135 F. Supp. 2d 1159 - Smith v. Network Solutions, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 2 (§ 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 26 (§ 16 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. · Bonner v. City of Prichard
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.
“[T]here is no inherent difference in character, for purposes of interchangeability and cross-elasticity of demand, between domain names that are ‘expired’ and held by NSI and those that are not. It is true in a literal sense that each domain name is unique. And one given individual domain name may be far more valuable on the open market than others. But products need not be entirely fungible to be considered part of the same relevant market .... [T]he Weber court did more than decide that the two names did not constitute the relevant market; the court reasoned that the relevant market was all domain names generally as a result of cross-elasticity of demand. Because the number of domain names, unlike traditional commodities, is essentially unlimited, there will always be reasonable substitute names available for any given name kept out of circulation, whether by a registrar or by the registrant, regardless of whether we are talking about two names or a hundred and sixty thousand.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“When an individual or an organization desires to register a domain name, it may do so through any accredited registrar .... The applicant first chooses one of the TLDs offered by the registrar and then creates an accompanying [second level domain] name, thereby fashioning a potential domain name, which is then submitted electronically to the registrar for approval.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]s part of the transition to a competitive system, NSI's domain name registration service was divided into two separate units: a registrar and a registry.”
2 later decisions 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.