XIII. TRADEMARKS/CYBERSQUATTING

A. CASE LAW

1. U.S. Courts of Appeal

a. Newport News Holdings Corp. v. Virtual City Vision Inc. 98 USPQ2d 1441

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled on April 18, 2011 that district court properly granted summary judgment for plaintiff clothing retailer, doing business under “Newport News” mark, on its cybersquatting claim, even though defendants prevailed in earlier Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy proceeding, since, at time of UDRP decision, defendants’ “newportnews.com” website simply provided information about city of Newport News, Va., and defendants subsequently changed site to one primarily devoted to women’s fashions.

2. U.S. District Courts

a. Rackly Bilt Custom Trailers Inc. v. Harley Murray Inc. 95 USPQ2d 1730

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on June 9, 2010 granted defendant summary adjudication of Plaintiff’s claim for cybersquatting under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d), based on defendant’s registration of “racklybilt.com” and other domain names using forms of Plaintiff’s business name, since defendant did not use domain names in connection with goods or services, set up website using names, offer to sell names, or profit from registering names.

Please see full chapter below for more information.