ILNews

Court reverses hotel’s cybersquatting conviction

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A dispute over who could use the designation “Visit Michigan City LaPorte” led to a legal battle between LaPorte County’s visitors bureau and an area hotel-resort, with the trial court ruling in favor of the visitors bureau. But the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed Monday, ruling the bureau didn’t prove it held a valid and protectable trademark.

An employee from Serenity Springs attended a public meeting at which the LaPorte County Convention and Visitors Bureau announced that the phrase “Visit Michigan City LaPorte” had been chosen as the branding identifier for the area. Immediately after the meeting, Serenity registered the domain name “visitmichigancitylaporte.com” and redirected traffic from that site to its hotel website. That same day, the bureau attempted to register the same domain name, but discovered it had been purchased and was used by Serenity.

The visitors bureau sought to prevent Serenity from using the domain and slogan, and filed an application with the Indiana Secretary of State to register the slogan and logo as a trademark. It claimed it first used the words in commerce Sept. 9, 2009, the same day Serenity registered the website. When Serenity wouldn’t voluntarily relinquish the domain name, the visitors bureau sued, alleging trademark infringement, cybersquatting and unfair competition.

The trial court ruled in favor of the visitors bureau, permanently enjoined Serenity from using the designation or domain name, and ordered Serenity to transfer the domain to the bureau.

In Serenity Springs, et al. v. The LaPorte County Convention and Visitors Bureau, 46A03-1205-MI-214, the Court of Appeals reversed because it found the “Visit Michigan City LaPorte” slogan is primarily geographically descriptive and not subject to protection as a trademark. In order to be protectable, the slogan must have acquired secondary meaning, but it did not. The judges rejected the visitors bureau’s claim that its registration with the SOS is sufficient proof of distinctiveness or secondary meaning.

“Secondary meaning is acquired through actual use of a mark, and there is simply no evidence in the record supporting a conclusion that the mark became associated with the Bureau in the minds of consumers on September 9, 2009 in the hours prior to Serenity’s registration of the domain name,” Judge Ezra Friedlander wrote.

The COA reversed and remanded with instructions to vacate the judgment and enter judgment in favor of Serenity on the trademark infringement and cybersquatting claims. But the trial court did not rule on other claims the bureau asserted, including common-law unfair competition. The judges ordered the trial court consider the bureau’s other claims and limit its consideration to the claims and evidence already presented by the bureau.  

 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT