Epstein Drangel Bazerman & James, Intellectual Property, Technology and Media Law

» Home Page
» Members
» Practice Areas
     IP Litigation
     Anti-Counterfeiting
     IP Prosecution
     Transactional IP
     Licensing
» Clients

» Publications
     Articles
     VIP Newsletter
     Guide to Registering
     Read Excerpts

» Events & Speaking
» Contact Us
» 1-800-343-IDEA

Intellectual Property Litigation

DOMAIN NAME AND RELATED INTERNET AND COMPUTER CRIME CLAIMS
Heathmount A. E. Corporation v. Domain Names: TECHNODOME.COM and DESTINATIONTECHNODOME.COM, Case No. 00cv714(E.D. VA). A domain name case brought on behalf of our client under the U.S. Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. The issue of constitutionality of the Act is currently before the Court. The Court has initially ruled in our favor in two decisions on the District Court level and on appeal to the Fourth Circuit on the question of constitutionality of applying the Act when both the Plaintiff and the owner of the domain names in an in rem proceeding are both foreign nationals.

Cream Holdings Ltd. v. National Internet Source, Inc., Case No. D2001-0964 (WIPO 2001). This was an administrative proceeding pursuant to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy before a WIPO Panel. Our client is an internet service provider and developer of new ideas for online businesses. With regard to the latter, the client registered a number of names for new business, including CREAM. The Complainant operates a night club, arranges music events and produces CDs and tapes under the mark CREAM. The Panel found in our client's favor, since among other things the Complainant failed to prove acquired distinctiveness of the mark prior to our client obtaining the domain name and our client's acquisition of the domain name was not in bad faith. The Panel found our client had the right to use the term CREAM in a generic fashion. The Complainant was creamed on all three factors under the Policy.

Boson Software, Inc. v. Modern Software, Case No. 01cv585 (M.D. FL). This suit involved two software companies where we asserted claims under the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The suit is still in progress.

Goldrush World Access, Ltd. v. JPS.NET Corp., Case No. 97cv2265 (E.D. CA). This action is a suit against one of our client's competitors for using a hacker to break into its computer system in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. งง 2701 et seq.), the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. งง 1030 et seq.); the California Computer Crime Act (Cal. Penal Code ง 502); trade secret theft (Cal. Civil Code งง 3426-3426.10); unfair competition (Cal. Bus. & Prop. Code งง 17200 et seq.); and various state claims. A settlement was reached with a substantial payment to our client.

Seventh on Sixth, Inc. v. Hurricane Interactive Technology Solutions, Inc., Case No. 97cv5666 (S.D.N.Y.). Our client, Seventh on Sixth, provides seasonal fashion-shows for the United States fashion industry. An integral part of its fashion shows are to provide information and photographs of the show in progress over the Internet. The Defendant, plaintiff's former internet service provider, improperly obtained control of the domain name "www.7thonsixth.com" in the crucial first days of a show. Suit was brought against the Defendant for trademark and copyright infringement, unfair competition, and malicious interference with business relations. The case was successfully settled in our client's favor.

Draper v. Little & Associates, Inc., Case No. 98cv3009 (D. MO.). This suit involved theft by an ex-employee of customer lists and other materials from a medical recruiting service conducted over the Internet.

Back to Copyright.