Case 2:17-cv-00651-DMF Document 83 Filed 10/09/19 Page 1 of 24 1 Marc J. Randazza, AZ Bar No.: 27861 Ronald D. Green, pro hac vice 2 RANDAZZA LEGAL GROUP, PLLC 2764 Lake Sahara Drive, Suite 109 3 Las Vegas, NV 89117 4 Tel: 702-420-2001 [email protected] 5 Attorneys for Defendant, Lotto Sport Italia, S.p.A. 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 9 David Dent, an individual, Case No. CV-17-651-PHX-DMF 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 vs. 13 Lotto Sport Italia, S.p.A., an Italian Corporation, 14 Defendant. 15 16 17 DEFENDANT LOTTO SPORT ITALIA, S.P.A.’S 18 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 - i - Motion for Summary Judgment CV-17-651-PHX-DMF 27 28 Case 2:17-cv-00651-DMF Document 83 Filed 10/09/19 Page 2 of 24 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1 3 2.0 LEGAL ARGUMENT ........................................................................................ 2 4 2.1 STANDARD OF REVIEW ....................................................................................................... 2 5 2.2 DECLARATORY RELIEF (28 U.S.C. § 2201) ...................................................................... 2 6 3.2.1 Dent Violated the Lanham Act ..................................................................................... 2 7 3.2.1.1 Lotto’s Rights to Its Marks .................................................................................... 4 8 3.2.1.2 The Sleekcraft Factors ............................................................................................ 5 9 3.2.2 Dent Violated The ACPA .............................................................................................. 7 10 2.3 REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING (15 U.S.C. § 1114(2)(D)(V)) .......................... 10 11 3.3.1 Elements of Claim ......................................................................................................... 10 12 13 3.3.2 Dent’s Registration Was Unlawful .............................................................................. 13 14 3.3.3 Available Remedies Under Subsection (v) ................................................................. 13 15 3.2.3 Exceptionality of the Case ............................................................................................ 15 16 3.0 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 17 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 - ii - Motion for Summary Judgment CV-17-651-PHX-DMF 27 28 Case 2:17-cv-00651-DMF Document 83 Filed 10/09/19 Page 3 of 24 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES 2 Abercrombie & Finch Co. v. Moose Creek, Inc., 3 486 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2007) ........................................................................................................... 3 4 Acad. Of Motion Picture Arts & Scis. v. Creative House Promotions, Inc., 5 944 F.2d 1446 (9th Cir. 1991) ..................................................................................................... 3, 6 6 AMF, Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1979) ....................................................................................................... 4, 6 7 Asics Corp. v. Payless Shoe Source, Inc., 8 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103078 (Aug. 23, 2006) .......................................................................... 6 9 Barcelona.com v. Excelentisimo Ayuntamiento de Barcelona, 330 F.3d 617 (4th Cir. 2003) ......................................................................................................... 11 10 Black v. Irving Materials, Inc., 11 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135882 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2019) ............................................... 11, 13 12 Brookfield Communs., Inc. v. W. Coast Entm’t Corp., 13 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999) ..................................................................................................... 5, 6 14 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) .......................................................................................................................... 2 15 Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, 16 279 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir. 2002) ......................................................................................................... 4 17 Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 18 510 U.S. 517 (1994) ........................................................................................................................ 17 19 Green Prods. Co. v. Independence Corn By-Prods. Co., 992 F. Supp. 1070 (N.D. Iowa 1997) ............................................................................................. 3 20 In re Jackson, 21 184 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 1999) ....................................................................................................... 13 22 Inst. Of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Soc’y, 725 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2013) ......................................................................................................... 15 23 Interstellar Starship Services, Ltd. v. Epix, Inc., 3 24 04 F3d 936 (9th Cir. 2002) .......................................................................................................... 4, 5 25 26 - iii - Motion for Summary Judgment CV-17-651-PHX-DMF 27 28 Case 2:17-cv-00651-DMF Document 83 Filed 10/09/19 Page 4 of 24 Jesinger v. Nev. Fed. Credit Union, 1 24 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 1994) ........................................................................................................... 2 2 Jimenez v. Quarterman, 3 555 U.S. 113 (2009) ........................................................................................................................ 13 4 K-Swiss, Inc. v. USA Aisiqi Shoes, Inc., 291 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (C. D. Cal. 2003) ........................................................................................ 6 5 MailPlanet.com, Inc. v. Lo Monaco Hogar, S.L., 6 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105076 (S.D. Fl. Dec. 17, 2007) .......................................................... 14 7 Murray v. Cable Nat’l Broad Co., 86 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 1996) ............................................................................................................. 3 8 9 NextEngine Ventures, LLC v. Lastar, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169672 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2014) ........................................................... 8 10 Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 11 134 S. Ct. 1749 (U.S. 2016) ........................................................................................................... 16 12 Perfect 10, Inc. v. Cybernet Ventures, Inc., 213 F. Supp. 2d 1146 (C.D. Cal. 2002) .......................................................................................... 3 13 Perfumebay, Inc. v. eBay, Inc., 14 506 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 2007) ......................................................................................................... 8 15 Playboy Enters. v. Netscape Commc’ns. Corp., 16 354 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2004) ......................................................................................................... 5 17 Rearden LLC v. Rearden Commerce, Inc., 683 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2012) ......................................................................................................... 8 18 Sallen v. Corinthians Licenciamentos LTDA, 19 273 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2001) ............................................................................................................ 11 20 Sunearth, Inc. v. SunEarth Solar Power Co., 839 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir. 2016) ....................................................................................................... 16 21 22 Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (1992) .......................................................................................................................... 5 23 Wang v. Societe du Figaro, 24 -- F.3d --, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13119 (S.D. N.Y. Jan. 26, 2018) ....................................... 14 25 26 - iv - Motion for Summary Judgment CV-17-651-PHX-DMF 27 28 Case 2:17-cv-00651-DMF Document 83 Filed 10/09/19 Page 5 of 24 1 STATUTES 2 3 15 U.S.C. § 1114 ............................................................................................................................ passim 4 15 U.S.C. § 1117 .................................................................................................................................. 15 5 15 U.S.C. § 1125 ..................................................................................................................... 2, 7, 8, 14 6 15 U.S.C. § 2201 .................................................................................................................................... 2 7 8 RULES 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 .............................................................................................................................. 1, 2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 - v - Motion for Summary Judgment CV-17-651-PHX-DMF 27 28 Case 2:17-cv-00651-DMF Document 83 Filed 10/09/19 Page 6 of 24 DEFENDANT LOTTO SPORT ITALIA, S.P.A.’S 1 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 2 Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant Lotto Sport 3 Italia, S.p.A. (“Lotto”) moves for summary judgment as to each surviving claim for relief 4 contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint. 5 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 6 1.0 INTRODUCTION 7 Dent is a cybersquatter and cannot show that his registration and use of 8 <lottoworks.com> and <lottostore.com> (the “Infringing Domain Names”) did not violate 9 the Lanham Act or the Anti-cybersquatting