Recently-filed trademark cases in the E.D. Va. focus on Web and search tactics
This past week, three new trademark infringement cases were filed in the Eastern District of Virginia. They span the Court's three divisions and all center on web and search engine related conduct.
The first, Mazelmints, Inc. v. It's A Wrap LLC et al (case no. 1:10-cv-01117 [-LO-TRJ]), was brought by the maker of lines of novelty mints named “Engagemints” and “Announcemints” (not to mention “BarMintsVah’s”). (Complaint here.) When the defendant sold “Engage-mints” and “Announce-mints” on its website, www.mymint-tins.com, things turned sour. (Sorry, couldn’t help myself.) Although a cease-and-desist letter got a response that the defendant had removed the offending items, Mazelmints claims that the defendant is still using the terms in website metadata – read and considered by search engines as they index the site. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, destruction of infringing products, and damages. With the defendants in Kentucky and the plaintiff in Maryland, it’s not entirely clear why the case finds itself in the Eastern District.
We’ve blogged recently about the RosettaStone / Google brouhaha over companies paying Google to display their ads in response to searches for trademarks that they don’t own. Is use of website “metadata” tags analytically different? Will courts presume that meta tags create damage, or must a litigant prove the effect on search engine results?
The second, Franko-LaFratta Construction Inc. v. Classic Kitchens of Virginia, Inc. (case no. 3:10-cv-00723 [REP]), is a cybersquatting lawsuit between renovation and design/construction companies. (Complaint here.) The plaintiff claims that many of the 100 website names registered by defendant’s vice-president are his competitors’ names, including in this case various forms of frankolafratta.suffix (basically all of the common suffixes but “.com”). According to an article in Richmond BizSense that’s an exhibit to the complaint, the defendant has done so with respect to the names of other competitors too, all to increase the traffic to and visibility of defendant’s website.
Finally, the third, Chanel, Inc. v. Ling et al (case no. 2:10-cv-00489 [MSD-DEM]), is a global trademark and cyberpiracy suit targeting websites and an individual, believed to be in China, selling knockoffs using Chanel website names and marks. (Complaint here.) Chanel seeks the websites, injunctive relief, trebled or statutory damages, and attorneys fees.
With tough times, a global marketplace, and the Internet adding to the rough and tumble of business, these are just the latest examples of disputes over trademark use and protection in cyberspace.
