Dozier Internet Law Protects Online Business

You can visit the main Dozier Internet Law website for more information.

Dozier Internet Law Lawsuit Updates

Dozier Internet Law, an AV rated law firm, was founded by John W. Dozier, Jr., who has the highest rating available by Martindale Hubbell (AV), is recognized as "preeminent" in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers, is a "Super Lawyer" and a member of the "Legal Elite", all peer ratings from lawyers and judges. Dozier Internet Law provides a summary of many of the latest lawsuits filed nationwide relating to the law of the Internet. The following lawsuits were filed through February 7, 2008. All references to facts and the causes of action are allegations only as set forth in the plaintiff's lawsuit, the validity of which are yet to be adjudicated. Inclusion in the list does not imply that Dozier Internet Law is involved in the litigation.

NEON NETWORK, LLC v. ASPIS LIV FORSAKRINGS DISTRICT OF ARIZONA (PHOENIX) 2:08-cv-01188 FILED: 06/26/08

This is a classic example of the conflicts that are arising in the global economy. The World Intellectual Property Organization, headquartered in Switzerland, managed this arbitration, which was between the US owner of a domain name and a company located in Sweden. Should the laws of the United States relating to free speech be applied by lawyers and courts and arbitrators all around the world? This type of issue is part of the complexity involved in domain name and international trademark issues.

Neon Networks, LLC lost a UDRP proceeding and the domain name "www.aspis.com" was ordered transferred to the Defendant. Plaintiff has filed this suit to overturn the arbitration award, arguing that the use of the domain name of a company organized under the laws of Sweden was for "genuine commentary" which suggests a "free speech" and "fair use" defense.

Plaintiff has sued for a declaratory judgment that Plaintiff's use of the subject domain name is in compliance with law and a further declaratory judgment asking the court to invalidate and declare unenforceable the trademark of this Swedish company in the United States and further find that there is no trademark infringement. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1192.

IBERIA PARISH FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT #1 v. TAD THIES WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 6:08-cv-00825

FILED: 06/11/08

There is no reason for an employee or a contractor to secure a domain name on your business' behalf and put it in his own name. If this happens, understand that the owner of record, which is the individual, often believes he has ownership in the domain name even though it was purchased while either employed or pursuant to a contract which created a "trust" for the domain name to be held on your business' behalf. There is a general misunderstanding that the name on a domain name registration account is the actual owner.

Plaintiff allowed an employee of the fire department to obtain and register the domain name used by the fire department to host a website that is used for firefighter training, record keeping, and emergency warning activities, as well as the fire department's complete electronic mail system. The individual Defendant allegedly had a disagreement with the fire department and changed the DNS server so that the URL was no longer pointing to the website of the Iberia Parish Fire Protection Department. Apparently the website was also hosted on servers owned and/or controlled by Defendant Thies, and the website has been rendered inoperable.

Iberia Parish Fire Protection District #1 sued the individual Defendant, an employee of the fire department, for violation of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, breach of duty of loyalty and fiduciary responsibility, conversion, and unfair trade practices and has requested that the court enter an extensive declaratory judgment to protect the fire department and transfer the domain name. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1193.

CPFILMS, INC. v. SHATTERGARD SECURITY & SAFETY WINDOW FILMS, INC. EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI (ST. LOUIS) 4:08-CV-00189

Plaintiff has led the window film industry for the past twenty years and is the world�s largest manufacturer of window film and precision coated films. Plaintiff�s mark LLUMAR was registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office in 1978 and is now well-known by the public as identifying the Plaintiff and its products. Defendant manufactures and sells window film products in direct competition with Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant registered the domain name www.llumarwindowfilms.com and is pointing traffic from that domain name to its website at www.shattergard.com.

Plaintiff has filed suit in federal court in Missouri, claiming cybersquatting, trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and dilution of a famous mark in violation of federal and state law. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant�s actions constitute unjust enrichment at the expense of the Plaintiff. Plaintiff has requested that the court permanently enjoin the Defendant from using the LLUMAR mark or any similar mark in any confusing way, including as part of a domain name or in any promotional material, and order Defendant to engage in advertising that will correct any consumer confusion that has resulted from Defendant�s actions. Plaintiff has also requested the transfer of the domain name www.llumarwindowfilms.com, statutory damages, Defendant�s profits, attorneys� fees and costs. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1025.

