Lockheed Martin Corporation, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant v. Network Solutions, Inc., Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “no appellate court or statute has yet established the cause of action” for contributory dilution and that it would require proof of “encouraging others to dilute”
• holding that prejudice would occur if leave 13 to amend were granted because discovery would need to be reopened
• stating that the solution to difficulties faced by trademark owners on the internet is innovation
• stating that “[a] need to reopen discovery and therefore delay the proceedings supports a district court’s finding of prejudice from a delayed motion to amend....”
• suggesting that it is less prejudicial when a motion to 21 amend does not require reopening discovery
• recognizing delay alone is “not a dispositive factor in the amendment analysis”; however, 4 circumstances exist where delay will result in prejudice

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).