Stillwater Lakes Civic Association v. Gorka [1]

The Board of Directors of Stillwater Lakes Civic Association (the "Association"), a homeowner's assocation, sued a local watchdog organization and its members over websites that allegedly infringed the Association's trademarks.  Stillwater Lakes Community Activist ("Community Activist"), an organization of Stillwater Lakes property owners dedicated to achieving "an open honest transparent community," registered domain names for its website at www.stillwaterlakes.com [2] and www.stillwaterlakes.net [3].  Community Activist is primarily concerned with ensuring that the Board's meetings and decisions are sufficiently fair and open to the public.

The Association alleges that Community Activist improperly uses the Association's name and acronym "SLCA" in the sites' content and domain names.  The Association's complaint includes claims for cybersquatting, federal trade name infringement and dilution, unfair competition, and common law trade name misappropriation.

On January 20, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the suit.  As grounds for dismissal, the motion disputes the validity of the Association's trademark interests and the sufficiency of its trademark claims.

Update:

4/2/09 - The assigned magistrate judge recommended [4] that the defendants' motion to dismiss be denied with respect to all six claims brought by the Association.

4/30/09 - The district court adopted [5], without objection by the parties, the magistrate judge's recommendation that the defendants' motion to dismiss be denied.

6/2/09 - The defendants answered [6] the complaint.

5/9/11 - After extended discovery and at least two court-ordered mediation sessions [7], the Association moved [8] to dismiss the suit with prejudice, arguing [9] that changes to the Community Activist website have reduced the risk of confusion, and that the Association cannot afford to continue the suit.

5/18/11 - The defendants filed a brief opposing [10] the Association's motion to dismiss, arguing that the case should not be dismissed until the court had ruled on the defendants' forthcoming FRCP Rule 11 motion for sanctions.

5/23/11 - Defendants filed their Rule 11 motion [11] for sanctions, in which they argue that the Association had filed the original suit in order to "harass" the defendants and "cause the Defendants financial harm."

5/26/11 - Defendants filed a memorandum [12] in support of their Rule 11 motion, and also moved for fees and costs [13] under the Lanham Act.

6/2/11 - Defendants filed a memorandum [14] in support of their motion for fees under the Lanham Act, arguing that the Association's actions constitute an "exceptional case" qualifying for fees and costs.

6/7/11- The Association filed a reply brief [15] supporting its motion to dismiss. The brief claims that the Association filed both the original lawsuit and the motion to dismiss in good faith, and argues that the defendants failed to comply with proper Rule 11 procedure.

6/9/11 - The Association filed a separate brief [16] in opposition to the defendants' motion for Rule 11 sanctions. The brief again argues good faith and alleges a failure by the defendants to follow Rule 11 procedure; in addition, the brief asks that the court award attorneys' fees to the Association should the court rule against the defendants' Rule 11 motion.

6/16/11 - The Association filed its brief [17] in opposition to the defendants' Lanham Act motion for fees and costs, arguing both technical and substantive grounds.