SANSEGAL SPORTSWEAR, INC. v. GEORGE B. LIPSON, ET AL. DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION 2:08-CV-00102

Plaintiff Sansegal Sportswear, Inc., a Utah corporation, is a leader in the clothing industry that sells primarily to corporate retail clients. Plaintiff owns the federally registered trademark �GREEN BRAND� in connection with clothing, namely sweat shirts, tee shirts, tank tops, and shorts. This mark was registered in 1997. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, George B. Lipson, is using the mark �GREEN LABEL� in connection with clothing at the Defendant�s website, www.greenlabel.com. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has been using this mark since 2005 and filed a U.S. Trademark Application for that mark in October 2007.

Plaintiff has filed suit against Defendant, a resident of Virginia, in federal court in Utah. The suit alleges that Defendant has committed trademark infringement under both federal and common law by using a mark that is likely to cause substantial confusion among the consuming public. The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendant has engaged in unfair competition, as defined by both federal and state law. Plaintiff seeks an order enjoining Defendant from infringing on Plaintiff�s marks, as well as awarding Plaintiff actual and punitive damages, along with attorneys� fees and costs. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1026.

FREIGHTQUOTE.COM, INC. v. PACIFIC ATLANTIC FREIGHT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 1:08-CV-00823

Plaintiff Freightquote.com, Inc., a Delaware corporation, provides freight shipping and management services through its website. Defendant Pacific Atlantic Freight, a California business, provides similar services through its website, www.freightshippingcenter.com, which can also be reached through a link from the web address www-freight-quotes.com. Plaintiff has the federally registered trademarks, �freightquote� and �freightquote.com,� and have used these marks in interstate commerce since 1999. Defendant began using www-freight-quotes.com with full knowledge of Plaintiff�s marks.

Plaintiff has filed suit in federal court in Illinois, claiming trademark infringement under federal and common law, as well as unfair competition under federal and state law. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant willfully infringed on Plaintiff�s trademark and committed unfair business practices by using the confusingly similar mark with the intent to deceive the public. The Plaintiff is seeking an order enjoining the Defendant from infringing on Plaintiff�s trademarks and creating confusion though this use, requiring the Defendant to prepare and deliver public corrective statements to customers concerning the alleged misrepresentations, and awarding damages, attorneys� fees, and costs. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1027.

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC ET AL V. EUROTECH WHEELS, LLC ET AL SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SAN DIEGO) 3:08-CV-00171

Plaintiffs manufacture motor vehicles, parts and other products for sale throughout the world. Plaintiffs sell their products under various trademarks, including the "Roundel" logo, the M Stripes logo and the name "BMW," that are well-known and recognized throughout the world. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have registered the domain name "eurotechbmw.com" and operate a website at that location to sell wheel rims. Allegedly, Defendants do not merely advertise that these wheel rims fit certain BMW vehicles. Instead, the Defendants purport to sell actual BMW wheels.

Plaintiffs filed a federal lawsuit against Defendants in California alleging federal trademark infringement, federal unfair competition and false designation of origin in violation of the Lanham Act. Plaintiffs also allege violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act for registering a domain name that incorporates its marks and Design Patent Infringement of five of its patents for selling wheel rims similar to the Plaintiffs' rims. Plaintiffs' other causes of actions include common law trademark infringement, common law unfair competition and unfair competition in violation of California state laws. Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction that prohibits Defendants from using Plaintiffs' trademarks and patents and damages for its willful patent and trademark infringement and cybersquatting. Plaintiffs also seek control of or the cancellation of the domain name "eurotechbmw.com." Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1005

CRYSTAL ENTERTAINMENT & FILMWORKS, INC. ET AL V. JURADO ET AL SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA (FT. LAUDERDALE) 0:08-CV-60125

Plaintiff is a music and film entertainment business that has rights to the mark "Expose'." Under license from Plaintiff's predecessor, the Defendants, a singing and performance trio, used "Expose�" as the name of its group. When Defendants launched a new Expose' tour in 2006, it registered a group of domain names including "exposeonline.net" and "myspace.com/exposeonline." In 2007 Defendants cancelled its license agreement with Plaintiff, but continues to use the Expose' name.

