Video Only, Inc., today filed a Rule 41(a) notice of dismissal with the Western District, terminating its trademark claims against JSSI Group, Inc., Domain Name Systems, Inc., and three individual defendants. The dismissal follows a motion to dismiss that defendants filed last week.
In its December 2006 complaint, the Seattle-based video retailer alleged that defendants “host, operate, provide DNS services for, serve as the registrar for the associated domain name, and/or publish the Internet web site http://www.videonly.com/….” Video Only alleged that defendants used this site to divert traffic from Video Only’s site and to redirect it to another site that advertises, sells, and promotes pornographic material. The complaint asserted claims for infringement, contributory infringement, infringement, false designation of origin, dilution, cybersquatting, violation of Washington’s Consumer Protection Act, and unjust enrichment.
On August 31, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the alleged ground that they did not have sufficient minimum contacts with the state to provide the court with jurisdiction. Defendants claimed they resided and did business in Florida and Canada. They also argued that Video Only’s claims against them in their capacity as a registrar of domain names should be dismissed on the ground that Ninth Circuit courts do not hold registrars liable for the kinds of claims Video Only asserted. The dismissal, of course, makes this motion moot.
It’s unclear (to STL, that is) whether the dismissal is part of a settlement. Defendants’ alleged typosquatting site appears to be inactive, suggesting that it may have been taken down as part of a deal.
The case cite is Video Only, Inc. v. JSSI Group, Inc., No. 06-1778 (W.D. Wash.).