Web design firm sues GoDaddy over “It’s Go Time” slogan
Firm states it was using the slogan first.
A modest web development firm is suing GoDaddy over its “It’s Go Time” slogan, arguing that it started using the moniker well ahead of GoDaddy adopted it.
Plaintiff The Easy Life, LLC runs GoWeb1. The firm states it is actually a reseller of GoDaddy’s domain name services. It alleges that it has had the same account manager at GoDaddy and has been emailing newsletters to that account manager — counting the It’s Go Time slogan – since at least October 2011.
GoDaddy applied for a trademark on “It’s Go Time” in 2013 on an intent-to-use basis, and started using the slogan shortly thereafter.
The plaintiff has filed multiple oppositions to GoDaddy’s trademark application.
GoWeb1’s website prominently displays “It’s Go Time” in a couple places, as you can see in the image. Still, it may have ramped up this use following GoDaddy filed its trademark application. Archive.org is down at the time I’m writing this, but a Screenshot.com image from late 2012 doesn’t show the slogan on its home page. It shows up in the next screenshot at the end of 2013. The GoWeb1.com “It’s Go Time” slogan has a forward slanting font similar to the one GoDaddy is using.
The lawsuit (pdf) doesn’t have exhibits showing how the firm has using “It’s Go Time” for its marketing.
The Easy Life argues that GoDaddy’s use of the term can “damage Plaintiff’s impeccable reputation”:
On information and belief, Defendant’s annual revenues exceed over one billion dollars. Defendant, with its vast resources, is well positioned to exploit and trade on the goodwill which Plaintiff has developed in the IT’S GO TIME mark, as well as damage Plaintiff’s impeccable reputation. Relevant consumers will come upon Defendant’s Services offered in connection with the IT’S GO TIME mark and will likely believe that such services are associated or affiliated with, or endorsed or sponsored by Plaintiff, which they are not. Indeed, viewership estimates of the 2015 Super Bowl during which Defendant broadcast an advertisement exceed 100 million viewers.