Plaintiff filed a federal lawsuit against Defendants in Florida alleging federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin, false association, false advertise and unfair competition. Plaintiff also alleges violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Breach of Contract and Constructive Trust. Plaintiff seeks to prevent Defendants from using the Expose' mark on a website, as part of a domain name or in connection with a live performance. Plaintiff also wants the transfer of the offending domain names and an award of damages for its breach of contract and trademark infringement claim. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1006

WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC. ET AL V. ASHWORTH DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION 2:08-CV-00083

Plaintiff owns the copyright and/or exclusive production and distribution rights to many popular films and television programs. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is the operator of the website "MovieAdvanced.org" which solicits Internet users interested in downloading films and television programs and, pursuant to an "affiliate agreement," delivers those customers to a similarly named website "MovieAdvanced.com" where tools allowing customers to download and burn films were sold. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was paid a referral fee for all of the customers that were directed to MovieAdvanced.com from its website.

Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant, a Utah resident, in federal court in Utah. Plaintiff previously sued parties involved with MovieAdvanced.com including Defendant in federal court in New York which resulted in a settlement wherein MovieAdvance.com was shut down and disgorged of $300,000 in profits to Plaintiff. However, Defendant alleged that the New York court did not have jurisdiction over Defendant. Therefore, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant in Utah alleging that Plaintiff violated the federal Copyright Act as a contributory infringer and federal trademark law by using Plaintiff's marks in its advertisements and engaged in civil conspiracy in violation of Utah common law through its affiliate with MovieAdvanced.com which encouraged and provided customers with the tools to commit film piracy. Plaintiff's suit seeks to disgorge Plaintiff of its profits, damages, costs and attorneys fees. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1007.

LIFESTYLE LIFT HOLDING, INC ET AL V. NEW DREAM NETWORK, LLC ET AL EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN, SOUTHERN DIVISION 2:08-CV-10392

Plaintiff Lifestyle Lift Holding, Inc. is the owner of the federally registered trademark "Lifestyle Lift" which is used to identify cosmetic and plastic surgery procedures. Plaintiff licenses the use of its "Lifestyle Lift" mark to cosmetic and plastic surgery centers throughout the United States who specialize in minimally invasive facelift procedures. Plaintiff alleges that its mark has gained recognition through its extensive positive television coverage which has resulted in strong consumer recognition. Plaintiff LL MA East, P.C. is a medical facility in Waltham, Massachusetts licensed to use "Lifestyle Lift." Defendant Dr. Fechner provides plastic surgery procedures in the Boston area. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants utilizes websites including www.drfrechner.com and www.bostonfacelift.com that include the phrase "Lifestyle Lift" on the websites to identify facial plastic surgery services provided by Defendants.

Plaintiff filed suit in federal court in Michigan alleging that Defendants' websites violate Plaintiff's trademark in violation of the federal Lanham Trademark Act. Plaintiff's suit alleges that Defendants websites use "Lifestyle Lift" in the title, description and keywords causing search engines to detect and direct customers to Defendants' websites. Plaintiff's suit claims that Defendants� improper use of its trademark causes patients, potential patients and the public to be mislead and seeks damages and to prevent Defendants from using its mark "Lifestyle Lift" or any imitation thereof. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1008.

Dozier Internet Law Notice

CV, BV and AV are registered certification marks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell certification procedures, standards and policies. The information on this site is not intended to constitute legal advice and communication via email, telephone, or in writing with an attorney does not constitute the creation of an attorney-client relationship until a formal, written legal retainer agreement is signed. We rarely set forth case results on this site because of lawyer ethics considerations. Sometimes we will link to a decision involving our law firm. Whatever the reference to legal results in a particular matter, please understand that case and matter results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each such case or matter, and prior case or matter results do not predict or guarantee a similar result in future cases or matters. John W. Dozier, Jr. is the responsible attorney for this website, which is Attorney Advertising. A legal ethics requirement is that we state the following: CASE RESULTS DEPEND ON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE, AND PRIOR CASE RESULTS DO NOT PREDICT OR GUARANTEE A SIMILAR RESULT IN FUTURE CASES. Our refund policy is to refund all remaining fee deposits at the end of the month of a file closing.

Remember, you can visit the main Dozier Internet Law website for more information on our firm and our services, and to access a library of information including podcasts, videos and articles on the law of the Internet.