Verizon California, Inc. v. Above.com Pty Ltd.
881 F. Supp. 2d 1173
C.D. Cal.2011Background
- Verizon sues multiple defendants alleging a large cybersquatting operation with domain names confusingly similar to well-known marks, including Verizon's trademarks, monetized via advertising.
- Defendants operate Above.com Pty Ltd as a domain registrar and use privacy services to conceal registrants, with numerous UDPRP complaints related to those services.
- Defendants also offer a monetization service under Trellian LTD (Domain Parking Manager) to maximize revenue from parked domains.
- Verizon asserts two ACPA claims: direct cybersquatting and contributory cybersquatting; the motion targets only the contributory claim.
- The court applies the Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility standard to determine whether a contributory cybersquatting claim under the ACPA is viable and sufficiently pled.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether contributory cybersquatting liability exists under the ACPA | Verizon relies on a growing line of authority recognizing contributory liability under the ACPA. | Defendants contend the ACPA does not encompass contributory liability or, if it does, it is narrowly tailored and not applicable here. | Contributory liability exists under the ACPA. |
| Whether Verizon pled sufficient facts to state a contributory liability claim | Verizon alleges control, monitoring, and knowledge of bad-faith use of privacy/monetization services and resulting cybersquatting. | Defendants argue the complaint inadequately alleges control/knowledge or exceptional circumstances. | Plaintiff sufficiently pleads contributory liability under the ACPA. |
| Whether the complaint plausibly shows exceptional circumstances to impose liability | Defendants controlled and monitored the services; the scope and patterns of cybersquatting create exceptional circumstances. | Defendants contend the circumstances are not exceptional or specific to Verizon's marks. | Exceptional circumstances are plausibly alleged, supporting contributory liability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 194 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 1999) (contributory liability requires direct control and monitoring over a third party's infringement)
- Ford Motor Co. v. GreatDomains.com, Inc., 177 F. Supp. 2d 635 (E.D. Mich. 2001) (contributory liability under ACPA examined via ‘exceptional circumstances’ concept)
- Solid Host, NL v. Namecheap, Inc., 652 F. Supp. 2d 1092 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (recognized contributory liability under ACPA; applied to anonymity/privacy/monitoring context)
- Microsoft Corp. v. Shah, 2011 WL 108954 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (contributory liability under ACPA recognized in Western District of Washington (WL citation))
- Nahum v. DSPT Int’l, Inc., 624 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2010) (ACPA construction and scope analyzed; contributory liability considerations discussed)
- Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa Int’l Serv. Ass’n, 494 F.3d 788 (9th Cir. 2007) (framework for contributory liability in tort-like claims; control/monetization context discussed)
- Bosley Med. Inst., Inc. v. Kremer, 403 F.3d 672 (9th Cir. 2005) (ACPA-related discussion referencing causation and liability principles)
- In re: Inwood Labs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc., 456 U.S. 844 (U.S. 1982) (foundational contributory infringement doctrine under trademark law)