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Judge: Outdated caselaw needs revised to handle Internet issues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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT