IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—S.D. Cal.: Real estate consultants can go forward with cybersquatting claims, (Feb 6, 2026)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

Plaintiffs plausibly alleged that an unsatisfied customer registered domains consisting of the names of person with whom he had contracted to purchase a home and used websites associated with those domains to attempt to gain leverage in a dispute.

Real estate consultants and home remodelers properly stated claims for cybersquatting against an unsatisfied customer, the U.S. District Court in San Diego has held. It was plausibly alleged that the customer registered domain names that consisted of the remodelers’ full names and used the websites in an attempt to gain leverage in their business dispute (Garst v. Cramer, No. 3:25-cv-02341-GPC-MSB (S.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2026)).

Cybersquatting dispute. Plaintiffs Shane Garst and Jayme Garst, husband and wife, were in the business of real estate consulting and building, specializing in single-family home remodels. Defendant Winthrop Cramer was a purchaser of a house remodeled by the Garsts. Being dissatisfied with his purchase and several alleged defects which were the subject of other ongoing litigation, Cramer purchased a website under the domain name “www.customhomessd.com” bearing the heading, “ATTENTION HOMEBUYERS: DON’T MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE WE DID” and contained allegations of misconduct on the part of the Garsts. Cramer also purchased two additional websites under the domain names “www.shanegarst.com” and “www.jaymegarst.com” both of which redirected to the “www.customhomessd.com” site. The Garsts subsequently filed trademark applications for the marks SHANE GARST and JAYME GARST, alleging use of the marks in real estate services for several years. The Garsts then brought suit against Cramer for violation of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. Cramer moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Bad faith intent to profit. Cramer argued that the Garsts failed to plausibly allege that he registered the domains with a bad faith intent to profit. The court found that in the context of the cybersquatting statute, profit included an attempt to gain leverage in a business dispute. The complaint contained allegations of fact, including Cramer’s payment to ensure his website would appear at or near the top of any web keyword search for the Garsts’ names, as well as opposition to their trademark applications and harassment of them in their neighborhood and at city council meetings, which supported an inference of bad faith.

Other issues. Cramer also argued that his use of the mark was fair use, but the court determined that fair use was a fact-intensive inquiry not suitable for resolution at the motion to dismiss stage. Finally, the court found that the marks were alleged to be “identical or confusingly similar,” despite the complaint not using those exact words. It was clear from the face of the complaint that the marks and the domain names were identical, both consisting of the Garst’s first and last names.

The case is No. 3:25-cv-02341-GPC-MSB.

Judge: Curiel, G.

Attorneys: David Scott Stewart (T-Rex Law, PC) for Shane Garst. Jayson Lorenzo (J. Lorenzo Law) for Winthrop Cramer.

Cases: TechnologyInternet Trademark CaliforniaNews