#   # &
`% % !&% 
`!:78:,39 94 $9 7.:9 #:0  
`
`%#  %%     55  ! 9 7
`0 ,20 ,  5 
`
`&% $%%$  &#%  !!$
`
` # % $ % #&%
`*****************
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`##  #
`!,3911
`550,39
`
`RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
`4
`
`;
`Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206
`
`ELECTRONIC CITATION: 2002 FED App. O177P (6th Cir.)
`#$ !#$ $
`File Name: 02a0177p.O6
`0103/,39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`$%! '%  #
`#  %$%# 
`FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
`,3/ %#  
`0103/,398
`550008
`
`DARRELL J. BIRD,
`550, 1742 90 &390/ $9,908 897.9 4:79
`147 90 $4:9073 897.9 41 4 ,9 ,943
`Plaintzff-Appellant,
`4
` .,0 # 07 ,897,90 :/0
`V
`No. 00-4556
`$:-2990/ ,7.   
`
`MARSHALL PARSONS,
`0./0/ ,3/ 0/ ,   
`Defendant,
`01470  ##$ $# ,3/  7.:9 :/08
`STEPHEN VINCENT, GEORGE
`
`DECARLO, DOTSTER, INC.,
`
`and AFTERN1C.COM, INC.,
`
`Defendants-Appellees.
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Southern District of Ohio at Dayton.
`
`No. 00-00266—Michae1 R. Merz, Magistrate Judge.
`
`Submitted: March 22, 2002
`
`

`
`
`
`7/ ; !,78438 09 ,
`
`4
`
`
`*****************
`
` &$
`
`  # #.,7/ $ 4;073 ## #
`4:2-:8 4 0;3  42,3 $ $%
`  # ,943 4 147 550008 ,770  7/
`,943 4 574 80
`
`
`*****************
`
` ! 
`*****************
`
`2
`
`Bird v. Parsons, et al.
`No. 00-4556
`#    7.:9 :/0 ,770  7/
`,3 4 .903 574.00/3 574 80 -74:9 98 ,8:9
`,03 ;,74:8 ;4,9438 41 10/07, .4579 ,3/ 97,/02,7
`, ,,389 19073..42 3. 498907 3. 0470 0,74
`COUNSEL
`,78, !,78438 ,3/ $90;03 '3.039 498907 0,74 ,3/
`'3.039 ,70 .9038 41 ,83943 19073. ,8 98
`0,/6:,79078 3 0 47 ,3/ !,78438 708/08 3 ,1473,
`ON BRIEF: Richard S. Lovering, BRICKER & ECKLER,
`7/8 ,0,9438 3;4;0 90 /0103/,398 ,.9;908 3
`Columbus, Ohio, Kevin A. Bowman, SEBALY, SHILLITO
`.4330.943 9 90 70897,943 ,3/ ,9902590/ 8,0 41 90
`& DYER, Dayton, Ohio, for Appellees. Darrell J. Bird,
`3907309 0-890 013,3.,.42  /0103/,398 0.059
`Dayton, Ohio, pro se.
`!,78438 10/ 249438 94 /8288 147 1,:70 94 89,90 , .,2
`498907 0,74 ,3/ '3.039 90 498907 /0103/,398 ,84
`10/ , 24943 94 /8288 147 ,. 41 507843, :78/.943
`OPINION
`1907 /0907233 9,9 9 ,.0/ 507843, :78/.943 4;07 90
`498907 /0103/,398 ,3/ 9,9 7/ ,/ 1,0/ 94 89,90 , .,2
`,,389 0907 19073. 47 90 498907 /0103/,398 90 /897.9
`RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Darrell J. Bird,
`.4:79 7,390/ 90 249438 94 /8288 10/ - 9080
`an Ohio citizen proceeding pro se, brought this lawsuit
`/0103/,398 47 90 70,8438 809 1479 -04 0 # 90
`alleging various violations offederal copyright and trademark
`:/2039 41 90 /897.9 .4:79
`law against Aftemic.com, Inc., Dotster, Inc., George DeCarlo,
`Marshall Parsons, and Steven Vincent. Dotster, DeCarlo, and
` # &
`Vincent are citizens of Washington, Aftemic has
`its
`headquarters in New York, and Parsons resides in California.
`
`3907309 /42,3 3,208
`Bird’s allegations involve the defendants’ activities in
`%8 .,80 3;4;08 90 574.088 41 089,-83 /42,3
`connection with the registration and attempted sale of the
`3,208 147 3907309 0-8908 $0;07, 3974/:.947 702,78 ,70
`Internet website “ef1nancia.com.” All defendants except
`Parsons filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
`30.088,7 94 .,71 90 90728 ,3/ ,.9478 9,9 ,70 700;,39 94
`Dotster, DeCarlo, and Vincent (the Dotster defendants) also
`filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
`After determining that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the
`Dotster defendants and that Bird had failed to state a claim
`
`against either Aftemic or the Dotster defendants, the district
`court granted the motions to dismiss
`filed by these
`
`

`
`4
`
`
`7/ ; !,78438 09 ,
`
`
`
`90 574.088  2470 /09,0/ 05,3,943 41 9080 .43.0598
`.,3 -0 14:3/ 3 .,808 8:. ,8 4.00/ ,793 475 ;
`0947 $4:9438 3.   / 
`  9 7
` ;07 033843 475 ; $:25943  /  
`
`  9 7  ,3/ 4.00/ ,793 475 ; 0947
`$4:9438 3.   $:55  
`  ,  
`
`%0 .70,943 41 ,3 3907309 0-890 706:708 90 70807;,943
`41 , 4.,943 .,0/ ,3 3907309 !7494.4 ! ,//7088 ,3/ 90
`
`.425:907 5747,223 30.088,7 94 0307,90 90 .4390398 41
`90 890 3 47/07 94 2,0 :83 90 3907309 0,807 850.1.
` /42,3 3,208 ,70 ,8830/ 94 .47708543/ 94 90 !
`,//708808  507843 4 ,398 94 800.9 , /42,3 3,20 2:89
`708907 90 3,20 9 430 41 80;07, /42,3
`3,20 70897,78
`No. 00-4556
`Bird v. Parsons, et al.
`3
`%080 70897,78 8.7003 90 /42,3
`3,20 ,55.,9438 94 2,0
`8:70 9,9 90 /0870/ 3,20 8 349 ,70,/ -03 :80/ 3
`the process. A more detailed explanation of these concepts
`,//943 90 70897,7 2,39,38 , /70.947 9,9 38 /42,3
`can be found in cases such as Lockheed Martin Corp. v.
`3,208 9 907 .47708543/3 ! ,//708808
`Network Solutions, Inc., 194 F.3d 980, 981-82 (9th Cir.
`1999),AverjyDennison Corp. v. Sumpton, 189 F.3d 868, 871-
`3 3907309 :807 4 8008 94 ,..088 , 0-890 039078 90
`72 (9th Cir. 1999), and Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network
`/42,3
`3,20 .42-3,943 9,9 .47708543/8 94 90 ! ,//7088
`Solutions, Inc., 985 F. Supp. 949, 951-53 (C.D. Cal. 1997).
`,3/ 0 47 80 8 903 74:90/ 00.9743., 94 90 .425:907 9,9
`4898 9,9 ,//7088 0.,:80 349 0;07 507843 4 089,-808
`The creation of an Internet website requires the reservation
`, 0-890 /08708 94 489 90 890 43 8 47 07 43 .425:907
`of a location, called an Internet Protocol (IP) address, and the
`,3 3/:897 41 8:774,90 4898 ,8 /0;0450/ 070 039908
`computer programming necessary to generate the contents of
`.0380 85,.0 43 907 .425:9078 94 0-890 4507,9478 
`the site.
`In order to make using the Internet easier, specific
`507843 .,3 9:8 2,39,3 , 0-890 94:9 0053 8 47 07
`“domain names” are assigned to correspond to the IP
`507843, .425:907 .4389,39 .4330.90/ 94 90 3907309
`addresses. A person who wants to select a domain name must
`register the name with one of several domain-name registrars.
` ,.9:, -,.74:3/
`These registrars screen the domain-name applications to make
`7/ ,8 4507,90/ , .425:907 8419,70 -:83088 :3/07 90
`sure that the desired name is not already being used.
`In
`97,/03,20 3,3., 3. 83.0   3 4;02-07 41  
`addition, the registrar maintains a directory that links domain
`7/ 4-9,30/ 1472, 70897,943 147
`90
`97,/03,20
`names with their corresponding IP addresses.
` 3,3., 1742 90 &390/ $9,908 !,9039 ,3/ %7,/02,7
`An Internet user who seeks to access a website enters the
` 11.0 0 ,907 7089070/ , .4579 147 , 2,3:, ,3/
`domain-name combination that corresponds to the IP address,
`.425:907 84:7.0 .4/0 990/ 3,3., 3 0-7:,7 41  
`and he or she is then routed electronically to the computer that
`3,3., 3. 438 90 3907309 /42,3 3,20 13,3.,.42
`hosts that address. Because not every person who establishes
`7/ ,008 9,9 ,8 , 708:9 41 90 /08570,/ /897-:943 41
`a website desires to host the site on his or her own computer,
`8 .425:907 8419,70 5747,2 974:4:9 479 207.,
`an industry of surrogate hosts has developed, where entities
`83.0   ,3/ 90 5:-.,943 41 80;07, 3,943, ,79.08
`license space on their computers to website operators. A
`person can thus maintain a website without keeping his or her
`personal computer constantly connected to the Internet.
`
`B. Factual background
`
`

`
`
`
`7/ ; !,78438 09 ,
`
`4
`
`
`4
`
`
`7/ ; !,78438 09 ,
`
`
`
`,-4:9 8 5747,2 8 :36:0 8:089;0 ,3/( 1,3.1:
`97,/02,7 8 1,24:8
`
`,34907 ,3:,0 8:0898 , ,. 41 473,9 ,3/ .70,9;9
`,7507 #4 !:-8078 3. ; ,943 39078   &$
`    %0 .4579 8 290/ 94 9480 ,850.98 41
`90 4790720/ 057088439,9 /85, 90 89,25 41 90
`,:9478 473,9
`
`498907 8 , 70897,7 41 3907309 /42,3 3,208 9 4507,908
`,3 3907309 0-890 ,9 /498907.42 070 3/;/:,8
`,3/ .47547,9438 .,3 708907 ,3 ,5,3:207. 8973 41
` 0 90701470 .43.:/0 9,9 7/ ,8 1,0/ 94 89,90 , .,2
`.,7,.9078 ,8 ,3 3907309 /42,3 3,20 %8 70897,943
`41 .4579 317302039 ,,389 0907 19073. 47 90
`574.088 4507,908 3 .43:3.943 9 90 42,3 #0897,943
`498907 /0103/,398 %0 /897.9 .4:79 9:8 // 349 077 3
`41 3907309 8830/ ,208 ,3/ :2-078  . 8
`
`/82883 7/8 .4579 317302039 .,2
`2,39,30/ - 0947 $4:9438 3. ,3/ 70:,90/ - 90
`3907309 47547,943 147 8830/ ,208 ,3/ :2-078
` 498907 8 ,3 
`,..70/90/ 70897,7 3
`,//943 94 ,.93 ,8 , 70897,7 498907 ,48 70897,398 94
` 5,7 907 /42,3 3,208 43 98 :9:70420 5,0 %8
`4
`Bird v. Parsons, et al.
`No. 00-4556
`807;.0 8 :801: 147 70897,398 4 ,. ,3 3907309 807;07 94
`. 90 30 /42,3 3,20 .,3 -0 ,8830/
`about his program, his “unique, suggestive, [and] fancifu ”
`trademark is famous.
`!,78438
`7089070/
`90
`3907309
`/42,3
`3,20
` 013,3.,.42 - :83 4989078 0-890 43 0-7:,7 
`Dotster is a registrar of Internet domain names. It operates
`  0 903 /0./0/ 94 5,7 8 /42,3 3,20 43
`an Internet website at www.dotster.com, where individuals
`4989078 :9:70420 5,0 9
`90 ,//7088
`and corporations can register an alphanumeric string of
`013,3.,.42 7/ ,008 9,9 0,74 ,3/ '3.039
`characters as an Internet domain name. This registration
`,8 0907 ,0398 47 573.5,8 41 498907 944 ,3 ,.9;0 740 3
`process operates in conjunction with the Domain Registration
`,.9;,93 !,78438 0-890 ,3/ 3 ,/;07983 90 890 ,8
`of Internet Assigned Names and Numbers (IANN), which is
`,;,,-0 147 :80
`maintained by Network Solutions, Inc. and regulated by the
`Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
`19073. 8 , .425,3 9,9 574;/08 ,3 ,:.943 807;.0 43
`(ICANN). Dotster is an ICANN-accredited registrar.
`In
`98 0-890 ,19073..42 147 90 5:7.,80 8,0 ,3/
`addition to acting as a registrar, Dotster allows registrants to
`0.,30 41 /42,3 3,208 9 890/ 013,3.,.42 43 98
`“par ” their domain names on its “Futurehome page.” This
`0-890 43 0-7:,7   90 /, ,1907 !,78438 7089070/
`service is useful for registrants who lack an Internet server to
`90 /42,3 3,20 %0 /08.75943 41 90 /42,3 3,20 89,90/
`which the new domain name can be assigned.
`9,9 013,3., 20,38 03,3.0 3 $5,38 3 ,//943 90
`54893 890/ 1:3/,7/ , 3,20 9,9 7/ .43903/8
`Parsons
`registered
`the
`Internet
`domain
`name
`/039108 !,78438 ,8 90 /42,3 3,208 8007 7/ ,008
`“ef1nancia.com” by using Dotster’s website on February 10,
`9,9 90 08903.0 41 90 ,:.943 54893 147 013,3.,.42
`2000. He then decided to “park” his domain name on
` 8:0898 , # 950 41 2:9:, .438570/ 5,99073 41
`Dotster’s
`“Futurehome
`page” with
`the
`address
`.43/:.9
`www.ef1nancia.com. Bird alleges that DeCarlo and Vincent,
`as either agents or principals ofDotster, took an active role in
`activating Parson’s website and in advertising the site as
`available for use.
`
`another language suggests a lack of originality and creativity.
`Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S.
`539, 547 (1985) (“The copyright is limited to those aspects of
`the work—termed ‘ expression’—that display the stamp ofthe
`author’s originality.”).
`
`  &$ 
`
`47 , 41 90 70,8438 809 1479 ,-4;0 0 # 90
`No. 00-4556
`Bird v. Parsons, et al.
`25
`:/2039 41 90 /897.9 .4:79
`
`We therefore conclude that Bird has failed to state a claim
`
`infiingement against either Afternic or the
`of copyright
`Dotster defendants. The district court thus did not err in
`
`dismissing Bird’s copyright infringement claim.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For all of the reasons set forth above, we AFFIRM the
`judgment of the district court.
`
`Afternic is a company that provides an auction service on
`its website, www.afternic.com, for the purchase, sale, and
`exchange of domain names.
`It listed ef1nancia.com on its
`website on February 1 1, 2000, the day after Parsons registered
`the domain name. The description ofthe domain name stated
`
`

`
`
`
`7/ ; !,78438 09 ,
`
`4
`
`
`4
`
`
`7/ ; !,78438 09 ,
`
`
`
`47 9080 70,8438 0 .43.:/0 9,9 7/ ,8 1,0/ 94 89,90
`, .,2 :3/07 90 ! ,,389 0907 19073. 47 90 498907
`/0103/,398 %0 /897.9 .4:79 90701470 // 349 077 3
`/82883 7/8 ! .,2 ,,389 9080 /0103/,398
`
` !74.0/:7, -,.74:3/
`
` 00/ ;4,9438 41 10/07, .4579 ,
`
`%8 ,8:9 ,8 10/ 3 90 &390/ $9,908 897.9 4:79
`147 90 $4:9073 897.9 41 4 43 ,    7/8
`.425,39 ,008 97,/02,7 317302039 :31,7 .42509943
`,3/
`97,/02,7 /:943
`3 ;4,943 41  &$
`VV , , ,3/ . 70850.9;0 3
`49 19073. ,3/ 90 498907 /0103/,398 ,7:0 9,9 7/
`,//943 7/ ,880798 , .,2 147 .-0786:,993 :3/07 90
`1,0/ 94 89,90 , .,2 41 .4579 317302039 -0.,:80 ,
`39.-0786:,993 438:207 !7490.943 .9 41 
`
`.4579 47/3,7 /408 349 8:-889 3 , 830 47/ 4:798
`!  &$ V / ,8 0 ,8 147 .4579
`9,9 ,;0 ,//70880/ 98 88:0 ,;0 .43.:/0/ 9,9 9,3 ,
`317302039 3 ;4,943 41  &$ V  
`830 47/ 47 0;03 , 57,80 1742 , .45790/ 47
`0307, /408 349 ;4,90 90 798 9,9 .4579 ,
`574;/08 94 90 4307 41 9,9 47  ,-0 #05 3. ;
`24 Bird v. Parsons, et al.
`No. 00-4556
` .0,3 4,89 !7458 3. /   
` 89 7
`  9 8 ,42,9. 9,9 .4579 , /0308 57490.943 94
`For these reasons, we conclude that Bird has failed to state
`17,2039,7 47/8 ,3/ 57,808 ,3/ 94 14728 41 05708843
`a claim under the ACPA against either Afternic or the Dotster
`/.9,90/ 840 , 8( 1:3.943, .438/07,9438 43 90 74:3/8
`defendants.
`The district court
`therefore did not err in
`9,9 9080 2,907,8 /4 349 0-9 90 232, 0;0 41
`dismissing Bird’s ACPA claim against these defendants.
`.70,9;9 30.088,7 94 ,77,39 .4579 57490.943
`39073, 6:49,943 2,78 ,3/ .9,943 42990/ 7.,
`E. Alleged violations of federal copyright law
`3899:90 3. ; !,207 /    
`  / 7
`  4/3 9,9 90 830 47/8 9,9 90 /0103/,39 .450/
`Both Afternic and the Dotster defendants argue that Bird
`// 349 0-9 90 232, .70,9;9 706:70/ 147 .4579
`failed to state a claim of copyright infringement because a
`57490.943
`copyright ordinarily does not subsist in a single word. Courts
`that have addressed this issue have concluded that taking a
`3 7., 3899:90 90 4:79 41 550,8 147 90 $0.43/
`single word, or even a phrase, from a copyrighted work
`7.:9 05,30/ 9,9 , /0103/,398 .453 41 , 47/ 47
`generally does not violate the rights that copyright law
`57,80 8 ,.943,-0 :3/07 .4579 , 43 1 90 /0103/,39
`provides to the owner of that work. CMM Cable Rep, Inc. v.
` ,8 ,84 ,557457,90/ 034: 41 5,39118 806:03.0 41
`Ocean Coast Props, Inc., 97 F.3d 1504, 1519-20 (1st Cir.
`94:98 .4.0 41 47/8 025,88 ,3/ ,77,302039 94
`1996) (“It is axiomatic that copyright law denies protection to
`8,981 90 232, 97084/ 41 706:70/ .70,9;9 /
`fragmentary words and phrases and to forms of expression
`,9   39073, 6:49,943 2,78 ,3/ .9,943 42990/ %0
`dictated solely a[s] functional considerations on the grounds
`/0103/,398 ,00/ :80 41 90 47/ 013,3., 825 /408
`that these materials do not exhibit the minimal level of
`349 70574/:.0 ,3 41 90 .70,9;9 9,9 039908 7/ 94 ,
`creativity necessary to warrant copyright protection.”)
`.4579 3 90 .425:907 5747,2 990/ 3,3.,
`(internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Arica
`Institute, Inc. v. Palmer, 970 F.2d 1067, 1072-73 (2d Cir.
`7/8 .43903943 9,9 90 47/ 13,3., 8 349 14:3/ 3
`1992) (holding that the single words that the defendant copied
`,3 /.943,7 -:9 3890,/ /0;0450/ ,8 , 34:3 3 ,90 ,93
`did “not exhibit the minimal creativity required for copyright
`1742 , //0
`072,3 7449 47/ /408 349 ,907 98
`protection”).
`.43.:843 3 1,.9 8 .,2 9,9 90 47/ /07;08 1742
`
` 3 $05902-07  19073. 10/ , 24943 94 /8288
`7/8 ,0,9438 ,,389 9 5:78:,39 94 #:0 - 41 90
`No. 00-4556
`Bird v. Parsons, et al.
`5
`0/07, #:08 41 ; !74.0/:70 %0 498907 /0103/,398
`1440/ 8:9 43 $05902-07   9 , 24943 94 /8288
`C. Procedural background
`147 ,. 41 507843, :78/.943 ,3/ 147 1,:70 94 89,90 ,
`.,2 5:78:,39 94 #:08 - ,3/ - 41 90 0/07,
`This lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court
`#:08 41 ; !74.0/:70 70850.9;0
`for the Southern District of Ohio on May 31, 2000. Bird’s
`complaint alleges trademark infiingement, unfair competition,
` 5,7908 .4380390/ 94 ,;3 90 .,80 /0./0/ - ,
`and trademark dilution,
`in violation of
`15 U.S.C.
`2,897,90 :/0 5:78:,39 94  &$ V . %0
`§§ 1114(1)(a), 1125(a), and 1125(c),
`respectively.
`In
`2,897,90 :/0 .43.:/0/ 9,9 90 /897.9 .4:79 ,.0/
`addition, Bird asserts a claim for “cybersquatting” under the
`507843, :78/.943 4;07 90 498907 /0103/,398 ,3/ 9,9 7/
`Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act of 1999
`,/ 1,0/ 94 89,90 , .,2 ,,389 0907 19073. 47 90
`(ACPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d), as well as for copyright
`498907 /0103/,398 8 , 708:9 90 /897.9 .4:79 7,390/ 90
`infringement in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 106.
`249438 94 /8288 10/ - 9080 /0103/,398 3 ,3 47/07 9,9
`,8 039070/ 43 4;02-07   
`On September 8, 2000, Afternic filed a motion to dismiss
`Bird’s allegations against it pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the
`%0 /897.9 .4:79 70.430/ 9,9 98 47/07 // 349 7084;0
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Dotster defendants
`7/8 ,0,9438 ,,389 !,78438 -:9 9 343090088 /70.90/
`followed suit on September 20, 2000 with a motion to dismiss
`9,9 98 :/2039 41 /8288, ,8 94 19073. ,3/ 90 498907
`for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a
`/0103/,398 -0 13, 5:78:,39 94 #:0 - 41 90 0/07,
`claim, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal
`#:08 41 ; !74.0/:70 ..47/3 94 90 .4:79 34 :89
`Rules of Civil Procedure, respectively.
`.,:80 0890/ 94 /0, 90 0397 41 13, :/2039 ,8 94 9080
`/0103/,398 -0.,:80 !,78438 ,8 574.00/3 574 80 ,3/ 90
`All parties consented to having the case decided by a
`9,943 -09003 7/ ,3/ !,78438 2, -0 2470
`magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The
`57497,.90/  13, :/2039 ,8 90701470 039070/ 43
`magistrate judge concluded that the district court lacked
`4;02-07    %8 920 ,550, 1440/
`personal jurisdiction over the Dotster defendants and that Bird
`had failed to state a claim against either Afternic or the
`Dotster defendants. As a result, the district court granted the
`motions to dismiss filed by these defendants in an order that
`was entered on November 27, 2000.
