Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Lucentsucks.com

Date: 05-03-2000

Case Number: 99-cv-1916

Judge: Leonie M. Brinkema

Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia - Alexandria Division

Plaintiff's Attorney: Roy G. Decker, Jr. of Stauffer, Mannix, Rommel, Decker & Dulany, LLC, McLean, Virginia

Defendant's Attorney: James W. Pravel of Pravel Intellectual Property Law, P.C., Alexandria, Virginia

Description:
Plaintiff filed this in rem action against the domain name www.lucentsucks.com under the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Proection Act ("ACPA"), 15 U.S.C. 1125. Plaintif alleged that on Nocember 30, 1995, its predecessor filed an application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office to register LUCENT as a tradmark. Since 1996, plaintiff has manufactured, marketed and sold telecommunication equipment and services under the marks LUCENT AND LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES. It has registered and applied to register LUCENT marks with the PTO for a variety of goods and services. Plaintiff alleged that the money and effort it has expended on advertising and promoting its products and services under these marks created valuable goodwill in the marks.


Plaintiff alleged htat on August 2, 1998, Russell Johnson registered the domain name lucentsucks.com through Network Solutions, Inc., located in Herndon, Virginia. Plaintiff alleged that the website at this domain contains pornographic photographs and services for sale.


Plaintiff advanced two causes of action: Count I, Trademark Infringement, 15 U.S.C. 1114(1) and 15 U.S.C. 1125(a); and Count II, dilution, Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(c). Plaintiff sought a court order directing NSI to transfer registration of lucentsucks.com to Lucent.


Defendant opposed Lucent's action by asserting that it did not satisfy the in rem jurisdictional requirements of the ACPA; an internet domain name is not "property," for purposes of obtaining in rem jurisdiction; and First Amendment principles would be violated if plaintiff could force forfeiture of defendant's domain name.

Outcome:
Complaint dismissed plaintiff's in rem complaint because it could obtain in personam jurisdiction over the domain registrant and could find the registrant. The court also found that Lucent failed to satisfy the due diligence clause, Section 1125(d)(2)(A)(ii)(II)(aa).
Plaintiff's Experts:
Unknown
Defendant's Experts:
Unknown
Comments:
Reported by Kent Morlan. For more information about this case, see: 95 F.Supp.2d 528 (E.D.Va. 2000).

About This Case

What was the outcome of Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Lucentsucks.com?

The outcome was: Complaint dismissed plaintiff's in rem complaint because it could obtain in personam jurisdiction over the domain registrant and could find the registrant. The court also found that Lucent failed to satisfy the due diligence clause, Section 1125(d)(2)(A)(ii)(II)(aa).

Which court heard Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Lucentsucks.com?

This case was heard in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia - Alexandria Division, VA. The presiding judge was Leonie M. Brinkema.

Who were the attorneys in Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Lucentsucks.com?

Plaintiff's attorney: Roy G. Decker, Jr. of Stauffer, Mannix, Rommel, Decker & Dulany, LLC, McLean, Virginia. Defendant's attorney: James W. Pravel of Pravel Intellectual Property Law, P.C., Alexandria, Virginia.

When was Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Lucentsucks.com decided?

This case was decided on May 3, 2000.