DAVID LAHOTI, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VERICHECK, INC., a Georgia Corp., Defendant-Appellee., 636 F.3d 501

Summary

The district court conducted its analysis as instructed on remand, and agreed with defendant that its mark was suggestive, not descriptive. The district court's conclusion that the mark was distinctive, and its finding of a likelihood of confusion, were affirmed. Defendant's mark and plaintiff's domain name were identical or confusingly similar, plaintiff used the domain name to provide services that competed with defendant, and the parties both used the Internet as a marketing channel. The internet trinity, combined with the remaining Sleekcraft factors, weighed overwhelmingly in favor of defendant. Also, because there was no question that plaintiff's domain name wholly incorporated defendant's mark, and in light of the court's conclusion that the mark was distinctive, the district court's conclusion that plaintiff violated the ACPA was affirmed. Further, the district court's finding of a violation of the WCPA was affirmed because plaintiff acted in bad faith, defendant's mark was ...