Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_07-cv-05009/USCOURTS-arwd-5_07-cv-05009-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

ROTOWORKS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 07-5009

GRASSWORKS USA, LLC;

GRASSWORKS!!! L.L.C.;

ROBERT D. UMBERSON a/k/a/BOBBY 

UMBERSON; LINDA K. REED; and

METAL WORKS, L.L.C DEFENDANTS

O R D E R

Now on this 4th day of September, 2007, comes on for

consideration Plaintiff's Motion For Partial Summary Judgment

Seeking Transfer Of The Rotowiper.com Domain Name (document #52),

and from said motion, the response thereto, and the supporting

documentation, the Court finds and orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff Rotoworks International Limited ("Rotoworks")

manufactures a type of farm implement known as a Rotowiper, used

to wipe herbicide on cropland. In its Amended Complaint,

Rotoworks alleges that defendants are liable to it for trademark

infringement by counterfeiting and implied passing off, in

violation of 15 U.S.C. §1114(1), and for trade dress and trademark

infringement, in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1125(a).

Rotoworks also alleges that defendants' use of the website

www.rotowiper.com (the "Website") to solicit customers for its

knock-off products violates the Anticybersquatting Consumer

Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125(d), and seeks injunctive relief in

Case 5:07-cv-05009-JLH Document 95 Filed 09/04/07 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

the form of transfer of ownership of rotowiper.com (the "Domain

Name") and removal of all references to the Rotowiper product from

sales literature and the website of the defendants.

The Amended Complaint prays for an extension of the

preliminary injunction entered on March 5, 2007, to Metal Works,

L.L.C.; for permanent injunctive relief; for damages, attorney's

fees and costs; for "divestiture" of the Domain Name; for removal

of all references to Rotowiper products from defendants' product

literature and grassworks.net website; and for destruction of all

knock-off products manufactured by defendants.

2. The March 5, 2007, Order granting plaintiff's request

for preliminary injunctive relief did not specifically address

ownership of the Domain Name, but did address defendants' existing

inventory of Rotowipers. Rotoworks was given the option of

repurchasing that inventory at a reduced rate. If it elected not

to repurchase, defendants were free to sell the machines, "but may

not represent that they are authorized Rotowiper dealers, and may

not use any Rotoworks or Rotowiper advertising materials,

including Rotowiper brochures and the rotowiper.com website, to

effect the sales."

The Order further prohibited defendants from "conducting any

marketing activities which use the Rotowiper trademark, logo,

website, or aqua trade dress."

Immediately following entry of the Order on March 5,

Case 5:07-cv-05009-JLH Document 95 Filed 09/04/07 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
-3-

Rotoworks by letter requested that defendants post a notice at

www.rotowiper.com, as follows:

On March 5, 2007, the owner of www.rotowiper.com was

preliminarily enjoined from operating this website by

order of the United States District Court for the

Western District of Arkansas, Fayetteville Division.

You may visit the official ROTOWIPER website at:

http://www.rotowiper.co.nz/.

By letter dated April 16, 2007, plaintiff requested that

defendants "voluntarily relinquish ownership of the

www.rotowiper.com domain name."

When neither of these requests was granted, on April 26,

2007, Rotoworks filed the motion now under consideration. The

motion is fully briefed and ripe for decision.

3. Summary judgment should be granted when the record,

viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and

giving that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences, shows

that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Walsh v. United States,

31 F.3d 696 (8th Cir. 1994). Summary judgment is not appropriate

unless all the evidence points toward one conclusion, and is

susceptible of no reasonable inferences sustaining the position of

the nonmoving party. Hardin v. Hussmann Corp., 45 F.3d 262 (8th

Cir. 1995). The burden is on the moving party to demonstrate the

non-existence of a genuine factual dispute; however, once the

moving party has met that burden, the nonmoving party cannot rest

on its pleadings, but must come forward with facts showing the

Case 5:07-cv-05009-JLH Document 95 Filed 09/04/07 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
-4-

existence of a genuine dispute. City of Mt. Pleasant, Iowa v.

