Recent Developments in Various Pending Trademark Cases

Back in the good ole days of 2009-2010 when I actually had time to blog, I posted about three particular lawsuits filed in the District of Nevada – each of which had significant developments this week (all reported on by VegasInc’s Steve Green).

Arrow Productions Ltd. v. V.C.X., Ltd. et al, Case No. 09-cv-00737 (D. Nev.) (previous blog post here)

The copyright and trademark dispute over “Deep Throat.” As reported by VegasInc., the parties reached a settlement whereby VCX agreed to stop selling “Deep Throat” (the copyright to which Arrow claimed) and Arrow agreed to stop selling “Debbie Does Dallas” (the copyright to which VCX claimed). As part of the court’s order and judgment (copy here), there are stipulated facts regarding the chain of title for the copyright to the film “Deep Throat” (including addressing the issue of how copies of the film were distributed without a copyright notice, and yet how that did not put the film in the public domain because the copyright owner technically leased the theaters when the film was shown (so-called “four walling”) and retained control over the prints – with any other copies being unauthorized prints).

Mine O'Mine, Inc. v. Michael Calmese, True Fan Logo, Inc. and Dan Mortense, Case No. 10-cv-00043 (D. Nev.) (previous blog post here)

The trademark lawsuit filed by Shaquille O’Neal over Defendants’ use of the mark SHAQTUS. As reported by VegasInc., the court issued a detailed summary judgment ruling earlier this year (copy here) that found the Defendants only started using the mark SHAQTUS after sportswriters gave O’Neal that name when he began playing for the Phoenix Suns and that there was a likelihood of consumer confusion arising between shirts sold by O’Neal’s company and SHAQTUS shirts sold by Defendants. This week, the court entered judgment against the Defendants (copy here) which terminated the litigation because of O’Neal’s willingness to drop the cybersquatting and dilution claims that remained following the court’s summary judgment order.

Caesars World, Inc. v. July et al, Case No. 11-cv-00536 (D. Nev.) (previous blog post here)

The cybersquatting action filed by Caesars Palace against Marcel July and his use of the mark OCTAVIUS TOWER. As reported by VegasInc., the court denied July’s motion for preliminary injunction (copy here) finding that July failed to meet the necessary burden to merit injunctive relief. July’s only argument was his PTO registration for the name OCTAVIUS TOWER for entertainment services (along with some state registrations). The court noted that while the registration served as prima facie evidence of July’s exclusive rights to use the mark for entertainment services, such evidence can be rebutted – and in this case, the court found that Caesars had made “strong arguments” against July’s use of the mark that “extinguishes” July’s prima facie case. July did not respond to Caesar’s arguments. Moreover, July also failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, balance of hardships favoring him, or that that injunction would be in the public interest.

GoPets v. Hise, Does Transferring a Domain Name Create a New "Registration" under the ACPA?

[Post by Mark Borghese]

The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act ("ACPA") provides that a person is liable to a trademark owner when the person (1) registers a domain name, (2) in bad faith, (3) that at the time of registration was “identical or confusingly similar to” a distinctive trademark. See 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1).

When analyzing claims under the ACPA, timing is critical. Often an entity will acquire trademark rights long after a domain name is first registered. When a domain name is registered and continuously maintained by a single individual or entity, what is meant by the "time of registration" of the domain name is clear. It is the date the domain name was first registered.

The question courts have grappled with is whether transfers of a domain name from one registrar to another constitutes a "new registration" or whether transfers from one entity to another constitutes a "new registration." If these transfer are "new registrations" then the registration date of the domain name may be reset to a point after the trademark owner acquired rights in a trademark. In those instances, the trademark owner has an opportunity to use the ACPA to acquire domains which were originally registered before it had any trademark rights.

The underlying legal question really boils down to this: is the ownership of a domain name a property right or a contractual right? If a domain name is a property right then rights acquired when a domain name is first registered are freely transferable to a subsequent owner. If a domain name is merely a contractual right, then the rights may change every time a new agreement is signed with a registrar and every time a new owner signs an agreement with a registrar.

