ILNews

Judge: Outdated caselaw needs revised to handle Internet issues

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A dissenting judge in an unfair competition case involving the near simultaneous registrations of the same Internet domain name urged the Indiana Legislature and Supreme Court to “usher Indiana into the technological realities of the 21st Century.”

Judge Patricia Riley dissented from her colleagues Judge Melissa May and Chief Judge Nancy Vaidik in Serenity Springs, Inc. and Laura Ostergren v. The LaPorte County Convention and Visitors Bureau, by and through its Board of Managers, 46A04-1309-MI-470, a case that’s before the appeals court for the second time in a little more than a year.

The LaPorte County Convention and Visitors Bureau sued area hotel-resort Serenity Springs after the resort registered the domain name “visitmichigancitylaporte.com” just hours of the visitors bureau announced at a public meeting the phrase “Visit Michigan City LaPorte” was selected as the branding identifier for the area. Because Serenity Springs registered that domain name first – and used it to direct traffic to its website – the visitors bureau was unable to acquire it.

In April 2013, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s holding that permanently enjoined Serenity from using the designation or domain name and ordered the resort to transfer the domain to the bureau. But the trial court hadn’t considered all of the claims before it when it issued that ruling last year, so on remand, the trial court once again ruled in favor of the visitors bureau on its claim of unfair competition and trade name infringement.

The majority, citing Hartzler v. Goshen Churn Ladder Co., 55 Ind. App. 455, 104 N.E. 34 (1914), reversed and ruled in favor of the resort.

“We acknowledge authority from other jurisdictions suggests a ‘single use’ or an ‘initial use’ is sufficient (on an unfair competition claim),” Judge Melissa May wrote. “But even that standard is not met in the case before us; we have only the Bureau’s statement of its intention to commence using that phrase. Serenity Springs’ actions therefore did not amount to unfair competition, and it was error for the trial court to so hold.”

“Visit Michigan City LaPorte,” was not a protectable trade name and Serenity Springs’ use of it was not unfair competition, the majority held.

Judge Patricia Riley, in her dissent, argued that the bureau established a bona fide initial use of the phrase by paying a marketing firm and announcing the results in a televised meeting. But the majority declined to hold paying for a study and announcing its results amounts to even a single or initial “use in trade.”

Riley described Hartzler as “still good law,” but its principles are “difficult to apply to an era where messages can be sent at the speed of light and goods can be purchased by the push of a button.” She noted she could not find a case anywhere that has dealt with the nearly simultaneous registrations of domain names in the context of common law unfair competition, and that Indiana caselaw is extremely sparse with respect to trademarks and trade names.   

“In light of Indiana’s sparse and outdated case law, I would urge our Legislature and supreme court, if the opportunity arises, to look beyond the man and cart method promoted by Hartzler and approved by an out-of-touch majority, and instead usher Indiana into the technological realities of the 21st Century by formulating tools appropriate to handle the complexities of the internet’s realm,” she wrote.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT