Domain Names

United States v. Puerto 80 Projects, S.L.U.

Date: 

01/31/2011

Threat Type: 

Police Activity

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Puerto 80 Projects, S.L.U.

Type of Party: 

Government

Type of Party: 

Organization

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court, Southern District of New York

Case Number: 

11-cv-3983

Legal Counsel: 

Durie Tangri LLP

Publication Medium: 

Website

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Pending

Description: 

Puerto 80 is a solely-owned limited liability company based in Arteixo, Spain. The company operates a website entitled Roja Directa, which provides a chronological listing of sporting events with links to websites that are streaming live broadcasts of those events over the Internet. The website also operates a series of message boards and a small blog.

On January 31, 2011, an agent with the United States Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement division, filed an affidavit for a warrant to seize several domain names, including rojadirecta.org and rojadirecta.com. Using a recently-modified civil forfeiture law passed in 2008, the agent alleged that these domain names were property used for the commission of criminal copyright infringement, and thus subject to seizure. According to the United States, Roja Directa linked to websites streaming sporting events, the copyrights of which are owned by the NFL, NBA, NHL, and WWE. These organizations did not license the webcasts. This seizure was part of a larger IP enforcement campaign called Operation in Our Sites, which began in June of 2010 and continues today.

A federal magistrate judge issued a warrant for the seizure of the domain names. This order applied specifically to the URLs only, and not the servers which contain the Roja Directa website. The warrant ordered the domain name registries for the ".com" and ".org" top level domains, as well as Puerto 80's registrar for "rojadirecta.com" and "rojadirecta.org," to transfer ownership of the domain name to the United States, who then displayed a page informing the public that the domain name had been seized.

According to Puerto 80, the company attempted to negotiate with the United States for the return of the domain names, but reached no agreement. On June 13, 2011, Puerto 80 filed a petition for release of its seized property pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 983(f) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Puerto 80 argued that linking to other websites does not constitute criminal copyright infringement, there is no risk that evidence will be unavailable should the government decide to initiate a forfeiture proceeding, and the restriction of the expressive content of the website before an adjudication of whether the content was infringing was a prior restraint of speech. The United States filed a memorandum in opposition, arguing that the actions of Puerto 80 constituted criminal copyright infringement, to release the domain name would allow continuation of that infringement, and the domain name seizure was not a prior restraint because Roja Directa was able to move the websites to new domains housed outside of the United States.

On August 4, 2011 the district court denied Puerto 80's petition for release.The court did not find the hardship necessary for a § 983(f) dismissal, and suggested that the First Amendment arguments were best left to a motion to dismiss against the forfeiture complaint. Puerto 80 filed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on August 18, 2011, and shortly thereafter filed a motion for expedited appeal, which the Second Circuit granted.

Puerto 80 filed its opening brief to the Second Circuit on September 16, 2011. The United States filed a response brief on November 15, 2011. The court also accepted an amicus curiae brief from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, filed on November 22, 2011.

Puerto 80's reply brief to the government's response is due on December 6, 2011, with argument before the Second Circuit slated for the week of December 19th.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Some Say the World Will End in MAFIAAFire: Why Domain Seizures Don't Work

And boom goes the dynamite. Last month I wrote about the looming disaster that is COICA – the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act.  Thanks to a brewing fight between a United States government agency and web advocate and Firefox distributor Mozilla, we're getting a preview of the conflicts that COICA would cause if enacted.

Jurisdiction: 

Subject Area: 

Warranty Automotive Services v. Does

Date: 

04/06/2010

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

John Does 1-5 and ABC Corporations 1-5

Type of Party: 

Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

Case Number: 

1:10-CV-1006-JEC

Publication Medium: 

Website

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Pending

Description: 

On April 6, 2010, Warranty Automotive Services Corp. filed a complaint in federal district court against unnamed Does for claims arising out of defendants' operation of a website at www.lifetimewarrantymyths.com. The Complaint indicates that plaintiff believes the defendants may be residents of Connecticut who own or are otherwise affiliated with a car dealership that is a former customer of Warranty Automotive Services, Premier Subaru, LLC of Branford, Connecticut. (Complaint ¶¶ 20-24.)

