938 F. Supp. 2d 587
E.D. Va.2013Background
- Graham Schreiber, a Canadian entity, claims landcruise trademark rights in Canada and seeks to enforce them in the United States against Dunabin in the UK.
- Dunabin, a UK resident, uses the Landcruise mark in the United Kingdom and operates Landcruise.uk.com; she registered the domain through eNom.
- Plaintiff also sues CentralNic, Network Solutions, VeriSign, ICANN, and eNom for contributory infringement by registering/maintaining the Landcruise.uk.com domain.
- Plaintiff asserts federal trademark infringement under the Lanham Act and state-law claims; the defendants move to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
- Court analyzes extraterritorial application of the Lanham Act, whether US-rights exist, and whether supplemental jurisdiction should be exercised over state-law claims.
- Court grants motions to dismiss with prejudice, finding no extraterritorial jurisdiction, no viable US rights or effect on US commerce, and no basis to retain state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lanham Act extraterritorial reach | Schreiber contends US courts can protect his mark in the UK via the Lanham Act. | Dunabin’s acts occur abroad with no US commerce impact; extraterritorial application is inappropriate. | Lanham Act cannot be applied extraterritorially; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Direct/contributory infringement with no US rights | Schreiber asserts rights in Landcruise in the United States and infringement by Dunabin. | No US trademark rights or effect on US commerce; registrars cannot infringe; Safe Harbor shields registrars. | Plaintiff fails to state a claim; dismissal for lack of US rights and lack of in-commerce use; Safe Harbor applies. |
| Supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims | State-law claims remain after federal dismissal; court should exercise jurisdiction. | With all federal claims dismissed, no need to retain state-law claims. | Court declines supplemental jurisdiction; state-law claims dismissed with prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nintendo of Am., Inc. v. Aeropower Co., Ltd., 34 F.3d 246 (4th Cir. 1994) (extraterritorial reach balanced to protect US commerce)
- Bulova Watch Co. v. Borg watches?, 344 U.S. 252 (U.S. 1952) (Bulova factors for extraterritoriality balancing)
- Vanity Fair Mills, Inc. v. T. Eaton Co., 234 F.2d 633 (2d Cir. 1956) (comity concerns in extraterritorial Lanham Act)
- Int'l Cafe, S.A.L. v. Hard Rock Cafe Int'l, Inc., 252 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2001) (foreign-law considerations in extraterritorial application)
- Bird v. Parsons, 289 F.3d 865 (6th Cir. 2000) (registrars not using marks in commerce; registration not in-commerce use)
- Specht v. Google Inc., 758 F. Supp. 2d 570 (N.D. Ill. 2010) (website use not necessarily use in commerce)
- Newborn v. Yahoo!, Inc., 391 F. Supp. 2d 181 (D.D.C. 2005) (domain-name registrations do not trump federal trademark law)
- Perini Corp. v. Perini Constr., Inc., 915 F.2d 121 (4th Cir. 1990) (territorial rights and use in commerce required for protection)
- Emergency One, Inc. v. Am. Fire Eagle Engine Co., 332 F.3d 264 (4th Cir. 2003) (use in commerce essential for rights; location of use matters)
- Amer Online, Inc. v. Huang, 106 F. Supp. 2d 848 (E.D. Va. 2000) (domain-name disputes focus on use of domain name, not mere registration)