Dozier Internet Law Protects Business Copyrights.

You can visit the main Dozier Internet Law website for more information.

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. The following lawsuits were filed through January 31, 2008. 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.

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.