Case Name: Salle v Meadows, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92343
Parties: Brian Salle, plaintiff vs. Garner W. Meadows, defendant
Procedure: Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and the defendant filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in the United states District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Facts: Meadows purchased the domain name www.BrianSalle.com for $10.00 and tried to sell the name to Salle for around $10,000. Defendant claims he had no intent to profit from the sale and was merely attempting to recoup money owed to him by the plaintiff. Plaintiff argues the distinction is irrelevant. Plaintiff filed his Motion for Summary Judgment under the Anti-Cybersquatting provision of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C §§ 1125(d) and 1129(1)(A).
Holding: The court held the plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment be granted in part with regard to 15 U.S.C. § 1129 and denied in part. The defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment was granted under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d).
Reasoning: The court reasoned that the issue of whether the plaintiff actually owed the defendant $9,500 was not material. The court has previously stated cyber-extortion is not a permissible way to recover money owed. The plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment under 15 U.S.C. § 1229. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d) a person is liable in a civil action if that person has a bad faith intent to profit from a mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under the section. The plaintiff argued his name was a protected mark under the statute. The defendant argued the section was a restrictive clause and applies only to names which have trademark protection under the Lanham Act. The plaintiff argued the clause was unrestrictive, and therefore his name was protected. The court found the plaintiff’s argument to be implausible. If the plaintiff’s argument was to be adopted it would render § 1229 meaningless and would make other sections of the Lanham Act superfluous. The plaintiff was unable to prove his name was protected under the act. Therefore, the defendant prevailed on the partial summary judgment regarding whether “Brian Salle†was a protected name.
Parties: Brian Salle, plaintiff vs. Garner W. Meadows, defendant
Procedure: Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and the defendant filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in the United states District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Facts: Meadows purchased the domain name www.BrianSalle.com for $10.00 and tried to sell the name to Salle for around $10,000. Defendant claims he had no intent to profit from the sale and was merely attempting to recoup money owed to him by the plaintiff. Plaintiff argues the distinction is irrelevant. Plaintiff filed his Motion for Summary Judgment under the Anti-Cybersquatting provision of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C §§ 1125(d) and 1129(1)(A).
Holding: The court held the plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment be granted in part with regard to 15 U.S.C. § 1129 and denied in part. The defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment was granted under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d).
Reasoning: The court reasoned that the issue of whether the plaintiff actually owed the defendant $9,500 was not material. The court has previously stated cyber-extortion is not a permissible way to recover money owed. The plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment under 15 U.S.C. § 1229. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d) a person is liable in a civil action if that person has a bad faith intent to profit from a mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under the section. The plaintiff argued his name was a protected mark under the statute. The defendant argued the section was a restrictive clause and applies only to names which have trademark protection under the Lanham Act. The plaintiff argued the clause was unrestrictive, and therefore his name was protected. The court found the plaintiff’s argument to be implausible. If the plaintiff’s argument was to be adopted it would render § 1229 meaningless and would make other sections of the Lanham Act superfluous. The plaintiff was unable to prove his name was protected under the act. Therefore, the defendant prevailed on the partial summary judgment regarding whether “Brian Salle†was a protected name.