IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

Similar documents
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. ELAINE SCOTT, Plaintiff, Case No. 4:09-cv-3039-MH v.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN. Plaintiff, Case No. 2:09-CV Hon. Marianne O.

Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 10/02/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:1

AS MODIFIED. Attorneys for Plaintiff, STERLING SAVINGS BANK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION. Advertising Magic, Inc. v. Ad Magic Inc., d/b/a Ad Magic c/o Shari Spiro Claim Number: FA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION. Plaintiffs, Defendant.

INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

Case 1:16-cv FAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/13/2017 Page 1 of 7

Case3:12-cv VC Document28 Filed07/01/14 Page1 of 11

Case 3:08-cv VRW Document 11 Filed 05/22/2008 Page 1 of 9

Case 1:18-cv RGS Document 1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON. Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER

Case4:12-cv JSW Document34 Filed09/19/14 Page1 of 11

Case 2:17-cv EJF Document 2 Filed 10/02/17 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION

Case 9:18-cv RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2018 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv JVB-JEM document 62 filed 04/05/18 page 1 of 12

Case 3:06-cv JSW Document 174 Filed 10/31/2007 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

Case 2:17-cv JFW-JC Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 1 of 11 Page ID #:1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. District of Oregon. Plaintiff(s), vs. Case No: 6:07-CV-6149-HO. Defendant(s). Civil Case Assignment Order

United States District Court

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 06/16/17 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. Civil Action No.

Case 7:15-cv Document 10 Filed in TXSD on 12/02/15 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MCALLEN DIVISION

Case 3:15-cv WHA Document 31 Filed 03/03/16 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.

Case3:15-cv DMR Document1 Filed09/16/15 Page1 of 11

In the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. No. Complaint NATURE OF THE ACTION

Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 27 Filed: 10/02/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:752

Case: 2:15-cv MHW-NMK Doc #: 20 Filed: 07/01/15 Page: 1 of 10 PAGEID #: 143

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

1:13-cv TLL-CEB Doc # 1 Filed 07/28/13 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION : : : : : : : : : :

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Drafting Trademark Settlement Agreements to Resolve IP Disputes

Case 3:13-cv D Document 1 Filed 07/28/13 Page 1 of 12 PageID 1

The Five (or More) Forums for Your Trademark Dispute, and How to Choose the Right One (Hint: Don t Choose the ITC)

Case 3:12-cv P Document 1 Filed 06/14/12 Page 1 of 20 PageID 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE. No. Plaintiff, Defendants.

Document Analysis Technology Group (DATG) and Records Management Alert

Case 4:15-cv Y Document 1 Filed 03/15/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION

The Tundra Docket: Western District Of Wisconsin

Northern Ill.'s New Local Patent Rules

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT YAKIMA

CLEFL1 >' SO. DtT. OF IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA GENERAL ORDER

Case 1:18-cv WJM-KLM Document 1 Filed 11/07/18 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case: 1:18-cv Document #: 24 Filed: 05/16/18 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:499

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

Case 4:04-cv RAS Document 41 Filed 12/09/2004 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

Trademark Litigation A Global Guide. Greece. Ballas, Pelecanos & Associates LPC George Ballas, Nicholas Gregoriades and Maria Spanos

Case 1:18-cv TWP-DML Document 1 Filed 01/06/18 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1

Case 1:13-cv WYD-MEH Document 28 Filed 02/20/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLORADO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: COMPLAINT

Case 1:17-cv JCH-JHR Document 17 Filed 03/31/17 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case: 1:13-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 07/09/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Courthouse News Service

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY

Case 3:13-cv M Document 60 Filed 12/19/14 Page 1 of 20 PageID 1778

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DOCKET CONTROL ORDER STEP ACTION RULE DATE DUE 1

Case sgj11 Doc 34 Filed 05/05/16 Entered 05/05/16 19:24:28 Page 1 of 4

Chidi Eze, Esq., an attorney at law, duly admitted to practice law before this Court,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION

Case3:12-cv VC Document88 Filed06/09/15 Page1 of 2

Case dml11 Doc 6977 Filed 03/13/12 Entered 03/13/12 15:13:05 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 5

Case 4:16-cv Document 1 Filed 11/15/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1

Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant Midwest Industrial Supply, Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Case 2:12-cv TC Document 2 Filed 12/10/12 Page 1 of 16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE LOCHIRCO FRUIT AND PRODUCE COMPANY, INC., and THE HAPPY APPLE COMPANY,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE. For its answer to the Complaint, Defendants James Allen Diamonds, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

Case 2:16-cv JAK-AS Document 29 Filed 10/15/16 Page 1 of 14 Page ID #:190

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ) COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY. Plaintiffs, Defendant[s].

