Case:
Nissan Motor Co v Nissan Computer Corp
Accusations:
Nissan Motor accuses Nissan Computer for Trademark Infringement, Trademark Dilution, and Cyber-Squatting.
Facts:
Mr. Uzi Nissan registered “Nissan.com†in 1994 to support his business with the primary intent to promote sales of computers and computer services. In 1999 Mr. Nissan began selling advertising space on his site, some of which were car related advertisements. Two months later, Nissan Motor offered to purchase Nissan.com, but no agreement was reached. Nissan filed suit district court in December 1999, asserting trademark dilution, trademark infringement, domain name piracy, etc. This resulted in the court granting the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, regarding all issues. The court allowed Mr. Nissan to retain ownership of the site, but permanently enjoined the posting of any commercial/advertising content or the linking to other sites containing such content. Both sides appealed the decision.
Discussion:
In 2004, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the infringement judgment with the use of the “sleekcraft factorsâ€, finding that auto-related advertising was infringing but non-auto-related content was not. The dilution claims was remanded due to the lack of sufficient facts regarding the strength of the Nissan mark, although several aspects of the Court’s opinion favored Nissan Motor. The court relied heavily on two cases to construct its ruling. First, the court used Avery Dennison v. Sumpton to determine if injunctive relief was available under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act. Second, the court used Moseley v. V Secrete Catalogue, Inc. by requiring the plaintiff to show actual harm rather than show the likelihood of confusion.
Conclusion:
The Nissan decision is generating criticism among many who feel that it goes too far in protecting large companies at the expense of smaller companies and individuals who are first to use a famous name on the Internet. However, due to the specific circumstances of the case, I feel that the law was properly interpreted.
References:
http://www.lctjournal.washington.edu/Vol2/a002Rozsnyai.html
http://www.digest.com/
Nissan Motor Co v Nissan Computer Corp
Accusations:
Nissan Motor accuses Nissan Computer for Trademark Infringement, Trademark Dilution, and Cyber-Squatting.
Facts:
Mr. Uzi Nissan registered “Nissan.com†in 1994 to support his business with the primary intent to promote sales of computers and computer services. In 1999 Mr. Nissan began selling advertising space on his site, some of which were car related advertisements. Two months later, Nissan Motor offered to purchase Nissan.com, but no agreement was reached. Nissan filed suit district court in December 1999, asserting trademark dilution, trademark infringement, domain name piracy, etc. This resulted in the court granting the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, regarding all issues. The court allowed Mr. Nissan to retain ownership of the site, but permanently enjoined the posting of any commercial/advertising content or the linking to other sites containing such content. Both sides appealed the decision.
Discussion:
In 2004, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the infringement judgment with the use of the “sleekcraft factorsâ€, finding that auto-related advertising was infringing but non-auto-related content was not. The dilution claims was remanded due to the lack of sufficient facts regarding the strength of the Nissan mark, although several aspects of the Court’s opinion favored Nissan Motor. The court relied heavily on two cases to construct its ruling. First, the court used Avery Dennison v. Sumpton to determine if injunctive relief was available under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act. Second, the court used Moseley v. V Secrete Catalogue, Inc. by requiring the plaintiff to show actual harm rather than show the likelihood of confusion.
Conclusion:
The Nissan decision is generating criticism among many who feel that it goes too far in protecting large companies at the expense of smaller companies and individuals who are first to use a famous name on the Internet. However, due to the specific circumstances of the case, I feel that the law was properly interpreted.
References:
http://www.lctjournal.washington.edu/Vol2/a002Rozsnyai.html
http://www.digest.com/