Harrods Limited v. Sixty Internet Domain Names

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that district court’s grant of summary judgment was premature, even in the absence of an affidavit detailing need for discovery
• holding that where eleven weeks of discovery remained on the scheduling order, and the nonmoving party failed to submit a Rule 56(f
• holding that district court’s grant of summary judgment was premature, even in the absence of an affidavit detailing need for discovery
• holding that district court’s grant of summary judgment was premature, even in the absence of an affidavit detailing need for discovery
• holding that, in a cybersquatting action brought under the ACPA, “courts in Virginia, the state where the Domain Names are registered, may constitutionally exercise in rem jurisdiction over them”
• noting that non-movant was entitled to 56(d) protection in part because it “was not dilatory in pursuing discovery”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).