On September 22, 2011 the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling in GoPets v. Hise, __ F.3d __, (9th Cir. 2011) that ownership of a domain name is a property right. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit held that that the term "registration" under the ACPA applies to the very first time a domain name is registered. Rights which existed at the time a domain name was registered (e.g. that the registration was not in "bad faith" and was not "identical or confusingly similar" to an existing trademark) are not lost simply because the domain name was transferred to a new entity.

In GoPets, the defendant Edward Hise registered the domain name gopets.com in 1999. Hise had a few ides for a site he might develop with the domain name, but never did much with it. In 2004 a Korean company, GoPets Ltd. developed a virtual pet game called GoPets which involved creating and customizing a virtual pet that would live on your computer's desktop.

In October 2004, GoPets Ltd. first approached Hise about buying the GoPets Ltd. domain name. GoPets Ltd. offered a paltry $750 to Hise. This offer was first ignored by Hise and later rejected. Seven months later in May 2005 GoPets Ltd. tried again. Instead of raising its offer, however, it threatened Hise with an ICANN domain dispute claim and lowered its offer to $100.

GoPets Ltd. attempt at intimidating and insulting Hise was fruitless and a dispute before the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") was commenced a year later in May 2006. In July 2006 a WIPO arbitrator decided in favor of Hise. The ruling was simple-- Hise had registered the domain name in 1999 well before the GoPets game was developed in 2004. Hise clearly did not have a bad faith intent to register the domain name at the time he registered it.

A few months after the WIPO decision, GoPets Ltd. increased its offer to $5,000 and then to $40,000. Instead of negotiating, Hise got greedy. In response, Hise sent a four page letter to GoPets Ltd. demanding a ridiculous $5 Million for the domain. Two days after sending this letter, Hise transferred gopets.com from himself to his brother's corporation Digital Overture. This transfer was a critical error by Hise as under prior court rulings this type of transfer was a "new registration" of the domain name which re-set the date of registration from 1999 to 2006.

GoPets Ltd. immediately pounced on this mistake and filed an action in federal court in the Central District of California. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of GoPets Ltd. finding that Digital Overture's "registration" of the gopets.com domain name in 2006 was done after GoPets Ltd. had acquired its trademark rights and was therefore in "bad faith." Hise appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

The Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court's ruling and held that "registration" under the ACPA refers to the first registration of a domain name. The court found that ownership of a domain name is a property right and rights acquired in a domain name when it is first registered are not lost when that domain name is transferred to a new entity. The court held,

Looking at ACPA in light of traditional property law, however, we conclude that Congress meant “registration” to refer only to the initial registration. It is undisputed that Edward Hise could have retained all of his rights to gopets.com indefinitely if he had maintained the registration of the domain name in his own name. We see no basis in ACPA to conclude that a right that belongs to an initial registrant of a currently registered domain name is lost when that name is transferred to another owner. The general rule is that a property owner may sell all of the rights he holds in property. GoPets Ltd.’s proposed rule would make rights to many domain names effectively inalienable, whether the alienation is by gift, inheritance, sale, or other form of transfer. Nothing in the text or structure of the statute indicates that Congress intended that rights in domain names should be inalienable.

In making this ruling, The Ninth Circuit specifically disagreed with the Third Circuit's decision in Schmidheiny v. Weber, 319 F.3d 581 (3d Cir. 2003). The Ninth Circuit held that the ACPA applies to domain names registered both before and after the ACPA became law in November 1999 which would allay the concerns the Third Circuit expressed in that case. The Ninth Circuit held,

The Third Circuit assumed that Weber’s initial registration of schmidheiny.com was not covered by § 8131(1)(A) because it had been made before the passage of ACPA. See id. at 581-82. Based on that assumption, the Third Circuit was concerned that holding that re-registration was not “registration” within the meaning of ACPA would “permit the domain names of living persons to be sold and purchased without the living persons’ consent, ad infinitum, so long as the name was first registered before the effective date of the Act.” Id. However, we believe that the Third Circuit erred in assuming that Weber’s initial registration was not covered by ACPA. We agree with the holding of the Second Circuit in Sporty’s Farm that § 1125(d)(1)—and, by extension, § 8131(1)(A)—apply to registrations made before the passage of ACPA. See Sporty’s Farm, 202 F.3d at 496-97. If Weber’s initial registration violated § 8131(1)(A), as we would hold it did, the Third Circuit’s concern evaporates.

