Storageplus (Sun Valley, ID) has sued Pettit Development (Dudley, MA) for cybersquatting, trademark infringement, and related claims stemming from a dispute regarding plaintiff’s registered mark STORAGEPLUS® and defendant’s use of the domain name <www.storageplus.au>.
Little is mentioned of defendant’s purported bad acts beyond its use of plaintiff’s mark in connection with the domain name. Perhaps defendant made significant sales as a result of its use of the domain, but if not, I wonder if this case might not be better suited for an ICANN domain name dispute resolution forum, such as NAF or WIPO. Perhaps this case does not fit well into the somewhat limited mandate of ICANN (if the domain is registered and used in bad faith it gets transferred to the mark holder; for other facts / relief, go to court), but I’m not seeing much in the complaint save for the damages request.
Curiously the complaint also requests “statutory damages” of $100,000 but neither the Lanham Act nor MGL ch. 93A authorize statutory damages. What am I missing?
Storageplus, Inc. v. Pettit Development, Inc., 10-11132-FDS (D. Mass. July 7, 2010)
Comments