Vulcan Golf, LLC v. Google Inc. et al

Filing 59

MOTION by Defendant Internet Reit, Inc. to dismiss (August, Brett)

Vulcan Golf, LLC v. Google Inc. et al

Doc. 59

Case 1:07-cv-03371

Document 59

Filed 08/10/2007

Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION VULCAN GOLF, LLC, Individually And On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Lead Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) v. ) ) GOOGLE INC., OVERSEE.NET, ) SEDO LLC, DOTSTER, INC., AKA ) REVENUEDIRECT.COM, ) INTERNET REIT, INC. d/b/a IREIT, INC. ) and JOHN DOES I-X, ) Defendants. )

No. 07 CV 3371 Judge Charles P. Kocoras Magistrate Judge Geraldine Soat Brown

MOTION TO DISMISS Pursuant to Rule Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (b)(6), Defendant Internet REIT ("Ireit") hereby submits its Motion to Dismiss, together with the Memorandum in Support filed contemporaneously herewith. 1. Plaintiff asserts against Ireit and the other named defendants claims pursuant or

relating to the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq., including trademark infringement, under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1), false designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), dilution under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c) and cybersquatting under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and (d); the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act under 815 ILCS 505/2; the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act under ILCS 510/2, and "the identical or substantially similar consumer fraud and fair trade practices acts of the various states, and various states' common law." 2. Plaintiff's Complaint is subject to dismissal for myriad reasons. As an initial

matter, Plaintiff lacks standing to sue Ireit because Plaintiff does not allege that Ireit committed any acts that harmed Plaintiff itself.
270275v1

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 1:07-cv-03371
3.

Document 59

Filed 08/10/2007

Page 2 of 4

In addition, Plaintiff's RICO and consumer protection claims are not pleaded with

particularity as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 9(b). 4. Plaintiff's Complaint also fails to state any claim for relief and is subject to

dismissal under Tule 12(b)(6). Specifically, Counts I and II, wherein Plaintiff asserts claims under the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), should be dissmissed because Plaintiff fails to plead a cognizable RICO claim, Plaintiff lacks standing because it fails to plead direct injury, there is no RICO "enterprise" over which Ireit exerted control, and Plaintiff fails to adequately plead a predicate racketeering activity and conspiracy. 5. Count III should also be dismissed because Plaintiff fails to assert a

cybersquatting claim because Ireit does not own any domain name that infringes Plaintiff's rights. 6. Likewise, Counts IV, V, VI, IX, and X must be dismissed because Plaintiff fails

to allege that Ireit infringed (either directly or contributorily), falsely designated, or diluted Plaintiff's marks. Accordingly, there has been no actionable trademark infringement, no false designation of origin, or trademark dilution by Ireit. 7. Counts VII and VIII are also subject to dismissal because Plaintiff has no claim

for consumer fraud or deceptive trade practices, and Plaintiff has no basis to contend a right to declaratory relief in its favor. 8. Lastly, Counts XI and XII warrant dismissal for failure to adequately plead an

intentional interference with any current or prospective adavantage or cognizable unjust enrichment claim against Ireit. 9. While dismissal is warranted for the reasons discussed herein and in the

accompanying Memorandum, even if the Court is inclined not to dismiss the Complaint at this time, pursuant to Rule 12(e) this Court should order Plaintiff to provide a more definite statement or make such order as the Court deems just. -2-

Case 1:07-cv-03371

Document 59

Filed 08/10/2007

Page 3 of 4

For the foregoing reasons, Internet Ireit, Inc. respectfully requests that the Court dismiss Counts I through XII of Plaintiff's Complaint as alleged against Internet Reit, Inc. with prejudice.

Date: August 10, 2007

Respectfully submitted, PATTISHALL, McAULIFFE, NEWBURY, HILLIARD & GERALDSON LLP By: /s/ Brett A. August (ARDC # 0081345) Bradley L. Cohn (ARDC # 6224692) Alexis E. Payne (ARDC # 6270412) 311 South Wacker Drive Suite 5000 Chicago, Illinois 60606 [phone]

VINCENT & ELKINS LLP Steve Borgman Kenneth Hand First City Tower 1001 Fannin Street Suite 2300 Houston, Texas 77002 [phone] Scott Wiehle 2001 Ross Ave., Suite 3700 Dallas, Texas 75201 [phone] Attorneys for Defendant Internet Reit, Inc.

-3-

Case 1:07-cv-03371

Document 59

Filed 08/10/2007

Page 4 of 4

SERVICE LIST I hereby certify that on August 10, 2007, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served in accordance with Rule 5, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on the following: Robert M. Foote Stephen W. Fung Foote, Meyers, Mielke & Flowers, LLC 28 North First Street, Suite 2 Geneva, IL 60134 Joseph J. Duffy Jonathan M. Cyrluk Mariah E. Moran Stetler & Duffy, Ltd. 11 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1200 Chicago, IL 60603 Aaron D. Van Oort Faegre & Benson, LLP 2200 Wells Fargo Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901 Vincent V. Carossimi Pepper Hamilton LLP 3000 Two Logan Square Eighteenth and Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799 Steven D. Atlee Winston & Strawn LLP 333 South Grand Avenue, 38th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Ronald Y. Rothstein Janelle M. Carter Winston & Strawn LLP 35 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Kathleen Currie Chavez Chavez Law Firm 28 North First Street, Suite 2 Geneva, IL 60134 Michael H. Page Joseph Kratz Keker & Van Nest LLP 710 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1704 Michael Dockterman Alison C. Conlon Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon LLP 225 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60606 Jeffrey Singer, Partner Misty R. Martin Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney Sears Tower 233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 5500 Chicago, IL 60606 Andrew P. Bridges Winston & Strawn LLP 101 California Street, Suite 3900 San Francisco, CA 94111

-4-