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. 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.

ENHANCED RECOVERY CORPORATION v. CORBIS CORPORATION AND INVEX GROUP, INC. MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA (JACKSONVILLE) 3:09-CV-00052

FILED: 1/20/2009

You can expect Corbis to file a counterclaim against both parties for copyright infringement. This is another way in which you can get caught up in a claim for copyright infringement. Your web development contract must had adequate provisions prohibiting the use of any unlicensed images and containing adequate indemnification provisions so if such a claim is asserted you can look to the web developer for payment of both your legal costs and any damages that might arise. Doing business with a web developer that will be around when such a claim arises, or has adequate assets to assure you that it is financially capable of indemnifying your company, is of critical importance.

Corbis sent a letter to the Plaintiff alleging copyright infringement for images hosted on its website. The Plaintiff had hired Defendant Invex to build the site and is alleged to have used the images without proper licensing from Defendant Corbis. Corbis initially demanded the removal of the 22 images. The Plaintiff immediately removed the allegedly infringing copyrighted images from its websites and licensed "similar images" from a third party for $100.00. Corbis then demanded licensing fees after the images had been removed from the site.

The Plaintiff has sued for declaratory relief against Corbis and requested indemnification against Plaintiff's web developer, Invex. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1280.

CARROLL SHELBY, ET AL. v. FACTORY FIVE RACING, INC., ET AL. CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (LOS ANGELES) 2:08-CV-07881

FILED: 12/1/2008

Metatags include both the description and key words. The meta-description is often presented in the organic or natural result in a search engine and therefore displays the trademark in the result. In addition, the algorithms of the search engines use the terminology in the metatags to determine relevance. Remarkably, there is a significant commentary from some attorneys who claim that this practice should not be unlawful since no search engines use meta-data to determine the rank or priority of results when a search is conducted yet ignore the fact that description is often presented within the abbreviated search result. In fact, meta- data is used extensively by search engines and the use of a competitor's trademark is considered "initial interest confusion" under the trademark infringement laws and is illegal. Don't use competitor's registered or unregistered trademarks in your metatags. The fact that there is no registered trademark does not mean that no trademark exists.

The Plaintiff is a trustee of the Carroll Hall Shelby Trust. Carroll Shelby is the legendary racecar driver who broke the land speed record at the Bonneville Salt Flats and won the 24-hour Le Mans road race during his racing career, he is also the creator of various automobiles identified as Shelby Cobras and is famous not only to sports car enthusiasts but to the public in general. The Defendant is alleged to be advertising and promoting for sale on his website "kit cars" bearing designs confusingly similar to the trade dress of the Shelby properties. He uses the trademarks owned by, and licensed to, the Plaintiffs in the metatags of his website to draw Internet traffic.

The Plaintiffs have sued for common law trademark infringement, dilution of trademarks, false advertising, common law unfair competition, and violation of rights of publicity. The Plaintiffs request an award of compensatory, punitive damages, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, its costs and attorneys' fees and expenses, and further relief as the court deems proper and just. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1267.

KBS AMERICA, INC. AND MUN HWA BROADCASTING CORPORATION v. MYTV, INC., ET AL CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (LOS ANGELES) 2:08-CV-07753

FILED: 11/24/2008

The Defendants' response in this case is interesting in that it attempted to create a firestorm backlash against the Plaintiff in the apparent hope of creating a "mobosphere" attack to gain some bargaining advantage and to intimidate the Plaintiff into submission. This is an attempt to use the "Streisand effect" to create a "mobosphere" attack. No matter what type of claim you are asserting, there is always the possibility of a counter-attack aimed at your business reputation online.

The Plaintiffs offer and sell immediate real-time access to a stream of content broadcast by Korean affiliates over the Internet to North American subscribers. The Defendants are alleged to be an illegal business by intercepting and re-broadcasting the Korean television streams of such works without authorization and then competing against the Plaintiff. Plaintiff demanded the Defendant's cease and desist from intercepting signals and infringing on its exclusive license rights. The Defendants allegedly responded by taking out full page advertisements in Korean language newspapers in the United States demanding that the Plaintiff stop asserting its rights to the programming. This lawsuit followed shortly thereafter.

