Harrods Limited v. Sixty Internet Domain Names

Anti-Cybersquating Consumer Protection Act ("ACPA"), 15 U.S.C. 1125 - Plaintiff, Harrods Limited, is a private company organized under teh laws of England and which has operated the Harrods Department Store in London, England, since 1849. The store serves approximately 35,000 customers each day. In February 1999, Harrods launched an Internet site accessible on the World Wide Web at www.harrods.com Later that year, through a licensee, it instituted Harrods Online, which allows cusumers in the United States and Canada to purchase Harrods-branded products and other products available at the store through the Internet. Plaintiff owns twenty-three valid United States Trademark Registrations for the Harrods mark and has two pending United States Trademark Applications.

Plaintiff bought this action in rem under the ACPA for declaratory, injunctive , and other relief relating to the "improper registration and use" of sixty Internet domain names allegedly containing famous and distinctive marks belonging to plaintiff. Plaintiff advanced four casues of action in its complaint: Federal Trademark Infringement (15 U.S.C. 1114); Trademark Dilution (15 U.S.C. 1125); violation of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 1125(d); and Federal Unfair Competition (15 U.S.C. 1125(a)). Plaintiff sought a preliminary and permanent injunctions forcing the transfer to plaintiff of the domains. All sixty Internet domain names cited in the complaint were registed to HBAL, a foreign corporation with its principal place of business in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Plaintiff bought the action in rem because it could not obtain personal jurisdiction over HBAL.

Defendant domain names moved to dismiss because Counts 1, II and IV failed to advance claims that are available in an in rem action. Defendants also moved to dismiss Court II because it failed to allege bad faith intent to profit.

Defendant's motion to dismiss Counts I, II and IV was sustained because they contemplated personal liability. Defendant's motion to dismiss on the ACPA claim was also sustained because plaintiff failed to allege bad faith on the part of the defendant.

Unknown

Unknown

On October 6, 2000, judgment in favor of harrodsargentina.com,
harrodsargentina.net, harrodsargentina.org,
HARRODSbuenosaires.com, HARRODSbuenosaires.net, and
HARRODSbuenosaires.org against Harrods Limited was entered by the court. Harrods, Ltd. then filed a notice of appeal. For more information about this case, see; 110 F.Supp.2d 420 (E.D.Va. 2000).

E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to this report to info@morelaw.com.

Reported by Kent Morlan