Case: 2:17-cv MHW-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/23/17 Page: 1 of 15 PAGEID #: 1

Case 3:14-cv B Document 1 Filed 06/18/14 Page 1 of 18 PageID 1

Case 1:11-cv MGC Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/17/2011 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION. v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. Case No. 3:13-cv N

Case 2:15-cv Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 1 of 52

Case 1:15-cv LMB-JFA Document 37 Filed 04/03/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 374

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Case: 5:17-cv DCR Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/06/17 Page: 1 of 5 - Page ID#: 1

Case 1:18-cv DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2018 Page 1 of 17

Case: 4:16-cv DDN Doc. #: 1 Filed: 07/15/16 Page: 1 of 9 PageID #: 1

Case 1:04-cv RJS Document 90 Filed 09/13/10 Page 1 of 7

Case 1:13-cv CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/30/2013 Page 1 of 17

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION

CASE 0:15-cv JRT Document 17 Filed 02/12/16 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA INTRODUCTION

Case 2:14-cv JRG-RSP Document 9 Filed 08/08/14 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 227

CASE NO. 16-CV RS

Case 2:18-cv KOB Document 20 Filed 09/04/18 Page 1 of 8

GIBSON LOWRY BURRIS LLP

Case 3:15-cv AA Document 1 Filed 01/12/15 Page 1 of 17

Case 3:15-cv TLB Document 96 Filed 04/22/16 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 791

Case 1:14-cv JEI-KMW Document 1 Filed 09/23/14 Page 1 of 6 PageID: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO COMPLAINT

Transcription:

Microsoft Corporation v. Dauben Inc Doc. 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION MICROSOFT CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff, DAUBEN, INC. d/b/a TEXAS INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY ASSOCIATES, Defendant. Civil Action No. 3:08-CV-0098-L JOINT STATUS REPORT AND AGREED PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. 26 (f) Pursuant to the Court s Order entered March 6, 2008 and in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), a case management conference was conducted on March 21, 2008, among counsel of record for plaintiff Microsoft Corporation ( Microsoft ) and Defendant Dauben, Inc. d/b/a Texas International Property Associates ( TIPA ). Accordingly, counsels submit the following Joint Status Report Regarding the Contents of a Scheduling Order ( Joint Status Report ) and Agreed Proposed Discovery Plan. 1. Brief Statement of the Claims and Defenses. Plaintiff Microsoft: This case is about cybersquatting -- the infringement of Microsoft s trade and service marks in Internet domain names. Microsoft alleges that TIPA registered, is currently the registrant of, and used numerous Internet domain names that contain or consist of Microsoft trademarks and/or intentional misspellings of the Microsoft trademarks. Microsoft has asserted claims for violations of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(d); JOINT STATUS REPORT AND AGREED PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN Page 1 Dockets.Justia.com

of Sections 32 and 43 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1114(1) (Trademark Infringement); and of 15 U.S.C. 1125(a) (False Designation of Origin, Unfair Competition/False Advertising). Defendant TIPA: The names in question are not identical or similar to Microsoft s trademarks. Defendant TIPA contends that its registration and use of the domain names are protected under the doctrine of fair use and nominative use. Furthermore, given the extent and usage of these marks, which are otherwise generic or descriptive terms, Microsoft s attempt to enforce rights in these words constitutes a monopolistic use of its alleged rights. 2. Challenge to Jurisdiction or Venue. None. 3. Any Pending or Contemplated Motions and Proposed Time Limit for Filing Motions. Microsoft will file a summary judgment motion and may file other motions. The parties propose November 6, 2008 as the deadline to file dispositive motions. 4. Any Matters Which Require a Conference with the Court. None at this time. 5. Likelihood that Other Parties Will Be Joined. Microsoft believes it needs to undertake discovery before it can make a determination as to the likelihood of joining of other parties prior to discovery. Microsoft reserves its right to join additional parties as discovery proceeds. 6. Discovery Plan JOINT STATUS REPORT AND AGREED PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN Page 2

A. The parties do not object to initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1). The parties propose that initial disclosures be made by April 8, 2008. The parties do not believe any changes in the form or requirement for Rule 26(a) disclosures should be necessary. B. The parties do not believe that discovery need not be conducted in phases or limited to specific subject matter. Microsoft plans to seek discovery on the following topics: 1. All allegations asserted in Microsoft s Complaint. 2. All allegations and defenses asserted in Defendant s Answer to Microsoft s Complaint. 3. Defendant s ownership or association with business entities and individuals, including but not limited to, Joey Dauben, Dauben Inc. and Texas International Property Associates. 4. Defendant s (and related entities and individuals ) registration, hosting, and parking of domains names infringing upon Microsoft s trade and service marks. 5. Defendant s (and related entities and individuals ) registration, hosting, and parking of domains names infringing upon non-microsoft trade and service marks. 6. Defendant s (and related entities and individuals ) entire portfolio of domain names, current and previous. 7. Defendant s (and related entities and individuals ) registration, hosting, and parking of domains names and compensation related to same. 8. Registrars, Hosting Providers, and Parking Service Providers from whom Defendant was provided services. JOINT STATUS REPORT AND AGREED PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN Page 3

