March 04, 2015
Authored and Edited by Eleanor Atkins
A Florida federal court recently denied summary judgment to a plaintiff seeking recovery of multiple domain names bearing his name, finding that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the defendant had a bad faith intent to profit in violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA). See Pronman v. Styles, No. 12-80674, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 373 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 5, 2015).
The dispute began when defendant and classic car enthusiast, Brian Styles, allegedly lost $84,000 after attempting to purchase a 1969 ½ Super Bee vehicle from plaintiff Gary Pronman. After wiring the money as requested, Styles claimed he never received the car, or his money back. Angered by what he alleged was fraud, Styles created the website www.garypronman.com to warn other car collectors about his experience. The website also requested donations to fund a lawsuit against the plaintiff and allowed visitors to pay via credit card, although Styles never actually received any payments.
Pronman sued under ACPA and moved for summary judgment, arguing that the website’s credit card payment mechanism evidenced Styles’ bad faith intent to profit from the domain name. In response, Styles claimed that the request for donations was merely satirical and that he had no bad faith intent to profit.
Citing the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion in Chanel Inc. v. Italian Activewear of Florida Inc., 931 F.2d 1472 (11th Cir. 1991), the court denied summary judgment on the ground that the determination of whether a defendant has a bad faith intent to profit is factual. Among other things, the claim that the request for donations was satirical was inconsistent with the fact that the website was actually set up to receive payments. This inconsistency was sufficient to create a factual issue regarding intent.
Copyright © 2015 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
10th Annual Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association Gala
May 29, 2024
Atlanta
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.