When I skim lists of newly filed suits, I look out for situations where the defendants are well-known established companies. Most tend to be declaratory judgment situations (which in themselves are more interesting than the ‘normal’ infringement suit. Some tend to be interesting for miscellaneous reasons. This is the latter.
Cabela’s operates a large chain of outdoor-recreation stores. Plaintiff owns registrations for GANDER MOUNTAIN and sued Cabela’s. The first count, cybersquatting, alleges that Cabela’s registered GanderMountainCatalog.com and GanderCatalog.com in violation of plaintiff’s rights.
Well that’s an odd thing for a reputable company to do.
Now read this backgrounder.
OK – what do you guys think? There is a school of thought that you identify the elephants in the room first, so that your opponent doesn’t get first crack at defining it. What arguments favor plaintiff’s approach in this complaint?
gander v cabelagander v cabela
var docstoc_docid=’165618229′; var docstoc_title=’gander v cabela’; var docstoc_urltitle=’gander v cabela’;