Facts

ConsumerInfo.com filed suit against One Technologies LP and Adaptive Marketing LLC alleging trademark infringement, trademark dilution, cybersquatting, counterfeiting, trade dress infringement, copyright infringement, secondary copyright infringement and secondary trademark infringement. Cybersquatting is where one company will try to exploit Web traffic from another by seizing a domain name.

One Technologies LP asserted counterclaims for trademark infringement and false advertising based on keyword bidding, fraud on the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and Monopolization and Attempted Monopolization under the Sherman Act. Adaptive asserted trademark infringement counterclaims for keyword bidding and false advertising.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff ConsumerInfo.com alleged that defendants infringed its trademarks by bidding on ConsumerInfo.com's trademarks as part of defendants' internet paid search marketing, that defendants' conduct diluted ConsumerInfo.com's trademarks, and that defendants cybersquatted ConsumerInfo.com's website. Plaintiff also asserted claims for counterfeiting, trade dress infringement, and copyright infringement.

Damages

On its trademark infringement claims for keyword bidding, plaintiff sought in excess of $10,000,000 in damages (inclusive of Plaintiff's request to treble damages and for attorneys' fees) against both defendants. On its cybersquatting claims, plaintiff sought in excess of $3,000,000 in damages against both defendants.

Result

The jury rejected One Technologies' fraud claim, which mooted its monopolization and attempted monopolization counterclaim. One Technologies abandoned its trademark infringement and false advertising claims shortly before trial. Adaptive's trademark infringement counterclaims were tied to the bench, but Adaptive has moved to dismiss with prejudice its own counterclaims prior to the Court's final ruling. Defendants were granted summary judgment on plaintiff's claims for trade dress infringement, counterfeiting, copyright infringement and secondary copyright infringement prior to trial. After a five-week trial on ConsumerInfo's trademark infringement and dilution claims, the jury found for ConsumerInfo that FREECREDITREPORT.COM is a valid, protectable, and famous trademark, but found for defendants on the issue of whether keyword bidding causes a likelihood of confusion and whether Defendants began using FREECREDITREPORT.COM prior to it establishing fame. The jury found in ConsumerInfo.com's favor on its claim for cybersquatting and awarded a verdict of $1.9 million against the defendants. With respect to defendant One Tech, the jury found that plaintiff was damaged in the amount of $120,000 and that One Technologies profited in the amount of $280,000. The court has yet to try remaining equitable claims and defenses and has not yet entered final judgment on any claim or defense. One Technologies asserts, among other things, that plaintiff's claims are barred by estoppel, laches and waiver. Defendant One Technologies also asserts that the jury's award is not supported by the evidence, that award of both defendant's profits and plaintiff's lost profits constitutes double counting, and that any award should be equitably reduced by the Court. ConsumerInfo asserts the jury's verdict is supported by the evidence, the size of the award is equitable, and that defendants' affirmative defenses are meritless.

Other Information

REFERRING JUDGE: Margaret A. Nagle.

Length

five weeks