Last week, the Western District re-examined counterclaim plaintiff Vericheck, Inc.’s cybersquatting and trademark infringement claims against counterclaim defendant David Lahoti in light of the Ninth Circuit’s review in Lahoti v. Vericheck, 586 F.3d. 1190 (9th Cir. 2009). Vericheck’s claims stem from Mr. Lahoti’s registration of the vericheck.com domain name. (For background, see posts on the Ninth Circuit decision and bench trial findings.)
STL readers may recall the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s finding that Vericheck’s VERICHECK mark is distinctive. In that decision, the Ninth Circuit separately affirmed the district court’s finding that Mr. Lahoti had registered vericheck.com in bad faith.
Given the Ninth Circuit’s direction, on April 9, the Western District entered Amended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that reached the same conclusion it reached the first time. The court again found VERICHECK to be distinctive, though this time it clarified that it analyzed the mark as a whole in the context in which the average consumer would encounter it. After doing so, it again determined the mark is suggestive.
The court also again awarded Vericheck $100,000, the maximum amount of statutory damages under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. It awarded Vericheck its attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $78,109.95.
The case cite is Lahoti v. Vericheck, Inc., No. 06-1132 (W.D. Wash. April 9, 2010) (Robart, J.).