UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

WASHINGTON SPEAKERS BUREAU,
INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
                                                                 No. 99-1440
v.

LEADING AUTHORITIES, INCORPORATED,
Defendant-Appellant.

WASHINGTON SPEAKERS BUREAU,
INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
                                                                 No. 99-1442
v.

LEADING AUTHORITIES, INCORPORATED,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge.
(CA-98-634-A)

Argued: April 5, 2000

Decided: June 27, 2000

Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge, and Roger J. MINER, Senior Circuit Judge
of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
sitting by designation.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
COUNSEL

ARGUED: Edward Minor Prince, ALSTON & BIRD, L.L.P., Wash-
ington, D.C., for Appellant. William Herbert Bode, BODE & BECK-
MAN, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Stephen
A. Horvath, Michael J. Carita, TRICHILO, BANCROFT,
MCGAVIN, HORVATH & JUDKINS, P.C., Fairfax, Virginia, for
Appellant. James M. Ludwig, Paul M. Higgins, BODE & BECK-
MAN, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Washington Speakers Bureau, Inc., a lecture-booking agency in
Alexandria, Virginia, filed this action against Leading Authorities,
Inc., a competitor, for trademark infringement under§ 43(a) of the
Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and trademark dilution under
§ 43(c) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c), based on Leading
Authorities' registration of four Internet domain names containing the
words "washingtonspeakers."

In 1996, Leading Authorities created an Internet website with the
domain name of leadingauthorities.com, and in 1998, it registered
over 90 other Internet domain names related in some degree to the
services it offers. Some of the names it registered involved conven-
tion locations, such as floridaspeakers.com and californiameet-
ings.com, while others were more general, such as usaspeakers.com
and politicalspeakers.net. It also registered domain names similar to
the names of over 10 existing speakers' bureaus and lecture agencies.
For example, it registered keynote-speakers.com (similar to Keynote
Speakers, Inc.), capital-speakers.com (similar to Capital Speakers,
Inc.), meetingprofessionals.com (similar to Meeting Professionals
International), and, with permission from Blanchard Training and
Development, Inc., two "Blanchard" domain names. Leading Authori-
ties also registered the domain names pertinent to this case, washing-

                    2
tonspeakers.com, washington-speakers.com, washingtonspeakers.net,
and washington-speakers.net.

Following a bench trial, the district court concluded that "Washing-
ton Speakers Bureau" was a descriptive mark which had acquired sec-
ondary meaning and that Leading Authorities' four domain names
were colorable imitations of that mark, the use of which was likely
to confuse consumers as to the source or sponsorship of its website.
The court noted that both companies utilized the Internet to advertise
and to provide similar services and that Leading Authorities intended
to "approximat[e] the name of a competitor and attract[ ] Internet
business that might otherwise go to the competitor." Washington
Speakers Bureau, Inc. v. Leading Authorities, Inc. , 33 F. Supp. 2d
488, 500 (E.D. Va. 1999). Accordingly, the district court required
Leading Authorities to relinquish its rights to the four domain names
at issue. It also concluded that because of the brief period in which
the domain names were used, no damages were caused and "none
shall be awarded." Id. at 505. Leading Authorities filed this appeal,
and Washington Speakers Bureau filed a conditional cross-appeal
from the district court's ruling against it on its trademark-dilution
claim. Washington Speakers Bureau also challenges the district
court's refusal to award it attorneys fees under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a)
(authorizing award to prevailing parties of reasonable attorneys fees
in "exceptional cases").

On appeal, Leading Authorities contends that "Washington Speak-
ers" is generic and not protectable and that, in any event, the district
court clearly erred in finding that its use of "Washington Speakers"
would likely cause confusion with Washington Speakers Bureau's
name and services. We have carefully reviewed the record and con-
clude that the district court's factual findings are supported by sub-
stantial evidence. We have considered the arguments of counsel made
in their briefs and at oral argument and, for the reasons articulated in
the district court's well-reasoned opinion, see 33 F. Supp. 2d 488, we
affirm.* We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its dis-
cretion in denying Washington Speakers Bureau attorneys fees.

AFFIRMED
_________________________________________________________________
*Washington Speakers Bureau admits that this ruling moots its cross-
appeal of the district court's denial of its trademark-dilution claim.

                    3
