Harrods Ltd. V. Sixty Internet Domain Names
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
302 F.3d 214 (2002)
- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Harrods Ltd. (Harrods UK) (plaintiff) had operated a department store in London since 1849. Harrods (Buenos Aires) Ltd. (Harrods BA) (defendant) was a formerly affiliated company that had for a time operated a Harrods department store in Buenos Aires, but that now operated only the building’s parking garage. Harrods BA retained the rights to the trademark “Harrods” for much of South America, however, although Harrods UK held the rights to the mark for most of the rest of the world. After Harrods UK launched a website with the domain name “harrods.com” Harrods BA proceeded to register approximately 300 domain names in the United States that included the “harrods” mark. Many of these domain names included additional English words, some of which described goods or services offered by Harrods UK but not Harrods BA, such as “harrodsinsurance.” Harrods UK asserted in rem jurisdiction to sue 60 of these domain names under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, alleging infringement, dilution, and registration in bad faith. The district court dismissed the infringement and dilution claims, granted summary judgment to six of the domain names for the bad-faith claims, and found for Harrods UK for the bad-faith claims against the remaining 54 domain names. Both Harrods UK and Harrods BA appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Michael, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
