Intellectual Property Law

Coming Full Circle in Christensen Firm v. Chameleon Data

By Michael Atkins

This isn’t a strictly a trademark update, but I can’t help but come full circle in the case of The Christensen Firm v. Chameleon Data Corp. (for background see STL coverage from Feb. 14, Feb. 20, May 5, and June 1). This is the case where the law firm claimed its Web developer took over three of the firm’s domain names and disabled the firm’s email system in an effort to gain an upper hand in a dispute over the Web developer’s bill. The Western District dismissed plaintiff’s domain name misappropriation claim on summary judgment and, in a jury trial, the Web developer was vindicated. Then, the law firm moved for a new trial on the alleged ground that the Web developer offered its former attorney as a surprise witness and unfairly took advantage of an order in limine by making arguments aimed at the subjects of its own motion in limine. Today, in a minute order, Judge Thomas Zilly denied the motion. Still remaining is STL’s question about whether the Web developer will press its claim for attorney’s fees based on its argument that plaintiff’s domain name misappropriation claim was exceptional under the Lanham Act. Seems doubtful at this point, but in the interests of closure, it’d be nice to see how the court would decide that issue.

The case cite is The Christensen Firm v. Chameleon Data Corp., No. 06-337 (W.D. Wash.) (Zilly, J.)

Full post as published by Seattle Trademark Lawyer on June 24, 2008 (boomark / email).