9. Customers, clients, or any third parties to who Defendant sold or transferred domain names infringing upon Microsoft s trade and service marks. 10. Customers, clients, or any third parties to who Defendant sold or transferred domain names infringing upon non-microsoft trade and service marks. 11. Customers, clients, or any third parties to who Defendant sold or transferred domain names. 12. Defendant s acquisition of Microsoft trade and service marks infringing domain names. 13. Defendant s knowledge of Microsoft s trade and service marks. 14. Defendant s infringement of Microsoft s trade and service marks. 15. Defendant s records documenting Defendant s sales or transfers of Microsoft s trade and service marks infringing domains, including, but not limited to, the name of the domains sold or transferred, the sales price, the sales or transfer mechanism, and payment mechanism. 16. Defendant s records documenting Defendant s sales or transfers of domain names, including, but not limited to, the name of the domains sold or transferred, the sales price, the sales or transfer mechanism, and payment mechanism. 17. All Complaints, lawsuits and UDRPs made against Defendant for cybersquatting. 18. Microsoft s damages as described in its Complaint. Microsoft reserves the right to modify this discovery plan at any time and to seek discovery on any topic that is reasonably calculated to the discovery of admissible evidence. Microsoft also plans to seek third party discovery from Defendant s registrars, hosting and JOINT STATUS REPORT AND AGREED PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN Page 4

parking service providers. Microsoft also plans to seek third party discovery from Defendant s customers or other entities that Defendant may have bought or sold domains from/to. TIPA plans to seek discovery on the following topics: Evidence or lack thereof actual confusion created by Plaintiff s registration of these names; Evidence of the descriptive or generic nature of the alleged marks, other proceedings instituted by Defendant to limit the use of common and ordinary words in the English language, Defendant s awareness of the ongoing use of the domain names in dispute over the last three years and the reason for the delay in making any complaint or contact to TIPA or any other party, domain names registered by Microsoft which infringe upon the rights of others. The parties are not aware of any issues relating to electronically stored information that warrant inclusion in this report. The parties do not seek entry of an order regarding the assertion of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation materials of produced documents at this time. 7. An Estimate of the Time Needed for Discovery, with Reasons; A Specification of the Discovery Contemplated; And Limitations, If Any, That Should Be Placed on Discovery. The parties propose discovery in accordance with the Federal Rules. The parties propose October 6, 2008 as the deadline for completing discovery. Microsoft will depose Defendant and may depose individuals and entities associated with Defendant s business. TIPA does not intend to depose anyone at this time. 8. Statement Regarding the Dondi Decision and the District Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan as amended in May, 2002. Counsel for the parties have read and are familiar with the Dondi decision and the District s Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan, as amended in May, 2002. JOINT STATUS REPORT AND AGREED PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN Page 5

9. Requested Trial Date, Estimated Length of Trial, and if Jury Trial has been Demanded. The parties propose that the Court set a trial date of December 28, 2008. The parties estimate the trial will require two days. TIPA has demanded a jury trial. 10. Consent to Trial before United States Magistrate Judge. The parties consent to trial before United States Magistrate Judge Irma C. Ramirez. 11. Prospects for Settlement and Status of any Settlement Negotiations. In accordance with F.R.C.P. 26(f), the parties have conferred regarding the nature and basis of claims and defense and the possibility of prompt settlement or resolution of the case. The parties are in the process of discussing possible resolution of the case. The parties propose that the parties set an early mediation date of April 30, 2008, so as to attempt to resolve its claims in this lawsuit. 12. Mediation. The parties believe early mediation may be effective and request a mediation deadline of April 30, 2008. 13. Handling the Case as an Electronic Case File (ECF) pursuant to Miscellaneous Order 61 and the ECF Procedures Manual. The parties are amenable to handling this case as an Electronic Case File (ECF). 14. Other Relevant Matters. None. JOINT STATUS REPORT AND AGREED PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN Page 6

Respectfully submitted, /s/ John Patton John W. Patton State Bar No. 00798422 Email: john.patton@klgates.com KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART PRESTON GATES ELLIS LLP 1717 Main Street, Suite 2800 Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 939-5500 (214) 939-5849 (fax) Pallavi Mehta Wahi, pro hac vice admitted WSBA # 32799 Email: pallavi.wahi@klgates.com KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART PRESTON GATES ELLIS LLP 925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900 Seattle, Washington 98104-1158 (206) 623-7580 (206) 370-6361 (fax) ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF MICROSOFT CORPORATION /s/ Gary Wayne Tucker Gary Wayne Tucker State Bar No. 24047002 Email: gwtlaw@gmail.com LAW OFFICE OF GARY WAYNE TUCKER 1201 Main P310 PMB5 Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 679-7706 (214) 722-0355 (fax) ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT DAUBEN, INC. K:\2000103\03075\21039_PMW\21039P20KK JOINT STATUS REPORT AND AGREED PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN Page 7