To receive Laws of .Com by email, please send an email to subscribe@lawsof.com with the word "subscribe" in the subject line. To unsubscribe, please send an email to unsubscribe@lawsof.com with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line.
Career Agents Network Domain Name Dispute
In Career Agents Network, Inc. v. careeragentsnetwork.biz et al., Judge Robert H. Cleland of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Southern Division) granted the Defendant's motion for summary judgment and denied the Plaintiff's motion for judgment in a case involving the Defendant's alleged cybersquatting (under the U.S. Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”)) and trademark infringement (under the U.S. Lanham Act).
The Plaintiff, Career Agents Network, Inc. (“CAN”), an international consortium of independently owned recruiting companies, was an applicant for the trademark, CAREER AGENTS NETWORK. Defendant Lawrence R. White, as agent for AeroMedia Marketing, Inc., registered two domain names, careeragentsnetwork.biz and careeragentnetwork.biz (the “Domain Names”), and uploaded on these websites only the following text: “WARNING: If you are considering investing in this “opportunity”, be aware that it is highly improbable that you will earn enough to cover your investment. If you proceed with this company you have been warned by those that know and have lost $20,000 - $150,000 by trusting them and their “plan”.”
Defendant White claimed that: (1) at the time the Domain Names were registered, the Plaintiff had no substantive online presence; (2) the Defendant’s sole intent in creating the websites was to express an opinion about the business of the Plaintiff; (3) at no time did the Defendant make or seek to make a profit as a result of the operation of the websites; and (4) the Defendant was not aware of any customers who confused his websites with that of the Plaintiff.
On the issue of cybersquatting, the Judge ruled that “Defendant’s use of Plaintiff's alleged mark in the Domain Names registered to criticize the Plaintiff's business is not “inconsistent with,” nor in violation of, the APCA. Plaintiff cannot show that Defendants had a bad faith intent to profit, and summary judgment will thus be granted to Defendants on this count.”
On the issue of trademark infringement, the Judge ruled that “Defendants’ use of the Domain Names was not commercially misleading. Plaintiff can therefore not invoke the Lanham Act to protect itself from unwanted critical commentary. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment will be granted.”
For a copy of the decision, visit :