k .1 - Domain Name Wire


k .1 - Domain Name Wire

Case 1:12-cv-23153-PAS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2012 Page 8 of 17Plaintiff did not and has not ever received a leter from either Defendant Match.com orDefendant Citizenhawk. After the UDRP was initiated by Defendants, Plaintiff located an email inPlaintift's spam inbox apparently sent by Defendant Citizenhawk which included legal analysis andwhich asserted that Plaintiffwas infringing Defendant Citizenhawk's client's trademark rights.Defendants entered evidence along with the UDRP Complaint, Exhibit H of the UDRPComplaint, in which one or both of Defendants or their agents self generated.Upon infonnation and belief, Defendant Match.com and / or Defendant Citizenhawk, ortheir agent, placed a bid to have Defendant's Match.com's advertisement for matching selwicesdisplayed in response to lnternet searches for the word 'macth.' Dedendants then used the advertisementshown on Plaintiffs webpage as result of Plaintiffs adverting provider Google.com to self generateevidence purporting to show evidence in support Defendant's claim of Plaintiff s bad faith registrationand use of the Domain Name, something the Defendants could not show absent fabrioating thisevidence. Plaintiff did not cause Defendant Match.com's website to be reachable on the webpageshown, rather Defendants or their agents did by paying to put their MATCH.COM advertising link atthe top of the web page.38. Defendants materialy misrepresented the nature of the Plaintiff's web page / site bypresenting a Sçtrue and correct copy' of the Plaintiffs' web page as an exhibit to its UDR.P complaintwhile altering the web page with their own actions to make the web page appear to be suggesting that itredirected visitors to other Defendant's Match.com's website for profit.39. The term Ctmacth' in the Domain Name madh.com is also a generic term when used forservices found under the corresponding dictionary definition for match and under U.S. trademark law,mere misspelings of descdptive terms do not transform the words into a trademark. Thus, Plaintiff sregistration and use from September 2000 was lawful from the outset.Defendants' Activities that Create a Claim for Unfair Competition40. Plaintif realeges all of the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint.

Case 1:12-cv-23153-PAS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2012 Page 9 of 1741. Defendant's activities towards Plaintiff constitute unfair competition under commonlaw, Florida law and pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code j 17200, et seq. Defendant's activities areunlawful, unfair and fraudulent; they constitute an illegitimate atteinpt to obtain Plaintiff's propertywithoutjust compensation, and an ilegitimate atempt to enforce trademark rights far beyond anyreasonable interpretation of same.42. These activities are unlawful, unfair and fraudulent insofar as third parties may believeDefendants' assertions, and Plaintiff's reputation and business is likely to suffer accordingly.43. Moreover, these activities cast a legal cloud on Plaintif's title to its valuable DomainNnme property, rendering such property more difficult if not impossible to sell for its full market value,and thus e/ectively disabling such property. This obviously causes economic hann to Plaintiff.44. Plaintiff reasonably believes that her registration and use of the Domain Nnme was andis lawful under the Lanham Act.COUNTK CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF4 . 5. Plaintiff realeges al the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint.46. Plaintiffrightfuly registered and has used the Domain Name ln good faith, and withneither knowledge of Defendant Match.com's claimed exclusive rights in the generic termMATCH.COM fo< services described in the dictionary for that same term, nor intent to sel the DomainName specificaly to Defendant Match.com. Plaintiff had no intention of diverting any traffic fromDefendant Match.com's website and avers that there is no evidence that such has occurred.In registering the Domain Name, Plaintifhad a legitimate interest in the inherent,generic value of the Domain Name and has used the Domain Name consistently with such pupose.48. MATCH, MATCH.COM and hs related misspellings are common, generic words whenused with matchmaking and matching services. Defendant's Match.com's asserted rights in theMATCH fnmily of registrations are not exclusive and each must be canceled for being generic.Defendant Match.com does not have the exclusive right to the use of the tenn ûMatch' as a trademark

Case 1:12-cv-23153-PAS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2012 Page 10 of 17*for services that are described in the dictionary for the term GlMatch' or for services that closely relatedto those dictionary terms including the services of matching and matchmaking.49. Plaintiffrequests that Defendant Match.com's trademark registrations, numbers2,088,545, 3,518,254, 3,518,165, 3,299,484, 3,206,334 and 3,323,423 for matchmaking and relatedmatchmaking services be canceled on the ground of being generic as the term GûMATCH ' is commonlyunderstood by the relevant consuming public to indicate a matching service as wel as a matchmakingservice as these asserted selvice mark registrations are incapable of serving as a means by which thesenices of the registrant may be distinguished from the services of others. Because DefendantMatch.com's service marks are incapable of acquiring distinctiveness and because the registeredservice marks fail to function as a mark within the meaning of the Trademark Act 15 U.S.C. jj1051,1052 and 1127, each is not a service mark and each can never be registered under the Lanham Act.Accordingly. each of these registrations should àe canceled.50. Plaintifbelieved and had reasonable grounds to believe, based on the market forgeneric domain names, as wel as prior legal decisions and decisions under the UDRP and the ACPAtand their predecessor case law, to the extent any existed in 1995), that the registration and use of theDomain Name as a generic term and in colmection with non-infringing related business endeavors waslawful.For approximately twelve years, Plaintiffhas had quiet enjoyment of her property ingood faith, never hearing any complaint from Defendant or anyone else about her ownership of theDomain Nnme. Defendant's should be barred from making any claim under the doctrine of laches.Defendants filed the UDRP complaint in bad faith, contending that Plaintiff registeredand used the Domain Name in bad faith when they had no such right to file the UDRR53. Defendant Citizenhawk filed the UDRP as representative of Defendant Match.com withf'ul approval and writen authority did so tmlawfuly and such approval was unlawf'ul under the laws ofthe State of Califomia, wherein Defendant Citizenhawk and its members are domiciled, in the State of

Case 1:12-cv-23153-PAS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2012 Page 11 of 17Minnesota, wherein the UDRP was filed amd prosecuted, and State of Texass wherein DefendantMatch.com and its counsel are domiciled, and in the State of Florida, where in the property isregistered.54. The UDRP provides that adlninistrative panel decisions may be stayed, and that subjectdomain name disputes may be resolved in a court of competent jurisdiction - regardless of the UDRPpanelists' findings. The federal cotu'ts have held that such review is to be maàe de novo.Ajustifable contzoversy exists bçtween Plaintiff and Defendants.To resolve this actual controversy, Plaintiff seeks a declaration and judgment that itsregistration and use of the Domain Name is with the legitimate interest of exploiting its inherent valueas a generic term, and/or is consistent with documented legitimate business efforts, and constitutesgood faith use. Plaintiff seeks to remove the legal cloud over title to Plaintiff's valuable property, whichhas been created by Defendants' actions.COUNT I1: CLAIM FOR COMM ON LAW UNFAIR COMPETITION57. Plaintifrealleges a1l the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint.$8. Defendants have filed a UDRP complaint against Plaintiff and Defendant Citizenhawkrepresenting Defendant Match.com has threatened legal proceedings under ACPA as wel as other lawsagainst Plaintiff contending that Plaintiff used thè Domain Name in violation of anti-cybersquating,trademark and unfair competition laws.59. Defendants' wrongful actions, misrepresentations and baseless accusations ofinfringement have created a cloud on Plaintiff's title to the Domain Name.60. As a result of Defendant's past and continued wrongful acts, Plaintif has incurreddamages in an amount to be proved at trial, including compensation for Plaintiff's time, effort,atorneys' fees, and other signifigant expenses in defending againsi Defendant's baseless claims.61. WHEREFORE, Plaintif demands judgment against Defendants as set forth in thePrayer for Relief.

