Cybersquatting Ruling Using a 2-Column Proof Format

Introduction
JOSEPH M. MAXWELL was sued by TMI INC. for Cybersquatting as documented at this site.

The Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act states that in order for a trademark owner to bring a claim under the ACPA, the owner must establish these three conditions:

• The trademark owner’s mark is distinctive or famous;
• The domain name owner acted in bad faith to profit from the mark; and
• The domain name and the trademark are either identical or confusingly similar (or dilutive for famous trademarks).

Facts of the Case

• Joseph Maxwell's website was titled http://trendmakerhome.info whereas TMI's website was/is http://trendmakerhomes.com.
• Joseph Maxwell's site was a "gripe" site where he documented his complaints about TMI.
• Joseph Maxwell did not attempt to sell his domain name to TMI or profit from any association with TMI. Furthermore, Joseph Maxwell clearly indicated on his site that his site was not affiliated with TMI.

Analyzing Statements and Reasons Using a 2-Column Proof Format

Statements	Reasons
Joseph Maxwell's website was titled http://trendmakerhome.info whereas TMI's website was/is http://trendmakerhomes.com.	Given
Joseph Maxwell's website domain name and the trademark are either identical or confusingly similar.	The domain names differ by only a letter. Trendmaker Homes is a trademarked name - see http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=jcvv0n.3.1
The trademark owner’s mark is distinctive or famous;	Again, Trendmaker Homes is a trademarked name - see http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=jcvv0n.3.1
The domain name owner acted in bad faith to profit from the mark.	This can not be shown. Rather Maxwell's site was deemed merely a "gripe site" with no commercial purpose or intention to extort money from Trendmaker Homes.
Joseph Maxwell was found to not violate the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act sections of the Lanham Act.	Only 2 of the above 3 requirements for showing violation of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act are satisfied.

And here is a common geometry proof - Notice the similarity?

Statements	Reasons
Segment AD bisects segment BC and segment BC bisects segment AD.	Given
Segment AO is congruent to segment OD.	Bisecting a segment results in two congruent segments.
Segment BO is congruent to segment OC.	Bisecting a segment results in two congruent segments.
Angle AOB is congruent to angle DOC.	Vertical angles are congruent.
Triangle AOB is congruent to triangle DOC.	When two sets of corresponding sides, and their included angles are congruent, the triangles corresponding to these two sets of sides and angles are also congruent. This is known as the Side-Angle-Side Theorem.

Case Ruling
Defendant's website, complaining about plaintiff company, was a non-commercial gripe site, did not violate the anti-dilution or the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act sections of the Lanham Act, and did not violate the Texas Anti-Dilution statute. The website had no commercial purpose and defendant had no bad faith intent to profit; judgment reversed and rendered for defendant. As Stated at FindLaw.com