{"id":594,"date":"2011-08-17T23:19:53","date_gmt":"2011-08-18T03:19:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/?p=594"},"modified":"2011-08-17T23:19:53","modified_gmt":"2011-08-18T03:19:53","slug":"register-com-inc-v-verio-inc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/register-com-inc-v-verio-inc\/","title":{"rendered":"Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 356 F.3d 393 (2d Cir. 2004)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Case Name: <\/strong>Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc.
\nPlaintiff\/Appellee: <\/strong>Register.com
\nDefendant\/Appellant: <\/strong>Verio, Inc.
\nCitation: <\/strong>356 F.3d 393 (2d Cir. 2004)<\/p>\n

Issue: <\/strong>Whether the defendant had assented and was bound by the terms of the plaintiff\u2019s website when it was daily accessing the website through a software robot.<\/p>\n

Key Facts:<\/strong> The defendant created an automated software program to submit queries for WHOIS information from various registrars, including the plaintiff. The defendant then used the information to conduct solicitations by email, telemarketing, and direct mail. The plaintiff demanded the defendant to stop because some of its clients were getting upset and then changed its restrictive legend to state that it prohibited use of the WHOIS information for mass solicitation \u201cvia direct mail, electronic mail, or by telephone.<\/p>\n

The ICANN Agreement requires the registrar to permit use of its WHOIS data \u201cfor any lawful purposes except to: \u2026support the transmission of mass unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations via email (spam)<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Register asserted that Verio was:
\n(a) causing confusion among customers, who were led to believe Verio was affiliated with Register
\n(b) accessing Register\u2019s computers without authorization, a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act; and
\n(c) trespassing on Register\u2019s chattels in a manner likely to harm Register\u2019s computer systems by the use of Verio\u2019s automated robot software programs<\/p>\n

Holding: <\/strong>\u00a0Verio had assented and was contractually bound by the terms of use of Register\u2019s web site because Verio had used the site many times and was well aware of Register\u2019s restrictions on use.<\/p>\n

Where a benefit is offered, subject to stated conditions, and where the offeree takes the benefit with knowledge of the conditions, then the offeree is deemed to have accepted the conditions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Case Name: Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc. Plaintiff\/Appellee: Register.com Defendant\/Appellant: Verio, Inc. Citation: 356 F.3d 393 (2d Cir. 2004) Issue: Whether the defendant had assented and was bound by the terms of the plaintiff\u2019s website when it was daily accessing the website through a software robot. Key Facts: The defendant created an automated software program … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 356 F.3d 393 (2d Cir. 2004)”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[81,13],"tags":[35,140,139],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","yoast_head":"\nRegister.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 356 F.3d 393 (2d Cir. 2004) -<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Case brief for Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 356 F.3d 393 (2d Cir. 2004). Issue: Whether the defendant had assented and was bound by the terms of the plaintiff\u2019s website when it was daily accessing the website through a software robot.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/register-com-inc-v-verio-inc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 356 F.3d 393 (2d Cir. 2004) -\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Case brief for Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 356 F.3d 393 (2d Cir. 2004). Issue: Whether the defendant had assented and was bound by the terms of the plaintiff\u2019s website when it was daily accessing the website through a software robot.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/register-com-inc-v-verio-inc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"MiB Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-08-18T03:19:53+00:00\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#website\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/\",\"name\":\"MiB Law\",\"description\":\"Lawschool Notes and Outlines\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/?s={search_term_string}\",\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/register-com-inc-v-verio-inc\/#webpage\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/register-com-inc-v-verio-inc\/\",\"name\":\"Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 356 F.3d 393 (2d Cir. 2004) -\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-18T03:19:53+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2011-08-18T03:19:53+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#\/schema\/person\/14950d73730da8ecbd5b2d2690155373\"},\"description\":\"Case brief for Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 356 F.3d 393 (2d Cir. 2004). Issue: Whether the defendant had assented and was bound by the terms of the plaintiff\\u2019s website when it was daily accessing the website through a software robot.\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/register-com-inc-v-verio-inc\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#\/schema\/person\/14950d73730da8ecbd5b2d2690155373\",\"name\":\"Andrew\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#personlogo\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/1.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7e4456f2e886e2b22adb13ba439e70ed?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Andrew\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/\",\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/miblaw\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/594"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=594"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/594\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":595,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/594\/revisions\/595"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=594"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=594"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=594"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}