CraigsList sues JamesList, the “Craigslist for the rich”

Confusingly similar yacht sales platforms.

If you’ve never heard of JamesList, it may be because you aren’t in the market for a Yacht. Or you wouldn’t think of buying one used.

Craigslist has sued (pdf) Jameslist, a classified site for luxury goods such as yachts, jets, and helicopters, for trademark infringement. Craigslist says JamesList’s name is confusingly similar to it, and that JamesList purposely selected its name to sound similar.

Craigslist may have a point, as noted in an article about JamesList in 2010:

“[JamesList CEO] Perski acknowledged the stark simplicity of his new venture by giving it a cheeky name, an obvious word-play on the ubiquitous classified ad site”

Jameslist raised the ire of Craigslist when it filed for U.S. trademarks in 2009, which it later abandoned when Craigslist filed an opposition.

Among Craigslist’s requests: that the domain name be “forefeited, cancelled, or transferred to craigslist”.


  1. John UK says

    I cannot see that they could have any chance of winning a “passing off” action as clearly JamesList is completely different to CraigsList. Will need to wait and see what exactly Craigs List says in its complaint.Hopefully next headline will be “Craigs List(tm) now Craigs Lost” .

  2. John UK says

    Thanks ,yes have just read complaint. I think that Craigs List are really stretching it to claim that anyone is going to confuse James List with Craigs List. I also wonder whether the Court will accept Jurisdiction ,given that James List is based in Sweden. I know that if Craigs List tried to sue in Europe they would laugh them out of Court as Europe nowadays looks at trade marks very narrowly.

    Readers might be interested to see this ,which is a comparison of signs and whether OHIM (Europe) would allow the TM or not

  3. says

    @John UK.

    The link you gave explains why this looks like a valid case (Page 4):

    This finding of the Court establishes the two following basic principles:

    – the assessment of similarity of signs must not only be based on some
    isolated elements, but on the global appreciation of both signs under

    – the distinctive and dominant components are “in particular” important
    for the evaluation of similarity between signs.

    The Court has used the concept of distinctive and dominant components in a
    general manner and without any further specification.

Leave a Reply