In an action for cybersquatting on a domain name identical to the name of plaintiff’s product, summary judgment for Defendant is affirmed where 1) the district court did not err in denying plaintiff leave to amend its complaint, because it waited to file a motion to amend its complaint with information it had known over a month before when it filed a motion for summary judgment; and 2) plaintiff failed to show that defendant had a bad faith intent to profit from using the domain name.
Read Southern Grouts & Mortars, Inc. v. 3M Co., No. 08-15850
Appellate Information
Filed July 23, 2009
Judges
Per Curiam
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
