Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
Diller v. Steurken, 185 Misc. 2d 274, 712 N.Y.S.2d 311 (N.Y. Cty. Supreme Ct. 2000) (full-text).
Factual Background Edit
Defendant registered domain names containing celebrity names, including "barrydiller.com" in January 1999, for purposes of selling them. Defendant's website contained numerous uses of Mr. Diller's name, one use of his picture, and one use of his company's name. In response to plaintiffs' cease-and-desist letter, defendant removed all of the offending uses from his site but continued to offer the sale of the domain name "barrydiller.com" for $100,000.
Trial Court Proceedings Edit
Plaintiffs sued defendant and eventually obtained a default judgment. In this decision, the court granted plaintiffs' request for a permanent injunction and transfer of the domain name, but denied their request for attorney's fees. Although defendant registered the domain name before the ACPA became effective, the court followed the Second Circuit's decision in Sporty's Farm v. Sportsman's Market holding that the ACPA "applies retroactively where prospective or injunctive relief is at issue."
On the issue of attorney's fees, however, the court held that the ACPA did not permit retroactive awards of attorney's fees for domain names registered before enactment of the ACPA on November 29, 1999.
- This page uses content from Finnegan’s Internet Trademark Case Summaries. This entry is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License 3.0 (Unported) (CC-BY-SA).