Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Vulcan Golf, LLC v. Google Inc. et al - Document No. 103

Vulcan Golf, LLC v. Google Inc. et al - Document No. 103

Ratings: (0)|Views: 6 |Likes:
Published by Justia.com
MEMORANDUM by Oversee.Net in support of motion to dismiss 98 First Amended Class Action Complaint (Carter, Janelle) 1:2007cv03371 Illinois Northern District Court
MEMORANDUM by Oversee.Net in support of motion to dismiss 98 First Amended Class Action Complaint (Carter, Janelle) 1:2007cv03371 Illinois Northern District Court

More info:

Published by: Justia.com on Apr 30, 2008
Copyright:Public Domain

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/14/2013

pdf

text

original

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

VULCAN GOLF, LLC, JOHN B.
)
SANFILIPPO & SON, INC., BLITZ

) REALTY GROUP, INC., and VINCENT ) E. "BO" JACKSON, Individually And

)
On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, )
No. 07 CV 3371
)
Lead Plaintiffs,
)
)
Honorable Blanche M. Manning
v.
))
Magistrate Judge Geraldine Soat Brown
GOOGLE INC., OVERSEE.NET,
)
SEDO LLC, DOTSTER, INC., AKA
)
REVENUEDIRECT.COM,

) INTERNET REIT, INC. d/b/a IReit, INC. ) and JOHN DOES I-X,

)
)
Defendants.
)

DEFENDANT OVERSEE.NET'S SEPARATE MEMORANDUM
OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 1:07-cv-03371 Document 103
Filed 10/18/2007 Page 1 of 20
Vulcan Golf, LLC v. Google Inc. et al
Doc. 103
Dockets.Justia.com
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................1
STANDARD OF REVIEW...........................................................................................................2
ARGUMENT..................................................................................................................................2

I.

Plaintiffs Have Failed to State a Claim for Trademark Infringement Under 15
U.S.C. \u00a7 1114(1) or for Common Law Trademark Infringement (Counts IV and
IX). .......................................................................................................................................2

A.
Plaintiffs Have Not Alleged That Oversee Used Any of Plaintiffs\u2019 Marks.............2
B.
Plaintiffs Have Not Alleged That Oversee Caused A Likelihood of
Confusion As Required Under 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 1114....................................................5
II.
Plaintiffs' False Designation of Origin Claim Fails Because Plaintiff Does Not
Adequately Allege That Oversee Used Plaintiffs' Marks (Count V)...................................7
III.

Plaintiffs' Dilution Claim Fails Because Plaintiffs Do Not Allege That the Marks
At Issue Were Commercially Used by Oversee in Commerce or That They are
Famous (Count VI). .............................................................................................................8

A.
Plaintiffs Do Not Allege that Oversee Used the Marks in Commerce....................8
B.
Plaintiffs Do Not Adequately Allege that the Marks At Issue Were
Famous.....................................................................................................................9
IV.

Plaintiffs\u2019 Contributory and Vicarious Trademark Infringement Claims Fail
Because Plaintiffs Have Failed to Allege Underlying Direct Infringement
(Counts X and XI)..............................................................................................................10

V.
Plaintiffs' Cybersquatting Claim Fails Because Plaintiffs Have Not Sufficiently
Alleged the Elements Required for a Claim Under the ACPA (Count III). ......................12
A.

Plaintiffs Failed to Adequately Allege That Oversee Was a Domain
Name Registrant or a Registrant\u2019s Authorized Licensee of the Alleged
Deceptive Domains................................................................................................12

B.
Plaintiffs' Own Allegations Negate The Requisite Bad Faith Intent.....................13
CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................14
Case 1:07-cv-03371 Document 103
Filed 10/18/2007 Page 2 of 20
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
1-800 Contact, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc.,
414 F.3d 400 (2d Cir. 2005)................................................................................................... 3-4
Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences v. Network Solutions, Inc.,
989 F. Supp. 1276 (C.D. Cal. 1997)..........................................................................................8
American Airlines, Inc.
v. A 1-800-A-M-E-R-I-C-A-N.....................................................................................................6
Avery Dennison Corp. v. Sumpton,
189 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 1999)................................................................................................. 8-9
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007)...............................................................................................................2
Berghoff Rest. Co. v. Lewis W. Berghoff, Inc.,
357 F. Supp. 127 (N.D. Ill. 1973),af f\u2019 d, 499 F.2d 1183 (7th Cir. 1974)..................................2
Bird v. Parsons,
289 F.3d 865 (6th Cir. 2002)....................................................................................... 3-4, 8, 12
D 56, Inc. v. Berry's Inc.,
No. 95 C 5992, 1996 WL 252557 (N.D. Ill. May 10, 1996).....................................................5
DaimlerChrysler AG v. Bloom,
315 F.3d 932 (8th Cir. 2003).....................................................................................................6
Do It Best Corp. v. Passport Software, Inc.,
No. 01 C 7674, 2004 WL 1660814 (N.D. Ill. July 23, 2004).................................................10
FieldTurf, Inc. v. Triexe Management Group, Inc.,
No. 03 C 5704, 2003 WL 22956000 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 11, 2003).................................................8
Ford Motor Co. v. Greatdomains.com, Inc.,
177 F. Supp. 2d 635 (E.D. Mich. 2001)...................................................................................12
Hard Rock Cafe Licensing Corp. v. Concession Services, Inc.,
955 F.2d 1143 (7th Cir. 1992).................................................................................................11
Holiday Inns, Inc. v. 800 Reservation, Inc.,
86 F.3d 619 (6th Cir. 1996)............................................................................................... 2, 5-6
Case 1:07-cv-03371 Document 103
Filed 10/18/2007 Page 3 of 20

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->