Seattle Trademark Lawyer

On June 27, Western District Judge Marsha Pechman denied the plaintiff’s unusual injunction motion in Hi-Rise Technology, Inc. v. Amatuerindex.com. Plaintiff owns a federal registration for THE AMATEUR INDEX in connection with adult entertainment Web sites. In March, plaintiff filed an in rem action against amatuerindex.com, an alleged typosquatter, seeking transfer of the domain name to plaintiff under the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff’s motion was unusual in that it sought a temporary restraining order requiring eNom, the domain name registrar, to “transfer the Domain to a new account with eNom for the Plaintiff and to provide the access information to Plaintiff’s counsel so that the Domain may remain under Plaintiff’s control in the new account until this action is concluded. Plaintiff furthermore prays that the temporary restraining order be automatically converted into a temporary injunction one day before it would otherwise expire and that the temporary injunction be automatically converted, after 30 days, into an order of domain forfeiture.”

The court was dubious. It found: “Plaintiff cites no authority that supports the proposition that the Court may issue a temporary restraining order that would be ‘automatically converted’ into a ‘temporary injunction,’ which in turn would be ‘automatically converted, after 30 days, into an order of domain forfeiture.’ Plaintiff appears to be seeking a temporary restraining order that would, after the passage of a certain period of time, ‘automatically’ become a final order of forfeiture without any further motion by Plaintiff or action by the Court. The Court is unaware of any statutory or case law that authorizes such an unusual procedure.”

The court went on to say: “Plaintiff’s motion also fails to analyze or even mention the standards for granting a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction. Indeed, Plaintiff’s motion does not include a citation to a single case. The Court is not inclined to grant the extraordinary remedy of a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction where a party represented by counsel fails to provide any analysis of the relevant standards granting such relief. This concern is particularly acute where, as here, Plaintiff is seeking a ‘mandatory injunction’ that seeks to compel an affirmative act, rather than a ‘prohibitory injunction’ that seeks to preserve the status quo pending trial.”

The case cite is Hi-Rise Technology, Inc. v. Amatuerindex.com, No. 07-349 (W.D. Wash.).