Decision against travel bureau over domain name draws sharp dissent on appeal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indiana Court of Appeals judge recently wrote that her colleagues who formed the majority to rule against a local tourism board were “out of touch,” and she suggested a case over an Internet domain name presented a novel issue that no court in the country has addressed.

At issue: Does a local visitors bureau have a common-law unfair competition claim against a resort that quickly registered the Web address “” just after the name was announced during a public meeting?

A trial court ruled in favor of the visitors bureau on seven common-law claims, but a divided Court of Appeals panel reversed 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. The majority – authoring Judge Melissa May and Chief Judge Nancy Vaidik – applied 100-year-old caselaw, which dissenting Judge Patricia Riley wrote was unresponsive to the realities of the Internet age.

riley-patricia.jpg Riley

“Despite my state and nationwide research, no single similar case exists – even Indiana case law in general is extremely sparse with respect to trademarks, let alone trade names. Although factually some cases might come close, no court before us has dealt with the almost simultaneous registrations of domain names in the context of common law unfair competition.”

In this case, the Serenity Springs resort registered the URL shortly before the visitors bureau attempted to do the same. The resort then used the Web address to direct Internet traffic to its website.

Riley held that this should give rise to a common-law unfair competition claim, as the trial court held, largely relying on Restatements of Torts to make the argument.

“By appropriating the Bureau’s trade name and linking it to its own website, Serenity created this probable confusion and deception and consequently committed unfair competition with the Bureau,” Riley wrote. “I would affirm the trial court’s finding of unfair competition in favor of the Bureau.”

But some legal experts believe that no trade name even exists in this case. The phrase in question isn’t trademarked,

and the Court of Appeals has rejected claims that the bureau has established a right of use.

Michigan City attorney Michael S. Bergerson represents the LaPorte County Convention and Visitors Bureau and said he expects the board will authorize a petition to seek transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court, based in part on the strength of the dissent.

“It would appear to me at least and others who read (the opinion) that the court is essentially inviting the visitors and convention bureau to seek transfer,” Bergerson said.

“It’s bad law, what they did,” he claimed of the Court of Appeals ruling. “It opens the door for a lot of charlatans out there who want to pass off their goods as somebody else’s.”

Attorney Jonathan Watson of Passaro Kahne & Taylor of Benton Harbor, Michigan, represented the resort and doesn’t see it that way. “I don’t think the Supreme Court is likely to take this one,” he said. “The Court of Appeals opinion is pretty much in line with what is generally legal nationwide.”

In a prior ruling, the Court of Appeals threw out the trial court ruling that enjoined Serenity Springs from using the domain name. In the current case appealed after remand that again found in favor of the bureau, May wrote for the majority that “Visit Michigan City LaPorte” was not a protectable name and Serenity Springs’ use wasn’t unfair competition.

Valparaiso University School of Law Professor Curt Cichowski said the key to the ruling was the majority’s holding that this phrase had not become identified with the visitors bureau before the resort began to use it.

Curt Cichowski Cichowski

“I don’t see this case as breaking any new ground,” said Cichowski, who teaches courses on intellectual property, trademark and unfair competition, among others. Cichowski said it’s impossible for domain names to be almost simultaneously registered, as Riley suggested in dissent, because the first registration earns the right to use the name.

“Serenity obviously adopted someone else’s future slogan as their URL. They did not act in the best of faith,” Cichowski said. “Gut instinct suggests the bureau should have some remedy. But Serenity did not infringe any trademark of the bureau, they did not unfairly compete, and they did not cyber-squat.

“There is no question they ‘took’ it from the bureau and adopted it as their own URL. But it takes more than ill intent to establish consumer confusion. The case turns on what the consuming public took the phrase to identify,” he said. “It does not turn on who thought of the phrase first, but who used it first to establish an identity – in the relevant consumers’ minds – for their goods or services.”

“The bureau could have avoided all of this by simply having the URL registered before they made the public announcement,” Cichowski said. “In hindsight, a simple cure.”

The majority relied on Hartzler v. Goshen Churn Ladder Co., 55 Ind. App. 455, 104 N.E. 34 (1914), in which the court ruled that it was unfair competition “(w)here such words or names by long use have become identified in the minds of the public with the goods or business of a particular trader.”

The majority held, “As Serenity Springs bought and began using the domain name immediately after the Bureau announced it in a public meeting, the name could not have ‘previously come to indicate and designate [the Bureau’s] goods,’ nor could it have, by ‘long use’ become identified in the minds of the public with the Bureau.”

In the interim, the bureau is using the URL as its Web address Bergerson said, and Watson said Serenity has parked the domain for the time being, in compliance with the trial court order.

Bergerson claims the bureau was harmed because it invested more than $100,000 in a marketing campaign that found added value in the domain name that it sought to register. He bristles at the suggestion that the bureau and a hired marketing company simply didn’t have their ducks in a row before announcing the domain name.

“We attempted to settle the case,” he said, accusing Serenity of trying to profit from the sale of the domain name. “The demand they made was outlandish,” he said.•


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.