`
`The district court recognized that its order did not resolve
`Bird’s allegations against Parsons, but it nonetheless directed
`
`In Arica Institute, the Court of Appeals for the Second
`Circuit explained that a defendant’s copying of a word or
`phrase is actionable under copyright law only ifthe defendant
`“has also appropriated enough of plaintiffs sequence of
`thoughts, choice of words, emphasis, and arrangement to
`
`

`
`
`
`7/ ; !,78438 09 ,
`
`4
`
`
`4
`
`
`7/ ; !,78438 09 ,
`
`
`
`  $$
`
` $9,3/,7/8 41 70;0
`
`70,90 94 9080 /0103/,398 39039 789 7/ ,008 9,9 ,1907
`!,78438 7089070/ 90 /42,3 3,20 013,3.,.42 0,74
`,3/ '3.039 574259 54890/ , 473 0-890 ,9
`995

013,3.,.42 ,/;07983 90 890 ,8 ,;,,-0 147
` 0 70;0 /0 34;4 , /897.9 .4:798 /8288, 41 ,
`:80 4-;4:8 94 90 089 -//07 ,3/ :83 90 890 3 ,
`.425,39 147 ,. 41 507843, :78/.943 5:78:,39 94 #:0
`.42207., 2,3307 94 84.9 -:83088 147 907 70897,7
`- 41 90 0/07, #:08 41 ; !74.0/:70 0403
`0399 $0.43/ ,1907 3493 9,9 19073. ,/ , 893 147
`475 ; 04 03 $.70033 3.   / 
` 9
`013,3.,.42 43 98 ,:.943 890 7/ .43903/8 9,9 90
`7   %0 5,79 8003 94 ,88079 507843, :78/.943
`/0103/,398 ,.9438 8:089 ( , # 950 41 2:9:,
`
`-0,78 90 -:7/03 41 /0243897,93 9,9 8:. :78/.943
`.438570/ 5,99073 41 .43/:.9
`0898 / ,9  03 90 /897.9 .4:79 /828808 ,
`.425,39 5:78:,39 94 #:0 - 94:9 .43/:.93 ,3
`0;/039,7 0,73 43 90 88:0 41 507843, :78/.943
`40;07 90 5,3911 300/ 43 2,0 , 572, 1,.0 843
`6
`Bird v. Parsons, et al.
`No. 00-4556
`41 :78/.943 / .9,943 42990/ 3 98 89:,943 0
`  349 .438/07 1,.98 57411070/ - 90 /0103/,39 9,9
`II. ANALYSIS
`.431.9 9 9480 411070/ - 90 5,3911 ,3/  .43897:0
`90 1,.98 3 , 9 2489 1,;47,-0 94 90 34324;3 5,79
`A. Standards of review
`/
`
`We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a
` /897.9 .4:798 /8288, 41 , .425,39 5:78:,39 94 #:0
`complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Rule
`- 41 90 0/07, #:08 41 ; !74.0/:70 8 ,84
`12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Neogen
`70;00/ /0 34;4 ,.843 ; 9 41 4:2-:8   /
`Corp. v. Neo Gen Screening, Inc., 282 F.3d 883, 887-88 (6th
`   9 7   3 .438/073 , 24943 94 /8288
`Cir. 2002). The party seeking to assert personal jurisdiction
` 9(0 .4:79 2:89 .43897:0 90 .425,39 3 , 9 2489
`bears the burden of demonstrating that such jurisdiction
`1,;47,-0 94 90 5,3911 ,3/ ,..059 , 41 90( 1,.9:,
`exists.
`Id. at 887. When the district court dismisses a
`,0,9438 ,8 97:0 / .9,943 42990/  24943 94
`complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) without conducting an
`/8288 :3/07 #:0 - 84:/ 349 -0 7,390/ :3088 9
`evidentiary hearing on the issue of personal jurisdiction,
`,550,78 -043/ /4:-9 9,9 90 5,3911 .,3 574;0 34 809 41
`however, the plaintif “need only make a prima facie showing
`1,.98 3 8:55479 41 8 .,2 . 4:/ 03990 2 94
`ofjurisdiction.” Id. (citation omitted).
`In this situation, we
`7001 :.,3,3 ; 510  /    9 7
`“will not consider facts proffered by the defendant that
`  6:493 430 ; -843  &$  
`  
`conflict with those offered by the plaintiff, and will construe
`800 ,84 ,.843   / ,9  3493 9,9 /8288, 8
`the facts in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”
`43 574507 1 9 8 .0,7 9,9 34 7001 .4:/ -0 7,390/ :3/07
`Id.
`,3 809 41 1,.98 9,9 .4:/ -0 574;0/ .43889039 9 90
`,0,9438 .9,943 42990/
`A district court’s dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Rule
`12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is also
` !07843, :78/.943 4;07 90 498907 /0103/,398
`reviewed de novo. Jackson v. City of Columbus, 194 F .3d
`737, 745 (6th Cir. 1999). In considering a motion to dismiss,
` 070 , 10/07, .4:798 8:-0.9 2,9907 :78/.943 4;07 ,
`“[t]he court must construe the complaint in a light most
`.,80 89028 1742 90 08903.0 41 , 10/07, 6:08943 507843,
`favorable to the plaintiff, and accept all of [the] factual
`allegations as true.” Id.
`(citation omitted). “A motion to
`dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) should not be granted ‘unless it
`appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of
`facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to
`relief.’” Buchanan v. Apfel, 249 F.3d 485, 488 (6th Cir.
