Search Our Site
 STEVEN RINEHART | Virginia Internet Attorney | Website Attorney | UDRP Attorney | Domain Name Dispute Lawyer
Website and Internet Attorney
ATTORNEY BACKGROUND
Steven Rinehart 's practice focuses entirely on domain name dispute, Internet law, and enforcement of intellectual property (IP) rights.  Steve is licensed to proactice law before the Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of Utah, and the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).  Steve has handled hundreds of domain name disputes, including in rem ACPA lawsuits in the Eastern District of Virginia US District Court, UDRP disputes before both WIPO (the World Intellectual Property Organization), the NAF (National Arbitration Forum), and the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC), and trademark disputes before federal courts across the US, and contract disputes for the sale of domain names.  If you are a trademark owner or a domainer involved is a dispute over rights to the registration of a gTLD or ccTLD (a generic top-level domain such as '.com', '.info', '.org' or a country code domain such as '.ca' or '.co.uk'), Steve can help you protect your intellectual property rights no matter where in the world you reside.  Steve attempts to provide all of his clients with cost-effective, expedious representation. 
CONTACT INFORMATION
BAR ADMISSIONS
 Office:      703-345-0585  
 Mobile:     888-941-9933      Virginia State Bar No.    81,738
 Fax:          801-665-1292  
 Address:   500 Montgomery Street      Utah State Bar No.         11,494
                  Alexandria, VA 22314  
 Email:       steve@websiteattorneys.com      USPTO Reg. No.             61,403
 V-Card:     HERE
 
EDUCATION
RECENT PUBLICATIONS
 Brigham Young University (BYU):            2000 Bucking Small Claims Courts, UTAH BAR J. 32, 33–34 (Sep. 4, 2010) (quoted by the Supreme Court in Allen v. Moyer, 2011 UT 44).
 English / Computer Science Rinehart, Steven L., Regula Pro Lege, Si Defict Lex; THE FEDERAL LAWYER (Sep. 4, 2016).

Officium Tuum - 30 UTAH BAR J. 30 (May 2, 2017) (Bar link here).
 University of Utah:                                      2003
 College of Law REPORTED DECISIONS


 FAA Flight Education:                                 2004 Robertson Marine v. I4 Solutions, Case No. 20080962-CA,
 Private Pilot Filed January 22, 2010, 2010 UT App 9 (represented Apellant

in seeking review of trial court's non-award of attorney fees to

prevailing party/client). Audio of oral argument: HERE
RECENT UDRP DISPUTE VICTORIES
REPRESENTATIVE CASES
RECENT FEDERAL LITIGATION RECENT COURT-ORDERED ACPA TRANSFER ORDERS

A list of all recent federal litigation cases handled by Steven Rinehart follows.  Please note that this list does not include more than 100 state cases, administrative actions, and arbitrations.

