IN THE U.S.

DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

ADRIENNE MEINTS, an Individual, )

) Case No. 4:08-cv-03043
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) COMPLAINT
)
MELTECH, INC., a Nebraska Corporation, )
and SHANE HARRINGTON, an )
Individual, )
)
Defendants. )

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Adrienne Meints, and for her cause of action against the

Defendants, Meltech, Inc. and Shane Harrington, states and alleges as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This action arises under the Anti-Cybersquatting Protection Act (the “ACPA”), which

is codified in the Lanham Trademark Act 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq., at 15 U.S.C. §

1129. Accordingly, this Court has federal jurisdiction over the subject matter of this

action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1121 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1338(a).

2. In addition, this Complaint alleges claims brought pursuant to common law.

Jurisdiction in this Court for the common law claims of tortuous interference with

business advantage is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, supplemental jurisdiction, by

virtue of the common law claims arising from the same controversy as the

aforementioned Federal Claim.

3. Venue in this district is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

PARTIES

4. The Plaintiff, Adrienne Meints, is a “living person” as that phrase is used in 15 U.S.C.

§ 1129(1)(A), and an individual residing in Lincoln, Nebraska.

5. The Defendant, Meltech, Inc., is a corporation organized under the laws of the State

of Nebraska. Its corporate president and secretary is Defendant Shane Harrington.

6. The Defendant, Shane Harrington, is a “person” as that phrase is used in 15 U.S.C. §

1129(1)(A) and is an individual residing in Lincoln, Nebraska. Based on information

and belief, Mr. Harrington is either the sole owner or a co-owner of Defendant,

Meltech, Inc.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

7. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, Adrienne Meints, has engaged in the business

of providing and profiting from the use of her image, name and likeness in internet-

based commerce. In pursuit of these business objectives, she routinely and

consistently uses the name “Adri”, without a surname, to identify herself

professionally. This name constitutes a distinctive mark identifying the Plaintiff as

the source for the content provided on the website bearing her name, a practice that is

commonly used and accepted in the industry.

8. At all times material hereto prior to February 2008, Plaintiff owned the rights to use

the domain name “HotAdri.com” (also hereinafter referred to as “the domain name”).

The domain name is a trademark, and is owned by the Plaintiff by virtue of her

contractual relationship with Steve Hoisington and Octogy Media Partners, LLC.

9. Plaintiff derives most of her income by offering access to her likeness and her person

through her website, which was available to the public at HotAdri.com prior to the

acts of Defendant described particularly herein.

10. In or about February 2008, one or both of the Defendants purported to purchase the

rights to the internet domain name “HotAdri.com” from Steve Hoisington without the

2
 consent or permission of Plaintiff Adrienne Meints or Octogy Media Partners, LLC

(“Octogy”). The Defendants did so with knowledge of the contractual relationship

between the Plaintiff, Steve Hoisington and Octogy, particularly the fact that Steve

Hoisington did not have the right to sell or otherwise convey the HotAdri.com

domain name without the consent or agreement of the Plaintiff.

11. After the purported sale of the domain name to the Defendants, the Defendants

registered Shane Harrington as the owner/registrant of the HotAdri.com domain

name. See Domain Name Registration attached hereto and made a part hereof as

Exhibit “A”.

12. The Plaintiff and Defendant Meltech, Inc. are the parties to a lawsuit captioned

Meltech, Inc. v. Adrienne Meints currently pending in the District Court of Lancaster

County, Nebraska, Case No. CI07-3923 (the “State Case”).

13. After registering the domain name, on or about March 3, 2008, Defendant Meltech,

Inc. contacted the Plaintiff, Adrienne Meints, by and through counsel, stating that it

would be willing to sell the “HotAdri.com” domain name back to Plaintiff in return

for her agreement to dismiss the claims asserted by her in the State Case. The

Defendant indicated that an agreement to dismiss the claims would need to be

reached by 5:00 o’clock p.m. on May 4, 2008 or else the Defendant would remove the

connection between Plaintiff’s website and the domain name HotAdri.com.

14. Also on or about March 3, 2008, but after the discussion referenced in Paragraph 8,

supra, Defendant Shane Harrington contacted Jeff Miller, President and CEO of

Octogy Media Partners, LLC, stating that the was inclined to remove the connection

between Plaintiff’s website and the domain name HotAdri.com immediately, but

3
 “would be willing to switch it back if we can come up with an agreement” for

dismissal of the State Case prior to 5:00 o’clock p.m. on March 4, 2008.

