BroadBridge Media, L.L.C. v. Hypercd.com’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (§ 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act))
Relies on Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc. · Tom Doherty Associates, Inc. v. Saban Entertainment, Inc. · Sporty's Farm LLC v. Sportsman's Market, Inc. · 97 F. Supp. 2d 96 - Northern Light Technology, Inc. v. Northern Lights Club · Warnervision Entertainment Inc. v. Empire of Carolina, Inc.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the trademark or other intellectual property rights of the registrant, if any, in the domain name; (2) the extent to which the domain name consists of the legal name of the person or a name that is otherwise commonly used to identify that person; (3) the person’s prior use, if any, of the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of any goods or services; (4) the person's bona fide noncommercial or fair use of the mark in a site accessible under the domain name; (5) the person’s intent to divert consumers from the mark owner’s online location to a site accessible under the domain name that could harm the goodwill represented by the mark, either for commercial gain or with the intent to tarnish or disparage the mark; (6) the person’s offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain name to the mark owner or any third party for financial gain without having used, or having intent to use, the domain name in the bona fide offering of any goods or services or the person's prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct; (7) the person’s provision of material and misleading false contact information when applying for the registration of the domain name, the person's intentional failure to maintain accurate contact information, or the person’s prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct. (8) the person’s registration or acquisition of multiple domain names that the person knows are identical or confusingly similar to the distinctive marks of others o”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(i) has a bad faith intent to profit from that mark ... and (ii) registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name that — ■ (I) in the case of a mark that is distinctive at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to that mark; -[or] (II) in the case of a famous mark that is famous at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to or dilutive of that mark.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the extent to which the mark incorporated in the person's domain name registration is or is not distinctive and famous within the meaning of subsection (c)(1) of this section.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.