and an order preventing Defendants from further use of its "Sela" marks. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1002.

CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT COMPANY V. GREYSTONE, INC. DISTRICT OF OREGON, (PORTLAND)

3:08-CV-00128

Plaintiff is a construction company that owns the federally registered trademark "SCREEN-IT" in relation to its mobile conveyer with adjustable processing screens which Plaintiff registered in 1997. Plaintiff has been in the business of manufacturing and marketing crushing and screening equipment with the mark "SCREEN-IT" for over twelve years. Plaintiff alleges that its "SCREEN-IT" mark has become distinctive of Plaintiff's goods and acquired secondary meaning in the trade as identifying Plaintiff and its high quality crushing and screening equipment. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant recently began advertising and offering for sale screening equipment using the mark "CLEAN IT...SCREEN IT...THEN MOVE IT" on its website www.greystoneinc.com.

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendant in federal court in Oregon alleging federal trademark infringement, federal unfair competition, and federal trademark dilution in violation of the Lanham Act as well as common law trademark infringement, common law unfair competition and unlawful trade practices in violation of Oregon state law. Plaintiff's suit seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting Defendant from using "CLEAN IT...SCREEN IT...THEN MOVE IT" and similar variations thereof in any way that is confusingly similar to Plaintiff's trademark. Plaintiff also seeks an order directing Defendant to recall the screening equipment it sold or advertised using the allegedly infringing mark, publish corrective advertising disclaiming any association with Defendant's product and an award of damages, costs and attorneys fees. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1003.

HEALIX INFUSION THERAPY, INC. V. HELIX HEALTH, LLC SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (HOUSTON)

4:08-CV-00337

Plaintiff is a Texas corporation that owns the federally registered trademarks "HEALIX" in connection with the transport of drugs, supplies and durable medical equipment, retail pharmacy services, medical employment and placement services, and healthcare management services. Plaintiff operates in 23 states, has been in business for nearly 20 years and has developed numerous proprietary products and services using the "HEALIX" mark. Plaintiff also owns various domain names which include the word "healix" including "healixhealth.org." Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is owned by a New York-based physician Dr. Murphy who refers to himself as the "Gene Sherpa." Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant attempted to register the trademark "HELIX HEALTH" with the United States Patent and Trademark Office and also established the website www.helixhealth.org.

Plaintiff filed suit in federal court in Texas alleging trademark infringement, false designation of origin and trademark dilution in violation of federal and state law. Plaintiff argues that its mark is highly unique by departing from the traditional spelling of the word by using the letter "A" instead and that there is goodwill associated with its mark. Plaintiff's suit alleges that Defendant's use and attempted registration of a confusingly similar mark "HELIX HEALTH" to promote healthcare services violates federal and state trademark laws and seeks an order preventing Defendant from using the mark and similar domain names in connection with its business. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1004.

Dozier Internet Law Notices

CV, BV and AV are registered certification marks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell certification procedures, standards and policies. The information on this site is not intended to constitute legal advice and communication via email, telephone, or in writing with an attorney does not constitute the creation of an attorney-client relationship until a formal, written legal retainer agreement is signed. We rarely set forth case results on this site because of lawyer ethics considerations. Sometimes we will link to a decision involving our law firm. Whatever the reference to legal results in a particular matter, please understand that case and matter results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each such case or matter, and prior case or matter results do not predict or guarantee a similar result in future cases or matters. John W. Dozier, Jr. is the responsible attorney for this website, which is Attorney Advertising. A legal ethics requirement is that we state the following: CASE RESULTS DEPEND ON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE, AND PRIOR CASE RESULTS DO NOT PREDICT OR GUARANTEE A SIMILAR RESULT IN FUTURE CASES. Our refund policy is to refund all remaining fee deposits at the end of the month of a file closing.

Remember, you can visit the main Dozier Internet Law website for more information on our firm and our services, and to access a library of information including podcasts, videos and articles on the law of the Internet.

(c) Copyright 2001-2009. All Rights Reserved. Dozier Internet Law, P.C.