WPC L}}9H(SDp;2Oqu#kךS\ا8:Sp3[`:\bɩUsmKbE^j&Z$pVhZRYzk92sL̒bft$zTosdV j+uuR8;Y5ܯ":yxCl#ne~EnV⼩2!%">fI;"DbgG2H.J[Pzw)ӦsJCGcߐ38q24t=n0`rځ>ZKq1%cMk5"N ؤ^ܫ m*GW3M2g*c"0˼h!5gYm}^ڞtITg4K14lf Wf;]ʼn*_ӝH;]"F9#3UpN6 %6 0o:6 077 0%8 09 09 0: 0; 0< 0z= 0S> 0)? 0@ 0@ 0A 0B 0WC 0$D 0D 0E 0yF 0TG 0,H 0I 0I 0J 0nK 07L 0L^ MwM4MMM mM 1 N 72N 1uN 72@O 0crO 1O 72\PP 0 5S 0 DS 1T 00T 0<T 0T 0>U 0vU 0`mV 0`V 0`-W 0`W 0`W 08MX 0X 02WY 0Y 0:Z 0YZ 0_[ 0 w[ 0j\ 0] B*o_ D/_ D+_ 0_ D/wa 0a 06tb 0b 0:c 0^c 0<JdU6dU>dU*d 0$e 0 Le 0 g 0 gU0h 0eNi 1ji 72i 0w#j 1j 72!k 1Sk 72k 72 l>l lZl BKphp 1.q 72q 0Uq 0()q 0  Oto 8 (C 4  | l+ $ V , D 4 zQ\ L <] B 2 F jSz 67 &m R$ Bv >` . 6 & F > .Lz  j L $& z j8 zy B j5 DS 4  h! P @l\ 08 |  b \ Lu f] V l[ L ",N z] x( j  b b R hg R^! R ( Zz 0 j ZG |G  l / & fu  jm z jQ  lB   fO! >!u! th" L"x(# <# ,#a$ Zi$ 0$$w% d% TZ&& vS' f' v/( f( ) R) B)0* v+}v+ f+Y,- T- D. tE. d./ t/ dG0 F0 60'1 Z1 J'2q2 <3 ,R3~3I4 zI5 j5-6 |7 l77 t8 d79d9 ^9 4]: R: f: BI;; xP< h<0= P= @>Y> z?? j?#@ b@ RAqA lB \|BB \C hDpD LE[E f5F VFF zG jAHH xvI vI dJ |L lMlMN \O LzO \O L"PU.nP\PP\R S\S lS\T V\V l WwW f&X >XX z}YY NZ >Z[ ^[ N(\ jv\2\ |^ l^^ z_ j`` zRa ja6b z#c jcd |d lJee Hf 8fg >g .h4h vh fSii tfj dj>k vk f[ll vsm fmOn zo jzoo D|pp zxq jq\r |s ls 4sB#t |euu lv 2w "Dwfw bxx Zy JzuPz Rz{ 6{ &#| hI| >|n| ]} Z};~ X~ H.vc z7 j v f F 6=s ZH J;\qͅӅم߅ !'-39?EKQW]ciou{ÆɆφՆۆ #)/5;AGMSY_ekqw}ҡчׇ݇ %+17=CIOU[agmsyLj͈ӈو߈ !'-39?EKQW]]]ciooou{        ɉ  Ӊ  ݉              #  -  7  A  K  U  _  i  s  }              Ê  ͊  ׊                '  1  ;  E  O  Y  c  m  w                Nj  ы  ۋ              !  +  5  ?  I  S  ]  g  q  {                ˌ  Ռ  ߌ              %  /  9  C  M  W  a  k  u                ō  ύ  ٍ                )  3  =  G  Q  [  e  o  y                Ɏ  ӎ  ݎ              #  -  7  A  K  U  _  i  s  }              Ï  ͏  ׏                '  1  ;  E  O  Y  c  m  w\Acrobat Distiller,,,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,2G+J 0_level1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2D+J 0_level2   ," <DL,23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2A+J 0_level3   ) <DL)23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2>+J 0_level4  ` &<<DL&23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2;+J 0_level5   #DL#23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  28+J 0_level6    DL 23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  25+J 0_level7  h DDL23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  22+J 0_level8   L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2/+J 0_level9    L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2GJ 0_levsl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levsl2   ," <DL,23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2AJ 0_levsl3   ) <DL)23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levsl4  ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2;J 0_levsl5   #DL#23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  28J 0_levsl6    DL 23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levsl7  h DDL23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  22J 0_levsl8   L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levsl9    L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2GJ 0_levnl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23   2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levnl2   ," <DL,23   2( 4 <DL2  2AJ 0_levnl3   ) <DL)23   2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levnl4  ` &<<DL&23   2( 4 <DL2  2;J 0_levnl5   #DL#23   2( 4 <DL2  28J 0_levnl6    DL 23   2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levnl7  h DDL23   2( 4 <DL2  22J 0_levnl8   L23   2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levnl9    L23   2( 4 <DL2  p* b**Backup3|xU(CEMU]emu}AutoList1(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)&(1)3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (EhCEKQW]cioAutoList21.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.+1.  .6$USUS.,@    2    _DefendantsspeechisentitledtothefullpanoplyofFirstAmendmentprotection.See  %      Hessv.Indiana,414U.S.105(1973);%      Cohenv.California,403U.S.15(1971);%      Wooleyv.  Maynard,430U.S.705(1977);%      BadFrogBrewery,Inc.v.NewYorkStateLiquorAuth.,134  F.3d87,9697(2ndCir.1998).(?(26$ !USUS.,      0  (#$  0  0kCEKQW]cioAutoList81.1.a.1.1.1.1.1.0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1   XXX   (&H2 XXX (&H3 XXX (&H4 XXX XXX(&H5 XXX (&H6 XXX 20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKP<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSQ\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KP<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSQ\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KP<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSQ\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7F(X7  ?R%2A`Arial?  XXXSQ\  `&Times New RomanS7G(X7&  d dE)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7I(X7  ?R%2A`Arial?  XXXSQ\  `&Times New RomanS7G(X7E)2dxd0KS.SampleKP<6X9`(Courier NewKSQ\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKP<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSQ\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial0;;.header    XXX    XXX6 4heading 1    XXXEW2 `CG TimesE     XXXSQ\  `&Times New RomanS   6@ 34heading 2   XXX      XXX6l q4heading 3  H h  D,DL XXX    2( 4 <DL2   H XXX2 `CG Times(O$0V(CEKQW]cioAutoList31.a.1.1.1.1.1.1.Y1.(O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(ehCEKQW]cioAutoList4a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.\a.(uhCEKQW]cioAutoList51.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.^1.01. !USUS.,  _DataConcepts,Inc.v.DigitalConsulting,Inc.,150F.3d620(6thCir.1998).SDU_32 P .6$USUS.,@    9    _WerecognizethattheMarch30,2001Opinionin    FordMotorCo.v.GreatDomains,  Inc.,141F.Supp.2d763(E.D.Mich.Mar30,2001),containedsomelanguageexpressing  disagreementwiththereasoningoftheNinthCircuitin_Panavision_.However,amotionfor  reconsiderationispendingintheGreatDomainslitigation,andDefendantsrespectfullysuggest k thattheSixthCircuitisrathermorelikelytoagreewiththeNinthCircuitsviewofthelawthan T itistoagreewiththisCourtsMarch30,2001 lexicalcontextjurisdictionanalysis. d Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(EGMSY_ekqAutoList11I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.fI.*+ (_2623  ..( $iCASES*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   (-2$ !USUS.,  (hCEKQW]cioAutoList9I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.mI.*8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` ($<:Default Para(hCEKQW]cioAutoList61.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.s1.(գEGMSY_ekqAutoList101.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(hCEKQW]cioAutoList71.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.w1.- -<uu:footnote tex  <( 4 <DLX<XX   <( 4 <DLX<XX v1.0;;.footer    XXX    XXX:8page number(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#2#     )3  0p(#p(# *[~xGaeimquy}Bullet ListBullets List*2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  iSTATUTES AND RULES(-2$ !USUS.,  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h (JEGMSY_ekqAutoList12A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.*)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   elqGA<< c*&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /    V .6$USUS.,@    8    _Atargument,FORDsoughttorelyupon% <   Ԁ  UnitedWeStandAm.,Inc.v.UnitedWe  Stand,Am.NewYork,Inc.,128F.3d86(2ndCir.1997),anappealfromadefaultjudgmentin  favorofapoliticalorganizationconcerninguseofthetrademarkregisteredbytheH.RossPerot  campaignin1992.NotonlydoestheUnitedWeStandcasehavenothingtodowiththequestion k of commercialuseundertheFTDA(UnitedWeStandNewYorkmerelyarguedthattheir T activitieswereconducted whollywithintheStateofNewYorksee  id.at93),buttheUnited =  WeStandcasealsoinvolvedclearlycommercialactivity,includingpoliticalfundraising: & v 8  _UWSANY_Ԁwasincorporated tosolicit,collectandotherwiseraisemoneyin  _ supportofthepresidentialcandidacyofRossPerot.Sinceitsincorporation,ithas  H engagedinpoliticalorganizing;establishedandequippedanoffice;solicited  1  politicianstorunonthe_UWSANY_Ԁslate;issuedpressreleasesintendedtosupport    particularcandidatesandcauses;endorsedcandidates;anddistributedpartisan   politicalliterature.      Id.at9091(% =   distinguishing  _Lucasfilm_ԀLtd.v.HighFrontier,622F.Supp.931(D.D.C.1985):    ?+ ` hp x X?_UWSANY_,unlikethedefendantsin_Lucasfilm_andQX}NXXX_L.L._ԀBean,#X}NXXQX}N#ԀisusingtheMarknotasa n  commentary...butinsteadasasourceidentifier.).NopartoftheUnitedWeStanddecisionin W  anywayattemptstointerpretthe commercialuseincommercelanguageoftheFTDA. @ Finally,totheextentthatFORDcontendsthatcertainbroadlanguageinUnitedWeStand )y enablesFORDtoreachnonbrandingreferencestoFORDinspeech,Defendantsrespectfully b notethat% >  5 RockandRollHallofFameandMuseum,Inc.v.GentileProds.,134F.3d749,753 K 54(6thCir.1998),andnot  UnitedWeStandisthecontrollinglawintheSixthCircuit.*88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  A.0EGMSY_ekqAutoList13a.a.A.a.a.a.a.a.a.*55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) `  ClelandCORLEYPREHEARINGCyberBriefLanham FTDAU.S.P.T.O.Neshewat o]neKollenbergcuriam&GENERALMOTORS.COMComplWooleyFed.R.Civ.P.Glassner R.J.ScheidVarljenMixonBegala PNCClaybrookBirchwellKevorkianAss'n reatortious CPCIntlSkippyLemley L.J.NorthlandBlaylockS.D.N.Y."Lucentsucks.Com(Anticybersquatting ACPAnon-brandingLitmanRectanus HQM*22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h (EGMSY_ekqAutoList141.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.*)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   1.(&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (%EGMSY_ekqAutoList151.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (5EGMSY_ekqAutoList16a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.  .6$USUS.,@    1    _E.g.,Neshewatv.Salem,173F.3d357,36264(6thCir.1999)(failuretostateaclaim):  8  QX}NXXXUndertheRestatement, [o]newhopublishesafalsestatementharmfultothe  interestsofanotherissubjecttoliabilityforpecuniarylossresultingtotheotherif  (a)heintendsforpublicationofthestatementtoresultinharmtointerestsofthe k otherhavingapecuniaryvalue,oreitherrecognizesorshouldrecognizethatitis T likelytodoso,and%  %(b)heknowsthatthestatementisfalseoractsinreckless =  disregardofitstruthorfalsity.#X}NXXQX}N#& v   Id.at363(citingKollenbergv.Ramirez,127Mich.App.345,339N.W.2d176,179(1983);  _ Restatement(Second)ofTorts,623A(1977));seealsoAndrewsv.PrudentialSecurities,  H Inc.,160F.3d304,308(6thCir.1998);Collinsv.DetroitFreePress,245Mich.App.27,627  1  N.W.2d5,8(2001)(percuriam)(citingMassonv.NewYorkerMag.,Inc.,501U.S.496,510    (1991);NewYorkTimesCo.v.Sullivan,376U.S.254,279280(1964));Kevorkianv.   AmericanMed.Ass'n,237Mich.App.1,602N.W.2d233,236(1999).@    .6$USUS.,@    3    _Theexpressioninquestion!accordingtoFORDsownallegations!issolely   attributedandattributableto2600Enterprises.See_Compl_.3&_Exh_.A.Sincenoentity  otherthantheRegistrantoftheDomainNameiscapableofusingtheDomainNameforany  expressivepurpose,allexpressionusingtheDomainNameisandmustbesolelyattributableto k theRegistrant.<:footnote ref:be8Body Text 2  X 2( ` hp x 2XXX  5+ ` hp x 5  XXX<\l:normaltextfoC $GeorgiaCXXXSQ\  `&Times New RomanS<G+M :Outline007_1   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  <G+M :Outline007_2   /% hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x     .6$USUS.,@    1    _AspreviouslynotedinDefendantsPrehearingMemorandum,Defendantshave  preservedtheirrightsunderRule12(b)tomovefordismissal.Oneissueanticipatedinthe  PrehearingMemorandumisapparentlyoffthetable.FORDscounselassureDefendantsthat  FORDdoesnotseektoproceedonanytheoryofinremjurisdiction,under15U.S.C. k 1125(d)(2)orotherwise.Defendantsreassertalldefensestoanyclaimbasedoninrem T jurisdiction.However,basedonFORDsassurances,itshouldnotbenecessarytobriefthis =  issue.Defendantsalsoherebyassertanddonotwaivethedefenseofdismissalforimproper & v venueandtherighttomovetotransfervenue.