According to the Complaint, Warranty Automotive Services Corp. sells lifetime warranty services to automotive dealerships, which extend the manufacturer's limited powertrain warranty for new vehicles for as long as the original purchaser of the vehicle owns it. Plaintiff alleges that in January 2010, defendants began publishing a website at www.lifetimewarrantymyths.com that contains a number of false and defamatory statements about plaintiff's services, including allegations that plaintiff "has been guilty of causing 'consumer confusion,' . . . that plaintiff's lifetime warranty is and will be worthless. . . . that plaintiff has been 'fined' by the Federal Trade Commission, and that the warranty which plaintiff markets and sells is a 'marketing tool to compensate for inherent deficiencies in either [plaintiff's] product, their process or both.'" (Complaint ¶ 14.)  The Complaint further alleges that defendants, throught their website, make claims that plaintiff operates a fraudulent "pyramid scheme." (Complaint ¶ 15.)

The Complaint asserts causes of action for (i) defamation; (ii) tortious interference with prospective economic advantage; (iii) trade libel; (iv) unfair business practices in violation fo O.C.G.A. § 10-1-370 et seq.; and (v) violation of the Cyber Piracy Prevention Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d) (based on defendants' "labeling and positioning their website, 'www.lifetimewarrantymyths.com,' and by using metatags, and otherwise" in a manner alleged to have infringed plaintiff's rights in its WASCOR trademark).

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Threat Source: 

Westlaw Alert

Showing Cyberbullying No Mercy in the Show Me State

On the broad grade-school spectrum of the bullies and the bullied, I tended to fall closer to the bullied side of things.  Fortunately, I quickly proved taller than average — thus harder to intimidate — and smarter than average — thus more useful as a source for homework help than as a target for abuse — so the bullies moved on to other targets.  Still, although not subjected to it much myself, I got to see a fair amount of bullying in my youth.

Jurisdiction: 

Subject Area: 

MonaVie v. Lazy Man and Money

Date: 

08/01/2009

Threat Type: 

Correspondence

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Corey Whitlaw (owner of www.lazymanandmoney.com)

Type of Party: 

Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual

Legal Counsel: 

Pro Se

Publication Medium: 

Blog

Status: 

Pending

Description: 

In August and September of 2009, MonaVie LLC sent two cease-and-desist letters to Lazy Man and Money, a personal finance blog authored by Corey Whitlaw.  MonaVie produces, markets and distributes "MonaVie" juices, açai berry drinks that are rich in antioxidants. MonaVie promotes its products as delivering "powerful antioxidants and phytonutrients to help fight free radicals and maintain your body's overall health."

The first letter related to an April 16th, 2008 blog post, titled "MonaVie a Scam?".  In the post, Whitlaw critiqued the juice as being expensive and questioned the efficacy of the company's network marketing strategy. MonaVie's name appears in the URL of the blog post — http://www.lazymanandmoney.com/monavie-scam-was-my-wife-recruited-sell-snake-oil/ — and is mentioned in the text, alongside a photograph of a bottle's nutrition information.  MonaVie's letter claimed that the post infringed on MonaVie's federally registered trademark and trade name. The letter explained that MonaVie "does not permit its name to be used in any URL or email address."  The letter requested that Lazy Man and Money stop using the mark. 

Whitlaw did not comply with MonaVie's request. He posted and discussed the letter on his blog on August 28, 2009.

On September 11, 2009 The Consumerist spoke with Doug Whitehead, MonaVie's General Counsel, who said that MonaVie's concerns are not with "user-visible content on the Lazy Man site," but instead with "the site's metadata, which includes MonaVie's name." 

