[1]Under the contract, NSI has been delegated the authority to act as the central Internet registry administering the ".com", ".net", ".org", ".edu" and ".gov" TLD's. The ".com", ".net" and ".org" TLD's are considered worldwide generic domains ("gTLD") that may be registered to individuals, companies or institutions located anywhere in the world. The organization currently responsible for overall coordination and management of the domain name assignment system is the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority ("IANA"). IANA purportedly was chartered by the Internet Society, an international organization that provides leadership in Internet standards, issues, and education. The Internet Architecture Board ("IAB") and the Internet Engineering Task Force ("IETF") also have historical and continuing roles in administering the domain name system.

[2]As of November 17, 1998, InterNIC had registered over three million names. See <http://www.internic.net/announcements>.

[3]NIC is an abbreviation for "network information center."

[4]There is also an underutilized ".us" TLD for the United States.

[5]Some overseas NICs do, however, require that the party requesting a particular domain be registered to do business under that name.

[6]See Joe Mullich, Coffee Break: Some Play Net Domain Game Hoping for Big Gain, Business First, Aug. 25, 1997, at 18. The results of a "whois" search on <http:///www.interneic.net/cgi-bin/whois?microsoftnetwork.dom> conducted on January 28, 1999, indicate that the domain is still registered to Khoshnood but evidently does not have a server location.

[7]Further complications arise with regard to user names and subdomains. Although NSI may assign second level domains, domain holders are free to create any number of subdomains and user names. Thus, the journalist who registered <mcdonalds.com>, in part to call attention to the reality that only the affluent have access to the Internet, used the moniker "Ronald" (ronald@mcdonalds.com). See Joshua Quittner, Billions Registered, Wired Magazine, October 1994 (visited April 22, 1999) <http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/mcdonalds_pr.html>. Likewise, there was nothing, other than trademark law, to prevent the registrant of the <windows95.com> domain from using a subdomain such as "microsoft" (<microsoft.windows95.com>) even accompanied by the user name "gates" (gates@microsoft.windows95.com).

[8]Other cases followed, with more or less amusing facts. MTV Networks v. Curry, 867 F. Supp. 202 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), involved a former MTV "video jockey" ("VJ"), who, while employed at MTV, had registered <mtv.com> under his own name with the Company's approval. Curry established a large Internet following, and, when he left MTV acrimoniously, he refused to give up the domain. MTV filed suit, and the case settled quietly on March 24, 1995 with control of the disputed domain passing to MTV. Another case, Counsel of Better Business Bureau v. Sloo (D. Kan. 1995), also settled quickly, after the Better Business Bureau brought suit against an individual who had registered the domains <bbb.com> and <bbb.org>, although he was providing no services and allegedly registered the domains only in an attempt to force the Better Business Bureau to purchase them. See Martin Rosenberg, E-mail Conflict Triggers a Lawsuit ; KC Man Controls Internet Address That a Business Council Wants to Claim, Kansas City Star, May 16, 1995, at D3. Avon had a similar experience. In Avon v. Carnetta Wong Assoc., CV96-0451 (E.D.N.Y. 1996), Avon included allegations of dilution under the then new Federal Trademark Dilution Act, in addition to its claims of trademark infringement and unfair competition stemming from the defendant's registration of the domain <avon.com>. That case settled and Avon obtained control of the domain. See Cornelia Grumman, Web of Internet Name Game Getting Tangled, Chicago Tribune, Mar. 25, 1996, at C1.

[9]No. 97 Civ. 0629, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3338, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 1997).

[10]See also Cardservice Int'l, Inc. v. McGee, 950 F. Supp. 737 (E.D. Va. 1997).

[11]No. 96-0213-WMB, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20259, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 1996).

[12]Id. at *3.

[13]Interestingly, this is not the only case involving the SLD "juris". Underscoring the international nature of the domain name system and its relevance to trademark owners, on January 15, 1997 a court in Munich, Germany ruled that the defendant before that court could not retain the domain <juris.de> and the plaintiff was entitled to have the domain transferred to it. Landgericht München, January 15, 1997, 1 HKO 3146/96.

[14]Fry's Electronics v. Ocatave Systems, Inc., No. 95-CV-02525 (N.D. Cal. 1997 (entering default judgement). For detailed information concerning the case, See Law Subjects Index Domain Name Disputes, Cases: E-O (visited Apr. 21, 1999) <http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/domain2.html@frys>; Patricia Gima, A Domain, By any Other Name, Cyberlaw Journal (visited Apr. 21, 1999) <http://newmedia.com/Sound/cyberlaw.html>.