<D+M :Outline007_3 j 4 ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5 j    <A+M :Outline007_4   )< <hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  <>+M :Outline007_5   &p x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  <;+M :Outline007_6 j < #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5 j <8+M :Outline007_7    DDp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  SDU_21<5+M :Outline007_8    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  <2+M :Outline007_9 j D  x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5 j <G+M :Outline011_1   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  <G+M :Outline011_2   /% hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  <D+M :Outline011_3 j 4 ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5 j <A+M :Outline011_4   )< <hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  <>+M :Outline011_5   &p x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  <;+M :Outline011_6 j < #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5 j <8+M :Outline011_7    DDp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  <5+M :Outline011_8    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  <2+M :Outline011_9 j D  x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5 j  35;AGMSY_4I.a.i.1.a.i.1.a. $Georgia<LL:Body Text I1  X XXX   X XXX Z !USUS.,  _z @ <( 4 <DLX<X}NXXX   @ z=      10    % |     ԀMich.Comp.L.Ann.600.705(specificpersonaljurisdictionoverindividuals);% }     Mich.Comp.  L.Ann.600.715(corporations).Theissueof generaljurisdiction,asopposedto specific  jurisdiction,neednotbeaddressedbecauseDefendantsdonothavesufficientjurisdictional  contactswithMichigantosatisfytheDueProcessrequirementsforgeneralpersonaljurisdiction k andPlaintiffsdonotattempttoassertanygeneraljurisdictiontheory.See% ~     _Helicopteros_ T _Nacionales_ԀdeColombia,S.A.v.Hall,466U.S.408,414&_nn_.89(1984)(discussingstandards =  forspecificandgeneraljurisdiction,respectively).QX}NXXX}N !USUS.,  _Reynoldsv.InternationalAmateurAthl._Assn_,23F.3d1110(6thCir.1994).Ford Motor Co. v. Great Domains, Inc.CASES !USUS.,  _FordMotorCo.v.GreatDomains,Inc.,141F.Supp.2d763(E.D.Mich.2001).Ford Motor Co. v. Great Domains, Inc.Reynolds v. International Amateur Athl. Assn,CASESReynolds v. International Amateur Athl. Assn, t_IMOIndus.v._Kiekert_,AG,154F.3d254(3rdCir.1998). 35;AGMSY_6A.a.i.1.a.i.1.a.aData Concepts, Inc. v. Digital ConsultingCASES " .6$USUS.,@    1    _Presumably,FORDshouldnothaveanycauseofactionifthisopinionisoreverhas  beenonethatFORDactuallyholds,evenofFORDpresentlydeniesit.SDU_28  .6$USUS.,@    6    _Therequirementofuseasatrademarkisalreadydiscussedabove,andin% )  5 RockandRoll  HallofFameandMuseum,Inc.v.GentileProds.,134F.3d749,753(6thCir.1998);seealso  note5,supra.  .6$USUS.,@    7    _Moreover,theLanhamActandtheFTDA(especiallytherequirementsof trademark  usetosignifythesourceofgoodsandservices,and commercialuse)shouldnotbe  interpretedorconstruedasPlaintiffproposes,becausestatutesshouldbeinterpretedinamanner  calculatedto avoid unnecessaryconstitutionalproblems.% 1     FleetBostonFin.Corp.v. k _FleetBostonFinancial.com_,No.Civ.A.0010176DPW,2001WL360592,at*12(D.Mass. W Mar.27,2001);accord% 2     EdwardJ._DeBartolo_ԀCorp.v.FloridaGulfCoastBuilding&Constr. @  TradesCouncil,485U.S.568,575(1988)% 3   ;  _Ashwander_Ԁv.TennesseeValleyAuth.,297U.S.288, ) y 341,346(1936)(_Brandeis_,J.,concurring).Simplyput,if% 4  G 15U.S.C.1114,% 5  J 1125(a),and  b % 6  h 1125(c)areconstruedasplaintiffproposes,toreachandenjointheDefendantsexpression,then  K thesestatutesare(1)unconstitutionalasappliedand(2)_overbroad_.Accordingly,thestatutory  4  interpretationproposedbythePlaintiffshouldberejected.Data Concepts, Inc. v. Digital ConsultingiOTHER AUTHORITIES x !USUS.,  _Massonv.NewYorkerMag.,Inc.,501U.S.496(1991).Masson v. New Yorker Mag.CASES !USUS.,  _Collinsv.DetroitFreePress,245Mich.App.27,627N.W.2d5(2001).Collins v. Detroit Free PressCASESMasson v. New Yorker Mag.Collins v. Detroit Free Press !USUS.,  _Parksv._LaFace_ԀRecords,Inc.,76F.Supp.2d775(E.D.Mi.1999).Parks v. LaFace RecordsCASESParks v. LaFace Records ! !USUS.,  _UniversityofNotreDameDuLacv.TwentiethCenturyFoxFilmCorp.,22A.D.2d452,256  N.Y.S.2d301,_aff'd_,15N.Y.2d940,259N.Y.S.2d832,207N.E.2d508(1965).University of Notre Dame Du LacCASESUniversity of Notre Dame Du Lac v !USUS.,  _NewYorkTimesCo.v.Sullivan,376U.S.254(1964)New York Times Co. v. SullivanCASESNew York Times Co. v. Sullivan !USUS.,  __Scheid_Ԁv.FannyFarmerCandyShops,Inc.,859F.2d434(6thCir.1988). g !USUS.,  _Hessv.Indiana,414U.S.105(1973)Hess v. IndianaCASESHess v. Indiana j !USUS.,  _Cohenv.California,403U.S.15(1971)Cohen v. CaliforniaCASESCohen v. California !USUS.,  __Wooley_Ԁv.Maynard,430U.S.705(1977)Wooley v. MaynardCASES !USUS.,  _BadFrogBrewery,Inc.v.NewYorkStateLiquorAuth.,134F.3d87(2ndCir.1998).Bad Frog Brewery, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Auth.CASESBad Frog Brewery, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Auth.Wooley v. Maynard !USUS.,  _QXXX_Fed.R.Civ.P._Ԁ12(b)(6)#XXXQX@#.Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)STATUTES AND RULESFed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) !USUS.,  __Glassner_Ԁv._R.J._ԀReynoldsTobaccoCo.,223F.3d343(6thCir.2000).Glassner v. R.J. ReynoldsCASESGlassner v. R.J. ReynoldsScheid v. Fanny Farmer Candy ShopsCASES 859 F.2d 4CASES !USUS.,  _Gregoryv.ShelbyCounty,Tenn.,220F.3d433(6thCir.2000). !USUS.,  __Varljen_Ԁv.ClevelandGearCo.,Inc.,250F.3d426(6thCir.2001).Varljen v. Cleveland Gear Co.CASESVarljen v. Cleveland Gear Co.Gregory v. Shelby CountyCASESGregory v. Shelby CountyScheid v. Fanny Farmer Candy ShopsScheid v. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc., 859 F.2d 4 p !USUS.,  _Albrightv.Oliver,510U.S.266,268(1994).Albright v. OliverCASESAlbright v. Oliver !USUS.,  _Morganv.Church'sFriedChicken,829F.2d10(6thCir.1987).Morgan v. Church's Fried ChickenCASESMorgan v. Church's Fried Chicken !USUS.,  __Mixon_Ԁv.StateofOhio,193F.3d389(6thCir.1999). Mixon v. State of OhioCASESMixon v. State of Ohio  !USUS.,  __Begala_Ԁv._PNC_ԀBank,Ohio,N.A.,214F.3d776(6thCir.2000),cert.denied,___U.S.___121S.  Ct.1082(2001).Begala v. PNC BankCASESBegala v. PNC Bank !USUS.,  __Claybrook_Ԁv._Birchwell_,199F.3d350(6thCir.2000).Claybrook v. BirchwellCASESClaybrook v. Birchwell !USUS.,  _5C.Wright&A.Miller,FederalPractice&Procedure1357,at596(1969).5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & ProcedurOTHER AUTHORITIES5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedur !USUS.,  __Neshewat_Ԁv.Salem,173F.3d357(6thCir.1999).Neshewat v. SalemCASESAUTHORITIESNeshewat v. Salem !USUS.,  _Andrewsv.PrudentialSecurities,Inc.,160F.3d304(6thCir.1998).Andrews v. Prudential Securities, Inc., 160 F.3d 304CASESAndrews v. Prudential Securities, Inc., 160 F.3d 304 !USUS.,  __Kevorkian_Ԁv.AmericanMed._Ass'n_,237Mich.App.1,602N.W.2d233(1999).Kevorkian v. American Med. Ass'nCASESich. App. 1, CASESKevorkian v. American Med. Ass'nKevorkian v. American Med. Ass'n, 237 Mich. App. 1,  !USUS.,  _CPC_Intl_,Inc.v.Skippy,Inc.,214F.3d456(4thCir.2000).!CPC Intl, Inc. v. SkippyCASESCPC Intl, Inc. v. Skippy !USUS.,  _MarkA.Lemley,TheModernLanhamActandtheDeathofCommonSense,108YaleL.J.  1687(1999).$Mark A. Lemley, The Modern Lanham Act and the DeathOTHER AUTHORITIESMark A. Lemley, The Modern Lanham Act and the Death !USUS.,  _NorthlandIns.Cos.v.Blaylock,115F.Supp.2d1108(D.Minn.2000).'Northland Ins. Cos. v. BlaylockCASESNorthland Ins. Cos. v. Blaylock R_Bihariv.Gross,119F.Supp.2d309,32223(S.D.N.Y.2000)*Bihari v. GrossCASES !USUS.,  _RockandRollHallofFameandMuseum,Inc.v.GentileProds.,134F.3d749(6thCir.1998).,Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum, Inc. v. GentilCASESBihari v. Gross !USUS.,  _LucentTech.,Inc.v.Lucentsucks.Com,95F.Supp.2d528(E.D.Va.2000)./Lucent Tech., Inc. v. Lucentsucks.ComCASESLucent Tech., Inc. v. Lucentsucks.Com !USUS.,  _BallyTotalFitnessHoldingCorp.v.Faber,29F.Supp.2d1161(C.D.Cal.1998).2Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp. v. FaberCASESBally Total Fitness Holding Corp. v. FaberRock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum, Inc. v. Gentil Q !USUS.,  _15U.S.C.1127.615 U.S.C.  1127STATUTES AND RULES15 U.S.C.  1127 !USUS.,  _Mattel,Inc.v.MCARecords,Inc.,28F.Supp.2d1120(C.D.Cal.1998).9Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 28 F. Supp. 2d 11CASES !USUS.,  _InreChemicalDynamics,Inc.,839QXXXXF.2d1569(Fed.Cir.1988)#XXXQXf#.;In re Chemical Dynamics, Inc., 839 F.2d 1569, 1571 CASESMattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 28 F. Supp. 2d 11 !USUS.,  _UnitedDrugCo.v.TheodoreRectanusCo.,248U.S.90(1918).>United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co.CASES !USUS.,  _NewKidsontheBlockv.NewsAm._Publg_,971F.2d302(9thCir.1992).@New Kids on the Block v. News Am. PublgCASESNew Kids on the Block v. News Am. PublgIn re Chemical Dynamics, Inc., 839 F.2d 1569, 1571 United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co. T !USUS.,  _15U.S.C.1114(1).E15 U.S.C.  1114(1)STATUTES AND RULES15 U.S.C.  1114(1) w !USUS.,  __15_ԀU.S.C.1125(a)(1).H 15 U.S.C.  1125(a)(1)STATUTES AND RULES 15 U.S.C.  1125(a)(1) !USUS.,  _HolidayInns,Inc.v.800Reservation,Inc.,86F.3d619(6thCir.1996),cert.denied,519U.S.  1093(1997).KHoliday Inns, Inc. v. 800 Reservation, Inc.,CASESHoliday Inns, Inc. v. 800 Reservation, Inc., !USUS.,  _HomeownersGroup,Inc.v.HomeMarketingSpecialists,Inc.,931F.2d1100(6thCir.1991).NHomeowners Group, Inc. v. Home Marketing Specialists,CASESHomeowners Group, Inc. v. Home Marketing Specialists,  .6$USUS.,@    5    _Thisissueoflackof trademarkuseisfatalto all ofPlaintiffsclaims.Seenote6,  infra(sameissuealsofataltodilutionallegations).Evenassumingthatallthefactsallegedin  theComplaintaretrue,theComplaintfailstoallegeanyuseof(a)anybrand, word,term,  name,symbol,ordevice,oranycombinationthereofbytheDefendantseither onorin n connectionwithany goodsorservices ,oranycontainerforgoods(see%   J 15U.S.C.1125(a)),or W (b)anyregisteredmarkorimitationthereofonorinconnectionwithany sale,offeringforsale, C  distribution,oradvertisingofany goodsorservices .See%   G 15U.S.C.1114(1).Norare , | Defendantsallegedtohaveusedanywordoranythingelseasa designationoforigintosignify  h thatanyparticulargoodsorservicesoriginatedwitheitheroftheDefendants.Neitherthe  Q FederalTrademarkDilutionAct,norsections1114or1125(a)ofTitle15authorizesanycause  :  ofactiontoprohibitspeechthatinvolvesno trademarkuse ofanytermsorsymbols. !USUS.,  _LockheedMartinCorp.v.NetworkSolutions,Inc.,985F.Supp.949(C.D.Cal.1997). !USUS.,  _JessicaLitman,TheDNSWars:TrademarksandtheInternetDomainNameSystem,4J.Small  &EmergingBus.L.149(2000). .6$USUS.,@    4    _TherecentAnticybersquattingConsumerProtectionActmayrepresentanexceptionto  thegeneralrulethatboththePlaintifftheDefendantmustuseatrademark asatrademark in  orderfortheLanhamActtobeapplicable.Apparently,undertheACPA,atrademarkowner  maypossiblybepermittedtoseektoprohibitsomelimitednonbrandingregistrationsorusesof n DomainNames.See%   V  W JessicaLitman,TheDNSWars:TrademarksandtheInternetDomain W NameSystem,4J.Small&EmergingBus.L.149(2000),< @   4U XO  5  http://www.law.wayne.edu/litman/papers/DNSwars.pdf61XOE.  7 sԀ>( <( 4 <DLX<Beforewegettooexcited,let'stake  alookathowallthispansoutifyouapplythetrademarklawalreadyonthebooks.The  trademarklawdoesn'tgiveanyonetheexclusiverighttouseaword,oreventouseaword  commercially.Ifitdid,wecouldn'thaveallthoseAcmemarks.Wecouldn'thaveApple k RecordsandAppleComputersandGrannySmithApples.Wecouldn'thavebothDellPaperback T BooksandDellComputers,andchildrencouldn'tsing"Thefarmerinthedell."...What =  trademarklawgetsyouistheexclusiverighttomaketrademarkuseofawordontheproducts & v yousellinthosemarketsinwhichyouhaveactuallydonebusiness.QX}NXXXDellComputershasan  _ exclusiverighttousethemarkDellasatrademarkforcomputerhardwareinconnectionwiththe  H saleofDellbrandcomputerhardware.Itcan'tstopDellpublishingfromusingthemarkDellon  1  books,evenbooksaboutcomputing.Itcan'tstopCompaqcomputersfromadvertisingthattheir    machinesareabettervaluethanDell.Itcan'tstopNewLineCinemafrommakingamoviein   whichthebadguyisapornographerwhousesaDellComputerastheserverforhisxratedweb   site....).#X}NXXQX}Nb#Notably,FORDdoesnotmakeanyACPAclaimsinthiscase.FORDdoesnothave   standingbecauseFORDhasnorightstothetrademarkGENERALMOTORS.http://www.law.wayne.edu/litman/papers/DNSwars.pdfSJessica Litman, The DNS Wars: Trademarks and the IntOTHER AUTHORITIESJessica Litman, The DNS Wars: Trademarks and the IntRLockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 98CASESLockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 98 !USUS.,  _UnitedStatesPatentandTrademarkOffice,ExaminationGuideNo.299:  TrademarksComposed,InWholeOrInPart,ofDomainNames(Sept.29,1999).ZUnited States Patent and Trademark Office, ExaminatioOTHER AUTHORITIESUnited States Patent and Trademark Office, Examinatio !USUS.,  __Lujan_Ԁv.DefendersofWildlife,504U.S.555(1992).]Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeCASESAUTHORITIESLujan v. Defenders of Wildlife k__Lujan_Ԁv.NationalWildlifeFederation,497U.S.871(1990).