WasteCare Corporation v. Shredderhotline.com Co., et al.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]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: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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.
Case: 14-10884 Date Filed: 12/02/2014 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

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.
Case: 14-10884 Date Filed: 12/02/2014 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --