WPC p + _Ţ)2aVuIqaFai| hmX(v˶b>F7n4ki`VOLK%ݞ b>Ӫ`P~icKM5js)RVbc4W©PZ<}ۇ%CY1JfSϐچqf2\LBvXOCtr׼}HGM.jGV%0.PN3)-aYFaDIޜ\]qb|BPOa/N5h){PӶSU2Q>$XhǺCS"}7ZKm/6u.~Kեpr3>N9 ^ ; w@G 4   m N E f a 1 1ud 0c UB< 0N~ b e & j e 1 1"7..'U B 1 1h"e$')*, 0D//2n7^9";.=&>8??@!CDFI>L}RoWDTY\4ac?dfhDjmpHP LaserJet 4 LOCAL,,,,,,0X(#$  0  ($vr Z6Times New Roman Regular<6X9`("Courier NewTT(d:2"Y$ !    =3XXdd=    0  <( 9Z+&Courier Regular(* meneoepVqrEstEuvJ$*OMPONTS3|xvUTABLE A(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList1I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi(O$- -  X$  =!XXdd=    2    _ThePTOissuedplaintiffaregisteredtrademarkfor"Northern  Light"onFebruary23,1999. ` X$  =!XXdd=    3    _Plaintiffdoesnotallegethatdefendantshadactual  knowledgeofthenorthernlight.comregistrationwhentheyregisteredthenorthernlights.comdomainname.  X$  =!XXdd=    5    _Thedistrictcourtfound,atthetimeofitsMarch2000  opinion,thatapproximately112individualsusedthenorthernlights.comdomainnameaspartoftheirvanityemailaddress.See97F.Supp.2dat101.(EhCEKQW]cioAutoList2IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII(UhCEKQW]cioAutoList3IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII       X$  =!XXdd=    1    _Astheyarecommonlyusedtoday,Internetdomainnamesserve  twoprincipalfunctions:(1)providingtheaddressesforhypertextmarkuplanguage("HTML")sitesontheWorldWideWeb,4" O  5  6wO  7 Ԁand(2) @ permittingthedisseminationofemailaccountswithacommonsuffixthatreflectstheidentityoftheaccounts'proprietor.www.northernlights.comwww.northernlights.com  X$  =!XXdd=    6    _Plaintiffassertsthatitreceivedapproximately300  referralsperdayfromdefendants'siteaboutthetimethatthenorthernlights.comsitewentonline,andthatthisnumberlaterincreasedtoseveralthousandreferralsperday.  X$  =!XXdd=    8    _Thedistrictcourtnotedthatitsdecisionwasresponsiveto  aplethoraofpretrialmotionspendingbeforeit,includingmotionstodismissforlackofpersonaljurisdictionandforfailuretostateaclaim;plaintiff'sinitialmotionforapreliminaryinjunction;defendants'motionsforreconsiderationofthetemporaryreliefthathadalreadybeenordered;andtheparties'motionstocompeldiscoveryandtoimposesanctions.See97F. `  Supp.2dat98.  ]3$=Xdd=      14    _Asthedistrictcourtnoted,the"likelihoodofconfusion"  testoftrademarkinfringementis"morecomprehensive"thanthe"identicalorconfusinglysimilar"requirementof_ACPA_,asitrequiresconsideringfactorsbeyondthefacialsimilarityofthetwomarks.97F.Supp.2dat117.  d(ʽCEKQW]cioAutoList5IVIVIVIVIVIVIVIV(CEKQW]cioAutoList4A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.  X$  =!XXdd=    9    _Intheirbrief,defendantscitetoothercases,suchas  AmericanCentennialIns.Co.v._Handal_,901F.Supp.892,895 x (_D.N.J._Ԁ1995),whichinterpretLambdifferently.Thosecaseshold @ thatprocessimmunityshouldbegrantedtononresidentspresentintheforumstatetoparticipateinanylitigation,whetherornot   relatedtothesuitforwhichthedisputedservicehasbeeneffected,aslongassuchimmunitydoesnotobstructjusticeinthefirstsuit.See,e.g.,Shapiro&SonCurtainCorp.v.Glass,348 ( x F.2d460,46162(2dCir.1965);_NASL_ԀMarketing,Inc.v.deVries,  @ 94_F.R.D._Ԁ309(_S.D.N.Y._Ԁ1982);UnitedNationsv.Adler,90F.Supp.    440,441(_S.D.N.Y._Ԁ1950).Werejectthisview,asLamb    definitivelyretainsthedistinctionbetweenpresenceintheforumstateforrelatedandunrelatedcases.See285U.S.at225("[T]he `  dueadministrationofjusticerequiresthatacourtshallnotpermitinterferencewiththeprogressofacausependingbeforeit   bytheserviceofprocessinothersuits....")(emphasis h  added).  X$  =!XXdd=    4    _Vanityemailpermitsasubscribertochooseboththeuser  nameandthedomainnamefortheiremailaddress.Touseasanexampletheserviceofferedbydefendants,anadmireroftheaurora @ borealisnamedJohnDoecouldchoosethevanityemailaddress X "John.Doe@northernlights.com." [ X$  =!XXdd=    10    _Webelievethattheserviceofprocesseffectedupon_Burgar_Ԁ  alsoconferredpersonaljurisdictionovertheotherdefendants._Burgar_ԀservesasthepresidentofbothNorthernLightsClub,anunincorporatedassociation,and641271Alberta,Ltd.,aforeigncorporation.SeeFed.R.Civ.P.4(h)(1)(permittingpersonal   serviceofprocessuponofficersofunincorporatedassociationsandforeigncorporations).  Inallevents,defendantshaveattackedtheefficacyofserviceofprocessonlyingeneral.Theyhavenotattackeditsefficacyvisvisparticulardefendants .Consequently,wedeem    waivedanypossibleargumentthatpersonalserviceupon_Burgar_ԀwasineffectualasameansofbringingNorthernLightsCluband/or641271Alberta,Ltd.beforethecourt.  X$  =!XXdd=    5    _Thedistrictcourtfound,atthetimeofitsMarch2000  opinion,thatapproximately112individualsusedthe_northernlights.com_Ԁdomainnameaspartoftheirvanityemailaddress.See97F.Supp.2dat101.  X$  =!XXdd=    11    _Thedistrictcourtfoundthatdefendants'postingofa  websiteatnorthernlights.com,ratherthantheirinitialdomainnameregistration,wastheactthatconstitutedbadfaithintenttoprofitinthiscase.See97F.Supp.2dat119n.27.  X$  =!XXdd=    7    _Therecorddoesnotclearlyrevealwhenthe_TRO_Ԁbecamea  preliminaryinjunction.Atsomepointfollowingthesubmissionoftheirjointmotionforcontinuance,theparties(andthedistrictcourt)starteddescribingthe_TRO_Ԁasapreliminaryinjunction.Furthermore,initswrittenopinion,thedistrictcourtstatedthatthepreliminaryinjunctionalreadyinplacewouldnotbemodified.Inanyevent,thepresentappealclearlyisfromapreliminaryinjunction.(3$ !    X$  =!XXdd=    12    _Defendantsclaimthatsincetheyexpectednorevenuestream  fromthecontentonthenorthernlights.comwebsite,theycouldnothaveactedwithabadfaithintenttoprofit.Basedontheirpastpractices,however,itisreasonabletoconcludethatdefendantsharboredabroader,morelongtermnotionof"profit."Instead,defendantslikelyhopedtocashinontheconfusionsurroundingthesponsorshipofthewebsitesbyfindingfamoustrademarkholderswillingtopaydefendantstoendthediversionofInternettrafficfromtheirwebsitetodefendants'sites.  X$  =!XXdd=    13    _Aswerecentlynotedin_Hasbro_,Inc.v.ClueComputing,Inc.,  232F.3d1(1stCir.2000)(per_curiam_),courtsaresplitontheissueofwhetherrecent_Lanham_ԀActprovisionsshouldbeappliedretroactively.Compare,e.g.,Sporty'sFarm,_L.L.C._  v.Sportsman's X Market,Inc.,202F.3d489,49697(2dCir.)(concludingthat_ACPA_   shouldapplyretroactively),cert.denied,120S.Ct.2719(2000)  withThomas&_Betts_ԀCorp.v._Panduit_ԀCorp.,108F.Supp.2d976 `  (N.D.Ill.2000)(holdingthatnewtradedressprovisionsof_Lanham_Actshouldnotbeappliedretroactively).  X$  =!XXdd=    14    _Asthedistrictcourtnoted,the"likelihoodofconfusion"  testoftrademarkinfringementis"morecomprehensive"thanthe"identicalorconfusinglysimilar"requirementofACPA,asitrequiresconsideringfactorsbeyondthefacialsimilarityofthetwomarks.97F.Supp.2dat117.   X$  =!XXdd=    15    _Defendantsdoclaimthattherewereother"grosslyunfair  factualerrorsbythetrialcourt"whichconstituted"anegregiousresultdrivenpatternofprejudice"againstthem.Buttheyhavefailedtospecifythoseerrorsintheirappellatebriefs.  ]3$=Xdd=      1    _Astheyarecommonlyusedtoday,Internetdomainnamesserve  twoprincipalfunctions:(1)providingtheaddressesforhypertextmarkuplanguage("HTML")sitesontheWorldWideWeb,46 O  5  6wO  7 Ԁand(2) @ permittingthedisseminationofemailaccountswithacommonsuffixthatreflectstheidentityoftheaccounts'proprietor.www.northernlights.com  ]3$=Xdd=      2    _ThePTOissuedplaintiffaregisteredtrademarkfor"Northern  Light"onFebruary23,1999.  ]3$=Xdd=      3    _Plaintiffdoesnotallegethatdefendantshadactual  knowledgeofthe_northernlight.com_Ԁregistrationwhentheyregisteredthe_northernlights.com_Ԁdomainname. 5 ]3$=Xdd=      4    _Vanityemailpermitsasubscribertochooseboththeuser  nameandthedomainnamefortheiremailaddress.Touseasanexampletheserviceofferedby_defendants,_Ԁanadmireroftheaurora @ borealisnamedJohnDoecouldchoosethevanityemailaddress X "John.Doe@northernlights.com."  ]3$=Xdd=      5    _Thedistrictcourtfound,atthetimeofitsMarch2000  opinion,thatapproximately112individualsusedthe_northernlights.com_Ԁdomainnameaspartoftheirvanityemailaddress.See97F.Supp.2dat101.  ]3$=Xdd=      6    _Plaintiffassertsthatitreceivedapproximately300  referralsperdayfromdefendants'siteaboutthetimethatthe_northernlights.com_Ԁsitewentonline,andthatthisnumberlaterincreasedtoseveralthousandreferralsperday.  ]3$=Xdd=      7    _Therecorddoesnotclearlyrevealwhenthe_TRO_Ԁbecamea  preliminaryinjunction.Atsomepointfollowingthesubmissionoftheirjointmotionforcontinuance,theparties(andthedistrictcourt)starteddescribingthe_TRO_Ԁasapreliminaryinjunction.Furthermore,initswrittenopinion,thedistrictcourtstatedthatthepreliminaryinjunctionalreadyinplacewouldnotbemodified.Inanyevent,thepresentappealclearlyisfromapreliminaryinjunction.  ]3$=Xdd=      8    _Thedistrictcourtnotedthatitsdecisionwasresponsiveto  aplethoraofpretrialmotionspendingbeforeit,includingmotionstodismissforlackofpersonaljurisdictionandforfailuretostateaclaim;plaintiff'sinitialmotionforapreliminaryinjunction;defendants'motionsforreconsiderationofthetemporaryreliefthathadalreadybeenordered;andtheparties'motionstocompeldiscoveryandtoimposesanctions.See97F. `  Supp.2dat98.  ]3$=Xdd=      9    _Intheirbrief,defendantscitetoothercases,suchas  AmericanCentennialIns.Co.v._Handal_,901F.Supp.892,895 x (_D.N.J._Ԁ1995),whichinterpretLambdifferently.Thosecaseshold @ thatprocessimmunityshouldbegrantedtononresidentspresentintheforumstatetoparticipateinanylitigation,whetherornot   relatedtothesuitforwhichthedisputedservicehasbeeneffected,aslongassuchimmunitydoesnotobstructjusticeinthefirstsuit.See,e.g.,Shapiro&SonCurtainCorp.v.Glass,348 ( x F.2d460,46162(2dCir.1965);_NASL_ԀMarketing,Inc.v.deVries,  @ 94_F.R.D._Ԁ309(_S.D.N.Y._Ԁ1982);UnitedNationsv.Adler,90F.Supp.    440,441(_S.D.N.Y._Ԁ1950).Werejectthisview,asLamb    definitivelyretainsthedistinctionbetweenpresenceintheforumstateforrelatedandunrelatedcases.See285U.S.at225("[T]he `  dueadministrationofjusticerequiresthatacourtshallnotpermitinterferencewiththeprogressofacausependingbeforeit   bytheserviceofprocessinothersuits....")(emphasis h  added). s ]3$=Xdd=      10    _Webelievethattheserviceofprocesseffectedupon_Burgar_Ԁ  alsoconferredpersonaljurisdictionovertheotherdefendants._Burgar_ԀservesasthepresidentofbothNorthernLightsClub,anunincorporatedassociation,and641271Alberta,Ltd.,aforeigncorporation.SeeFed.R.Civ.P.4(h)(1)(permittingpersonal   serviceofprocessuponofficersofunincorporatedassociationsandforeigncorporations).  Inallevents,defendantshaveattackedtheefficacyofserviceofprocessonlyingeneral.Theyhavenotattackedits  @  efficacyvisvisparticulardefendants .Consequently,wedeem  waivedanypossibleargumentthatpersonalserviceupon_Burgar_ԀwasineffectualasameansofbringingNorthernLightsCluband/or641271Alberta,Ltd.beforethecourt.  ]3$=Xdd=      11    _Thedistrictcourtfoundthatdefendants'postingofa  websiteat_northernlights.com_,ratherthantheirinitialdomainnameregistration,wastheactthatconstitutedbadfaithintenttoprofitinthiscase.See97F.Supp.2dat119n.27. : ]3$=Xdd=      12    _Defendantsclaimthatsincetheyexpectednorevenuestream  fromthecontentonthe_northernlights.com_Ԁwebsite,theycouldnothaveactedwithabadfaithintenttoprofit.Basedontheirpastpractices,however,itisreasonabletoconcludethatdefendantsharboredabroader,morelongtermnotionof"profit."Instead,defendantslikelyhopedtocashinontheconfusionsurroundingthesponsorshipofthe_websites_ԀbyfindingfamoustrademarkholderswillingtopaydefendantstoendthediversionofInternettrafficfromtheirwebsitetodefendants'sites.  ]3$=Xdd=      13    _Aswerecentlynotedin_Hasbro_,Inc.v.ClueComputing,Inc.,  232F.3d1(1stCir.2000)(per_curiam_),courtsaresplitontheissueofwhetherrecent_Lanham_ԀActprovisionsshouldbeappliedretroactively.Compare,e.g.,Sporty'sFarm,_L.L.C._  v.Sportsman's X Market,Inc.,202F.3d489,49697(2dCir.)(concludingthat_ACPA_   shouldapplyretroactively),cert.denied,120S.Ct.2719(2000)  withThomas&_Betts_ԀCorp.v._Panduit_ԀCorp.,108F.Supp.2d976 `  (N.D.Ill.2000)(holdingthatnewtradedressprovisionsof_Lanham_Actshouldnotbeappliedretroactively).  ]3$=Xdd=      15    _Defendantsdoclaimthattherewereother"grosslyunfair  factualerrorsbythetrialcourt"whichconstituted"anegregiousresultdrivenpatternofprejudice"againstthem.Buttheyhave @  failedtospecifythoseerrorsintheirappellatebriefs.  X$  =!XXdd=    3    _Plaintiffdoesnotallegethatdefendantshadactual  knowledgeofthe_northernlight.com_Ԁregistrationwhentheyregisteredthe_northernlights.com_Ԁdomainname. 5 X$  =!XXdd=    4    _Vanityemailpermitsasubscribertochooseboththeuser  nameandthedomainnamefortheiremailaddress.Touseasanexampletheserviceofferedby_defendants,_Ԁanadmireroftheaurora @ borealisnamedJohnDoecouldchoosethevanityemailaddress X "John.Doe@northernlights.com."  X$  =!XXdd=    6    _Plaintiffassertsthatitreceivedapproximately300  referralsperdayfromdefendants'siteaboutthetimethatthe_northernlights.com_Ԁsitewentonline,andthatthisnumberlaterincreasedtoseveralthousandreferralsperday.  X$  =!XXdd=    11    _Thedistrictcourtfoundthatdefendants'postingofa  websiteat_northernlights.com_,ratherthantheirinitialdomainnameregistration,wastheactthatconstitutedbadfaithintenttoprofitinthiscase.See97F.Supp.2dat119n.27. : X$  =!XXdd=    12    _Defendantsclaimthatsincetheyexpectednorevenuestream  fromthecontentonthe_northernlights.com_Ԁwebsite,theycouldnothaveactedwithabadfaithintenttoprofit.Basedontheirpastpractices,however,itisreasonabletoconcludethatdefendantsharboredabroader,morelongtermnotionof"profit."Instead,defendantslikelyhopedtocashinontheconfusionsurroundingthesponsorshipofthe_websites_ԀbyfindingfamoustrademarkholderswillingtopaydefendantstoendthediversionofInternettrafficfromtheirwebsitetodefendants'sites.  X$  =!XXdd=    14    _Asthedistrictcourtnoted,the"likelihoodofconfusion"  testoftrademarkinfringementis"morecomprehensive"thanthe"identicalorconfusinglysimilar"requirementof_ACPA_,asitrequiresconsideringfactorsbeyondthefacialsimilarityofthetwomarks.97F.Supp.2dat117.   !  _TRX3'X3' Letter3' Letter3'T ? * !XmXXX>XXm     UnitedStatesCourtofAppealsm>  FortheFirstCircuit ?mX4X?  A') ` dE<s ` A t  No.001641@l l NORTHERNLIGHTTECHNOLOGY,INC.,@<< Plaintiff,Appellee,@tt)v.@ NORTHERNLIGHTSCLUB,JEFFREYK._BURGAR_,AND  641271ALBERTALTD.,D/B/ANORTHERNLIGHTSCLUB, @Defendants,Appellants.A') ` dE<:` A ; @ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT@0 0 FORTHEDISTRICTOFMASSACHUSETTS@[Hon.DouglasP._Woodlock_,U.S.DistrictJudge] 2 A') ` dE<` A  @'Before  @@((_Selya_,_Boudin_Ԁand_Stahl_,CircuitJudges. A! A') ` dE<H ` A I $       EricC.Grimm,withwhom_CyberBrief_,PLC,TheodoreA.Lund,  !p& and_Gaeta_,_Courville_Ԁ&Lund,wereonbriefforappellant. !8'   BernardJ.Bonn,III,withwhomBarryS.Pollack,and_Dechert_ "( Price&_Rhoads_,wereonbriefforappellee. x#) *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +   % !, kv SI4&!- @@36898@@Svv 0&4&!- 0vrqjqrsJsqanqtqauqtuuauqry8,2001q SID'#0" @@36898 @@ S(4&!1  (  * !   +d&4? _  83XXdXXd8*,X` XX*",US ,  (:!&),h=!Xdd=h * g  January2,2001(3:05PM)!  g ` STAHL,CircuitJudge .Thiscaseinvolvesadisputeover  thesimultaneoususeoftwosimilarInternetdomainnamesbytwoseparateentities.DefendantsappellantsNorthernLightsClub,JeffBurgarand641271AlbertaLtd.(collectively"NorthernLights"or"defendants")appealapreliminaryinjunctionenteredbythedistrictcourtrequiringthepostingofaspecifieddisclaimerontheirWorldWideWebsite'sportalpage.ThecourtenteredtheinjunctionafterfindingthatplaintiffappelleeNorthernLightTechnology,Inc.("NorthernLight"or"plaintiff")waslikelytoprevailonthemeritsofitsstateandfederaltrademarkclaimsanditsclaimundertheAnticybersquattingConsumerProtectionAct,15U.S.C.1125(d)("ACPA"). ` Defendantsassertthreebasesforreliefinthisinterlocutoryappeal:(1)thatthedistrictcourtlackspersonaljurisdiction,andhencethepowertoenjointhem;(2)thatthedistrictcourterredinconcludingthattheplaintiffwaslikelytosucceedonthemeritsofitsclaims;and(3)thattheinjunctioncurrentlyinplaceisoverlybroadandconsequentlyinfringestheirfreespeechrights.Findingthatthedistrictcourtproperlyacquiredjurisdictionoverdefendantswhentheiragentwasservedwithprocesswithintheforumstate,anddiscerningnobasisfordisturbingthedistrictcourt'sdeterminationonthelikelysuccessofplaintiff'ssuit,weupholdthedistrictcourt'sissuanceofapreliminaryinjunction.AndbecausedefendantsonlyobliquelypressedtheirFirstAmendmentargumentbeforethedistrictcourt,wedeclinetodecidetheissueforpurposesofthisappeal. ,`'2 L 5h(3L   3   325h  I  .3  0 @   ݀Background3݌  Ќ    ` Thefactsofthiscaseareextensivelychronicledinthe  districtcourt'sopinion,seeNorthernLightTech.,Inc.v.  p NorthernLightsClub,97F.Supp.2d96(D.Mass.2000),andsowe   confineourdiscussiontotheeventsrelevanttothisappeal.OnSeptember16,1996,plaintiffregisteredtheInternetdomainnamenorthernlight.comwithNetworkSolutions,Inc.("NSI"),whichatthattimewastheorganizationexclusivelyentrustedwiththetaskofregisteringdomainnamesontheWorldWideWeb.h!hh5h #  1      ׀Plaintiffalso   filedregistrationpapersforthe"NorthernLight"servicemarkwiththeUnitedStatesPatentandTrademarkOffice("PTO")duringthatsamemonth.hxhh7xh #  2      ׀Nearlyayearlater,inAugust1997,plaintiff 0 beganitsoperationofthenorthernlight.comwebsite(and,consequently,itsuseofthe"NorthernLight"markincommerce)asasearchengine.SearchenginesarepopularWebretrievaltoolsthatmatchasearchquerysubmittedbyanInternetuserwiththewebsiteswhosecontentbestcorrespondstothesubmittedsearchterms.Thenorthernlight.comsitehasremainedincontinuousexistenceasasearchenginesinceAugust1997. ` DefendantJeffBurgar,aresidentofHighPrairie,Alberta,Canada,isthepresidentandprincipalshareholderof @$( 641271Alberta,Ltd.,anAlbertacorporationthatownsthenorthernlights.comdomainname.Burgar,aselfdescribed"Internetentrepreneur,"has,sincethemid1990s,registeredthousandsof"catchy"domainnames!i.e.,Internetaddressesappropriating,in `  identicalorslightlymodifiedform,thenamesofpopularpeopleandorganizations.HeisalsothepresidentofNorthernLightsClub,anunincorporatedassociationwithalistedaddressinLasVegas,Nevada.WhileNorthernLightsClub'sstatedmissionistobringtogetherdevoteesoftheNorthernLights,orauroraborealis, 0  includingbusinessesthattaketheirnamefromthefamouscelestialphenomenon,Burgar'stestimonyindicatesthattheclubhasnoactualindividualmembers. ` InOctober1996,approximatelyonemonthafterplaintiffregistereditsnorthernlight.comwebsite,Burgar,onbehalfofNorthernLightsClub,registeredthenorthernlights.comdomainnamewithNSI.hjjjDjhh8h #  3      ׀Soonafterregistration,Burgarlicensedthenameto  p FlairMail,avanityemailservicethathemanagesandthatisownedbyalocalAlbertanewspaper.hk+kkEkhh9h #  4      ׀Burgar"believes"thatthis @" newspaperisownedbyhiswife.UnderthisarrangementwithFlairMail,defendantsofferedemailaccountsunderthenorthernlights.comdomainnamethatuserscouldaccessthroughsome #@( otherwebsite,suchasflairmail.com,althoughInternetuserswhoattemptedtovisitthenorthernlights.compageontheWorldWideWebwouldfindthatnosuchsiteexisted.hlll-lhh:h #  5      ׀4# O  5  6 "O"  7 L"Ԁ    ` ThetwosimilardomainnameregistrationsenjoyedapeacefulcoexistenceuntilMarch2,1999,whenaUSATodaystoryonInternetsearchengineserroneouslyidentifiedplaintiff'swebsiteasnorthernlights.com.Afterascertainingthatdefendantswerethe `  ownersofthisdomainname,plaintiff'smarketingdirectorcontactedBurgartofindoutwhetherdefendantsmightbeinterestedinsellingit.Thepartiesexchangedaseriesofproposalsandcounterproposalsbyemailoveratwomonthperiodbutultimatelynosalesorlicensingagreementwasconsummated. Soonthereafter, 0 inApril1999,defendantspostedanactivepageonthenorthernlights.comWorldWideWebsite.Visitorstothesitesaw,amongotherthings,asitesearchfunctionnearthetopofthescreenthatenableduserstoperformasearchofthenorthernlights.comsiteforspecificwordsorphrases,aswellaslinkstoFlairMailandothermembersofthe"NorthernLightsCommunity."Plaintiff'sWebsitewasplacedthirdinthelistoftheNorthernLightsCommunity"BusinessListings."hm$mmFmhh;h #  6      ׀Plaintiffhad `"& notagreedtothislisting. #@(  ` OnJuly14,1999,plaintiffsentBurgaraceaseanddesistletter,demandingthatthenorthernlights.comsitebedeactivated.Defendantschosenottorespondtothisletter.Fifteendayslater,plaintiffaskedNSItostripdefendantsofthenorthernlights.comdomainnamebasedonthesimilarityoftheirrespectivemarks,butNSIdeclined,citingtheoneletterdiscrepancybetweenthenameofdefendant'swebsiteandplaintiff'strademark.OnAugust6,1999,plaintifffiledtheinstantlawsuitunderfederalandstatetheoriesofunfaircompetition,trademarkinfringement,andtrademarkdilution .Initscomplaint,plaintiff  soughtbothatemporaryrestrainingorderandapreliminaryinjunction.InDecember1999,plaintiffamendeditscomplainttoaddaclaimunderACPA(whichhadbeenenactedintolawlessthanonemonthearlier)andtoabandonitsfederaltrademarkdilutionclaimanditsstatelawclaimsofunfaircompetitionandtrademarkdilution. ` MomentsbeforethedistrictcourthearingonSeptember1,1999toconsiderthemeritsofplaintiff'sclaimsandthecourt'spersonaljurisdictionoverdefendants,plaintiff'sagentphysicallyservedprocessuponBurgar,whohadtraveledvoluntarilytoBostonfromAlbertatowitnesstheproceedingsandtomakehimselfavailablefortestimonyifneeded.AlthoughthehearingitselffocusedlargelyontheconvolutedissuesofpersonaljurisdictionarisingfromInternetactivities,italsotoucheduponthemeritsofplaintiff'srequestforpreliminaryinjunctiverelief.Attheendofthehearing,thedistrictcourtindicatedthatitwould +'2 issueatemporaryrestrainingordermodifyingthecontentofthenorthernlights.comsitetopreventfurtherpublicconfusion,andsolicitedadvicefrombothpartiesastotheappropriatesubstanceofthatorder. ` Truetoitsword,thedistrictcourtimposedtheTROthefollowingday,statingthatNorthernLighthadsuccessfullydemonstratedprobablepersonaljurisdiction,thatitwouldbelikelytosucceedinitstrademarkinfringementsuit,andthatthebalanceofhardshipsandthepublicinterestfavoredtemporaryrelief.Thecourtorderedthatdefendantsremoveallcontentfromthenorthernlights.comsiteandpostinitsplaceablackedoutscreencontainingonlyanimageoftheauroraborealisandlinksto 0 threewebsites:(1)flairmail.com(whereuserscouldaccesstheirnorthernlights.comemailaccounts);(2)plaintiff'snorthernlight.comsite;and(3)thecontentpagethatformerlyexistedatnorthernlights.com,tobedescribed,forpurposesofthelink,as"BUSINESSESTHATARELISTEDWITHTHENORTHERNLIGHTSCOMMUNITY."Onthesamedaythatthisrulingwasissued,thepartiesjointlymovedthecourtforacontinuanceof"atleast60days."Inthisjointmotion,defendantsacquiescedinanextensionoftherestrainingorderagainstthemuntildiscoveryandfurtherhearingsinthematterwereconducted,andthepartiesagreedtoaschedulegoverningthecompletionofdiscoveryandthefilingofanyadditionalmotions.Thecourtgrantedthismotion,andbothpartiessubmittedfurthermotionsduringthisperiod.Aftergrantingseveralmotionsforextensionsoftime,thedistrictcourt +'2 ultimatelyheldhearingsonJanuary19and21,2000onthepersonaljurisdictionissueandthemeritsofplaintiff'srequestforpreliminaryrelief.     ` InitswrittenopinionissuedonMarch31,2000,thedistrictcourtordered,interalia,thatwhathadbecomeadefacto  @ preliminaryinjunctionshouldremaininplace.h/hh<h #  7      ׀Insodoing,the    courtbeganbyholdingthatithadpersonaljurisdictionoverdefendants.h%hh=h #  8      ׀Itdeterminedthatplaintiffhadsatisfiedsections   3(c)and3(d)oftheMassachusettsLongArmStatute,  seeMass.Gen. 0  Lawsch.223A,3,becausedefendantshadlikelycausedtortiousinjurytoplaintiffsinMassachusetts ,boththroughtheiracts  withintheCommonwealth(intheformoftheirtrademarkinfringingwebsite)andtheirregularsolicitationofbusinessthroughactsoutsideoftheCommonwealth(byvirtueof,interalia,thesite's P "entice[ment]"touserstopostmaterial).See97F.Supp.2dat 0 10406.Thecourtalsofoundthatdefendantshadsufficient p contactswithMassachusettstosupporttheexerciseofspecificjurisdictionunderInternationalShoeCo.v.Washington,326U.S. @ 310(1945),therebysatisfyingtheconstitutionaldueprocesselementofpersonaljurisdiction.SeeNorthernLightTech.,Inc., `  97F.Supp.2dat10608. ` Onthemeritsofplaintiff'ssuit,thedistrictcourtfoundthat,basedonthelikelihoodofconfusionbetweenthetwowebsitesbecauseoftheirsimilarformandfunction,plaintiff'sstateandfederaltrademarkinfringementandunfaircompetitioncausesofactionwouldprobablysucceed.Seeid.at10915,120.  ThecourtfurtheropinedthatplaintiffwaslikelytosucceedonitsACPAclaim,basedontheconfusingsimilarityofthetwodomainnamesandproofofdefendants'badfaithintenttoprofitfromplaintiff'snorthernlight.commark.Seeid.at11520.Onthe P latterissue,thecourtreasonedthat,althoughBurgar'sinitialreluctancetosellthenorthernlights.comsiteanddefendants'uninterrupteduseofthenorthernlights.comnameforvanityemailaccountsmilitatedagainstabadfaithfinding,defendants'historicalpracticeof"targetingtrademarkednames,creatingfictionalentitiestoregisterthem,andofferingdubiousexplanationsfortheselectionofthesedomainnames"ultimatelytippedthescalesinfavorofsuchapreliminarydetermination.Id.at119.Finally,thedistrictcourtfoundthatplaintiffhad '`", establishedalikelihoodofirreparableharm,thatthebalanceof hardshipsfavoredtheplaintiff,andthatthepublicinterest 0*%0 favoredthepreservationofthepreliminaryinjunctionalreadyinplace.Seeeeide``e.at12021. @   ` Onappeal,defendantsdisputethedistrictcourt'spersonaljurisdictionrulingandaspectsofitsdecisionregardingthelikelihoodofplaintiff'ssuccessonthemerits.Defendantsalsopursuetheirargument,notexpresslyconsideredbythedistrictcourt,thatthepresentinjunctionundulyburdenstheirFirstAmendmentrights.L Eh((L   II.PersonalJurisdiction  0  GD ` Defendantsfirstchallengetheinjunctionenteredbythedistrictcourtonthegroundthatthecourtwaswithoutpersonaljurisdictiontoordersucharemedy.Ateachstageoftheproceedings,thepartieshavecontestedwhetherdefendants'activities,bothintermsofthecontentoftheirwebsiteandtheirdiscussionswiththeplaintiffregardingapotentialbusinessventure,meetthepersonaljurisdictioncriteriaoftheMassachusettsLongArmStatuteandtherequirementsofdueprocess.Plaintiffalsopositedamoreconventionalbasisforpersonaljurisdictioninthedistrictcourt!namely,theserviceofprocess  !p$ effecteduponBurgarjustpriortotheSeptember1,1999preliminaryinjunctionhearing.Weaffordplenaryreviewtothedistrictcourt'sdeterminationofpersonaljurisdiction,andmayaffirmitsjudgmentforanyindependentreasonsupportedbytherecord.See,e.g.,PhillipsExeterAcad.v.HowardPhillipsFund, (@$.  