15. The Plaintiff has not consented to the sale of HotAdri.com to Defendants or the

Defendants’ use of her name in the HotAdri.com domain name that is the subject of

this suit.

16. Prior demand has been made for return of the domain name to the Plaintiff, which

demand has been refused.

COUNT I
(Violation of the Anti-Cybersquatting Protection Act 15 U.S.C. § 1129)

17. Plaintiff realleges each allegation set forth in Paragraphs 1-16, above.

18. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff asserts a claim against Defendants for injunctive

relief pursuant to the ACPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1129(2), with regard to the registration of

HotAdri.com with the intent to profit from the name by selling and/or exchanging the

name with Plaintiff for financial gain.

COUNT II
(Violation of the Anti-Cybersquatting Protection Act 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d))

19. Plaintiff realleges each allegation set forth in Paragraphs 1-18, above.

20. In registering the domain name in their own name, the Defendants willfully and

intentionally misrepresented the true owner of the domain name, with the bad faith

intent and with the objective of withholding the domain name from the Plaintiff so

that it could profit from the domain name by attempting to extract financial

concessions from Plaintiff in connection with the State Case.

4
21. Defendant’s conduct entitles Plaintiff to an order forfeiting Defendants’ rights in

HotAdri.com and transfer of the domain name to Plaintiff, as well as damages in an

amount to be proved at trial.

COUNT III
(Tortious Interference with Business Advantage)

22. Plaintiff realleges each allegation set forth in Paragraphs 1-21, above.

23. Defendants’ conduct was undertaken with knowledge that Plaintiff’s lawful use of the

HotAdri.com domain name would be disrupted and interfered with by Defendants’

actions.

24. The Defendants’ conduct has disrupted and interfered with Plaintiff’s lawful use of

the domain name and constitutes intentional interference with prospective business

advantage.

25. The Defendants’ conduct has caused and will continue to cause great and irreparable

injury to Plaintiff unless restrained by the Court, there being no adequate remedy at

law.

COUNT IV
(Temporary and Permanent Injunction)

26. Plaintiff realleges each allegation set forth in Paragraphs 1-25, above.

27. The Plaintiff is entitled to a temporary and permanent injunction against the

Defendants in the form of an Order transferring the domain name HotAdri.com into

the name of the Plaintiff as the equities of this case favor Plaintiff considering (1) the

likelihood of irreparable harm to the Plaintiff without the injunctio0n, (2) no

likelihood of harm to the Defendants with an injunction, (3) the Plaintiff’s likelihood

of success on the merits, and (4) the public interest.

5
 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays for judgment and other relief against the Defendants,

jointly and severally, as follows:

A. On Count I, award (a) injunctive relief in the form of an Order transferring the

domain name to the Plaintiff, (b) attorney’s fees and costs incurred in prosecuting

this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1129(b), and (c) such other and further relief

that the Court finds just and equitable;

B. On Count II, award (a) injunctive relief in the form of an Order transferring the

domain name to the Plaintiff, (b) actual, incidental and consequential damages,

including lost profits, loss of use, annoyance, and inconvenience OR statutory

damages not less than $1,000.00 and not more than $100,000.00, as the court

considers just, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117, (c) attorney’s fees and costs incurred

in prosecuting this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1129(b), and (d) such other and

further relief that the Court finds just and equitable; and

C. On Count III and IV, (a) injunctive relief in the form of an Order transferring the

domain name to the Plaintiff, (b) attorney’s fees and costs incurred in prosecuting

this action, and (c) such other and further relief that the Court finds just and

equitable.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Adrienne Meints, prays for judgment against the

Defendants, Meltech, Inc. and Shane Harrington, and both of them.

6
Dated this 7th day of March, 2008.

ADRIENNE MEINTS, Plaintiff,

By: /s/ Karisa D. Johnson

K.C. Engdahl, #17678
Karisa D. Johnson, #22909
Engdahl Koukol Goracke & Johnson, LLC
1623 Farnam Street, Suite 300
Omaha, Nebraska 68102
(402) 934-9499
kjohnson@downtownomahalaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff