The Ninth Circuit found that California courts could exercise general jurisdiction over L.L. Bean, based on its continuous and systematic contacts with the state, specifically those contacts arising from its operation of a ‘virtual store’ over the Internet, national advertising and mailings into California.  While it had never registered to do business in California, L.L. Bean derives 6% of its sales from California and sources products from there.  Bancroft & MAsters v. Augusta National, 223 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2000) is one of the few other 9th Circuit cases evaluating whether contacts over the Internet can give rise to general jurisdiction (in that case, they didn’t).

L.L.Bean has sent a demand letter to pop-up ad promulgator Gator.  Gator filed a declaratory judgement in California.  I recently downloaded Google Taskbar 2.0 and it has blocked 200 pop-up ads in the week I have had it.  That’s 200 fewer interruptions in a week.

Gator.com v. L.L. Bean, 02-15035 (9th Cir. Sept. 2, 2003).

My server log indicates that traffic in the month of August was five times that of June ’02, the first full month of The Trademark Blog.

Here is this week’s copy of the Internet Legal Research Weekly mentioning the Blog.

Here’s The Internet Roundtable on Law Firm Marketing saying nice things about the Blog (and interesting things about Law Firm marketing).

Here is an article from the Westchester County Business Journal on me and my blog, illustrated with the photo above taken in the Trademark Lodge.  The photographer is Elizabeth Holtyak.

6th Circuit decision upholding an award of punitive damages under ACPA against an individual who registered the name FORDWORLD.COM and attempted to sell it to Ford Motors. The case provides stautory construction as to how to apply ACPA to domain names registered prior to the enacment date of ACPA (November 1, 1999).  Also, while courts may sometimes apply analogous state statute of limitation to federal actions, there is no statute of limitations applied to Lanham Act actions.

Aside: FORD is up there with DELTA and UNITED in the list of well-known marks that are not exclusive.  This fact is usually deployed in the domain name debate in the context: “how do we know that the registrant of FORDxxxxx.COM targeted Ford Motors and not Ford Models, for example.  Well, in this case, the registrant sent an email to the CEO of Ford offering to sell the name.

Ford Motor Company  v. Peter Catalanotte,  No. 00-75260, (6th Cir. August 28, 2003).

          

A not-flattering article on Verisign’s Wait List Service via The Register.  As mentioned here earlier in a piece about the skeletons of domain names, the Register article points out that a lot of the demand for expired domain names stems from a desire to utilize the pre-existing network of links and bookmarks to the domain name, a network that becomes obsolete (and mis-leading) when ownership of the domain name changes hands.