So will other circuits adopt the Ninth Circuit's reasoning and find that domain names are property rights? The law does seem to be moving in that direction, but there are always exceptions and exceptional cases which may warrant a different view.

EPILOGUE

So Hise won. Or did he? Perhaps the bigger lesson in this case is how the value of the gopets.com domain name plummeted during the appeal. While today, in 2011 Hise retains his ownership interest in gopets.com, the brand "GoPets" was abandoned in late 2009 when Zynga purchased GoPets Ltd.'s assets. Zynga immediately shut down "GoPets" and launched a revamped service, PetVille.


The value of gopets.com is now far less than it was before the GoPets brand was abandoned by Zynga. In retrospect, both parties should have negotiated in good faith. Back in October 2006 Hise should have negotiated with GoPets Ltd. in good faith when it offered $40,000 for the domain name instead making a ridiculous counter-demand for $5 Million. Likewise GoPets Ltd.'s initial offer of $750 and its subsequent offer of $100 were equally ridiculous, if not more so.

The lesson here is two-fold. Failing to negotiate in good faith can lead to unnecessary lawsuits and lawsuits often last longer than internet companies or their brands.

--
About the author
Mark Borghese is a Las Vegas trademark attorney with the law firm of Borghese Legal, Ltd.

Battle of the "Bays": Tradebay vs. eBay

[Post by Mark Borghese]

Does an intent-to-use trademark applicant, faced with a trademark office opposition proceeding, have the right to seek declaratory relief in federal court? Or, does the fact that the applicant has not yet used the mark in commerce prevent a federal court from exercising jurisdiction?

Those are the legal question a federal court in the District of Nevada will have to answer in Tradebay v. eBay, Case No. Case 2:11-cv-00702-ECR -PAL.

This dispute began almost two years ago when, on January 6, 2009, Tradebay filed a trademark application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office for the mark TRADEBAY for various services including "computerized online ordering" and "operating online marketplaces for seller and buyers of goods and/or services."

When Tradebay's trademark was approved by the trademark office and published for opposition, eBay immediately opposed the mark claiming that consumers would confuse Tradebay and eBay. In support of this opposition, eBay cites Perfumebay.com Inc. v. eBay Inc., 506 F3d 1165 (9th Cir., Nove. 5, 2007) where the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stated that the term "BAY" was the dominant portion of the eBay mark. From this ruling, eBay argues that any "generic" + BAY mark in the internet marketplace space is likely to cause confusion and dilute eBay's distinctive mark.

After the opposition was filed, on May 3, 2011, Tradebay filed a declaratory relief action in the United States District Court, District of Nevada. Tradebay wanted a federal court to make the determination as to whether its mark, Tradebay, was likely to be confused with the famous eBay mark. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board proceeding was thereafter stayed in light of the District Court lawsuit.

On June 28, 2011, eBay filed a motion to dismiss Tradebay's District Court lawsuit alleging that no case or controversy existed for the court to decide. The motion argues that dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is the appropriate remedy as no trademark infringement can exist when Tradebay has not yet used the Tradebay mark in commerce.

Courts enforcing Rule 12(b)(6) curtail this risk by weeding out complaints that fail to give rise to a plausible inference of harm to the plaintiff. Neither eBay nor the Court should be required to expend the resources necessary to litigate the merits of claims of trademark infringement and dilution and unfair competition based on nothing more than vague and conclusory allegations that fail to evince the specific and concrete steps to use the mark that might give rise to a controversy of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment. Dismissal is the appropriate remedy here.

Tradebay filed an opposition to the motion on August 2, 2011, arguing that the "case or controversy" standard has been met and pointing out that as early as January 30, 2009 Tradebay received a cease and desist letter from eBay accusing it of infringing and diluting eBay's trademark rights.

Tradebay’s complaint presents an "actual controversy" within the meaning of the caselaw. Specifically, almost immediately after Tradebay filed its trademark application, eBay sent a cease and desist letter. If Tradebay refused eBay's demands, eBay threatened to "take whatever actions eBay deems necessary to protect its rights." Exhibit 2-A. eBay reaffirmed the identical threat a few days later. Exhibit 2-B. Once Tradebay’s application was accepted for publication, eBay opposed it in the USPTO. Exhibit 3-A.

