## Facts

- Lockheed Martin owned the “SKUNK WORKS” service mark for advanced aerospace research and development.
- Third parties registered domain names incorporating “skunk works” and allegedly used them in ways that infringed and diluted Lockheed’s mark.
- Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI) served as the domain-name registrar for major top-level domains, registering names on a first-come, first-served basis and maintaining the registry’s name-to-IP-address translation database.
- NSI did not host websites, control website content, or monitor how registrants used their domain names.
- After Lockheed demanded that NSI cancel certain allegedly infringing registrations, NSI refused absent compliance with its dispute policy (typically requiring a court order or comparable formal resolution).
- Lockheed sued NSI under the Lanham Act for trademark infringement (including contributory infringement), unfair competition, and dilution (including contributory dilution).
- The district court granted summary judgment for NSI and denied Lockheed leave to amend to add a contributory dilution claim and additional domain names.

## Issues

1. Whether a domain-name registrar can be liable for contributory trademark infringement based on registering and maintaining allegedly infringing domain names for third parties.
2. Whether 15 U.S.C. § 1114(2) creates an independent cause of action against an intermediary, or instead limits available remedies.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend to add a contributory dilution claim and additional domain names.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for NSI.
- NSI was not liable for contributory infringement because its registration and routing function did not satisfy the Inwood standard on the record presented.
- Section 1114(2) did not supply an independent basis for liability; it is a remedial limitation on relief.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend because the request was late, prejudicial, and futile.

## Legal Principles

- Contributory trademark infringement requires proof that a defendant (a) intentionally induced infringement, or (b) continued supplying a product or service to a party it knew or had reason to know was infringing; mere notice of alleged infringement does not automatically establish liability.
- A neutral, technical intermediary that registers domain names and maintains name-to-address translation—without controlling website content or use—does not, without more, “continue to supply” an infringing instrumentality in the manner required for contributory liability.
- 15 U.S.C. § 1114(2) is remedial; it limits the forms of relief available against specified intermediaries and does not create a standalone cause of action absent an underlying infringement basis.
- Leave to amend may be denied for undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, and futility, including when an amendment would require reopening discovery after summary judgment and would not cure the legal defects in the theory of liability.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that a domain-name registrar performing a limited, neutral registration and routing function is not liable for contributory trademark infringement on these facts, that § 1114(2) limits remedies rather than creating substantive liability, and that denial of a late, prejudicial, and futile amendment seeking to add contributory dilution and additional domain names was proper.


Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Sols., Inc., 194 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 1999)