MonaVie then sent a second cease-and-desist letter to Whitlaw, claiming that Lazy Man and Money had infringed on MonaVie's trademark by using "MonaVie" in the blog's metatags:

<meta name="keywords" content="lending club,portfolio,alternative income,blogging,football,patriots,chase,credit cards,rewards programs,lay-offs,monavie,ted kennedy,law suit,trademark infringement,spreadsheets,budget planning,envelope system,jar system" />

<meta name="description" content="Is MonaVie a Scam? Hundreds of people weigh in on MonaVie, MonaVie's business model, and whether you should buy MonaVie." /><meta name="keywords" content="monavie, mona vie, monavie scam, mona vie scam, monavie juice, acai, acai scam,acai,acai scam,mona vie,mona vie scam,monavie scam" />

That day, Whitlaw used his blog to respond to the letter, explaining why metatag keywords and descriptions do not affect ones ranking in search results.  He also distinguished his use of MonaVie's trademark from the facts of cases where trademark infringement was found.  

As of September 28, 2009, MonaVie has not pursued the matter further.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

-MW 9/24

Priority: 

1-High

Will Glenn Beck Sue a Defamatory Website in 2009?

Even though Glenn Beck has a prime spot on cable television to offer up his beliefs, it's sometimes quite hard to understand what his beliefs actually are.  For example, as Jon Stewart has pointed out, he believes we have the best healthcare in the world, except when he says it's a nightmare.  Or as Politico underscored, he believes that

Subject Area: 

Blazi v. Wagoner

Date: 

09/19/2008

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Jason Wagoner; Nicholas DeGrazia

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the District Connecticut

Case Number: 

3:08-cv-01441

Legal Counsel: 

Pro se

Publication Medium: 

Website

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Dismissed (total)

Description: 

The owner of a Connecticut coffee shop sued two former employees in federal court, asserting that they violated federal and state law when they allegedly converted the coffee shop's website into a forum to launch verbal attacks on the store and its owner. In his complaint, John A. Blazi, the owner of Greenwich Coffee, LLC, accused Jason Wagoner and Nicolas DeGrazia of trademark infringement, violating state and federal unfair competition laws, false representation, violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and conspiracy.

In the complaint, Blazi accused the defendants of using GreenwichCoffee.com, the coffee shop's former website, as a "web-based campaign of discrediting the store" in hopes of running it out of business. Compl. ¶ 17. The domain name, although initially used for official Greenwich Coffee business, was registered solely in Wagoner's name without Blazi's permission, according to the complaint. Compl. ¶ 12. 

The defendants denied the allegations and filed a motion to dismiss the suit on the grounds that the plaintiff had filed an almost identical suit in Connecticut state court. The plaintiff objected to the motion on the grounds that Blazi was not the plaintiff in the state lawsuit, the state complaint named an additional defendant, and the federal claims were not included in the state suit.  The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut granted the motion to dismiss the federal suit Feb. 4, 2009. The court stated its main reasons for its ruling were the presence of identical underlying facts in both cases, the state court's ability to apply federal law to the other lawsuit, and inconvenience to the defendants.

Greenwich Coffee, LLC v. DeGrazia, the suit in state court, has yet to be resolved, according to the Connecticut Judicial Branch's website.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

Source: Dozier Internet Law

Note: It isn't clear whether the state case in the Superior Court of
Connecticut for the Judicial District of Waterbury (CV084015494) constitutes a threat for the Database because it relies on different claims.  Whoever edits this entry should look for info regarding the state case to see if it warrants a separate threat entry.

