A simple assessment by a competent trademark lawyer can cost anywhere from $350 to $2,000 depending on the breadth of the search. That price is pretty cheap compared to the cost of having an injunction issued against you for infringement of intellectual property. All told, being named as a defendant in a trademark infringement or cybersquatting lawsuit can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
In the case discussed below, Palantir Technologies branded its company in 2005 with a name that easily could have been identified in a trademark availability search. A good trademark lawyer would have discovered both a prior US trademark registration and a Panantir.net's web site. The common use in a service category which includes databases would have resulted in an attorney opinion that the Palantir name was too high risk.
A Google Search reveals this result for Palantir Technologies. Palantir Technologies : The future of analysis. It turns out Palanir forgot to analyze trademark availability or failed to understand the risks associated with brand name selection of a prior use.
Palantir.net began providing Web design, development, and database services nationally under the Palantir name in 1996. It acquired the palantir.net domain name in 1997. Palantir.net incorporated in 2000 and obtained a federal registration for PALANTIR in 2006. It sells to educational and cultural institutions, as well as financial, corporate, and governmental clients.
Palantir Technologies designs database software for the Central Intelligence Agency and a financial services company. It started offering products under PALANTIR in 2005. It is a small company but it purchases the word “palantir” from Google’s AdWords service and outranks Palantir.net in Google search engine results.
Palantir.net moved for a preliminary injunction enjoining Palantir Technologies from using PALANTIR in advertising. In imposing a preliminary injunction, the court required Palantir Technologies to place on all of its Web sites, including its blog, a “prominent disclaimer that advises viewers that it is different from Palantir.net and that advises viewers how to access Palantir.net.” The court also enjoined Palantir Technologies from “engaging in any Internet advertising under the palantir mark, that is, no more Google advertisements.”
The case cite is Palantir Technologies, Inc. v. Palantir.net, Inc., 2008 WL 152339, No. 07-3863 (N.D. Calif. Jan. 15, 2008).
Seattle Trademark Lawyer - Published by Michael Atkins Palantir.net Gets Preliminary Injunction Against Palantir Technologies
Technorati Tags: brand, marketing, Palantir
Powered by ScribeFire.