Associated Electric Co-op, 838 F.2d 268 (8th Cir. 1988).

4. Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1, the parties have filed

statements of facts which they contend are not in dispute. From

those statements, the following significant undisputed facts are

made to appear: 

* Rotoworks owns an incontestable federal trademark

registration for the mark ROTOWIPER.

* Defendants have no trademark rights in the ROTOWIPER

brand.

* Defendant Bobby Umberson ("Umberson") registered the

Domain Name under the express authority of Rotoworks'

predecessor in interest.

* Rotoworks has terminated defendants' exclusive United

States distributorship to sell ROTOWIPER products.

* Rotoworks requested that defendants post a message on

the Website stating that the site had been shut down and

linking to its New Zealand website, but defendants

refused, and instead caused an error to appear when the

Website is accessed.

* Rotoworks again attempted to resolve the issue

surrounding the Domain Name amicably by requesting a

voluntary transfer, but defendants refused to answer the

request.

Case 5:07-cv-05009-JLH Document 95 Filed 09/04/07 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
-5-

* Defendants advertised using the ROTOWIPER brand as

recently as January, 2007, and all of defendants'

advertisements include the Website address.

5. Rotoworks contends that if defendants had posted the

requested notice redirecting Website traffic, that action "could

have been seen as a sign of good faith in this litigation," and

that defendants' posting of the error message on the Website

"gives the appearance to the consuming public that the Rotowiper

brand is now defunct." It relies on 11 U.S.C. §1125(d), which

provides, in relevant part, that 

A person shall be liable in a civil action by the owner

of a mark . . . if, without regard to the goods or

services of the parties, that person (i) has a bad faith

intent to profit from that mark . . .; and (ii) . . .

uses a domain name that . . . (III) is a trademark . .

. protected by reason of section 706 of title 18, United

States Code, or section 220506 of title 36, United

States Code.

One of the remedies provided in §1125(d) is "transfer of the

domain name to the owner of the mark."

6. Section 1125(d) sets forth a non-exclusive list of

factors a court may consider in evaluating the bona fides of the

user of a trademark as a domain name. That list includes the

following factors:

(a) Does the user own the trademark or other intellectual

property rights in the domain name?

(b) Does the domain name consist of the legal name or

nickname of the user?

Case 5:07-cv-05009-JLH Document 95 Filed 09/04/07 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
-6-

(c) Did the user formerly use the domain name in connection

with the bona fide offering of goods?

(d) Is the user making a bona fide noncommercial use of the

mark in a site accessible under the domain name?

(e) Does the user intend to divert customers from the mark's

owner to a site accessible under the domain name that

could harm the mark's goodwill, either for the purpose

of commercial gain or to disparage the mark?

(f) Did the user offer to sell the domain name without

having used it or intended to use it?

(g) Did the person supply false contact information when

applying to register the domain name?

(h) Has the user acquired multiple domain names confusingly

similar to the trademarks of others?

(i) Is the mark distinctive or famous as defined in 11

U.S.C. §1125(c)?

These factors may be analyzed as follows, in light of the

undisputed facts of this case:

(a) Defendants do not own the trademark or have any other

intellectual property rights in the Domain Name.

(b) The Domain Name does not consist of the legal name or

nickname of any defendant.

(c) The defendants formerly used the Domain Name in

connection with the bona fide offering of goods, but that use has

Case 5:07-cv-05009-JLH Document 95 Filed 09/04/07 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
-7-

been specifically rescinded by Rotoworks, and the Court has

enjoined the use of the Domain Name by defendants.

(d) The defendants are not making a bona fide noncommercial

use of the mark in a site accessible under the domain name. While

Umberson contends that "continued ownership of my domain

registration is necessary so that I may continue to receive email

addressed to me," the Court does not believe any reasonable juror

would find such use "necessary" or bona fide, when the changing of

e-mail addresses is such a ubiquitous phenomenon. 