CMF-6/4/09

Priority: 

1-High

Raintree Homes v. Silverstein

Date: 

07/10/2001

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Carl Silverstein; CBS Networking Services

Type of Party: 

Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

Case Number: 

3: CV01-1277

Legal Counsel: 

Paul Alan Levy - Public Citizen Litigation Group; Robert E. Kelly Jr., Marc A. Moyer - Kelly, Hoffman & Goduto

Publication Medium: 

Website

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Dismissed (partial)
Settled (partial)

Description: 

In July 2001, real estate developer Raintree Homes, Inc., filed suit against Carl Silverstein alleging trademark infringement and dilution under the Lanham act and common law claims including defamation, unfair competition, and trade libel. The complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, claimed that Silverstein’s gripe site using the domain names www.1800whyrent.net and www.1800whyrent.org infringed Raintree's "WHY-RENT" trademark.

Specifically the complaint alleged that Silverstein’s gripe site was confusingly similar to Raintree’s official website and diluted its trademark. Raintree also claimed that Silverstein’s statements, including "no other home builder has ruined the life of so many people with this program,” defamed the developer, and that the revision of Raintree’s motto to “we-screw-you” suggested that Raintree engaged in wrongful conduct. Raintree requested an injunction and unspecified damages.

Silverstein moved to dismiss the lawsuit in September 2001. A supporting memorandum was jointly filed by Silverstein’s attorney and Public Citizen. The memorandum argued that Silverstein’s website was protected by the First Amendment and that the site was a noncommercial parody outside the scope of trademark law.

Judge Munley granted the motion to dismiss in part, dismissing the trade libel claim and removing CBS Networking Services (a name used by Silverstein to register the doman names, but not a legal entity) from the case.  The court left the trademark claims intact, ruling that the establishment of a website satisfied the "use in commerce" requirement for an infringement claim, and that discovery was needed to determine whether Silverstein's use was "commercial" for purposes of the dilution claim.  Following the partial dismissal, the parties stipulated to dismiss the case with prejudice, suggesting a settlement.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Threat Source: 

Public Citizen

CMLP Notes: 

Source: Public Citizen

 

Priority: 

1-High

Goldman, Sachs v. Morgan

Date: 

04/08/2009

Threat Type: 

Correspondence

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Michael Morgan

Type of Party: 

Large Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

Case Number: 

09-14110

Legal Counsel: 

Joseph S. Beckman - The Intellect Law Group

Publication Medium: 

Website

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Settled (total)

Description: 

Banking and securities firm Goldman, Sachs & Co. sent a cease-and-desist letter to blogger Michael Morgan alleging that his websites infringed the firm's "Goldman Sachs" trademark.  The websites -- www.goldmansachs666.com and www.goldmansachs13.com -- serve as "an open forum for facts and discussion about what part Goldman Sachs and their executives played in the current Global Economic Crisis."  Morgan, a registered investment adviser, criticized the firm in site postings.

Goldman Sachs' letter alleges that the sites' domain names and content infringe the "Goldman Sachs" mark, violate other intellectual property rights, and constitute unfair competition.  The letter also alleges that Morgan's use of the mark gives the false impression that Morgan has an affiliation or commercial relationship with Goldman Sachs.

In response, Morgan filed a lawsuit for declaratory judgment in Florida federal court.  Morgan asked the court to declare that Morgan's websites and domain names did not infringe Goldman Sachs' trademark rights.  Morgan's Complaint also asked for declaratory judgment on Goldman Sachs' other claims.

Update:

7/17/09 - MediaPost reported that the parties settled, with Morgan agreeing to withdraw his lawsuit and Goldman Sachs promising not to sue, provided that Morgan continues to run a disclaimer on the site.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

Source: ABA Journal; Drive-by Times blog

 

Priority: 

2-Normal

Goldman Sachs Tries To Bully Blogger

chad-parke-demand-to-gs666 Michael Morgan is a Florida blogger who is a little bit upset with Goldman Sachs and its business practices.

