The Southern District of Florida recently dismissed a cybersquatting case we had on behalf of one of our clients. The judge agreed with our argument that the mark was merely descriptive and that no facts were alleged to support secondary meaning in the one year period between plaintiff’s first use of the mark and our client’s registration of the domain name. So while dismissals at the pleading stage are rare, it is important to consider in all cases whether a motion to dismiss is appropriate, especially after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in Iqbal and Twombly requiring that plaintiffs provide factual support rather than just mere conclusory statements. Click here for a link to the Court’s order of dismissal.
Leave a Reply