Serenity Springs, Inc. and Laura Ostergren v. The LaPorte County Convention and Visitors Bureau, by and through its Board of Managers
13 N.E.3d 487
Ind. Ct. App.2014Background
- Bureau is LaPorte County destination marketing organization promoting local tourism; Serenity operates a LaPorte County hotel/ resort.
- Bureau announced branding identifier Visit Michigan City LaPorte at a 9/9/2009 public meeting; Serenity registered visitmichigancitylaporte.com to direct traffic to its site.
- Bureau subsequently registered similar domain names after the meeting.
- Bureau filed trademark application for Visit Michigan City La-Porte in 2010; registration issued May 2010 with disclaimer of Michigan City and LaPorte.
- Trial court on remand found seven common-law torts including unfair competition; court permanently enjoined Serenity and ordered domain transfer; appellate court reversed on protectability and unfair competition grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Visit Michigan City LaPorte is a protectable trade name | Bureau argues the phrase functions as a trade name and acquired protection | Serenity contends the phrase is descriptive/geographically descriptive and not protectable | Not protectable; no trade-name infringement |
| Whether Serenity’s domain use constituted unfair competition | Bureau asserts cybersquatting/passing off and unfair competition through diversion of traffic | Serenity contends no prior protectable right and no probable confusion | Not unfair competition; Sunrise on remand did not establish prior protectable use |
Key Cases Cited
- Keaton & Keaton v. Keaton, 842 N.E.2d 816 (Ind. 2006) (trade name rights require actual use in commerce; protectability varies with distinctiveness)
- Hartzler v. Goshen Churn Ladder Co., 104 N.E.34 (Ind. 1914) (unfair competition requires passing off or confusion; long use not necessary in modern contexts)
- Johnson v. Glassley, 118 Ind.App.704 (Ind.App. 1949) (exclusive right to use a mark requires adoption and use in commerce)
- Blue Bell, Inc. v. Farah Mfg. Co., 508 F.2d 1260 (5th Cir. 1975) (single use can sustain rights if followed by continuous use; evolution of priority concepts)
- Felsher v. University of Evansville, 755 N.E.2d 589 (Ind. 2001) (recognizes evolving approach to branding and use in context of modern communications)