Jurisdiction: 

Subject Area: 

Stillwater Lakes Civic Association v. Gorka

Date: 

12/18/2008

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Noreen Gorka; Michael Glassic; Stillwater Lakes Citizens; Stillwater Lakes Community Activist

Type of Party: 

Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the Central District of Pennsylvania

Case Number: 

3:08-cv-02264

Legal Counsel: 

Stewart I. Rosenblum

Publication Medium: 

Website

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Pending

Description: 

The Board of Directors of Stillwater Lakes Civic Association (the "Association"), a homeowner's assocation, sued a local watchdog organization and its members over websites that allegedly infringed the Association's trademarks.  Stillwater Lakes Community Activist ("Community Activist"), an organization of Stillwater Lakes property owners dedicated to achieving "an open honest transparent community," registered domain names for its website at www.stillwaterlakes.com and www.stillwaterlakes.net.  Community Activist is primarily concerned with ensuring that the Board's meetings and decisions are sufficiently fair and open to the public.

The Association alleges that Community Activist improperly uses the Association's name and acronym "SLCA" in the sites' content and domain names.  The Association's complaint includes claims for cybersquatting, federal trade name infringement and dilution, unfair competition, and common law trade name misappropriation.

On January 20, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the suit.  As grounds for dismissal, the motion disputes the validity of the Association's trademark interests and the sufficiency of its trademark claims.

Update:

4/2/09 - The assigned magistrate judge recommended that the defendants' motion to dismiss be denied with respect to all six claims brought by the Association.

4/30/09 - The district court adopted, without objection by the parties, the magistrate judge's recommendation that the defendants' motion to dismiss be denied.

6/2/09 - The defendants answered the complaint.

5/9/11 - After extended discovery and at least two court-ordered mediation sessions, the Association moved to dismiss the suit with prejudice, arguing that changes to the Community Activist website have reduced the risk of confusion, and that the Association cannot afford to continue the suit.

5/18/11 - The defendants filed a brief opposing the Association's motion to dismiss, arguing that the case should not be dismissed until the court had ruled on the defendants' forthcoming FRCP Rule 11 motion for sanctions.

5/23/11 - Defendants filed their Rule 11 motion for sanctions, in which they argue that the Association had filed the original suit in order to "harass" the defendants and "cause the Defendants financial harm."

5/26/11 - Defendants filed a memorandum in support of their Rule 11 motion, and also moved for fees and costs under the Lanham Act.

6/2/11 - Defendants filed a memorandum in support of their motion for fees under the Lanham Act, arguing that the Association's actions constitute an "exceptional case" qualifying for fees and costs.

6/7/11- The Association filed a reply brief supporting its motion to dismiss. The brief claims that the Association filed both the original lawsuit and the motion to dismiss in good faith, and argues that the defendants failed to comply with proper Rule 11 procedure.

6/9/11 - The Association filed a separate brief in opposition to the defendants' motion for Rule 11 sanctions. The brief again argues good faith and alleges a failure by the defendants to follow Rule 11 procedure; in addition, the brief asks that the court award attorneys' fees to the Association should the court rule against the defendants' Rule 11 motion.

6/16/11 - The Association filed its brief in opposition to the defendants' Lanham Act motion for fees and costs, arguing both technical and substantive grounds.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

Source: WestClip

Priority: 

1-High

Zammito v. Havrda

Date: 

11/19/2008

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Richard Havrda

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Case Number: 

1:08-CV-11936

Legal Counsel: 

Pro se

Publication Medium: 

Website

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Material Removed
Settled (total)

Description: 

Automobile salesman Chris Zammito sued former employee Richard Havrda over a gripe site Havrda created at www.zammitoautogroup.com.  Zammito's complaint brought trademark infringment and cybersquatting claims over the site's use of the name "Zammito Auto Group."  As part of the cybersquatting claim, Zammito noted that Havrda offered to sell the domain for $1,000 and a $100 restaurant gift card. Zammito also brought a defamation claim arising from the site's inclusion of a photograph of Zammito and various derogatory statements about Zammito, his family, and the company.

Havrda disputed Zammito's claims in his answer.  He claimed that at least one of the disputed website statements was quoted from Zammito himself, who allegedly "loudly proclaimed the derogatory statements about his wife in a drunk and disorderly fashion" at a dinner with Havrda and others at Black Bass Grille -- the restaurant for which Havdra requested a gift card.  See Havrda's Answer at ¶ 10. 

