Intellectual Property Law

Mind the Requirements Contained in Routine Orders

By Michael Atkins

On August 14, Western District Judge Robert Lasnik on his own initiative ordered the defendant in a trademark and cybersquatting case to show cause why it should not be sanctioned for failing to comply with two court orders.

The orders? The court’s scheduling order and its order regarding initial disclosures, joint status report, and early settlement.

Both contained identical language:

“The following alterations to the Electronic Filing Procedures apply in all cases pending before Judge Lasnik: 

- Section III, Paragraph F - when the aggregate submittal to the court (i.e., the motion, any declarations and exhibits, the proposed order and the certificate of service) exceeds 50 pages in length, a paper copy of the documents (with tabs or other organizing aids as necessary) shall be delivered to the Clerk’s Office for chambers by 10:30 am the morning after filing. The chambers copy must be clearly marked with the words ‘Courtesy Copy of Electronic Filing for Chambers.’”

Defendant Kook’s Custom Headers, Inc., filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff Global DNS, LLC’s claims. Its motion, taken as a whole, exceeded 50 pages. But it did not provide the requisite courtesy copy for chambers.

The court was not pleased.

The case cite is Global DNS, LLC v. Kook’s Custom Headers, Inc., No. 08-268 (Lasnik, J.).

Full post as published by Seattle Trademark Lawyer on August 15, 2008 (boomark / email).