Opinion ID: 774479
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Seven Words I

Text: 6 Seven Words initially sought to register ten second-level domain names that were based on Carlin's Seven Dirty Words routine. NSI refused to register the names, however, because it had a policy prohibiting registration of domain names containing certain words that it deemed inappropriate, including six of Carlin's Seven Dirty Words. 4 As a consequence of this policy, in March 1999, Seven Words filed its first lawsuit against NSI in federal court in the Central District of California, Seven Words LLC v. Network Solutions, Inc., No. 99-02816-SVW (Seven Words I), requesting an injunction ordering registration of the disputed domain names to Seven Words and a declaration that NSI's policy and the refusal to register the domain names violated Seven Words's rights under the federal and California Constitutions. 7 Seven Words thereafter sought registration of six additional domain names, which, like the first ten, were based on Carlin's Seven Dirty Words routine. Again, NSI refused registration. Seven Words therefore sought to amend the complaint in Seven Words I to include the six additional domain names, as well as a claim for damages, but the district court did not rule on the request. Rather, as explained below, then began Seven Words's hopscotch litigation odyssey from California to New Hampshire and back again. Although the dates of the various rulings are not per se critical to the story, they are provided to assist in keeping the chronology in mind and to give a flavor of how the litigation was intertwined. 8 In June 1999, NSI's status as the exclusive registrar expired, and other companies joined NSI in offering domain name registration services in the .com,.net, .edu, and .org top-level domains. In anticipation of that change, Seven Words filed an application for a temporary restraining order (TRO), requesting that NSI be enjoined from allowing other domain name registrars to register the contested domain names during the pendency of Seven Words I. Although the district court granted the TRO, it was subsequently discharged and no preliminary injunction issued. NSI tendered control over the disputed domain names to the district court through a Deposit of Domain Name Declaration, under which the domain names could only be released for registration upon order of the Seven Words I court or dismissal of the action. 9 In this same time frame, the district court learned that there was a related case against NSI pending in federal court in New Hampshire, National A-1 Advertising, Inc. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 121 F. Supp. 2d 156 (D.N.H. 2000) (Haberstroh). In that case, plaintiff Lynn Haberstroh, who had no connection to Seven Words, sought a declaration that NSI's refusal to register six domain names violated her constitutional rights. Four of those names were identical to those sought by Seven Words, and Haberstroh, like Seven Words, argued that NSI's policy of refusing to register the domain names violated the First Amendment. 10 Recognizing the overlap between the two lawsuits, in May 1999, the district court in California directed NSI to file a motion to transfer Seven Words I to the District of New Hampshire for consolidation with Haberstroh. The district court granted the motion in June 1999, ordered that the remaining federal claims be transferred to the Haberstroh court, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Seven Words's state constitutional claim because it involved a novel and complex issue of state law. Seven Words I was thereafter transferred to the New Hampshire court, along with the Deposit of Domain Name Declaration.