WPC  3<jLnLZg R*9wi+9}rNb]{.WiJ6 dZ?"E Խ {,Y(VǥPKu~ -A(8'i|.k{`Y=_]5ni&+=v~速)1ng_2bg-)|Ցi Nivk#)k$ GDj4T#ć "yIiZ#f5"}i7%*hK% Q+N-+;isdĊ)dHփ <ȒAyZc^H66MƐFɍVlںBJd--漌ap2M%H:iJLYKV]oA`~Nua ^Q׹gXj5!:%'$C* ly;W3jGR(#!0NQ %S 0(YU: 0D 0UNNUFU>[^ w@4E f a m"9NAUBCbR B HP LaserJet 4 LOCAL,,,,,,0X($<6X9`("Courier NewTT(#$  0  (d:2$ !    =Xdd=    0  vr Z6Times New Roman RegularQ 9Z+.Courier New Regular<( 9Z+&Courier Regularg) ӀD  [  Ӏ҉T)(:i+003|xTABLE AU <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- - H $  =Xdd=    1    _ForabriefdescriptionoftheInternetanddomainnames,see  Sporty'sFarmL.L.C.v.Sportsman'sMarket,Inc.,202F.3d489, x 49293(2dCir.),cert.denied,120S.Ct.2719(2000),or_Hasbro_, @ Inc.v.ClueComputing,Inc.,994F.Supp.34,3637(D.Mass. X 1997).  u$      1    _ForabriefdescriptionoftheInternetanddomainnames,see  Sporty'sFarmL.L.C.v.Sportsman'sMarket,Inc.,202F.3d489, x 49293(2dCir.),cert.denied,120S.Ct.2719(2000),or_Hasbro_, @ Inc.v.ClueComputing,Inc.,994F.Supp.34,3637(D.Mass. X 1997). d !  _TRX3'X3' Letter3' Letter3'T ? * !XMOXXXWXXMO     UnitedStatesCourtofAppealsW  FortheFirstCircuit  Y XGX Y  A') ` dE< ` A    XXX XGNo.001297 K  @$_HASBRO_,INC.,@ Plaintiff,Appellant,@tt)v.@ CLUECOMPUTING,INC.,@<< Defendant,Appellee.A') ` dE<` A  @ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT@0 0 FORTHEDISTRICTOFMASSACHUSETTS@[Hon.DouglasP._Woodlock_,U.S.DistrictJudge]  @*A') ` dE<1` A߈ 2 @'Before  @@((_Torruella_,ChiefJudge,  Coffin,SeniorCircuitJudge, )y! and_Boudin_,CircuitJudge.  # A') ` dE<"` A "a&        KennethB.WilsonwithwhomMichaelB.Levin,Wilson,_Sonsini_, "8( Goodrich&_Rosati_,RichardJ.McCarthyandEdwards&_Angell_,_LLP_ #) wereonbriefforappellant.  ThomasA.MullenwithwhomThomasA.Mullen,P.C.wasonbrief @% + forappellee. *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +   `(#/  SI($0 @36836@S 0&($0 0November7,_2000_ SIDT*%3" @36836 @ S(($4  (  * !    ,,(6? _       8XXdXXd8*,X` XX*  =qXdd=    ` PerCuriam.Thiscaseinvolvesadisputeovertheright  tousetheword"clue"inanInternetdomainname.   #  1      ׀Since1949, @ residentsoftheUnitedStateshaveenjoyedplayingtheClueboardgame,apopulardetectivegameinwhichplayerstrytodeducethedetailsofafictionalmurder.ThenameofthisgamewasregisteredwiththeUnitedStatesPatentandTrademarkOfficein1950,andhasbeenontheoffice'sprincipalregistereversince.Hasbro,Inc.,atoyandgamemanufacturer,ownstherightstotheCluetrademarkandhasspentmillionsofdollarsinsupportoftheCluebrandname. ` InJuneof1994,decadesafterregistrationoftheCluetrademark,EricRobisonandDieterMullerformedinColoradoapartnershipcalled"ClueComputing,"laterincorporatedas"ClueComputing,Inc."ClueComputingengagesincomputerconsultingandInternetaccessservices.WithintwoweeksofClueComputing'sformation,theInternetNetworkInformationCenter,theagencythatmanagestheassignmentofInternetdomainnames,approvedClueComputing'sregistrationofthedomainname"clue.com."ClueComputingnowusesthedomainnameastheInternetaddressforitsbusinesswebsite. ` In1996,HasbronotifiedNetworkSolutions,Inc.,whichadministerstheInternetNetworkInformationCenter,thatHasbroownedatrademarkontheword"clue."NetworkSolutionsthen '`", informedClueComputingthatitsuseofthe"clue.com"domainnamewouldsoonbeterminated.ClueComputingrespondedbysuingNetworkSolutionsinColoradostatecourt,andwonapreliminaryinjunctionagainstthethreatenedtermination.HasbrothensuedClueComputinginfederaldistrictcourtinMassachusetts,chargingClueComputingwithinfringementanddilutionoftheCluetrademark,undertheapplicableprovisionsofthefederalLanhamAct,15U.S.C.1125(1994&Supp.I1995),andtheMassachusettsantidilutionact,Mass.Gen.Lawsch.110B,12(1998). ` Inaninitialdecision,thedistrictcourtfoundthatithadpersonaljurisdictionoverClueComputing.Hasbro,Inc.v. P ClueComputing,Inc.,994F.Supp.34,4446(D.Mass.1997). 