Moon Microsystems V Zucchini Case Summary

Trial Prep 3
Moon Microsystems v Zucchini
Counsel for the Plaintiff
Javier Hilty and Songyue Huang

Part 1:
Legal Arguments:
The defendant 's domain name is confusingly similar to the marks owned by our client. This is obvious as his domain moonmocha.com contains both marks in question. And falls under the ACPA 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d).
The defendant has acquired multiple domain names which contain the marks owned by our client. This is evidence of a bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill associated with the marks under the ACPA 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d).
The defendant has not had prior use of the domains in question associated with a legitimate business. His domain was previously named http://latenightgrinds.blogstop.com/. This is additional

Why not keep the same name you had before?
How has the traffic to your blog changed since you changed the domain name?
What position does your website show up on search engines?
How much involvement do you have with the management of your website?

Lisa Brista(Defendant Friendly Witness)
1)Did you know about mocha program language developed by the Moon Microsystems Inc,
2)Did you think your website name have the intent to prevent people who would like to know about mocha language from visiting Moon Microsystems ’s website?
3)If you do not intend to mislead people why you did not post a link on your website to Moon Microsystems ’s website and explain this is not a website for Mocha language?
4)Since Mocha language is developed in 2001, and you change the website URL in 2003, Do you think there is some relevances between these two event?
5)Do you think that registering these website will cause interest lost for Moon Microsystem?
Objections:
John Zucchini(Defendant Client

(Plaintiff) v. John Zucchini (Defendant)
Jury Instructions and Verdict Form

Elements of the Case
Under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act the plaintiff has to show the following two things.
1. The defendant John Zucchini registered, trafficked in, or used a domain that is confusingly similar to a famous mark.
2. The defendant had a bad faith intent to profit from the mark or marks associated with the plaintiff..

Definition of confusingly similar to a famous mark
In this context the court does not need to consider such things as punctuation, spacing or capitalization as the format of domain names does not allow for such things. Furthermore there is no test for determining whether or not something is confusingly similar and as such it is left up to court to decide.

Definition of bad faith intent
Bad faith means by trick people to visit his site or get benefits from the domain name which is similar to a popular trademark,there are many factors involved in determining if something was bad faith