`
`%080 ,0,9438 40;07 ,70 38:11.039 94 89,90 , .,2
`41 .-0786:,993 ,,389 19073. 47 90 498907 /0103/,398
`94: 90 /0103/,398 249438 94 /8288 14.:8 43 90
`No. 00-4556
`Bird v. Parsons, et al.
`23
`,. 41 ,0,9438 3/.,93 ,3 -,/ 1,9 43 907 5,79 ,
`2470 1:3/,2039, ,3/ 3/00/ 1,9, 1, 0898 3 7/8 .,2
`relate to these defendants’ intent. First, Bird alleges that after
`41 .-0786:,993 ,,389 9080 /0103/,398 $50.1., 7/
`Parsons registered the domain name efinancia.com, DeCarlo
`2:89 089,-8 9,9 90 /0103/,398 7089070/ 97,11.0/ 3 47
`and Vincent “promptly posted a working website at
`:80/ , /42,3 3,20 3 47/07 94 89,90 , .,2 147 , ;4,943 41
`http://www.ef1nancia.com advertising the site as available for
`90 ! %0 43 /0103/,39 9,9 7089070/ , /42,3
`use, obviously to the highest bidder, and using the site in a
`3,20 8 !,78438 ,3/ ,-9 147 :83 , /42,3 3,20 .,3
`commercial manner to solicit business for their registrar
`43 089 147 90 70897,39 47 9,9 5078438 ,:9470/
`entity.” Second, after noting that Afternic had a listing for
`.03800  &$ V / 7/8 .425,39
`efinancia.com on its auction site, Bird contends that the
`.439,38 34 ,0,943 9,9 ,3 41 90 4907 /0103/,398 ,70
`defendants’ actions “suggest[] a RICO type of mutually
`!,784388 .03800
`conspired pattern of conduct.”
`4704;07 9 70,7/ 94 549039, ,-9 :3/07 90 !
`These allegations, however, are insufficient to state a claim
`147 97,11.3 3 /42,3 3,208 30907 19073. 347 90
`of cybersquatting against Afternic or the Dotster defendants.
`498907 /0103/,398
`97,11.0/
`3
`90 /42,3 3,20
`Although the defendants’ motions to dismiss focus on the
`013,3.,.42 %0 // 349 5:7.,80 80 47 490780
`lack of allegations indicating any bad faith on their part, a
`5,79.5,90 3 ,3 97,38,.943 3;4;3 90 97,38107 147
`more fundamental and indeed fatal flaw exists in Bird’s claim
`.438/07,943 47 70.059 3 0.,30 147 .438/07,943 41
`ofcybersquatting against these defendants. Specifically, Bird
`!,784388 /42,3 3,20  &$ V /
`must establish that the defendants registered, trafficked in, or
`4989078 1008 8902 1742 98 7089073 90 /42,3 3,20 ,3/
`used a domain name in order to state a claim for a violation of
`,43 70897,398 94 489 907 0- 5,0 43 98 :9:70420
`the ACPA. The only defendant that registered a domain
`5,0 19073. 574;/08 , ;79:, ,:.943 890 -:9 90 1,.9
`name is Parsons, and liability for using a domain name can
`9,9 98 807;.08 29 -0 :80/ 147 97,11.3 3 , /42,3
`only exist for the registrant or that person’s authorized
`3,20 /408 349 703/07 9 ,-0 147 97,11.3
`licensee.
`15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(D). Bird’s complaint
`contains no allegation that any of the other defendants are
`Parsons’ s licensee.
`
`Moreover, with regard to potential liability under the ACPA
`for trafficking in domain names, neither Afternic nor the
`Dotster defendants
`trafficked in the
`domain name
`
`efinancia.com. They did not purchase, sell, or otherwise
`
`

`
`
`
`7/ ; !,78438 09 ,
`
`4
`
`
`4
`
`
`7/ ; !,78438 09 ,
`
`
`
`90 97,/02,7 $54798 ,72  ; $547982,38 ,709
`3.   /    / 7  -0786:,993
`3;4;08 90 70897,943 ,8 /42,3 3,208 41 0
`343
`97,/02,78 - 343
`97,/02,7 4/078 4 903 97 94 80 90
`3,208 -,. 94 90 97,/02,7 43078
`
`%0 ! 574;/08 3 50793039 5,79 ,8 1448
`
`:78/.943 4;07 , /0103/,39 0898 1 90 /0103/,39 8
`,203,-0 94 807;.0 41 574.088 :3/07 90 147:2( 89,908 43
`
`,72 89,9:90 ,3/ 1 90 007.80 41 507843, :78/.943 4:/
`349 /03 90 /0103/,39 ( /:0 574.088 .,3 4,943
`41 #,/4,.9;0 ,907, &8078 3. ; 70503974  /
`    9 7   39073, .9,9438 42990/ 0
`,;0 70.430/ 9,9 48 43
`,72 89,9:90 8 349
`.4907234:8 9 10/07, .43899:943, 298 ,5,43
` 507843 8, -0 ,-0 3 , .; ,.943 - 90 4307 41
`475 ; #40990  /   9 7  3493
`
`, 2,7    1 94:9 70,7/ 94 90 44/8 47 807;.08 41
`9,9 90 4 $:57020 4:79 ,8 7:0/ 9,9 90 4 43
`
`90 5,7908 9,9 507843  ,8 , -,/ 1,9 39039 94 57419
`,72 89,9:90 /408 349 0903/ 94 90 .43899:943, 298 41 90
`1742 9,9 2,7    ,3/  7089078 97,11.8 3 47 :808 ,
`:0 !74.088 ,:80 .93 4/8903 ; 789,3803 
`/42,3 3,20 9,9
`/   3 4   507 .:7,2 0;0790088
`3 0;,:,93 0907 507843, :78/.943 8 574507 :3/07
`22 Bird v. Parsons, et al.