[15]Fry's Electronics v. Peter, appeal docketed, No. 97-15485 (9th Cir. Mar. 25, 1997).

[16]According to an InterNIC <http:///www.interneic.net/cgi-bin/whois?microsoftnetwork.dom> "whois" search on January 28, 1999, the domain is registered to Fry's Electronics but the firm has not yet used the domain name.

[17]No. 1-94-CV-7195 (N.D. Ill. filed Dec. 2, 1994).

[18]For details concerning this case, See Logical Choices? Part I--Someone Else's Trademark (visited Apr. 21, 1999) <http://www.e-law.co.il/DomainNames/logicalrec4.htm@knowledgenet>; Hearings on H.R. 2441 Before the Subcomm. on Courts and Intellectual Property of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 104th Cong. (1996) (statement of Catherine Simmons-Gill, President of INTA).

[19]Registration fee is $100.00 for domain names registered on or before March 31, 1998, $70.00 for domain names registered on or after April 1, 1998. New domain names are valid for two years from the date that the Registrar activates the domain name. The renewal fee for domain names registered on or before March 31, 1998 is $70.00 US and $35.00 for domain names registered on or after April 1, 1998. See Fee for Registration of Domain Names (visited Apr. 21, 1999) <http://www.networksolutions.com/announcements/fee-policy.html>.

[20]See Network Solutions' Domain Dispute Policy (REV 03) (visited Feb. 22, 1999) <http://netsol.com/rs/dispute-policy.html>.

[21]The language of the Revision 03 policy reads "9. Dispute Procedures...(a) Network Solutions shall determine the creation date of the registrant's domain name registration ('domain name creation date'). (b) If the registrant's domain creation date precedes the effective date of the valid and subsisting certified registration owned by the complainant, Network Solutions will take no action on the complainant's request." The policy does NOT define either "creation date" or "effective date." Although no comments have been made thus far regarding how NSI will determine the "creation date," there have been conflicting reports about the anticipated meaning NSI will give to the "effective date." According to one report , Chuck Gomes, NSI spokesperson, said that the effective date will be the earlier of the first use and registration dates. In a subsequent report, Leslie A. Gutowski, Manager of NSI's Dispute Administration, is quoted as saying "Network Solutions, Inc. considers the filing date of a U.S. trademark registration to be the effective date." See NSI Flawed Domain Name Policy Information Page (visited Apr. 21, 1999) <http://www.patents.com/nsi.sht>.

[22]For a directory of domain names and their "on hold" status, visit <http//:www.lawoffices.net/tradedeom/>. In what appears to be an aberration, in July, 1997 NSI terminated the domain <nasa.com> following a complaint from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), without adhering to the dispute policy. The <www.nasa.com> site apparently contained links to pornographic sites which allegedly concerned individuals who, hoping to view groundbreaking photographs from the Mars Pathfinder mission, had mistakenly gone to <www.nasa.com> not realizing that NASA's site is <www.nasa.gov>. The chagrined owner of <nasa.com>, Epicenter Network of New York, apparently contemplated seeking an injunction against NSI. NSI based its decision on The National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (amended) which prohibits private groups from identifying themselves as "NASA." See Leslie Gornstein, Net Address Errors Spell Success; Slip of Fingers Can Divert Users From Popular Sites To Porno Ads, Houston Chronicle, Aug. 23, 1998, at B3.

[23]But see Comp Examiner Agency, Inc., supra, note 11.

[24]See Network Solutions' Domain Dispute Policy (REV 03), at ¶ 7 (visited Feb. 22, 1999) <http://netsol.com/rs/dispute-policy.html>.

[25]On September 19, 1996, David Graves of NSI offered the following clarification of the policy requirement that the trademark and second level domain name must be identical: "We normally discount spaces, small adjectives, and common abbreviations for companies and corporations. For example, a trademark for The Washington Post would be identical to the domain name <washingtonpost.com>. Or, a trademark for 'Network Solutions' would be identical to the domain name <networksolutionsinc.com>. Other variants are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. . . ." This clarification leaves open several interesting questions, such as whether phonetic identity is sufficient to invoke the policy, e.g., whether "tie" is identical to "ty."

