The IT Law Wiki

Hasbro v. Clue Computing

32,076pages on
this wiki
Add New Page
Add New Page Talk0

Citation Edit

Hasbro, Inc. v. Clue Computing, Inc., 66 F. Supp. 2d 117, 52 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1402 (D. Mass. 1999) (full-text), aff'd, 232 F.3d 1, 56 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1766 (1st Cir. 2000) (full-text).

Factual Background Edit

Clue Computing (“Clue”) domain name registration “,” which it used in connection with a website offering information about its computer-consulting business.

Trial Court Proceedings Edit

Hasbro, owner of the federally registered mark CLUE for its board game, sued Clue, alleging trademark infringement and dilution. The court had previously dismissed Clue’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.[1] The court here granted summary judgment to Clue on Hasbro’s trademark-infringement claim and, sitting as a fact finder, ruled for Clue on Hasbro’s federal and state dilution claims.

As to trademark infringement, the court found that confusion was unlikely as a matter of law. Notably, in its discussion of the “actual confusion” factor, the court rejected the notion that the initial-interest confusion caused by Clue’s use of the “” domain name was actionable under trademark law. Refusing to follow several Ninth Circuit cases recognizing the doctrine, the court stated that the inconvenience of searching for Hasbro’s CLUE website was not sufficient to constitute actual confusion.

In rejecting Hasbro’s federal and state dilution claims, the court held that Hasbro failed to demonstrate that CLUE was a famous mark. The court nonetheless examined whether Clue’s use of the “” domain name diluted Hasbro’s CLUE mark. Finding that defendant had a legitimate competing use of “,” the court rejected Hasbro’s argument that the mere act of domain name registration was per se dilution. It then held that Hasbro failed to establish that Clue’s use of the domain name actually diluted the distinctiveness of the CLUE mark, refusing to grant Hasbro “a nationwide monopoly in the use of this rather common word” against others legitimately using it in other contexts.

Appellate Court Proceedings Edit

The First Circuit affirmed the district court's holdings on both the infringement and dilution claims with little discussion. In fact, the First Circuit "generally adopt[ed] the district court's analysis." But it declined to take a position on whether a retroactive application of the federal dilution statute was proper. Because the lower court correctly held that Hasbro's CLUE mark was not famous, the issue of retroactivity did not affect the outcome.

References Edit

  1. 994 F. Supp. 34.

Source Edit

Also on Fandom

Random Wiki