Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
PETRONAS V. GODADDY.COM

PETRONAS V. GODADDY.COM

Ratings: (0)|Views: 105|Likes:
Published by Ilya
.
.

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Ilya on Jan 11, 2014
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/21/2014

pdf

text

original

 
FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
P
ETROLIAM
 N
ASIONAL
B
ERHAD
,(Petronas),
 Plaintiff-counter-claim-defendant –  Appellant,
v.G
ODADDY
.
COM
,
 
I
 NC
.,
 Defendant-counter-claimant –  Appellee.
 No. 12-15584D.C. No.4:09-cv-05939-PJHOPINIONAppeal from the United States District Courtfor the Northern District of CaliforniaPhyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, PresidingArgued and SubmittedOctober 8, 2013—San Francisco, CaliforniaFiled December 4, 2013Before: Dorothy W. Nelson, Milan D. Smith, Jr.,and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges.Opinion by Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr.
 
P
ETRONAS V
.
 
G
ODADDY
.C
OM
2
SUMMARY
*
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
Affirming the district court’s grant of summary judgmentin an action under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, the panel held that the ACPA does not provide a cause of action for contributory cybersquatting.Petroliam Nasional Berhad, a Malaysian oil and gascompany that owned the trademark to the name“PETRONAS,” alleged that Godaddy.com, Inc., a domainname registrar, engaged in contributory cybersquatting whena registrant used GoDaddy’s domain name forwarding serviceto direct the domain names “petronastower.net” and petronastowers.net” to an adult web site hosted on a webserver maintained by a third party.The panel held that neither the plain text nor the purposeof the ACPA provided support for a cause of action for contributory cybersquatting. It held that the ACPA created anew and distinct cause of action, and Congress did notincorporate the common law of trademark, includingcontributory infringement, into the ACPA. The paneltherefore affirmed the judgment of the district court.
 
*
 This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
 
P
ETRONAS V
.
 
G
ODADDY
.C
OM
3
COUNSEL
Perry Reed Clark (argued), Palo Alto, California, for Plaintiff-counter-claim-defendant–Appellant.John Lawrence Slafsky (argued), David L. Lansky, and EvanM.W. Stern, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Palo Alto,California, for Defendant-counter-claimant–Appellee.Ian Charles Ballon and Lori Chang, Greenberg Traurig, LLP,Los Angeles, California, for Amicus Curiae eNom, Inc.Aaron M. McKown and Paula L. Zecchini, Wrenn Bender LLP, Irvine, California, for Amici Curiae Network Solutions,LLC and Register.com, Inc.
OPINION
M. SMITH, Circuit Judge:In this appeal, Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Petronas)requests that we read a cause of action for contributorycybersquatting into the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA or Act), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d). Becausewe conclude that neither the plain text nor the purpose of theACPA provide support for such a cause of action, we holdthat there is none. We therefore affirm the judgment of thedistrict court.
FACTS AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS
Petrolium Nasional Berhad (Petronas) is a major oil andgas company with its headquarters in Kuala Lumpur,

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->