« Western District Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Fitness Drink Maker | Main | "Meet the Bloggers" Lineup Reveals Some Great Trademark Blogs »

Western District Refuses to Reconsider Dimissal of Cybersquatting Claim

As discussed on Feb. 14, The Christensen Firm moved the Western District to reconsider its summary judgment dismissal of the firm’s cybersquatting and Consumer Protection Act claims against its Web site development vendor, Chameleon Data Corp., and its president, Derek Dohn. In doing so, plaintiff argued it was “manifest error” for the court to find the marks contained in the domain names defendants allegedly transferred to themselves without plaintiff’s authorization “were either generic (cc-lawfirm) or descriptive (The Christensen Firm).”

Today, the court denied plaintiff’s motion. In a minute order issued by the clerk, the court found:

“Plaintiff’s motion simply rehashes arguments already made and rejected by the Court. The Court, however, will take this opportunity to clarify that, although it continues to hold the mark ‘cc-lawfirm’ is generic, it would reach the same conclusion concerning plaintiff’s cybersquatting claim even if it were to rule that the mark was descriptive. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the mark ‘cc-lawfirm’ has acquired secondary meaning, and therefore, the mark is not famous or distinctive, as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d).”

The case cite is The Christensen Firm v. Chameleon Data Corp., No. 06-337 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 20, 2008) (Zilly, J.).

Posted on February 20, 2008 by Registered CommenterMichael Atkins in , | Comments1 Comment

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (1)

I do not agree that cc-lawfirm is generic. The fact that the court considered secondary meaning tends to show that it is descriptive. Nonetheless, this opinion should at least allow the Christensen Firm to rest easy that they would not have prevailed even if the court deemed the mark descriptive.

However, this case also illustrates that relief under the ACPA, like the trademark infringement provisions of the Lanham Act, all starts and, and in this case, ends with the trademark classification. http://tcattorney.typepad.com/ip/2008/02/trademark-class.html#more Usually the closer call is between descriptive and suggestive, but this case is every trademark attorneys official warning that one should never take for granted that the court will look past the generic classification.
February 21, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterBrian Hall

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.