95 F. Supp. 2d 528 - Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Lucentsucks. Com’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 5 district ·

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

1. “(D)(i) The remedies in an in rem action under this paragraph shall be limited to a court order for the forfeiture or cancellation of the domain name to the owner of the mark. Upon receipt of written notification of a filed, stamped copy of a complaint filed by the owner of a mark in a United States district court under this paragraph, the domain name registrar, domain name registry or other domain name authority shall (I) expeditiously deposit with the court documents sufficient to establish the court’s control and authority regarding the disposition of the registration and use of the domain name to the court; and (II) not transfer, suspend, or otherwise modify the domain name during the pen-dency of the action, except upon order of the court.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 177 F. Supp. 2d 656 - Ford Motor Co. v. Greatdomains. Com, Inc. · 193 F. Supp. 2d 528 - Standing Stone Media, Inc. v. Indiancountrytoday.com

2. “(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 ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 427 F. Supp. 2d 1032 - Sunlight Saunas, Inc. v. Sundance Sauna, Inc.

3. “[A] significant problem faced by trademark owners in the fight against cybers-quatting is the fact that many cybers-quatters register domain names under aliases or otherwise provide false information in their registration applications in order to avoid identification and service of process by the mark owner.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 139 F. Supp. 2d 721 - Shri Ram Chandra Mission v. Sahajmarg. Org