Plaintiff has sued the Defendants for copyright infringement, unfair competition, and unfair business practices. An injunction prohibiting further copyright infringement, together with an order requiring impoundment and destruction of copies of the creative works, together with compensatory and punitive damages, costs and attorneys' are request by the Plaintiff to be awarded by the court. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1253.

PETMED EXPRESS, INC. v. PETCARERX, INC. SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA (FT. LAUDERDALE) 0:08-CV-61694

FILED: 10/21/2008

Another metatag trademark infringement case but with a slight twist. This lawsuit alleges the use of the trademark in the text of pay-per-click ads. This is not a gray area at all. You can't do that. With the money at stake, an accommodating resolution to this matter is not likely to occur.

Plaintiff PetMed is in the business of offering for sale, selling and distributing prescription and non-prescription pet medications, nutritional supplements, and pet accessories through its website. The Defendant is in the business of offering for sale, selling and distributing prescription and non- prescription pet medications, nutritional supplements, and pet accessories also. The Plaintiff helps consumer identify its PetMed's trademarks by purchasing targeted keywords and achieving prominent organic placement on the top search engines. From 2003 through the end of 2007, PetMed sold approximately $750 million worth of merchandise. Defendant is alleged to have used the word "Petmeds" in the text of advertisements on presumably pay-per- click in the major search engines, and in the metatags of its website to increase its organic results when consumers are searching for the Plaintiff's name.

Plaintiff has sued for federal trademark infringement, federal unfair competition, and false designation of origin. The Plaintiff requests the enforcement of the preexisting permanent injunction, additional injunctive relief, an order awarding the Defendant's profits to the Plaintiff, other compensatory damages, treble damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, its cost, and an order that the Defendant be held in contempt of court for violating the previous injunction relating to the same subject matter. Dozier Internet Law Cross- Reference Number 1237.

H. JAY SPIEGEL & ASSOCIATES, P.C. v. STEVEN M. SPIEGEL EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA (ALEXANDRIA) FILED: 9/12/2008

1:08-CV-00949

This type of lawsuit is becoming more prevalent. In this instance you have a trademark registered by the law firm and used in a very narrow geographic region. A website launched anywhere could arguably solicit legal services within that region and one of the more prevalent issues online relating to business names is the expansion of the geographic use of business names, which obviously leads to many more conflicts than in the pre-Internet days.

The Plaintiff, a law firm, filed suit against an individual with a similar name that launched a website at "www.spiegellaw.com". The content of the website allegedly caused confusion by associating the website with Plaintiff's law firm.

The lawsuit includes a count for federal trademark infringement, federal unfair competition, and trademark infringement and unfair competition under Virginia common law. The relief requested includes an award of damages, and the entry of an injunction enjoining and restraining the Defendant from using the domain name in connection with the advertisement or rendering of legal services online. There is no claim for cybersquatting asserted. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1227.

STERLING MARKETING GROUP, LLC, ET AL. v. ALL ABOUT PINS, INC., ET AL. MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA (ORLANDO) 6:08-CV-00175

Plaintiffs provide promotional products, such as custom lapel pins, throughout the world. Defendants were in a similar business and operated under the name All About Pins, Inc. Defendants sold their products through their website at www.allaboutpins.com from May 2001 until March 2006 when Plaintiffs purchased all of their assets, including their name and domain name. In August 1, 2007, Defendants registered the domain name www.pins365.com and began operating a business that competes with Plaintiffs. Despite selling their name to Plaintiffs in 2006, Defendants named their new business All About Pins, Inc. Defendants' use of this name has created actual confusion among Plaintiffs' and Defendants' customers.

Plaintiffs have filed a federal suit against the Defendants in Florida. Among the allegations are statutory unfair competition under the Lanham Act, common law unfair competition under Florida law and common law trade name infringement under Florida law. Plaintiffs have requested that the Court preliminarily and permanently enjoin the Defendants from using the "All About Pins" name and have also requested that the Court award damages, costs and attorneys' fees. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1017.

