Company says distributor failed to stop using its trademarks in domain names after it ended the relationship.
Connor Sport Court International (CSCI), the company behind the Sport Court brand of sports flooring, has filed a cybersquatting lawsuit against a former distributor that continues to operate websites using Sport Court branding. The dispute centers on ownership and use of the domain names bcsportcourt.com and sportcourtbc.com and on whether a former distributor may keep using Sport Court trademarks online after the business relationship was terminated.
According to court filings, CSCI had an oral distribution agreement with B.C. Sport Court Ltd., which does business as BC Game Court. That agreement allowed the Canadian company to market and sell Sport Court products in a defined territory. The suit asserts that CSCI terminated the arrangement after the distributor failed to pay amounts it owed, at which point the distributor ceased to be an authorized reseller.
CSCI alleges that, despite termination of the distribution relationship, B.C. Sport Court Ltd. continues to operate the two domain names that incorporate the Sport Court trademark. The plaintiff asserts these domains remain active and that the sites use Sport Court marks and other branding associated with the CSCI product line. CSCI’s complaint asks the court to order transfer of the domain names to the company and to enjoin the distributor from using Sport Court trademarks on any website or in connection with sales or marketing activities.
The case highlights a particular nuance in domain name and trademark enforcement: the difference between registration and use. CSCI’s filing explains that the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), which governs many domain disputes handled by administrative panels, requires proof that a domain was both registered and used in bad faith. In this matter, the complaint alleges that the domains were not registered in bad faith originally; rather, the dispute arises because the domains allegedly began to be used in bad faith only after the distributor’s authority was revoked. Because the UDRP standard looks for registration and use in bad faith, CSCI contends that an administrative UDRP proceeding would not be available to resolve the claim and that court action is required.
Trademark owners commonly rely on a mix of remedies when they believe a former partner or reseller is infringing their marks online. Options can include cease-and-desist letters, contractual remedies where a written agreement exists, UDRP complaints for domain transfers when bad-faith registration can be shown, or civil litigation seeking injunctive relief and transfer of domains. In this instance, CSCI has chosen litigation, asking the court both to confirm its rights in the marks and to obtain control of the disputed domain names.
The lawsuit will likely turn on several factual and legal questions. Key among them will be the nature and scope of the distribution agreement—despite being oral, the court may consider evidence of the parties’ conduct, payments, territorial rights and any implied or express limitations on use of trademarks. The timing and character of the distributor’s use of the domain names will also be central: the court will evaluate whether the continued use after termination amounted to bad-faith exploitation of the Sport Court trademarks, whether consumers are likely to be confused, and whether the distributor’s actions amount to trademark infringement, unfair competition or cybersquatting under applicable statutes.
CSCI’s request that the domains be transferred and that the distributor be ordered to stop using Sport Court trademarks online seeks both remedial and preventive relief. If the court grants the transfer, control of the domain names would return to CSCI, allowing the company to manage its online presence and branding. An injunction against trademark use would prevent the distributor from continuing to market under the Sport Court name, at least in ways that infringe or create consumer confusion.
The case underscores the importance for manufacturers and trademark owners to manage domain name registrations and reseller agreements proactively. Written distribution agreements with clear trademark licensing terms, domain registration strategies that anticipate post-termination risks, and monitoring of reseller websites can reduce the likelihood of disputes. For resellers and distributors, the dispute serves as a reminder to review the terms of any termination and to avoid using former partners’ trademarks in domain names or marketing materials once authorization ends.
As this matter proceeds through litigation, it will provide insight into how courts address situations where domains were not originally registered in bad faith but are allegedly used in bad faith after an ownership or distribution relationship ends. The outcome may influence how other trademark owners and distributors approach domain name use and dispute resolution going forward.