Judge Dismisses Case vs. McAfee for Failure to State a Cybersquatting Claim

U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan Van Keulen for Northern California in San Jose granted McAfee’s motion to dismiss pro se plaintiff James Linlor’s cybersquatting complaint, but declined McAfee’s request to declare Linlor a vexatious litigant (see 2306130049), said her signed order Friday (docket 5:23-cv-00385). Linlor had alleged that McAfee’s unlawful use of the Cyberguard.com domain was inhibiting him from getting his cybersecurity consultancy off the ground under a similar name. McAfee’s defense included its assertion that it sold the domain to Musarubra in 2021. Van Keulen’s order rendered as moot Linlor’s motions to add Musarubra as a defendant and to transfer the case to Delaware where Musarubra is domiciled. Linlor’s allegations under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act must be dismissed for failure to state a claim, said the order. In declining to grant Linlor leave to amend his ACPA claim, Van Keulen “acknowledges that courts must give pro se litigants the benefit of the doubt when evaluating claims on a motion to dismiss,” said the order. But pro se litigants “still must be able to state a claim for relief to proceed with an action,” it said. “Here, the key facts are undisputed and will not change if the case continues into the discovery phase.” The length of time between Linlor’s registration of the domain and his first use of Cyberguard in commerce “is too large to be cured through the allegation of additional facts,” it said. Linlor further conceded on the record that his service mark Cyberguard was not distinctive at the time the domain was registered in 1998, it said. That’s an admission that “eviscerates his ACPA claim,” it said. The court is convinced that Linlor “can allege no set of facts that would remedy these deficiencies,” it said. Because Van Keulen is dismissing Linlor’s claims without leave to amend, she declines McAfee’s request to declare Linlor a vexatious litigant “at this juncture,” said the order. But Linlor is reminded that “he has obligations” under Federal Rule 11(b) “whenever he files a pleading, motion, or other paper” with the court, it said: “A future federal court may find sanctions are warranted, particularly if Linlor continues to file papers presenting incendiary and groundless statements.”