PETMED, LLC v. PETMED EXPRESS, INC. CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 08-1039

Plaintiff is an Illinois-based animal clinic formerly known as Animal Medical Clinic. It has owned the domain name www.petmed.com since August 18, 1996. Plaintiff claims that it has gained common law trademark rights to the name "Petmed" because it has been using that name and operating a website at www.pedmed.com for over ten years. Defendant is a Florida-based online, mail and telephone order pet pharmacy that has federal trademarks in "PETMEDS," "1-800-PETMEDS," "1888PETMEDS" and "PETMED EXPRESS, INC." Defendant also has over 100 domain names that consist of the word "petmed," including www.petmeds.com and www.1800petmeds.com. Plaintiff claims that Defendant has been sending it cease and desist letters for the past eight years and threatening legal action. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's most recent letter states that Plaintiff must immediately cease use of the term "Petmed" and transfer ownership of the domain name www.petmed.com to Defendant. Plaintiff claims that it was doing business first and that it is not infringing on Defendant's rights by using the name "Petmed" and owning the domain name www.petmed.com.

Plaintiff has filed suit in federal court in Illinois seeking a declaratory judgment that it has common law rights to continue using "Petmed" and "Petmed.com" and that Defendant is precluded from obtaining relief against Plaintiff. Plaintiff's suit states that it is Defendant's predecessor in interest and that Defendant has known Plaintiff was using these names for over eight years. Plaintiff seeks an order from the court stating that Plaintiff has not infringed on any of Defendant's trademark rights, that it owns common law trademark rights to "Petmed" and "Petmed.com," that it has the right to continue using "Petmed" and "Petmed.com," and that Defendant is precluded from obtaining relief against Plaintiff based on the legal doctrines of equitable estoppel, laches, and/or acquiescence. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1018.

VIRTUALCFO, INC. d/b/a VCFO v. RC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, LLC d/b/a RCFO SERVICES, LLC NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (DALLAS) 3-08CV0164-G

Plaintiff and Defendant are competitors in the business of providing financial and business consulting services. Plaintiff, which is based in Austin, Texas, has been doing business under the mark "VCFO" and operating its website at www.VCFO.com for many years. Plaintiff obtained a Texas trademark registration in "VCFO" in 2001 and federally registered the mark in 2002. Defendant started doing business in 2004. In 2006 it filed an assumed name certificate to do business as "RCFO Services, LLC" in Dallas, Tarrant and Collins Counties in Texas. Defendant now does business solely under the name "RCFO" and operates a website at www.RCFO.com.

Plaintiff has sued Defendant in federal court in Texas alleging violations of state and federal trademark laws and state business and unfair competition laws. Plaintiff's suit seeks damages and to prevent Defendant from using a similar name and mark in direct competition with Plaintiff. Plaintiff claims that its marks have become well-known within companies that regularly outsource financial consulting, accounting and business support services and that these companies regularly provide referrals to Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, who for approximately two years did business under the name "RC Professional Services," only began using the name "RCFO" for the express purpose of trading on the goodwill and value created by Plaintiff. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1019.

JEFFREY T. LESTER v. CHRIS LACEY ORIGINALS, LLC d/b/a HUNTIN' HARD DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION 2:08-CV-00092

Plaintiff and Defendant are competing retailers of hunting-related goods and services. Plaintiff's trademark "HUNT HARD" is registered with the United States Patent and Trademark office for use in connection with men's, women's and children's clothing and with printed matter including decals, bumper stickers and window stickers. Plaintiff has been using its trademark in interstate commerce since May 2002. According to Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendant has no intellectual property rights in the "Hunt Hard" mark, but has registered the domain name www.huntinhard.com.

Plaintiff has filed suit in federal court in Utah alleging that Defendant is cybersquatting and infringing on Plaintiff's trademark in violation of federal and state law. Plaintiff's suit claims that its mark has acquired secondary meaning in the marketplace. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is using "Huntin' Hard" and has registered the domain name www.huntinhard.com in a bad faith attempt to divert customers from Plaintiff for its financial gain. Plaintiff seeks an order preventing Defendant from purchasing or owning any domain names that contain any variation of its "Hunt Hard" trademark; an award of actual damages, statutory damages, treble damages, costs and attorneys fees; to disgorge Defendant of any profits it made in association with the use of its mark; and an order requiring Defendant to transfer the domain name www.huntinhard.com to Plaintiff. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1020.

