Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a significant amount of the alleged infringement and dilution, as well as the resulting injury, occurred in Pennsylvania
• concluding that because the plaintiff was a Pennsylvania corporation, “a substantial amount of the injury from the alleged wrongdoing is likely to occur in Pennsylvania”
• holding that the defendant, who had sold 3,000 subscriptions to Pennsylvania residents and entered into seven contracts with Internet access providers there was subject to personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania
• noting that personal jurisdiction is proper over defendant who enters into contracts that involve knowing repeated transmissions over the Internet
• noting that plaintiff did not argue general jurisdiction; holding that specific jurisdiction permitted personal jurisdiction
• finding that the defendant did more than merely create an interactive web site accessible by Pennsylvania residents

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).