`Lujan v. National Wildlife FederationCASESAUTHORITIESLujan v. National Wildlife Federation n !USUS.,  _SierraClubv.Morton,405U.S.727(1972).cSierra Club v. MortonCASESSierra Club v. Morton W !USUS.,  _15U.S.C.1125(c)(1).f15 U.S.C.  1125(c)(1) STATUTES AND RULES15 U.S.C.  1125(c)(1)  !USUS.,  _KelloggCo.v.ExxonCorp.,209F.3d562(6thCir.2000). m !USUS.,  _Whitmorev.Arkansas,495U.S.149(1990).jWhitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (1990)CASESWhitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (1990) _ValleyForgeChristianCollegev.AmericansUnitedforSeparationofChurchandState,Inc.,  454U.S.464(1982).mValley Forge Christian College v. Americans UnitedCASESValley Forge Christian College v. Americans UnitediKellogg Co. v. Exxon Corp., 209 F.3d 562, 577 (6thCASESKellogg Co. v. Exxon Corp., 209 F.3d 562, 577 (6th !USUS.,  _Nabisco,Inc.v.PFBrands,Inc.,191F.3d208(2ndCir.1999).rNabisco, Inc. v. PF Brands, Inc.CASESNabisco, Inc. v. PF Brands, Inc. !USUS.,  _TimesMirrorMagazines,Inc.v.LasVegasSportsNews,_L.L.C._,212F.3d157(3rdCir.2000).uTimes Mirror Magazines, Inc. v. Las Vegas Sports NCASES s !USUS.,  _Rubinv.CoorsBrewingCo.,514U.S.476(1995).Times Mirror Magazines, Inc. v. Las Vegas Sports N !USUS.,  _CentralHudsonGas&Elec.Corp.v.PublicServ._Commn_ԀofN.Y.,447U.S.557(1980). !USUS.,  _HersheyFoodsCorp.v.Mars,Inc.,998F.Supp.500(M.D.Pa.1998).zHershey Foods Corp. v. Mars, Inc.CASESHershey Foods Corp. v. Mars, Inc.yCentral Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. CASESCentral Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv.  !USUS.,  VirginiaStateBd.ofPharmacyv.VirginiaCitizensConsumerCouncil,Inc.,425U.S.748,762  (1976).Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia CitizeCASESVirginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia CitizewRubin v. Coors Brewing Co.CASESRubin v. Coors Brewing Co. !USUS.,  _44_Liquormart_,Inc.v.RhodeIsland,517U.S.484(1996). 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode IslandCASES 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island !USUS.,  __HQM_,Ltd.v.Hatfield,71F.Supp.2d500(D.Md.1999).HQM, Ltd. v. HatfieldCASESHQM, Ltd. v. Hatfield !USUS.,  _Avery_Dennison_ԀCorp.v._Sumpton_,189F.3d868(9thCir.1999). !USUS.,  _FleetBostonFin.Corp.v._FleetBostonFinancial.com_,No.Civ.A.0010176DPW,2001WL  360592,at*12(D.Mass.Mar.27,2001).Fleet Boston Fin. Corp. v. FleetBostonFinancial.com,CASESFleet Boston Fin. Corp. v. FleetBostonFinancial.com, !USUS.,  _EdwardJ._DeBartolo_ԀCorp.v.FloridaGulfCoastBuilding&Constr.TradesCouncil,485U.S.  568(1988).Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast BuildCASESEdward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Build !USUS.,  __Ashwander_Ԁ_v._ԀTennesseeValleyAuth.,297U.S.288(1936).Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 297 U.S. 288CASESAshwander v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 297 U.S. 288 Z !USUS.,  _15U.S.C.1125(c)(4)(B).15 U.S.C.  1125(c)(4)(B)STATUTES AND RULES15 U.S.C.  1125(c)(4)(B)Avery Dennison Corp. v. Sumpton,CASESLockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Solutions, Inc., Avery Dennison Corp. v. Sumpton, !USUS.,  _UnitedWeStandAm.,Inc.v.UnitedWeStand,Am.NewYork,Inc.,128F.3d86(2ndCir.  1997).United We Stand Am., Inc. v. United We Stand, Am. NCASESUnited We Stand Am., Inc. v. United We Stand, Am. N __Lucasfilm_ԀLtd._v._ԀHighFrontier,622F.Supp.931(D.D.C.1985).Lucasfilm Ltd. v. High FrontierCASESLucasfilm Ltd. v. High Frontier !USUS.,  __TCPIP_ԀHoldingCo.,Inc.v._Haar_ԀCommunications,Inc.,244F.3d88(2ndCir.2001).TCPIP Holding Co., Inc. v. Haar Communications, Inc.CASESTCPIP Holding Co., Inc. v. Haar Communications, Inc. !USUS.,  _EliLilly&Co.v.NaturalAnswers,Inc.,233F.3d456(7thCir.2000).Eli Lilly & Co. v. Natural Answers, Inc.CASESEli Lilly & Co. v. Natural Answers, Inc. !USUS.,  _FederalExp.Corp.v.FederalEspresso,Inc.,201F.3d168(2ndCir.2000).Federal Exp. Corp. v. Federal Espresso, Inc.,CASESFederal Exp. Corp. v. Federal Espresso, Inc., !USUS.,  __I.P._ԀLundTrading_ApS_Ԁv.KohlerCo.,163F.3d27(1stCir.1998).I.P. Lund Trading ApS v. Kohler Co., CASESAcademy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences v. Networ !USUS.,  _LockheedMartinCorp.v.NetworkSolutions,Inc.,985F.Supp.949(C.D.Cal.1997).I.P. Lund Trading ApS v. Kohler Co.,  !USUS.,  __Panavision_ԀInternational,L.P.v._Toeppen_,945F.Supp.1296(C.D.Cal.1996).Panavision International, L.P. v. Toeppen,CASESPanavision International, L.P. v. Toeppen, !USUS.,  __Panavision_ԀIntern.,L.P.v._Toeppen_,141F.3d1316(9thCir.1998).Panavision Intern., L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, CASESPanavision Intern., L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316,  !USUS.,  _AcademyofMotionPictureArts&Sciencesv.NetworkSolutions,Inc.,989F.Supp.1276(C.D.  Cal.1997).Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences v. NetworCASESLockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Solutions, Inc., CASES  !USUS.,  _QXXXX_Ringling_ԀBros.Barnum&BaileyCombinedShows,Inc.v.UtahDiv.ofTravelDev.#XXXQX@#QXXXX,170F.3d  449,459(4thCir.)#XXXQX#QXXXX,#XXXQXh#QXXXXcert.denied,528U.S.923(1999)#XXXQXЬ#.Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. vCASESRingling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. v  !USUS.,  __Hasbro_,Inc.v.ClueComputing,Inc.,66F.Supp.2d117(D.Mass.1999),_affd_,232F.3d1(1st  Cir.2000). !USUS.,  _FordMotorCo.v.GreatDomains,Inc.,141F.Supp.2d763(E.D.Mich.2001).Ford Motor Co. v. Great Domains, Inc.CASESFord Motor Co. v. Great Domains, Inc.Hasbro, Inc. v. Clue Computing, Inc.,CASESHasbro, Inc. v. Clue Computing, Inc.,<6X9`(Courierhttp://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkMyths.html  !USUS.,  _Tim_Berners_ԄLee,AxiomsofWebArchitecture4LinksandLaw:Myths,publishedat<  45XO  5  http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkMyths.html6XO(_  75:Ԁ>.http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkMyths.htmlTim Berners-Lee, Axioms of Web Architecture 4 -- LinkOTHER AUTHORITIEShttp://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkMyths.htmlTim Berners-Lee, Axioms of Web Architecture 4 -- Link  !USUS.,  _Tim_Berners_ԄLee,AxiomsofWebArchitecture2LinksandLaw,publishedat<  45XO  5  http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/_LinkLaw_6XO(_  75.Ԁ>.Tim Berners-Lee, Axioms of Web Architecture 2 -- LinkOTHER AUTHORITIEShttp://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkMyths.htmlTim Berners-Lee, Axioms of Web Architecture 2 -- Link !USUS.,  _R.M.S.Titanic,Inc.v._Haver_,171F.3d943(4thCir.1999).R.M.S. Titanic, Inc. v. Haver,CASESAUTHORITIESR.M.S. Titanic, Inc. v. Haver, !USUS.,  _Neighborsv._Penske_ԀLeasing,Inc.,45F.Supp.2d593(E.D.Mi.1999).Neighbors v. Penske Leasing, Inc., 45 F. Supp. 2d 59CASES !USUS.,  _Compuserve,Inc.v.Patterson,89F.3d1257(6thCir.1996).Compuserve, Inc. v. Patterson,CASESCompuserve, Inc. v. Patterson, !USUS.,  __Winfield_ԀCollection,Ltd.v.McCauley,105F.Supp.2d746(E.D.Mi.2000).Winfield Collection, Ltd. v. McCauley,CASESWinfield Collection, Ltd. v. McCauley,Neighbors v. Penske Leasing, Inc., 45 F. Supp. 2d 59 ( !USUS.,  _CentralStates,_S.E._Ԁ&_S.W._ԀAreasPensionFundv._Reimer_ԀExpressWorldCorp.,230F.3d934  (7thCir.2000).Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension FCASESCentral States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension F !USUS.,  _Ellisv.FortuneSeas,Ltd.,175_F.R.D._Ԁ308(S.D.Ind.1997).Ellis v. Fortune Seas, Ltd., 175 F.R.D. 308, 312 (S.CASESEllis v. Fortune Seas, Ltd., 175 F.R.D. 308, 312 (S. !USUS.,  _Poev.Babcock_Intl_,_plc_,662F.Supp.4(M.D.Pa.1985).Poe v. Babcock Intl, plc, 662 F. Supp. 4, 7 (M.D. PCASESPoe v. Babcock Intl, plc, 662 F. Supp. 4, 7 (M.D. P !USUS.,  __Leema_ԀEnters.,Inc.v._Willi_,575F.Supp.1533(_S.D.N.Y._Ԁ1983).Leema Enters., Inc. v. Willi, 575 F. Supp. 1533, 153CASESLeema Enters., Inc. v. Willi, 575 F. Supp. 1533, 153 !USUS.,  _CaribbeanBroadcasting_Sys_.,Ltd.v.Cable&WirelessPLC,148F.3d1080(D.C.Cir.1998).Caribbean Broadcasting Sys., Ltd. v. Cable & WirelessCASESCaribbean Broadcasting Sys., Ltd. v. Cable & Wireless !USUS.,  __Jazini_Ԁ_v._ԀNissanMotorCo.,148F.3d181(2ndCir.1998).Jazini v. Nissan Motor Co.,CASESJazini v. Nissan Motor Co., !USUS.,  __Noonan_Ԁ_v._ԀWinstonCo.,135F.3d85(1stCir.1998).Noonan v. Winston Co.,CASESNoonan v. Winston Co., !USUS.,  __Theunissen_Ԁv.Matthews,935F.2d1454(6thCir.1991).Theunissen v. Matthews, 935 F.2d 1454, 1465 (6th CCASESTheunissen v. Matthews, 935 F.2d 1454, 1465 (6th C !USUS.,  __Naartex_ԀConsultingCorp.v.Watt,722F.2d779(D.C.Cir.1983).Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779, 7CASESNaartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779, 7 !USUS.,  _McLaughlinv._McPhail_,707F.2d800(4thCir.1983).McLaughlin v. McPhail, 707 F.2d 800, 806-07 (4th CCASESMcLaughlin v. McPhail, 707 F.2d 800, 806-07 (4th C !USUS.,  _ԀChryslerCorpv._Fedders_ԀCorp.,643F.2d1229(6thCir.1981).Chrysler Corp v. Fedders Corp., 643 F.2d 1229, 123CASESChrysler Corp v. Fedders Corp., 643 F.2d 1229, 123 !USUS.,  __Greenspun_Ԁv.DelE.WebbCorp.,634F.2d1204(9thCir.1980).Greenspun v. Del E. Webb Corp., 634 F.2d 1204, 1208 CASESGreenspun v. Del E. Webb Corp., 634 F.2d 1204, 1208  _Hansenv._Neumuller_ԀGmbH,163_F.R.D._Ԁ471(D.Del.1995).Hansen v. Neumuller GmbH,CASES !USUS.,  _LehighValleyIndus.,Inc.v._Birenbaum_,527F.2d87(2ndCir.1975).Lehigh Valley Indus., Inc. v. Birenbaum, 527 F.2d 87CASESLehigh Valley Indus., Inc. v. Birenbaum, 527 F.2d 87 !USUS.,  _H.L.MooreDrugExch.,Inc.v.Smith,Kline&FrenchLabs.,384F.2d97(2ndCir.1967).H.L. Moore Drug Exch., Inc. v. Smith, Kline & French CASESH.L. Moore Drug Exch., Inc. v. Smith, Kline & French Hansen v. Neumuller GmbH, 8 !USUS.,  _InternationalTerminalOperatingCo.,Inc.v._Skibs_ԀA/S_Hidlefjord_,63_F.R.D._Ԁ85(_S.D.N.Y._  1973).International Terminal Operating Co., Inc. v. Skibs ACASES !USUS.,  _QXXXXGreenv.Wilson,455Mich.342,565N.W.2d813(1997)#XXXQX=#.International Terminal Operating Co., Inc. v. Skibs AGreen v. Wilson,CASESGreen v. Wilson,  !USUS.,  _QXXXX_Neogen_ԀCorp._v._ԀNeoGenScreening,Inc.,109F.Supp.2d724(W.D.Mi.2000)#XXXQX=#. Neogen Corp. v. Neo Gen Screening, Inc.,CASES !USUS.,  _QXXXXInternationalShoeCov.Washington,326U.S.310(1945)#XXXQX@#. International Shoe Co v. Washington,CASESInternational Shoe Co v. Washington, k !USUS.,  _Mich.Comp.L.Ann.600.705.Neogen Corp. v. Neo Gen Screening, Inc., !USUS.,  _QXXXXHansonv._Denckla_,357U.S.235(1958)#XXXQX@#.Hanson v. Denckla,CASESHanson v. Denckla,Mich. Comp. L. Ann.  600.705 STATUTES AND RULESMich. Comp. L. Ann.  600.705  d !USUS.,  _Mich.Comp.L.Ann.600.715.Mich. Comp. L. Ann.  600.715 (corporations)STATUTES AND RULESMich. Comp. L. Ann.  600.715 (corporations) !USUS.,  _KerrySteel,Inc.v.ParagonIndus.,106F.3d147(6thCir.1997).Kerry Steel, Inc. v. Paragon Indus.CASESKerry Steel, Inc. v. Paragon Indus. !USUS.,  _QXXXXHiTex,Inc.v._TSG_,Inc.,87F.Supp.2d738(E.D.Mi.2000)#XXXQX=#. !USUS.,  __Helicopteros_Ԁ_Nacionales_ԀdeColombia,S.A.v.Hall,466U.S.408(1984).Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 4CASESHelicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 4Hi-Tex, Inc. v. TSG, Inc., 87 F. Supp. 2d 738, 741CASESHi-Tex, Inc. v. TSG, Inc., 87 F. Supp. 2d 738, 741IMO Indus. v. Kiekert, AG,CASESIMO Indus. v. Kiekert, AG, !USUS.,  __ESAB_ԀGroup,Inc.v._Centricut_,Inc.,126F.3d617(4thCir.1997).$ESAB Group, Inc. v. Centricut, Inc.,CASESESAB Group, Inc. v. Centricut, Inc.,*page page chapter volume footnote endnote http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkMyths.htmlWZ}vWy(WW                                 ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? @ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z { | } ~                                                  http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkMyths.htmlQWW !USUS.,  _y8}NXXdd8  MIXX    INTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT  WMIMI@@ FORTHEEASTERNDISTRICTOFMICHIGAN   #MIWMI#QMIMI&  T    QX}NXQMIQX}NXXQX}NXXXQX}NXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXWX}NXXX    #WX}NXXWX}N#WMIXWX}NT  #MIWMI#WMIMISOUTHERNDIVISIONT  0Ԍ  Ќ  WMIWMIWMIWMIQMIWMIQMIQMIQMIQMIQMIQMIQMIQMIQMIQMIQMIQMIQMIQMI     #MIQMI#QMIMI'  @* ?+ ,4 <DLX? FORDMOTORCOMPANY,     ?( 4 <DL,X?   p     &  U   QX}NXQMIQX}NXXQX}N    #QX}NXXQX}Nk#QMIXQX}NU@  Plaintiff,   h   U@  Ԍ   Ќ   QMIQMIQMIQMI    ' 4 Xv. `     h     CaseNo.01CV71685DT     `     h     CaseNo.#MIQMI#QMIMI01CV60084DT     X  ?+ ,4 <DLX? 2600ENTERPRISES,and h 0    #MIQMI$ #QMIMIHon.RobertH.Cleland#MIQMI3 #QMIMI| (#(#  ERIC#MIQMI #QMIMI#QX}NXQMI#QMIXQX}NԀCORLEYp/k/a   h 0    UnitedStatesDistrictJudge#MIQMI #QMIMI { (#(# EMMANUEL#MIQMI #QMIMI#QX}NXQMI5 #QMIXQX}NԀGOLDSTEIN, #MIQMI@ #QMIMI h  z    h-D,DL,X-   p     &  h?