In an April 12, 2010 decision by Justice Sherwood, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction to block their competitor from using certain internet domain names. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants’ registration of several domain names that were similar to plaintiffs’ business names, violated General Business Law § 349, New York Civil Rights Law § 51, and the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. In denying the motion, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of the GBL claim because the plaintiff merely alleged in conclusory fashion that its customers might be mislead or confused, but failed to produce any evidence of actual confusion. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of its Civil Rights Law claim because it produced no evidence showing that the defendants’ domain names constituted a commercial use of the plaintiffs’ names, as mere use of another’s name on the internet is not per se commercial use. Finally, the court found that the plaintiffs’ failure to present any evidence that the defendants’ acted in bad faith in registering the domain names or that they intended in bad faith to profit from the domain names, warranted denial of the preliminary injunction on the Anti-Cybersquatting claim.
Goldstar Props. of NY, LLC v Blackstone Props. of NY, LLC, Sup Ct, NY County, April 12, 2010, Sherwood, J, Index No. 102789/10