Subject Matter Index All Decisions About Us Statutes Articles Online Resources Help


Martin Samson, author of the Internet Library of Law and Court Decisions

Recent Addition

Designer Skin LLC v. S & L Vitamins, Inc., et al.
Unauthorized internet reseller of plaintiff’s products is not guilty of trademark infringement, and does not cause actionable initial interest confusion, by using plaintiff’s trademarks in meta tags of website at which plaintiff’s and its competitors’ products are sold, and in...

Related Topic(s):
Full Text of Court Decision:

Network Solutions, Inc. v. Clue Computing, Inc.

Civ. No. 96-D-1530 (D. Col., Oct. 29, 1996)

Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI"), which registers domain names, commenced an Interpleader Action under 28 U.S.C. section 1335, in which it sought to place under the court's jurisdiction the domain name "", "maintain the status quo [with respect thereto during the pendency of the litigation concerning it] and, ultimately, follow th[e] Court's determination of rights with regard to [the] domain name." The domain name was the subject of a dispute between Clue Computing Inc., which had registered the domain name, and Hasbro Inc., which holds a federal trademark in the mark "Clue." When NSI was informed of this trademark, it instructed Clue to either produce a trademark certification or accept assignment of a new domain name. As a result, Clue commenced a breach of contract action against NSI, in which it obtained a court injunction, preventing NSI from placing the domain name on hold. This interpleader action followed. The court, on motion of the defendants, dismissed the action on two separate grounds. First, the court held that NSI had not deposited the domain name in the court registry, a prerequisite to the maintenance of an interpleader action. Notwithstanding NSI's willingness to be bound by the Court's decision, the preliminary injunction prevented NSI from doing anything contrary thereto. In addition, the Court held that NSI could not pursue an interpleader action because it was not an "innocent stakeholder," another prerequisite to the maintenance of such an action. This was because it had been sued by Clue for breach of contract in connection with the aforementioned conduct.

The full text of the decision discussed above can be found on a website maintained by David J. Loundy.

Disclaimer  |  Attorney Advertising
© Copyright 1997-2024 Martin H. Samson All Rights Reserved
Printer Friendly