In an attempt to safeguard its branding from dilution, Jackpocket resorted to litigation. However, despite their legal endeavors, the desired result remained unattainable, thereby presenting the lottery courier service with a range of decisions to consider.
The federal court dismissed Jackpocket’s complaint, which could open the door for the defendant to launch a challenge against Jackpocket in the United States.
Background of the Jackpocket trademark lawsuit
Jackpocket filed a complaint in July against Jackpot, a newly established lottery courier service in the US. Jackpocket alleged that Jackpot’s branding closely resembled their own, indicating that Jackpot intended to capitalize on this similarity to gain a larger share of the market.
Jackpocket filed a request with the court to mandate Jackpot to carry out a substantial rebranding campaign in order to avoid any possible confusion among their users. Furthermore, Jackpocket also sought a minimum of $75,000 in compensation from Jackpot.
The case was presided over by Judge Lewis J. Liman, and both parties agreed to have a bench trial instead of a trial by jury. On December 29, the federal court for the Southern District of New York officially recorded Judge Liman’s decision.
Judge dismisses Jackpocket’s claims
In summary, Judge Liman determined that Jackpocket could not establish the defendants’ liability in any of its alleged legal claims. Specifically, Jackpocket was unable to provide evidence of trademark infringement by Jackpot.com or support its other claims.
In civil lawsuits, it is the responsibility of the plaintiff to provide evidence to support their claims. In this particular case, Judge Liman concluded that Jackpocket did not meet this obligation. As a result, Judge Liman dismissed Jackpocket’s lawsuit completely.
Jackpocket has submitted a notice expressing their desire to appeal the defeat. Nevertheless, at present, Jackpot seems to have a clear trajectory, whereas Jackpocket will need to address any potential brand confusion on their own.