Case 1:12-cv-23153-PAS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2012 Page 13 of 17PY YER FOR RELIEFWHEREFORE, Plaintifrprays for judgment as follows:a. a declaration that Plaintif has not infringed and is not infringing the trademark rights ofDefendant Match.com;b. an award of costs and fees to Plaintiffunder 15 U .S.C. 1114(2)(D)(IV);an order pursuant to 15 U.S.C. j 1 19, directing the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarksto cancel U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 2,088,545, 3,518,254, 3,518,165, 3,299,484, 3,206,334 and3,323,423 for matchmaking and related matchmaking services on the ground of genericness.d. a declaration that Plaintiffhas not violated and is not violating unfair competition law;e. a declaration that Plaintiffhas not violated and is not violating the ACPA;a declaration that Plaintifregistered and has used the Domain Name in good faith and is therightftzl registrant of the Domain Name;a finding awarding Plaintiffmonetary compensation for damages sustained by Defendants'wrongful actions as aleged in this Complaint;*h. For costs, attorney fees and expenses pursuant to Section 35(a) of the'lwanham Act, 15 U.S.C.j11 1 7(a), and Fla.stat. j501.2 105.such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Case 1:12-cv-23153-PAS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2012 Page 14 of 17DEM AND FOR JURY TRIAL* PlaintiFrespectfully requests that al issues in this case so triable by ajury bè decided by ajury.Respectfuly submitted,Dated: 5 # J /&Liz Eddy DBA HOSTSPHERE.COMEmail: docket@hostsphere.com2683 Via De La Valle, Suite G510De1 Mar, CA 92014Telephone: (619) 885r8500Facsimile: (800) 743-9260Pro se

Case 1:12-cv-23153-PAS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2012 Page 15 of 17AO 120 Rev. 08/1 0Mail Stop 8TO: Di rector of the U.S. Patent and Trademark OfficeP.O. Box 1450Alexandria. VA 22313-1450REPORT ON THEFILING OR DETERMINATION OF ANACTION REGARDING A PATENT ORTRADEMARKIn Compliance with 35 U.S.C. j 290 and/or l f U.S.C. j l 1 16 you are hereby advised that a court action has beentiled in the U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida on the folowingIZ Trademarks or EEI Patents. ( EZIthe patent action involves 35 U.S.C. j 292.): -DOCKET NO. DATE FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURTSouthern District of FloridaPLAINTIFFLiz Eddy, an individualDEFENDANTMatch.com, L.L.C.PATENT OR DATE OF PATENT HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARKTRADEMARK NO. OR TRADEMARK1 2,088,545 8/19/1997 Match.com, L.L.C2 3,518,254 10/14/2008 Match.com, L.L.C3 3,518,165 10/14/2008 Match.com, L.L.C4 3,299,484 9/25/2007 Match.com, L.L.C5 3,206,334 2/6/2007 Match.com, L.L.C. (see continuation page for additional marks)ln the above--entitled case, the folowing patenttsl/ trademarkts) have been included:DATE INCLUDED INCLUDED BYEEI Amendment E) Answer ' EEI Cross Bil EEI Other PleadingPATMNT OR DATE OF PATENT HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARKTRADEMARK NO. OR TM DEMARK12345In the above--entitled case, the folowing decision has been rendered orjudgement issued:DECISION/JUDGEMENTCLERK (BYIDEPUTY CLERK DATECopy 1-Up(m initiation of action. mail this copy to Director Copy J- upon termination of action, mail this copy to DirectorCopy z-upon filing document adding patentts), mail this copy to Director Copy ç-fase file copy#:

Case 1:12-cv-23153-PAS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2012 Page 16 of 17Continuation Sheetfor Trademarks involved in Civil Action No.Liz Eddy v. Match.com, L.L.C., c/ aI.*fatent orTrademark No.bate o?patent Holz-er otk/atent orYrabemarkor Trademark6. 3,323,423 10/30/2007 Match.com, L.L.C.7.8 .9,10 .*

Case 1:12-cv-23153-PAS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2012 Page 17 of 17Continuation Sheetfor Trademarks involved in Civil Action No.Liz Eddy v. Match.com, L.L.C., et aI.Patent orTrademark No.Date of Patent Holder of Patent or Trademarkor Trademark6. 3,323,423 10/30/2007 Match.com, L.L.C.7 .8 .9.1 0 .

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines