WasteCare Corporation v. Robert M. Ward, No. 14-10884 (11th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-10884 Date Filed: 12/02/2014 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 14-10884 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 2:11-cv-00297-WCO WASTECARE CORPORATION, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROBERT M. WARD, Interested Party - Appellant, SHREDDERHOTLINE.COM CO., et al., Defendants - Counter Claimants Third Party Defendants, MATTHEW KENNEDY, Cross Defendant. ________________________ No. 14-10885 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 2:11-cv-00297-WCO Case: 14-10884 Date Filed: 12/02/2014 Page: 2 of 3 WASTECARE CORPORATION, Plaintiff - Counter Defendant Appellee, versus SHREDDERHOTLINE.COM CO., DAN SCOTT BURDA, Defendants - Counter Claimants Third Party Plaintiffs -Appellants, R/D COMPUTER SALES AND SERVICES LTD, d.b.a. Connecting Point, Defendant - Third Party Defendant, MATTHEW KENNEDY, Cross Defendant. ________________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ________________________ (December 2, 2014) Before WILSON and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges, and HUCK, * District Judge. PER CURIAM: * Honorable Paul C. Huck, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation. 2 Case: 14-10884 Date Filed: 12/02/2014 Page: 3 of 3 This case came before the Court for oral argument. The appeal presented the following issues: (1) Whether the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury or otherwise consider a “nominative fair use” defense to WasteCare’s cyberpiracy claim; (2) Whether the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury or otherwise consider the “sight sound meaning” test as part of WasteCare’s claim for cyberpiracy; (3) Whether the jury unreasonably found that WasteCare’s trademark was distinctive; (4) Whether sufficient evidence existed to support the jury’s finding that the Infringing Domain Names were “identical or confusingly similar” to WasteCare’s trademark; (5) Whether the district court abused its discretion by awarding WasteCare maximum statutory damages under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act; and (6) Whether the district court abused its discretion in imposing sanctions against Shredderhotline.com, Dan Burda, and Robert Ward. After carefully considering the law, the record, the parties’ briefs, and oral argument, we find no reversible error. AFFIRMED. 3