Heathmount A.E. Corp. v. Technodome.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)) · 28 U.S.C. § 1655
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson · Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, S. A. v. Hall · Omni Capital International, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co.
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(A) The owner of a mark may file an in rem civil action against a domain name in the judicial district in which the domain registrar, domain registry, or other domain name authority that registered or assigned the domain names is located if (i) the domain name violates an right of the owner of a mark registered in the Patent and Trademark Office, or protected under subsection (a) or (c); and (ii) the court finds that the owner— (I) is not able to obtain in personam jurisdiction over a person who would have been a defendant in a civil action under paragraph (1); or (II) through due diligence was not able to find a person who would have been a defendant in a civil action under paragraph (1) ....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(i) the domain name violates any right of the owner of a mark ...” and”
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.