Plaintiffs were high school students that were directed by the schools they attended to submit class work to defendant IParadigm’s “Turnitin” website to check for plagiarism.
As part of this submission process, plaintiffs were obligated to assent to the site’s Usage Agreement.
The Court went on to deny cross-motions by JR Cigar and Go for summary judgment, holding issues of fact precluded its determination of the likelihood of consumer confusion arising out of such usage of plaintiff's marks, and hence from resolving the trademark infringement claims at issue. Similarly, any role that Napster plays in providing or facilitating a connection between these two computers does not occur through its system.
Plaintiff moved the court for an "interlocutory injunction," directing defendant to "reactivate the plaintiff company's website." The court rejected this application, finding that plaintiff's conduct was a breach of the parties' agreement, which permitted defendant to stop hosting plaintiff's website.
Defendant was permitted to take such action not only because plaintiff had breached the agreement's prohibition against violating 'generally accepted Netiquette,' but also because plaintiff had breached a provision of that agreement which permitted defendant to add additional terms to the contract.
This later ruling was premised on the court's determination that defendant's ads are not sufficiently fixed to constitute an infringing derivative work. 2003), each of which refused to issue similar injunctive relief.
The court's holding on plaintiff's trademark infringement claims is at odds with that reached by two other district courts - the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in , 2003 WL 22808692 (E. As the Southern District of New York court noted, "this Court disagrees with, and is not bound by these findings." Court Canadian court holds that sending unsolicited bulk e-mail, or "spam," is contrary to the emerging principles of "Netiquette" and accordingly violates a hosting agreement in which plaintiff "agree[d] to follow generally accepted 'Netiquette' when sending e-mail messages or posting newsgroup messages ...".
Unauthorized internet reseller of plaintiffs products is not guilty of trademark infringement, and does not cause actionable initial interest confusion, by using plaintiffs trademarks in meta tags of website at which plaintiffs and its competitors products are sold, and in...