`No. 00-4556
`No. 00-4556
`Bird v. Parsons, et al.
`7
` 3 90 .,80 41 , 2,7 9,9 8 /893.9;0 ,9 90 920 41
` 48 43
`,72 89,9:90 0 ,;0 .43889039 14.:80/ 43
`70897,943 41 90 /42,3 3,20 8 /039., 47
`0907 9070 ,70 8:11.039 232:2 .439,.98 -09003 90
`.431:83 82,7 94 9,9 2,7
`the trademark. Sporty ’s Farm L.L. C. v. Sportsman ’s Market,
`jurisdiction over a defendant exists “if the defendant is
`343708/039 /0103/,39 ,3/ 90 147:2 89,90 84 ,8 349 94 41103/
` 3 90 .,80 41 , 1,24:8 2,7 9,9 8 1,24:8 ,9 90
`Inc., 202 F.3d 489, 493 (2d Cir. 2000) (“Cybersquatting
`amenable to service ofprocess under the [forum] state’ s long-
` 97,/943, 349438 41 1,7 5, ,3/ 8:-89,39, :89.0 /
`920 41 70897,943 41 90 /42,3 3,20 8 /039., 47
`involves the registration as domain names of well-known
`arm statute and if the exercise of personal jurisdiction would
`6:493 39 $40 4 ; ,83943  &$  
`.431:83 82,7 94 47 /:9;0 41 9,9 2,7    
`trademarks by non-trademark holders who then try to sell the
`not deny the defendant[] due process.” Michigan Coalition
`  40 ; 09  /   9 7 
`names back to the trademark owners.”).
`ofRadioactive Material Users, Inc. v. Griepentrog, 954 F.2d
`,//70883 90 /:0 574.088 .43.0738 7,907 9,3 36:73
` &$ V / 9 70,7/ 94 , 5078438 -,/
`1174, 1176 (6th Cir. 1992) (internal citations omitted). We
`394 90 5745709 41 :78/.943 :3/07 48 43
`,72
`The ACPA provides in pertinent part as follows:
`1,9 39039 90 ! 03:207,908 330 3430.:8;0 1,.9478
`have recognized that Ohio’s
`long-arm statute is not
`89,9:90
`9,9 ,70 700;,39 94 98 002039 41 , .,2  &$
`coterminous with federal constitutional limits. Calphalon
`A person shall be liable in a civil action by the owner of
`V / %0 ! ,84 574;/08 9,9 ,-9 147
`Corp. v. Rowlette, 228 F.3d 718, 721 (6th Cir. 2000) (noting
`7/ ,550,78 94 -00;0 9,9 90 ,3:,0 3 90 ;,74:8
`a mark .
`.
`. if, without regard to the goods or services of
` :83 , /42,3 3,20 ,7808 43 1 ,( 507843 8 90
`that “the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that the Ohio long-
`89,9:908 9,9 0 ,008 90 /0103/,398 ;4,90/ .431078
`arm statute does not extend to the constitutional limits of the
`the parties, that person (i) has a bad faith intent to profit
`/42,3 3,20 70897,39 47 9,9 70897,398 ,:9470/
`507843, :78/.943 4;07 90 498907 /0103/,398 70,7/088
`from that mark .
`.
`. and (ii) registers, traff1cs in, or uses a
`.03800  &$ V / 6:, 25479,39
`Due Process Clause”) (citing Goldstein v. Christiansen, 638
`41 907 .439,.98 9 4 %8 -001 8 0774304:8 8
`domain name that—
` 90 9072 97,11.8 3 701078 94 97,38,.9438 9,9 3.:/0 -:9
`N.E.2d 541, 545 n. 1 (Ohio 1994) (per curiam)). Nevertheless,
`05,30/ ,-4;0 90 700;,39 36:7 706:708 ,3 ,3,88 41
`,70 349 290/ 94 8,08 5:7.,808 4,38 50/08 .03808
`in evaluating whether personal jurisdiction is proper