( 4 <DLD,DX?V  H h*D,DLX* QX}NXQMIQX}NXXQX}N    #QX}NXXQX}N #QMIXQX}NV  Defendants.   p     V  Ԍ r Ќ h! XD,DX!   HQMIQMIQMIQMI  <( 4 <DLX<____________________________________/#MIQMI #WMIMI't   p    o  #MIWMI#QMIMI "  DEFENDANTSRULE12(b)(2)AND12(b)(6)MOTIONANDSUPPORTING ` MEMORANDUMTODISMISSFORLACKOFPERSONAL ] JURISDICTIONANDFAILURETOSTATEACLAIM Z    `     h 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#EricC.Grimm(P58990) x  @x  @x K(#(#    `     h      CyberBrief,PLC    F     `     h     320SouthMainStreet C!    `     h     P.O.Box7341 >"    `     h     AnnArbor,MI481077341 9#    `     h     734.332.4900 4$  0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#COUNSELFORDEFENDANTS*&z!"(#(#    `     h     2600MAGAZINEANDERIC %'u"# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#CORLEY(pseudonymouslyknownas  (p#$ EMMANUELGOLDSTEIN).)k$%(#(# #MIQMIW##X}NXMI# MIXX}N  +8'(     #X}NXMI#  ISSUESPRESENTED      0(k03("*3"  8  *3b2k  1  .3  0`     Doesacauseofactionfornoncommercial falseattributionexistunderthe  LanhamTrademarkAct,ormustthe falseattributionclaimbepleaded l underamoreappropriatebodyofsubstantivelaw,suchasthecommonand U statestatutorylawofdefamation?*3b݌> ` `  Ќ  "*3"  8  *32k  2  .3  0`     IsPlaintiffs falseattributionclaimsubjecttodismissalbecausePlaintiff  ` hasfailedtoallegethatanyDefendantintentionally attributedtoFORD  I anyspeechthatoriginatedfromsourceotherthanFORD?*3݌ 2 ` `  Ќ  "*3"  8  *32k  3  .3  0`     IsPlaintiffs falseattributionclaimsubjecttodismissalbecausePlaintiff   hasaffirmativelypleadedthatthe WhoisfortheInternetDomainName   F___GENERALMOTORS.COMtruthfullyidentifiestheactualspeakerwho   hasthesolepowertopointtheDomainName,andtherefore false o  attributionisimpossibleonthefaceoftheComplaintbecausethe X  Complaintallegesthattheonly attributionatissueiscompletelytruthful?*3݌A` `  Ќ  "*3"  8  *3"2k  4  .3  0`     IsPlaintiffs falseattributiontheorysubjecttodismissalbecausePlaintiff c hasfailedtopleadanyoftheelements /#  1      ׀ofadefamationorinjurious L falsehoodcauseofaction:*3""݌5` `  Ќ  "~"  ~$0  0` (#(#2k  a  .3  0 ` (#` (#  AstatementoffactbytheDefendant;~$$݌ (# (# Ќ  "~"  ~%0  0` (#(#2k  b  .3  0 ` (#` (#  TheDefendantsstatementisfalseandnotprivileged;~%&݌ (# (# Ќ  "~"  ~&0  0` (#(#2k  c  .3  0 ` (#` (#  Theunprivilegedfalsehoodwascommunicatedtosomethirdparty;~&,'݌[ (# (# Ќ   (000! !  8 ` d0 ` x` xThestatementwasmadewith actualmalice (i.e.,either -} knowledgethatthestatementwasfalseandintenttoharmthe  plaintiff,orwithrecklessdisregardofitstruthorfalsity,and  intenttoinjuretheplaintiff);and x x  (580! !"*3"     ` *3*25  e  .3  0   Actionableharmproximatelycausedbythepublication?*3*3+݌T (# (# Ќ     (%88! !8  5.0`   IfaDefendant,whousesanInternetDomainNameforthenoncommercial & v purposeofexpressingtheopinion F___GeneralMotors,(1)truthfully  _ attributesownershipoftheDomainName(viathe Whoisrecord)tothe  H Defendantitself,and(2)doesnotusetheDomainNameinanyway  1  whatsoeverasa brand ordesignationoforiginofanygoodsorservices,    doestheLanhamTrademarkActsupportanycauseofactionagainstthe non   trademark useoftheDomainNameasamediumforexpressingopinion? ` `  8  6.0`   SinceFORDdoesnotownthebrandGENERALMOTORS,doesFORD w  havestandingtosuetoblocktheuseoftheDomainNameatissue?` ` `  8  7.0`   HasFORD,byparticipatingvoluntarilyintheWorldWideWeb!asystem 2 forrepresentingideasandexchanginginformationby linkingideasoneto k another(byanyonetoanyWebsiteforanyreason)!therebyelectedto T participateinasystemwhere,customarilyandforimportantreasonsof = policy, freedomtolinkisalwaysthedefaultruleunlessanaffirmative & technological optoutiserected,andforwhichthereexistsnolegalright   nottobereferredto?` `    8  8.0`   AreDefendantsactionsprivilegedbya FairUseDefense,for z commentary,criticism,orthe nominative (nontrademark)useofreferences c totrademarks?O` `  8  9.0`   IseitherDefendantsubjecttopersonaljurisdiction? !q` `    TABLEOFAUTHORITIES   4   CASES   44_Liquormart_,Inc.v.RhodeIsland, V   517U.S.484(1996).!!G(#. #4,!XO  5  Ԅ1565XO5  7(# 6Ԉ ?  AcademyofMotionPictureArts&Sciencesv.NetworkSolutions,Inc.,  a   989F.Supp.1276(C.D.Cal.1997).!!G(#.34-!XO  5  Ԅ17667XOJ7  7(#x7Ԉ  J Albrightv.Oliver,510U.S.266,268(1994).>">"H(#.74.>"XO  5  Ԅ56D8XOX8  7(#8Ԉ    Andrewsv.PrudentialSecurities,Inc.,     160F.3d304(6thCir.1998).>">"H(#.,4/>"XO  5  Ԅ769XO9  7(#9Ԉ   _Ashwander_Ԁv.TennesseeValleyAuth., Y    297U.S.288(1936).!!G(#. #40!XO  5  Ԅ156:XO:  7(#+;Ԉ B Avery_Dennison_ԀCorp.v._Sumpton_, d   189F.3d868(9thCir.1999).!!G(#.==,41!XO  5  Ԅ196i<XO}<  7(#<Ԉ M BadFrogBrewery,Inc.v.NewYorkStateLiquorAuth.,    134F.3d87(2ndCir.1998).<(#.*42XO  5  Ԅ46=XO=  7>,43( XO  5  Ԅ156m>XO>  7v!>,@!!G(#44!XO  5  Ԅ186*?XO>?  7(#l?Ԉ  BallyTotalFitnessHoldingCorp.v.Faber,    29F.Supp.2d1161(C.D.Cal.1998).<(#.245XO  5  Ԅ96{@XO@  7@,46( XO  5  Ԅ126%AXO9A  7v!gA,@!!G(#47!XO  5  Ԅ186AXOA  7(#$BԈ s Begalav.PNCBank,Ohio,N.A., E   214F.3d776(6thCir.2000),cert.denied, .~   ___U.S.___121S.Ct.1082(2001). B(#.548 XO  5  Ԅ56|CXOC  7v!C,49!XO  5  Ԅ186&DXO:D  7(#hDԈ g Bihariv.Gross,119F.Supp.2d309,32223(S.D.N.Y.2000)<(#.ZZG4:XO  5  Ԅ96DEXOXE  7E,4;( XO  5  Ԅ156EXOF  7v!0F,4<!XO  5  Ԅ186FXOF  7(#FԈ  9 CaribbeanBroadcasting_Sys_.,Ltd.v.Cable&WirelessPLC, " !   148F.3d1080(D.C.Cir.1998).!!G(#..4=!XO  5  Ԅ236HXO)H  7(#WHԈ #" CentralHudsonGas&Elec.Corp.v.PublicServ._Commn_ԀofN.Y., v% $   447U.S.557(1980).( ( A(#. #4>( XO  5  Ԅ146IXOI  7v!I,@!!G(#4?!XO  5  Ԅ186LJXO`J  7(#JԈ _&!% CentralStates,_S.E._Ԁ&_S.W._ԀAreasPensionFundv._Reimer_ԀExpressWorldCorp., 1(#'   230F.3d934(7thCir.2000).!!G(#.,4@!XO  5  Ԅ236LXO3L  7(#aLԈ )j$(   *S%)  CASES (_contd_)   ChryslerCorpv._Fedders_ԀCorp., W   643F.2d1229(6thCir.1981).!!G(#.bb-4!XO  5  Ԅ246MXON  7(#6NԈ @  Claybrookv.Birchwell,  b   199F.3d350(6thCir.2000). B(#.,4A XO  5  Ԅ561OXOEO  7v!sO,4B!XO  5  Ԅ186OXOO  7(#PԈ  K Cohenv.California,      403U.S.15(1971)>">"H(#. !4C>"XO  5  Ԅ46QXOQ  7(#FQԈ   Collinsv.DetroitFreePress,     245Mich.App.27,627N.W.2d5(2001).TT9(#.>>64DTXO  5  Ԅ36KRXO_R  7>R,4EXO  5  Ԅ66RXO S  7 7S,4F XO  5  Ԅ76SXOS  7!S,4G>"XO  5  Ԅ86ITXO]T  7(#TԈ q  Compuserve,Inc.v.Patterson, C   89F.3d1257(6thCir.1996).( ( A(#.,4H( XO  5  Ԅ236UXOU  7v!U,4I!XO  5  Ԅ2467VXOKV  7(#yVԈ ,| CPC_Intl_,Inc.v.Skippy,Inc., N   214F.3d456(4thCir.2000).<(#.,4JXO  5  Ԅ96WXOW  7W,4K( XO  5  Ԅ146JXXO^X  7v!X,4L!XO  5  Ԅ156XXO Y  7(#7YԈ 7 DataConcepts,Inc.v.DigitalConsulting,Inc.,     150F.3d620(6thCir.1998).( ( A(#.,4M( XO  5  Ԅ126KZXO_Z  7v!Z,4N!XO  5  Ԅ136ZXO [  7(#8[Ԉ  EdwardJ._DeBartolo_ԀCorp.v.FloridaGulfCoastBuilding&Constr.TradesCouncil, t   485U.S.568(1988).!!G(#. #4O!XO  5  Ԅ156\XO\  7(#\Ԉ ] EliLilly&Co.v.NaturalAnswers,Inc., /   233F.3d456(7thCir.2000).( ( A(#.,4P( XO  5  Ԅ176]XO]  7v!^,4Q!XO  5  Ԅ206y^XO^  7(#^Ԉ h Ellisv.FortuneSeas,Ltd.,  :   175_F.R.D._Ԁ308(S.D.Ind.1997).!!G(#.\\/4R!XO  5  Ԅ236_XO_  7(#`Ԉ !#  _ESAB_ԀGroup,Inc.v._Centricut_,Inc., #"   126F.3d617(4thCir.1997).!!G(#.,4S!XO  5  Ԅ256baXOva  7(#aԈ $# FederalExp.Corp.v.FederalEspresso,Inc., `&!%   201F.3d168(2ndCir.2000).( ( A(#.KK-4T( XO  5  Ԅ176bXOb  7v!b,4U!XO  5  Ԅ196acXOuc  7(#cԈ I'"& FleetBostonFin.Corp.v._FleetBostonFinancial.com_,No.Civ.A.0010176DPW, )k$(   2001WL360592(D.Mass.Mar.27,2001).!!G(#.74V!XO  5  Ԅ156dXOe   7(#"XO  5  Ԅ66WiXOki   7(#iԈ  K Greenv.Wilson,      455Mich.342,565N.W.2d813(1997).!!G(#.44[!XO  5  Ԅ246jXOj   7(#jԈ   _Greenspun_Ԁv.DelE.WebbCorp.,     634F.2d1204(9thCir.1980).!!G(#..4\!XO  5  Ԅ246kXOl   7(#6lԈ q  Gregoryv.ShelbyCounty,Tenn., C   220F.3d433(6thCir.2000). B(#.,4] XO  5  Ԅ56:mXONm   7v!|m,4^!XO  5  Ԅ186mXOm   7(#&nԈ ,| H.L.MooreDrugExch.,Inc.v.Smith,Kline&FrenchLabs., N   384F.2d97(2ndCir.1967).!!G(#.+4_!XO  5  Ԅ246DoXOXo   7(#oԈ 7 Hansenv._Neumuller_ԀGmbH,     163_F.R.D._Ԁ471(D.Del.1995).!!G(#.-4`!XO  5  Ԅ246pXOp   7(#qԈ  Hansonv._Denckla_, t   357U.S.235(1958).!!G(#. #4a!XO  5  Ԅ246rXOr   7(#IrԈ ] _Hasbro_,Inc.v.ClueComputing,Inc., /   66F.Supp.2d117(D.Mass.1999), h   _affd_,232F.3d1(1stCir.2000).!!G(#.14b!XO  5  Ԅ196sXOs   7(#tԈ  Q _Helicopteros_Ԁ_Nacionales_ԀdeColombia,S.A.v.Hall, !#    466U.S.408(1984).!!G(#. #4c!XO  5  Ԅ246fuXOzu   7(#uԈ " ! HersheyFoodsCorp.v.Mars,Inc., $#   998F.Supp.500(M.D.Pa.1998).!!G(#.~~.4d!XO  5  Ԅ146vXOv   7(#vԈ w% $ Hessv.Indiana, I'"&   414U.S.105(1973)>">"H(#.o o "4e>"XO  5  Ԅ46wXOw   7(#xԈ 2(#' QX}NXXX}NHiTex,Inc.v._TSG_,Inc., *T%)   87F.Supp.2d738(E.D.Mi.2000)#X}NXXQX}Nx#.!!G(#.bb24f!XO  5  Ԅ256qyXOy   7(#yԈ *=&*  +&'+ Ї CASES (_contd_)   HolidayInns,Inc.v.800Reservation,Inc., n   86F.3d619(6thCir.1996), W   cert.denied,519U.S.1093(1997).!!G(#.24g!XO  5  Ԅ116z{XO{   7(#{Ԉ @  HomeownersGroup,Inc.v.HomeMarketingSpecialists,Inc.,  b   931F.2d1100(6thCir.1991).!!G(#.oo,4h!XO  5  Ԅ116|XO|   7(#}Ԉ  K HQM,Ltd.v.Hatfield,    i   i }    71F.Supp.2d500(D.Md.1999).vv;(#.04ivXO  5  Ԅ156H~XO\~i  7~,4j( XO  5  Ԅ176~XOi  7v!5,4k!XO  5  Ԅ196XOi  7(#i }}݈   Ќ̌  _I.P._ԀLundTrading_ApS_Ԁv.KohlerCo.,     163F.3d27(1stCir.1998).vv;(#.+4lvXO  5  Ԅ176JXO^i  7,4m( XO  5  Ԅ196XO i  7v!7,4n!XO  5  Ԅ216XOi  7(#Ԉ q  IMOIndus.v._Kiekert_,AG, C   154F.3d254(3rdCir.1998).!!G(#.,4o!XO  5  Ԅ256XOi  7(#BԈ ,| InreChemicalDynamics,Inc., N   839QX}NXXX}NF.2d1569(Fed.Cir.1988)#X}NXXQX}N #.!!G(#.,4p!XO  5  Ԅ116XOi  7(#…Ԉ 7 InternationalShoeCov.Washington,     326U.S.310(1945).!!G(#. #4q!XO  5  Ԅ246XOφi  7(#Ԉ  InternationalTerminalOperatingCo.,Inc.v._Skibs_ԀA/S_Hidlefjord_, t   63_F.R.D._Ԁ85(S.D.N.Y.1973).!!G(#.,4r!XO  5  Ԅ246~XOi  7(#Ԉ ] _Jazini_Ԁv.NissanMotorCo., /   148F.3d181(2ndCir.1998).!!G(#.,4s!XO  5  Ԅ236߉XOi  7(#!Ԉ h KelloggCo.v.ExxonCorp.,  :   209F.3d562(6thCir.2000).( ( A(#.,4t( XO  5  Ԅ146 XO4i  7v!b,4u!XO  5  Ԅ166ˋXOߋi  7(# Ԉ !#  KerrySteel,Inc.v.ParagonIndus., #" i   i ˌ    106F.3d147(6thCir.1997).!!G(#.,4v!XO  5  Ԅ256NXObi  7(#i ˌ݈ $# Ќ̌  Kevorkianv.AmericanMed.Ass'n, `&!% i   i o    237Mich.App.1,602N.W.2d233(1999).>">"H(#.74w>"XO  5  Ԅ76XO i  7(#9i o݈ I'"& Ќ̌   )k$(  CASES (_contd_)   _Leema_ԀEnters.,Inc.v._Willi_, W i   i Ð    575F.Supp.1533(S.D.N.Y.1983).!!G(#.[[14x!XO  5  Ԅ236EXOYi  7(#i Ðސ݈ @  Ќ̌  LehighValleyIndus.,Inc.v._Birenbaum_,  b   527F.2d87(2ndCir.1975).!!G(#.+4y!XO  5  Ԅ246֒XOi  7(#Ԉ  K LockheedMartinCorp.v.NetworkSolutions,Inc.,      985F.Supp.949(C.D.Cal.1997).( ( A(#./4{( XO  5  Ԅ126*XO>i  7v!l,4!XO  5  Ԅ176ՔXOi  7(#Ԉ   _Lucasfilm_ԀLtd.v.HighFrontier,     622F.Supp.931(D.D.C.1985).!!G(#.-4|!XO  5  Ԅ1666XOJi  7(#xԈ q  LucentTech.,Inc.v.Lucentsucks.Com, C   95F.Supp.2d528(E.D.Va.2000).>">"H(#.aa24}>"XO  5  Ԅ96XOi  7(#ėԈ ,| _Lujan_Ԁv.DefendersofWildlife, N   504U.S.555(1992).!!G(#. #4~!XO  5  Ԅ136טXO  7(#Ԉ 7 _Lujan_Ԁv.NationalWildlifeFederation,     497U.S.871(1990).!!G(#. #4!XO  5  Ԅ1364XOH  7(#vԈ  Massonv.NewYorkerMag.,Inc., t   501U.S.496(1991).TT9(#. #4TXO  5  Ԅ36kXO  7>,4XO  5  Ԅ66XO)  7 W,4 XO  5  Ԅ76XOӜ  7!,4>"XO  5  Ԅ86iXO}  7(#Ԉ ] Mattel,Inc.v.MCARecords,Inc., /   28F.Supp.2d1120(C.D.Cal.1998).vv;(#.44vXO  5  Ԅ106XOƞ  7,4( XO  5  Ԅ126]XOq  7v!,4!XO  5  Ԅ136XO  7(#JԈ h McLaughlinv._McPhail_,  :   707F.2d800(4thCir.1983).!!G(#.,4!XO  5  Ԅ236dXOx  7(#Ԉ !#  Mixonv.StateofOhio, #"   193F.3d389(6thCir.1999). B(#.,4 XO  5  Ԅ56XO  7v!,4!XO  5  Ԅ186KXO_  7(#Ԉ $# Morganv.Church'sFriedChicken, `&!%   829F.2d10(6thCir.1987). B(#.+4 XO  5  Ԅ56XO  7v!Ӥ,4!XO  5  Ԅ186;XOO  7(#}Ԉ I'"& _Naartex_ԀConsultingCorp.v.Watt, )k$(   722F.2d779(D.C.Cir.1983).!!G(#.-4!XO  5  Ԅ236XO  7(#ߦԈ *T%)   *=&*  CASES ( _contd_)   Nabisco,Inc.v.PFBrands,Inc., W   191F.3d208(2ndCir.1999).vv;(#.+4vXO  5  Ԅ146RXOf  7,4( XO  5  Ԅ176XO  7v!?,4!XO  5  Ԅ206XO  7(#Ԉ @  Neighborsv._Penske_ԀLeasing,Inc.,  b   45F.Supp.2d593(E.D.Mi.1999).vv;(#.bb24vXO  5  Ԅ236XO$  7R,4( XO  5  Ԅ246XOϫ  7v!,4!XO  5  Ԅ256fXOz  7(#Ԉ  K _Neogen_ԀCorp.v.NeoGenScreening,Inc.,      109F.Supp.2d724(W.D.Mi.2000).!!G(#.34!XO  5  Ԅ246խXO  7(#Ԉ   Neshewatv.Salem,     173F.3d357(6thCir.1999). C(#.00-4 XO  5  Ԅ66XO"  7!P,4>"XO  5  Ԅ76XO̯  7(#Ԉ q  NewKidsontheBlockv.NewsAm._Publg_, C   971F.2d302(9thCir.1992).( ( A(#.,4( XO  5  Ԅ106)XO=  7v!k,@x!x!E(#.,4!XO  5  Ԅ126XO  7(#1Ԉ ,| NewYorkTimesCo.v.Sullivan, N   376U.S.254(1964)>(#.o o "4XO  5  Ԅ46$XO8  7 f,4 XO  5  Ԅ76γXO  7!,4>"XO  5  Ԅ86xXO  7(#Ԉ 7 _Noonan_Ԁv.WinstonCo.,     135F.3d85(1stCir.1998).!!G(#.+4t,!XO  5  Ԅ236ҵXO22F  7t,(#Ԉ  NorthlandIns.Cos.v.Blaylock, t   115F.Supp.2d1108(D.Minn.2000).<(#.FF44t,XO  5  Ԅ96XO.22F  7t,\,4t,( XO  5  Ԅ156ķXOط22F  7t,v!,4t,!XO  5  Ԅ176oXO22F  7t,(#Ԉ ] _Panavision_ԀIntern.,L.P.v._Toeppen_, /   141F.3d1316(9thCir.1998).!!G(#.bb-4t,!XO  5  Ԅ176XO22F  7t,(#<Ԉ h _Panavision_ԀInternational,L.P.v._Toeppen_,  :   945F.Supp.1296(C.D.Cal.1996).!!G(#.04t,!XO  5  Ԅ176XO22F  7t,(#ʻԈ !