• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKAADRIENNE MEINTS, an Individual, ))Case No. 4:08-cv-03043Plaintiff,))vs. )COMPLAINT)MELTECH, INC., a Nebraska Corporation,and SHANE HARRINGTON, anIndividual,))) )Defendants.)COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Adrienne Meints, and for her cause of action against theDefendants, Meltech, Inc. and Shane Harrington, states and alleges as follows:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.
 
This action arises under the Anti-Cybersquatting Protection Act (the “ACPA”), whichis codified in the Lanham Trademark Act 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051
et seq
., at 15 U.S.C. §1129. Accordingly, this Court has federal jurisdiction over the subject matter of thisaction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1121 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1338(a).2.
 
In addition, this Complaint alleges claims brought pursuant to common law.Jurisdiction in this Court for the common law claims of tortuous interference with business advantage is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, supplemental jurisdiction, byvirtue of the common law claims arising from the same controversy as theaforementioned Federal Claim.3.
 
Venue in this district is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
PARTIES
4.
 
The Plaintiff, Adrienne Meints, is a “living person” as that phrase is used in 15 U.S.C.§ 1129(1)(A), and an individual residing in Lincoln, Nebraska.
 
5.
 
The Defendant, Meltech, Inc., is a corporation organized under the laws of the Stateof Nebraska. Its corporate president and secretary is Defendant Shane Harrington.6.
 
The Defendant, Shane Harrington, is a “person” as that phrase is used in 15 U.S.C. §1129(1)(A) and is an individual residing in Lincoln, Nebraska. Based on informationand belief, Mr. Harrington is either the sole owner or a co-owner of Defendant,Meltech, Inc.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
7.
 
At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, Adrienne Meints, has engaged in the businessof providing and profiting from the use of her image, name and likeness in internet- based commerce. In pursuit of these business objectives, she routinely andconsistently uses the name “Adri”, without a surname, to identify herself  professionally. This name constitutes a distinctive mark identifying the Plaintiff asthe source for the content provided on the website bearing her name, a practice that iscommonly used and accepted in the industry.8.
 
At all times material hereto prior to February 2008, Plaintiff owned the rights to usethe domain name “HotAdri.com” (also hereinafter referred to as “the domain name”).The domain name is a trademark, and is owned by the Plaintiff by virtue of her contractual relationship with Steve Hoisington and Octogy Media Partners, LLC.9.
 
Plaintiff derives most of her income by offering access to her likeness and her personthrough her website, which was available to the public at HotAdri.com prior to theacts of Defendant described particularly herein.10.
 
In or about February 2008, one or both of the Defendants purported to purchase therights to the internet domain name “HotAdri.com” from Steve Hoisington without the2
 
consent or permission of Plaintiff Adrienne Meints or Octogy Media Partners, LLC(“Octogy”). The Defendants did so with knowledge of the contractual relationship between the Plaintiff, Steve Hoisington and Octogy, particularly the fact that SteveHoisington did not have the right to sell or otherwise convey the HotAdri.comdomain name without the consent or agreement of the Plaintiff.11.
 
After the purported sale of the domain name to the Defendants, the Defendantsregistered Shane Harrington as the owner/registrant of the HotAdri.com domainname.
See
Domain Name Registration attached hereto and made a part hereof asExhibit “A”.12.
 
The Plaintiff and Defendant Meltech, Inc. are the parties to a lawsuit captioned
Meltech, Inc. v. Adrienne Meints
currently pending in the District Court of Lancaster County, Nebraska, Case No. CI07-3923 (the “State Case”).13.
 
After registering the domain name, on or about March 3, 2008, Defendant Meltech,Inc. contacted the Plaintiff, Adrienne Meints, by and through counsel, stating that itwould be willing to sell the “HotAdri.com” domain name back to Plaintiff in returnfor her agreement to dismiss the claims asserted by her in the State Case. TheDefendant indicated that an agreement to dismiss the claims would need to bereached by 5:00 o’clock p.m. on May 4, 2008 or else the Defendant would remove theconnection between Plaintiff’s website and the domain name HotAdri.com.14.
 
Also on or about March 3, 2008, but after the discussion referenced in Paragraph 8,
 supra
, Defendant Shane Harrington contacted Jeff Miller, President and CEO of Octogy Media Partners, LLC, stating that the was inclined to remove the connection between Plaintiff’s website and the domain name HotAdri.com immediately, but3
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...