CASES AND REFERENCES

1. Anti cyber squatting Consumer Protection Act, http://www.eff.org/pub/GII_NII/DNS_control/s1255_1999_bill.html


2. ICANN Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy, http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp.htm.


3. California Business & Professions Code §§17525-17528, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=03691615555+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve.

4. Actmedia, Inc. v. Active Media Int’l, Inc., 1996 WL 399707 (N.D. Ill. July 12, 1996), http://www.Loundy.com/CASES/ActMedia_v_Active_Media.html.


5. The Alta Vista Corp. v. Digital Equipment Corp. (D. Mass. Oct. 21, 1998) (dismissing the complaint of a senior trademark holder to force DEC to stop using the trademark Altavista; among other reasons, DEC would have incurred substantial costs in changing its name since the altavista.com mark had become so ubiquitous).

6. American Standard v. Toeppen, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14451 (C.D. Ill. Sept. 3, 1996), http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/amerstan.html.

7. Archdiocese of St. Loius v. Internet Entertainment Group, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1508 (E.D. Missouri, February 12, 1999) (a totally result-driven decision, various church entities blocked a pornmeister from using various domain names containing terms related to the Pope’s 1999 visit to St. Louis because the common law marks used since 1998, were famous and thus being diluted).


8. Avery Dennison Corp. v. Sumpton, 999 F. Supp. 1337 (C.D. Cal. March 19, 1998), http://www.iplawyers.com/averydennison.htm (finding that Avery.net and Dennison.net was a dilutive use when used by an email service that rented such names to multiple accountholders).

9. Avery Dennison Corp. v. Sumpton (9th Cir. August 23, 1999) (reversing the lower court, finding that Avery Dennison’s trademarks, while “distinctive,” did not rise to the level of famousness required to find dilution), http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/9th/9855810.html.


10. Barcelona.com v. Excelentisimo Ayuntamiento de Barcelona (4th Cir. June 2, 2003) (reversing judgment under ACPA for the City of Barcelona).

11. Bartog & Co v. Swix.com, 2001 WL 300382 (E.D. Va. March 16, 2001) (rejecting an ACPA claim over the swix.com and swix.net domain names as used by a Switzerland ISP without any relation to the plaintiff, a Norwegian manufacturer of ski waxes).


12. Bihari v, Gross, 119 F. Supp. 2d 309 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2000) (a “sucks” site isn’t confusing, and rejecting the application of the initial interest confusion doctrine to a sucks site).

13. Bird v. Parsons (6th Cir. May 21, 2002) (rejecting ACPA claims against domain name registrar and auction site; auction site didn’t traffic in the domain name), http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/6th/02a0177p.html.
14. Brookfield Communications v. West Coast Entertainment, 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. April 22, 1999) (finding that using a third party trademark as a domain name was infringement), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/brookca9.html. On September 22, 1999, a jury in the case awarded Brookfield the domain name and damages of over $1.5 million.

15. Cable News Network v. Maya Online Broadband Network (4th Cir. Jan. 23, 2003) (upholding in rem action under ACPA against Chinese registrant).


16. Caesars World, Inc. v. Caesars-Palace.Com (E.D. Va. March 2000),


17. Cardservice International, Inc. v. McGee, 950 F. Supp. 737 (E.D. Va. 1997), http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/cardsvc1.txt.


18. CCBN.com, Inc. v. C-Call.com, Inc. (D. Mass. November 18, 1999) (rejecting a preliminary injunction over StreetEvents.com and StreetFusion.com).


19. CD Solutions Inc. v. Tooker (D. Ore. April 22, 1998) (dismissing a trademark infringement suit by a holder of a trademark in “CDS” over the domain name cds.com since the expression CDs is generic when applied to compact disk products and services), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/cdsol.html


20. Cello Holdings v. Cello Music & Film Systems, 89 F. Supp. 2d 464 (S.D.N.Y. March 29, 2001) (in ACPA case, finding issues of fact in case over cello.com; including whether “cello” is famous or even distinctive).
21. Cerutti 1881 SA v. Cerutti, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 1998) (injunction against domain name use by a competitor), http://cyber.harvard.edu/propertycourse/class-info/syllabus.htm.


22. Chaikan v. Hopen (San Mateo County Superior Court June 1998) (upholding an arbitrator’s decision that an attorney who registered peninsulaw.com could keep the name after departing the firm).


23. The Cit Group, Inc. v. Citicorp, 1998 U.S. Dist. Lexis 15474 (D. N.J. Sept. 25, 1998) (suggesting that the domain name citigroup.com might infringe citgroup.com).


24. Comp Examiner Agency v. Juris, 1996 WL 376600 (C.D. Cal. April 26, 1996), http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/juris1.html.


25. Computers for Education, Inc. v. Automated Systems Design Inc. (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 20, 1997) (consent judgment), http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/asd1.html.


26. CPC International v. Skippy Inc. (4th Cir. June 2, 2000) (regarding a trademark action over skippys.com, reversing an injunction restricting the content displayed on the site).


27. Data Concepts, Inc. v. Digital Consulting, Inc. (M.D. Tenn. January 31, 1997), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/datacon.html.
28. Data Concepts, Inc. v. Digital Consulting, Inc., 1998 FED App. 0241P (6th Cir. 1998), http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=6th&navby=case&no=980241p (domain name owner of dci.com had a stylized logo mark containing DCI; company with registered trademark in DCI before domain name registration had superior trademark rights; however, the court remanded for a reanalysis of the likelihood of confusion).


29. Dorer v. Arel (E.D.Va. August 26, 1999) (holding that a domain name could be transferred to satisfy a judgment), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/dorer.html.


30. E-Cards v. King (N.D. Ca. Dec. 13, 1999) (the trademark “e-cards” may be generic and thus not sufficient to obtain the domain name ecards.com from a competitor).


31. E&J Gallo Winery v. Spider Webs Ltd. (5th Cir. April 3, 2002) (APCA victory regarding ernestandjuliogallo.com).


32. Electronics Boutique Holding Corp. v. Zuccarini, 2000 US Dist. Lexis 15719 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 30, 2000) ($500,000 award under ACPA for typosquatting).


33. eToys v. etoy (case settled January 2000) (eToys brought an action to obtain etoy.com from artists; eToys settled by paying $40,000 to etoy even though eToys initially won a preliminary injunction).


34. Famology.com Inc. v. Perot Systems Corp., 2001 US Dist. LEXIS 8554 (E.D Pa. June 19, 2001) (domain name can’t be converted).


35. Fleetboston Financial Corp. v. Fleetbostonfinancial.com (D. Mass. March 27, 2001) (in an uncontested ACPA in rem action, the court still refused to extend jurisdiction over the case).


36. Ford Motor v. Ford Financial (N.D. Iowa May 9, 2000) (finding trademark confusion and dilution when a financial services company used fordfinancialsolutions.com; disclaimers didn’t help).


37. Ford Motor Co. v. Catalanotte, 2003 Fed. App. 0310P (6th Cir. Aug. 28, 2003) (ACPA case).


38. FreeI.net v. FreeI Networks (W.D. Wash. Sept. 22, 2000) (domain name is not chattel).


39. Fry’s Electronics, Inc. v. Octave Systems, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 1995).


40. Gateway 2000, Inc. v. Gateway.com, Inc., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2144 (February 6, 1997), http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/gw2000-1.txt.


41. Giacalone v. Network Solutions, Inc. (N.D. Cal. June 13, 1996) (preliminary injunction), http://www.iplawyers.com/CyberCounsel/giacalon.htm. Settled.


42. Green Products Co. v. Independence Corn By-Products Co., 992 F. Supp. 1070 (N.D. Iowa September 25, 1997) (enjoining a party from using its competitor’s trademarks as domain names and diverting those domain names to its website).


43. Harrods Ltd. v. 60 Domain Names, 2001 US Dist LEXIS 9103. On appeal, Harrods Ltd. v. 54 Domain Names, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 17530 (4th Cir. Aug. 23, 2002) (ACPA in rem action).


44. Hasbro, Inc. v. Clue Computing Inc., 66 F. Supp. 2d 117 (D. Mass. September 2, 1999) (holding that using clue.com for a computer site didn’t infringe or dilute the trademark in the board game), http://www.clue.com/legal/hasbro/d2.html.


45. Hasbro, Inc. v. Clue Computing Inc., 2000 US App. Lexis 27856 (1st Cir. Nov. 7. 2000) (upholding lower court judgment dismissing the claim), http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/1st/001297.html.


46. Hasbro v. Internet Entertainment Group, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11626 (W.D. Wash. February 9, 1996), http://www.Loundy.com/CASES/Hasbro_v_IEG.html.


47. HQM Ltd. v. Hatfield (D. Md. Dec. 2, 1999) (dismissing a claim for hatfield.com because the registrant had the last name Hatfield).

48. Interactive Products Corp. v. a2z Mobile Office Solutions, Inc., 2003 FED. App. 0111P (6th Cir. Apr. 10, 2003) (trademark in post-domain name path does not signify source, even if the associated page is for competitive product), http://www.keytlaw.com/urls/a2zmobile.htm.


49. Intermatic Inc. v. Toeppen, 947 F. Supp. 1227 (N.D. Ill. October 3, 1996), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/intermat.html.


50. Interstellar Starship Services v. Epix Inc., 983 F. Supp 1331 (D. Ore. Nov. 20, 1997) (finding that there was no likelihood of confusion over epix.com), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/epix.html. On appeal, the 9th circuit reversed the district court, holding that there were factual disputes on certain infringement factors that precluded summary judgment (9th Cir. July 19, 1999). On remand, the district court dismissed the claim. 2001 US Dist. LEXIS 100 (Jan. 3, 2001).


51. Jack in the Box, Inc. v. Jackinthebox.org, 143 F. Supp. 2d 590 (E.D. Va. April 17, 2001) (in an in rem action held by a magistrate, finding ACPA violation even when no use of the name). Adopting the magistrate’s conclusion at 2001 US Dist LEXIS 7533 (E.D. Va. May 21, 2001) (erroneously concluding that registering a domain name, without more, constitutes a use in commerce)..


52. Jews for Jesus v. Brodsky, 993 F. Supp. 282 (D. N.J. March 6, 1998) (holding that the criticism sites jewsforjesus.org and jews-for-jesus.com infringed the organization’s trademark and committed dilution (merely by using it); the infringement was not cured by a disclaimer, the infringement was “willful” and in bad faith, and the site was commercial because it provided a single link to another site where a few items were available for sale. Also, the court said that the organization’s Class 16 registration for “religious pamphlets” extended to online publication, while suggesting that Class 42 was only applicable to “link providers” like old-style online services and not for content providers (which presumably includes websites)).

53. Kaplan v. Princeton Review, 1994 (unpublished arbitration).


54. Kremen v. Cohen, 99 F. Supp. 2d 1168 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2000) (holding that a domain name is intangible personal property and thus cannot support a conversion claim). The Ninth Circuit reversed this ruling July 26, 2003, finding that a domain name was capable of being converted. http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/999D1D5B0D734B6088256D6D0078CB88/$file/0115899.pdf?openelement


55. Lewis v. Rocky Mountain Internet (D. Colo. September 26, 1997) (restricting a website not associated with the Colorado Rockies baseball team from using its domain name or website to engage in activity that was confusing with the baseball team’s trademarks), http://home.dti.net/bdpc/rockies.htm.


56. Lozano Enterprises v. La Opinion Publishing Co., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20372 (C.D. Cal. July 30, 1997) (finding infringement and dilution when a newspaper publisher registered domain names containing the plaintiff’s registered trademarks; court imposed a ridiculously broad order, including an obligation to assign to plaintiff any websites, web pages, home pages, Internet sites, Internet pages, databases and programs that used or contained the trademark!)


57. Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Lucentsucks.com, 95 F. Supp. 2d 528 (E.D. Va. May 3, 2000) (ACPA in rem action failed).


58. Maritz v CyberGold, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14977 (E.D. Mo. August 29, 1996), http://www.Loundy.com/CASES/Maritz_v_Cybergold2.html.



59. Mattel, Inc. v. Hasbro, Inc. (C.D. Cal. October 8, 1997) (stipulated settlement) (a dispute between the US owner of the trademark in Scrabble and the owner of the term in other jurisdictions over who could use the domain name “scrabble.com”; the domain name now gives users choices based on if they are from the US or the rest of the world).


60. Mayflower Transit LLC v. Prince (D. N.J. May 2004) (ACPA and gripe site).


61. McGraw v. Salmon, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10987 (C.D. Cal. June 30, 1998) (injunction against using certain celebrity names as domain names or in metatags and transferring the domain names to the respective celebrities).


62. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co. v. Taylor, 21 F. Supp. 2d 1003 (D. Minn. Aug. 6, 1998).


63. MTV Networks v. Curry, 867 F. Supp. 202 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), http://www.Loundy.com/CASES/MTV_v_Curry.html.


64. Network Solutions v. Umbro International (Va. Sup. Ct., April 21, 2000) (domain name agreement is not a “liability” for purposes of creditor laws), http://www.courts.state.va.us/txtops/1991168.txt.


65. New York State Society of CPAs v. Eric Louis Associates, Inc., 79 F. Supp. 2d 331 (SDNY Dec. 2, 1999) (bad faith infringement when accountant used a professional organization’s name in the domain name and metatags).


66. Nintendo v. Stefani (D. Wa. November 2001) (winning 48 domain names and $560,000 under ACPA).


67. Northern Light Technology v. Northern Lights Club (D. Mass. March 21, 2000) (pirate site mimicking the Northern Light search engine and operating under northernlights.com infringed and violated ACPA); upheld by the 1st circuit: (1st Cir. Jan. 8, 2001) (upholding a violation of ACPA), http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1641.01A.


68. Northland Insurance Co. v. Blaylock (D. Minn. Sept. 25, 2000) (no preliminary injunction over a sucks site).


69. PACCAR v. Telescan Technologies, 115 F. Supp. 2d 772 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 25, 2001) (truck location service that used Peterbuilt and Kenworthy in its domain names held to infringe; disclaimer didn’t help).


70. PaineWebber, Inc. v. wwwpainewebber.com, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6551 (E.D. Va. April 2, 1999) (TRO) and 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6552 (E.D. Va. April 9, 1999) (preliminary injunction against the use of wwwpainewebber.com).


71. Panavision International, LP v. Toeppen, 945 F. Supp. 1337 (C.D. Cal. November 1, 1996), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/pana1.html. Affirmed by the 9th circuit: 141 F. 3d 1316 (9th Cir. April 17, 1998) (domain name squatter in the business of registering and selling domain names with third party trademarks is using such domain names in a commercial way (for reselling purposes) and diluting the mark by preventing the trademark owner from using the domain name; therefore, such behavior violates dilution law), http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=9th&navby=docket&no=9755467.



72. Patmont Motor Werks, Inc. v. Gateway Marine, Inc., 1997 WL 811770 (N.D. Cal. December 17, 1997) (use of a trademarked term in a URL after the second level domain to describe the good being sold is trademark fair use when the goods could not be identified another way, the trademark is used only as necessary to identify the goods, and the use in no way indicates endorsement or sponsorship by the trademark owner; in a footnote the court indicates that using the trademark as a second level domain may have been infringing, but as a part of the URL beyond the second level domain it was not), http://www.Loundy.com/CASES/Patmont_v_Gatrway.html.



73. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 19028 (4th Cir. August 23, 2001), http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=001918.P.
74. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Bucci, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3338 (S.D.N.Y. March 24, 1997), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/bucci.html. Affirmed without comment, 152 F.3d 920 (2nd Cir. 1998).


75. Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. AsiaFocus International (E.D. Va. April 10, 1998) (use of the domain names Asian-playmates.com and playmates-asian.com and the email address playmates@pinmail.com infringed Playboy’s trademarks).


76. Porsche Cars North America, Inc. v. Porsch.Com, 51 F. Supp. 2d 707 (E.D. Va., June 8, 1999) (no in rem action against domain names in NSI’s home court), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/porsche.html. On appeal, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 17531 (4th Cir. Aug. 23, 2002) (ACPA in rem action).


77. Porsche Cars North America v. Spencer (E.D. Cal. May 18, 2000) (violation of ACPA).


78. Public Service Co. v. Nexus Energy Software, 1999 WL 98973 (D. Mass. Feb. 24, 1999).



79. Ringling Bros. – Barnum & Bailey v. People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (E.D. Va. 1998) (complaint for PETA’s use of ringlingbrothers.com to describe animal cruelty in the circus; dispute settled).



80. Shields v. Zuccarini, 2001 US App. LEXIS 13288 (3d Cir. June 15, 2001) (finding Zuccarini’s use of variations of joecartoon.com to violate ACPA).


81. Sporty's Farm, L.L.C. v. Sportsman's Market, Inc., 202 F.3d 489 (2d Cir. 2000) (finding a violation of the ACPA), http://pub.bna.com/lw/987542.htm.


82. Taubman Co. v. Webfeats (6th Cir. Mar. 11, 2002) (staying the injunction pending further proceedings). The case went back to the Sixth Circuit, which ruled that Taubman could not get an injunction against a fan and gripe site. 2003 Fed App. 0043P (6th Cir. Feb. 7, 2003), http://www.michbar.org/opinions/us_appeals/2003/020703/17933.html.


83. Teletech Customer Care Management (California), Inc. v. Tele-Tech Company, 977 F. Supp. 1407 (C.D. Cal. May 9, 1997), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/teletech.html.


84. Toronto Dominion Bank v. Karpachev, 2002 WL 342669 (D. Mass. March 6, 2002) (ACPA liability for typosquatting by disgruntled former customer).


85. Toys ‘R’ Us v. Abir, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22431 (S.D.N.Y. December 19, 1997) (finding that the use of toysareus.com infringed Toys ‘R’ Us’ trademarks; the court rejected a claim that disclaimers could cure the infringement). Injunction is at 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22435 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 24, 1997).


86. Toys ‘R’ Us v. Akkaoui, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17090 (N.D. Cal. October 29, 1996), http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/toysrus1.txt.


87. Toys ‘R’ Us v. Feinberg, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17217 (S.D.N.Y. October 28, 1998) (holding that the use of gunsareus.com by a small gun dealer does not infringe or dilute Toys ‘R’ Us’ trademarks).
Travel Impressions Ltd. v. Kaufman, (E.D. N.Y. May 22, 1997), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/travelemp.html.


88. Ty v. Perryman (7th Cir. 2002), http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/021771p.pdf1771.PDF.


89. Umbro International, Inc. v. 3263851 Canada, Inc., 1999 Va. Cir. LEXIS 1 (Va. Cir. Ct. Feb. 3, 1999) (holding that a domain name was “property” sufficient to support a judicial sale to satisfy a money judgment).


90. Volkswagen v. Virtual Works (E.D. Va. Nov. 23, 1999) (refusing to enjoin the use of vw.net). Then, the district court did find that VW.net did infringe and awarded the domain name to Volkswagen), (E.D. Va. March 2000) http://www.vw.net/memorandum_opinion.htm. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that the domain name was registered in bad faith and thus the defendants were cybersquatters under ACPA (Jan. 22, 2001), http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001356.P.pdf.


91. Washington Speakers Bureau Inc. v. Leading Authorities Inc., 33 F. Supp. 2d 488 (E.D. Va. Feb. 2, 1999). Subsequent district court ruling April 13, 1999. 4th circuit upheld the ruling at 2000 US App. LEXIS 14669 (June 27, 2000).


92. Allocation Network GmbH v. Gregory (WIPO D2000-0016 March 24, 2000) (rejecting a German trademark owner’s attempt to obtain allocation.com), http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/d2000-0016.html.


93. Amazon.com, Inc. v. Amazonpic (WIPO D2002-0330 July 22, 2002) (transferring amazonpic.com).


94. Amazon.com, Inc. v. Cho (WIPO Dec. 20, 2001).


95. America Online v. Ererneev (WIPO Feb. 2001) (AOL loses claim to ICQplus.org).


96. British Telecommunications PLC v. One in a Million (Supreme Court of Judicature, Court of Appeal (Civil Division), July 23, 1998), http://www.nic.uk/news/oiam-appeal-judgment.html.