In an action alleging that Defendant misused Plaintiff’s Internet domain names and website to promote his solo medical practice, judgment for Plaintiff is affirmed in part, where a reasonable jury could find that Defendant made misrepresentations in a copyright registration application; but reversed in part, where the District Court erred in determining that Plaintiff could not recover damages under both the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and the Lanham Act.
Read St. Luke’s Cataract & Laser Inst., P.A. v. Sanderson, No. 08-11848
Appellate Information
Filed July 9, 2009
Judges
Opinion by Judge Hull
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