Havrda's answer also stated that he already had removed the disputed site content per Zammito's request.  Havrda attached to his answer a letter in which he apologized to Zammito and his family and promised to surrender the zammitoautogroup.com domain. 

Two months after Havrda filed his answer and apology letter, the parties stipulated to dismissal of the case with prejudice, suggesting that they reached a settlement.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Threat Source: 

RSS

CMLP Notes: 

Source: Dozier Internet Law

Priority: 

1-High

Harding v. Green

Date: 

12/22/2008

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Joan L. Green

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the District of Nevada

Case Number: 

2:08-cv-01799

Legal Counsel: 

Pro Se

Publication Medium: 

Website

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Injunction Issued
Material Removed
Settled (total)

Description: 

Nevada attorney Samuel A. Harding filed a defamation and cybersquatting lawsuit against Joan L. Green after Green allegedly created a website critical of Harding at www.attorneysamharding.com. Harding alleged that Green's site "falsely states that Plaintiff committed illegal and criminal acts in the representation of clients." Harding's Complaint ¶ 11. Harding also alleged that Green was using his professional name and service mark in her domain name with a bad-faith intent to profit and in a manner likely to confuse Internet users.

The complaint claims Harding tried to the resolve the dispute by asking Green to transfer the domain to him. Green allegedly responded by putting the domain up for sale on auction site Afternic.com. The complaint seems to rely on Green's attempted sale of the domain to argue that Green had a bad-faith commercial motivation for launching the site. See Harding's Complaint ¶¶ 13-14, 17-18.

In the suit, Harding filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction that would (1) prevent Green from using Harding's name and service mark (2) order Green and registrar Register.com to transfer the attorneysamharding.com domain to Harding. The court granted the motion, but it ordered only that Register.com "lock" the domain so that Green could not sell it.

Harding later dropped his motion for preliminary injunction on the ground that he had "obtain[ed] some of the relief sought by his Motion for Preliminary Injunction." See Harding's Motion to Vacate Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction at pg. 1.  A website favorable to Harding soon appeared at the attorneysamharding.com domain.

On February 13, 2009, Green, acting pro se, filed her answer to the complaint. Harding filed a motion to strike Green's answer on the ground that it failed to comply with various rules of civil procedure.

Update:

04/27/2009 - Greeen filed her Counterclaim and Complaint for Damages.

08/26/09 - The parties appeared before federal magistrate judge Hon. Lawrence Leavitt for oral argument, and Green agreed to dismiss her counterclaims against Harding.

10/14/2009 - After the parties settled, the court dismissed the case pursuant to a Stipulation and Order for Dismissal, With Prejudice, of All Claims and Counterclaims, and for a Permanent Injunction. In the order, the parties stipulated that the court would enter a permanent injunction against Green prohibiting her from "(1) using Harding's name or confusingly similar variations thereof, alone or in combination with any other letter, word, letter string, phrase or design, for any purpose (including, but not limited to, on web sites and in domain names); and (2) registering owning, leasing, selling, or trafficking in any domain name containing Harding's name or service mark, or confusingly similar variations thereof, alone or in combination with any other letters, words, phrases or designs."

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Threat Source: 

Google Blogs

CMLP Notes: 

Source: Dozier Internet Law

Priority: 

1-High

Kentucky Court of Appeals Rules in Gambling Domains Case

The Kentucky Court of appeals has ruled that the Commonwealth can not seize 141 domain names due to their alleged affiliation with online gambling. The Commonwealth initially filed an in rem (against the item, not against a person) action against the domain names -- seeking to seize the domains as "gambling devices." However, the statute does not seem to fit around domain names. The statute was designed to permit the seizure of slot machines and the like.

Jurisdiction: 

Subject Area: