15 U.S.C. § 1129
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2000–2024 · leading case: Philbrick v. eNom, Inc., 593 F. Supp. 2d 352 (D.N.H. 2009).
Philbrick v. eNom, Inc., 593 F. Supp. 2d 352 (D.N.H. 2009). “§ 1125 (d) (Count 1); • cyberpiracy of a personal name in violation of § 3002(b) of the ACPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1129 (Count 2); • false designation of origin in violation of § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.”
Stephan Schmidheiny, an Individual v. Steven Weber, D/B/A Domainsale & famology.com, Inc. famology.com, Inc, 319 F.3d 581 (3rd Cir. 2003). “com is not covered by the Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1129 (2002), because the domain name was initially registered by Steven Weber personally on February 28, 1999, before the Act took effect on November 29, 1999.”
Schmidheiny v. Weber, 285 F. Supp. 2d 613 (E.D. Pa. 2003). “Plaintiff, Stephan Schmidheiny brought this action alleging violation of the Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1129 . Presently before the court are the parties renewed cross motions for summary judgment predicated upon a joint stipulation of…”
Carl v. Bernardjcarl. Com, 662 F. Supp. 2d 487 (E.D. Va. 2009). “” 15 U.S.C. § 1129 (a) (emphasis added). In this case, plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation of dismissal on grounds of defective pleading was improper because defendants were adequately informed of the allegation of extortion by cyberpiracy.”
Zinner v. Olenych, 108 F. Supp. 3d 369 (E.D. Va. 2015). “Nevertheless, such observation does not alter the Court's conclusion that Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's section 1125(d) claim. . Only a handful of courts have considered whether summary judgment is appropriate in a section 8131 action — or its…”
Diller v. Steurken, 185 Misc. 2d 274 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2000). “, added by Pub L 106-113, 113 US Stat 1501) provides for “injunctive relief, including the forfeiture or cancellation of the domain name or the transfer of the domain name to the plaintiff” ( 15 USC § 1129 [2] [emphasis added]). While the ACPA was not in effect when defendants…”
Hammer v. Amazon. Com, 392 F. Supp. 2d 423 (E.D.N.Y 2005). “Plaintiff’s Motion For Leave To Amend Finally, Plaintiff moves to amend the Complaint to include claims for cyber-piracy pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1129 . Defendant claims that Plaintiffs request must be denied as futile.”
Bogoni v. Gomez, 847 F. Supp. 2d 519 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). “2009) — the district court discussed the meaning of that phrase where a magistrate judge had recommended the dismissal of a cyberpiracy claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1129 , later transferred to 15 U.”
Wood v. Kapustin, 992 F. Supp. 2d 942 (D. Minnesota 2014). “On June 19, 2013, Wood filed suit, alleging claims for (1) copyright, trade dress and service mark infringement; (2) violations of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA); (3) cyberpiracy violations under 15 U.S.C. § 1129 ; (4) defamation; and (5) tortious…”
Schmidheiny v. Weber, 164 F. Supp. 2d 484 (E.D. Pa. 2001). “Plaintiff, Stephan Schmidheiny brought this action alleging violation of the Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1129 . Following the court’s denial of defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs complaint, defendants filed their answer and…”
J & D Home Improvement, Inc. v. Basement Doctor, Inc., 90 F. App'x 616 (3rd Cir. 2004). “§ 1125 (a)(1) (any person using false designations of origin likely to cause confusion "shall be liable in a civil action”); 15 U.S.C. § 1129 (1) (any person who uses another's name, without permission and for profit, in an internet domain name "shall be liable in a civil…”
Bogoni v. Gomez, 840 F. Supp. 2d 694 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). “2009) — the district court discussed the meaning of that phrase where a magistrate *699 judge had recommended the dismissal of a cyberpiracy claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1129 , later transferred to 15 U.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.