#  Parksv._LaFace_ԀRecords,Inc., #"   76F.Supp.2d775(E.D.Mi.1999).1(#.bb24t,XO  5  Ԅ46XO22F  7t,.,4t,(XO  5  Ԅ76XO22F  7t,ؽ,4t,vXO  5  Ԅ116@XOT22F  7t,,4t,( XO  5  Ԅ126XO22F  7t,v!-,4t,!XO  5  Ԅ136XO22F  7t,(#ؿԈ $# Poev.Babcock_Intl_,_plc_, `&!%   662F.Supp.4(M.D.Pa.1985).!!G(#..4t,!XO  5  Ԅ236XO)22F  7t,(#WԈ I'"& R.M.S.Titanic,Inc.v._Haver_, )k$(   171F.3d943(4thCir.1999).!!G(#.,4t,!XO  5  Ԅ236yXO22F  7t,(#Ԉ *T%)   *=&*  CASES (_contd_)   Reynoldsv.InternationalAmateurAthl.Assn, W   23F.3d1110(6thCir.1994).!!G(#.,4t,!XO  5  Ԅ256?XOS22F  7t,(#Ԉ @  _Ringling_ԀBros.Barnum&BaileyCombinedShows,Inc.v.UtahDiv.ofTravelDev.QX}NXXX}N,  b i   i     170F.3d449,459(4thCir.)#X}NXXQX}Nt#QX}NXXX}N,#X}NXXQX}N.#QX}NXXX}Ncert.denied,528U.S.923(1999)#X}NXXQX}Nr#.!!G(#.O4t,!XO  5  Ԅ196XO22F  7t,(#3i ݈  K Ќ̌  RockandRollHallofFameandMuseum,Inc.v.GentileProds.,      134F.3d749(6thCir.1998).``)(#.+4t,`XO  5  Ԅ106wXO22F  7t,,4t,XO  5  Ԅ116"XO622F  7t,`d,4t,XO  5  Ԅ126XO22F  7t,,4t,vXO  5  Ԅ136xXO22F  7t,,4t,( XO  5  Ԅ146#XO722F  7t,v!e,4t,!XO  5  Ԅ166XO22F  7t,(#Ԉ   Rubinv.CoorsBrewingCo.,     514U.S.476(1995).!!G(#. #4t,!XO  5  Ԅ156XO22F  7t,(#BԈ q  Scheidv.FannyFarmerCandyShops,Inc., C   859F.2d434(6thCir.1988).>">"H(#.+4t,>"XO  5  Ԅ56NXOb22F  7t,(#Ԉ ,| SierraClubv.Morton, N   405U.S.727(1972).!!G(#. #4t,!XO  5  Ԅ136zXO22F  7t,(#Ԉ 7 _TCPIP_ԀHoldingCo.,Inc.v._Haar_ԀCommunications,Inc.,     244F.3d88(2ndCir.2001).kk8(#.,417kXO  5  Ԅ16176XO)F.3d  717W,@, , A(#417( XO  5  Ԅ196XOF.3d  717v!,417!XO  5  Ԅ206XOF.3d  717(#Ԉ  _Theunissen_Ԁv.Matthews, t i   i     935F.2d1454(6thCir.1991).( ( A(#.bb-417( XO  5  Ԅ236XO+F.3d  717v!Y,417!XO  5  Ԅ256XOF.3d  717(#i ݈ ] Ќ̌  TimesMirrorMagazines,Inc.v.LasVegasSportsNews,_L.L.C._, / i   i     212F.3d157(3rdCir.2000).( ( A(#.77-417( XO  5  Ԅ146XOF.3d  717v!,417!XO  5  Ԅ166OXOcF.3d  717(#i ;݈ h Ќ̌  UnitedDrugCo.v.TheodoreRectanusCo.,  :   248U.S.90(1918).!!G(#.= = "417!XO  5  Ԅ116XOF.3d  717(#Ԉ !#  UnitedWeStandAm.,Inc.v.UnitedWeStand,Am.NewYork,Inc., #"   128F.3d86(2ndCir.1997).!!G(#.+417!XO  5  Ԅ166XO,F.3d  717(#ZԈ $# UniversityofNotreDameDuLacv.TwentiethCenturyFoxFilmCorp., `&!%   22A.D.2d452,256N.Y.S.2d301, I'"&   _aff'd_,15N.Y.2d940,259N.Y.S.2d832,207N.E.2d508(1965).>">"H(#.PPM417>"XO  5  Ԅ46XOF.3d  717(#GԈ 2(#'   )k$(  CASES (_contd_)   ValleyForgeChristianCollegev.AmericansUnitedforSeparationofChurchandState,Inc., W   454U.S.464(1982).!!G(#. $417!XO  5  Ԅ136XOF.3d  717(#(Ԉ @  Varljenv.ClevelandGearCo.,Inc.,  b   250F.3d426(6thCir.2001).>">"H(#.,417>"XO  5  Ԅ560XODF.3d  717(#rԈ  K VirginiaStateBd.ofPharmacyv.VirginiaCitizensConsumerCouncil,Inc.,      425U.S.748(1976).( ( A(#. #417( XO  5  Ԅ146XOF.3d  717v!,417!XO  5  Ԅ156<XOPF.3d  717(#~Ԉ   Whitmorev.Arkansas,     495U.S.149(1990).!!G(#. #417!XO  5  Ԅ136hXO|F.3d  717(#Ԉ q  _Winfield_ԀCollection,Ltd.v.McCauley, C   105F.Supp.2d746(E.D.Mi.2000).>(#.3417XO  5  Ԅ236XOF.3d  717k ,417 XO  5  Ԅ24256XOF.3d  717(#Ԉ ,| Wooleyv.Maynard, N   430U.S.705(1977)>">"H(#.o o "417>"XO  5  Ԅ46XOF.3d  717(#Ԉ 7  STATUTESANDRULES      15U.S.C.1114(1).( ( A(#.8 8 4( XO  5  Ԅ126XOЌ  7v!.,@x!x!E(#.8 8 4!XO  5  Ԅ156XOЌ  7(#Ԉ  15U.S.C.1125(a)..( ( A(#._ _ 4( XO  5  Ԅ126XOЌ  7v!,@x!x!E(#.8 8 4!XO  5  Ԅ156kXOЌ  7(#Ԉ ^ 15U.S.C.1125(c).>(#.- - 4XO  5  Ԅ13146]XOqЌ  7v!,@x!x!E(#.8 8 4!XO  5  Ԅ156&XO:Ќ  7(#hԈ 0 15U.S.C.1125(c)(4)(B).!!G(#." " $4!XO  5  Ԅ166XO2Ќ  7(#`Ԉ  R 15U.S.C.1127.!!G(#.N N 4!XO  5  Ԅ106 XO!Ќ  7(#OԈ !$  Fed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(6).>">"H(#. 4>"XO  5  Ԅ56XOЌ  7(#FԈ #" Mich.Comp.L.Ann.600.705.!!G(#.  (4!XO  5  Ԅ246XOЌ  7(#GԈ x% $ Mich.Comp.L.Ann.600.715.!!G(#.(4!XO  5  Ԅ246XOЌ  7(#IԈ J'"&    *U%) OTHERAUTHORITIES     Tim_Berners_ԄLee,AxiomsofWebArchitecture2LinksandLaw, W i   i     publishedat<4+5 XO  5  http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/_LinkLaw_6 XO!(_  75LԀ>.!!G(#.ffI46!XO  5  Ԅ226XO%  76(#Si ݈ @  Ќ̌  Tim_Berners_ԄLee,AxiomsofWebArchitecture4LinksandLaw:Myths,  b i   i p    publishedat<45 XO  5  http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkMyths.html6XO(_  75 Ԁ>.!!G(#.[[O46!XO  5  Ԅ216XO  76(#i p݈  K Ќ̌  JessicaLitman,TheDNSWars:TrademarksandtheInternetDomainNameSystem,    i   i     4J.Small&EmergingBus.L.149(2000).>">"H(#.84>"XO  5  Ԅ96XOЌ  7(#i ݈   Ќ̌  MarkA.Lemley,TheModernLanhamActandtheDeathofCommonSense,   i   i     108YaleL.J.1687(1999).>">"H(#.)4>"XO  5  Ԅ96TXOhЌ  7(#i ݈ q  Ќ̌  i   i 7  UnitedStatesPatentandTrademarkOffice,ExaminationGuideNo.299: C TrademarksComposed,InWholeOrInPart,ofDomainNames(Sept.29,1999).!!G(#.  U46!XO  5  Ԅ1267XOK  76(#yi 7R݈ ,| Ќ̌  25C.Wright&A.Miller,FederalPractice&Procedure1357(1969).>">"H(#.--N4'>"XO  5  Ԅ56XOЌ  7(#Ԉ N       @7 7  MIXX}NINTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT  WMIMI@ FORTHEEASTERNDISTRICTOFMICHIGAN  #MIWMI#QMIMI&  T    QX}NXQMIQX}NXXQX}NQX}NXXQX}NQX}NXXQX}NXXXQX}NXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXWX}NXXX    WMIXWX}NT  #MIWMI#WMIMISOUTHERNDIVISIONT  UԌ  Ќ  WMIWMIWMIWMIWMIWMIWMIWMIQMIWMIQMIQMIQMIQMIQMIQMIQMIQMIQMIQMIQMIQMIQMIQMIQMIQMIQMIQMIQMIQMIQMIQMIQMIQMIQMIQMIQMIQMIQMIQMI    #MIQMI#'@* ?+ ,4 <DLX? FORDMOTORCOMPANY,    ?( 4 <DL,X?   p     &  U   X}NXMIX}NXXX}NX}NXXX}NX}NXXX}N    MIXX}NU4  Plaintiff,   h   U4  Ԍ   Ќ   MIMIMIMIMIMIMIMI    ' ( Xv. `     h     CaseNo.01CV71685DT    X  ?+ ,4 <DLX? 2600ENTERPRISES,and h 0  0(#(#QMIMIHon.RobertH.Cleland#MIQMI #QMIMI (#(#  #MIQMI #ERICQMIMIԀCORLEYp/k/a  0 h     UnitedStatesDistrictJudge#MIQMIY #QMIMI  h(#h(# EMMANUEL#MIQMI #QMIMIԀGOLDSTEIN, #MIQMId #QMIMI h      h-D,DL,X-   p     &  h?( 4 <DLD,DX?V  H h*D,DLX* QX}NXQMIQX}NXXQX}NQX}NXXQX}NQX}NXXQX}N    QMIXQX}NV   Defendants.V    Ԍ ~  Ќ h! XD,DX!   HQMIQMIQMIQMIQMIQMIQMIQMI  <( 4 <DLX<____________________________________/'~{ #MIQMI # { @' MOTION#X}NXMI#  /#  1      ׈ q      ` DefendantsEricCorleyp/k/aEmmanuelGoldstein( Goldstein)and2600 k Enterprises( 2600")respectfullymovefordismissaloftheComplaintpursuanttoFedR.Civ.P. = 12(b)(2)and12(b)(6)becausepersonaljurisdictionislackingandtheComplaintfailstostateany _ claimagainstDefendantsuponwhichreliefcanbegranted. 1      ` InaccordancewithLocalRule7.1(a),counselfortheDefendantsconferredwith  counselforPlaintiffs.PlaintiffsdeclinedtoassenttothespecificreliefrequestedinthisMotion.      X X<( ` hp x X<ThisMotionisaccompaniedbyasupportingbrief. W"'  X?+ ` hp x X?S  !  X!X}NXXX}N  XS    6 ` p x  6   ` Wherefore,DefendantsrespectfullypraythatallclaimsagainstthembyPlaintiffsbe   dismissedWITHPREJUDICE.S ݌  Ќ  $ XXX$X}NXXX}N  S  !  X!X}NXXX}N  6 ` p x  6S     `   2600ENTERPRISESandSG݌ T Ќ  $ XXX$X}NXXX}N     `     h     ERICCORLEYp/k/a =     `     h     EMMANUELGOLDSTEIN, & v 5?+ ` hp x X?S  !  X!X}NXXX}N  6 ` p x  6S     `   Bycounsel,S"݌  H Ќ  $ XXX$X}NXXX}N    S  !  X!X}NXXX}N  6 ` p x  6S  S݌̌  $ XXX$X}NXXX}N    -p x X-Dated:July2,2001  ____________________________        EricC.Grimm(P58990)       CyberBrief,PLC     320SouthMainStreet     AnnArbor,MI481077341 n      7343324900 W    fax7343324901 @ S  $  X$X}NXXX}N  0p x  0S  S݌̌  $ XX$X}NXXX}N    COUNSELFORDEFENDANTS.  b    INTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT  WX}NXXX}N@d d FORTHEEASTERNDISTRICTOFMICHIGAN   #X}NXXWX}N#QX}NXXX}N&  T    QX}NXXQX}NQX}NXXQX}NQX}NXXQX}NQX}NXXQX}NXXXQX}NXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXWX}NXXX    T   #X}NXXWX}N #WX}NXXX}NSOUTHERNDIVISIONT Z#  B#Ԍ  Ќ  WX}NXXWX}NWX}NXXWX}NWX}NXXWX}NWX}NXXWX}NQX}NXXWX}NQX}NXXQX}NQX}NXXQX}NQX}NXXQX}NQX}NXXQX}NQX}NXXQX}NQX}NXXQX}NQX}NXXQX}NQX}NXXQX}NQX}NXXQX}NQX}NXXQX}NQX}NXXQX}NQX}NXXQX}NQX}NXXQX}NQX}NXXQX}NQX}NXXQX}N    #X}NXXQX}N##QX}NXXX}N'    p      x @* B+ ,4 <DLXB FORDMOTORCOMPANY, W   ?( 4 <DL,X?   p     &  U   QX}NXXQX}NQX}NXXQX}NQX}NXXQX}NQX}NXXQX}N    U`(  Plaintiff,   h   U`(!)  )Ԍ * z Ќ   QX}NXXQX}NQX}NXXQX}NQX}NXXQX}NQX}NXXQX}N    '* T( Xv. `     h     CaseNo.01CV71685DT  M  `     h     CaseNo.#X}NXXQX}N&#QX}NXXX}N01CV60084DT   6   `  X?+ ,4 <DLX? 2600ENTERPRISES,and   h 0  #X}NXXQX}N~+#QX}NXXX}N0(#(#Hon.RobertH.Cleland#X}NXXQX}N,#QX}NXXX}N (#(#  ERIC#X}NXXQX}N,#QX}NXXX}NԀCORLEYp/k/a   h 0    UnitedStatesDistrictJudge#X}NXXQX}N_-#  (#(# EMMANUELGOLDSTEIN,  h      h-D,DL,X-   p     &  h?( 4 <DLD,DX?V  H h*D,DLX* X}NXXX}NX}NXXX}NX}NXXX}NX}NXXX}N    V6/  Defendants.   p     V6//0  0Ԍ c  Ќ h! XD,DX!   HX}NXXX}NX}NXXX}NX}NXXX}NX}NXXX}N  <( 4 <DLX<____________________________________/'c.   p    M    MEMORANDUMINSUPPORTOFDEFENDANTSMOTIONTODISMISS  o e2  Defendants2600EnterprisesandEricCorleyrespectfullymovefordismissalofthe B Complaintfortworeasons:(1)DefendantsarenotsubjecttoMichiganjurisdictionandPlaintiffhas  notmadeapreliminaryevidentiaryshowingsufficienttosupportthetakingofjurisdictional  discovery,and(2)theComplaintdoesnotstateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted. h    STATEMENTOFTHECASE  : 48  8`   MIXX}NItsajoke!Andthefunniestpartaboutitisthis:Everyone  ^ seemstobeinonit except theFordMotorCompany.#X}NXMI85# !Y` x` x 5  Thiscaserevolvesaroundanemphaticstatementofopinion!theInternetDomainName "?! F___GENERALMOTORS.COM.FORDcontendsthattheDefendantshaveexpressedthemselves $ # usingthisDomainNameinawaythatcausesFORDsomekindofinjurytoFORDsreputation. &!% ThecoreofFORDslegaltheoryboilsdowntotheissueof falseattribution:FORDcontendsthat e(#'  theopinionexpressedthroughtheuseofthisDomainNamehassomehowbeen attributedto 7*%) FORDandthattheopinionhappenstobeonethatFORDdoesnotshare. /#  1      ׀FORDs_reputational_   injuryclaimthereforedependsonthecombinednotionsthat(1)somethirdpartywillactually  believethatFORDholdsthisopinion,(2)suchathirdpartywillactuallycarewhatFORDsopinion T is,and(3)thatliabilitymaybepremisednotontheopinionitself,oreventheexpressionofit,but & v ratheronaseparatestatementattributingtheopiniontoFORD.  H   Ofcourse,evenmorefundamentally,thewholenotionof attributioninthiscaseisclearly    problematicandnostatementof attributionhasevenbeenallegedintheComplaint.Rather,the   ComplaintclearlyallegesthatDefendantsaretheactualpersonsorentitieswhobothregisteredand n  pointedthisDomainName.NoplaceintheComplaintiseitherDefendanteverallegedtohavemade @ anystatementthat itwasntuswhopointedtheDomainName;itwasFORD.Quitethecontrary, b onthefaceoftheComplaint,itisclearthat2600tooktheaffirmativestepofselfattributing2600's 4 speechtoitself.2600aloneistruthfullyidentifiedastheRegistrantofthisDomainName.From  thefaceoftheComplaint,therefore,itisclearthattheonly attributionofthisspeechthatany  DefendanthasmadeistoDefendant2600alone.Thus,thefactualallegationsintheComplaint Z conclusivelyforecloseFORDsclaimsasamatteroflawbecausethefactsallegedbyFORDrender ,| impossibleany attributionbyanyDefendanttoanyentityotherthan2600. N   Ultimately,however,thiscaserevolvesaroundthequestionof whatlaw mayFORDrely !   upontoremedyanallegedinjurytoFORDsreputationintheeventthatsomebody(another #" defendantinanotherlawsuit,presumably)actuallyfalselyattributesanopiniontotheFORDMotor z% $ CompanythatFORDdoesnotshare.FORDsclaimisnothingmorenorlessthana false L'"& attributionclaimunderthecommonlawandstatestatutorylawofdefamation.See%      Massonv.New  YorkerMag.,Inc.,501U.S.496,510(1991)%    ;  Collinsv.DetroitFreePress,245Mich.App.27,627  N.W.2d5,8(2001)(percuriam).Therefore,evenifFORDhadanactualstatementof false T attributiontoallege(andFORDdoesnot),inordertosurvivedismissal,FORDwouldhaveto & v allegedefamationorinjuriousfalsehood! not trademarkinfringement.  H    ButFORDneverallegedorattemptedtoallegeanycauseofactionfor defamation.    BecauseFORDhasallegedthewrongcauseofaction,theComplaintmustbedismissed.     FORDsattemptedrelianceontheLanhamTrademarkActandtheFederalTrademark z  DilutionAct( FTDA)isnotinanywaygermanetothiscasebecausetheDefendantsarenot(and L haveneverbeenallegedtobe)usingtheDomainNameF___GENERALMOTORS.COMasa n  BRAND ofanything.NorareDefendantsallegedtobeusingtheDomainNamecommercially. @ FORDsattempttorepackageadefamationclaimasatrademarklawsuitshouldberejectedbecause  theseessentialprerequisites(use as atrademarkand commercial use)arenotalleged.    Itisundisputed(infact,PlaintiffaffirmativelyallegesasmuchintheComplaint,seeCompl. r 3&_Exh_.A)thattheofficialRegistrantoftheDomainNameis2600Enterprises.Itisalso D undisputedthatthe WhoisrecordfortheDomainNametruthfullyandaccuratelyidentifies2600  f EnterprisesastheRegistrantofthisDomainName.Further,oninformationandbeliefDefendants !8  statethatitisundisputed(andFORDdoesnotcontest)thatnopersonorentityotherthanthenamed # " Registranthasanypower,capacityorauthoritywhatsoevertoengageinanyspeechusingthis % $ DomainName,becausetheRegistrantalonehasthepowerto pointit.Defendantscertainly ^'"&  couldhaveregisteredundersomeassumednamehadtheysoughttodoso.Obviously,theydidnot. 0)$(   Itisundisputedthat2600EnterpriseshasnoaffiliationwhatsoeverwiththeFORDMotor   Company,andthatspeechoriginatingfromandattributableto2600Enterprisesisnotunderany  circumstances attributabletoFORDMotorCompany.Underthecircumstances,noviableclaim T for falseattributioncanexistundereitherdefamationlawortrademarklaw. & v @& ARGUMENT   H 8  0`   [_T]hat_Ԁplaintiff(andeventhe[_C]ourt_)mayfinddefendants[expression]     profaneandvulgarandnotregarditasartisticallyseriousisofno   consequence: Itisfundamentalthatcourtsmaynotmuffleexpressionby   passingjudgmentonitsskillorclumsiness,itssensitivityorcoarseness;nor   onwhetheritpainsorpleases.Itisenoughthattheworkisaformof p  expressiondeservingofsubstantialfreedombothasentertainmentandasa Y  formofsocialand[political]criticism.B` `  O%      Parksv._LaFace_ԀRecords,Inc.,76F.Supp.2d775,78081(E.D.Mi.1999)(quoting%  _  _  Universityof d NotreDameDuLacv.TwentiethCenturyFoxFilmCorp.,22A.D.2d452,458,256N.Y.S.2d301, 6 307,_aff'd_,15N.Y.2d940,259N.Y.S.2d832,207N.E.2d508(1965)).TheDefendantsexpression  ofopinionisclearlyprotectedspeech,- /#  2      ׀andthereforeisprotectedevenifPlaintiffhassometort  theoryuponwhichPlaintiffseekstosuppressit.See%      NewYorkTimesCo.v.Sullivan,376U.S. \ 254(1964)(tortremedieslimitedtobalanceFirstAmendmentinterests). .~   Moreover,apartfromFirstAmendmentconsiderations,Plaintiffhasfailedtoallegeany  P viabletort.EvenassumingallthefactsallegedonthefaceoftheComplainttobetrue,thePlaintiff !"  hasidentifiednoviablecauseofactionwhatsoever!noclaimfordefamation,noclaimfor #" trademarkinfringement,noclaimfortrademarkdilution,andnoclaimforunfaircompetition. v% $ _BecausePlaintiffhasnoviablecauseofaction,theComplaintmustbedismissedforfailuretostate  aclaim.   I.0  TheComplaintMustBeDismissedforFailuretoStateaClaim. T(#(#   Tosurviveamotiontodismissunder%      Fed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(6),acomplaintmustcontain ( x eitherdirectorinferentialallegationsrespectingallthematerialelementstosustainarecoveryunder  J someviablelegaltheory.%      Glassnerv.R.J.ReynoldsTobaccoCo.,223F.3d343,346(6thCir.2000)    (quoting%      %    Scheidv.FannyFarmerCandyShops,Inc.,859F.2d434,436(6thCir.1988));%      Varljenv.   ClevelandGearCo.,Inc.,250F.3d426,429(6thCir.2001).Inevaluatinga  Rule12(b)(6)Motion, p  theCourtacceptswell-pleadedallegationsastrue,%      Albrightv.Oliver,510U.S.266,268(1994),and B viewstheminthelightmostfavorabletothePlaintiff.  Glassner,223F.3dat346.Here,even d assumingthetruthofallallegationsPlaintiffmakes,andviewingtheminthemostfavorablelight, 6 theComplaintmustbedismissed.    Ofcourse,only well-pleadedallegationsmustbeviewedfavorably.See  Albright,510  U.S.at268.Itisblackletterlawthatpleadingsconsistingofbarelegalconclusionsuniformlyfail \ tostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegrantedandcannotsurvivedismissalunder  Rule12(b)(6). .~ %      Gregoryv.ShelbyCounty,Tenn.,220F.3d433,446(6thCir.2000)( Weneednotacceptastrue  P legalconclusionsorunwarrantedfactualinferences.)(citing%        Morganv.Church'sFriedChicken, !"  829F.2d10,12(6thCir.1987));%        Mixonv.StateofOhio,193F.3d389,400(6thCir.1999)(same); #" %      Begalav.PNCBank,Ohio,N.A.,214F.3d776,779(6thCir.2000)( morethanbareassertionsof v% $ legalconclusionsisordinarilyrequiredtosatisfyfederalnoticepleadingrequirements")(citing H'"&       Scheid,859F.2dat436,and%      5C.Wright&A.Miller,FederalPractice&Procedure1357, )j$( at596(1969)),cert.denied,___U.S.___121S.Ct.1082(2001);%        Claybrookv.Birchwell,199F.3d *<&* 350,353n.1(6thCir.2000)( Acourtisnotboundtoacceptallegedlegalconclusionsor  unwarrantedfactualinferences.).    Moreover,whenaPlaintiffsComplaintcontainsaffirmativeallegationsoffactthatruleout T thepossibilityofrecovery,dismissalunderRule12(b)(6)isproper.E.g.,%    Glassner,at35152 & v (Complaintallegedchronologicaldatethatdecedentcommencedsmoking,andcourtconcludeddate  H was wellaftertheLabelingActbecameeffectiveonJanuary1,1966and thecaselawiswell    settledthatthehealthhazardsofsmokingwerewithintheordinarycitizens commonknowledge   bythattime);%      Neshewatv.Salem,173F.3d357,36465(6thCir.1999)(allegationsestablished n  circumstancessurroundingallegedlydefamatorystatementsthatrenderedthemprivileged).Here, @ thefaceoftheComplaintestablishesconclusivelythattheonly attributionintendedor b communicatedbyanyDefendantwassolelytotheDomainNameRegistrant,2600Enterprises. 4 Thus,Plaintiffsclaimsfailasamatteroflawbecausethereisnoallegationofany attributionto  supportany falseattributionclaim.     A.0 ` PlaintiffFailstoStateaDefamationClaim.   Z` (#` (#   Ordinarily, falseattributionofstatementsorexpressionisactionable,ifatall,underthe .~ commonlaworstatestatutorylawofdefamationorinjuriousfalsehood.E.g.,%    Masson,501U.S.at  P 510;%    Collins,245Mich.App.27,627N.W.2dat8.Inordertostateadefamationorinjurious !"  falsehoodclaim,Plaintiffmustsetforthfactualallegationssufficienttosupportalltheessential #" elementsofsuchaclaim.Theelementsofdefamationare: v% $ "~"  ~m0  0` (#(#2%  1  .3  0 ` (#` (#  AstatementoffactbytheDefendant;~mm݌H'"& (# (# Ќ  "~"  ~n0  0` (#(#2%  2  .3  0 ` (#` (#  TheDefendantsstatementisfalseandnotprivileged;~nn݌)j$( (# (# Ќ  "~"  ~o0  0` (#(#2%  3  .3  0 ` (#` (#  Theunprivilegedfalsehoodwascommunicatedtothethirdparty;~op݌*<&* (# (# Ќ   (08! !  8 ` 4.0 ` x` xThestatementwasmadewith actualmalice (i.e.,either  knowledgethatthestatementwasfalseandintenttoharmthe  plaintiff,orwithrecklessdisregardofitstruthorfalsity,and  intenttoinjuretheplaintiff);andn x x q (580! !   ` 5.0 Actionableharmproximatelycausedbythepublication.@  (# (# %    Neshewat,173F.3dat36264(dismissingforfailuretostateaclaim);%      Andrewsv.Prudential  b Securities,Inc.,160F.3d304,308(6thCir.1998);%    Collins,245Mich.App.27,627N.W.2dat8;  4  (citing%    Masson,501U.S.at510;%    NewYorkTimesCo.,376U.S.at279280);%      Kevorkianv.   AmericanMed.Ass'n,237Mich.App.1,602N.W.2d233,236(1999).FORDisclearlyapublic   figure,whichmeanstheheightenedmensrearequirementofproofofactualmaliceisappropriate Z  under  Masson,501U.S.496;  NewYorkTimesCo.,376U.S.254;  Collins,627N.W.2d5;and ,|   %     Kevorkian,237Mich.App.1,602N.W.2dat236. N   FORDhasfailedtostateaviableclaimfordefamationorinjuriousfalsehood.Firstofall,   thestatementembodiedintheDomainNameF___GENERALMOTORS.COMisnotastatement  offact,butofopinion.WhileFORDapparentlyobjectstoaperceived offensivequalityofthe t expressionofthisopinion,thereisnorecognizedtortinMichiganoranyotherU.S.jurisdiction F authorizingprivatepersonstocensor cursewordsthroughcivilactionsfordamagesorinjunctive h relief.See%    Parks,76F.Supp.2d775.Nordoesthereexistanyrecognizedcauseofactionto  : compensatethosewhosedelicatesensibilitieshappentobeupsetbythepungentproseofothers. " !   Id. $#   Thus,insteadofclaimingthestatementitselfistortious,FORDsargumentinsteadinvolves `&!% atheoryof attribution.ButFORDfalselyattributestotheDefendantsastatement(aseparate 2(#' statementofattribution)thatDefendantsnevermadeandneverintendedtomake.Defendantshave *T%) never attributed(andintheComplaintarenotevenallegedtohavemadeanystatement +&'+  attributing)eithertheregistrationoftheDomainNameortheuseofittoFORD.Thus,even  thoughFORDistheonlypartymakingany falseattribution,FORDapparentlycontendsthat  hypotheticalthirdpartiesmightmistakenlybelievethatthespeechof2600usingtheDomainName T inquestionsomehowcomesnotfromthetruthfullyidentifiedRegistrant,butfromFORD. & v   Nevertheless,becauseFORDdoesnotevenallegethatDefendants2600orGoldsteinever  H madeanystatementoffact!i.e.,that ThisexpressionofopinionistheexpressionofFORDMotor    Company!speculationabouthypotheticalmistakenreactionsofimaginarythirdpartiesis   completelyirrelevant.InorderforFORDtomeetthe falsestatementelementofadefamation n  claim,FORDwouldberequiredtoidentifyandallegesuchafalsestatementoffact(i.e., @  attribution)bysomeDefendant.See%    Collins,627N.W.2dat8;%    Masson,501U.S.at510.Ford b hasfailedtodoso.Moreover,inordertostateadefamationor falseattributionclaim,FORD 4 wouldnotonlyberequiredtoallegesuchafalsehood,butthepublicationofsuchafalsehoodtoa  thirdparty.TheComplaintcontainsnosuchallegation.Thus,sincenoaffirmativestatementof   attribution(exceptforatruthfulattributionto2600) /#  3      ׀haseverbeenallegedtohavebeenmadeby Z anyDefendant,FORDhasnopossiblepredicateforanydefamationcauseofaction. ,|   Mostimportantly,FORDcannotrecoveronadefamationorinjuriousfalsehoodcauseof N actionbecausetheFirstAmendmentoftheU.S.ConstitutionrequiresapublicfiguresuchasFORD !   toprovethattheinjuriousstatementwasmadewithactualmalice.  Masson,501U.S.496;%    New #" YorkTimesCo.,376U.S.254.Inasmuchas2600Enterprises,inthe Whoisrecordof_the t% $ DomainName,truthfullyselfidentifieditselfastheregistrant,theactualmaliceelementcannot  possiblybesatisfied.If2600had,withactualmalice,intendedto attributetoFORDMotor  Companytheexpressionoftheuncharitableopinion F___GENERALMOTORS,thenitwould T havebeentriviallyeasyfor2600tofalsifythe WhoisrecordtomakeitappearasthoughFORD & v wereinfacttheRegistrant.TheallegationsonthefaceoftheComplaintclearlyshowthat2600did  H notdoso.Thereclearlyexistsnobasisforanactualmaliceallegation,evenifonehadbeen    includedintheComplaint.Thus,Plaintifffailstoallegeaviabletort.     B.0 ` PlaintiffFailstoStateaTrademarkClaim. n ` (#` (#   Itisimportantthattrademarksnotbetransformedfromrightsagainstunfaircompetition B torightstocontrollanguage.%  _ " _ # CPC_Intl_,Inc.v.Skippy,Inc.,214F.3d456,462(4thCir.2000) d (quoting%   %  & MarkA.Lemley,TheModernLanhamActandtheDeathofCommonSense,108YaleL.J. 6 1687,171011(1999));seealso%   (  ) NorthlandIns.Cos.v.Blaylock,115F.Supp.2d1108,111920(D.  Minn.2000)%   + ; . Bihariv.Gross,119F.Supp.2d309,32223(S.D.N.Y.2000)%   0  1 ;LucentTech.,Inc.v.  Lucentsucks.Com,95F.Supp.2d528,535(E.D.Va.2000);%   3  4 BallyTotalFitnessHoldingCorp.v. \ Faber,29F.Supp.2d1161,1168(C.D.Cal.1998). .~   NoneofPlaintiffstrademarktheoriesisviablebecausePlaintifffailstoallegea  P simultaneousbranding(asopposedtoexpressive)useofanytrademarkbyboththePlaintiffandthe !"  Defendant.ItisundisputedthatFORDisabrandnameusedbythePlaintiff.T /#  4      ׀However,itis #" equallyundisputedthatDefendantshaveneverofferedanygoodsorservicesforsaleunderany  FORDbrandname,underanysimilarbrandname,orundertheF___GENERALMOTORS.COM  brandname.Inshort, thesituationinthiscaseissimplynotthekindofsituationthatthe T trademarklawscanbestretchedanddistortedtoaddress. Neithertrademarkinfringementnor , | trademarkdilutionhasanyapplicationhere.  T   AstheSixthCircuitsuccinctlyhasexplained: Atrademarkisadesignation,anyword,  &  name,symbol,ordevice,oranycombinationthereof,whichservestoidentifyanddistinguish[the]   goods[ofthemark'sowner]...fromthosemanufacturedorsoldbyothersandtoindicatethesource z  ofthegoods,evenifthatsourceisunknown.%   -  5 RockandRollHallofFameandMuseum,Inc.v. L GentileProds.,134F.3d749,753(6thCir.1998)(emphasisinoriginal)(quoting%   7  8 15U.S.C.1127). n  [_T]he_Ԁpurposeoftrademarkhasremainedconstantandlimited:Identificationofthemanufacturer @ orsponsorofagoodortheproviderofaservice.%   :  = Mattel,Inc.v.MCARecords,Inc.,28F.Supp.  2d1120,1141(C.D.Cal.1998)(quoting%  _ A _ B NewKidsontheBlockv.NewsAm._Publg_,971F.2d302,  _305(9thCir.1992)). [_I]n_Ԁordertobeprotectedasavalidtrademark,adesignationmustcreatea  separateanddistinctcommercialimpression,which...performsthetrademarkfunctionof  identifyingthesourceofthemerchandisetothecustomers.%    5 RockandRollHallofFame,at753 T (quoting%    <  C InreChemicalDynamics,Inc.,839QX}NXXX}NF.2d1569,1571(Fed.Cir.1988)#X}NXXQX}N#;1J.McCarthy3:3). & v   Itiswellestablishedthat [_t]here_Ԁisnosuchthingaspropertyinatrademarkexceptasaright  H appurtenanttoanestablishedbusinessortradeinconnectionwithwhichthemarkisemployed. 5 Id.    (citing%    ?  D UnitedDrugCo.v.TheodoreRectanusCo.,248U.S.90,97(1918)).Thus:   8  0`   [_W]hether_Ԁalleginginfringementofaregisteredtrademark,pursuantto%    F  G 15 n  U.S.C.1114(1),orinfringementofanunregisteredtrademark,pursuantto%    I _ W   J 15U.S.C.1125(a)(1),itisclearthataplaintiffmustshowthatithas @ actuallyusedthedesignationatissue asatrademark ,andthatthedefendant )y hasalsousedthesameorasimilardesignation asatrademark .See,e.g., c %   L  M HolidayInns,Inc.v.800Reservation,Inc.,86F.3d619,62223(6th M Cir.1996),cert.denied,519U.S.1093(1997);%   O  P HomeownersGroup,Inc.v. 6 HomeMarketingSpecialists,Inc.,931F.2d1100,1105(6thCir.1991).In  otherwords,theplaintiffmustestablishalikelihoodthatthedefendant's  designationwillbeconfusedwiththeplaintiff'strademark,suchthat  consumersaremistakenlyledtobelievethatthedefendant'sgoodsare  producedorsponsoredbytheplaintiff.See,e.g., M HolidayInns,86F.3dat s 623.I\` `   5 Id.at75354(italicsinoriginal;otheremphasisadded);accord%    Parks,76F.Supp.2dat784n.9. .~ Likewise,withrespecttotheFederalTrademarkDilutionAct:  P 0  8` (#(#Iftheantidilutionstatutewereconstruedaspermittingatrademarkowner !"  toenjointheuseofhismarkinanoncommercialcontextfoundtobe " ! negativeoroffensive,thenacorporationcouldshielditselffromcriticismby #" forbiddingtheuseofitsnameincommentariescriticalofitsconduct.The $# legitimateaimoftheantidilutionstatuteistoprohibittheunauthorizeduse v% $ ofanother'strademarkinordertomarketincompatibleproductsorservices. _&!% TheConstitutiondoesnot,however,permittherangeoftheantidilution H'"& %  %QX}NXXX}Nstatutetoencompasstheunauthorizeduseofatrademarkinanoncommercial 1(#' settingsuchasaneditorialorartisticcontext. )j$(  *S%)` `  #X}NXXQX}N8#H%   4 BallyTotalFitness,29F.Supp.2dat1168.PlaintiffsdistasteforDefendantscommunicative   messagecannotjustifythesilencingofcriticalspeech.%   = Mattel,Inc.,28F.Supp.2dat1137.Thus,  theproblemwithFORDstrademarktheory(essentially,anattempttocircumventthestricturesof T theFirstAmendmentandoftraditionaldefamationlawbyseekingtorecastdefamationclaimsas & v trademarkcausesofaction)isthattrademarklawonlyapplieswhen both PlaintiffandDefendant  H areusingtrademarks astrademarks .Q /#  5      ׀     Inthiscase,DefendantscannotpossiblyinfringeordiluteanytrademarkbecauseDefendants   arenotusinganytrademarkasabrand.%   5 RockandRollHallofFame,at753;seealso%      Data v  Concepts,Inc.v.DigitalConsulting,Inc.,150F.3d620,62727(6thCir.1998)(Merritt,J., H concurring)(citing%   X  Y LockheedMartinCorp.v.NetworkSolutions,Inc.,QX}NXXX}NԀ985F.Supp.949,956 j (C.D.Cal.1997)#X}NXXQX}Nϭ#);%   [  \ UnitedStatesPatentandTrademarkOffice,ExaminationGuideNo.299: < TrademarksComposed,InWholeOrInPart,ofDomainNames(Sept.29,1999);NewKids,  971F.2d302(9thCir.1992)(expressivereferencetotrademarkdoesnotconstitutebrandinguse);   = Mattel,Inc.,28F.Supp.2dat1137;%    Parks,76F.Supp.2d775.DefendantsuseoftheDomain b Nameinthiscaseclearlyisnota branding use. 4   ThemostDefendantsaredoingismakinganexpressivereferencetoGeneralMotors  \ Corporation,intheprocessofexpressinganopinion.Suchexpressive,nonbrandingconductis  completelynonactionableonanytheoryoftrademarkinfringementordilution.%   5 %    %   = %    Id.󀀀Intheabsence  ofanyallegationintheComplaint(andthereisnone)oftheusebyDefendantsofanytrademarkfor T brandingasopposedtoexpressiveorreferentialpurposes,thenthereisnoviablecauseofaction. & v    ` 1.0 FORDHasNoStandingToComplainAbout F_GeneralMotors.com H (# (#    GeneralMotorshasthreatenedtosuetheDefendantsoverthisDomainName,buthasnot.    InFact,theDomainNamedoesnotinfringeanyrightofGeneralMotors.However,clearlyenough,   FORDdoesnotownorhaveanyrighttothetrademarksofitsdirectcompetitorGeneralMotors. p  FORDhasnostandingtosueonGeneralMotorssbehalf. B   Thedefenseoflackofstandingtosuemayproperlyberaisedbywayofa%    Rule12(b)(6) d motion.%   ^  _ Lujanv.DefendersofWildlife,504U.S.555,661(1992)(%    a  b citingLujanv.NationalWildlife 6 Federation,497U.S.871,883-889(1990));% !  d  e SierraClubv.Morton,405U.S.727,731,739-41&  n.16(1972);seealso% "  k  l Whitmorev.Arkansas,495U.S.149(1990)% #  n ; o ValleyForgeChristianCollege  v.AmericansUnitedforSeparationofChurchandState,Inc.,454U.S.464,471-476(1982).Here, \ FORDlacksstanding. .~     ` 2.0 PlaintiffFailsToStateaViableFTDAClaim.  P (# (#   TheFederalTrademarkDilutionActprovidesthat: !$  0  8` (#(#(1)Theownerofafamousmarkshallbeentitled,subjecttotheprinciplesof #" equityanduponsuchtermsasthecourtdeemsreasonable,toaninjunction $# againstanotherperson's commercialuseincommerce of amarkortrade x% $ name ,ifsuchusebeginsafterthemarkhasbecomefamousandcauses d&!% dilutionofthedistinctivequalityofthemark,andtoobtainsuchotherrelief P'"& asisprovidedinthissubsection.9(#'` `  Ѐ% $  g  h 15U.S.C.1125(c)(1)(emphasisadded).Foraplaintifftostateafederalclaimofdilution,the  *[%) Complaintmustcontainsufficientfactualallegationstosupportallofthefollowingelements: (1) +-'+ theseniormarkmustbefamous;(2)itmustbedistinctive;(3)thejuniorusemustbeacommercial  useincommerce;(4)itmustbeginaftertheseniormarkhasbecomefamous;and(5)itmustcause  dilutionofthedistinctivequalityoftheseniormark.% %  p  q KelloggCo.v.ExxonCorp.,209F.3d562, T 577(6thCir.2000)(% &  s quoting t  t Nabisco,Inc.v.PFBrands,Inc.,191F.3d208,215(2ndCir.1999))% '  v ; x  & v TimesMirrorMagazines,Inc.v.LasVegasSportsNews,L.L.C.,212F.3d157,163(3rdCir.2000)  H (listingelements theplaintiffmustpleadandproveto establishaprimafaciecaseoftrademark    dilution)(citing4McCarthy,24:89% (  { ; | HersheyFoodsCorp.v.Mars,Inc.,998F.Supp.500,504   (M.D.Pa.1998)).Here,atleastthreefundamentalpleadingrequirementsarenotsatisfied:(1) n   famous;(2) commercialuseincommerce;and(3) amarkortradename. /#  6      ׀ @   First,andmostimportantly,theFTDArequiresa commercialuseincommerce!which b seemsatfirstblushtoberedundant,untilonerecognizesthat incommercereferstotheCommerce 4 ClauseofArticleIoftheU.S.Constitution,while commercialusereferstoaseparatedoctrine!  theFirstAmendment CommercialSpeechdoctrine% *  } of ~ CentralHudsonGas&Elec.Corp.v.Public  Serv.CommnofN.Y.,447U.S.557(1980). Z   Speechfallsinthe commercialcategoryonlyifitdoes nomorethanproposea ,| commercialtransaction.% +     VirginiaStateBd.ofPharmacyv.VirginiaCitizensConsumerCouncil, N Inc.,425U.S.748,762(1976);% ,  # CPCIntl,214F.3dat462.Herethesituationisthe exactopposite  !   !theDefendantsexpressionusing F___GENERALMOTORS.comconsistsexclusivelyofcore #" speech(humorouscommentaryandcriticism)anddoesnothingwhatsoevertoproposeany z% $ commercialtransactionwithanyone.% -  # % .   Id.;seealso% /     ԀRubinv.CoorsBrewingCo.,514U.S.476,481 L'"& 83(1995);% 0   Ԁ  44Liquormart,Inc.v.RhodeIsland,517U.S.484,49598(1996)(describinghistory  andlimitedscopeof commercialspeechdoctrine).    ForFTDApurposes,both incommerce and commercialusemustbesatisfied,andthe T twoarenotcoterminous.Here,the commercialuseprongclearlyisnotsatisfied.Ofcourse, , | FORDhasarguedthat commercialuseincommerce is redundant,andthatbothhalvesofthesame  N phraserefertotheCommerceClause.Fordsstatutoryinterpretationiswrongasamatteroflaw. /#  7      ׀  "    TheinterplaybetweentrademarklawandFirstAmendmentdoctrinesensiblyrecognizes   thattrademarksareentitledtolesser(CentralHudson)FirstAmendmentprotectiononlytothe v  extentthattrademarksaresolelycommercialandnonexpressive.See% 7   BadFrogBrewery,Inc.v. H NewYorkStateLiquorAuth.,134F.3d87,9697(2ndCir.1998);% 8  . Bihariv.Gross,119F.Supp.2d j at318(citing  BadFrog).Here,however,thespeechinquestionclearlyfallsoutsidethe <  commercialspeechdoctrine,andasnoncommercialspeechisboth(1)entitledtothefullpanoply  ofFirstAmendmentprotection,and(2)notsubjecttoanyregulationwhatsoeverundertheFTDA.  Ѐ% 9  ) NorthlandIns.Cos.,115F.Supp.2dat112223;% :   Ԁ  HQM,Ltd.v.Hatfield,71F.Supp.2d500,50507 b (D.Md.1999).IfCongressionalintenttoexemptnoncommercialspeechfromFTDAregulation 4 werenotclearenough,Congressspecificallyemphasizedthisexemptionbyincorporatingthe  V  noncommercialspeechexceptionnotonlyasanessentialelementofthePlaintiffscaseinchief,  butalsoasanabsolutedefensetotheDilutionActunder% ;     15U.S.C.1125(c)(4)(B).Specifically,   Thefollowingshallnotbeactionableunderthissection:(B)Noncommercialuseofamark.  Id. T   NoneofthevariousCourtofAppealsopinionsinterpretingtheFTDAisinanyway & v inconsistentwiththeDefendantsstatutoryinterpretation_ /#  8      _Ԁ!namely,that incommercerefersto  H theCommerceClause,butthat commercialuseis not synonymouswith incommerce,and    insteadexemptsallspeechfromFTDAregulation unless thespeechis commercialspeech.See   % ?  q KelloggCo.,209F.3dat577;% @  x TimesMirrorMagazines,Inc.,212F.3dat163(usingterm z   interstatetomodify commercebut not commercialuse);seealso% A       _TCPIP_ԀHoldingCo.,Inc. L v._Haar_ԀCommunications,Inc.,244F.3d88,93(2ndCir.2001)% B   ;  EliLilly&Co.v.NaturalAnswers, $t Inc.,233F.3d456,466(7thCir.2000);% C   Ԁ  FederalExp.Corp.v.FederalEspresso,Inc.,201F.3d168 F (2ndCir.2000);% D  t Nabisco,Inc.v.PFBrands,Inc.,191F.3d208(2ndCir.1999)% E   ;  _I.P._ԀLundTrading  _ApS_Ԁv.KohlerCo.,163F.3d27(1stCir.1998).TheoneCourtofAppealsthathassquarely  addressedthisissuehasrecognizedthemeritofDefendantsinterpretation: T 0  8` (#(#_Toeppen_Ԁarguesthathisuseof_Panavision_'strademarkssimplyashisdomain & v namescannotconstituteacommercialuseundertheAct .Caselawsupports  _ thisargument .See% F     _Panavision_ԀInternational,L.P.v._Toeppen_,945F.Supp.  K 1296,1303(C.D.Cal.1996)( Registrationofa_trade[mark_]asadomain  7  name,withoutmore,isnotacommercialuseofthetrademarkandtherefore   isnotwithintheprohibitionsoftheAct.);_c /#  9      _% G   Ԁ  AcademyofMotionPictureArts   &Sciencesv.NetworkSolutions,Inc.,989F.Supp.1276(C.D.Cal.1997)   (themereregistrationofadomainnamedoesnotconstituteacommercial   use);% H       ԀLockheedMartinCorp.v.NetworkSolutions,Inc.,985F.Supp.949 t  (C.D.Cal.1997)(_NSI_'sacceptanceofadomainnameforregistrationisnota ]  commercialusewithinthemeaningoftheTrademarkDilutionAct).F` `  % I     _Panavision_ԀIntern.,L.P.v._Toeppen_,141F.3d1316,1319(9thCir.1998).Moreover,severalDistrict h Courtsaddressingthisexactissuehaverepeatedlyheldthatnoncommercialreferencesinspeechdo : notqualifyasa commercialuseincommerce.% J  ) NorthlandIns.Cos.,115F.Supp.2dat112223   ( Onthebasisofthepresentrecord,defendant's[Internet]useisfornoncommercialcommentary  purposes.Defendantcorrectlycontendsthathisuseisexemptbecauseitconstitutesnoncommercial ` speech.Therefore,thecourtfindsthatplaintiffisunlikelytoprevailonthemeritsoftheFTDA 2 claim.);% K   HQM,Ltd.,71F.Supp.2dat50507( TheCourtbelieves,however,thattheComplaint  T  failstoallegefactssufficienttopleadthestatutoryelementsof commercialuseand dilution.); !&  % L  4 BallyTotalFitnessHoldingCorp.,29F.Supp.2d1161(holdingmereuseofanother'smarkon  Internetisinsufficienttoconstitutecommercialuse).     Likewise,inacloselyrelatedandparallelcontext,theSouthernDistrictofnewYorkhas T squarelyrecognizedthat: & v 0  8` (#(#Thecommercialuserequirementin% M  J 43(a)tracksthecommercialspeech  H doctrineasdevelopedbytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt.See% N  ~ Central  1  Hudson,447U.S.557,561.FollowingtheSupremeCourt'sprecedent,the    SecondCircuithasexplainedthat [_t]he_Ԁcorenotionofcommercialspeech   includesspeechwhichdoesnomorethanproposeacommercial   transaction.% O   BadFrogBrewery,Inc.v.NewYorkStateLiquorAuth.,134   F.3d87,97(2dCir.1998)(quotingBolgerv._Youngs_ԀDrugProd.Corp.,463 n  U.S.60,66(1983)QX}NXXX}N). #X}NXXQX}N#Themereuseofanother'snameontheInternet...is W  notpersecommercialuse."BallyTotalFitnessHoldingCorp.,29F.Supp. @ 2dat(_C.D.Cal_.1998)QX}NXXX}N.NordotheGross_websites_Ԁofferany commercial )y transaction.b` `  #X}NXXQX}N#% P  . Bihariv.Gross,119F.Supp.2d309,318,(S.D.N.Y.2000).Thesamereasoningapplieshere. 4 FORDsFTDAallegationsfailtostateaclaimbecauseFORDdoesnotallegeany commercialuse  incommercebytheDefendantsofanytrademark.QX}NXXX}N     `  3.0  FORDIsNota FamousTrademark. Z(#(#   TheSixthCircuitrepeatedlyhas#X}NXXQX}N#recognizedthedifferencebetweenbarelegal .~  conclusions(whicharenotsufficienttosaveaComplaintfromdismissal)andthenecessityof  P allegingsufficientfactstostateaclaim.See% Q   Gregory,220F.3dat446;% R   Begala,214F.3dat779 !"  ( Morethanbareassertionsoflegalconclusionsisordinarilyrequiredtosatisfyfederalnotice #" pleadingrequirements);% S   Claybrook,199F.3dat353n.1( Acourtisnotboundtoacceptalleged v% $ legalconclusionsorunwarrantedfactualinferences.);% T    Mixon,193F.3dat400;% U    Morgan,829F.2d H'"& at12.Here,FORDhasallegedtheconclusionthatthewordmarkFORD(adifferenttrademark )j$( fromFORDinablueoval)isasocalled famoustrademark,withoutsupportingfactualallegations *<&* sufficienttosupportanFTDAclaim.Atleastinthefaceoftheminimalsupportingfactual  allegationsmadebyFORDinthiscase,theFTDAsimplydoesnotreach surnametrademarkssuch  as FORD.% V     Avery_Dennison_ԀCorp.v._Sumpton_,QX}NXXX}NԀ189F.3d868,87577(9thCir.1999)#X}NXXQX}N#Ԁ( Averyand T  _Dennison_marksmeettestof acquireddistinctivenessbut _g[o_]nofurtheranddonotmeet & v statutoryrequirementforFTDAremedy).  H QX}NXXX}N  Boththeterm famousandtheterm dilution!asthosetermsofartareusedintheFTDA    !havecausedthecourtsconsiderableinterpretivedifficulty.See% W   FederalExp.Corp.,201F.3dat   17778;#X}NXXQX}NO#QX}NXXX}N% X     _Ringling_ԀBros.Barnum&BaileyCombinedShows,Inc.v.UtahDiv.ofTravelDev.#X}NXXQX}N#QX}NXXX}N,170 n  F.3d449,459(4thCir.)(RecognizingthattheFTDAterm dilutionpresents_unremitting[ly_] @ _difficul[t_]...interpretive_problem[s_]forallwhotouchit...)#X}NXXQX}N#QX}NXXX}N,#X}NXXQX}N#cert.denied,528U.S.923(1999); b % Y   _I.P._ԀLund,163F.3d27at4647( Boththetextandlegislativehistoryoftheoriginalbillin1988 4 andtheFTDAitselfindicateacongressionalintentthatcourtsshouldbediscriminatingandselective  incategorizingamarkasfamous.);% Z   HQM,Ltd.,71F.Supp.2dat50609.    TheFederalTrademarkDilutionActisstrongmedicinebecauseitrestrictsnoncompeting Z usesoftrademarks!e.g.,KodakpianosorXeroxmouthwash.Accordingly,dilutionremediesare ,| availableonlyforasmallclassofmarkscalled famousmarks.TheFTDArequires,asa N mandatorypreconditionforadilutioncauseofaction,thatatrademarkmustbe famous and !   distinctive .See% [   _TCPIP_ԀHoldingCo.,Inc.,244F.3dat9394.Notalltrademarksare famousand #" distinctive!evenifextraordinarilywellknown.  Avery_Dennison_,189F.3dat87577;% \     _Hasbro_,Inc. % $ v.ClueComputing,Inc.,66F.Supp.2d117,13132(D.Mass.1999),_affd_,232F.3d1(1stCir.2000) R'"&  ( CLUEisnota famoustrademark). $)t$(   Themark FORDisnotanarbitraryorfancifulcoinedtermlike Kodak, Xerox,   Prozac, Kleenex,or(probablynotfamous yet ) Verizon.Indeed,manycompaniesotherthan  theFordMotorCompanyoffergoodsorservicesincommercethatusemarksreferencingthename Z  Ford.See,e.g.,U.S.P.T.O.Reg.No.1939442(Dec.5,1995)( BettyFordCenter);U.S.P.T.O. , | Reg.No.2400805(Oct.31,2000)( OneFordRoadforrealestatedevelopment);U.S.P.T.O.Reg.  N No.2075160(July1,1997)( HenryFordHealthSystemforhealthcareservices);U.S.P.T.O.Reg.   No.2077011(July8,1997)( HenryFordforhealthcareservices);U.S.P.T.O.RegNo.2064445   (May27,1997)( HenryFordMuseum);U.S.P.T.O.App.No.76001043(publishedfor t  oppositionOct.24,2000)( FordsColonyforcountryclubentertainmentservices);U.S.P.T.O. F App.No.75514241(publishedforoppositionDec.28,1999)( TheFordPlantationforrealestate h development,hotelservices,andgolfcourseentertainmentservices). :   Thenakedword FORDsimplylacksthedegreeofinherentdistinctivenesstoassociateit   uniquelywithasinglecompanyorasinglesourceofgoodsandservices.Thestrongestprotection  isreservedforfancifulmarksthatarepurelytheproductofimaginationandhavenological ` associationwiththeproduct.% ]   EliLilly&Co.,233F.3dat466( Prozaccase);% ^  t Nabisco,Inc.,191 2 F.3dat216.EspeciallywhenthefactualallegationsmadebyFORDinsupportofits_conclusory_  T allegationthatthenakedwordFORDis famousaresoscant,itwouldbeinappropriatesimply !&  toassumethat FORDcanclaimtopossessasocalled famousmark.% _   _TCPIP_ԀHoldingCo.,244 #" F.3dat95( againstabackgroundof policiesthatstronglydisfavormarkslackinginherent z% $ distinctiveness ,accordingthemonlynarrowprotection,wethinkithighlyunlikelythatCongress R'"& intendedtoextendtosuchmarkstheexpanded% b %by rightsconferredbytheDilutionAct)(emphasis *)z$( added).Amarkthatevokesanassociationwithaspecificsourceonlywhenusedinconnectionwith *L&* theparticulargoodsorservicesthatitidentifiesisordinarilynotsufficientlydistinctivetobe  protectedagainstdilution.% `   _I.P._ԀLund,at4647.   II.0  ThereIsNoGeneral RightNottoBeReferredToontheWeb. T(#(#   FORDsimplydoesnothavetherighttopickandchooseamongspeakers,allowingsome ( x speakertolinkorrefertoFORDsWebsite,andforbiddingother,disfavoredspeakersfromdoing  J so.Yetthisexpansivepowertopickandchoose,byvetoing(censoring)thespeechofothersis    exactlywhatFORDdemandsinthiscase.SeeMay28,2001Transcript,at54:     <( 4 <DLX<Xx XXX}N8  THECOURT:Yeah.TheGeneralMotorscomponentofthe, p  ofthelinkonthefarenddoesnotseemtobeofany 8  reallysubstantialsignificanceas,Ithink,through P thisinlisteningtoyourarguments.Itwouldseemthat  Fordwouldhaveanequivalentcomplaint,andequivalent  argumentswithalmostany,let'ssay,disagreeable X messageoutatthefarendwhichthenlinksintothe  p Fordtrademarksaidproductsatthe,atthegenuine 8 Fordwebsite.   8  MR.LEE:Itmightwell.@   8  THECOURT:Doyouagreewiththat?    8  MR.LEE:Itmighthave,YourHonor,IthinkIdo,#X}NX XXx#Ԁ....`     ThearbitrarypowerthatFORDseekstocommandinthiscase(andwhich,ifgranted,willcertainly 2 bedemandedbymanyinstitutionshereandabroadwhicharefarlessbenignthanFORDclaimsto  T  be)representsadirectandextraordinarythreattofreespeechontheInternet. !&"   TheWorldWideWebisbasedonakindofcommonlyunderstood socialcontract,defined #$ atthetimeofitscreation,whichrecognizes freedomtolinkasitscoreandmostfundamental z% & value,andwhichFORDisnotatlibertytorewriteordisregardunilaterallyatFORDspleasure.See L'"( _% a   _  Tim_Berners_ԄLee,AxiomsofWebArchitecture4LinksandLaw:Myths,publishedat< )n$* 45XO  5  http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkMyths.html6XO(_  75Ԁ>;% b     TimBernersLee,AxiomsofWebArchitecture *@&, 2LinksandLaw,publishedat<45XO  5  http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkLaw6XO (_  75S7Ԁ>.Asclearly  explainedbythemanwhocreatedtheWeb: Wecannotregardanyoneashavingtherightnotto  bereferredtowithoutcompletelypullingtherugoutfromunderfreespeech.  % c   Id.Thisisbecause T  [t]heabilitytorefertoadocument(orapersonoranythingelse)isingeneralafundamentalright & v offreespeechtothesameextentthatspeechisfree.Makingthereferencewithahypertextlinkis  H moreefficientbutchangesnothingelse.... Thereisnoreasontohavetoaskbeforemakinga    linktoanothersite. Id.     TherearetwoeasyandcommonlyunderstoodmechanismsbywhichFORDmay optout z  ofthesocialcontractauthorizinganyWebpublishertomakelinksorreferralstoanyotherWeb L pageforanyreasonornoreasonatall:(1)donotpublishaWebpage,or(2)erecta software n codebarriertoregulatethelinksorreferrals.Forexample,Internetprotocolsauthorizetheuse @ ofpasswordprotectiontorestrictaccesstoallorpartofaWebsite.Likewise,itiscommon(infact,  2600'sWebsiteusessoftware codetoencouragevisitorstoenterthesitethroughtheHomepage,  iinsteadofthrough deeplinks)touseacomputerdatabasetogeneratepagesonthefly!making f itpossibletohaveaWebswitethatisopentothepublic,butthatthepublicmayvisitinonlya 8 predeterminedway.Intheabsenceofatechnological optout,however,itisitisimportantto  Z makethedefaultruleof freedomtolinkuniformandsimple.EntitieslikeFORDshouldnotbe !,  giventheopportunityunilaterallytolegislatetheirownsetofrulesbecausetheresultingpatchwork #" wouldbedetrimentalanddamagingtothefabricoftheWorldWideWeb. % $   R'"&  III.0  DefendantsareNotSubjecttoPersonalJurisdiction.  @ (#(#   Theexistenceofpersonaljurisdictionisanecessaryprerequisiteforinjunctiverelief_% d   _.  R.M.S.  Titanic,Inc.v._Haver_,171F.3d943,95758(4thCir.1999).Andtheburdenisontheplaintiffto V presentanevidentiaryfoundationforpersonaljurisdiction.% e     Compuserve,Inc.v.Patterson,89F.3d ( x 1257,1262(6thCir.1996);% f     _Winfield_ԀCollection,Ltd.v.McCauley,105F.Supp.2d746,74849  J (E.D.Mi.2000);% g     Neighborsv.PenskeLeasing,Inc.,45F.Supp.2d593,597(E.D.Mi.1999).The    affidavitofEricCorley,submittedinadvanceofthepreliminaryinjunctionhearing,demonstrates   withaffirmativeevidencethatneitherDefendanthasjurisdictionalcontactswithMichigansufficient p  tosatisfytherequirementsoftheMichiganLongArmstatuteorDueProcess. B   Plaintiffhasnotmadeanycountervailingevidentiaryshowingtoestablishanyjurisdicitonal d contactswhatsoever.Moreover,Plaintiffhasnotevenmadeouta primafacieevidentiarycasefor 6 personaljurisdictionsufficienttojustifythetakingofjurisdictionaldiscovery.See% h     CentralStates,  _S.E._Ԁ&_S.W._ԀAreasPensionFundv._Reimer_ԀExpressWorldCorp.,230F.3d934,94647(7thCir.  2000);% i     Ellisv.FortuneSeas,Ltd.,175_F.R.D._Ԁ308,312(S.D.Ind.1997)( [A]plaintiffis notalways  \ entitledtodiscoverytorespondtoamotiontodismissforlackofpersonaljurisdiction.)(emphasis 4 added);% j     Poev.BabcockIntl,_plc_,662F.Supp.4,7(M.D.Pa.1985)( Itwouldbeinappropriatefor  V thiscourttoallowplaintifftoconductafishingexpeditioninordertoconstructabasisfor !(  jurisdiction.);% k     _Leema_ԀEnters.,Inc.v._Willi_,575F.Supp.1533,1536(S.D.N.Y.1983);% l     Caribbean #" Broadcasting_Sys_.,Ltd.v.Cable&WirelessPLC,148F.3d1080,108990(D.C.Cir.1998);% m     _Jazini_ |% $ v.NissanMotorCo.,148F.3d181,18586(2ndCir.1998);% n     _Noonan_Ԁv.WinstonCo.,135F.3d85, N'"& 9495(1stCir.1998);% o     _Theunissen_Ԁv.Matthews,935F.2d1454,1465(6thCir.1991);% p     _Naartex_  )p$( ConsultingCorp.v.Watt,722F.2d779,788(D.C.Cir.1983);% q     McLaughlinv._McPhail_,707F.2d *B&* 800,80607(4thCir.1983);_% r   _  ChryslerCorpv._Fedders_ԀCorp.,643F.2d1229,123940(6thCir.1981);  % s     _Greenspun_Ԁv.DelE.WebbCorp.,634F.2d1204,1208n.5(9thCir.1980);% t     LehighValleyIndus.,  Inc.v._Birenbaum_,527F.2d87,9394(2ndCir.1975);% u     H.L.MooreDrugExch.,Inc.v.Smith,Kline T &FrenchLabs.,384F.2d97,9798(2ndCir.1967);__% v   _  Hansenv._Neumuller_ԀGmbH,163_F.R.D._Ԁ471, & v 47476(D.Del.1995);% w     InternationalTerminalOperatingCo.,Inc.v._Skibs_ԀA/S_Hidlefjord_,63  H _F.R.D._Ԁ85,8788(S.D.N.Y.1973).      QX}NXXX}NPlaintiffbearsthesoleburdenofestablishingthefactualfoundationforpersonaljurisdiction   overeitheroftheDefendants.% x   Compuserve,Inc.,89F.3dat1262.Inordertoestablishpersonal n  jurisdiction,Plaintiffsmustsatisfytwoseparateanddistinctrequirements.% y      Greenv.Wilson,455 @ Mich.342,34851&nn.46,565N.W.2d813,81517&nn.46(1997)(holdingMichigan Long b ArmStatuteandFederalDueProcessanalysescannotbecollapsedintoasingleinquiry);% z      _Neogen_ 4 Corp.v.NeoGenScreening,Inc.,109F.Supp.2d724,727(W.D.Mi.2000);% {   Neighbors,45F.  Supp.2dat597.Plaintiffshavetheburdenofestablishingboth(1)thatoneormoreofthefactual  predicatesnecessarytotriggertheMichiganLongArmstatute   ;sat  _ /#  10      _havebeensatisfiedwithsufficient Z admissibleevidence,and(2)thattheexerciseofpersonaljurisdictionbyaMichigancourtovereach ,| DefendantmustbeconsistentwiththedualDueProcessrequirementsof purposeful_availment_, N and fairplayandsubstantialjustice.Id.;%      Hansonv._Denckla_,357U.S.235,253(1958); !   %       InternationalShoeCov.Washington,326U.S.310,316(1945);%    _Winfield_ԀCollection,Ltd.,105F. #" Supp.2dat74849.IfeitherDueProcessortheLongArmStatuteisnotsatisfied,dismissalis  mandatory.Id.  Ѐ  WhenfacedwithaproperlysupportedRule12(b)(2)motion,thePlaintiffsmustsetforth T sufficientfactsestablishingpersonaljurisdiction.%    Neighbors,at595;#X}NXXQX}N6#seealso%      KerrySteel,Inc.v. & v ParagonIndus.,106F.3d147,15253(6thCir.1997).Plaintiffsarenotpermittedtoreston  H pleadingsalone,butmustcomeforwardwithspecificevidenceinadmissibleformthat,ifbelieved,    wouldbesufficienttosupporttheexerciseofpersonaljurisdiction.%    _Theunissen_,935F.2dat1458);_%     _ !    HiTex,Inc.v._TSG_,Inc.,87F.Supp.2d738,74142(E.D.Mi.2000). n    Here,Plaintiffssolebasisforassertingjurisdictionappearstoinvolverelianceuponthe @  lexicalcontexttheoryof effectstestjurisdictionpositedin    FordMotorCo.v.GreatDomains, b Inc.,141F.Supp.2d763(E.D.Mich.Mar30,2001).However,asshouldbeobvious,the:lexical 4 contextof F___GENERALMOTORS.COMissofarremovedfromthetrademarkFORD,thatthe  Fordv.GreatDomainsdecisioncannotpossiblyapplyhere.Moreover,inlightofPlaintiffsfailure  toallegeadefamationclaim,thesocalled effectstestofCalderv.Jones(adefamationcase)is Z notandshouldnotbeapplicablehere.Simplyput,Plaintiffhasnotsetforththenecessaryfactual ,| predicatethatanassertionof effectstestjurisdictionclearlywouldrequire.See%      Reynoldsv. N InternationalAmateurAthl._Assn_,23F.3d1110(6thCir.1994)%   "  # ;IMOIndus.v._Kiekert_,AG,154 !   F.3d254(3rdCir.1998);%   %  & _ESAB_ԀGroup,Inc.v._Centricut_,Inc.,126F.3d617,62526(4thCir.1997). #" @GG% CONCLUSION  t% $   Wherefore,premisesconsidered,DefendantsrespectfullypraythatPlaintiffsMotionfora H'"& PreliminaryInjunctionberejectedandthattheactionbedismissedWITHPREJUDICEforlackof )j$( jurisdictionorfailuretostatea_claim. *<&*    `     h     Respectfullysubmitted,  S  !  X!X}NXXX}N  6 ` p x  6S\K     `   2600ENTERPRISESandS\KK݌  Ќ  $ XXX$X}NXXX}N     `     h     ERICCORLEYp/k/a k    `     h     EMMANUELGOLDSTEIN, T ?+ ` hp x X?S  !  X!X}NXXX}N  6 ` p x  6SN     `   Bycounsel,SNN݌ & v Ќ  $ XXX$X}NXXX}N  S  !  X!X}NXXX}N  6 ` p x  6SO  SOP݌̌  $ XXX$X}NXXX}N    -p x X-Dated:July2,2001  ____________________________  H     EricC.Grimm(P58990)  1      CyberBrief,PLC      320SouthMainStreet     AnnArbor,MI481077341       7343324900     fax7343324901 n  S  $  X$X}NXXX}N  0p x  0SR  SR3S݌̌  $ XX$X}NXXX}N    COUNSELFORDEFENDANTS. @ @ CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE  K Icertifythat QX}NXXX}NQMIXQX}NDEFENDANTSRULE12(b)(2)AND12(b)(6)MOTIONAND  SUPPORTINGMEMORANDUMTODISMISSFORLACKOFPERSONAL  JURISDICTIONANDFAILURETOSTATEACLAIM wasservedonallcounselfo  record,byFirstClassMail,postageprepaid,onJuly2,2001.    ____________________________#MIQMI^T##X}NXMI}T#