Inc.,196F.3d284,288(1stCir.1999). *%0  ` Thedistrictcourtexpresslydeclinedtoconsiderthe validityofpersonaljurisdictionbasedonphysicalserviceofprocess.See97F.Supp.2dat108n.12.Onappeal,however,   plaintiffcontinuestopressitscasethat,underthedoctrineoftransientjurisdiction,ithassatisfactorilycreatedjurisdictionthroughitsserviceofprocessonBurgarpriortotheSeptember1,1999hearing.SeeBurnhamv.SuperiorCourtofCal.,495U.S.604 `  (1990)(pluralityopinion);Schinkelv.MaxiHolding,Inc.,565   N.E.2d1219,122223(Mass.App.Ct.1991)(holdingthatpersonaljurisdictioninMassachusettsneednotbepredicatedonLongArmStatutewhendefendantservedwithprocesswhileinforumundertransientjurisdictiondoctrine).Defendantsdisputethisproposition,claimingthatthismethodofserviceofprocessisfundamentallyunfairinthatitrepresentsatrapfortheunwarylitigantwhotravelstotheforumstatesolelytocontesttheissueofpersonaljurisdiction.Defendantsalsoarguethatpermittingserviceofprocessunderthesecircumstancesisunwisefromapublicpolicyperspectiveinthatitdiscouragesthelitigantfromactivelyassistingthedistrictcourtinthejurisdictionaldiscoveryprocess. ` Althoughtheydonotspecificallyaskforprocessimmunity,defendants'argumentagainstpersonaljurisdictionessentiallyboilsdowntoarequestthatBurgarbedeemedimmunefromserviceofprocesssince,atthetimehewasserved,hewaspresentinMassachusettsonlyforthepurposeofattendingapersonaljurisdictionhearinginthislawsuit.Thisargument +'2  *        enjoyssomemeasureofhistoricalpedigree,albeitinarelatedcontext.LongbeforetheSupremeCourtinBurnhamaffirmedthat @ personaljurisdictioncanbesustainedagainstadefendantsolelyonthebasisofhispresenceintheforumstateatthetimeofserviceofprocess,ithadrecognizedthatsomepartiestemporarily  @ intheforumstateenjoyimmunityfromservicebyvirtueoftheirstatusasparticipantsinongoinglitigation.Forinstance,inLambv.Schmitt,285U.S.222(1932),theCourtnotedthepotential   perilofallowinganindividualwhoisattendingaproceedinginonesuittobeservedwithprocessinconjunctionwithanother:` ` [T]hedueadministrationofjusticerequiresthatacourtshallnotpermitinterferencewiththeprogressofacausependingbeforeit,bytheserviceofprocessinothersuits,whichwouldprevent,orthefearofwhichmighttendtodiscourage,thevoluntaryattendanceofthosewhosepresenceisnecessaryorconvenienttothejudicialadministrationinthependinglitigation.` R` RSId.at225(internalcitationsomitted).Similarly,Justice  p Scalia'spluralityopinioninBurnhamreferredtoseveralstates'   historicalimpositionofstatutoryorcommonlawprohibitionsontheserviceofprocessofthoseindividualspresentintheforumaspartiesorwitnessesinunrelatedjudicialproceedings!a `"& practicethatledhimtoconcludethattransientjurisdictioncomportedwithconstitutionaldueprocess.See495U.S.at613. % *  ` Accompanyingthecourts'repeatedrecognitionofthevalidityoftheparty/witnessimmunityexception,however,hasbeenapersistentacknowledgmentoftheexception'slimitations.TheLambCourtitselfnotedthat,becausetheprivilegeexistsforthe +'2 convenienceofthedistrictcourtinitsexerciseofjudicialadministration,ratherthantoprotecttheindividualseekingtoavoidserviceofprocess,courtsenjoythediscretiontoconfer(ordeny)immunityinsuchinstances.See285U.S.at225(citing `  Stewartv.Ramsay,242U.S.128,130(1916)).Justasimportantly,  @ theextensionoftheprivilegehasbeenlimitedbythemajorityofcourtstocasesinwhichthepartyorwitnesswasparticipatinginanunrelatedlitigationatthetimethathewasservedwithprocess   intheforumstate.See,e.g.,ARWExplorationCorp.v.Aguirre, 0  45F.3d1455,1460(10thCir.1995)(denyingprocessimmunitywherepartywasservedwithprocessinsecondlawsuitwhileattendingdepositioninfirstlawsuitallegingsimilarfacts);InreFish& 0 Neave,519F.2d116,118(8thCir.1975)(similar);LaCroixv. p AmericanHorseShowAss'n,853F.Supp.992,99495(N.D.Ohio P 1994)(applyingLambanddenyingdefendants'claimofentitlement  toimmunitybasedonappearanceinforumstatesolelytocontestpersonaljurisdiction); 4CharlesA.Wright&ArthurR.Miller,   FederalPracticeandProcedure1080,at511(2ded.1987)("There " isgenerallynoimmunityfromserviceofprocesswhenthesuitinwhichimmunityissoughtispartof,oracontinuationof,thesuitforwhichthepersonclaimingimmunityisinthejurisdiction."); @$( seealsoLamb,285U.S.at225("[T]he[processimmunity]privilege % !