In its reply brief filed August 25, 2011, eBay argues again that no case or controversy exists as Tradebay has not taken any concrete steps to actually use its Tradebay mark, such as developing a product line, conducting market research, or creating packaging and advertising.

Tradebay makes no attempt to show that it has alleged, let alone actually undertaken, any concrete steps to actually use the TRADEBAY mark in connection with any goods or services. At best, Tradebay has alleged nothing more than a vague and indefinite desire to use the TRADEBAY mark at some future date. That does not come close to showing a real and immediate controversy. Tradebay's utter failure to allege the requisite concrete steps can only lead to the conclusion that it has not engaged in any such activity. Under these circumstances, it would be a waste of the Court's (and eBay's) time and resources to render what would amount to an impermissible advisory opinion as to whether activities Tradebay may or may not undertake in the future would infringe or dilute eBay's trademarks.

Under the facts in this case, eBay argues that Tradebay is simply requesting that the court issue an improper advisory opinion rather than settle an actual trademark infringement dispute involving two competing marks being used in commerce.

The briefing on this issue is now closed and an order from the court is expected within the next ninety days. This ruling will be an interesting one to watch.

About the author
Mark Borghese is a Las Vegas internet attorney with the law firm of Borghese Legal, Ltd.

Another Epic Trademark Battle Prematurely Ends With Amicable, Reasonable Settlement

Tropicana Las Vegas

In one of my longer blog posts last year (link here), I detailed the convoluted and complicated history of the TROPICANA Hotel/Casino trademark – a fascinating look at how trademark rights are handled in the course of multiple large scale corporate transactions (including bankruptcy proceedings) and how certain things can (and indeed do) fall through the cracks.

What started out as a simple declaratory judgment action in Nevada state court by the new owners of the Tropicana Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas regarding their long-time right to use the name Tropicana in connection with that specific hotel/casino located at the intersection of Las Vegas Blvd. and Tropicana Avenue blew up into an epic lawsuit filed in Delaware Bankruptcy Court by a group of companies lead by Carl Icahn's Tropicana Entertainment Inc. The matters had been fully briefed by both sides and were awaiting a court hearing.

But alas, now we’ll never know how exactly the bankruptcy court would’ve unraveled the convoluted trademark issues raised by Tropicana Entertainment’s adversary proceeding (we know how the Clark County District Court decided those issues, but that is in part what led to Tropicana Entertainment to file the adversary proceeding it did in bankruptcy court).

As reported by VegasInc’s Steve Green (link here), the parties announced in mid-August that they had reached a Settlement that resolves the outstanding trademark disputes and which provides for an agreement regarding concurrent use by both parties of the mark TROPICANA. A copy of the Settlement Agreement, with all of its provisions regarding concurrent use of the Tropicana name by the respective parties, can be viewed here.

In short, Tropicana Las Vegas can continue to use the mark TROPICANA LAS VEGAS (or TROP LAS VEGAS) or TROPICANA LV (or TROP LV) in the city of Las Vegas, Nevada and within a 50 mile radius from the present location of the Tropicana Las Vegas Hotel and Casino. Tropicana Las Vegas can promote itself worldwide so long as it always mentions the property location. Tropicana Las Vegas does not get any other rights to use the mark TROPICANA, TROP, or any variation thereof apart from its rights to use the mark in reference to its Las Vegas property (although a small exception is made for on-property signage and certain marketing campaigns such as “Trop ‘Til You Drop” and “Trop Party Pass” so long as there is also a reference to the Las Vegas location). The agreement expressly consents to Tropicana Las Vegas’s use of the following logo

and clarifies that in any other logos used by Tropicana Las Vegas, the Las Vegas (or LV) portion of the mark shall not be smaller or less prominent in proportion to TROPICANA or TROP than as reflected in the above logo.

As for what Tropicana Entertainment gets out the deal, it gets the exclusive rights to use TROPICANA and TROP, but provided that it also is accompanied by some other mark indicating either a geographic location (other than Las Vegas obviously) or some other mark to identify services currently offered by Tropicana Entertainment (e.g., Tropicana Advantage).

The Agreement also deals with how the parties will handle present and future trademark registrations for marks using TROPICANA, use of their respective marks on the Internet, and issues relating to enforcement of rights in their respective territories.

By entering into this Settlement Agreement (with concurrent use provision regarding the trademark rights), the parties certainly ended up doing the smart thing in reaching an amicable settlement – bringing to a halt a dispute that had likely cost the parties millions of dollars in attorney fees and costs (fees that would have continued to be incurred given the high stakes) and doing so in a way that brings certainty to the rights of the parties moving forward. And it was probably the fair outcome given the long-time association that the world does have with the name Tropicana in connection with that particular hotel in Las Vegas while at the same time recognizing Tropicana Entertainment's investment in the name outside of Las Vegas.

Of course, at the same time, it would’ve been interesting to see which way the bankruptcy court would have sided in this dispute (and the legal rationale for such decision).

Mystic Lodge Loses Trademark Battle with Mystic Lake

Mystic Lake Casino Hotel in Minnesota

[Post by Mark Borghese]

As first reported by Steve Green, Mystic Lodge casino in Henderson ("Mystic Lodge") lost its trademark dispute with the Mystic Lake Casino Hotel in Minnesota ("Mystic Lake"). This case was first discussed on this blog here. In a July 25, 2011 order, U.S. District Judge James Mahan issued a Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction against Mystic Lodge ordering it to change its name.

Mystic Lodge Casino in Henderson, Nevada

The chips were stacked against Mystic Lodge from the beginning of this case. Not only are the two marks, Mystic Lodge and Mystic Lake substantially similar, but both marks are for the same services. Moreover, the senior user, Mystic Lake has been using its servicemark for almost twenty years and has multiple federal registrations.

Although a small Henderson, Nevada casino with no hotel and a large Minnesota Indian hotel casino resort may seem worlds apart, the Minnesota tribe which runs Mystic Lake argued in its Motion for Summary Judgment that both casinos operate on a national level and compete for the same customers.

[T]he undisputed evidence supports the conclusion that Mystic Lake Casino and Mystic Lodge Casino operate in a market that includes a nation-wide consumer base. First, more than 100 of the same individuals appear in both Mystic Lake Casino and Mystic Lodge Casino’s respective player databases… Mystic Lake and Mystic Lodge also have player databases that include residents of all 50 states… Both Mystic Lake and Mystic Lodge casino services expressly cater to travelers and tourists… In fact, both parties have thousands of customers in Nevada alone…. Simply put, [Mystic Lake] and [Mystic Lodge] compete for the same discretionary consumer dollar—Mystic Lodge is a competitor of Mystic Lake.

Mystic Lodge attempted to argue the Dawn Donut rule as a defense to the issuance of an injunction against it. That rule, first set out in the case Dawn Donut Co., Inc. v. Hart’s Food Stores, Inc., 267 F.2d 358 (2d Cir. 1959) provides a defense to the issuance of an injunction against a good faith junior user of a trademark which adopts the mark without knowledge of the federally registered mark and which operates in a geographically separate and distinct trading area to the senior user.

Judge Mahan however, ruled that the Dawn Donut defense was not applicable to the facts before the court because Mystic Lodge had actual knowledge of the federal registration for Mystic Lake, but decided to adopt the mark anyway.

The defendants argue under Dawn Donut that when two marks are confined to sufficiently distinct and geographically separate markets, without evidence that the registrant will expand to the defendant’s market, the plaintiff is not entitled to enjoin the junior user’s mark. See 267 F.2d at 364. Further, the “injunctive remedy does not ripen until the registrant shows a likelihood of entry into the disputed territory.” McCarthy, supra, at § 26:33. In the alternative, the defendants’ assert that there is a presumption of good faith since an opinion letter from counsel permitted the use of the mark. The court disagrees.

Here, the Dawn Donut defense does not apply to the plaintiff’s ability to receive injunctive relief due to the bad faith shown. The defendants received actual knowledge of the plaintiff’s registered mark through counsel, ignored requests for alternate names, and disobeyed express recommendations on how to limit the possibility of infringement. Although the final opinion letter by counsel timidly approved the use of the mark with certain limitations, the email from counsel advising that the mark was already registered and the senior user would aggressively protect it disallows the final opinion to serve as a rubber stamp for the defendants’ actions. “The Ninth Circuit does not . . . insulate the defendant from a finding of willful infringement based on advice of counsel of noninfringement.” Monster Cable Prods., Inc. v. Discovery Commn’s, Inc., No. C 03-03250, 2004 WL 2445348, *9 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2004) (citing Wolfe v. Nat’l Lead Co., 272 F.2d 867, 871 (9th Cir. 1959).

