E. & J. GALLO WINERY v. Spider Webs Ltd.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that defendant who registered domain name in bad faith could be held liable for statutory damages even though registration was prior to enactment of the ACPA when defendant continued to use web site after the enactment of the Act
• holding that the ACPA is not unconstitutionally retroactive
• finding no basis to hold that the ACPA provides for an unlawful taking and deprivation of property
• domain name “ERNESTANDJULIOGALLO.COM” was found to be confusingly similar to the registered trademark “ERNEST & JULIO GALLO” because it was substantially the same as the trademark.
• awarding $25,000 per domain name but no attorneys' fees
• awarding $25,000 per domain name but no attorneys’ fees

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).