Judge says sanctions warranted against plantiffs and lawyer.
Remember domain investor VL Raymer, who found herself wrongly named in an alleged counterfeiting ring of Primp products last year?
Well, justice has been served.
Apparently the case didn’t just stink against Raymer, who owns Primp.com. The plaintiffs who own(ed) the Primp trademark also allegedly omitted some other important information against other defendants in its lawsuit and when it filed for a temporary restraining order.
The judge ruled that the plaintiff must pay Raymer $25,000 and the plaintiff’s lawyer must pay her $5,000, for a total of $30,000.
One the reasons for the award is that the plaintiffs alleged that Primp’s Primp trademark was
distinctive at the time the “infringing” domain name primp.com was registered. But, as the court noted:
However, a simple inquiry would have revealed that primp.com was registered to Raymer in 1998, nine years prior to the Primp mark’s registration in 2007. Absent any allegation that the Primp mark was distinctive in 1998, this allegation is frivolous.
Also, when the plaintiffs asked for a temporary restraining order, they stated “VL Raymer
registered primp.com to facilitate the counterfeiting of the Primp clothing . . . and distributed, advertised, offered for sale, and/or sold counterfeit Primp clothing bearing the Primp and Love Crush marks.”
As far as I can tell the domain has only ever been parked.
You’ll note earlier in this story I said the plaintiffs own(ed) the Primp trademark. I put the past tense in there because Raymer won a review with the U.S. Patent and Trademark office, which canceled the registration.
Raymer was represented by Karen Bernstein, who does legal work for a number of domain owners.
A lot of bogus cybersquatting disputes are filed. This case was obviously over the top, but it’s still good to see justice served.