The lesson, of course, is to follow the recommendations of your attorney. Moreover, if you are willing to spend the money to get an attorney’s opinion about potential trademarks, use the advice to pick a name that (1) not federally registered and (2) is not the name used by a competitor in the United States for the same goods and services you want to sell.

The Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction prevents Mystic Lodge from,

(a) Distributing, displaying, marketing, promoting, offering for sale, and/or selling any goods or services using the mark Mystic Lodge Casino, or any other phrase, slogan, or business name that incorporates the word “Mystic” (a “Mystic Mark”);

(b) Affixing a Mystic Mark to any product, advertisement, point of sale material, interior/exterior signage or other promotional material;

(c) Disseminating any product, advertisement, point of sale material, signage or other promotional material containing or incorporating a Mystic Mark;

(d) Registering any domain name which includes the word “mystic” or any Mystic Mark; and

(e) Registering and/or applying for any trademark registration for a Mystic Mark.

The Judgment also gives Mystic Lake sixty (60) days to provide written confirmation that it is no longer using the Mystic Lodge mark and transfer all domain names which include the Mystic Lodge Mark to Minnesota casino.

Mystic Lodge has now filed an emergency motion to stay the ruling pending it’s appeal to the Ninth Circuit. In the motion, Mystic Lodge argues,

If a stay is not granted, Defendants face the risk of being put out of business complying with a permanent injunction before having been ultimately found by a jury not to have infringed upon Plaintiff's mark. Equally important, Plaintiff will not be harmed by a temporary stay of the permanent injunction pending appeal.

Of course Mystic Lodge can simply change its name and re-brand its business. While such a move may be expensive, so is an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This case once again highlights the importance of local Las Vegas businesses obtaining national trademark protection for their brands.

About the author
Mark Borghese is a Las Vegas business attorney with the law firm of Borghese Legal, Ltd.

A Lot of Love in Las Vegas Lately

[or alternatively, "Anything You Can Trademark, I Can Trademark Better."]

Earlier this year, as local Las Vegas hotel-casino chain Station Casinos was emerging from bankruptcy, it made a large splash about its new marketing campaign focusing on the locals market in Las Vegas and embracing the marketing slogan WE LOVE LOCALS (news story on the rebranding here).

So what did rival hotel-casino South Point decide to do? Came up with its own marketing slogan that not only is able to take advantage of the notoriety developed by Station Casinos in its LOVE mark, but able to clearly distinguish itself from Station Casinos at the same time (South Point's "Love" website here).

Clever comparative marketing (if you ask me) -- I wonder how Station Casinos feels about sharing the love.

Golden Nugget's Cybersquatting Campaign

GNLV, Corp., the company which owns the Golden Nugget Hotel & Casino in downtown Las Vegas (as well as Golden Nuggets in Laughlin and Atlantic City), continues its campaign to go after cybersquatters. After a two year lull of filing any type of cybersquatting lawsuits, GNLV has now filed five since April 27, 2011. [Ed.—Is this perhaps a sign of the improving economy that a gaming company is willing to invest the money to pursue such lawsuits in order to obtain (and/or prevent others from using) domain names of questionable value?]

In late April, GNLV Corp sued German resident Luca Mueller over the domain golddennugget.com (with an extra “d” in the spelling of Golden) which GNLV alleged linked to an online gambling site. See GNLV, Corp. v. Mueller, Case No. 11-cv-00663 (D. Nev. Filed April 27, 2011). (VegasInc article here.) Later in May, GNLV Corp. sued Kanter Associates over the domain name thegoldennuggett.com (with an extra “t” in the spelling of Nugget) which GNLV alleged linked to a travel reservation website. See GNLV, Corp. v. Kanter Associates SA, Case No. 11-cv-00827 (D. Nev. Filed May 20, 2011). (VegasInc article here.)