[26]This may change now that NSI has given itself the authority to transfer domains. There has been litigation against NSI on this aspect of its policy in the past, where the owner of a well-known mark has found it necessary to bring suit after the dispute policy has been invoked and the offending domain put on hold. See Porsche Cars North America, Inc. v. Chen, No. 96 CV 01006 (E.D. Va. filed July 26, 1996) (granting injunction that prevented defendants, the International Porsche Club of New York City, from using the <porsche.com> domain or any of plaintiff's other trademarks or trade dress).

[27]Roadrunner Computer Systems, Inc. v. Network Solutions, Inc., No. 96-413-A (E.D. Va. filed March 26, 1996).

[28]See id.

[29]See id.

[30]RCS alleged that NSI based that refusal on the technicality that the 30 day period for submitting a registration had passed. NSI asserted that RCS failed to provide a certified copy of the registration as required in the Domain Name Dispute Policy. Although NSI would not accept RCS's uncertified registration, Seeking a quick registration overseas before launching a domain name dispute is still a legitimate strategy. The trademark office for the Benelux processes registrations quickly, and some Benelux practitioners now advise that registrations can be obtained within one month for domain disputes. By comparison, obtaining a U.S. registration usually takes over a year.

[31]Interestingly, shortly thereafter Time Warner, Inc. announced that its new high speed Internet access service would be named ROAD RUNNER.

[32]See Data Concepts Inc. v. Digital Consulting Inc., 150 F.3d 620 (6th Cir. 1998).

[33]See id. at 623.

[34]See Data Concepts Inc. v. Digital Consulting Inc., No. 3-96-0429 (M.D. Tenn. filed May 20, 1997).

[35]See Data Concepts, 150 F.3d at 622.

[36]See id. at 627.

[37]See id..

[38]See id. at 623.

[39]See id.

[40]Id.

[41]No. C-96 20434 RPA/PVT, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20807, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 1996) (granting preliminary injunction).

[42]Id.

[43]NSI had stipulated that if an injunction was issued against Ty, Inc., NSI would take no action with regard to the domain, pending final judgment. Before final judgment was reached, the parties settled and, in exchange for an undisclosed amount, Giacalone transferred the <ty.com> domain to Ty, Inc. See J. Theodore Smith, Note, "1-800-Ripoffs.com: Internet Domain Names Are the Telephone Numbers of Cyberspace, 1997 U. Ill. L. Rev. 1169, 1186 (1997).

[44]Note that NSI's Revision 03 requires that a challenger hold a trademark that is identical to the domain name with no accompanying design.

[45]See Plaintiff's Complaint, Giacalone v. Network Solutions, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 1996) (No. C096 20434) (avaliable at <http://www.iplawyers.com/CyberCounsel/ giacalone_vs_network_solutions.htm>).

[46]Response to TY and design Office Action, August 23, 1990. The trademark examiner apparently was persuaded and a registration was issued for TY as word mark No. 2118114 on February 13, 1997.

[47]No. 96-CV-4256 (N.D. Cal. filed November 25, 1996).

[48]The Pike.com Litigation (visited Apr. 19, 1999) <http://www.patents.com/pike.sht>.

[49]See id.

[50]See id.

[51]Network Solutions, Inc. v. Clue Computing, Inc., 946 F. Supp. 858 (D. Colo. 1996).

[52]See id. at 860.

[53]No. C96-130WD, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11627 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 5 1996) (granting temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in case involving the domain <candyland.com>), and No. C96-130WD, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11626 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 9, 1996) (granting preliminary injunction after oral argument).

[54]Clue Computing, 946 F. Supp. at 860.

[55]See id. at 861.

[56]Hasbro, Inc. v. Clue Computing, Inc., 994 F. Supp. 34 (D. Mass. filed Jan. 10, 1997).

[57]See id. at 44.

