In Rem Jurisdiction Not Permitted For Actions Involving The Federal Trademark Dilution Act

This case stated that under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act, in rem jurisdiction is not permitted. The plaintiffs had permitted this action by in rem jurisdiction, because they could not obtain the identity and addresses of a number of the individuals or entities that had registered the domain names at issue and because it permitted them to bring one lawsuit in one jurisdiction against all 128 domain names, rather than multiple suits in jurisdictions scattered throughout the country. Even though it was a idealistic approach, the court determined that in rem jurisdiction was not permitted for actions under Federal Trademark Dilution Act. This case was filed and decided before the enactment of the U.S. Anticybersquatting Act. Yet, it is still good law in terms of the its teaching on jurisdiction under the Federal Trademark Dilusion Act.

The following questions have been addressed in this article:

What is a trademark?
What is the Federal Trademark Dilution Act?
What is jurisdiction and in rem jurisdiction?
Who were the parties and the facts underlying the case?
What did the court determine?


Facebook Twitter RSS