Good Technology Corporation and Good Technology Software, Inc. (collectively, “Good”) which operates Good.com, filed a federal lawsuit against Good.Co, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California yesterday for trademark infringement and volition of the ACPA.

Here are the highlights:

Good was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Sunnyvale, California. Since its founding, Good has established itself as a pioneer in mobile technology software and as the leader in its field. More than 6,000 organizations in over 190 countries use Good Technology solutions, including FORTUNE® 100 leaders in commercial banking, insurance, healthcare, and aerospace and defense.

For nearly fifteen years, Good has developed and marketed an ever-expanding family of products using marks that consist of or feature the word “Good,” including the following software products: GOOD WORK, GOOD FOR ENTERPRISE®, GOOD PRO, GOOD ACCESS, GOOD SHARE, GOOD CONNECTTM, GOOD DYNAMICS®, GOOD ENTERPRISE SUITE, GOOD COLLABORATION SUITE, and the GOOD MOBILITY SUITE,

These marks appear in and on Good’s products, on Good’s website, in the Google® Play and Apple® App Stores, and on the millions of mobile devices deployed by Good’s more than 6,000 customers. Each week over 2.3 billion messages bearing the notation “Sent by Good.com are sent using Good’s software products.

Since August 2001, Good continuously has used the GOOD Marks to identify its products, including application software. Good uses the GOOD Marks throughout the United States on and in connection with its products and services including in advertising and other promotional materials and on its website www.good.com.

Defendant’s unauthorized use of the GOOD Marks creates a likelihood of confusion, mistake, or deception among members of the public. It is likely to cause the public to believe incorrectly that Good originated, sponsored, or approved Defendant’s goods or services, or that Defendant is a Good- sponsored ISV or otherwise affiliated with, connected to, or associated with Good.

Good is informed and believes, and upon that basis alleges, that Defendant changed its business name and uses the GOOD Marks in a deliberate and intentional effort to confuse the public as to the source of Defendant’s goods or services and to reap the benefit of Good’s goodwill associated with the GOOD Marks. Good.co knew or should have known that the GOOD Marks were already
federally registered at the time it started infringing those marks and would have discovered the GOOD Marks had it conducted a reasonable investigation.
Good believes that Defendant chose a confusingly similar name to trade off the goodwill Good established by its prominent use of the GOOD Marks for over a decade.

On September 16, 2014, Good requested that Defendant cease and desist from its acts of trademark infringement, but Defendant has refused.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s willful and unlawful conduct, Good has been injured and will continue to suffer injury to its business and reputation unless Defendant is restrained by the Court from infringing the GOOD Marks. It would be difficult to ascertain the amount of compensation which could afford Good adequate relief for such continuing acts. Good’s remedy at law is not adequate to compensate it for the injuries threatened.

In light of the foregoing, Good is entitled to injunctive relief prohibiting Defendant from using the GOOD Marks or confusingly similar marks and to recover from Defendant all damages that Good has and will sustain as a result of such infringing acts, and all gains, profits and advantages obtained by Defendant as a result thereof, in an amount not yet known, as well as the costs of this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), attorneys’ fees, and treble damages.

Good is informed and believes, and upon that basis alleges, that Defendant uses the GOOD Marks in its business name and website URL in a deliberate and intentional effort to confuse the public as to the source of Defendant’s goods or services and to reap the benefit of Good’s goodwill associated with the GOOD Marks. Defendant knew or should have known that the GOOD Marks were already federally registered at the time it started infringing those marks and would have discovered the GOOD Marks had it conducted a reasonable investigation. Defendant chose a name confusingly similar to the GOOD Marks to trade off the goodwill Good established by its prominent use of the GOOD Marks for over a decade.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1125(Good repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 25 of the

In connection with the sale of its application software, Defendant is using a domain name that is confusingly similar to the GOOD Marks and domain name. Defendant’s use is likely to cause, and most likely has caused, confusion or mistake as to the affiliation, connection, or association between Defendant and Good, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of Defendant’s goods and services by Good.

42. Moreover, Defendant’s use of the good.co domain name is likely to cause consumers searching for Good’s website to be diverted to Defendant’s

Defendant changed its name and URL from “Manageup.Me” to “Good.co” and began using the good.co domain name to capitalize on Good’s name recognition, good will and reputation.

WHEREFORE, Good respectfully requests judgment in its favor and against Defendant as follows:

For temporary, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief restraining Defendant, its agents, servants, employees, representatives, shareholders, partners, joint venturers or anyone else acting on behalf of or in concert with Defendant from:

Using the GOOD Marks;

Using the good.co domain name;

Using any marks which are identical or confusingly similar to that of the GOOD Marks, including use of good.co;

Otherwise infringing upon Good’s registered and common law trademarks; and

Otherwise unfairly competing with Good.