On May 31, 2011, GNLV filed three more cybersquatting lawsuits. The first lawsuit against Harald Ebert relates to the domain name www.goldennugget.info, which GNLV claims is linked to a website which offers “links to many of the same wagering games that are offered at Plaintiff’s casino resorts, such as Blackjack, Poker and Slots.” See GNLV, Corp. v. Mueller, Case No. 11-cv-00875 (D. Nev.). The second lawsuit against Marco Eckstein relates to the domain name www.golden-nugget-jackpot.com, which GNLV claims is linked to a website which offers “links to many of the same wagering games that are offered at Plaintiff’s casino resorts, such as slots.” See GNLV, Corp. v. Eckstein, Case No. 11-cv-00878 (D. Nev.). The third lawsuit against Hilary Moore involves the domain name www.seventysevengoldennuggets.com. See GNLV, Corp. v. Moore, Case No. 11-cv-00873 (D. Nev.). As for why GNLV can claim that the registration of this last domain name, which would be perceived by almost anybody as “77 Golden Nuggets” and not likely associated with GNLV’s GOLDEN NUGGET mark, constitutes cybersquatting? It would be because, according to the complaint, the domain name is linked to “a site offering a direct link to the Golden Nugget resort-hotel travel and reservation services, including a direct link to Plaintiff’s property located in Las Vegas, Nevada.” [ed.—might’ve been an easier case to defend had Defendant used the website in connection a gold mining business].

Of course, while I didn’t review the particular website printout exhibits attached to each complaint, a quick visit to each of the above domain names shows that they are your typical “landing page” offering various pay-per-click (“PPC”) generated ads (some of which may, as GNLV alleges, go to websites offering “the same wagering games offered by Plaintiff’s casino resorts” or to “resort-hotel travel and reservation services”). Are any of these particular websites truly causing economic harm to GNLV? Highly doubtful. So why is GNLV spending money filing lawsuits to go after domains that don’t really have much direct value for GNLV (and are certainly not diverting any business to GNLV’s own hotel/casino)? Perhaps simply because it can . . . and because it’s not as costly as you might think

When one considers that the minimum cost that a trademark owner would incur to file a domain name arbitration action under the UDRP is around $3000 (including fees paid for the arbitrator) and with an uncertain outcome (as anybody who has been involved in UDRP arbitrations will tell you), these lawsuits are a much much more cost effective way for a company to obtain possession of these domain names ($300 lawsuit filing fee, $100 bond, and maybe around $500-$1000 per case for attorneys fees and costs (assuming great economies of scale), since most of the documents are nearly identical and can be prepared mostly by administrative staff). In addition, unlike in a UDRP action, the lawsuit route allows the complainant to make a claim towards statutory damages for cybersquatting (minimum $1000 up to $100000 per domain name). Given the low likelihood that the Defendants will even respond to the complaints, each lawsuit has the strong potential to garner a $100,000 default judgment (albeit a judgment that is more often than not nearly impossible to collect).

Still, even at a price of about $1000 per domain name, one wonders why GNLV wants to invest even that amount of money for some of the domain names it is seeking. All GNLV is doing is preventing other third parties from obtaining a relatively minuscule amount of PPC revenue from the PPC ads showcased on the landing pages for each of these websites. As for the websites involving typosquatting, I continue to maintain that the vast majority of web users looking for GNLV’s GOLDEN NUGGET are saavy enough with respect to internet browsing that they will not be sidetracked by a landing page that offers links to an online casino or other hotel/casino – and will instead recognize their typo and retype the correct URL address or perform a search using one of the more popular internet search engines (which are certainly not fooled by these websites). When all is said and done, GNLV will be the proud owner of several domain names that will likely do very little in promoting the GOLDEN NUGGET brand and will generate very little additional traffic for GNLV's websites (along with very little additional revenue) beyond what GNLV would’ve already had, but which GNLV now will have to continue to pay annual registration fees in order to maintain these domain names. But I guess GNLV considers that fee (along with the fees paid to its lawyers for these sutis) a small price to pay to prevent domainers from making a single penny (literally) off of the GOLDEN NUGGET mark.

[UPDATE (July 26, 2011) -- Ron Coleman's Likelihood of Confusion® blog provides his response to my query here -- along with a shameless proposal to the people at the Golden Nugget to "handle their cost-effectiveness-be-damned domain trademark enforcement programs."]