You are here: / / DEFENDANTS’ USE OF DOMAIN NAMES VERY SIMILAR TO PLAINTIFF’S...

DEFENDANTS’ USE OF DOMAIN NAMES VERY SIMILAR TO PLAINTIFF’S STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR UNFAIR COMPETITION AND CYBERSQUATTING (FOURTH DEPT).

image_pdfPDF Friendly Versionimage_printPrint Friendly Version

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff had stated causes of action for unfair competition and cybersquatting by using domain names similar to plaintiff’s:

… [D[efendants … operate a website accessed at idealyou.com. In 2016, … plaintiff…, established a competing business that operates a website accessed at idealbuff.com. …

… [O]n the day plaintiff opened her business, defendants purchased two domain names, idealbuf.com and idealbuffalo.com, and redirected all web traffic from those addresses to idealyou.com.  …

… As relevant to the cause of action for unfair competition, the statute prohibits using “any word, term, name, symbol, or device . . . or any false designation of origin . . . which . . . is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association . . . as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of . . . goods, services, or commercial activities by another person” … . We agree with plaintiff that, accepting the allegations in the third-party complaint as true … defendants’ use of the idealbuf.com and idealbuffalo.com domain names could be misleading and thus constitute unfair competition under the statute … . …

“To successfully assert a claim [for cybersquatting], a plaintiff must demonstrate that[:] (1) its marks were distinctive at the time the domain name was registered; (2) the infringing domain names complained of are identical to or confusingly similar to the plaintiff’s mark; and (3) that the defendant has a bad faith intent to profit from that mark” … . The Ideal You Weight Loss Ctr., LLC v Zillioux, 2019 NY Slip Op 05900, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

/by
You might also like
Questions About Whether Trial Judge Properly Handled Jury Notes Sent Out During Deliberations Required Reconstruction Hearing
53-MONTH PRE-INDICTMENT DELAY DID NOT DENY DEFENDANT DUE PROCESS.
Fact that Medical Guidelines May Be Available to the Public Does Not Warrant Denial of Discovery of Such Documents from the Defendant
NOT ASKING A GRAND JURY TO CONSIDER A CHARGE FOR WHICH SOME EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED DID NOT AMOUNT TO WITHDRAWAL OF THE CHARGE (WHICH WOULD REQUIRE JUDICIAL PERMISSION TO RE-PRESENT).
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE FOR PRESS RELEASE ABOUT TATOO-RELATED INFECTIONS, PLAINTIFF UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE MALICE.
DESIGNATING PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVALIDATED, WIFE SIGNED FOR HUSBAND WHO WAS PRESENT, AT MOST ONLY THE ONE SIGNATURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN STRUCK, NOT THE ENTIRE PAGE OF SIGNATURES (FOURTH DEPT).
Insufficient Break Between “Unwarned” Statement and Statement Made Subsequently After the Miranda Warnings Were Given—Entire Statement Should Have Been Suppressed
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OWNER/GENERAL CONTRACTOR FAILED IN THEIR NONDELEGABLE DUTY TO SHUT OFF THE ELECTRICITY IN A BUILDING UNDERGOING DEMOLITION; PLAINTIFF RECEIVED AN ELECTRIC SHOCK WHEN HE STRIPPED INSULATION FROM AN ELECTRIC CABLE; PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2020 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

A COURT MAY CONVERT A MOTION TO DISMISS TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITHOUT... PLAINTIFF LOAN SERVICING COMPANY WAIVED THE TIME OF THE ESSENCE PROVISION BY...