0 Afterthepartiesagreedtoallowthedistrictcourttoactasthefinderoffactwithrespecttothetrademarkdilutionclaims,thedistrictcourtgrantedsummaryjudgmentinfavorofClueComputingonHasbro'strademarkinfringementclaim,anddecidedthemeritsinfavorofClueComputingonHasbro'sfederalandstatedilutionclaims.Hasbro,Inc.v.ClueComputing,Inc.,66F.Supp.2d117, @" 119(D.Mass.1999). ` Inanutshell,thedistrictcourtgrantedsummaryjudgmentinfavorofClueComputingonHasbro'strademarkinfringementclaimonthegroundthattherewasnosignificantevidencetoestablishthelikelihoodofconfusionnecessaryforconventionaltrademarkinfringement,seeInternationalAss'nof (#. Machinists&AerospaceWorkers,AFLCIOv.WinshipGreenNursing 0*%0 Ctr.,103F.3d196,20001(1stCir.1996);AstraPharm.Prods., +'2 Inc.v.BeckmanInstruments,Inc.,718F.2d1201,120708(1stCir.  1983).ThecourtsawverylittlesimilaritybetweenHasbro'sproductsandservicesandthoseofClueComputing.ItsaidthataboutallthatHasbroshowedwasthatoveraperiodofyearsacoupleofInternetsurferslookingforHasbro'sCluesitehadstumbledupontheClueComputingsite,whosecontentstronglyindicatedthatthesitehadlittletodowithHasbro'sbusiness.Certainlyinacaseinvolvingsuchdisparateproductsandservicesasthis,thecourt'srefusaltoenterthe"initialinterestconfusion"thicketiswelltakengiventheunlikelihoodof"legallysignificant " _Ԁconfusion. ` AsforHasbro'sclaimundertheFederalTrademarkDilutionAct,15U.S.C.1125(c),thecourtrejectedClueComputing'sclaimthatgrantinganinjunctionunderthestatutewouldbe"impermissiblyretroactive"(ClueComputinghavingbegunusingthedomainnamebeforethenewdilutionstatutetookeffect);butthecourtfoundonthemeritsthattheCluemarkwasnotfamous,thatClueComputing'suseofthedomainnamedidnotblurortarnishHasbro'smark,andthatinanyeventtheequitieswouldnotjustifyaninjunction.SeegenerallyI.P.LundTradingApSv. `"& KohlerCo.,163F.3d27(1stCir.1998).Thedilutionclaimunder #@( statelawwasrejectedforlackofproofofanylikelihoodofconfusion,tarnishing,orblurring. ` Onthisappeal,Hasbroattacksthedistrictcourt'sreasoningandfindingsbothastotheinfringementclaimandastothedilutionclaimunderboththefederalandstatestatutes.We +'2 _thinkthatthedistrictcourt'sthoroughandcarefulanalysisjustifieddenialofrelief.Although_Hasbro_Ԁhaswrittenanablebrief,nothinginthediscussionpersuadesusthatthedistrictcourtusedincorrectlegalstandards,erredindeterminingthattherewerenomaterialissuesrequiringtrialontheinfringementclaim,ormadeclearlyerroneousfindingsoffactonthedilutionclaim.Accordingly,wegenerallyadoptthedistrictcourt'sanalysiswithoutneedlesslyrepeatingit. ` Therearetwoqualificationstothisgeneralendorsement.Theretroactivityissuethatwastreatedatsomelengthbythedistrictcourtisaquestiononwhichthereisdisagreementamongvariouscourts,and,asitdoesnotaffecttheoutcome,weprefertotakenopositiononthematter.Also,asitdoesnotaffecttheresult,itisunnecessarytodecideherewhetherlackofequitywouldbeanindependentgroundfordenialofaninjunctionif_Hasbro_ԀshowedthatitsmarkwasfamousandhadbeentarnishedorblurredbyClueComputing. ` Affirmed.