  1. RMV Enterprises v.  AB (Case No. 1:12-CV-335) U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (prevailed representing plaintiff in in rem cybersquatting matter).
  2. Web Entertainment Limited v. y8.org (Case No. 1:14-CV-1416) U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (represented defendant in settled cybersquatting matter).
  3. Carpenter v. myschool (Case No. 1:15-CV-212) U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (represented defendant in cybersquatting matter lost on summary judgment days before trial).
  4. Skywalker Holdings v. YJ IP (Case No. 1:16-CV-64) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (representing defendant in patent infringement matter).
  5. Robinson v. DEFY Waterflight (Case No. 2:16-CV-833) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (representing defendant in patent infringement matter).
  6. Denmel Holdings v. BlueLounge (Case No. 2:15-CV-87) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (represented defendant in patent infringement action, settled on favorable terms).
  7. MeridainLink v. DH Holdings (Case No. CMB2013-00008) U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) (represented complainant in post-grant review proceeding before the PTAB).
  8. American Covers v. Rok Imports (Case No 2:12-CV-279) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (represented defendant in patent infringement matter in which defendant successfully dismissed).
  9. Associated Recovery v. Butcher (Case No. 2:16-CV-126) U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (represented plaintiff in cybersquatting matter involving 200 domains).
  10. Sater v. Kriss (Case No. 2:16-CV-932) U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (cybersquatting matter).
  11. Savage Companies v. Savage Logistics (Case No 2:16-CV-265) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (representing defendant in trademark infringement matter).  
  12. Savage Logistics v. Savage Companies (Case No. 4:15-CV-5015) U.S. District Court for the District of Washington (representing plaintiff in trademark infringement matter).
  13. Denis Reah v. Electronics Show Place (Case No. 2:09-CV-601) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (represented defendant in patent infringement case successfully dismissed for lack of jurisdiction).
  14. Planet Blue v. Harmonix (Case No. 1:99-MC-9999) U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (represented defendant in patent infringement matter).
  15. Planet Blue v. OC3 Entertainment (Case No. ) U.S. District Court for the District of California, Northern Division (represented defendant in patent infringement matter).
  16. West Coast Trends v. Ogio International (Case No. 6:10-CV-688) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah (represented plaintiff in patent infringement matter settled on favorable terms).
  17. Universal Trim Supply v. K & K Companies (Case No. 2:09-CV-18) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (represented defendant in patent infringement matter settled without payment).
  18. Bullex v. JinHakYoo (Case No. 2:10-CV-668) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah (prevailed representing plaintiff in cybersquatting matter with injunction).
  19. Innovative Staffing v. ISHR (Case No. 2:14-CV-927) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (representing defendant settled on favorable terms).
  20. Fashion C.C. v. Apple Computer (Case No. 2:10-CV-195) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (representing plaintiff settled with permanent injunction).
  21. Strong College Students v. CHHJ Franchising (Case No. 2:12-CV-1156) U.S. District Court for District of Arizona (represented plaintiff in cybersquatting matter lost on summary judgment).
  22. EZQuest v. Baorui (Case No. 2:12-CV-730) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah (prevailed representing plaintiff in cybersquatting matter and secured preliminary injunction).
  23. Goulding v. Hill (Case No 2:14-CV-905), U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (cybersquatting case representing Plaintiff terminating with transfer of the disputed domains).
  24. International Marketing v. Bradley Morris (Case No 1:10-CV-26) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (prevailed representing Plaintiff with case dismissal).
  25. Atkinson v. Ronald Fisher (Case No. 2:09-CV-601) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (represented Plaintiffs in fraud action).
  26. The Joint Sugarhouse v. I4 Solutions (Case No. 2:16-CV-151) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (representing Defendants in copyright infringement action).
  27. TruckMaster Logistics Systems v. Internet Enterprises (Case No. 2:09-CV-374) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (prevailed representing plaintiff in cybersquatting matter involving ).
  28. Matthew Crowder v. Heavy Lifting (Case No. ) U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (cybersquatting case).
  29. Park City Transportation v. Park City Limousines (Case No. 2:15-CV-24) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (representing defendant in trademark infringement matter).
  30. Rinehart v. Eighty B.N. (Case No. 120700582) Utah’s Second Judicial District Court (prevailed representing plaintiff in rare state court cybersquatting case involving the Lanham Act (a federal statute)).
  31. Phi-ten USA v. Rocky Mountain School of Baseball (Case No. 1:10-CV-145) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (represented plaintiff in trademark infringement matter).
  32. PrizeWise v. Oppenheimer (Case 2:07-CV-792) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (represented plaintiff in breach of NDA matter which was lost on summary judgment).
  33. RentMaster v. Shain Trading Corporation (Case No 2:10-CV-319) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (represented plaintiff in cybersquatting case dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction).
  34. FPS Games v. Kyle Meyers (Case No. 91208378) U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) (represented respondent and prevailed in cybersquatting/trademark opposition proceeding).
  35. Innovative Staffing v. ISHR (Case No. 91214407) U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark (USPTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) (represented respondent and prevailed in cybersquatting/trademark opposition proceeding).
  36. Alamo v. Wagmar Technologies (Case No. 91227082) U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark (USPTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) (represented respondent and settled in cybersquatting/trademark opposition).
  37. Strong College Student Moving v. Freidman (Case No. 92058063) U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark (USPTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) (represented complainant in trademark opposition).
  38. Fashion C.C.  v. Little (Case No. 91217375) U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark (USPTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) (represented complainant in trademark opposition).
  39. Elevation Distillery v. Salt Lake Distillery (Case No. 91217045) U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark (USPTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) (represented complainant in trademark opposition settled on favorable terms).
  40. Oceanside Capital v. AB (Case No. 91205819) U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark (USPTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) (represented complainant in trademark opposition settled).
  41. Under Armor v. Gatlin (Case No. 91203875) U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark (USPTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) (represented respondent in trademark opposition).
  42. Scimone v. Tinnus (Case No. 92051876) U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark (USPTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) (represented complainant in trademark opposition).
  43. Savage Logistics v. Savage Companies (Case No. 91221522) U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark (USPTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) (represented complainant in trademark opposition).

* Order Transfering ezq.com (after winning ex parte TRO in federal court forcing VeriSign to strip this three-letter domain from its Chinese registrant and deliver to represented California corp); 

* Order Transfering ksoftware.com (aftering winning federal court transfer order in Virginia stripping this domain from its Caribbean registrant for Kentucky corp); 

*Order Transfering truckmaster.com (after winning domain in settlement during ACPA federal case after removing from state court and after UDRP loss); 

*Order Transfering bullex.com (after winning federal transfer order stripping this domain from its Korean registrant for New York corp); 

*Order Transfering websitelawyer.com (a rare case invovling state jurisdiction in which a state court ordered VeriSign to seize and change domain registration from the Cayman Islands);