Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 368 F.3d 433 - TMI, Inc. v. Maxwell

TMI, Inc. v. Maxwell’s Empirical Analysis

368 F.3d 433 · 2004

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
1
states following
May 2021
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently May 2021

8 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

130200420102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Panavision International, L.P. v. Toeppen · Bird v. Parsons · The Procter & Gamble Company v. Amway Corporation · Avery Dennison Corp. v. Sumpton · Virtual Works, Incorporated v. Volkswagen of America, Incorporated Volswagen Aktiengesellschaft, Network Solutions, Incorporated

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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(I) the trademark or other intellectual property rights of the person, if any, in the domain name; (II) 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; (III) the person’s prior use, if any, of the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of any goods or services; (IV) the person’s bona fide noncommercial or fair use of the mark in a site accessible under the domain name; (V) 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, by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the site; (VI) 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 an 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; (VII) 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; (VIII) the person’s registration or acquisition ”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]his Court has previously determined that § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (a)(1), which addresses false and misleading descriptions, only applies to commercial speech”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The Senate Report accompanying the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act bolsters our understanding that a “bad faith intent to profit” is the essence of the wrong that the Act seeks to combat. That report defines cybersquatters as those who: (1) register well-known brand names as Internet domain names in order to extract payment from the rightful owners of the marks; (2) register well-known marks as domain names and warehouse those marks with the hope of selling them to the highest bidder; (3) register well-known marks to prey on consumer confusion by misusing the domain name to divert customers from the mark owner’s site to the cybersquatter’s own site; (4) target distinctive marks to defraud consumers, including to engage in counterfeiting activities. The report says nothing about those who hold onto a domain name to prevent a competitor from using it.”
    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.