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.).