CYBERSPACE LAW

TABLE OF CASES AND STATUTES

 

by Eric Goldman (formerly Eric Schlachter)

eric.goldman@marquette.edu

http://eric_goldman.tripod.com

 

NOTE (8/13/04): I AM NO LONGER MAINTAINING THIS PAGE.  I AM, HOWEVER, MAINTAINING SOME SECTIONS—YOU CAN FIND THEM FROM http://eric_goldman.tripod.com. 

 

This document provides a non-comprehensive list of statutes, cases and other relevant source materials applicable to topics in cyberspace law.  The last nontrivial set of additions were made July 26, 2003.

 

1.            AGENCY LIABILITY.

 

Cubby v. CompuServe, 776 F. Supp. 135 (S.D.N.Y. 1991), http://www.alw.nih.gov/Security/FIRST/papers/legal/cubby.txt.

Haybeck v. Prodigy Services Corp., 944 F. Supp. 326 (S.D.N.Y. November 12, 1996) (finding Prodigy not liable for an employee’s failure to tell a woman that he met in a Prodigy chat room that the employee had AIDS even though they engaged in unprotected sex).

Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy, 1995 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 229 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 24, 1995), http://www.epic.org/free_speech/stratton_v_prodigy_1995.txt.

 

2.            ANONYMITY/JOHN DOE CASES.

 

Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act, § 93.1, Ga. Code § 16-9-93.1 (1996), http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/statutes/ga-fraud.txt.

 

American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia v. Miller (N.D. Ga. June 20, 1997), http://www.aclu.org/court/aclugavmiller.html.

America Online v. Nam Tai Electronics, Inc. (Va. Sup. Ct. Nov. 1, 2002), http://www.courts.state.va.us/txtops/1012761.txt.

Dendrite International v. Doe (NJ Superior Ct November 23, 2000) (refusing to order Yahoo to reveal personal information on John Does due, in part, to First Amendment concerns).  Upheld on appeal to the NJ Superior Court, Appellate Division, July 11, 2001.

Doe v. 2TheMart.com, Inc. 140 F.Supp.2d 1088 (W.D. Wash. 2001), http://eon.law.harvard.edu/stjohns/2themart.html.

Pacific Bell Internet Services v. Recording Industry Assoc.  Jurisdictional ruling: 2003 WL 22862662 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2003).  

Recording Industry Assoc. v. Verizon Internet Servs.  First district court ruling.  240 F. Supp. 2d 24 (D.D.C. 2003).  Second district court ruling.  257 F. Supp. 2d 244 (D.D.C. 2003).  DC Ct. App. Ruling: 2003 WL 22970995 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 19, 2003) (no 512(h) subpoena unless a 512(c)(3) has been sent).

Sony Music Entertainment v. Doe (SDNY July 26, 2004)

 

BMG Canada v. Doe, 2004 FC 288 (March 31, 2004).

 

3.            ANTITRUST.

 

America Online, Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc. (E.D. Pa. November 26, 1996), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/cyber32.html.

America Online, Inc. v. Greatdeals.net (E.D. Va. May 4, 1999) (holding that AOL is not a common carrier and did not engage in monopolistic practices by restricting plaintiff’s spam from reaching AOL subscribers), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/aolgtnet.html.

Beverly v. Network Solutions, Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8888 (N.D. Cal. 1998) (holding that NSI is immune from antitrust liability because it is acting in compliance with a clearly articulated government program through its Cooperative Agreement with NSF), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/nsibeverly.html.

Beverly v. Network Solutions, Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20453 (N.D. Cal. December 30, 1998) (NSI’s suspension of a domain name does not constitute a civil conspiracy).

Image Online Design, Inc. v. Internet Assigned Number Authority (complaint only) (Cal. Superior Court filed February 27, 1997), http://www.iodesign.com/complaint.html.  Case was dismissed.

Name Space Inc. v. Network Solutions, Inc. (2d Cir. Jan. 21, 2000) (rejecting antitrust claims based on NSI’s restrictions on TLDs).

PGP Media, Inc. v. Network Solutions, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. March 16, 1999) (NSI is protected monopoly).

Thomas v. Network Solutions, Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4835 (D.D.C. April 3, 1998) (NSI not subject to a Sherman Act claim for allegedly colluding with NSF because NSF is a government actor and therefore NSI benefits from NSF’s immunity from Sherman Act claims), http://www.aira.org/legal/jh3.html.  On appeal, the court found that Congress authorized the fees (D.C. Cir. May 14, 1999), http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199905/98-5502a.txt.

 

4.         CO-BRANDING/ADVERTISING AGREEMENTS.

 

HotJobs.com v. Digital City (Virginia March 2000) (awarding HotJobs an injunction against Digital City implementing an exclusive advertising agreement with Monster.com based on HotJobs’ exclusive ad agreement with Digital City).

 

5.            COMMERCE CLAUSE/RESTRICTIONS ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.

 

American Civil Liberties Union v. Johnson, 4 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (D.N.M. June 30, 1998) (enjoining enforcement of New Mexico’s CDA-style law).

American Civil Liberties Union v. Johnson (10th Cir. 1999) (upholding the injunction against the New Mexico CDA-style law).

American Library Association v. Pataki, 969 F. Supp. 160 (S.D.N.Y. June 20, 1997), http://www.aclu.org/court/nycdadec.html.

Beskind v. Easley (4th Cir. Apr. 8, 2003)

Cyberspace Communications, Inc. v. Engler, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12843 (E.D. Mich. July 29, 1999) (striking down a state CDA-style law on both First Amendment grounds and commerce clause grounds).

Dickerson v. Texas (S.D. Tex. July 17, 2002) (striking down Texas law restricting the cross-border sales of wine).

Ferguson v. Friendfinder (Cal. Superior Court, June 7, 2000) (striking down California’s anti-spam statute B&P 17538.4), http://www.law.washington.edu/LCT/files/Cal_spam_decision.pdf.  Reversed on appeal, 94 Cal. App. 4th 1255 (2001), http://www.timothywalton.com/fergusonvfriendfinders.html#asterisk.

Ford Motor Co. v. Texas Dep’t of Transportation, 106 F. Supp. 2d 905 (W.D. Tex. 2000) (restricting Ford’s ability to sell cars direct to consumers in violation of a Texas statute requiring such sales to take place through a dealer).  Affirmed on appeal, 264 F.3d 493; 2001, 5th Cir. August 27, 2001, http://laws.findlaw.com/5th/050cv0.html. 

Heald v. Engler, 2003 Fed. App. 0308P (6th Cir. Aug. 28, 2003) (restrictions on out-of-state wine sales violates DCC).

Knoll Pharmaceutical Co. v. Sherman, 1999 WL 569540 (N.D. Ill. Aug 3. 1999) (striking down Illinois’ restriction on advertisements for “controlled substances” as violating the commerce clause in part because such restriction would interfere with web-based ads).

Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly (D. Mass. Jan. 24, 2000) (state tobacco advertising restrictions as applied to the Internet violate the commerce clause).

Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co. v. Spitzer (SDNY Nov. 2000) (TRO against laws restricting cigarette shipments to NY based on discrimination against out-of-staters).  Injunction issued June 8, 2001.

Washington v. Heckel (Wash. Superior Ct. March 10, 2000) (striking down Washington’s anti-spam statute as violating the commerce clause).  Reversed on appeal by the WA. Supreme Court, June 7, 2001, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=2001_sc/69416-8&invol=3.

 

6.            COMPUTER FRAUD AND ABUSE ACT (CFAA).

 

18 U.S.C. §1030, http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html.

 

America Online, Inc. v. Christian Brothers (SDNY December 9, 2000) (finding that sending spam caused violations of both (a)(5) an (a)(5)(C)), http://www.nylj.com/links/aol.html.

America Online, Inc. v. LCGM, 1998 US Dist. LEXIS 20144 (finding a spammer violated the CFAA).

America Online, Inc. v. National Health Care Discount, Inc. 2000 WL 1724884 (N.D. Iowa Sept. 25, 2000) (sending unwanted email is “access” for purposes of CFAA and large volume of email impairs the availability of a computer system; also finding that scraping email addresses could violate (a)(2)(C)).

Doubleclick Inc. Privacy Litigation (S.D.N.Y. March 29, 2001), 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3498.

EF Cultural Travel v. Explorica, 274 F.3d 577 (1st Cir. Dec. 17, 2001) (scraping pricing information violated CFAA (a)(4)), http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2000.01A.

EF Cultural Travel v. Zefer Corp. (1st Cir. Jan. 28, 2003) (interpreting “exceeding authorization” as requiring an explicit anti-robot notice on a webpage or a clearly labeled link, or through implied language that was more than a copyright notice), http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/1st/012001.html.

Hotmail Corporation v. Van$ Money Pie Inc., 1998 WL 388389 (N.D. Cal., April 20, 1998) (a default judgment finding, among other things, that bounced back emails caused by spammers were a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act), http://eric_goldman.tripod.com/caselaw/hotmailvvansmoneypie.htm.

IMS Inquiry Management Systems v. Berkshire Information Systems, 2004 WL 345556 (SNDY Feb. 23, 2004).  

In re Intuit Privacy Litigation, 2001 WL 370081 (C.D. Cal. April 10, 2001) (dismissing a claim that placing cookies violates the CFAA).

Moulton v. VC3, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19916 (N.D. Ga. November 7, 2000). http://pub.bna.com/eclr/00434.htm.

Nexans Wires SA v. Sark USA Inc (SDNY May 25, 2004) (excluding some remediation activities from the definition of “loss”).

Register.com v. Verio (SDNY Dec. 8, 2000) (access by search robots could give rise to (a)(5)(C) and (a)(2) violation), http://www.icann.org/registrars/register.com-verio/order-08dec00.htm.

Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc. v. Safeguard Self Storage, Inc., 119 F. Supp. 2d 1121 (W.D. Wash. October 26, 2000).

U.S. v. Morris, 928 F.2d 504 (2d Cir. 1991), http://www.Loundy.com/CASES/US_v_Morris2.html.

U.S. v. Riggs, 743 F. Supp. 556 (N.D. Ill. 1990), http://www.Loundy.com/CASES/US_v_Riggs.html.

 

7.            CONSUMER PROTECTION.

 

Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the Protection of Consumers in Respect of Distance Contracts, http://europa.eu.int/en/comm/dg24/cad/dir1en.html.

California Business & Professions Code §17538 (amended September 1996), http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/95-96/bill/asm/ab_3301-3350/ab_3320_bill_960923_chaptered.html.

California AB 583 (chaptered Sept. 21, 1999) (authorizing online escrow agents).

California Civil Code §1789 (the “Electronic Commerce Act of 1984”).

California Business & Professions Code §17538.35 (requiring email service providers to give 30 days notice prior to permanently terminating email accounts; this right is not waivable by contract).

Cease and Desist Order issued by Idaho Department of Finance against European Union Bank, May 29, 1997 (prohibiting the Internet-based bank from soliciting deposits from Idaho residents).  See http://www.state.id.us/finance/pr/eurobank.htm.

 

Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co. (S. D. Fla. Oct. 15, 2002) (airline website not obligated under ADA to build website readable by visually impaired users), http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts2002/accessnow_southwest/20021018.asp.

Department of Transportation v. Hotwire (DOT, Oct. 4, 2002) ($50,000 fine for deceptive ads based on advertisements that touted low fares that may not have been available).

Dickerson v. Texas (S.D. Tex. July 17, 2002) (striking down Texas law restricting the cross-border sales of wine).

Federal Trade Commission v. FutureNet Online, Inc. (C.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 1998) (consent order regarding online pyramid scheme).

Federal Trade Commission v. Hill (June 17, 2004) (consent order against phishing).

Federal Trade Commision v. Verity International (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2001) (penalizing Internet pornographers for fraudulent billing practices).

Hinther v. Electronic Arts, Inc. (Cal. Superior Ct. September 25, 1998) (denying class certification for breach of contract/warranty claims against Ultima Online).

Howard v. America Online, Inc. (C.D. Cal. May 14, 1998) (rejecting plaintiff’s attempts to establish a RICO claim against AOL for various advertising claims and service delivery issues; also ruling that AOL was not a “common carrier” under FCC regulations), http://legal.web.aol.com/decisions/dlpriv/howard.html.

Missouri v. Beer Nuts Ltd. (Mo. Cir. Ct. March 31, 1999) (restricting an out-of-state company’s ability to sell alcohol in Missouri).

Noah v. AOL Time Warner, 261 F. Supp. 2d 532 (E.D. Va. May 15, 2003) (AOL chat room is not a place of public accommodation), http://eric_goldman.tripod.com/caselaw/noahvaol.htm.

Rudder v. Fedtrust Liquidations (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 13, 2004) (inaccurate eBay listing could give rise to fraud).

Schwab v. America Online, Inc. (Ill. Cir. Ct. February 19, 1998) (approving a class action settlement arising out of AOL’s service outages).

Taucher v. Born (D.D.C. June 21, 1999), http://lw.bna.com/lw/19990713/971711a.htm.

Wine and Spirits Wholesalers v. Net Contents, 10 F. Supp. 2d 84 (D. Mass. July 23, 1998) (holding that a trade association lacks standing to bring a private action to enforce wine-related statutes against an Internet website selling wine into the state).

 

8.            CONTRACT.

 

Electronic Signatures in Global & National Commerce Act, http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_cong_bills&docid=f:s761enr.txt.pdf.

Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (Dec. 1999 draft), http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/uecicta/eta1299.htm.

 

America Online, Inc. v. Booker, 781 So. 2d 423 (Fla. App. 2001).

Barnett v. Network Solutions, 38 S.W.3d 200 (Tex. Ct. App. Jan. 11, 2001) (upholding the forum selection clause in NSI’s user agreement, even though the user had to scroll to see the clause).

Begraft v. eBay (N.J. Super. Ct. Oct. 1, 2003), http://eric_goldman.tripod.com/caselaw/begraftvebay.pdf (upholding eBay’s user agreement).

Caspi v. Microsoft Network LLC, 732 A.2d 528 (N.J. Superior Ct. July 2, 1999) (upholding the forum selection clause in MSN’s clickthrough user agreement), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/caspi.html.

Celmins v. America Online, 738 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. May 19, 1999) (enforcing AOL’s forum selection clause in its user agreement).

Comb v. PayPal, Inc., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16364 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2002) (rejecting a motion to compel arbitration because the user agreement was unconscionable), http://pub.bna.com/eclr/021227.htm.

Decker v. Circus Circus Hotel, 49 F. Supp. 2d 743 (D. N.J. May 12, 1999) (dismissing jurisdiction based on Internet order for a hotel room given forum selection language on the site).

DiLorenzo v. America Online (N.Y. Supreme Ct. January 22, 1999), (upholding AOL’s choice of forum clause in its terms of service), http://legal.web.aol.com/decisions/dlother/dilorenzo.html.

Evans v. Matlock (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2002) (eBay user agreement arbitration clause does not apply to intra-user disputes), http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/opinions/tca/PDF/024/EvansD.pdf.

Forrest v. Verizon Communications, Inc. (D.C. App. Ct. Aug. 29, 2002) (upholding arbitration clause in DSL service clickthrough agreement that was in a scroll box), http://www.dcbar.org/dcca/pdf/01-cv-1101.pdf.

Groff v. America Online, Inc., 1998 R.I. Super. LEXIS 46 (Super. Ct. R.I. May 27, 1998) (upholding AOL’s forum selection clause), http://legal.web.aol.com/decisions/dlother/groff.html.

Hotmail Corporation v. Van$ Money Pie Inc., 1998 WL 388389 (N.D. Cal., April 20, 1998) (a default judgment finding, among other things, that spammers breached Hotmail’s clickthrough agreement, that a violation of the clickthrough agreement was trespass, and that bogus consent to a clickthrough agreement was fraud/misrepresentation), http://eric_goldman.tripod.com/caselaw/hotmailvvansmoneypie.htm. 

Hughes v. McMenamon, 204 F. Supp. 2d 178 (D. Mass. May 28, 2002) (dismissing AOL from case based on contract).

I. Lan Sys., Inc. v. Netscout Serv. Level Corp., 183 F. Supp. 2d 328 (D. Mass. Jan. 2, 2002)

Jessup-Morgan v. AOL, 20 F. Supp. 2d 1105 (E.D. Mich. July 23, 1998) (finding that a user had breached AOL’s Member Agreement by sending a false message to USENET), http://legal.web.aol.com/decisions/dlpriv/jessup.html.

Kilgallan v. Network Solutions, 99 F. Supp. 2d 125 (D. Mass. 2000).

Koch v. America Online, 139 F. Supp. 2d 690 (D. Md. 2000).

Liekschke v. RealNetworks, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1683 (N.D. Ill. February 10, 2000) (directing the lawsuit to arbitration based on the clause in RealNetworks’ user agreement).

Lim v. dotTV Corp. (Cal. Ct. App. June 24, 2002) (disputes over whether dotTV’s way of auctioning golf.tv was a binding contract).

Mendoza v. America Online (Cal. Superior Ct. September 25, 2000) (rejecting AOL’s venue clause in its member agreement as unfair).  Upheld on appeal: America Online, Inc. v. Superior Court (Mendoza), 90 Cal.App.4th 1 (Cal. App. Ct. June 21, 2001), http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/caapp4th/90/1.html

Mudd-Lyman Sales and Service Corp. v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 236 F. Supp. 2d 907 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 26, 2002) (proper contract formation through shrinkwrap agreement and bootscreen), http://www.sfl-legal.com/cases%202003/Mudd-Lyman%20v.%20UPS.htm.

Net2Phone, Inc. v. State ex rel Consumer Cause, Inc. (Cal. App. Ct. June 9, 2003) (implicitly upholding Net2Phone’s forum selection clause, even if the user agreement was formed only through a hyperlinked contract with the language “by using the site or materials, you agree…”), http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B162210.PDF.  

Oppedahl & Larson v. Network Solutions, Inc. (D. Colo. April 16, 1998) (deeming the application of NSI’s registration contract in Oppedahl’s circumstance a question of fact), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/oppensi.html.

Pollstar v. Gigmania (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2000) (contract action based on non mandatory T&Cs survive 12b6 motion).

Ploharski v. eBay (N.D. Ga. August 1, 2000) (upholding the forum selection clause in eBay’s user agreement).

In re. RealNetworks Privacy Litigation, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6584 (N.D. Ill. May 8, 2000) (clickthrough agreement with arbitration sufficient to dismiss class action request).

Register.com v. Verio, 126 F. Supp. 2d 238 (SDNY Dec. 8, 2000) (terms of use on search submission page formed contract), http://www.icann.org/registrars/register.com-verio/order-08dec00.htm.

Spera v. America Online, Inc. (N.Y. Supreme Court, January 27, 1998) (upholding the enforceability of a forum selection clause in AOL’s clickthrough terms of service).

Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp., 150 F.Supp.2d 585 (S.D.N.Y., July 5, 2001) (non-mandatory clickthrough not a binding contract), http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02NYSC/01-07482.PDF.  Affirmed on appeal, 2002 WL 31166784 (2d Cir. Oct. 1, 2002), http://csmail.law.pace.edu/lawlib/legal/us-legal/judiciary/second-circuit/test3/01-7860.opn.html. 

Ticketmaster, Inc. v. Tickets.com, 2000 WL 1887522 (C.D. Cal. August 10, 2000) (contract terms linked to from the bottom of the page are not necessarily binding on people who access the page), http://pub.bna.com/ptcj/ticketmaster.htm.  Ruling denying Tickets.com summary judgment on the contract claim, March 6, 2003, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6483, http://eric_goldman.tripod.com/caselaw/ticketmastermarch72003.htm.

Thompson v. Handa-Lopez, Inc., 998 F. Supp. 738 (N.D. Tex. March 25, 1998) (declining to give effect to an express but “inconspicuous” clause in the user agreement requiring arbitration in the defendant’s home court).

Williams v. America Online, 2001 WL 135825 (Middlesex Superior Ct. February 8, 2001) (refusing to enforce AOL’s forum selection clause in its user agreement because it was possible to download the software without agreeing to it), http://www.socialaw.com/superior/000962.html.

Zurakov v. Register.com (NY Appellate Division April 22, 2003) (discussing what a domain name registrant expected based on their contract), http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/slips/13230.htm. 

 

Also relevant:  

Bishoff v. DirectTV Inc., 180 F. Supp. 2d 1097 (CD Cal. 2002) (upholding satellite TV provider’s customer agreement).

Boomer v. AT&T Corp., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10679 (N.D. Ill. June 13, 2002) (refusing to grant motion to compel arbitration based on service agreement).  Reversed on appeal, 309 F.3d 404 (7th Cir. Oct. 3, 2002).

Brower v. Gateway 2000, 676 N.Y.S.2d 569 (New York Appellate Division, August 13, 1998), http://www.ljx.com/cgi-bin/f_cat?test/ht-docs/ny.archive.html/98/08/081798dd.html.

Hill v. Gateway 2000, 105 F.3d 1147 (7th Cir. 1997), http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/jan97/96-3294.html.

Klocek v. Gateway, Inc., 104 F. Supp. 3d 1332  (D. Kansas, June 15, 2000) (rejecting the enforceability of shrinkwraps), http://www.ksd.uscourts.gov/opinions/99-2499-26.html.

Levy v. Gateway 2000, Inc. 1997 WL 823611 (NY Supreme Ct. August 12, 1997) (enforcing the documents sent with the package).

Licitra v. Gateway, Inc., 734 N.Y.S.2d 389 (NY Civil Court, October 2001) (small claims action trumps arbitration clause in user agreement).

M.A. Mortensen Co. v. Timberline Software Corp., 970 P.2d 803 (Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 1, 1999) (upholding the enforceability of a shrinkwrap agreement included on the envelope inside the box), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/timber.html.

Mattingly v. Hughes Elecs. Corp., 2002 WL 3144472 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Nov. 4, 2002) (amendment to customer agreement failed).

ProCD v. Zeidenberg, 89 F.3d 1257 (7th Cir. 1996), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/procd.html.

Rinaldi v. Iomega, 1999 WL 1442014 (Del. Superior Ct. Sept. 3, 1999) (enforcing a disclaimer of warranties contained inside the packaging when there was a refund opportunity).

Storm Impact Inc. v. Software of the Month Club, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11789 (N.D. Ill. July 29, 1998) (shareware license agreement contained valid restrictions on redistribution).

Ting v. AT&T, 182 F. Supp. 902 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2002) (striking down an arbitration clause in a service agreement as unconscionable).

Westendorf v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 2000 WL 307369 (Del. Ch. Ct., March 16, 2000) (enforcing the contract contained in the packaging even though the computer was paid for by someone else).

 

9.            COPYRIGHT.

 

17 U.S.C. §101 et seq., http://fatty.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/index.html.

In particular, see 17 U.S.C. §512 (added by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act), http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/z?cp105:hr796:.

 

            A.             Civil.

 

321 Studios v. Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios (N.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2004) (321’s software violates 1201).

A & M Records v. Internet Site Known as Fresh Kutz (S.D. Cal. June 10, 1997) (TRO), http://www.bna.com/e-law/docs/amkutz.html.

Adam.com v. Drkoop.com (N.D. Georgia settled April 2000) (settling a claim over Drkoop.com’s continued use of a medical encyclopedia after a license agreement expired).

Bernstein v. J.C. Penney (C.D. Cal. September 1998) (no copyright liability for a website linking to an allegedly photograph which was three links away).

Bird v. Parsons (6th Cir. May 21, 2002) (no copyright in single word used as domain name), http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/6th/02a0177p.html.

Creative Labs, Inc. v. Cyrix Corp., (N.D. Cal. May 7, 1997) (awarding an injunction against the websites distributing Creative Lab’s copyrighted applets based on the likelihood of such behavior being both direct and contributory infringement), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/cyrix.html.

DVD-CCA v. McLaughlin, 2000 WL 48512 (Cal. Superior 2000), http://www.eff.org/pub/Intellectual_property/Video/DVDCCA_case/20000120-pi-order.html

Edelman v. N2H2 Inc. (D. Mass. Apr. 7, 2003) (no declaratory judgment for researcher planning to reverse engineer censorware block list), http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/edelman/edelman-v-n2h2/order-040703.pdf.

Expert Pages v. Universal Networks, Inc. (N.D. Cal. May 2, 1997) (TRO), http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/expert2.html.

Frank Music Corp. v. CompuServe (S.D.N.Y, settled October 25, 1995).  This was a class action against CompuServe for distributing MIDI files.  This case settled with CompuServe paying $568,000.  The settlement agreement is at http://www.courttv.com/legaldocs/cyberlaw/compuserve2.html.

IMS Inquiry Management Systems v. Berkshire Information Systems, 2004 WL 345556 (SNDY Feb. 23, 2004) (using password to access copyrighted works not circumvention).

Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry (D. Utah 1999) (browsing can constitute infringement), http://www.utlm.org/images/courtcase.

Kelly v. Arriba Software Corp., 77 F. Supp. 2d 1116  (C.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 1999) (a search engine scraping photos and redisplaying thumbnail versions was fair use and didn’t violate requirements to display copyright management information under 1202), http://www.ipwatchdog.com/kelly_v_arriba.html.  On Feb. 6, 2002, the Ninth Circuit affirmed that thumbnails were fair use but held that in-line linking and framing was not.  280 F.3d 934 (2002).  Then, on July 7, 2003, the Ninth Circuit withdrew its 2002 ruling and issued a new one that removed all discussion about the in=line linking and framing, saying that the plaintiff had never moved for summary judgment on the issue.  http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8E22982657C96BE188256D5C00518BF5/$file/0055521oop.pdf?openelement. 

Los Angeles Times v. Free Republic (C.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 1999) (rejecting use of full text articles was fair use), http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/freerep/19991108.htm.

Los Angeles Times v. Free Republic (C.D. Cal. July 31, 2000), http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/freerep/20000731ord.asp. 

Los Angeles Times v. Free Republic (C.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2000), http://www.freerepublic.com/judgment.html (final judgment).

Lowry’s Reports v. Legg Mason (D. Md. July 10, 2003) (internal redistribution of copyrighted email reports infringes).

Marobie-FL, Inc. v. National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors, 2000 WL 1053957 (N.D. Ill. July 31, 2000)

Michaels v. Internet Entertainment Group, Inc., 5 F. Supp. 2d 823 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (making available a videotape for downloading which depicts two people having sex could be copyright infringement; judge awards an injunction against posting the videotape in total or even posting “small portions” or still images).

Microsystems Software, Inc. v. Scandinavia Online, 98 F. Supp. 2d 74 (D. Mass. March 28, 2000) (injunction against distributing cphack), http://www.politechbot.com/cyberpatrol/final-injunction.html.  Microsystems Software, Inc. v. Scandinavia Online (1st Cir. Sept. 27, 2000) (a technical ruling regarding the standing of nonparties to intervene).

MyWebGrocer v. Hometown Info. (2d Cir. July 13, 2004) (online grocery product description compilation may be copyrightable)

Paramount Pictures v. 321 Studios (SDNY March 3, 2004) (DeCSS violates 1201).

Pearl Investments v. Standard I/O, 257 F. Supp. 2d 326 (D. Maine Apr. 2, 2003).  In subsequent proceeding, the district court upheld the jury verdict that there was no circumvention (D. Maine April 20, 2004).

Phillips v. Kidsoft LLC, 52 USPQ2d 1102 (D. Md. 1999) (infringing copies on website).

RealNetworks, Inc. v. Streambox, Inc., 2000 WL 127311 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 18, 2000) (finding violations of 1201 and finding that a plug-in impermissibly modifies the user interface of Real’s software, creating a derivative work), http://www.streambox.com/RNvsSB/ruling.htm.

Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communications Services (N.D. Cal. September 22, 1995), http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/CoS_v_the_Net/whyte_cos_v_erlich_092295.ruling.

Religious Technology Center v. F.A.C.T.Net, 901 F. Supp. 1519 (D. Colo. September 15, 1995), http://www.Loundy.com/CASES/RTC_v_FACTnet.html.

Religious Technology Center v. Lerma (E.D. Va. August 30, 1995), http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/CoS_v_the_Net/brinkema_rtc_washpost_083095.ruling.   Subsequent ruling November 28, 1995, http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/Scientology_cases/brinkema_rtc_washpost_112895.opinion.  Final ruling October 4, 1996, http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/lerma.html.

Rossi v. Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. (D. Hawaii Apr. 29, 2003) (MPAA has sufficient good faith basis to submit take down notice even if it does no investigation), http://63.104.208.130/webdoc.nsf/Files/250b/$file/250b.pdf.

Scanlon v. Kessler, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10201 (S.D.N.Y. July 9, 1998) (a nonprofit group putting copyrighted photos taken by a group member on the group’s website was copyright infringement).

Schlessinger v. Internet Entertainment Group (C.D. Cal. November 2, 1998) (upholding the right of IEG to display photos of Dr. Laura, since she did not own the copyrights).

Storm Impact Inc. v. Software of the Month Club, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11789 (N.D. Ill. July 29, 1998) (redistribution of shareware was copyright infringement).  See also 1998 US Dist. LEXIS 12060.

Ticketmaster, Inc. v. Tickets.com (C.D. Cal. March 27, 2000), http://www.ipwatchdog.com/ticketmaster.html.  Denial of preliminary injunction on August 10, 2000; see http://pub.bna.com/ptcj/ticketmaster.htm (scraping to remove factual information could be copyright infringement but may be fair use).  Granting Tickets.com’s motion for summary judgment, March 6, 2003, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6483, http://eric_goldman.tripod.com/caselaw/ticketmastermarch72003.htm.

Universal City Studios v. Reimderdes (S.D.N.Y. January 20, 2000) (preliminary injunction), http://cryptome.org/dvd-mpaaa-3-pi-htm.  Opinion supporting the preliminary injunction, February 2, 2000, http://www.2600.com/dvd/docs/2000/0202-mo.html.  Consent judgment against Kazan dismissing him from the case based on his representation that they were not involved in DeCSS, March 17, 2000, http://cryptome.org/dvd-mpaa-3-rk.htm.  Preliminary injunction grant: 82 F. Supp. 2d 211 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (granting preliminary injunction), http://www.eff.org/pub/Intellectual_property/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/20000202_ny_memorandum_order.html.  Finding a violation of 17 USC 1201(a)(2), 111 F. Supp. 2d 294 (S.D.N.Y. Aug 17, 2000), http://www.2600.com/dvd/docs/2000/0817-decision.pdf.  Amended final judgment: 111 F. Supp. 2d 346 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2000).  Affirmed as Universal City Studios v. Corley (2d Cir. Nov. 28, 2001), http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/academics/courses/is235/f01/ reimerdes_nov28_2001.pdf.

In re. Verizon Internet Services Inc. (D.C. D.C. Jan. 21, 2003 and Apr. 24, 2003) (ordering Verizon to comply with 512(h) for its Internet access subscribers).

Video Pipeline, Inc. v Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc. (D.N.J. April 2002) (creating and streaming video clips is copyright infringement), http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/fed/html/ca00-5236-1.html.

WebSideStory v. WebTrends (S.D. Cal. Dec. 1999) (TRO from launching competitive service that allegedly ripped off too much).

 

Cyboza v. NeoJapan, Inc. (Tokyo District Court June 13, 2001) (web page encoded in HTML is copyrightable).

Pacific Internet v. Catcha.com (Singapore High Court August 2000) (case involving scraping and linking of factual-type data).

The Shetland Times Ltd. v. Wills (Court of Sessions, Edinburgh, October 24, 1996), http://www.shetland-news.co.uk/opinion.html.  Settled on November 11, 1997; see http://www.shetland-times.co.uk/st/daily/dispute.htm.

 

            B.            Criminal.

 

No Electronic Theft Act, Public Law 105-147 [H.R. 2265], enacted December 16, 1997 (amending Section 506(a) of the Copyright Act to permit criminal liability even in the absence of private financial gain if there is willful infringement of copyrighted works with an aggregate retail value of more than $1,000 in any 180 day period), http://www.cs.hmc.edu/~smikes/property/net/bill.html.

 

Ohio v. Perry, 1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 453 (Ct. App. Ohio February 12, 1997) (finding that a state law action for criminal use of property for placing stolen computer software onto a BBS is preempted by federal copyright law), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/perry.html.  Affirmed at 697 N.E.2d 624 (Ohio Supreme Court, August 19, 1998), http://www.sconet.ohio.gov/ftp/opinions/1998/970628.rtf.

U.S. v. Elcom (N.D. Cal. May 8, 2002) (denying motion to dismiss indictment under 1201(b)), http://www.planetpdf.com/mainpage.asp?webpageid=2049,

U.S. v. LaMacchia, 871 F. Supp. 535 (D. Mass. 1994), http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/lamacchi.txt. 

 

10.            DEFAMATION.

 

Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44 (D.D.C. April 22, 1998), http://www.ljx.com/LJXfiles/drudge/drudgedecision.html.  Case ultimately dismissed in Drudge’s favor.

DeNigris v. Medphone (settled).

Firth v. New York (NY Ct. Claims, March 8, 2000) (single publication rule applies to web publishing). Affirmed 747 N.Y.S.2d 69 (2002).

Global Telemedia Int’l v. Doe (C.D. Cal. Feb. 2001) (rants about a company on a message board were opinions and thus not defamatory).

Hall v. Earthlink, 2004 WL 22990064 (SDNY Dec. 19, 2003) (dismissing liability for labeling an email accountholder a spammer).

Hammer v. Trendl, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 623 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2003) (book review on Amazon.com was statement of opinion and thus not defamatory).

It’s in the Cards, Inc. v. Fuschetto, 535 N.W.2d 11 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995), http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/in-cards.txt.

Mathis v. Cannon, 2002 Ga. LEXIS 1071 (Ga. Sup. Ct. Nov. 25, 2002) (reaching an opposite result to It’s in the Cards, requiring a retraction demand for an Internet posting prior to awarding punitive damages).

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

McCarthy v. McCahan (San Francisco Superior Court 1998) (a California small claims court suit alleging that a mail list posting was defamatory; reversing a $5,000 award by the small claims court, the Superior Court, on appeal, found that the posting was not defamatory).

National Technical Systems v. Schoneman (Cal. App. Ct. Feb. 5, 2004) (anti-SLAPP suit over message board posting by critic).

Nicosia v. De Rooy (N.D. Cal. July 1999) (potentially defamatory statements on the web need to be evaluated in light that web readers may be less likely to believe things they read on the web).

Rindos v. Hardwick, no. 1994 of 1993 (W. Austrl. Sup. Ct. March 31, 1994), http://www.law.auckland.ac.nz/cases/Rindos.html.

Sheehan v. King County (W.D. Wash., July 17, 1998) (no preliminary injunction based on allegedly defamatory website).

Suarez v. Meeks (settled).

Traditional Cat Assoc. v. Gilbreath (Cal. Ct. App. May 6, 2004) (single-publication rule bars claim over web posting).

Tzougrakis v. Cyvelliance, Inc., 2001 US Dist. LEXIS 6680 (SDNY May 21, 2001) (no defamation for press release issued in accordance with sound journalistic practices).

Van Buskirk v. New York Times Co. (2d Cir. Apr. 2, 2003) (dismissing a claim over an allegedly defamatory article on the Internet based on the single publication rule).

Wagner v. Miskin, 2003 N.D. 69 (N.D. Sup. Ct. May 6, 2003) ($3M judgment based on defamatory Internet posting by student against professor), http://www.court.state.nd.us/COURT/OPINIONS/20020200.htm.

Zelinka v. Americare Healthscan, 763 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. Ct. App. January 26, 2000) (holding that a Florida lawsuit requiring pre-suit demands for correction/retraction did not limit suit against an individual who contributed to a Yahoo message board).

 

Also relevant:

Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749 (1985), http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=472&page=749. 

 

Computer XPress, Inc. v. Jackson (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2001) (litigation over message board postings violated anti-SLAPP law), http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/E027841.PDF.

 

11.            DERIVATIVE LIABILITY.

 

A.            General.

 

47 U.S.C. §230, http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html.

Australia Broadcasting Services Amendment Act, http://www.ozemail.com/~mbaker/amended.html

European Union E-Commerce Directive, http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2000/l_178/l_17820000717en00010016.pdf.

German Federal law to Regulate the Conditions for Information and Communications Services, http://www.kuner.com/data/reg/multimd3.htm.

Singapore Electronic Transaction Act, Section 10 (broad safe harbor for network service providers for liability due to third party materials), http://www.ech.ncb.gov.sg/view/ech/index.html.

Swedish Act on Responsibility of Electronic Bulletin Boards (passed May 1998) (criminal law requiring BBS operators to supervise user content as reasonable and to remove offending messages; but if it is too burdensome to check everything, a BBS can set up a complaint process).

 

Also relevant: Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147 (1959), http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=361&page=147.

Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974), http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=418&page=241.

Fonovisa, Inc. v. Cherry Auction, Inc., 76 F. 3d 259 (9th Cir. 1996), http://www.law.vill.edu/Fed-Ct/Circuit/9th/opinions/9415717.htm.

 

B.            Copyright.

 

17 U.S.C. §512 (Digital Millennium Copyright Act—especially subsections (c) and (d)), http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/z?cp105:hr796:.

 

A & M Records v. Napster (N.D. Cal. March 2000) (Napster can’t claim 512(a) safe harbor), http://www.riaa.com/PDF/Court512aRuling.pdf.   2000 WL 1009483 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (preliminary injunction hearing of July 26), http://riaa.org/PDF/NapsterPatel.pdf.   On August 11, 2000, the district court held that Napster contributorily infringed because it has both actual knowledge and, at least, constructive knowledge that users were using the software to infringe and facilitates the infringement; and found vicarious infringement through some dubious assertions about Naspter’s supervision/policing of its service), http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/tentrule.nsf/4f9d4c4a03b0cf70882567980073b%202e4/74bf2867dde99f0f88256938007a1205?OpenDocument.  On February 12, 2001, the 9th circuit issued a ruling partially reversing the district court in 239 F.3d 1004, http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/web/newopinions.nsf/4bc2cbe0ce5be94e88256927007a37b9/c4f204f69c2538f6882569f100616b06?OpenDocument.  On March 5, 2001, the district court issued a preliminary injunction requiring the record companies to submit some information about the infringing items to force Napster to remove the items within 3 business days.  On March 25, 2002, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s modified injunction and shutdown order, 2002 WL 449550 (9th Cir. March 25, 2002).

In re. Aimster Copyright Litigation (N.D. Ill., Sept. 4, 2002) (issuing an injunction based on contributory and vicarious infringement).  Affirmed by the Seventh Circuit June 30, 2003, http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/aimster/inreaimster63003opn.pdf.

ALS Scan v. RemarQ Communities (D. Maryland March 2000) (dismissing a copyright infringement claim over user-posted infringements over two USENET newsgroups).  Reversed by the 4th circuit, holding that ALS Scan submitted a DMCA-compliant notice, even though the notice was deficient, because it “substantially” complied with the requirements; thus, RemarQ cannot claim the 512(c) safe harbor.  2001 US App. LEXIS 1567 (4th Cir. Feb. 6, 2001), http://www.loundy.com/CASES/ALS_v_RemarQ.html.

Arista Records, Inc. v. MP3Board, Inc., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16165 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2002) (denying summary judgments for both sides).

Central Point Software, Inc. v. Nugent, 903 F. Supp. 1057 (E.D. Tex. 1995) (the sysop was liable for “reproducing” software solely because the files were on the sysop’s system–without any allegation that the sysop loaded the files or knew they were there).

Copeland v. Collins (N.D. Cal. March 25, 1999) (a not-for-publication case dismissing direct, contributory and vicarious copyright infringement for a USENET provider for an infringing USENET posting).

CoStar Group Inc. v. LoopNet Inc., 164 F. Supp. 2d 688 (D. Md. 2001). 

Ellison v. Robertson (C.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2001) (in a dispute over copyright infringement committed by users on USENET, rejecting AOL’s and RemarQ’s motion to dismiss although the judge is not favoring plaintiff’s claims).  RemarQ settled the case in January 2002.  AOL’s motions for summary judgment were granted March 12, 2002 based on 512(a), 2002 WL 407696, http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/CACD/RecentPubOp.nsf/bb61c530eab0911c882567cf005ac6f9/47819ca5ada002af88256b7c006a4494/$FILE/CV00-04321FMC.pdf.

Frank Music v. CompuServe (S.D.N.Y November 29, 1993) (a class action suit by various copyright owners against CompuServe for distributing MIDI files).  The case settled with CompuServe paying $568,000: http://www.courttv.com/library/cyberlaw/compuserve2.html.

Hendrickson v. eBay, Inc., 165 F. Supp. 2d 1082 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2001) (summary judgment for eBay on copyright infringement claim due to 512(c)(3) defense under DMCA), http://eric_goldman.tripod.com/caselaw/hendricksonvebay.htm.  Earlier ruling denying plaintiff’s preliminary injunction ruling issued May 7, 2001.

Los Angeles Times v. Free Republic (C.D. Cal. July 31, 2000) (in an effectively uncontested ruling, finding contributory infringement for encouraging users to post full text articles), http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/freerep/20000731ord.asp. 

Marobie-FL, Inc. v. National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors, 1997 WL 709747 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 13, 1997), http://www.Loundy.com/CASES/Marobie_v_NAFED.html.

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster (C.D. Cal. Apr. 2003) (dismissing contributory and vicarious copyright infringement claims against file-sharing software manufacturers).

Perfect 10, Inc. v. Cybernet Ventures, Inc., 213 F. Supp. 2d 1146 (C.D. Cal. April 22, 2002), http://www.adlawbyrequest.com/2pdf/adultcheck.pdf.

Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Frena, 839 F. Supp. 1552 (M.D. Fla. 1993), http://www.leepfrog.com/E-Law/Cases/Playboy_v_Frena.html.

Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Russ Hardenburgh, Inc., 982 F. Supp. 503 (N.D. Ohio November 25, 1997) (holding a BBS directly liable for copyright infringement committed by its users when the BBS encouraged users to upload files and prescreened user file transfers; and holding the BBS contributorily liable for copyright infringement committed by its users because the BBS encouraged users to upload adult files, benefited from having more files available, and constructively knew that infringing activity was occurring because the BBS knew Playboy was enforcing its rights against the world and it seemed likely that Playboy photos would find their way onto the system), http://www.Loundy.com/CASES/Playboy_v_Hardenburgh.html.

Playboy Enterprises v. Sanfilippo, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5125 (S.D. Cal. March 25, 1998) ($3.7 million judgment for copyright infringement when a website provided subscription access to pictures that may have been uploaded by a third party).

Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Webbworld, Inc., 968 F. Supp. 1171 (N.D. Tex. June 27, 1997), http://www.Loundy.com/CASES/PEI_v_Webbworld.html.

Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Webbworld, Inc., 991 F. Supp. 543 (N.D. Tex. December 11, 1997) (permanent injunction), affirmed without opinion, 169 F.3d 486.

Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc., 907 F. Supp. 1361 (N.D. Cal. November 21, 1995), http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/netcom.txt.  Settled–see Netcom’s policy at http://www.netcom.com/about/protectcopy.html.

Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. MAPHIA, 857 F. Supp. 679 (N.D. Cal. 1994), http://www.Loundy.com/CASES/Sega_v_MAPHIA.html. 

Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. MAPHIA, 948 F. Supp. 923 (N.D. Cal. 1996), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/sega2.html.

Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Sabella, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20470 (N.D. Cal. December 18, 1996), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/sega1.html.

U.S. v. LaMacchia, 871 F. Supp. 535 (D. Mass. 1994), http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/dldf/dismiss-order.html. 

 

Church of Spiritual Leaders v. Dataweb, District Court of the Hague (June 9, 1999) (another case involving the Church of Scientology v. XS4All, suggesting that an ISP who receives adequate notice of copyright infringement has a duty to take down the infringing material within a reasonable period of time or be liable for infringement itself.  The case also suggests that an ISP can be liable for linking to infringing material if it fails to remove the link within a reasonable period of time after notice).

Hit Box v. America Online (Germany April 12, 2000) (AOL is liable for allowing users to download pirated bootlegs).

Hogsta Domstolen (Stockholm February 22, 1996) (BBS operator not liable for copyright infringement committed by users).

JASRAC v. MMO Japan (Tokyo Dist. Ct. April 2002) (shutting down a Japan-based MP3 file swapping service).

Scientology v. Providers, District Court of the Hague (March 12, 1996), http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/cos/verd1eng.html.

 

            C.            Defamation.

 

Aquino v. Electriciti Inc. (Cal. Superior Crt., San Francisco City and County, Sept. 23, 1997).

Barrett v. Clark, 2001 WL 881259 (Cal. Superior Ct. July 25, 2001) (230 protects person who forwards a message to a newsgroup).

Batzel v. Cremers, 2001 US Dist. LEXIS 8929 (C.D. Cal. June 5, 2001) (in a weird procedural position—trying to decide if the case should be stricken under anti-SLAPP laws—holding that a website and its operator were not ICSs for purposes of 230(c)).  Partially reversed on appeal, remanding to the district court to determine if the blogger should have thought the tipster email was private or if he could have assumed it was intended for posting to the blog; in the latter case, 230(c) applies.  Batzel v. Smith, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 12736 (9th Cir. June 24, 2003), http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AE0A858C82A2EA8F88256D4E007A736C/$file/0156380.pdf?openelement.

Ben Ezra Weinstein & Co. v. America Online Inc., 1998 WL 896459 (D. N.M. July 16, 1998) (47 USC 230 can support a motion to suspend discovery pending summary judgment motions in a suit against the ICS for defamation and inaccurate information).  Subsequent ruling on March 1, 1999, 1999 WL 727402 http://legal.web.aol.com/decisions/dldefam/bnezdistrictopinion.html.  Upheld by 10th Circuit, 206 F.3d 980 (March 14, 2000) (cert. denied), http://legal.web.aol.com/decisions/dldefam/bnezcoa.pdf.

Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44 (D.D.C. April 22, 1998) (AOL not liable for the Drudge Report per Section 230 even when AOL pays a monthly fee for the content and reserves by contract the right to exercise editorial control over the content), http://www.ljx.com/LJXfiles/drudge/drudgedecision.html.

Cubby v. CompuServe, 776 F. Supp. 135 (S.D.N.Y. 1991), http://www.alw.nih.gov/Security/FIRST/papers/legal/cubby.txt. 

Doe v. Oliver, 46 Conn. Supp. 406 (Conn. Super. Ct. March 7, 2000) (under 47 USC 230, rejecting negligence claims that AOL allowed a user to send defamatory emails).

Grace v. Neeley (Cal. Superior Ct. April 28, 2003) (dismissing a claim against eBay for a defamatory feedback posting, but saying that 230 did not cover the plaintiff’s claims regarding fictitious name registrations and the presentation of information about sales tax), http://eric_goldman.tripod.com/caselaw/graceneeley.pdf.

Kempf v. Time, Inc. (Cal. Superior Ct. June 11, 1998) (dismissing a claim against various ISPs based on 230(c)(1)), http://legal.web.aol.com/decisions/dldefam/kempfdis.html.

Hammer v. Trendl, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 623 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2003) (limiting Amazon.com’s liability for a review posted on its site).

Lunney v. Prodigy Services Corp., 250 A.D.2d 230 (N.Y. Supreme Ct., App. Div., Dec. 28, 1998) (finding that Prodigy was not the publisher of allegedly defamatory statements in emails and message board postings; and even if it was, Prodigy had a qualified telecommunications company-style privilege), http://legal.web.aol.com/decisions/dldefam/lunneyopinion.html.  Upheld by New York Ct. App., 94 N.Y.2d 242 (Dec. 2, 1999), http://legal.web.aol.com/decisions/dldefam/lunneyappeal.html.

Marczeski v. Law, 122 F. Supp. 2d 315 (D. Conn. Nov. 2, 2000) (chat room operator not liable for defamation committed therein).

Morrison v. American Online, Inc., 153 F. Supp. 2d 930 (N.D. Ind. Aug 2, 2001) (can’t claim to be third party beneficiary of member contract as end-run around 230).

PatentWizard, Inc. v. Kinko’s, Inc, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15675 (D. S.D. Sept. 27, 2001) (in a sloppy opinion, dismissing a set of negligence and similar claims brought against Kinko’s for allowing a customer to use Internet terminals to post allegedly defamatory content in a chat room).

Sabbato v. Hardy (Ohio Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2000) (overturning a 12b6 motion to dismiss based on 230 because some evidence was required to conclude that defendant was a “provider”).

Schneider v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2001 WL 1079588 (Wash. App. Div. September 17, 2001) (230 precludes defamation liability for a book review written by one of its users), http://www.cdlaw.com/cases/apps/09_01/46791-3.htm.

Smith v. Intercosmos Media Group, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24251 (E.D. La. Dec. 17, 2002) (domain name registrar not liable for negligence based on allegedly defamatory website hosted at the domain name), http://www.lextext.com/intercosmos.html.

Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy, 1995 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 229 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 24, 1995), http://www.epic.org/free_speech/stratton_v_prodigy_1995.txt.  Reaffirmed by the judge on December 11, 1995: http://www.courttv.com/library/cyberlaw/prodigy3.html.

Tabor v. Willey, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10445 (N.D. Iowa May 3, 2001) (procedural case involving the removal of a case from federal to state court based on 47 USC 230).

Truelove v. Mensa (D. Md. Feb. 10, 1999) (dismissing a complaint against L-Soft, a mail list operator, on defamation and negligence based on 230(c)—but the plaintiffs had conceded that L-Soft was an I.C.S.), http://legal.web.aol.com/decisions/dldefam/truelove.html.

Tzougrakis v. Cyvelliance, Inc., 2001 US Dist. LEXIS 6680 (SDNY May 21, 2001) (no liability for websites republishing allegedly defamatory press release; no mention of 230(c) even though it may have applied).

Zeran v. America Online 958 F. Supp. 1124 (E.D. Va. 1997), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/zeran.html.  Upheld by the 4th Circuit, 129 F.3d 327 (Nov. 12, 1997) (cert denied), http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/4th/971523P.html.

 

Also Relevant:

AXA Conseil IARD v. M. Christophe (France Tribunal de Instance de Puteaux, Sept. 28, 1999) (dismissing a defamation claim against an ISP for user-initiated defamation).

Godfrey v. Demon Internet Ltd. (High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench, March 26, 1999) (holding an ISP liable for a defamatory Usenet posting when the ISP had received notice that the posting was defamatory and the ISP did not remove the posting), http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/godfrey2.htm.

Landgericht Hamburg Urteil (Case 312 O 85/98, Hamburg Court, Germany, May 12, 1998) (holding Michael Best, a web page operator of emergency.de, for the defamatory content on pages he linked to).  For more information in German, see http://www.online-recht.de/vorent.html?LGHamburg980512.

NIFTYServe case (Tokyo District Court May 26, 1997) (NIFTYServe liable for user-caused defamation when it failed to delete the defamatory posting after knowledge).

 

D.                Trademarks (see also Registry/Registrar Liability).

 

Ford Motor Co. v. Greatdomains.com, 2001 WL 1176319 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 25, 2001) (230(c) doesn’t preempt trademark claims).

Gucci America v. Hall & Assocs., 2001 WL 253255 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 14, 2001) (rejecting 230 as a defense to contributory trademark infringement), http://www.Loundy.com/CASES/Gucci_v_Hall.html.

 

E.            Other Torts.

 

Georgia Code 16-12-100.2(d)(1) (holding owners/operators of computer online service, Internet service or BBS liable for user communications related to child porn if the operator intentionally or willfully permits a subscriber to utilize the service to commit a violation of the code, knowing that such person intended to utilize the service to violate the code), http://www.state.ga.us/cgi-bin/pub/leg/legdoc?billname=1999/HB213&docpart=full.

 

Begraft v. eBay (N.J. Super. Ct. Oct. 1, 2003), http://eric_goldman.tripod.com/caselaw/begraftvebay.pdf.

Carafano v. Metrosplash, Inc., 207 F. Supp. 2d 1055 (C.D. Cal. March 12, 2002) (47 USC 230 did not apply to matchmaking website because they were deemed an information content provider by asking multiple-choice questions and specific essay questions), reversed on appeal to the Ninth Circuit, Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., 339 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2003), http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0255658p.pdf.

Doe v. America Online, 1997 WL 374223 (Ct. Court Fla., June 26, 1997), http://legal.web.aol.com/decisions/dldefam/doedec.html.  On appeal, the appellate court upheld the lower court’s decision that AOL could not be liable under 230(c) for a user’s violation of certain Florida anti-pornography statutes, 718 So.2d 385 (Fla. Ct. App. October 14, 1998), http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/zeran/81014.htm.  At the Florida Supreme Court, the court upheld the decision 4-3, 783 So.2d 1010 (Fla. Supreme Ct. March 8, 2001) (US Sup. Ct. cert. denied).

Doe v. Franco, 2000 US Dist Lexis 8645 (ND Ill. June 21, 2000) (applying 47 USC 230 to grant web host immunity from privacy rights claims and public nuisance claims), http://eric_goldman.tripod.com/caselaw/doevfranco.htm; upheld on appeal in an opinion that raises questions about the scope of 230 in the Seventh Circuit.  Doe v. GTE (7th Cir. Oct. 21, 2003), http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op3.fwx?submit1=showop&caseno=02-4323.PDF. 

Gentry v. eBay (Cal. Superior Cr. Oct. 11, 2000) (dismissing some claims against eBay for selling fake sports memorabilia), http://www.krausekalfayan.com/ebruling.htm.  The remaining claims against eBay were dismissed January 18, 2001, http://www.krausekalfayan.com/ebrulin2.htm.  Ruling affirmed on appeal, 99 Cal. App. 4th 816 (Cal. App. Ct. June 26, 2002), http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/caapp4th/slip/2002/d037661.html.

Green v. America Online, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 750 (3d Cir. Jan. 16, 2003) (AOL not liable under 47 USC 230 for transmission of harmful code in chatroom).

Hart v. Internet Wire, 2001 US Dist LEXIS 7881 (S.D.N.Y. June 14, 2001) (press release publishers not liable under Securities law for bogus press release).

Kathleen R. v. City of Livermore, 87 Cal. App. 4th 684 (March 8, 2001).

Mainstream Loudoun v. Board of Trustees, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4725 (E.D. Va. April 7, 1998), http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/loudon/80407mem.htm (finding that 47 USC 230(c)(2) does not prevent an action for equitable relief against a library using filtering software that allegedly violates the First Amendment).

Noah v. AOL Time Warner, 261 F. Supp. 2d 532 (E.D. Va. May 15, 2003) (230 shields AOL from claim of Title II of Civil Rights Act), http://eric_goldman.tripod.com/caselaw/noahvaol.htm.

New York v. Buffnet (settlement Feb. 2001) (an ISP pled guilty to criminal facilitation in the fourth degree for failing to remove newsgroups that carried child porn).

Ramey v. Darkside Productions, Inc. (D.C. D.C. May 17, 2004) (230 precludes liability for ads provided to it, even if the website categorizes ads and makes minor modifications).

Stoner v. eBay, 2000 WL 1705637 (Cal. Superior Ct. Nov. 7, 2000) (based on 47 USC 230, dismissing a claim against eBay for violating Cal. Business & Professions Code 17200 based on bootleg recordings being sold via eBay), http://www.Loundy.com/CASES/Stoner_v_eBay.html.

J’accuse c. AFA (TGI Paris, October 30, 2001) (US web host ordered by French court to block access to hate speech).

LICRA v. Yahoo (County Court of Paris, Nov. 20, 2000) (ordering Yahoo.com to block all access by French-based IP addresses to Nazi memorabilia, and to ask unidentifiable IP addresses to state what country they are from), http://www.cdt.org/speech/international/001120yahoofrance.pdf.  In Yahoo v. La Ligge Contre le Racisme et L’Antisemitisme, 145 F.Supp.2d 1168 (N.D. Cal June 7, 2001), the district court extended jurisdiction over the French plaintiffs using the effects test; http://www.cdt.org/jurisdiction/010607yahoo.pdf, and subsequently stayed enforcement of the French order in http://www.cdt.org/jurisdiction/011107judgement.pd

Lacoste v. Multimania Co. (French Tribunal de Grand Instance de Nauterre, Dec. 8, 1999) (holding a web hosting company liable for hosting photos of models without consent).

Lefebure v. Lacambre (French Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, June 9, 1998) (holding a web provider liable for right of privacy violation because a user posted nude photos.  However, since the photos were removed the day the provider learned of their availability, the court only ordered an injunction requiring the sysop to install a mechanism “to ensure the impossibility of diffusion of the photos” from the service in the future), http://www.legalis.net/legalnet/judiciaire/decisions/ord_0698.htm (in French).  This case was upheld on appeal February 10, 1999, http://altern.org/defense/jugement.html (in French).

In re. Tele2 Norge (Oslo City Ct. June 5, 2002) (holding an IAP liable as an accomplice for illegal pornography distributed on newsgroups it carried).

Union of Jewish Students v. Multimania (Nanterre, France May 2000) (dismissing a claim against a web host for hosting a Nazi-oriented site because the host didn’t know of the material on the site).

 

12.            ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY ACT.

 

The statute: 18 USC §§ 2510-22, 2701-2711.

42 U.S.C. §227 (requiring “electronic communication services” and “remote computing services” to make disclosures to law enforcement agencies when they learn of facts related to certain illegal behavior regarding child pornography).

 

Andersen Consulting LLP v. UOP (N.D. Ill. January 23, 1998) (an internal email system is not a public system, even when the benefits have been offered to system integrators, and therefore the system is not subject to the ECPA provisions regarding disclosure of stored communications), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/andersen.html.

Davis v. Gracey, 111 F.3d 1472 (10th Cir. 1997), (finding that a warrant permitting the seizure of “CD-ROMS, equipment, order materials, paper, membership lists and other paraphernalia pertaining to the distribution or display of pornographic material” did not give rise to an ECPA claim when the agents seized a BBS with 150,000 private emails), http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr97/95-6245.wpd.html.

Guest v. Leis, 2001 WL 733419 (6th Cir. July 2, 2001) (seizure of BBSs containing private emails did not exceed scope of warrant; users forfeit right to expect privacy in their subscriber info when disclosed to system operator).

In re Intuit Privacy Litigation, 2001 WL 370081 (C.D. Cal. April 10, 2001) (analyzing whether placing cookies violates the ECPA; refusing to dismiss the 2707 claim).

Jessup-Morgan v. America Online, Inc. (E.D. Mich. July 23, 1998) (rejected an ECPA violation when AOL disclosed member information to a private individual), http://legal.web.aol.com/decisions/dlpriv/jessup.html.

Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, 2001 US App. Lexis 191 (9th Cir. Jan. 8, 2001) (accessing a password protected website with someone else’s password constituted an interception for ECPA purposes).  After ruling was withdrawn, revised opinion was issued in 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 17586 (9th Cir. Aug. 23, 2002).

Labwerks, Inc. v. Sladekutter, Ltd. (W.D. Pa. February 17, 1999) (ECPA violation when a competitor accessed customer information via unauthorized access to the other company’s computer network).

McVeigh v. Cohen, 983 F. Supp. 215 (D.C. D.C. Jan. 28, 1998) (the Navy violated the ECPA by seeking disclosure of AOL records without proper authorization), http://www.loundy.com/CASES/McVeigh_v_Cohen.html.

In re. Pharmatrak, Inc. Privacy Litigation (1st Cir. May 9, 2003) (use of clear GIF, which led to collection of personal information through referring URL, may violate ECPA), http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/1st/case/022138&exact=1.  Case dismissed on remand for lack of scienter.  D. Mass, Nov. 6, 2003, http://pub.bna.com/ctlr/11672.pdf.

Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. MAPHIA, 948 F. Supp. 923 (N.D. Cal. 1996), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/sega2.html.

Steve Jackson Games, Inc. v. U.S. Secret Service, 816 F. Supp. 432 (W.D. Texas 1993), http://www.law.seattleu.edu/chonm/Cases/jacksodc.htm; affirmed 36 F.3d 457 (5th Cir. 1994), http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/6095/assorted-short-pieces/sjg-appeal.txt.

Thoefel v. Farey-Jones (9th Cir. Aug. 28, 2003) (cause of action when bogus subpoena causes IAP to disclose private emails).

United States v. Alibris (settlement November 1999) (settling for $250,000 a claim that Alibris had violated the ECPA by reviewing emails sent via its network from Amazon to various booksellers).  United States v. Councilman (1st Cir. June 29, 2004) (no criminal liability under ECPA for intercepting emails when captured by IAP employee while passing through system).

United States v. Hambrick (W.D. Va. July 7, 1999) (refusing to suppress the defendant’s name, address, social security number, credit card number and proof of Internet connectivity, as supplied by the defendant’s ISP (Mindspring), even though the subpoena served on Mindspring was insufficient, since the defendant revealed this information to a non-government actor who was not restricted from further disclosing this information to others), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/hambrick.html.  Note this case smells very fishy, as the court did not address Mindspring’s announced privacy policies.

United States v. Moriarty (D. Mass. April 3, 1997) (finding that criminal prosecutions under both Section 2511 and 2701 of the ECPA constituted double jeopardy), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/moriarty.html.

