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.
Hasbro, Inc. v. Internet Entertainment Group, Ltd., 1996 WL 84853, 40 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1479 (W.D. Wash, Feb. 9, 1996) (full-text).
Factual Background Edit
Hasbro Inc., the owner of the trademark Candyland for children's games, sued the defendants for using the domain name candyland.com in connection with a sexually explicit website. The complaint alleged, in pertinent part:
|“|| 17. Through their advertising, operation and maintenance of a sexually explicit pornographic Internet site which used the CANDYLAND name and which is accessed using the Internet domain name "candyland.com", Defendants have caused and if not enjoined will continue to cause consumers to be confused as to the affiliation, connection or association of Defendants with Hasbro, or as to Hasbro's sponsorship or approval of Defendants' pornographic Internet site.
18. Defendants' willful and unauthorized use of the CANDYLAND name and of the domain name "candyland.com" in connection with their sexually explicit pornographic Internet site has damaged Hasbro in an amount to be determined at trial. Such use has also caused Hasbro irreparable harm, and Hasbro will continue to be irreparably harmed unless and until Defendants' unlawful conduct is enjoined.
Trial Court Proceedings Edit
Hasbro moved for a temporary restraining order. The court found that the plaintiff had demonstrated a likelihood of prevailing on its claims that such use tarnished and thereby diluted the Candyland trademark. After the court rendered its oral decision, the parties agreed to the terms of a preliminary injunction.
The preliminary injunction ordered that all content be immediately removed from the site and the defendant was given the right to post a forwarding address for ninety days. (The defendant originally had sought a six month transition period, because of the necessity of contacting dozens, if not hundreds, of indexing services to give them the new Internet address).