* shouldnotbeenlargedbeyondthereasonuponwhichitisfounded, and...shouldbeextendedorwithheldonlyasjudicial (@$. necessitiesrequire.") .h*hh>h #  9      ׀Therationaleforthedifferinglawsuit   prerequisitetoprocessimmunityinthiscontextisrelativelystraightforward:whileacourtcan,incasesbeforeit,choosetoprotectthejurisdictionalstatusofapartyorwitnesswhoisreluctanttocometotheforumstatebyissuingprotectiveordersorsubpoenas,itcannotwieldsuchpowerinothercases. The    processimmunityexceptionthereforefillsthegaponlywhereitneedstobefilled!thatis,incaseswhereadistrictcourt   wishestoshieldanindividualfromserviceofprocesstoencouragehisorhertraveltotheforumstate,butwouldbeunabletodosoabsentthepowertograntimmunity. ` Turningtothefactsofthiscase,severalfeaturesofdefendants'litigationposturecounselagainstafindingthatBurgarisentitledtoprocessimmunity.First,andmostapparent,isthefactthatdefendantshaveneveraskedthedistrictcourtforsuchimmunityonbehalfofBurgar,eitherpriortoorfollowingthe  p hearingatwhichBurgarwasservedwithprocess.Inlieuofaspecificrequestforimmunity,defendantsinsteadhaveaskedthiscourttofashionabroad,perseruleprecludingtheexerciseof   personaljurisdictionwhenevertheservedindividualisinthejurisdictiontoattendlitigationrelatedproceedingsthatpertaintohimorher.InlightoftheadmonitionsinLambandothercases    thatprocessimmunityshouldbemetedoutsparingly,werejectthissuggestion.Moreover,thecircumstancessurroundingtheserviceofprocessonBurgararenotthosethatwouldordinarilyfavorafindingofimmunityeveninacasewhereithadbeentimelyrequested.Specifically,Burgarvoluntarilyenteredinto P Massachusettstoattendproceedingsasaspectatorinthesamecase 0 inwhichhewasservedwithprocess.Whileweneednotdecidetheissue,itseemsapparentthatunderthesefacts,thedistrictcourtwouldhavefacedarelativelyheavypresumptionagainstgrantingsuchimmunityifitactuallyhadbeensoughtbyBurgar. ` Forthesereasons,weholdthatthedistrictcourtproperlyexercisedpersonaljurisdictionoverdefendantsinthiscase. h,hh?h #  10      ׀Basedonthisdetermination,weneednotreachthe  $ alternatebasesforpersonaljurisdictiondiscussedinthedistrictcourt'sopinion.L Uh((L   III.Plaintiff'sLikelihoodofSuccessontheMerits     k ` Defendants'secondclaiminthisappeal,whichgoestothemeritsofplaintiff'ssuit,isthatthepreliminaryinjunctionshouldbedissolvedbecauseitispremisedonerroneousfindingsbythedistrictcourt.Specifically,defendantsclaimthatthecourterredasamatteroffactindeterminingthatNorthernLightsmanifestedabadfaithintenttoprofitfromplaintiff'smark,andasamatteroflawinconcludingthatACPAshouldbeappliedretroactivelytoencompassdefendants'behaviorpriortotheenactmentofthestatute.L )((L   A.Defendants'BadFaith   n ` Defendantsvehementlycontestthedistrictcourt'sfindingthattheregistrationandmaintenanceofthenorthernlights.comdomainnamerepresentedabadfaithefforttoprofitfromplaintiff'sNorthernLighttrademark.Theissueofbadfaithisprincipallyrelevanttothemeritsofplaintiff'ssuitinsofaras"badfaithintenttoprofitfrom[another's]mark"constitutesanessentialelementofthecauseofactionunderACPA.15U.S.C.1125(d)(1)(A)(i).Inthiscase,however,italsorelates,albeittangentially,toplaintiff'strademarkinfringementclaim.Thisissobecausethedistrictcourt'sfindingwithrespecttodefendants'intentinadoptingtheNorthernLightsmark,whichthecourtrenderedwhileconsideringoneoftheeightfactorsunderthe"likelihoodofconfusion"testfortrademark `,'2 infringement,see,e.g.,I.P.LundTradingApSv.KohlerCo.,163  F.3d27,43(1stCir.1998),expresslyincorporatedbyreferencetheintentfindingsithadmadeinitsACPAanalysis.See97F.   Supp.2dat114.Thus,wemustconsiderthecourt's"badfaithintenttoprofit"findingstotheextentthattheybearonthetrademarkinfringementclaim.Wereviewthedistrictcourt'sfindingofbadfaithforclearerror.SeeAmericanBd.of `  Psychiatry&Neurologyv.JohnsonPowell,129F.3d1,3(1stCir.   1997)(notingclearerrorstandardofreviewappliestofindingsoffactmadeinconjunctionwithrulingonmotionforpreliminaryinjunction)(citingKedsCorp.v.ReneeInt'lTradingCorp.,888 P F.2d215,222(1stCir.1989)).  0  ` Onappeal,defendantsclaimthattheirconductdidnotmeetthestatutoryguidelinesforafindingofbadfaith,andthatevenifitdid,thesubjectiveandobjectivereasonablenessoftheiractionsshouldshieldthemfromliability.Defendantsstressthattheirmereregistrationofmultipledomainnamesdoesnot,byitself,indicatethattheywereactinginbadfaithwithregardtoanyoftheirindividualregistrationsorwebsiteuses.DefendantsalsoassertthatthestatementsofBurgarhavebeentakenoutofcontextbythedistrictcourt,andhavebeenunfairlyusedtoestablishNorthernLights'sbadfaith. ` AlongwithitsinclusionofbadfaithamongtheessentialelementsoftheACPAcauseofaction,Congressprovidedninenonexhaustiveguidepoststhatcourtsmayusetodivinewhetherornotbadfaithexists.See15U.S.C.1125(d)(1)(B)(i)(I)(IX). +'2  Inaddition,thestatuteprovidesan"escapeclause"tothosewhose  conductwouldotherwiseconstitutebadfaithifthepotentialinfringer"believedandhadreasonablegroundstobelievethattheuseofthedomainnamewasafairuseorotherwiselawful."Id. `  1125(d)(1)(B)(ii).Inthiscase,thedistrictcourtdeterminedthatdefendants'myriadexplanationsfortheiruseofthenorthernlights.comsite!e.g.,asanexperimentalnewbusiness `  model,asasiteforauroraborealisadmirers,andasacompilation   ofbusinessesthatcontainthephrase"NorthernLights"! 