 

13.       EMAIL PRIVACY.

 

Andersen Consulting LLP v. UOP and Bickel & Brewer, 991 F. Supp. 1041 (N.D. Ill. January 26, 1998) (an internal email system is not a public system, even when the benefits have been offered to system integrators, and therefore the system is not subject to the ECPA provisions regarding disclosure of stored communications), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/andersen.html.

Bohach v. City of Reno, 932 F. Supp. 1232 (D. Nev. 1996).

Bourke v. Nissan Motor Corp. (Cal. Ct. App. July 26, 1993), http://www.law.seattleu.edu/chonm/Cases/bourke.html.

Flanagan v. Epson America, Inc. (Cal. Super. Ct. Jan. 4, 1991).

Florida v. Clearwater (Fla. Sup. Ct. Sept. 11, 2003) (not all public employee emails are public records).

Fraser v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. (3rd Cir. Dec. 10, 2003).

Freeman v. America Online (D. Conn. Feb. 2004).

Haynes v. Kline (D. Kansas Dec. 23, 2003).

McLaren v. Microsoft (Texas Ct. App. May 28, 1999) (upholding Microsoft’s accessing of personal emails during a corporate investigation).

Putnam Pit, Inc. v. City of Cookeville (M.D. Tenn. September 21, 1998) (rejecting a newspaper’s request to obtain access to city employees’ Internet use records), http://www.putnampit.com/higgins.html.

Restuccia v. Burk Technology, Inc. (Middlesex Superior Ct. of Massachusetts, 1996).

Shoars v. Epson America, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App. April 14, 1994), http://www.law.seattleu.edu/chonm/Cases/shoars.html.

Smyth v.  Pillsbury Co., 914 F. Supp. 97 (E.D. Pa. January 23, 1996), http://www.Loundy.com/CASES/Smyth_v_Pillsbury.html.

State ex rel. Wilson-Simmons v. Lake County Sheriff's Dept., 82 Ohio St. 3d 37 (1998) (finding that emails—that were allegedly racist—sent on the internal network to only a few recipients did not constitute a “public record”), http://www.lweekly.com/ohsc/970797.htm.

Theofel v. Farey-Jones (9th Cir. Aug. 28, 2003) (bogus subpoena does not protect against Stored Communications Act claim).

 

14.            ENCRYPTION.

 

Bernstein v. United States, 922 F. Supp. 1426 (N.D. Cal. 1996), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/bernstein.html   Further ruling, 945 F. Supp. 1279 (N.D. Cal. 1996), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/bernstein2.html.   Further ruling, 974 F. Supp. 1288 (N.D. Cal. 1997), http://www.epic.org/misc/gulc/cases/bernstein_1997.html.  On appeal (9th Cir. 1999), http://jya.com/bernstein-9th.htm.

DVD Copy Control Ass’n v. Bunner (Cal. App. Ct. Nov. 1, 2001) (no injunction under trade secret law for disseminating trade secrets in DVD encryption technology).  CA Supreme Court held that a trade secret injunction does not violate the First Amendment.  31 Cal. 4th 864 (Aug. 25, 2003).  On remand, the Appeals Court once again concluded that an injunction was not warranted because of the widespread distribution of DeCSS prior to Bunner’s dissemination.  Cal. App. Ct. Feb. 27, 2004.

Karn v. United States, 925 F. Supp. 1 (D.C. D.C. 1996), http://www.Loundy.com/CASES/Karn_v_US.html.

Junger v. Daley, 9 F. Supp. 2d 708 (N.D. Ohio July 2, 1998), http://samsara.law.cwru.edu/comp_law/jvd/pdj11.html.  On appeal, reversing the lower court and holding that source code may be protected by the First Amendment, 2000 Fed. App. 0117P (6th Cir. April 4, 2000), http://samsara.law.cwru.edu/victory.txt.

Universal City Studios v. Reimerdes, 111 F. Supp. 2d 294 (S.D.N.Y. Aug 17, 2000) (rejecting the argument that encryption-evading software is protected speech), http://www.2600.com/dvd/docs/2000/0817-decision.pdf

U.S. v. Elcom (N.D. Cal. May 8, 2002) (denying motion to dismiss indictment under 1201(b)), http://www.planetpdf.com/mainpage.asp?webpageid=2049,

 

15.            FRANCHISE.

 

Federal Trade Commission v. Inetintl.com, Inc. (C.D. Cal. March 29, 1999) (consent order regarding bogus franchises, with over $1.75 million in redress), http://www.ftc.gov/os/1999/9905/inetsjud.htm.

Federal Trade Commission v. iMall (Stipulated Final Judgment May 1999) (ordering defendants to stay out of certain Internet businesses, to flush their database of user information, and to pay $4 million in redress), http://www.ftc.gov/os/1999/9904/imallincstipfinal.htm.

 

Drug Emporium case (AAA ruling September 2000) (ruling that Drug Emporium’s website violated the exclusivity provisions in its franchise agreements).

Jerome-Duncan, Inc. v. Auto-by-Tel, LLC, 989 F. Supp. 838 (E.D. Mich. December 24, 1997).

Jerome-Duncan, Inc. v. Auto-by-Tel, LLC, 176 F.3d 904 (6th Cir. May 21, 1999) (finding that an exclusive agreement to refer car sales leads gathered from a website to a dealer was not a franchise agreement even though the referrer promulgated standards for performance).

 

16.            GAMBLING.

 

18 U.S.C. 1084, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1084.shtml.

Louisiana R.S. 14:90.3 (criminalizing gambling by computer and operating a gambling site by computer; provides a safe harbor for certain service providers).

 

In re Mastercard International Inc. Internet Gambling Litigation (5th Cir. Nov. 20, 2002) (dismissing a lawsuit against Mastercard and Visa under RICO for supporting Internet gambling websites), http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/5th/0130389p.pdf.

Missouri v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14980 (W.D. Mo. September 29, 1997) (holding that the state’s consumer protection laws would be heard in federal court, not state court, because adjudication will require interpretation of whether the state law claim is preempted by the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act).  Interlocutory appeal denied, 1997 U.S. Dist. 21776 (November 19, 1997).  The Eighth Circuit ruling is at 164 F.3d 1102, January 6, 1999.  A rehearing en banc and certiorari by the Supreme Court were both denied.

Missouri v. Interactive Gaming & Communications Corp. (Cir. Ct. Mo. May 22, 1997), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/intergame.html.

In the Matter of PayPal, Inc. (settled Aug. 16, 2002) (PayPal has to cease processing payments for online gambling merchants on behalf of NY residents, and must notify law authorities when it determines that a member’s website violates the law; $200k settlement).

Missouri v. UniStar Entertainment (Cir. Ct. Mo. January 29, 1998) (the State obtained an injunction against online gambling offered by an Idaho Indian tribe, including advertising that the site was legal in Missouri; the state went through significant efforts to bypass the tribe’s authentication systems).

State v. Youbet.com (settled January 2000) (LA county enforcement against an off-track betting site predicated on false advertising; case settled with Youbet paying $1.3 million and moving out of CA).

 

Olivier v. Ministry of Safety and Security (South Africa 1997) (refusing the reclamation of computer equipment used for Internet gambling).

Florida Attorney General Advisory Legal Opinion AGO 95-70 (October 18, 1995) (indicating that it is illegal for a Florida resident to gamble over the Internet), http://legal1.firn.edu/ago.nsf/aaee37715760bbce852563cc001bacf7/5bfc8db232c406828525626900683218?OpenDocument.

 

17.            HARASSMENT/DISCRIMINATION.

 

ApolloMedia Corp. v. Reno, 19 F. Supp. 2d 1081 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 1998) (concluding that the legislative restriction on various activities done with the intent to annoy applied only to obscene activities, not indecent activities), http://annoy.com/cda/ruling.html.

Daniels v. Worldcom Corp., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2335 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 24, 1998) (dismissing various discrimination/harassment complaints brought on the basis of 4 emails sent by a non-supervisor; in particular, noting that the organization was not negligent when the organization organized meetings in response to the emails, reprimanded the sender, and had an email use policy).

Internet America Inc. v. Massey (Tex. Dallas County Dist. Ct. Oct. 14, 1996), http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/massey1.htm.

Mourad v. Bojekian (3d Cir. Dec. 22, 1999) (posting judges’ names and addresses on USNET was not a threat).

Owens v. Morgan Stanley & Co. (S.D.N.Y. settled February 10, 1998) (settling a racial discrimination case based on the circulation of racist jokes on the internal email network).   An earlier ruling was made at 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20493 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 24, 1997).

People v. Kochanowski (NY App. Term Oct. 2000) (website listing a phone number constitutes criminal harassment).

People v. Munn (N.Y. Crim. Ct. February 9, 1999) (newsgroup article urging others to kill a specific police officer constituted harassment).

Planned Parenthood v. American Coalition of Life Activists, 244 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. March 28, 2001) (reversing a $107 million jury award based on anti-abortionists publishing on a website personal informationabout doctors who perform abortions).

State v. Vijay (Cal. Superior Ct. jury ruling, October 2001) (man guilty of using public library Internet terminal to cyberstalk).

U.S. v. Baker, 890 F. Supp. 1375 (E.D. Mich. 1995), http://ic.net/~sberaha/baker.html, affirmed, U.S. v. Alkhabaz, 1997 FED App. 0036P (6th Cir. 1997), http://www.law.emory.edu/6circuit/jan97/97a0036p.06.html.

U.S. v. Kammersell, 7 F. Supp. 2d 1196 (D. Utah June 3, 1998) (electronically transmitted bomb threat from one Utah resident to another, routed through Virginia, was a transmission in interstate commerce), http://www.Loundy.com/CASES/US_v_Kammersell.html.

U.S. v. Machado (S.D. Cal. February 1998) (UC Irvine student sends hate mail to other students).

 

18.       “HOT NEWS”/DATABASE PROTECTION.

 

Pollstar v. Gigmania (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2000) (hot news claim survived 12b6 motion).

Ticketmaster, Inc. v. Tickets.com (C.D. Cal. August 10, 2000) (ticket pricing/availability information may be hot news, but probably no misappropriation here because Ticketmaster still has monopoly on sale of the related tickets), http://pub.bna.com/ptcj/ticketmaster.htm.

 

Also relevant:

Fred Wehrenberg Circuit of Theatres v. Moviefone, 73 F. Supp. 2d 1044 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 1, 1999) (finding no hot news violation in the case of movie times because the movie theaters will continue to produce movie schedules irrespective of third party publication).

Lowry’s Reports v. Legg Mason (D. Md. July 10, 2003).

Morris Communications Corp. v. PGA Tour (M.D. Fla. Oct. 23, 2000) (refusing to mandate access to the PGA’s system for gathering real time scores).  In a subsequent ruling from Dec. 13, 2002, the court said that golf scores are not yet “in the public domain” while they are still under the PGA’s embargo.

National Basketball Association v. Motorola, 105 F. 3d. 841 (2d Cir. 1997), http://www.tourolaw.edu/2ndcircuit/January97/96-7975.html.

 

British Horseracing Board Ltd. v. William Hill Org. Ltd. (High Court of Justice, Chancery Div. Feb. 9, 2001).

Danish Newspaper Publishers’ Association v. Newsbooster (July 5, 2002 ) (restricting deep linking to newspapers’ sites).

Royal Dutch Telecom v. Xbase Software (Hague Court Jan. 14, 2000) (restricting Xbase’s use of the telecom’s website directory of subscribers under the EU Database Directive).

 

19.            INACCURATE/HARMFUL INFORMATION.

 

Daniel v. Dow Jones & Co., 520 N.Y.S. 2d 334 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 1987), http://snyside.sunnyside.com/cpsr/free_speech/daniel_v_dowjones.txt.

James v. Meow Media (D. Ky. April 6, 2000) (no liability based on website content for contributing to a shooting death).

Remsburg v. Docusearch (N.H. Sup. Ct. Feb. 18, 2003) (Internet information broker can be liable for shooting death caused by access to its information), http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2003/remsb017.htm.

 

French Union of Jewish Students v. Yahoo (France Nov. 20, 2000) (ordering Yahoo.com to remove Nazi memorabilia from its auction pages available in France).

 

Also relevant: Rice v. Paladin Enterprises, 128 F.3d 233 (4th Cir. November 10, 1997), http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/4th/962412p.html.

 

20.            JURISDICTION, VENUE AND CHOICE OF LAW.

 

[NOTE—THIS SECTION IS PARTICULARLY INCOMPLETE, AS THE NUMBER OF CASES IN THIS AREA CONTINUE TO EXPLODE AND MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO KEEP CURRENT WITH EVERY CASE].

 

A.            Cases Involving General Jurisdiction.

 

3D Systems, Inc. v. Aarotech Laboratories, Inc. (Cr. App. Fed. Cir. Nov. 12, 1998) (rejecting general jurisdiction on the basis of a website and other limited contacts), http://www.finnegan.com/finnegan/finnegan/cases/97-1514.htm.

Atlantech Distribution Inc. v. Credit General Insurance Co. (D. Md. November 10, 1998) (passive website does not create general jurisdiction).

Bird v. Parsons (6th Cir. May 21, 2002) (no general jurisdiction over domain name registrar based on general availability of website), http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/6th/02a0177p.html.

Gator.com v. LL Bean, Inc. (9th Cir. Sept. 2, 2003) (LL Bean subject to general jurisdiction in CA).

Gifford v. Bruce Strumpf, Inc., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11876 (D. Maine August 7, 1997) (no general jurisdiction conveyed based on advertising website).

Gorman v. Ameritrade Holding Corp. (D.C. Cir. June 14, 2002) (Ameritrade can be susceptible to general jurisdiction in DC based on its online brokerage services; “Cyberspace however is not some mystical incantation capable of warding off the jurisdiction of courts built from bricks and mortar”).

Graphic Controls Corp. v. Utah Medical Products, Inc., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7448 (W.D. N.Y. May 21, 1997) (website insufficient to confer general jurisdiction).

Green v. William Mason & Co., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3315 (D. N.J. March 5, 1998) (website insufficient to confer general jurisdiction).

Haelan Products Inc. v. Beso Biological, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10565 (E.D. La. July 11, 1997) (finding a company subject to general jurisdiction based on a nationwide advertising campaign, the availability of a toll free 800 number and its website, but the website alone would have been insufficient; this case is wrongly reasoned and would have been better analyzed as a specific jurisdiction case).

IDS Life Insurance v. SunAmerica, 958 F. Supp. 1258 (N.D. Ill. 1997)

McDonough v. Fallon McElligott, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15139 (S.D. Cal. August 5, 1996).

Mieczkowski v. Masco Corp., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3502 (E.D. Tex. March 18, 1998) (general jurisdiction found based on combination of defendant doing substantial business in Texas and a website that provides detailed product information, printable online order form, screen where users could check on the status of their order, and the ability to email a sales representative).

Robbins v. Yutopian Enterprises, Inc. (D. Md.) (rejecting Zippo in determining no general jurisdiction despite an active website; but case is transferred to defendant’s home court).

SF Hotel Company LP v. Energy Investments Inc., 985 F. Supp. 1032 (D. Kan. Nov. 19, 1997) (declining to exercise either specific or general jurisdiction in a trademark dispute based solely on a website that it deemed passive), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/sfhotel.html.

Smith v. Hobby Lobby Stores, 968 F. Supp. 1356 (W.D. Ark. 1997) (Hong Kong company not subject to general jurisdiction in Arkansas because it advertised its website on advertising collateral).

Soma Medical Int’l v. Standard Chartered Bank (10th Cir. Dec. 1, 1999) (no general jurisdiction based on passive website).

Telephone Audio Productions, Inc. v. Smith, 1998 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4101 (N.D. Tex. March 26, 1998) (website alone does not confer general jurisdiction).

Weber v. Jolly Hotels, 977 F. Supp. 327 (D. N.J. 1997) (no general jurisdiction over a company based solely on a “passive” advertising website), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/weber.html.

 

B.            Cases Involving Specific Jurisdiction.

 

(i)            Copyright.

 

3D0 Co. v. Poptop Software (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 1998) (finding jurisdiction where the allegedly infringing games could be downloaded, using the effects test).

ALS Scan, Inc. v. Digital Service Consultants, Inc., 2002 US App LEXIS 11745 (4th Cir. June 14, 2002), http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=011812.P.

CNN v. GoSMS.com, 2000 US Dist. Lexis 16156 (SDNY October 30, 2000) (asserting jurisdiction over a service that was scraping data and retransmitting it by phone).

Coastal Video Communications Corp. v. The Staywell Corp, 1999 WL 592025 (E.D. Va., Aug. 2, 1999).
Expert Pages v. Buckalew, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12205 (N.D. Cal. August 8, 1997).

MGM Studios v. Grokster, Ltd., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 865 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2003).
Mink v. AAAA Development LLC (5th Cir. Sept. 17, 1999) (finding a website that has a printable order form, email access and a toll free number was passive and thus dismissing jurisdiction), http://legal.web.aol.com/decisions/dlother/mink.html.

Winfield Collection v. McCauley (E.D. Mich. July 24, 2000) (declining personal jurisdiction based on a website the court felt wasn’t interactive), http://pub.bna.com/ptcj/9975875.htm.

 

(ii)            Defamation.

 

Barrett v. Catacombs Press, 44 F. Supp. 2d  717 (E.D. Pa. 1999) (passive website did not confer jurisdiction)..

Batzel v. Cremers, 2001 US Dist. LEXIS 8929 (C.D. Cal. June 5, 2001).

Blakey v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 730 A.2d 854 (N.J. Super. A.D. 1999).

Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44 (D.D.C. April 22, 1998) (Drudge’s website was deemed interactive because it allows browsers to email Drudge and sign up for his mail list, and because it solicited contributions; the court also notes that the Drudge Report was available to residents 24 hours a day; these in combination with some other limited contacts supported jurisdiction in plaintiff’s home court), http://www.ljx.com/LJXfiles/drudge/drudgedecision.html.

California Software Inc. v. Reliability Research, Inc., 631 F. Supp. 1356 (C.D. Cal. 1986).

Edias Software International LLC v. Basis International Ltd., 947 F. Supp. 413 (D. Az. Nov. 19, 1996), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/edias.html.

English Sports Betting, Inc. v. Tostigan (E.D. Pa. March 15, 2002) (article posted by Virginia resident allegedly defaming Jamaica resident doesn’t give basis to sue in Pennsylvania).

Griffis v. Luban (Minn. Sup. Ct. July 11, 2002) (USENET postings allegedly defaming an Alabama resident did not give rise to jurisdiction under the Effects test), http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/supct/0207/c301296.htm.

Hammer v. Trendl, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 623 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2003) (posting allegedly defamatory review on Amazon.com does not give rise to jurisdiction in plaintiff’s home court).

Hy Cite Corp. v. badbusinessbureau.com, 2004 WL 42641 (W.D. Wisc. Jan. 8, 2004) (no jurisdiction over defamatory posting).

Machulsky v. Hall (D.N.J. July 9, 2002) (dismissing jurisdiction in plaintiff’s home court based on allegedly defamatory feedback comments left on eBay), http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/fed/html/ca01-4444-1.html.

Mallinckrodt Medical, Inc. v. Sonus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136 (D. D.C. January 5, 1998) (allegedly defamatory message posted on AOL message board was insufficient by itself to meet the statutory definition of “transacting business” in a state where it presumably was read).

Marczeski v. Price, 1999 WL 66105 (D. Conn. 1999).

Media3 Technologies v. Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS) (D. Mass. Jan 2. 2001) (finding jurisdiction over MAPS), http://pub.bna.com/eclr/00cv12524.htm.

Naxon Resources (USA) Ltd. v. Southam, Inc, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21759 (C.D. Cal. 1996) (applying Calder v. Jones, a Canadian newspaper publisher was not subject to general or specific jurisdiction in California for an allegedly defamatory article, even though the article was available on the Internet and in Lexis and Westlaw).

Resnick v. Manfredy, 52 F.Supp.2d 462 (E.D. Pa. 1999).

Revell v. Lidov (5th Cir. Dec. 31, 2002) (no jurisdiction based on defamatory article posted to interactive message board), http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/5th/0110521p.pdf.

Telco Communications Group, Inc. v. An Apple a Day, Inc., 977 F. Supp. 404 (E.D. Va. September 24, 1997) (releasing allegedly defamatory press releases to Business Wire, which apparently were distributed on the Internet, sufficient to support jurisdiction where the plaintiff was located), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/telco.html.

Wagner v. Miskin, 2003 N.D. 69 (N.D. Sup. Ct. May 6, 2003) (student’s defamatory posting about North Dakota professor sufficiently targeted North Dakota to support jurisdiction), http://www.court.state.nd.us/COURT/OPINIONS/20020200.htm.

Young v. New Haven Advocate, 2002 WL 31780988 (4th Cir. Dec. 13, 2002) (no effects jurisdiction based on posting newspaper article), http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/4th/case/012340Pv2&exact=1.

 

Gutnick v. Dow Jones & Co., [2001] VSC 305 (Victoria Supreme Court Aug. 28, 2001), http://www.austlii.edu.au/vic/VSC/2001/305.html.

MacQuarie Bank Ltd. v. Berg (New South Wales Supreme Court, June 2, 1999) (refusing to enjoin the publication of defamatory material on the Internet from NSW since the defendant was not present in NSW), http://austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/supreme_ct/1999/526.html.

In re. Moshe D. (Italy Ct. Cassation 2000) (issuing an injunction over defamatory content on servers outside of Italty).

 

(iii)            Gambling.

 

Minnesota v. Granite Gate Resorts, Inc., 1996 WL 767431 (Minn. Dist. Ct. December 11, 1996), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/granite.html.  Appeals Court ruling: 568 N.W.2d 715 (Minn. Ct. App. September 5, 1997), http://www.courts.state.mn.us/library/archive/ctappub/9709/c69789.htm.  Affirmed without an opinion, 576 N.W.2d 747 (Minn. Sup. Ct. May 14, 1998).

People v. World Interactive Gaming Corp., 185 Misc. 2d 852 (Sup. Ct. N.Y.Co. Jul. 22, 1999).
 

(iv)            Miscellaneous.

 

Blackburn v. Walker Oriental Rug Galleries, 999 F. Supp. 636 (E.D. Pa. April 7, 1998) (ability to send email from the website did not make the website interactive; therefore, the case was transferred to the defendant’s home court), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/blackburn.html.

Cody v. Ward, 954 F. Supp. 43 (D. Conn. February 4, 1997), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/cody.html.

Cybertech Communications Corp. v. Quad Intern., Inc., 691 N.Y.S.2d 460 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept. 1999).
Decker v. Circus Circus Hotel (D. N.J. May 12, 1999) (dismissing jurisdiction based on Internet order for a hotel room given forum selection language on the site).

Efford v. Jockey Club, 2002 PA Super 100 (PA. Superior Ct. April 5, 2002) (applying Zippo to a middle-tier horse registry site, rejecting personal jurisdiction).

GTE New Media Services Inc. v. Ameritech Corporation, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15413 (D.D.C., Sept. 28, 1998) (finding jurisdiction in case involving conspiracy to monopolize Internet yellow pages market).  See subsequent ruling at 44 F. Supp. 2d 313 (D.D.C. 1999).
Hall v. LaRonde, 66 Cal. Rptr. 2d 399 (Cal. Ct. App. August 7, 1997) http://www.ljx.com/LJXfiles/laronde/laroncourt.html.

Hornell Brewing Co. v. Rosebud Sioux Tribal Court, 133 F. 3d 1087 (8th Cir. Jan. 14, 1998).

Intercon, Inc. v. Bell Atlantic Internet Solutions, Inc., 205 F.3d. 1244 (10th Cir. 2000)

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=10th&navby=case&no=986428.

Northwest Healthcare Alliance Inc. v. Healthgrades.com, Inc., 2002 WL  31246123 (9th Cir. Oct. 7, 2002) (applying the Effects test to a consumer protection action involving the grading of plaintiff’s services by the website).

Metcalf v. Lawson (N.H. Supreme Ct. June 25, 2002) (rejecting jurisdiction in eBay purchaser’s home court because eBay seller didn’t know where buyer would be located).

Plus System v. New England Network, 804 F. Supp. 111 (D. Colo. 1992)

Pavlovich v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County, 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 909 (Cal.App. 2001), http://eon.law.harvard.edu/stjohns/Pavlovich.html.

Precision Laboratory Plastics, Inc. v. Micro Test, Inc., 981 P2d 454 (Wash. App. 1999).

Remick v. Manfrendy (E.D. Pa. April 22, 1999) (dismissed based on passive advertising-style website).

Resuscitation Technologies, Inc. v. Continental Health Care Corp., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3523 (S.D. Ind. March 24, 1997), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/resus.html.

Richard Howard, Inc. v. Hogg, 1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 5533 (Ohio Ct. App. November 19, 1996).

Thompson v. Handa-Lopez, Inc., 998 F. Supp. 738 (N.D. Tex. March 25, 1998) (finding that jurisdiction over a gambling site attached in plaintiff’s home court when the plaintiff alleged that the site failed to pay the amount won by plaintiff at the casino; in so doing, the court declined to give effect to an express but “inconspicuous” clause in the user agreement requiring arbitration in the defendant’s home court).

Tamburo v. eBay, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22686 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 22, 2002) (dismissing claim on awry eBay transaction for lack of jurisdiction).

Verizon Online Services v. Ralsky, 203 F. Supp. 601 (E.D. Va. June 7, 2002) (sending spam and trespassing on a Virginia based server creates jurisdiction in Virginia).

Vitullo v. Velocity Powerboats Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7120 (N.D. Ill. April 24, 1998).

Yahoo v. La Ligge Contre le Racisme et L’Antisemitisme, 145 F.Supp.2d 1168 (N.D. Cal June 7, 2001) (jurisdiction over French plaintiffs using the effects test), http://www.cdt.org/jurisdiction/010607yahoo.pdf. 

 

(v)            Patent.

 

3D Systems, Inc. v. Aarotech Laboratories, Inc. (Cr. App. Fed. Cir. Nov. 12, 1998) (in a patent infringement suit, holding that a website, combined with other sales activity, was sufficient to establish jurisdiction; but without such other activity, the website alone was insufficient), http://www.finnegan.com/finnegan/finnegan/cases/97-1514.htm.

Agar Corp. v. Multi-Fluid, Inc., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17121 (S.D. Tex. June 25, 1997), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/agar.html.

CoolSavings.Com, Inc. v. IQ.Commerce Corp., 1999 WL 414371 (N.D. Ill., June 10, 1999).
E-Data Corp. v. Micropatent Corp., 989 F. Supp. 173 (D. Conn. September 29, 1997) (rejecting Inset, the court refused to extend jurisdiction over a patent claim based on the availability of the website since there was no showing that a Connecticut user had accessed the website in a way that might have infringed the patent; mere allegation that a Connecticut user must have visited the site did not meet plaintiff’s evidentiary burden).

Edberg v. Neogen Corporation, 1998 WL 458249 (D. Conn., August 4, 1998) (passive website did not give rise to jurisdiction in patent infringement suit).

Esab Group, Inc. v. Centricut LLC (D. S.C. Jan. 1999) (dismissing a patent infringement claim based on a passive website, even though a few orders had been shipped to the forum), http://law.sc.edu/dsc/is0291.htm.

Kollmorgen Corp. v/ Yaskawa Electric Corp. (W.D. Va. Dec. 13, 1999) (holding that the Japanese parent could be subject to jurisdiction based on the US subsidiary’s activities because the parent acted in consort with the subsidiary).

Moenlycke Health Care AB v. Dumex Medical Surgical Products, Ltd., 1999 WL 695579 (E.D. Pa., Sept. 7, 1999).

Stomp, Inc. v. Neato, LLC, 61 F.Supp.2d 1974 (C.D. Cal. 1999).

 

                        (vi)            Personal Injury.

 

Bedrego v. Triple E-Canada, Ltd., 1999 WL 672217 (Mont. Supreme Ct., Aug. 30, 1999).

Broussard v. Deauville Hotel Resorts, Inc., 1999 WL 621527 (E.D. La., Aug. 13, 1999).

Decker v. Circus Circus Hotel, 49 F.Supp.2d 743 (D. N.J. 1999).

Hurley v. Cancun Playa Oasis International Hotels, Inc., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13716 (E.D. Pa., Aug. 31, 1999).

Jones v. Beech Aircraft Corporation, 995 S.W.2d 767 (Tex. App. 1999).

 

(vii)            Trademark.

 

Advanced Software Inc. v. Datapharm Inc. (C.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 1998) (no personal jurisdiction when there is no showing that residents of the forum state actually took advantage of a website’s interactivity).

American Honda Motor Co. v. Rinkied Inc. (C.D. Cal. March 3, 1999).

American Network, Inc. v. Access America/Connect Atlanta, Inc., 975 F. Supp. 494 (S.D.N.Y. August 14, 1997) (finding a Georgia ISP subject to personal jurisdiction in New York for trademark infringement because, among other reasons, the Georgia ISP had 6 New York subscribers (out of 7500) that the ISP had mailed disks to), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/amnet.html.

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, finding jurisdiction despite what was a largely passive website).

Bancroft & Masters v. Augusta National, Inc. (N.D. Cal. Dec. 24, 1998) (no personal jurisdiction).

Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v. King, 937 F. Supp. 295 (S.D.N.Y. September 9, 1996), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/bluenote.html.  On appeal, 126 F.3d 25 (2d Cir. September 10, 1997), http://www.ljx.com/internet/bluenote.html.

Bird v. Parsons (6th Cir. May 21, 2002) (domain name registrar has specific jurisdiction where it has customers), http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/6th/02a0177p.html.

Bunn-O-Matic Corp. v. Bunn Coffee Service (C.D. Ill. April 1, 1998) (in contrast to most recent decisions, passive website creates jurisdiction in trademark plaintiff’s home court).

Cello Holdings v. Cello Music & Film Systems, 89 F. Supp. 2d 464 (S.D.N.Y. March 29, 2001) (finding jurisdiction in trademark case).

CFOs 2 Go, Inc. v. CFO 2 Go, Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist. Lexis 8886 (N.D. Cal. June 5, 1998) (following Cybersell, the court denied personal jurisdiction in Lanham Act case when the website only offered an email address and there was a single instance of sending promotional materials into the jurisdiction).

Conseco v. Hickerson, 1998 Ind. App. Lexis 1328 (Ind. Ct. App. August 14, 1998) (no personal jurisdiction), http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/archive/081406.wig.html.

CyberSell, Inc. v. CyberSell, Inc., 130 F. 3d 414 (9th Cir. Dec. 2, 1997) (Florida website allegedly committing trademark infringement not subject to jurisdiction in Arizona when it was effectively a passive website and there was no purposeful availment of Arizona laws), http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=9th&navby=case&no=9617087.

Desktop Technologies, Inc. v. Colorworks Reproduction & Design, Inc., 1999 WL 98572 (E.D. Pa., February 25, 1999) (no jurisdiction over passive website in domain name litigation).

Digital Equipment Corp. v. Altavista Technology, Inc., 960 F. Supp. 456 (D. Mass. March 12, 1997), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/alta.html.  This case settled; in late July 1998 it was reported that Compaq (which had bought DEC) paid $3.35 million to buy the domain name.

Euromarket Designs, Inc. v. Crate & Barrel (N.D. Ill. May 16, 2000) (finding jurisdiction in domain name case over Irish company operating e-commerce site).

Fix My PC v. N.F.N. Associates, Inc., 48 F. Supp. 2d 640, (N.D. Tex., March 26, 1999).

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).

Gary Scott Int'l, Inc. v. Frank Baroudi, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18234 (D. Mass. November 13, 1997).

Hasbro, Inc. v. Clue Computing Inc., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18857 (D. Mass. Sept. 30, 1997), (maintaining a Colorado-based website accessible by Massachusetts residents was sufficient to constitute “soliciting business” in Massachusetts, giving rise to jurisdiction), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/hasbro.html.

Hearst Corp. v. Goldberger, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2065 (S.D.N.Y. February 26, 1997), http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/esqwire1.html.  Settled; see http://www.ljx.com/LJXfiles/domainsuits/esqwire.html.

Heroes, Inc. v. Heroes Foundation, 958 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. December 19, 1996), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/heroes.html.

Inset Systems, Inc. v. Instructional Set, Inc., 937 F. Supp. 16 (D. Conn. April 17, 1996), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/inset.html.

International Star Registry of Illinois v. Bowman-Haight Ventures, Inc., 1999 WL 300285 (N.D. Ill., May 4, 1999) (a few e-commerce sales support jurisdiction).

K.C.P.L. Inc. v. Nash (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 1998) (dismissing trademark case based on lack of jurisdiction), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/kcpl.html.

M&B Beverage v. New York New York Hotel LLC (unpublished) (S.D. Fla. December 13, 1996).

Maritz, Inc. v. CyberGold, Inc., 947 F. Supp. 1328 (E.D. Mo. August 19, 1996), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/cyb_gold.html.

Mattel, Inc. v. Barbie-Club.com (2d Cir. Nov. 7, 2002) (rejecting attempt to bring consolidated in rem action against domains in a single jurisdiction when some of the registrars were not located in the jurisdiction).

Mattel, Inc. v. Securenet Information Services (S.D.N.Y. May 22, 2001) (in a domain name case over barbiesgrill.com, rejecting jurisdiction over a Canadian restaurant).

Mattel, Inc. v. Adventure Apparel, 2001 WL 1035140 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2001) (ACPA violation, $2,000 of damages).

McMaster-Carr Supply Co. v. Supply Depot, Inc., 1999 WL 417352 (N.D. Ill., June 16, 1999).

Mid City Bowling Lanes & Sports Palace, Inc. v. Ivercrest, Inc., 35 F. Supp. 2d 507 (E.D. La. 1999).

Millennium Enterprises v. Millennium Music, 33 F. Supp. 2d 907 (D. Oregon January 4, 1999) (finding no specific jurisdiction over an etailer site that had no evidence of sales into the forum jurisdiction), http://www.kentlaw.edu/classes/rwarner/legalaspects/millennium.html.

No Mayo-San Francisco v. Memminger, 1998 U.S. Dist. Lexis 13154 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 20, 1998).

Origin Instruments Corp. v. Adaptive Computer Systems, Inc., 1999 WL 76794 (N.D. Tex., February 3, 1999) (dismissing a trademark infringement case for lack of personal jurisdiction because the website was partially interactive and there was no evidence to indicate any effort to direct sales into the forum jurisdiction).

Panavision International, L.P. v. Toeppen, 938 F. Supp. 616 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 1996), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/panavision.html.

Panavision International, LP v. Toeppen, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 7557 (9th Cir. April 17, 1998) (a domain name squatter is subject to suit in the trademark owner’s home court based on the Effects Doctrine), http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=9th&navby=docket&no=9755467.

Patriot Systems, Inc. v. C-Cubed Corp., 21 F. Supp. 2d 1318 (D. Utah Nov. 4. 1998).

Pheasant Run, Inc. v. Moyse, 1999 WL 58562 (N.D. Ill., February 3, 1999).

Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. AsiaFocus International (E.D. Va. April 10, 1998) (use of infringing domain names gave rise to jurisdiction wherever the pages could be accessed).

Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Chuckleberry Publishing, Inc., 939 F. Supp. 1032 (S.D.N.Y. June 19, 1996), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/playmen.html.  Dismissal of reconsideration, July 12, 1996, http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/playmen2.txt.

Prime Publishers, Inc. v. American-Republican, Inc.,160 F.Supp.2d 266 (D.Conn. Aug 07, 2001) (ACPA violation but no damages)

PurCo Fleet Services, Inc. v. Towers, 38 F. Supp. 2d 1320 (D. Utah, March 9, 1999).

Quality Solutions, Inc. v. Zupanc, 993 F. Supp. 621 (N.D. Ohio 1997) (personal jurisdiction attached in trademark infringement case based on advertisements and the registration of the domain name containing the trademark).

Quokka Sports v. Cup Int’l, 1999 US Dist. LEXIS 21000 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 1999) (finding jurisdiction).

Rannoch, Inc. v. Rannoch Corp., 52 F. Supp. 2d 681 (E.D. Va., June 30, 1999).

Rubbercraft Corp. v. Rubbercraft Inc. (C.D. Cal. December 17, 1997) (finding sufficient contacts to establish specific jurisdiction over a trademark dispute when the defendant made $20,000 a year of sales into the jurisdiction (0.5% of their business), advertised in national periodicals, maintained an 800 phone number, and operated a web page that advertised products and collected consumer information).

SF Hotel Company LP v. Energy Investments Inc., 985 F. Supp. 1032 (D. Kan. Nov. 19, 1997) (declining to exercise either specific or general jurisdiction in a trademark dispute based solely on a website that it deemed passive), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/sfhotel.html.

SuperGuide Corporation v. Kegan, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19317 (W.D. N.C. July 29, 1997) (finding personal jurisdiction in trademark infringement case in plaintiff’s jurisdiction based strictly on use of the trademark on a website), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/superg.html.

Telephone Audio Productions, Inc. v. Smith, 1998 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4101 (N.D. Tex. March 26, 1998) (website contributed to finding specific jurisdiction).

Toys ‘R’ Us v. Step Two (3d Cir. 2003), http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/013390.pdf.

Transcraft Corp. v. Doonan Trailer Corp., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18687 (N.D. Ill. November 17, 1997) (no specific jurisdiction over a vendor for trademark infringement based on a passive website, even if the website contained contact information).

Zippo Manufacturing Co v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. January 16, 1997), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/zippo.html.

 

            C.            “Server-Based” Personal Jurisdiction.

 

Bochan v. La Fontaine, 1999 WL 343780 (E.D. Va., May 26, 1999).

CompuServe, Incorporated v. Patterson, 89 F.3d 1257, 1996 FED App. 0228P (6th Cir. July 22, 1996), http://www.ljextra.com/internet/i0622dec.html.  

Jewish Defense Organization, Inc. v. Superior Court, 72 Cal. App. 4th 1045 (1999) (declining to exercise jurisdiction in a defamation case in the state where the web hosts were located).
Krantz v. Air Line Pilot Association, 245 Va. 202 (1993).

Melvin v. Doe (Va. Cir. Ct., June 24, 1999) (no jurisdiction in AOL’s home court for defamatory posting on AOL’s servers), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/melvin.html.

Pres-Kap, Inc. v. System One, Direct Access, Inc., 636 So.2d 1351 (Fla. App. 1994), http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/pres-kap.txt.

 

D.            Choice of Law.

 

America Online, Inc. v. National Health Care Discount, Inc. 2000 WL 1724884 (N.D. Iowa Sept. 25, 2000) (Iowa court applies Virginia law in a spamming lawsuit brought by AOL).

Oppedahl & Larson v. Network Solutions, Inc. (D. Colo. April 16, 1998) (applying Virginia law to a dispute over NSI’s registration policy because that is where NSI’s servers are located), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/oppensi.html.

 

E.            Venue.

 

Graham Technology Solutions, Inc. v. Thinking Pictures, Inc., 949 F. Supp. 1427 (N.D. Cal. January 7, 1997) (involving the adjudication of a forum selection clause in a website development contract for “Rock.com”).

IA Inc. v. Thermacell Technologies, 983 F. Supp. 697 (E.D. Mich. November 10, 1997) (the company posting on their website statements alleged to constitute “passing off” of plaintiff’s goods meant venue was proper where the plaintiff was located, but the independent contractor who helped draft the statements not subject to venue there since he did not operate the website).

Shapiro v. Santa Fe Gaming Corp., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2488 (N.D. Ill. February 26, 1998) (finding improper venue in an attorneys’ fee case deriving from a shareholder derivative suit given that the defendants’ only contact was a toll free number and passive website).

US v. Thomas, 1996 FED App. 0032P (6th Cir. 1996), http://www.law.emory.edu/6circuit/jan96/96a0032p.06.html.

 

            F.             Other Civil Procedure.

 

Dow Jones & Co. v. Harrods, Ltd., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19516 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2002) (dismissing, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, a US declaratory judgment motion by Dow Jones over a bogus press release that triggered a British lawsuit).

ErieNet, Inc. v. Velocity Net, Inc., 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 23931 (3rd Cir. September 25, 1998) (in a dispute between two ISPs regarding spam allegedly sent by one ISP to users of the other, the court rejected federal court subject matter jurisdiction over a claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the “anti-junk fax law”)), ftp.vcilp.org/pub/law/Fed-Ct/Circuit/3d/98a1975p.asc.

U.S. v. Kammersell (D. Utah June 3, 1998) (electronically transmitted bomb threat from one Utah resident to another, which was routed through Virginia, was a transmission in interstate commerce), http://www.Loundy.com/CASES/US_v_Kammersell.html.

 

21.            LINKING AND FRAMING.

 

17 U.S.C. §512(d)

 

Bernstein v. J.C. Penney, 1998 US Dist Lexis 19048  (C.D. Cal. September 21, 1998) (no copyright liability for a website linking to an allegedly photograph which was three links away).

Futuredontics, Inc., vs. Applied Anagramics, Inc, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2265 (C.D. Cal. January 30, 1998).  In a November 27, 1997 order, the court refused to grant a preliminary injunction to plaintiff on the grounds that plaintiff had not offered sufficient evidence that framing creates a derivative work.  In the January 30, 1998 ruling, the court refuses to dismiss plaintiff’s claim for copyright infringement since the complaint alleged enough to permit the suit to go forward.  Both rulings are at http://www.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/futured.htm.

Futuredontics, Inc., vs. Applied Anagramics, Inc, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 17012 (9th Cir. July 23, 1998) (Appeals court refused to reverse the lower court’s decision not to grant an injunction against the framing activity, saying that there is no tangible harm—irreparable or not—from the link).

Hard Rock Café International (USA) Inc. v. Morton, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8340 (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 1999) (limiting the use of co-branded frames on a third party e-commerce site when the trademark license was geographically limited).  This ruling was limited in Hard Rock Café International (USA) Inc. v. Morton, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13760 (S.D.N.Y. September 8, 1999), where the court said that framing of a third party site did not actually constitute the sale of goods by the framing site.

Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry (D. Utah 1999) (linking to infringing material could constitute contributory infringement), http://www.utlm.org/images/courtcase.  Case settled December 8, 2000, apparently without payment.

Jeri-Jo Knitwear Inc. v. Club Italia Inc., 2000 US Dist Lexis 4891 (SDNY 2000).

New York State Society of CPAs v. Eric Louis Associates, Inc.. 79 F. Supp. 2d 331 (SDNY Dec. 2, 1999) (bad faith trademark infringement based in part on framing).

Playboy Enterprises Inc. v. Universal Tel-A-Talk Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8231 (E.D. Pa., June 3, 1998) (denying Playboy’s motion to add a claim for trademark counterfeiting when a website merely linked to the Rabbit head logo allegedly counterfeited).

Playboy Enterprises Inc. v. Universal Tel-A-Talk Inc., 1998 US Dist LEXIS 17282 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 2, 1998) (injunction against establishing links to Playboy).

Putnam Pit, Inc. v. City of Cookville, 2000 FED App. 0235P (6th Cir. July 19, 2000) (determining that the city website was a nonpublic forum but requiring the district court to determine if Putnam Pit was denied a link on the website for discriminatory reasons), http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00a0235p.06.

SearchKing, Inc. v. Google Technology, Inc. (W.D. Okla. Jan. 13, 2003) (Google’s diminution of links to SearchKing protected under First Amendment as an opinion). Court dismissed SearchKing’s complaint on May 27, 2003.  http://google.searchking.com/dismiss.htm.

Ticketmaster Corp. v. Microsoft Corp. (C.D. Cal. April 28, 1997) (complaint only), http://www.bna.com/e-law/docs/ticket.html.  Case settled in February, 1999.

Ticketmaster, Inc. v. Tickets.com (C.D. Cal. August 10, 2000) (not limiting Tickets.com’s ability to deep link), http://pub.bna.com/ptcj/ticketmaster.htm.  Granting summary judgment to Tickets.com on trespass and copyright claims, March 6, 2003, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6483, http://eric_goldman.tripod.com/caselaw/ticketmastermarch72003.htm.

Universal City Studios v. Reimerdes, 111 F. Supp. 2d 294 (S.D.N.Y. Aug 17, 2000) (injunction against linking to an encryption-bypassing software), http://www.2600.com/dvd/docs/2000/0817-decision.pdf

Washington Post Co. v. Total News, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. February 20, 1997) (Stipulation, Order of Settlement and Dismissal), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/totalset.html.

 

Algemeen Dagblad BV v. Eureka Internetdiensten (D. Ct. Rotterdam August 22, 2000) (an aggregator site using titles of news articles, with deep links to the original newspaper sites, not copyright infringement).

Church of Spiritual Leaders v. Dataweb, District Court of the Hague (June 9, 1999) (another case involving the Church of Scientology v. XS4All, suggesting that an ISP can be liable for linking to infringing material if it fails to remove the link within a reasonable period of time after notice).

International Federation of the Phonographic Industry v. Olsson (Sweden Dist. Ct. September 1999) (linking to infringing MP3 files not direct copyright infringement).

Guillot v. Arvic Search Services Inc., 2001 FCT 799 (Canada Federal Court July 17, 2001) (refusing to grant the plaintiff summary judgment for copyright infringement because the defendant took plaintiff’s compilation of links), http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2001/2001fct799.html. 
IFPI Belgium v. Doe (Antwerp Ct. of First Instance Dec. 21, 1999) (knowingly establishing links to infringing MP3 files is infringement).
Kauchi case (Osaka District Court, March 30, 2000) (links to pornography may be criminal distribution of pornography), http://w3.scan.or.jp/sonoda/data/fl_link01.html.
NV Belgacom Skynet v. VZW IFPU Belgium (Brussels App. Ct. Feb. 13, 2001) (requiring an ISP to remove links to infringing material created by their users, within 3 working days, if the music companies notify the ISP with some specificity and accept liability for the removal).
PCM v. Kranten.com (Rotterdam, Netherlands, August 2000) (rejecting an attempt to stop deep linking by a rival news service).

In re. Rediff (Pune, India, December 2000) (holding that the search engine could be liable for linking to pornography).

The Shetland Times Ltd. v. Wills (Court of Sessions, Edinburgh, October 24, 1996), http://www.shetland-news.co.uk/opinion.html.  Settled on November 11, 1997; see http://www.shetland-times.co.uk/st/daily/dispute.htm.

StepStone v. OfiR (Germany Jan. 2001) (a recruiting company gets an injunction against a competing company deep-linking to its job listings).

 

OCC Bulletin 2001-31, July 3, 2001 (announcing the OCC’s perspectives on web linking relationships (a regressive and paranoid document that fails to distinguish between casual linking relationships and full-blown outsourcing), http://www.occ.treas.gov/ftp/bulletin/2001-31.txt.

 

22.            MUSIC.

 

A & M Records v. Internet Site Known as Fresh Kutz (S.D. Cal. June 10, 1997) (TRO), http://www.bna.com/e-law/docs/amkutz.html.

A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 2000 WL 573136 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (Napster doesn’t qualify for 512(a) safe harbor); http://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/CJoyce/release10/AMRecords.html.

A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc, 2000 WL 1009483 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (preliminary injunction hearing of July 26), http://riaa.org/PDF/NapsterPatel.pdf.

A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. (August 11, 2000), http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/tentrule.nsf/4f9d4c4a03b0cf70882567980073b%202e4/74bf2867dde99f0f88256938007a1205?OpenDocument.

Bonneville Int'l Corp. v. Peters, 153 F. Supp. 2d 763 (E.D. Pa. 2001).

Frank Music Corp. v. CompuServe (S.D.N.Y, settled October 25, 1995).  This was a class action against CompuServe for distributing MIDI files.  This case settled with CompuServe paying $568,000.  The settlement agreement is at http://www.courttv.com/legaldocs/cyberlaw/compuserve2.html.

Recording Industry Association of America v. Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc. (9th Cir. June 15, 1999) (finding that the Rio portable MP3 player did not violate the Audio Home Recording Act).

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. MP3.com, Inc., 92 F. Supp. 2d 349 (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 2000) (MP3.com’s service to allow users to listen online to music they owned on CDs infringed), http://www.gigalaw.com/library/umg-mp3-2000-05-04-p1.html.  September 6, 2000 ruling on damages, 2000 WL 1262568: http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/mp3/0906_mp3_unoffruling.html.

 

23.            OBSCENITY/INDECENCY/CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.

 

Communications Decency Act of 1996, http://www.cdt.org/policy/freespeech/12_21.cda.html.

47 U.S.C. §231 (“CDA II”), http://www.gse.ucla.edu/iclp/copa.htm.

42 U.S.C. §227 (requiring “electronic communication services” and “remote computing services” to make disclosures to law enforcement agencies when they learn of facts related to certain illegal behavior regarding child pornography).

18 U.S.C. §2252B (no misleading domain names leading to porn).

Georgia Code 16-12-100.2 (restricting certain communications as they may relate to child pornography), http://www.state.ga.us/cgi-bin/pub/leg/legdoc?billname=1999/HB213&docpart=full.

 

American Booksellers Foundation v. Dean (2d Cir. Aug. 27, 2003) (enjoining Vermont’s CDA-style law).

American Civil Liberties Union v. Johnson, 4 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (June 30, 1998) (enjoining enforcement of New Mexico’s CDA-style law).  On appeal, American Civil Liberties Union v. Johnson (10th Cir. 1999) (upholding the injunction against the New Mexico CDA-style law).

American Civil Liberties Union v. Reno,  929 F. Supp. 824 (E.D. Pa. June 11, 1996) (injunction against CDA), http://www.aclu.org/court/cdadec.html. Supreme Court affirmed injunction against CDA, 117 S. Ct. 2329 (June 26, 1997), http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=96-511.

American Civil Liberties Union v. Reno (E.D. Pa. November 20, 1998) (TRO against COPA), http://www.aclu.org/court/acluvrenoII_order.html.  Preliminary injunction issued

(E.D. Pa. February 1, 1999), http://www.aclu.org/court/acluvrenoII_pi_order.html.  Upheld on appeal (3d Cir. June 22, 2000) (upholding the lower court’s injunction against COPA; claiming that the Miller standard is inapplicable to the Web), http://www.epic.org/free_speech/copa/3d_cir_opinion.html. Reversed by the Supreme Court, Ashcroft v. ACLU, 122 S.Ct. 1700 (May 13, 2002), http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-1293.ZS.html.  On remand to the Third Circuit, which once again struck down the law as unconstitutional (3d Cir. Mar. 6, 2003), http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/991324.pdf.

American Library Association v. United States (E.D. Pa. May 31, 2002) (striking down the Children’s Internet Protection Act, requiring libraries to use Internet filters to receive federal funds), http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/02D0415P.HTM.  The Supreme Court reversed and upheld CIPA, meaning that Congress could withhold federal funds from libraries that do not use filtering technology, U.S. v. American Library Association (US Sup. Ct. June 23, 2003), http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-361.pdf.

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (April 16, 2002) (striking down the Child Pornography Prevention Act), http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZS.html.

ApolloMedia Corp. v. Reno, 19 F. Supp. 2d 1081 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 1998) (concluding that the legislative restriction on various activities done with the intent to annoy applied only to obscene activities, not indecent activities), http://annoy.com/cda/ruling.html.

Cashatt v. Florida (Fla. Dist. Ct App. April 26, 2004) (criminal conviction for using online service to entice child into sexual activity).

Cyberspace Communications, Inc. v. Engler, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12843 (E.D. Mich. July 29, 1999) (striking down a state CDA-style law on both First Amendment grounds and commerce clause grounds).  Upheld by the 6th Circuit in an unpublished opinion Nov. 14, 2000.  Final dismissal occurred June 1, 2001.

Davis v. Oklahoma (Okla. Crim. App. April 12, 1996).

Kathleen R. v. Livermore (Cal. Superior Ct. October 20, 1998) (under 47 USC 230(c), library cannot be liable for allowing minors to access pornography through the Internet).

Loving v. Boren (W.D. Okla. January 28, 1997), http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/iclp/loving.html.  Loving v. Boren, 133 F.3d 771 (10th Cir. 1998) (professor lacks standing to sue based on the University’s refusal to provide a full USENET feed), http://lawlib.wuacc.edu/fedcases/ca10/cases/1998/01/97-6086.htm.

Mainstream Loudoun v. Board of Trustees, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4725 (E.D. Va. April 7, 1998), http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/loudon/80407mem.htm (while libraries are not required to offer Internet access, if they choose to offer Internet access they cannot use filtering software to effectuate content-based restrictions unless such restrictions meet strict scrutiny; a policy to unblock sites based on patron requests without a standard to do so was insufficient to change the analysis).  Mainstream Loudoun v. Board of Trustees (E.D. Va. Nov. 23, 1998), http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/loudon/81123op.htm (memorandum order) and http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/loudon/81123ord.htm (order).

People v. Foley (NY Ct. App. April 11, 2000) (upholding the dissemination of indecent materials to minors with the intent to lure them into sex), http://www/nycourts.com/scripts/csearch.exe/singledecision?&FILE=cpny1020.002&CRT=5.

PSINet v. Chapman (W.D. Va. August 8, 2000) (striking down a statute prohibiting knowing display of material used for a commercial purpose that are harmful to minors), http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/psinetvva/20000808op.asp.  Affirmed on appeal, 4th Cir. March 25, 2004.

Shea v. Reno, 930 F. Supp. 916 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 1996), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/shea.html.

Urofsky v. Allen, 995 F. Supp. 634 (E.D. Va. February 26, 1998) (broad restrictions on government employee access of indecent material via the Internet deemed unconstitutional, even when selective (but standardless) permission for such access could be granted), http://www.aclu.org/court/urofskyvallendec.html.  Urofsky v. Gilmore, 167 F.3d 191 (4th Cir. February 10, 1999) (state employees can restricted from surfing for porn).

U.S. v. Barrows, 1997 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 473 (NY Sup. Ct. September 26, 1997) (denying a motion to dismiss an action brought under a New York state law prohibiting dissemination of indecent materials to minors).

U.S. v. Chapman, 60 F.3d 894 (1st Cir. 1995).

U.S. v. Matthews (D. Md. June 29, 1998) (each email transmission of child porn is a separate offense).

U.S. v. Maxwell, 42 M.J. 568 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 1995), review granted in part, 44 M.J. 41 (C.A.A.F.), reversed in part, 45 M.J. 406 (C.A.A.F. 1996).

U.S. v. Strauser (E.D. Mo. Mar. 6, 2003) (suppressing evidence when FBI mistakenly assumed that every member of a Yahoo Group received emails through the group), http://pacer.moed.uscourts.gov/opinions/USA_V_GREGORY_STRAUSER-CDP-75.PDF.

U.S. v. Thomas, 1996 FED App. 0032P (6th Cir. 1996), http://www.law.emory.edu/6circuit/jan96/96a0032p.06.html.

U.S. v. Thomas, 113 F.3d 1247 (10th Cir. June 3, 1996) (upholding conviction for Utah child pornography violation).

 

Australian Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999, http://www.ozemail.com/~mbaker/amended.html.

In re. Rediff (Pune, India, December 2000) (holding that the search engine could be liable for linking to pornography).

Regina v. Pecciarich, 22 O.R. (3d) 748 (Ontario Ct. Provincial Division April 6, 1995), http://insight.mcmaster.ca/org/efc/pages/law/court/R.v.Pecciarich.html.

People v. Somm (Bavarian Court judgment against a CompuServe manager for allowing access to illegal pornographic USENET postings that were located on the American servers, even though the German subsidiary merely had a dedicated data line to the servers and in this respect was no different from any ISP), http://www.cyber-rights.org/isps/somm-dec.htm.

 

Also relevant:

F.C.C. v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978), http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=438&page=726.

Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=413&page=15.

Sable Communications of California, Inc. v. F.C.C., 492 U.S. 115 (1989), http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=492&page=115. 

Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969), http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=394&invol=557.

 

24.            PATENT.

 

Amazon.com v. Barnesandnoble.com, 1999 WL 1095502 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 1, 2000).   Reversed on appeal (Fed. Cir. Feb. 14, 2001), http://www.law.stanford.edu/faculty/radin/ecommerce/readings/patents/ippatent-amazon.pdf.  Settled March 2002.

British Telecommunications PLC v. Prodigy Communications (SDNY).  Markman hearing at 189 F. Supp. 2d. 101, March 13, 2002)http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02NYSC/02-02452.PDF.  Motion granting summary judgment to Prodigy, August 22, 2002.

Catalina Marketing Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc. (Fed. Cir. May 8, 2002) (interpreting a patent for the online delivery of coupons), http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/fed/011324.html.

Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc. (S.D.N.Y. May 13, 1998), (rejecting the application of the Freeny patent to Internet commerce), http://www.patents.com/ige/order.htm.  Reversed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, November 3, 2000, http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/fed/991324.html.

Netword LLC v. Centraal Corp. (E.D. Va. January 12, 1999) (no infringement).

Wang Laboratories v. Netscape (E.D. Va. May 1998).  Dismissal upheld in Wang Laboratories v. America Online (Fed. Cir. Dec. 17, 1999).

 

25.            PRIVACY OF INFORMATION.

 

Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998, 15 USC 6501, http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/iclp/coppa.htm.  Implementing regulations, 16 CFR Part 312: http://www.ftc.gov/os/1999/9910/childrensprivacy.pdf.

47 U.S.C. §231(d) (restricting the disclosure of authenticating information without consent, and requiring providers to take efforts “as are necessary” to prevent the inadvertent disclosure of such information), http://www.gse.ucla.edu/iclp/copa.htm.

42 U.S.C. §227 (requiring “electronic communication services” and “remote computing services” to make disclosures to law enforcement agencies when they learn of facts related to certain illegal behavior regarding child pornography).

Graham Leach Bliley Act, 15 USC §6801-6809, 6821-6827, 16 CFR 313.

EU Data Protection Directive – Council Directive 95/46/EC of 24 October 1995 on the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data, http://www.privacy.org/pi/intl_orgs/ec/dp_directive_final.txt.  Decision recognizing the adequacy of regimes in US< Switzerland and Hungary (July 27, 2000), http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/media/dataprot/news/safeharbor.htm.  Decision regarding the use of standard contract clauses for transferring data to this parties (June 15, 2001), http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/dataprot/news/clauses2.htm.

California Business & Professions Code §1798.82 (requiring companies with computer databases containing certain types of personal information to disclose any security breach of the database).

San Francisco Business and Tax Regulation Code Article 20 (requiring financial institutions doing business in San Francisco to do more to protect consumer privacy than required by GLB).

 

Division of Consumer Affairs v. DirectWeb Inc. (N.J. Superior Ct. April 2001) (fining a free PC company $15,000 for violating New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act for breaching its privacy policy by transferring data when it went bankrupt).

In re Doubleclick Inc. Privacy Litigation (settled May  2002) ($1.8M settlement of class action lawsuit over plan to combine personal info database with banner ad ser).

FTC v. Guess? Inc. (settled 2003) (settlement based on Guess’ failure to comply adequately with its security policy).

FTC v. Rennert (D. Nev. 2000) (Stipulated Final Order and Permanent Injunction) (restricting the use of information conducted under misleading privacy statements).

FTC v. Toysmart.com LLC (D. Mass. July 2000) (Stipulated Consent Agreement and Final Order) (permitting the use of personal information by an acquirer only under restricted situations), http://www.ftc.gov/os/2000/07/toysmartconsent.htm.

In the Matter of DoubleClick (settled August 2002) ($450,000 settlement of state investigation over plan to combine personal info database with banner ad serving).

In the Matter of GeoCities, Agreement Containing Consent Order (August 1998), http://www.ftc.gov/os/1998/9808/geo-ord.htm.

In the Matter of Liberty Financial Companies, Inc., Agreement Containing Consent Order (May 1999), http://www.ftc.gov/os/1999/9905/lbtyord.htm (in response to Liberty falsely advertising that personal information collected would be treated “totally anonymously, requiring, among other things, that Liberty Financial flush all information relating from children from its database).

In the Matter of the National Research Center for College and University Admissions, Inc. (consent orders regarding NRCCUA/Munce and American Student List, LLC.)

In the Matter of Yahoo (settlement with NY Attorney General Sept. 24, 2003) (Yahoo agrees to restrict usage of information from when it reset default privacy settings in 2002).

In the Matter of Ziff-Davis Media (case settled August 2002) (Website promotion malfunctioned and exposed credit cards of users who were victims of identity theft; remedies included $25,000 restitution to users and $100,000 for investigation costs).

Letter regarding SpectraCom/Kidscom (FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection, July 15, 1997) (denying an enforcement action against a website collecting personal information from minors after the site had made FTC-requested changes), http://www.ftc.gov/os/9707/cenmed.htm.

New York v. AltaVista (case settled August 21, 2001) (AltaVista violated privacy policy by transferring data to a business partner; remedies included more disclosures and $70,000).

Remsburg v. Docusearch (N.H. Sup. Ct. Feb. 18, 2003) (Internet information broker can be liable for shooting death caused by access to its information), http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2003/remsb017.htm.

Supnick v. Amazon.com; Bieles v. Amazon.com; Sklare v. Alexa Internet; Newby v. Amazon.com, Stone v. Alexa Internet (W.D. Wash.) (settled April 16, 2001) (settlement requiring Alexa to delete data, follow certain privacy practices, and pay $100,000 into a Cy Pres fund and $1.9M in attorneys fees).

 

CDW Computer Centers (BBBOnline Decision 2000-001), http://www,bbbonline.org/businesses/privacy/dr/decisions/2000-001.html.

eBay (BBBOnline Decision 2000-002), http://www,bbbonline.org/businesses/privacy/dr/decisions/2000-002.html.

eBay (BBBOnline Decision 2000-003), http://www,bbbonline.org/businesses/privacy/dr/decisions/2000-003.html.

 

Privacy Commissioner of Canada Ruling August 28, 2002 (accepting emails into a terminated email account and withholding them in exchange for payment in arrears constituted unauthorized use of personal information), http://www.privcom.gc.ca/cf-dc/cf-dc_020828_e.asp. 

 

26.            PUBLICITY/PRIVACY RIGHTS.

 

Carafano v. Metrosplash, Inc., 207 F. Supp. 2d 1055 (C.D. Cal. March 12, 2002).

Comedy III Productions, Inc. v. Class Publications, Inc., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5710 (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 1996) (involving the continued dissemination of Three Stooges paraphernalia from a website following an injunction prohibiting such conduct).

Crump v. DJ Forbes, 52 Va. Cir. 52 (Va. Cir. 2000).

Dangerfield v. Epoch Networks (settled in 1998).

Gionfriddo v. Major League Baseball, 94 Cal. App. 4th 400 (2001).

KNB Enterprises v. Matthews, 78 Cal. App. 4th 362 (2000).

Louder v. CompuServe (complaint only) (California Superior Court July 5, 1996), http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/louderc.html.

Michaels v. Internet Entertainment Group, Inc., 5 F. Supp. 2d 823 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (posting a videotape of two people having sex could infringe on right of publicity and the right to privacy, even if the two people are public figures (and, in Pamela Anderson Lee’s case, whose career involves performing roles involving sex)).

Perfect 10, Inc. v. Cybernet Ventures, Inc., 213 F. Supp. 2d 1146 (C.D. Cal. April 22, 2002).

Stern v. Delphi, 626 N.Y.S.2d 694 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995), http://www.Loundy.com/CASES/Stern_v_Delphi.html.

 

27.            REGISTRAR/REGISTRY LIABILITY.

 

Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences v. Network Solutions, Inc., 989 F. Supp. 1276 (C.D. Cal. December 10, 1997) (dismissing various dilution and trademark attacks on NSI; in particular, dismissing contributory trademark infringement because NSI lacked actual knowledge of the infringement, dismissing dilution because NSI does not make commercial use of the trademarks, and dismissing contributory dilution because no such cause of action exists).

Beverly v. Network Solutions, Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8888 (N.D. Cal. 1998) (rejecting various contract and tort causes of action raised by a domain name holder whose name was placed on hold pursuant to NSI’s dispute policy), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/nsibeverly.html.

Bird v. Parsons (6th Cir. May 21, 2002) (dismissing claims against domain name registrar and domain name auction site because they don’t “use” the trademark), http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/6th/02a0177p.html.

DataBase Consultants, Inc. v. Network Solutions, Inc. (N.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 1997) (Stipulation), http://www.patents.com/real/real.sht.

Economic Solutions, Inc. v. ICANN (E.D. Missouri Nov. 13, 2000) (rejecting a TRO request to limit ICANN’s ability to establish .biz or .ebiz TLDs), http://www.icann.org/tlds/correspondence/esi-v-icann-13nov00.htm.

Giacalone v. Network Solutions, Inc., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20807 (N.D. Cal. 1996).

KnowledgeNet v. Boone (N.D. Ill. Eastern Division filed 1994) (ultimately settled).

Kremen v. Cohen, 99 F. Supp. 2d 1168 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2000) (dismissing NSI from a lawsuit over sex.com).  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.

Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10314 (C.D. Cal. March 19, 1997), http://www.patents.com/skunk/mar19.sht.  Subsequent ruling at 985 F. Supp. 949 (C.D. Cal. November 17, 1997), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/locknsi.html.  Ninth circuit ruling: 194 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. October 25, 1999) (NSI not liable for contributory trademark infringement), http://eon.law.harvard.edu/h2o/property/domain/Lockheed.html.  Lockheed brought a separate action under ACPA and lost that as well: 2001 US Dist LEXIS 5459 (N.D. Tex. May 1, 2001).

Network Solutions, Inc. v. Clue Computing, Inc., 946 F. Supp. 858 (D. Colo. Oct 29, 1996), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/cluecomp.html.

Oppedahl & Larson v. Network Solutions, Inc. (D. Colo. April 16, 1998) (deeming the application of NSI’s registration contract in Oppedahl’s circumstance a question of fact), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/oppensi.html.

Panavision International L.P. v. Toeppen (C.D. Cal. November 27, 1996), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/pana2.html.

Pike v. Network Solutions, Inc. (N.D. Cal. November 25, 1996).

Roadrunner Computer Systems, Inc. v. Network Solutions, Inc (E.D. Va. 1996).

Seven Words LLC v. Network Solutions, Inc. (9th Cir. August 13, 2001) (dismissing a lawsuit over NSI’s refusal to register certain dirty words).

Size, Inc. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 2003 WL 1857501 (E.D. Va. April 1, 2003) (NSI not liable for contributory trademark infringement based on how a domain name was used/assigned because NSI is merely a routing service).

Smith v. Intercosmos Media Group, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24251 (E.D. La. Dec. 17, 2002) (domain name registrar not liable for negligence based on allegedly defamatory website hosted at the domain name), http://www.lextext.com/intercosmos.html.

Worldsport Networks Limited v. Artinternet, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6080 (E.D. Pa April 28, 1999) (requiring NSI to prescreen registrations for a limited number of words).

Zurakov v. Register.com (NY Supreme Ct. July 25, 2001) (dismissing a claim by a domain name registrant over Register.com’s practice of displaying ads on the “coming soon” page).  Reversed on appeal at the NY Appellate Division (April 22, 2003), http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/slips/13230.htm. 

 

Pitman Training Ltd. v. Nominet UK (High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Royal Court of Justice May 22, 1997), http://www.nic.uk/news/pitman-judgment.html.

 

28.            SECURITIES.

 

America Online v. Anonymous Publicly Traded Co. (Va. Cir. Ct. March 2, 2001) (refusing to order AOL to disclose information to a company that refused to identify itself), http://www.courts.state.va.us/txtops/1000974.txt.

Global Telemedia Int’l v. Doe (C.D. Cal. Feb. 2001) (rants about a company on a message board were opinions and thus not defamatory).

Hart v. Internet Wire, 2001 US Dist LEXIS 7881 (S.D.N.Y. June 14, 2001) (press release publishers not liable under Securities law for bogus press release).

Philip Services Corp v. Doe (Ontario Court, General Division, June 24, 1998) (ordering the ISP to disclose information about the Does), http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~geist/Philip.v.JohnDoe.24jun98.html.

SEC v. Long (N.D. Okla. April 8, 1999) (a TRO against a bogus offshore $350M bond offering).

Star Telecommunications Inc. v. Doe (Cal. Superior Ct.) (settled August, 1999) (company critics posting cyber-rumors about a public company agreed to stop).

 

29.       SPAM AND TRESPASS.

 

See www.spamlaws.com for the latest anti-spam laws.

 

CA Business & Professions Code Sec. 17538.41 (regulating ads via cell phone text messages)

 

American Airlines v. Farechase (Tex. Dist. Ct. March 8, 2003) (TRO against scraping), http://www.eff.org/Cases/AA_v_Farechase/20030310_prelim_inj.pdf.  This case settled June 2003.

America Online, Inc. v. Christian Brothers (SDNY December 9, 2000), http://www.nylj.com/links/aol.html.

America Online, Inc. v. CN Productions (E.D. Va. Oct. 25, 2002) (awarding AOL nearly $7 million under Virginia’s anti-spam statute).

America Online, Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc. (E.D. Va. April 26, 1996) (preliminary injunction).

America Online, Inc. v. IMS, 24 F. Supp. 2d 548 (E.D. Va. October 29, 1998) (AOL wins against spammer on trespass claim).  A final ruling, awarding $65,000 each against 2 defendants and $184,000 against another, was issued December 30, 1998 at 1998 US Dist. LEXIS 20645.

America Online, Inc. v. LCGM, 1998 US Dist. LEXIS 20144 (finding the spammer violated the Lanham act, dilution, CFAA, Virginia’s computer crimes statute, and trespass).

America Online, Inc. v. National Health Care Discount, Inc. 2000 WL 1724884 (N.D. Iowa Sept. 25, 2000) (addressing the liability of a marketing company for the spamming done by its independent contractors; finding that the spamming created prima facie violations of the Virginia computer crimes act and was a trespass to chattels).

America Online, Inc. v. Netvision Audiotext Inc. (April 2002) (injunction against spammer and an affiliate marketer).

America Online, Inc. v. Over the Air Equipment, Inc. (E.D. Va. October 31, 1997), http://legal.web.aol.com/decisions/dljunk/oaeorder.html.  Amended November 19, 1997 (restricting unsolicited messages to AOL subscribers, the use of false header info, using AOL’s trademarks and the collection of AOL member addresses for sending unsolicited mail), http://legal.web.aol.com/decisions/dljunk/oaeamend.html.

America Online, Inc. v. Prime Data Systems, 1998 US Dist. LEXIS 20226 (E.D. Va. Nov. 20, 1998) (magistrate recommendation for permanent injunction and a damage award (compensatory and punitive) of over $400,000).

Ameriweb v. Netcom (Ohio Ct. Common Pleas, April 15, 1998) (TRO ordering Netcom to restore Internet service to an ISP customer it alleged was a spam haven), http://www.stassen.com/chris/anti-spam/linkus/37.html.

Aronson v. Bright-Teeth Now LLC (Pa. Superior Ct. May 8, 2003) (TCPA does not apply to email spam), http://www.spamlaws.com/cases/aronson.html.

Bigfoot Partners, L.P. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.  March 2, 1998) (consent order), http://www.bigfoot.com/RUN?dyn=&FN=CYBERPROMO_CONSENT&locale=en&ver=1.0.0.

CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc. (S.D. Ohio, October 24, 1996) (TRO), http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/cs-cp1.html.

CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc., 962 F. Supp. 1015 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 3, 1997), http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/cs-cp2.html.

CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc. (E.D. Pa. May 9, 1997), http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/cs-cp3.html (settled).

Concentric Network Corp., Inc. v. Wallace (N.D. Cal. November 4, 1996) (Declaration), http://www.Loundy.com/CASES/Concentric_v_Wallace.html.

Cyber Promotions, Inc. v. Apex Global Information Services, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15344 (E.D. Penn. September 30, 1997) (breach of contract claim against ISP for failure to carry spam), http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/cp-agis1.html.

Cyber Promotions, Inc. v. America Online, Inc. (E.D. Pa. September 4, 1996) (TRO).

Earthlink Network Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc. (L.A. Super. Ct. May 7, 1997) (settled for $2 million), http://www.ljx.com/LJXfiles/spamsuits/cyber1.html (consent judgment), http://www.ljx.com/LJXfiles/spamsuits/cyber2.html (settlement agreement).

eBay v. Bidder’s Edge, 100 F. Supp. 2d 1058 (N.D. Cal. May 24, 2000) (granting eBay a preliminary injunction against Bidder’s Edge’s trespass based on its crawling of eBay search results), http://pub.bna.com/lw/21200.htm.

eBay v. Reverseauction.com (settled July 2000 for $1.2 million) (settling a claim against Reverseauction for scraping email addresses from eBay and then sending ambiguous spam to the users).

ErieNet, Inc. v. Velocity.Net, Inc., 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 23931 (3rd Cir. Sept. 25. 1998) (in a complaint trying to apply the anti-junk fax law to spam, ruling that the law only had subject matter jurisdiction in state court and not federal court).

Federal Trade Commission v. Lockery (D. Conn. Oct. 4, 2002).

Federal Trade Commission v. Reverseauction.com (D.D.C. January 6, 2000) (stipulated consent agreement and final order), http://www.ftc.gov/os/2000/01/reverseconsent.htm.

Federal Trade Commission v. Scott (E.D. Ca. Oct. 3, 2002).

Gillman v. Sprint Communications Co. (Utah State District Ct. Feb. 28, 2003) (sending commercial email to someone who requested to be removed is not spam under Utah’s anti-spam statute).  Upheld by the Utah Ct. App. May 6, 2004.

Hartford House, Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp. (Cal. Superior Ct. December 13, 1998) (an injunction limiting Microsoft’s ability to automatically place emails sent by the Blue Mountain Arts electronic greeting cards into Microsoft Outlook’s “Junk” file), http://www2.bluemountain.com/home/courtorder122198.html.

Hodgell v. Amato (Wa. King Cty. Dist. Ct. Aug. 2002) (spam plaintiff hit with $7,000 judgment for bringing the lawsuit).

Hotmail Corporation v. Van$ Money Pie Inc., 1998 WL 388389 (N.D. Cal., April 20, 1998) (a default judgment finding, among other things, that spammers using forged headers committed trademark infringement and dilution; further finding that the bounced back emails were a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, that the spammers breached Hotmail’s clickthrough agreement, that a violation of the clickthrough agreement was trespass, and that bogus consent to a clickthrough agreement was fraud/misrepresentation.  The injunction included, among other things, a prohibition of the defendants from using the service at all), http://eric_goldman.tripod.com/caselaw/hotmailvvansmoneypie.htm.  A permanent injunction was issued June 15, 1998, awarding Hotmail $275,000, $55,000 and $7,500 from 3 of the defendants.

Intel Corp. v. Hamidi (Cal. Superior Ct. 1999) (former Intel employee sending emails to up to 30,000 employees, and evading IP address blocks to do so, warrants a preliminary injunction against trespass), http://www.parrhesia.com/intelvhamidi.html. Affirmed on appeal, 2001 WL 1563769 (Cal. App. Ct. Dec. 10, 2001), http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C033076.PDF.  Reversed by the California Supreme Court, rejecting a common law trespass claim without a showing that the chattels were damaged.  2003 WL 21488209 (Cal. Sup. Ct. June 30, 2003), http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S103781A.DOC.

MonsterHut, Inc. v. Paetec Communications, Inc. (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug, 17, 2001) (injunction against IAP terminating spammer’s account based on an apparent pink addendum to contract).  Reversed, and granting defendant the right to immediately terminate (N.Y. App. Div. May 3, 2002).

New York v. Lipsitz, 1997 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 382 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 23, 1997), http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/lipsitz.html.

Parker v. C.N. Enterprises (Tex. Dist. Ct. November 10, 1997), http://www.Loundy.com/CASES/Parker_v_CN_Enterprises.html.

Register.com v. Verio (SDNY Dec. 8, 2000) (use of some system resources by robot could constitute trespass), http://www.icann.org/registrars/register.com-verio/order-08dec00.htm.

Simple Network Communications v. VNZ Information & Entertainment (S.D. Cal. 1998) (ISP won $173,000 default judgment against a party sending spam through its network).

Spertus v. Kozmo.com (Cal. Small Claims Ct. April 4, 2001) (awarding $77.50 for violation of California’s anti-spam statute when Kozmo.com sent an email to its opt-out users encouraging them to opt-in), http://www.spertus.com/ellen/Kozmo/kozmo.html.

Ticketmaster, Inc. v. Tickets.com (C.D. Cal. August 10, 2000) (no preliminary injunction against scraping given no showing of harm), http://pub.bna.com/ptcj/ticketmaster.htm.  Granting summary judgment to Tickets.com on trespass claim, March 6, 2003, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6483, http://eric_goldman.tripod.com/caselaw/ticketmastermarch72003.htm.

Tierney and Email America, Virtual Magistrate Project Docket No. 96-0001 (May 20, 1996), http://vmag.vcilp.org/doksys/96-0001/index.html?6.

Typhoon, Inc. v. Kentech Enterprises (C.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 1997) (consent judgment), http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/typhoon2.html.

Washington v. Heckel (Wash. Superior Ct. March 10, 2000) (striking down Washington’s anti-spam statute as violating the commerce clause).  Reversed by the Washington Supreme Court, http://www.wa-state-resident.com/sc02.htm.  In September 2002, Heckel was found guilty and ordered to pay $98,198 representing a $2,000 penalty plus attorney’s fees and court costs.  The judgment was upheld by the WA Appeals Court June 28, 2004.

 

In re Laurence A. Canter (Disciplinary District of the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee February 25, 1997) (attorney disciplined for, in part, USENET spamming), http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/canter.html.

 

1267623 Ontario Inc. v. Nexx Online Inc. (Ontario Superior Court, June 14, 1999) (after a spammer spamvertised its website and was terminated by the web host, the spammer sued; the court ruled against the spammer because, among other reasons, the host’s ISP Exodus threatened to cut the host off and because the spammer had violated a contract clause requiring the spammer to comply with “netiquette”), http://www.digitaldesk.com/stuff/netiquette.htm.

 

The RBL cases:

 

Exactis v. Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS) (D. Colo. Nov. 2000) (TRO ordering MAPS to remove Exactis from the RBL).

Media3 Technologies v. Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS) (D. Mass. Jan 2. 2001) (denying Media3’s motion for a preliminary injunction), http://pub.bna.com/eclr/00cv12524.htm.  Case settled August 2001.

Yesmail v. Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS) (N.D. Ill. July 2000) (TRO preventing MAPS from placing Yesmail on the RBL).

 

Which Company v. McNicol (West Australia Oct. 2002) (rejecting a suit by a spammer against an individual who added the spammer to the SPEWS database).

Xtra v. ORBS (New Zealand High Court May 2001) (requiring the removal of an ISP from the ORBS database).

 

30.       STATE ACTION.

 

Beussink v. Woodland R-IV School District (E.D. Mo. December 28, 1998) (a school’s suspension of a student for posting criticism of the school on a personal website was unconstitutional), http://www.aclu.org/court/beussinkvwoodland_pi_order.html.

Cuellar v. Texas, 1999 Tex. App. LEXIS 511 (Tex. Ct. App. January 28, 1999) (striking down a lower court requirement that a defendant place on his web site a statement that he had been convicted of theft).

Cyber Promotions, Inc. v. America Online, Inc., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16237 (E.D. Pa. November 4, 1996), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/aolcyb2.html.

Intel Corp. v. Hamidi (Cal. Superior Ct. 1999) (corporate email system not a public forum), http://www.parrhesia.com/intelvhamidi.html. 

Kathleen R. v. Livermore (Cal. Superior Ct. October 20, 1998) (under 47 USC 230(c), library cannot be liable for allowing minors to access pornography through the Internet).

Loving v. Boren (W.D. Okla. January 28, 1997), http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/iclp/loving.html.

Loving v. Boren, 133 F.3d 771 (10th Cir. 1998) (professor lacks standing to sue based on the University’s refusal to provide a full USENET feed), http://lawlib.wuacc.edu/fedcases/ca10/cases/1998/01/97-6086.htm.

Mainstream Loudoun v. Board of Trustees, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4725 (E.D. Va. April 7, 1998), http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/loudon/80407mem.htm (while libraries are not required to offer Internet access, if they choose to offer Internet access they cannot use filtering software to effectuate content-based restrictions unless such restrictions meet strict scrutiny; a policy to unblock sites based on patron requests without a standard to do so was insufficient to change the analysis).

Putnam Pit, Inc. v. City of Cookeville (M.D. Tenn. September 21, 1998) (rejecting a newspaper’s request to obtain access to city employees’ Internet use records, and rejecting a claim that a city’s web page was a public forum where the newspaper could force the city to provide it with a link), http://www.putnampit.com/higgins.html.

Putnam Pit, Inc. v. City of Cookville, 2000 FED App. 0235P (6th Cir. July 19, 2000) (determining that the city website was a nonpublic forum but requiring the district court to determine if Putnam Pit was denied a link on the website for discriminatory reasons), http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00a0235p.06.

Quad/Graphics, Inc. v. Southern Adirondack Library System, 664 N.Y.S.2d 225 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. September 30, 1997) (refusing to permit a company, who suspected that its employees were using a library system to steal long-distance phone service from it, to force the library to divulge identifying information about the patrons associated with identifying numbers), http://www.lcp.com/products/NY/slipops/pay/misc/F9757370.htm.

State ex rel. Wilson-Simmons v. Lake County Sheriff's Dept., 82 Ohio St. 3d 37 (May 20, 1998) (finding that emails—that were allegedly racist—sent on the internal network to only a few recipients did not constitute a “public record”), http://www.lweekly.com/ohsc/970797.htm.

Thomas v. Network Solutions, Inc. (D.D.C. April 3, 1998) (NSI’s collection of the “Preservation Assessment” of $30 per name, when done as a proxy for NSF and used for government/public goals, was an illegal tax—but NSI deemed not a public actor), http://www.aira.org/legal/jh3.html.

Urofsky v. Allen, 995 F. Supp. 634 (E.D. Va. February 26, 1998) (broad restrictions on government employee access of indecent material via the Internet deemed unconstitutional, even when selective (but standardless) permission for such access could be granted), http://www.aclu.org/court/urofskyvallendec.html.

Urofsky v. Gilmore, 167 F.3d 191 (4th Cir. February 10, 1999) (state employees can restricted from surfing for porn).

 

31.            TAXES.

 

Internet Tax Freedom Act, HR 4105.

California A.B. 1614.

Arkansas 26-53-124 (extending sales tax obligations based on the situs of clicks ‘n’ mortar subsidiaries).

 

America Online, Inc. v Johnson (Tenn. Ct. App. July 30, 2002).

Virginia Ruling of Commissioner PD 00-53 (April 14, 2000) (private letter ruling that a website hosted in Virginia doesn’t, by itself, create a nexus for sales tax purposes).

 

32.            TRADEMARK/UNFAIR COMPETITION.

 

A.            Domain Names—United States.

 

Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, http://www.eff.org/pub/GII_NII/DNS_control/s1255_1999_bill.html.

18 U.S.C. §2252B (no misleading domain names leading to porn).

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

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

 

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.

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).

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

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).

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).

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.

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

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).

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).

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.

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.

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

Caesars World, Inc. v. Caesars-Palace.Com (E.D. Va. March 2000), http://www.ipwatchdog.com/caesarsworld.html.

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

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

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.

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).

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.

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).

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).

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

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.

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).

Data Concepts, Inc. v. Digital Consulting, Inc. (M.D. Tenn. January 31, 1997), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/datacon.html.

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).

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.

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).

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

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

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).

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

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).

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).

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

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

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

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.

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

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).

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).

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.

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.

own website).

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. 

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

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.

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

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).

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)..

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)).

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

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

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.

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!)

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

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

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).

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

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).

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

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

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.

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).

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

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.

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

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).

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).

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.

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.

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.

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).

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).

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).

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

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

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).

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).

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.

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.

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.

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

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).

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.

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.

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

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).

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.

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).

 

B.            Domain Names—ICANN Proceedings (selected).

 

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.

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

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

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

America Online v. John Deep (NAF FA0103000096795 May 14, 2001) (holding that aimster.com and related domain names violates AOL’s rights when used to offer a service that sits on top of AIM; this is really a trademark infringement claim in the guise of a UDRP panel; inconspicuous disclaimer ineffective), http://www.arbforum.com/domains/decisions/96795.htm.

Brisbane City Council v. Warren Bolton Consulting Pty (WIPO D2001-0047 May 7, 2001) (brisbanecity.com does not violate any trademark rights of Brisbane, Australia), http://arbiter.wipo.int.domains/decisions/html/2001/d2001-0047.html.

Deutsche Welle v. DiamondWare Ltd. (WIPO D2000-1202 Jan. 2, 2001) (rejecting a claim for dw.com; a majority found the attempt was a reverse domain name hijacking attempt).

Eva Airways v. Chiang (AF-0588 Dec. 26, 2000) (finding evaair.com infringed when the website contained airline-related content), http://www.eresolution.com/services/dnd/decisions/0588.htm.

Excelentisimo Ayuntamiento de Barcelona v. Barcelona.com (WIPO D2000-0505 August 4, 2000) (a bizarre ruling holding that the city of Barcelona could reclaim Barcelona.com), http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/d2000-0505.html. 

Frampton v. Frampton Enterprises (WIPO D2002-0141 April 17, 2002).

Gene Logic v. Bock (NAF FA0112000103042 March 4, 2002) (STOP proceeding for genelogic.biz; ordered to be transferred)

Goldline International v. Gold Line (WIPO D2000-1151 Jan. 4, 2001) (refusing to transfer goldline.com given that the complainant’s trademarks were limited to the precious metals industry; disclaimer not evidence of bad faith; finding that the complainant was engaged in reverse domain name hijacking), http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-1151.html.

Hearst Communications v. Spencer (NAF FA0093763 April 2000) (finding that the registration of esquire.com in 1994 was bad faith even though the UDRP didn’t exist at the time), http://www.arbforum.com/domains/decisions/93763.htm.

John Fairfax Publications v. Domain Names 4U (WIPO D2000-1403 Dec. 13, 2000) (finding confusing similarity with Australian-registered trademarks, but as there is no reason the registrant would have known about the trademarks and thus no bad faith), http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/d2000-1403.html.

Leland Stanford Junior University v. Zedlar Transcription and Translation (NAF FA0006000094970 July 11, 2000) (awarding stanfordcardinal.com to the University), http://www.arbitration-forum.com/domains/decisions/94970.htm.

LifePlan v. Life Plan (NAF FA0005000094826 July 13, 2000) (no exclusive monopoly in the term “life plan” when many parties had unregistered common law rights), http://www.patents.com/lifeplan/icann.htm.

Lockheed Martin v. Parisi (WIPO D2000-1015 Jan. 26, 2001) (lockheedsucks.com not confusing), http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-1015.html.

Madonna Ciccone v. Parisi (WIPO D2000-0847 Oct. 12, 2000) (awarding Madonna.com to the singer when it had been used for a porn site), http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/d2000-0847.html.

Microsoft Corp. v. Microsof.com (WIPO D2000-0548 July 21, 2000) (ruling against typosquatter), http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisoins/html/d2000-0548.html.

Montgomery Mall Associates LP v. Smirk (NAF FA0204000097042 May 14, 2001) (a confused decision over montgomerymall.com, concluding that no one can have the exclusive right to the term and thus canceling the domain name—so who gets it?), http://www.arbforum.com/domains/decisions/97042.htm.

NBA Properties v. Adirondack Software (WIPO D2000-1211 Dec. 8, 2000) (rejecting a claim over Knicks.com because the NBA was a trademark licensee, not the owner), http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/d2000-1211.html.

Reg Vardy PLC v. Wilkinson (WIPO D2001-0593 July 3, 2001) (customer registering company domain names still can be bad faith).

Reuters Ltd. v. Global Net 2000, Inc. (WIPO D2000-0441 July 13, 2000) (ruling against typosquatter). http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisoins/html/d2000-0441.html.

Schimpff v. Sumpton (NAF FA0003000094333 June 16, 2000) (refusing to award over bassets.com when it was being used for personal email addresses), http://www.arbforum.co/domains/decisions/94333.htm.

Springfield v. Burger (WIPO D2000-1532 Jan. 25, 2001) (refusing to transfer brucespringstreen.com to the singer), http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-1532.html.

Strick Corp. v. Strickland (NAF FA 94801 July 3, 2000) (refusing to find reverse name hijacking in this case without more guidance from ICANN), http://www.patents.com/strick/icann.htm.

Sumner v. Urvan (WIPO D2000-0596 July 24, 2000) (rejecting a claim over sting.com), http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisoins/html/d2000-0596.html.

Toronto Star Newspaper v. Cohen (WIPO DTV2000-0006 Jan. 22, 2001) (refusing to transfer tstv.tv to a Toronto TV station, as tstv is also an acronym used by the transvestite/transsexual community), http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions-cctld/html/dtv2000-0006.html.

United States Olympic Committee (USOC) v. Tri B-U-N Eco. Project (WIPO D2000-0435 July 13, 2000) (domain names containing the word “Olympic” was not authorized), http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisoins/html/d2000-0435.html.

Wal-Mart Stores v. Walsucks (WIPO D2000-0477 July 20, 2000) (awarding sucks-type domains to Walmart), http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/d2000-0477.html.

World Wresting Federation Entertainment, Inc. v. Bosman (WIPO D99-0001, January 14, 2000), http://arbiter.wipo.nt/domains/decisions/index.html.

X/Open Co. Ltd. v. Sorensen (WIPO D2002-0287, June 24, 2002) (transfer of unix.org).

Yahoo! Inc. v. Net Games, Inc. (WIPO D2002-0304, June 21, 2002) (no transfer of yahoops.com).

 

Related cases:

Parisi v. Netlearning, Inc., 2001 WL 503004 (E.D. Va. May 10, 2001) (UDRP is not an arbitration for purposes of the Federal Arbitration Act), http://www.sock.com/domain/netlearning1.html.

Referee Enterprises v. Planet Ref Inc. (E.D. Wis. Jan. 24, 2001) (a lawsuit ensuing from an ICANN UDRP over ereferee.com; a preliminary injunction against using the phrase “referee”), http://www.loundy.com/CASES/Referee_Ent_v_Planet_Ref.html.

 

C.            Domain Names—Foreign.

 

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.

ITV Technologies, Inc. v. WIC Television Ltd. (1997) F.C.J. No. 1803 (1997).

Marks & Spencer plc v. One in a Million (High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, November 28, 1997), http://www.nic.uk/news/oiam-judgment.html and http://www.nic.uk/news/oiam-order.html.

Mecklermedia v. DC Congress (Britain 1997).

Société ALICE c/ Société Alice (Tribunal de grande instance de Paris March 12, 1998), http://www.legalis.net/legalnet/judiciaire/decisions/ord_120398.htm (in French), reversed on appeal December 4, 1998 (with the appeals court holding that, because there was no trademark infringement, the domain name is allocated on a first come, first served basis), http://www.juriscom.net/jurisfr/alice.htm (in French).

Societe Cooperative Agricole Campagne Cereales v. G.J. (French Tribunal de Grand Instance, April 14, 1998) (domain name squatter forced to turn over the names, even though the plaintiff did not have a registered trademark).

Tractebel v. Capricorn Inc. (Brussels Commerce Court 1997) (a Belgian decision in favor of the domain name holder)

 

D.            Metatag Use/Search Engine Baiting.

 

See generally cases regarding Initial Interest Confusion at http://eric_goldman.tripod.com/resources/iiccasesummary.htm.

 

Bihari v. Gross, 119 F. Supp. 2d 309 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2000) (ACPA does not apply to metatags; use of person’s name in the metatags for a “sucks” site was fair use).

Brookfield Communications v. West Coast Entertainment, 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. April 22, 1999) (using a third party trademark in the metatags would result in “initial interest confusion” and thus was not permissible; however, using descriptive terms is permissible), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/brookca9.html.

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Natural Answers, Inc., 2000 WL 223585 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 20, 2000).  Eli Lilly & Co. v. Natural Answers, Inc. (7th Cir. Nov. 21, 2000) (holding the defendant for trademark infringement and dilution for, among other things, using a term in the metatags), http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/7th/001375.html.

J.K. Harris & Co. v. Kassel, 2002 WL 1303124 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2002) (initial interest confusion found in criticism site where HTML formatting was used to increase search engine optimization).

Insituform Technologies Inc. v. National Envirotech Group LLC (E.D. La. August 27, 1997), http://www.cll.com/case1.htm.

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).

Nettis Environment Ltd. v. IWI Inc., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5655 (N.D. Ohio April 14, 1999) (using metatags led to a contempt order).

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).

Niton Corp. v. Radiation Monitoring Devices, Inc., 27 F. Supp. 2d 102 (D. Mass. November 18, 1998) (enjoining a party from using its competitor’s trademarks and other content in metatags).

Ohio Art Co. Inc. v. Watts (N.D. Ohio June 23, 1998) (settled) (conceding that the Web-a-Sketch infringed and diluted the Etch-a-Sketch marks when it contained such marks as search engine baits; a disclaimer was not sufficient).

Oppedahl & Larson v. Advanced Concepts (D. Colo.).  Permanent injunctions ordered against Welch and Advanced Concepts on December 19, 1997 (http://www.patents.com/ac/welchord.sht), against MSI Marketing, Inc., Professional Website Development and Internet Business Services on December 19, 1997 (http://www.patents.com/ac/msiord.sht) and Williams on February 9, 1998 (http://www.patents.com/ac/willord.sht).

PACCAR v. Telescan Technologies, 115 F. Supp. 2d 772 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 25, 2001) (using manufacturer trademarks in metatag contributed to infringement).

Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. AsiaFocus International (E.D. Va. April 10, 1998) (default judgment finding that embedding Playboy and Playmate into the metatags was willful dilution; Playboy awarded $3,000,000).

Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Calvin Designer Label, 985 F. Supp. 1220 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 1997), http://www.patents.com/ac/playord.sht.

Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Welles (S.D. Cal. May 1998), (defendant used the terms “Playboy”, “Playmate” and “PMOY” both in page titles and metatags; the court held that these terms were “titles” bestowed upon her by Playboy, and thus her use of such terms was trademark “fair use”—in part because she made only the use necessary, and the metatags appeared to be used in good faith), http://www.Loundy.com/CASES/Playboy_v_Wells.html.  Affirmed without comment, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 27739 (9th Cir. October 20, 1998), http://www.pmdlaw.com/MEMORANDUM.htm.  Court ultimately dismissed the case in Welles’ favor on Dec. 1, 1999, 78 F. Supp. 2d 1066.  The dismissal was affirmed in part and reversed in part by the Ninth Circuit on February 1, 2002, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0055009p.pdf.

Promatek Indus., Ltd. v. Equitrac Corp., 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 16207 (7th Cir. Aug. 13, 2002) (initial interest confusion found among competitors), http://www.promatek.com/press/us7.pdf.  See October 2002 amendment!

Trans Union LLC v. Credit Research, Inc., 142 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (N.D. Ill. 2001) (metatags was fair use).

 

Saskatoon Star Phoenix Group v. Noton, 2001 SKQB 153 (Saskatchewan Ct. App. March 28, 2001) (use of metatags, as part of a copycat site, is passing off).

 

E.            Search Keywords.

 

Estee Lauder v. iBeauty (case involving iBeauty’s use of Estee Lauder trademarks to deliver banner ads) (settled August 2000).

Estee Lauder, Inc. v. Fragrance Counter, Inc., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14825 (S.D.N.Y. September 24, 1999) (in a case involving the use of third party trademarks as keywords to deliver banner ads, this ruling refused to dismiss a claim for trademark misuse).

Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Netscape Communications Corp., 1999 US Dist. Lexis 9638 (C.D. Cal. June 24, 1999) (use of the words “Playboy” and “Playmate” to trigger the delivery of banner ads for competitors is not trademark infringement or dilution), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/planetsc.html.

 

F.            Other Trademark Uses.

 

Albert v. Spencer, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12700 (S.D.N.Y. August 17, 1998).

Amazon Bookstore Inc. v. Amazon.com (D. Minn. complaint filed April 1999).  Case ultimately settled.

America Online, Inc. v. Christian Brothers (SDNY December 9, 2000) (sending spam with forged headers violated Lanham Act), http://www.nylj.com/links/aol.html.

Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp. v. Faber (C.D. Cal. December 29, 1998), (finding that a critic’s website was not infringing or diluting; interestingly, the court refused to look at what was linked to from the site in determining dilution).

Computer Currents Publishing Corp. v. Jaye Communications, Inc., 968 F. Supp. 684 (N.D. Ga. 1997) (dispute over whether web publishing exceeded the scope of a geographically-limited license).

CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc. (S.D. Ohio, October 24, 1996) (TRO), http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/cs-cp1.html.

Concentric Network Corp., Inc. v. Wallace (N.D. Cal. November 4, 1996) (Declaration), http://www.Loundy.com/CASES/Concentric_v_Wallace.html.

Desknet Systems v. Fitzsimons, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6713 (S.D.N.Y. May 13, 1997) (increased use of trademark on the Internet does not constitute actionable trademark infringement).

GoTo.com, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 202 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. Feb. 2, 2000) (infringement based on similar logos).

Hard Rock Café International (USA) Inc. v. Morton, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8340 (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 1999) (in a complex litigation arising out of an asset sale, finding that a trademark license to use the trademark anywhere in the world permitted the use of the trademark as a domain name, and limiting e-commerce activities unless the sales can be made consistent with a geographically limited trademark license).  Modified in part by Hard Rock Café International (USA) Inc. v. Morton, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13760 (S.D.N.Y. September 8, 1999).

Hotmail Corporation v. Van$ Money Pie Inc., 1998 WL 388389 (N.D. Cal., April 20, 1998) (a default judgment finding, among other things, that spammers using forged headers committed trademark infringement and dilution), http://eric_goldman.tripod.com/caselaw/hotmailvvansmoneypie.htm.

Juno Online Services L.P. v. Juno Lighting, Inc., 979 F. Supp. 684 (N.D. Ill. September 29, 1997) (dismissing a claim for trademark misuse and finding that merely registering a name was not a trademark use in commerce or otherwise an infringement), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/juno.html.

Kraft Foods Holdings, Inc. v. Helm, 2002 US Dist LEXIS 10258 (N.D. Ill. June 7, 2002) (pornographer who called himself “King VelVeeda” on porn website diluted the VelVeeta trademark).

Mattel, Inc. v. JCom, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 1998) (use of “Barbie” on porn site was dilution).

Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Chuckleberry Publishing, Inc., 939 F. Supp. 1032 (S.D.N.Y. June 19, 1996), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/playmen.html.  Dismissal of reconsideration, July 12, 1996, http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/playmen2.txt.

Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Universal Tel-A-Talk Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8231 (E.D. Pa., June 3, 1998) (denying Playboy’s motion to add a claim for trademark counterfeiting; no counterfeit of the Bunny logo or the term Playboy because the behavior did not contravene the classes for which the registration was obtained).  Injunction granted at 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17282 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 2, 1998).  Reconsideration denied at 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6124 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 26, 1999).

Primedia Internec Corp. v. Technology Marketing Corp. (D. Kan. November 6, 1998) (refusing to prevent a webzine operating under the name “Internet Telephony,” even though a print magazine has used the name “Telephony” for nearly a century).

Radio Channel Networks, Inc. v. Broadcast.com (S.D.N.Y. March 8, 1999) (use of the term “Radio Channel” was descriptive and thus not infringing).

Register.com v. Verio (SDNY Dec. 8, 2000) (emails referencing a registered domain name violated Lanham Act), http://www.icann.org/registrars/register.com-verio/order-08dec00.htm.

Richards v. Cable News Network, Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist. Lexis 11537 (E.D. Pa. July 28, 1998) (trademark suit over the Internet use of the term “World Beat”).

Simon Property Group v. MySimon (N.D. Cal. 2000).  SPG wins a jury award of $26.8M and an injunction; the judge reduced the damages to $50,000.

Snap-On Tools Company v. C|Net, Inc., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14581 (N.D. Ill. September 22, 1997).

U-Haul International, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc. (E.D. Va. Sept. 5, 2003), http://eric_goldman.tripod.com/caselaw/uhaulwhenu.pdf.

 

Saskatoon Star Phoenix Group v. Noton, 2001 SKQB 153 (Saskatchewan Ct. App. March 28, 2001) (a copycat site of a newspaper was passing off; led to $5,000 of damages and an injunction).

 

34.            TRADE SECRET.

 

DoubleClick v. Henderson, 1997 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 577 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. November 5, 1997) (restricting former DoubleClick employees from using DoubleClick trade secrets (which included actual number of page views and actual pricing of ad deals) to launch a competing venture; among other things, granting a 6 month injunction instead of a 1 year injunction because of the speed of changes in the Internet advertising business), http://www.ljextra.com/practice/intellectualproperty/1112dbldec.html.

DVD Copy Control Ass’n v. Bunner (Cal. App. Ct. Nov 1, 2001) (no injunction for disseminating trade secrets in DVD encryption technology).

EarthWeb, Inc. v. Schlack, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16700 (S.D.N.Y. October 27, 1999) (refusing to enforce a non-compete on a number of grounds; including striking down a 1 year duration as too long given Internet time).

Ford Motor Co. v. Lane (E.D. Mich. September 7, 1999) (an injunction against a website publishing trade secrets constitutes a prior restraint in violation of the First Amendment).  Case settled Jan. 2, 2001 with Lane agreeing not to post entire documents, solicit secrets or violate copyrights.

New England Circuit Sales, Inc. v. Randall (D. Mass. June 4, 1996), http://www.Loundy.com/CASES/NECS_v_Randall.html.

Religious Technology Center v. Lerma (E.D. Va. November 28, 1995), http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/Scientology_cases/brinkema_rtc_washpost_112895.opinion.

Sprint Corp. v. DeAngelo, 1998 U.S. LEXIS 10929 (D. Kansas June 30, 1998) (refusing to enforce non-compete).

 

35.       VOIP.

 

Vonage Holdings Corp. v. Minnesota Public Utilities Comm. (D. Minn. Oct. 16, 2003).