0F06A107d01 - Page 1 1 of 1 DOCUMENT E J GALLO WINERY...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
1 of 1 DOCUMENT E. & J. GALLO WINERY, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SPIDER WEBS LTD.; STEVE E. THUMANN; PIERCE A. THUMANN; FRED H. THUMANN, Trustee, Defendants - Appellants. No. 01-20333 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 286 F.3d 270 ; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 5928; 62 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1404 April 3, 2002, Decided PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. H-00-CV-450. Marcia Crone, US Magistrate Judge. DISPOSITION: Affirmed. CASE SUMMARY: PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff trademark-holder sued defendants, a company and partners, under the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), and federal and Texas anti-dilution, and trademark laws. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted summary judgment to the trademark-holder on the ACPA and Texas anti-dilution claims. The company appealed. OVERVIEW: The trial court held that the ACPA was constitutional, that the company had registered the domain name in bad faith under the ACPA's standard, that its use was not a fair use, and therefore it had violated the ACPA. It ordered the company to transfer the domain name and entered a permanent injunction under the Texas Anti-Dilution Statute (ADS). It also awarded $ 25,000 in ACPA statutory damages. On appeal, the company argued that it did not act with a bad faith intent to profit, as required by the ACPA. The court found that seven of nine statutory factors strongly supported a finding of bad faith, as did the circumstances. The company also argued that the $ 25,000 should not have been awarded because the trademark-holder did not suffer any actual injury, but the court noted that the trial court found that the company's actions put the trademark-holder at risk of losing business and of having its business reputation tarnished, and the award was not clear error. The court agreed with the trial court that the company's use violated the ADS because the trademark-holder showed a likelihood of dilution. The court affirmed the injunction, rejecting an overbreadth argument. OUTCOME: The judgment was affirmed. CORE TERMS: web, domain, trademark, registered, internet, com', site, statutory damages, bad faith, ernestandjuliogallo, injunction, registration, dilution, user, distinctive, reputation, website, famous, summary judgment, goodwill, anti-dilution, infringement, registering, fair use, consumer, alcohol, new trial, confusingly, trademarked, hoped Page 1
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
LexisNexis(R) Headnotes Civil Procedure > Summary Judgment > Appellate Review > General Overview Civil Procedure > Appeals > Standards of Review > De Novo Review [HN1] The appellate court reviews the trial court's grant of summary judgment to plaintiff on an Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act claim de novo, applying the same standard as the district court. Civil Procedure > Summary Judgment > Standards > Appropriateness
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 11

0F06A107d01 - Page 1 1 of 1 DOCUMENT E J GALLO WINERY...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online