GALLAGHER V. CRYSTAL BAY CASINO, LLC ET AL DISTRICT OF NEVADA (RENO) 3:08-CV-00055

Plaintiff is in the entertainment business and makes his living as a singer, songwriter, comedian, and promoter. Defendants operate the Crystal Bay Casino. Plaintiff alleges that he created a song for use in advertising and promoting the casino. Plaintiff allowed Defendants to listen to the song but did not authorize them to use the song without the agreed-upon payment. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants are currently using his song on their website, www.crystalbaycasino.com.

Plaintiff has filed a federal lawsuit against the Defendants in Nevada. He alleges copyright infringement, misappropriation, breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and dealing. For damages and costs, Plaintiff has requested Defendants' profits, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1013

REMINGTON HOTEL CORPORATION V. THE WILLIAM AND ROXANNE DAVIS CO., L.L.C. EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (TEXARKANA) 5:08-CV-00015

Plaintiff has used the mark "Remington" is connection with resorts, hotel and property management, project management, and hotel and resort development since 1992. It advertises its services through the website remingtonhotels.com. It has a federal registration for the word mark "Remington." Defendants operate a hotel in Arkansas. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have infringed on its mark by renaming their hotel "Remington Hotel." Defendants have also registered the domain name www.remington- hotel.com.

Plaintiff has filed a federal lawsuit against Defendants in Texas. Plaintiff alleges federal trademark infringement, federal unfair competition, and domain name cyberpiracy. Plaintiff has requested that the court issue an injunction restraining Defendants from using the word "Remington" or any confusingly similar mark. Plaintiff also requests the destruction of any material that infringes its mark, the transfer of the domain name remington- hotel.com, and damages. Dozier Internet Law Cross- Reference Number 1014

SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT ET AL V. EVANS EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA(FRESNO) 1:08-CV-00109

Plaintiffs are two major recording companies. Defendant is an individual who resides in California. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant has downloaded and distributed sound recording owned or exclusively licensed to the Plaintiffs using peer-to-peer file- copying networks. According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendant has been continuously engaged in such activity since the Plaintiff first learned of the Defendant's actions on February 27, 2007.

Plaintiffs have filed a federal lawsuit against Defendants in California alleging copyright infringement. Plaintiffs have requested that the court enjoin the Defendant from further activity that violates the Plaintiffs' rights. Plaintiffs have asked the court to order that the Defendant destroy all copies of sound recordings made in violation of Plaintiffs' rights. Additionally, Plaintiffs have asked for statutory damages, costs and attorneys' fees. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1015

MERCANTILE COMMERCIAL CAPITAL, LLC V. MIDWEST CAPITAL CORPORATION MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA (ORLANDO) 6:08-CV-00101

Plaintiff is a licensed mortgage lender operating in the state of Florida since 2002. It a leading provider of commercial loans under the Small Business Administration 504 loan program. In 2003, Plaintiff's co-founder and CEO created a work entitled "Twelve Reasons a 504 Loan is Best for Your Business" and filed an application for copyright registration. This work has been integrated into Plaintiff's website at "www.504experts.com." Defendant is a direct competitor of Plaintiff. According to the Plaintiff, Defendant has copied portions of Plaintiff's website and is displaying that material on Defendant's website at "www.midwestcapitalcorp.com."

Plaintiff has filed a federal lawsuit against Defendant in Florida alleging willful copyright infringement. Plaintiff has asked the Court to permanently enjoin Defendant from infringing Plaintiff's copyrighted work. Plaintiff has also requested damages, attorneys' fees and the return of any copies of the Plaintiff's copyrighted works in the Defendant's possession. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1016

Google Bomb: The Untold Story of the 1.3M Verdict That Changed the Way We Use the Internet1.3M Verdict That Changed the Way We Use the Internet

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.

(c) Copyright 2001-2011. All Rights Reserved. Dozier Internet Law, P.C.