[58] See Panavision International v. Toeppen, 945 F.Supp. (C.D. Cal. 1996), aff'd 141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998); Dynamic Info Systems v. Network Solutions, Inc., 96-CV-1551 (D. Colo. filed June 24, 1996) (involving the domain <disc.com>); Regis McKenna Inc. v. Regis Corporation, 96-CV-20551 (N.D. Cal. filed July 9, 1996) (involving <regis.com>); American Commercial Inc. v. Sports & Leisure International, Inc., Case 96-CV-713 (C.D. Cal., filed July 25, 1996) (involving <mikasa.com>); Juno Online Services, L.P. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 96 CV 01505 (E.D. Va., filed Oct. 18, 1996) (involving the domain name <juno.com>); Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Solutions, Inc., No. CV 96-7438 DDP (Anx) (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 22, 1996 (involving <skunkworks.com>, <skunkworks.net>, <skunkwerks.com> and <skunkwrks.com>) (discussed further in section I.E.); and Futuredontics Inc. v. Network Solutions, Inc., Civ. No. BC 177549 (Ca. Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, filed Sept. 8, 1997) (involving <1800dentist.com> and <800dentist.com>).

[59] F.Supp. 949 (C.D. Cal 1997).

[60] F.Supp. 1276 (C.D. Cal. 1997).

[61]International Ad Hoc Comm., Final Report of the International Ad Hoc Committee: Recommendations for Administration and Management of gTLDs (final version Feb. 4, 1997) <http://www.iahc.org/draft-iahc-recommend-00.html>. The author was a member of the IAHC, serving as the International Trademark Association's (INTA) representative. Other organizations naming representatives included two United Nations treaty organizations -- The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) -- the Internet Society (ISOC), the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), and the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).

[62]As a historical aside, before the Postel Proposal had gained significant momentum, another proposal, which circulated briefly and was quickly withdrawn, would have done away with domain names based on mnemonics (the essential character of SLDs) and simply used numbers instead. While such an approach would have eliminated all but the very rare SLD policing concern for the business community, it is doubtful that the marketing arms of that same community would have been enamored of such a radical about-face.

[63]The Establishment of a Memorandum of Understanding on the Generic Top Level Domain Name Space of the Internet Domain Name System (final version Feb. 28, 1997) is available at <http://www.gtld-mou.org/gTLD-moll.html>.

[64]A list of signatories (last updated Jan. 12, 1999) is available at <http://www.itu.int/net-itu/gtld-mou/signat.htm>.

[65]Having accomplished this phase of its mission, the IAHC dissolved itself. An interim Policy Oversight Committee (iPOC) is now working to implement the plan, including the development of the council of registrars (CORE). The final Memorandum of Understanding for the Internet Council of Reigstrars (final version, Oct. 19, 1997) ("CORE MoU") is available at <www.gtld-mou.org/docs/core-mou.htm> (visited Jan. 30, 1999). The CORE, a permanent Policy Oversight Committee (POC), and a policy advisory board (PAB) made up of all interested entities/individuals, essentially will administer the gTLD system.

[66]Image Online Design, a private company claiming it had the sole right to administer the top level domain .web brought suit against IAHC, Seeking a temporary restraining order to prevent the organization's plan from going into effect. The court denied injunctive relief (and Image Online Design voluntarily withdrew its claim). Dan Goodin, Suit to Block Internet Plan Falters, The Recorder, May 2, 1997, at 3.

[67]International Ad Hoc Comm., supra note 61, at § 3.1.

[68]But see discussion of newly revised proposed administrative challenge panels guidelines, infra note 72 and accompanying text.

[69]Applications for renewal, which would be required annually, would also contain this information. See CORE MoU, supra n. 65, Appendix C.

[70]The initial draft of the IAHC plan contained a 60-day waiting period following publication on the web site before a domain would be assigned. The purpose of the waiting period was to enable trademark owners to engage in routine policing efforts and, where a problem appeared, to give the trademark owner and the domain name applicant time to attempt to work out their differences, if any, before the domain applicant made a substantial investment in a domain name it might have to change. As such, the waiting period was intended to minimize the instances in which such disputes escalated to litigation. Due to a groundswell of opposition to the mandatory nature of the waiting period, principally voiced by members of the Internet community to whom such a waiting period was anathema to the open, essentially free and instantaneous nature of the domain name system specifically, and the Internet generally, the IAHC modified the plan to include only a voluntary waiting period.

[71]The additional requirement that an applicant prepay before a domain will be assigned would be a further deterrent to some cybersquatters intent on making a "fast buck".

[72]See International Ad Hoc Comm., [Revised] Substantive Guidelines Conderning Administratvie Domain Name Challenge Panels (final version May 23, 1997) <http://www.iahc.org/docs/racps.htm> (promulgating substantive guidelines to be applied by the adminstrative challenge panels under §8 of the gTLD-MoU).

[73]See id. at III.

[74]See United States Department of Commerce, Management of Internet Names and Address: Statement of Policy (last modified June 5, 1998) <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/6_5_98dns.htm>.

[75]The four principles mentioned in the statement are Stability, Competition, Private (Bottom-up) Coordination, and Representation. See id., "Comments and Responses: 1. Principles for a New System."

[76]See United States Department of Commerce, A Proposal to Improve Technical Management of Internet Names and Address Discussion, DRAFT 1/30/98 <http:// www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/dnsdrff.htm> (last visited Feb. 3, 1998).

[77]No. 96C 3448, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20814, at *3 (N.D. Ill. July 12, 1996).

[78]See Interstellar Starship Services, Ltd. v. Epix, Inc., 983 F. Supp. 1331 (D. Or. 1997).

[79]Id. at 1332.

[80]See id. at 1336.

[81]See American Standard, Inc. v. Toeppen, No. 96 CV 2147, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14451, at *1 (C.D. Ill. Sept. 3, 1996).

[82]See Intermatic, Inc. v. Toeppen, 947 F.Supp. 1227 (N.D. Ill. 1996.

[83]See id. at 1239.

[84]See Panavision Int'l v. Toeppen, 945 F. Supp. 1296, 1304 (C.D.Cal. 1996), aff'd 141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998).

[85]See Panavision Int'l, 141 F.3d at 1326.

[86]Id. at 1326 (citing Intermatic Inc. v. Toeppen, 947 F.Supp. at 1240) The Panavision decision is also noteworthy for affirming the Central District of California court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over Toeppen, an Illinois resident, as discussed infra in section II.B.

[87] F. Supp. 949 (C.D. Cal. 1997).

[88]See Lockheed, 1997 WL 381967, at *1.

[89]See Lockheed, 985 F. Supp. at 959.

[90]No. 97 Civ. 0629, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3338 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 1997).

[91]See id. at *4.

[92]See id. at *9.

[93]See id. at *11.

[94]But see Jews for Jesus v. Brodsky, No. CIV. A. 98-274 (AJL), 1998 WL 111676 (D.N.J. Mar. 6, 1998).

[95]See Planned Parenthood, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3338, at *13-*16, *22.

[96]Id. at *21.

[97]See id. at *37.

[98]See Planned Parenthood Fed'n of America v. Bucci, No. 97-7492, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 22179 (2d Cir. Feb. 9, 1998).

[99]See Planned Parenthood, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3338, at *26.

[100]See id.

[101] F. Supp. 737 (E.D. Va. 1997).

[102]Id. at 738-39.

[103]Id. at 743.

[104]Prince PLC v. Prince Sports Group, Inc. [1998] F.S.R. 21 (Ch. 1997).

[105]See id. at 3.

[106]See id. at 8. Unlike in the U.S. where "cease and desist" letters threatening legal action for trademark infringement are commonplace, the UK Trade Marks Act makes it unlawful for the owner of a UK trademark registration to make unjustifiable threats of legal proceedings for such infringement. Section 21 of the law provides for declaratory and injunctive relief as well as damages for those harmed by such threats. Trade Mark Act, 1994, ch. 26, § 21 (Eng.).

[107]See id. at 3.

[108]See Special Report-Internet and Intranet: Why Princes Went to War Over the Name of Their Domain, Daily Telegraph (London), Nov. 10, 1998, at 7.

[109]See Prince PLC v. Prince Sports Group, Inc. [1998] F.S.R. 21 at 5 (Ch. 1997).

[110]The UK court commented in denying Prince PLC's request that it was unclear for what purpose this further declaration was being sought other than to provide Prince PLC with leverage in the U.S. lawsuit. See id. at 27.

[111]Prince PLC v. Prince Sports Group, Inc. [1998] F.S.R. 21 (Ch. 1997).

[112]Marks & Spencer PLC v. One in a Million, [1998] F.S.R. 265 (Ch. 1997).

[113]Id. at 8.

[114]Id. at 9.

[115]See Michael Lindsey, Whose Name Is It Anyway, M2 Presswire, Mar. 12, 1997.

[116]Harrods Ltd. v. UK Network Services Ltd., 1996 H 5453. Justice Lightman presiding, ordered December 9, 1996.

[117]See Bina Cunningham, UK Courts Address Domain Name Issues (visited Apr. 14, 1999) <http://www.ljx.com/internet/01-98ukdom.html>.

[118]See Pitman Training Ltd. v. Nominet UK, [1997] F. 1984 (Ch.).

[119]Landgericht Mannheim, March 8, 1996, 7-O-60/96.

[120]Landgericht Köln, December 17, 1996, 3 O 477/96. There appear to be other cases on this theme: one involving the domain <braunschweig.de> (Landgericht Braunschweig, January 28, 1997, 9 O 450/96), and another involving <cella.com> (OLG Celle, March 21, 1997, 13 U 202/96).

[121]Landgericht Berlin, November 20, 1996, 5 U 659/97, 97 0 193/96 (upheld on appeal March 25, 1997).

[122]Landgericht Dusseldorf, April 4, 1997, 34 O 191/96. Other decisions in Germany include: <huerth.de>: Landgericht Köln, December 17, 1996, 3 O 478/96; <pulheim.de>: Landgericht Köln, December 17, 1996, 3 O 507/96; <celle.de>: Landgericht Lüneburg, January 29, 1997, 2 O 336/96; <wirtschaft-online.de>: OLG Frankfurt a.M., February 13, 1997, 6 W 5/97; <auv.de>: Landgericht Frankfurt, May 28, 1997, 2-6 O 125/97; <das.de>: Landgericht Frankfurt, February 26, 1997 (3.3.97), 2/06 O 633/96 <krupp.de>: Landgericht Bochum, April 24, 1997; <lego.de>, and <juris.de>.

[123]Labouchere et al. v. IMG Holland, President District Court Amsterdam, May 15, 1997, Rechtspraak van de Week 1997, n. 193.

[124]The other domains in question were: <banklabrouchere.com>, <banklabouchere.com>, <snsbank.com>, <staalbankiers.com>, <deltalloyd.com>, <ohra.com> and <vsbbank.com>. The plaintiff banks (individually) own the trade names/services marks LABOURCHERE, BANKLABOURCHERE, SNSBANK, STAALBANKIERS and VSB. The plaintiff insurance companies (individually) own the service marks DELTALLOYD and OHRA.

[125]Sydney 2000 Games (Indicia and Images) Protection Act, 1996 no. 22 (Astl.).

[126]No. 97 Civ. 1190 (PKL) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 1997) (complaint).

[127]See Washington Post Co. v. Total News, Inc., No. 97 Civ. 1190 (PKL) (S.D.N.Y. June 6, 1997) (stipulation and order of settlement and dismissal); Parties Settle Total News 'Framing' Suit: Framing Halted, Hyperlinks Will be Text-Only, 2 Electronic Pol'y & L. Rep. (BNA) No. 24, at 612-13 (June 13, 1997) (summarizing litigation and settlement agreement).

[128]See Futuredontics, Inc. v. Applied Anagramics, Inc., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22249 (C.D. Cal. filed Dec. 2, 1997) (denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment) aff'd 1998 WL 417413 (9th Cir. July 23, 1998); Futuredontics, Inc. v. Applied Anagramics, Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2265 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 1998) (denying defendant's motion to dismiss).

[129]Complaint, 97 Civ. 3055 at ¶ 6 (C.D. Cal. April 28, 1997), reprinted in Ticketmaster v. Microsoft (visited Apr. 18, 1999) <http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/ticket1.html>.

[130]Id.

[131]See Ticketmaster Goes Local (Aug. 13, 1998) <http://www.cnnfn.com/hotstories/deals/9808/13/ticketmaster/>.

[132]Significantly, Microsoft has used textual links only; Microsoft has not reproduced the Ticketmaster logo. Microsoft is likely to argue that it made no more use of Ticketmaster's intellectual property than necessary in providing Seattle Sidewalk customers with ticketing information. New Kids on the Block v. News America Publishing, Inc., 971 F.2d 302 (9th Cir. 1992) (setting forth a three part "nominal fair-use" test where a commercial defendant uses the plaintiff's mark in describing the defendant's product or service: 1) the defendant's product or service is not readily identifiable without use of the mark; 2) only so much of the mark as is reasonably necessary to identify the product or service is used; and 3) the user does nothing with the mark that suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark holder). At least as an equitable matter, Microsoft undoubtedly also will argue that Ticketmaster is not harmed but actually benefits from the increased traffic to its site.

[133]Other contexts in which a link may be unappreciated include links to a pornographic site.

[134]See, e.g. , Netscape Netcenter <http://home.netscape.com> (visited Jan. 25, 1998).

[135]No. 96-2703 TEH, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20877 (N.D. Cal. filed Dec. 29, 1997).

[136]Id. at *13, n. 6.

[137]See Oppedahl & Larson v. Advanced Concepts, Civ. Act. No. 97-Z-1592, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18359 (D. Colo. Feb. 6, 1998), 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23105 (D. Colo. Dec. 19, 1997), 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23108 (D. Colo. Dec. 19, 1997).

[138]A rather amusing footnote to this case can be found at <www.geocities.com> which contains an entire page of statements disclaiming any connection, affiliation, sponsorship of the site, or even information about Carl Oppedahl or Oppedahl & Larson, but which also ensures the site will appear prominently in search engine results when the terms "Oppedahl" or "Larson" are input.

[139] F. Supp. 1220 (N.D. Cal. 1997). Calvin Designer Label has no relation to the fashion designer of the same name.

[140]Id. at 1221.

[141]See id.

[142]Id. at 1222.

[143]See Playboy Enter., Inc. v. Welles, 7 F. Supp. 2d 1098 (S.D. Cal. 1998).

[144]See id. at 1101.

[145]See id. at 1104.

[146]Id.

[147]Id.

[148]See text and accompanying footnotes, supra, Section I.E.2.

[149] F. Supp. 1032 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).

[150]See, e.g., David R. Johnson & David Post, Law Without Borders--The Rise of Law in Cyberspace, 48 Stan. L. Rev. 1367 (1996). See also U.S. v. Thomas, 74 F.3d 701 (6th Cir. 1996).

[151] F.3d 1257 (6th Cir. 1996).

[152]See id. at 1266.

[153]See, e.g., Edias Software Int'l, LLC, v. Basis International Ltd., 947 F. Supp. 413 (D. Ariz. 1996) (court had jurisdiction over non-Arizona defendant who had sent e-mail and posted messages to a web site and interactive Internet forum announcing that it would no longer use Arizona plaintiff as its software distributor); Heroes, Inc. v. Heroes Foundation, 958 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1996) (court has jurisdiction over non-District of Columbia defendant who used web site <heroes.org> and newspaper advertisement to solicit donations for charitable service similar to District of Columbia plaintiff's HEROES charitable service; in dicta the court stated that the web site activities alone would be an adequate basis for personal jurisdiction); Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F.Supp. 1119 (court has jurisdiction over non-Pennsylvania defendant Internet service provider who processed applications by Pennsylvania residents for service and issued passwords to those residents).

[154]Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v. King, 937 F. Supp. 295 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).

[155]See 1196 U.S. App. LEXIS 24796 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 1996).

[156]No. 96 Civ. 3620, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2065, at *43 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 1997).

[157]See Panavision Int'l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 938 F. Supp. 616, 621-622 (C.D. Cal. 1996) (denying motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction).

[158]See Panavision Int'l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1320-22 (9th Cir. 1998).

[159]Id. at 1323.

[160]Id. at 1322, 1323.

[161] U.S. 462 (1985).

[162] F.Supp. 1328, 1333 (E.D. Mo. 1996).

[163]See Inset Sys., Inc. v. Instruction Set, Inc., 937 F. Supp. 161, 165 (D. Conn. 1996).

[164]See IDS Life Insurance Co. v. SunAmerica, Inc., 958 F. Supp. 1258, 1268 (N.D. Ill. 1997) ("it cannot plausibly be argued that any defendant who advertises nationally could expect to be haled [sic] into court in any state, for a cause of action that does not relate to the advertisements."); McDonough v. Fallon McElligott, Inc., No. CIV 95-4037, 1996 WL 753991 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 1996) ("allowing computer interaction via the Web to supply sufficient contacts to establish [general] jurisdiction would eviscerate the personal jurisdiction requirement as it currently exists"). See also, GenneX Corp. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, No. 97C 1750 (N. Dist. Ill., Eastern Div., filed Mar. 14, 1997), and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts v. GenneX Corp., et al., No. 97 11174 MLW (D. MA, filed May 23, 1997). Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts filed an objection with NSI to GenneX Corporations' use of the <healthwire.com> domain and GenneX responded by filing a declaratory judgment action in the District Court in Illinois. GenneX provides women's health information via its <healthwire.com> web site and also hosts home pages of other individuals and organizations providing related information. Blue Cross uses and owns a registration for the healthwire mark for its health care provider claims processing system. Blue Cross moved to dismiss the Illinois action on the ground that the ability to access its home page in Illinois is not enough, by itself, to subject it to jurisdiction in that court. Simultaneously, Blue Cross filed suit in Massachusetts and moved to enjoin GenneX's continued use of the <healthwire.com> domain. GenneX opposed Blue Cross' preliminary injunction motion also on jurisdictional grounds. Thus, each party was in the unenviable position of arguing it should not be subjected to the jurisdiction of another party's home courts based on the ability to access its web site there, but that the opposing party should be subject to jurisdiction on this basis in its home state. This dispute settled after the Illinois district court dismissed the action pending there for lack of personal jurisdiction. See Minute Order of July 11, 1997 by Hon. Marvin E. Aspen.

[165]See Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414, 419 (9th Cir. 1997).

[166]A passive web site is one that affords no interaction by the user, and merely provides information (such as an advertisement).

[167]Cybersell, 130 F.3d at 419.

[168]Id. at 415 (citing International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)).

[169]For other recent decisions regarding personal jurisdiction over defendants whose conduct involved the Internet see, e.g. , American Network, Inc. v. Access America, 975 F.Supp. 17 (S.D.N.Y. 1997); Clipp Designs, Inc. v. Tag Bags, Inc., 996 F. Supp. 766 (E.D. Ill. 1998); Haelan Prods. Inc. v. Beso Biological Research Inc., 1997 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 10565 (E.D. La. July 11, 1997)(as amended July 15, 1996); Telco Communications Group, Inc. v. An Apple a Day, Inc., 977 F.Supp. 404 (E.D. Va. 1997) (holding that jurisdiction was properly asserted); CD Solutions, Inc. v. Tooker, 965 F. Supp. 17 (N.D. Tex. Filed May 9, 1997); Expert Pages v. Buckalew, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12205 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 1997); SF Hotel Co. v. Energy Investments, Inc., 985 F. Supp. 1032 (D. Kan. 1997); Transcraft Corp. v. Doonan Trailer, Corp., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18687 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 12, 1997) (holding exercise of personal jurisdiction improper).

[170]See Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-98, 109 Stat. 985 (1996).

[171]See, e.g. , Toys "R" Us Inc. v. Akkaoui, 40 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1836, 1838 (N.D. Cal. 1996).

[172]Hasbro, Inc. v. Internet Entertainment Group, Ltd., No. C96 130WD, 1996 WL 84853 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 9, 1996).

[173]Marie D'Amico, Turning trademarks topsy-turvy on the Net, Digital Media, Oct. 1996.

[174]See Gateway 2000, Inc. v. Gateway.com, Inc., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2144, at *3 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 6, 1997).

[175]See Gateway 2000, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2144, at *12.

[176]See Gateway 2000 site (visited Jan. 29, 1999) <http://www.gateway.com>.

[177]See Zippo Mfg Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F.Supp. 1119 (W.D.Pa. 1996)(mem.).

[178]Bianca's Smut Shack (visited Jan. 29, 1999) <http://www.bianca.com/shack>.

[179]See Fry's, supra note 15.

[180]On file with author.

[181]See Avery Dennison Corporation v. Sumpton, 999 F. Supp. 1337, 1342 (C.D. Cal. 1998).

[182]See id. at 1341.

[183]See id.

[184]See id. at 1342.

[185]Other recent decisions discussing causes of action for dilution involving the Internet include: Lozano Enters. v. La Opinion Publ'g Co., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20372 (C.D. Cal. 1997); Teletech Customer Care Management, Inc. v. Tele-Tech Co., 977 F.Supp. 1407 (C.D. Cal. 1997); Toys "R" Us, Inc. v. Akkaoui, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17090 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 1996).

[186]See Digital Equip. Corp. v. AltaVista Tech., Inc., 960 F.Supp. 456, 459 (D. Mass. 1997).

[187]See id.

[188]See id. at 477-78.

[189]See id. at 459-61.

[190]See id. at 459.

[191]MarkWatch (visited Jan. 29, 1999) <http://www.markwatch.com/intel>.

[192]Net Searchers (visited Jan. 29, 1999) <http://www.netsearchers.co.uk/frames.htm>.

[193]MicroPatent, Trademark Web (visited Jan. 29, 1999) <http://www.marksearch.com/o/trademearkweb9809.html>.