(e) There is no showing that the defendants intend to divert

customers from Rotoworks to a site accessible under the Domain

Name that could harm Rotoworks' goodwill, but Rotoworks makes a

telling argument that the error message on the Website "gives the

appearance to the consuming public that the Rotowiper brand is now

defunct." This effect is tantamount to disparagement, especially

given that defendants are now in direct competition with Rotoworks

for the sale of weed wipers.

(f) Defendants did not offer to sell the Domain Name without

having used it or intended to use it.

(g) Defendants did not supply false contact information when

applying to register Domain Name.

(h) There is no evidence that defendants have acquired

multiple domain names confusingly similar to the trademarks of

others.

Case 5:07-cv-05009-JLH Document 95 Filed 09/04/07 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
-8-

(i) The mark is not distinctive or famous as defined in 11

U.S.C. §1125(c).

While some factors in the foregoing list -- f, g, h, and i --

weigh in favor of defendants, they are mainly factors associated

with evaluating bona fides in cases where a person wrongfully

registers for, and prevents usage of -- or misuses -- multiple

domain names or domain names which would be desirable to the

owners of famous marks. See, e.g., Coca-Cola Co. v. Purdy, 382

F.3d 774 (8th Cir. 2004). As to the facts of this case, those

factors are essentially neutral.

When one considers the factors particularly relevant to the

fact pattern herein presented -- a, b, c, d, and e -- the Court

does not believe that reasonable minds could differ: defendants

have acted in bad faith in refusing to transfer the Domain Name to

Rotoworks. They have no valid reason to retain the Domain Name,

have lost the right to use it for any commercial purpose, and have

no genuine need to use it for any noncommercial purpose.

For all the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Rotoworks

is entitled to summary judgment on the issue of transfer of the

Domain Name, and that defendants should be directed to effect the

transfer of the Domain Name immediately.

7. Umberson's Declaration raises a serious concern on the

part of the Court that the defendants are violating the March 5,

2007, Order. Umberson declares -- under penalty of perjury --

Case 5:07-cv-05009-JLH Document 95 Filed 09/04/07 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
-9-

that "continued ownership of my domain registration is necessary

so that I may continue to receive email addressed to me," and that

"[s]ome of this email is of a personal nature and is unrelated to

the sale of weed wipers."

If only some of Umberson's e-mail is personal and unrelated

to the sale of weed wipers, the necessary inference is that some

of it is related to the sale of weed wipers, and that use was

specifically enjoined in the Court's March 5, 2007, Order.

Defendants were prohibited from using "any Rotoworks or Rotowiper

advertising materials, including Rotowiper brochures and the

rotowiper.com website, to effect the sales" of their existing

inventory of Rotowipers. They were further prohibited from

"conducting any marketing activities which use the Rotowiper . .

. website . . . ."

This inference is reinforced by some of the documents

attached to other motions in this case. The Court notes

specifically that a contact on March 16, 2007, at the Website, by

Richard Dubroc resulted in the sale of a weed wiper in April,

2007. (Document #86, Exhibit BZ).

The Court will, therefore, direct that defendants show cause,

within seven (7) days of the date of this Order, why they should

not be held in contempt for violation of the Court's March 5,

2007, Order.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion For Partial

Case 5:07-cv-05009-JLH Document 95 Filed 09/04/07 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
-10-

Summary Judgment Seeking Transfer Of The Rotowiper.com Domain Name

(document #52) is granted, and defendants are directed to effect

a transfer of the Domain Name within seven (7) days of the date of

this Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants show cause, within

seven (7) days of the date of this Order, why they should not be

held in contempt for violation of the Court's March 5, 2007,

Order, by continued use of the Domain Name and Website to conduct

marketing activities involving weed wipers.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Jimm Larry Hendren 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:07-cv-05009-JLH Document 95 Filed 09/04/07 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>