| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc. ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc.
''Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc.'', 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997), was a decision by the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in which the Court found personal jurisdiction over a defendant providing Internet services. The case is a landmark opinion regarding Internet jurisdiction, and it is one of the most frequently cited Cyberlaw opinions. Lead counsel for Zippo Manufacturing in this case was Paul Perlman of Hodgson Russ LLP, in Buffalo, New York.
== Background ==
Plaintiff Zippo Manufacturing Company (“Manufacturing”), a Pennsylvania corporation, makes the well-known “Zippo” pocket lighters. Zippo Dot Com (“Dot Com”), a California corporation, operated an internet web site that offered access to USENET newsgroups.〔''Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc.'', 952 F.Supp. 1119, 1121 (W.D. Pa. 1997).〕 Dot Com registered the domain names “zippo.com,” “zippo.net” and “zipponews.com.”〔
Dot Com’s contacts with Pennsylvania occurred exclusively over the Internet. Dot Com’s offices, employees and internet servers were located in California.〔 Dot Com did not maintain any offices, employees or agents in Pennsylvania.〔 Dot Com’s advertising for its service to Pennsylvania residents involved posting information about its service on its webpage, which was accessible to Pennsylvania residents as well as everyone else.〔 Dot Com had approximately 140,000 paying subscribers worldwide, and approximately two percent (3,000) of those were Pennsylvania residents.〔 The subscribers contracted to receive Dot Com’s service by visiting its website and filling out an application.〔 Dot Com also entered into agreements with seven internet access providers in Pennsylvania to permit their subscribers to access Dot Com’s USENET database, including two providers in the Western District of Pennsylvania.〔
Zippo Manufacturing filed a five-count complaint against Dot Com alleging trademark dilution, infringement, and false designation under the Lanham Act and state law trademark dilution claims.〔 Manufacturing’s basis of the trademark claims was Dot Com’s use of the word “Zippo” in the domain names in numerous locations in its website and in the heading of internet newsgroup messages that were posted by Dot Com subscribers.〔 Dot Com moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.〔
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc.」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|