0  underminedNorthernLights'sclaimofsubjectivebeliefinfairuse,andhencetheirentitlementtothe"escapeclause"of1125(d)(1)(B)(ii).See97F.Supp.2dat11819.Additionally, 0 thecourtconcludedthatthedefendants'numerousregistrationsofdomainnamescontainingthetrademarksofothers,whichdefendantsaccomplishedinsomecasesbycreatingfictional"fanclubs"sothattheycouldpresentamantleoflegitimacyintheirregistrationrequeststoNSI,representedpowerfulevidenceofdefendants'badfaithinoperatingthenorthernlights.comsite.Thisconclusionofbadfaithwasreinforced,accordingtothedistrictcourt,bydefendants'historyofdisregardingceaseanddesistlettersfromlegitimatetrademarkowners,andtheirapparentopennesstosellthenorthernlight.comregistrationtotheplaintiffattherightprice.Id.at11920. '`",  ` Basedonourreviewoftherecord,weseenoclearerrorinthedistrictcourt'sfindingthatdefendantswilllikelybefoundtohaveactedinbadfaithinoperatingthe +'2 northernlights.comsite.hn.nnGnhh@h #  11      ׀Althoughdefendantsarecorrectin  assertingthattheirmultipleregistrationsalonearenotdispositiveofthebadfaithissue,theirwellestablishedpatternofregisteringmultipledomainnamescontainingfamoustrademarks, `  suchasrollingstones.com,evinrude.com,andgivenchy.com,hasbeen  @ madehighlyrelevanttothedeterminationofbadfaithbythelistoffactorsinACPA.See15U.S.C.1125(d)(1)(B)(i)(VIII)(noting `  asrelevantfactor"theperson'sregistrationoracquisitionofmultipledomainnameswhichthepersonknowsareidenticalorconfusinglysimilartomarksofothersthataredistinctiveatthetimeofregistrationofsuchdomainnames").Thosefactsarenotclearlytrumpedbyfactsfavoringdefendants'sideofthestory,suchastheiruseofnorthernlights.comasanemaildomainnameforseveralyearspriortothedisputewiththeplaintiffandBurgar'sinitialresistancetotheplaintiff'seffortstoacquiredefendants'domainnameregistration.Thedistrictcourt'sfindingthatdefendantswerenotentitledtothe"escapeclause"alsoisnotclearlyerroneous;asthecourtfound,defendants'oftchangingexplanationsforthepurposeofthenorthernlights.comwebsiteevincealackofsubjectivebeliefinthedomainname'sfairuse . `"&  ` Basedondefendants'apparentmodusoperandiof #@( registeringdomainnamescontainingthefamoustrademarksofothersinthehopethatthefamoustrademarkholderwillbewillingtopay '`", toreclaimitsintellectualpropertyrights,thedistrictcourtreasonablyconcludedthatdefendantsactedaccordingtoscriptinthiscase.ho1ooHohhAh #  12      ׀Accordingly,wedeterminethatthedistrictcourtdid   noterrinfindingthatdefendantswilllikelybefoundtohaveactedinbadfaithinoperatingtheirnorthernlights.comwebsite.   B.RetroactiveApplicationofACPA     D ` Defendantsalsoaskthatwereviewthedistrictcourt'slegaldeterminationthattheretroactiveapplicationofACPAtothefactsofthiscaseispermissible.h2hhBh #  13      ׀Afterreviewingthedistrict   courtopinionandtheparties'briefs,however,wefinditunnecessarytoreachthisissue,asevenifweweretodecidethe  matterindefendants'favor,itwouldnotprovideanadequatebasisfordissolvingtheinjunction.ThisissobecausethedistrictcourtexpresslystatedthatitsdecisiontoimposeapreliminaryinjunctionrestedprincipallyuponitsfindingthatInternetusers 0 wouldlikelybeconfusedbytheconcomitantexistenceofthenorthernlight.comandnorthernlights.commarks.See97F.Supp.2d @ at121("Beforeturningtothebalancingfactors,Imustemphasizetheimportanceofthelikelihoodofconfusionfindingstothepreliminaryinjunctioncalculus.").BecauseanACPAviolationdoesnotrequireashowingoflikelyconfusion,ho3ooIohh&h #  14      ׀thedistrictcourt's    decisiontoenterapreliminaryinjunctionmusthavebeenbasedonitsresolutionofthenonACPAclaims,suchasplaintiff'strademarkinfringementclaim.Intheirappeal,defendants'onlyargumentonthemeritsthatdoesnotimpugnthedistrictcourt's  ACPAfindingsconcernsthedeterminationthatNorthernLightsactedinbadfaith.AndaswehavedeterminedinPartIII.A,supra,that 0 findingwasnotclearlyerroneous .Thus,nomatterhowwemight p resolvetheACPAretroactivityissue!andweexpresslyeschew P doingsoatthistime!ourdecisionwouldfailtoaffectthe  validityoftheinjunction.h4xhhCxh #  15        p  ` Insum,weconcludethatdefendantshaveidentifiednobasisforoverturningthepreliminaryinjunctionalreadyinplace.Wethereforeaffirmitsissuancebythedistrictcourt.p   $ pL (ʽ(()L   IV.FirstAmendmentOverbreadthoftheInjunction    ` DefendantsarguethatthescopeofthepreliminaryinjunctionviolatestheFirstAmendment.Weneednot,however,considerthatissuehere,foralthoughitmayhavebeenraisedbelow,defendantsdidnomorethanobliquelyrefertotheissuewhenthedistrictcourtheldthecriticalhearing,andsubsequentlytookpartintheframingofthepreliminaryinjunction.Becausewedonotfindwaiver,theissuecanbearguedinthetrialonthemerits.   Conclusion `   ` Becausethedistrictcourtobtainedpersonaljurisdiction @ overdefendantswhenBurgarwasservedwithprocesswhileintheforumstate,weaffirm,albeitondifferentgrounds,thecourt'spersonaljurisdictionfinding.Wefindnobasisfordisturbingthecourt'sdeterminationoflikelihoodofsuccessonthemeritsofplaintiff'ssuit,andthereforeaffirmthoseportionsofthedistrictcourt'sopinion.Finally,whilenotprecludingfurtherconsiderationoftheFirstAmendmentissueattrial,wedeclinetoresolvedefendants'freespeechchallengetothescopeoftheinjunctionatthistime.  ` Affirmed.Coststoappellee.o o