Opinion ID: 784889
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Use of marks

Text: 213 We find that Verio's appeal of the first paragraph of the district court's injunction is moot for two reasons. First, by a letter dated May 9, 2000, Verio agreed not to refer to the Register.com mark or any other similar mark in its future solicitations. Enjoining Verio from using the Register.com mark or any other similar mark simply gives effect to Verio's promise and need not be based on the Lanham Act. 214 Second, at oral argument, we asked counsel for Register.com whether the company would be amenable to agreeing to the deletion of the part of the preliminary injunction referring to the first step on the web mark. In a letter submitted by Register.com's counsel the day after oral argument, Register.com agreed to the proposed amendment. Letter from William Patry, Counsel for Register.com, to the Honorable Pierre N. Leval, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (May 22, 2001). 215 Accordingly, we need not and therefore do not address the district court's preliminary assessment of Register.com's Lanham Act claims insofar as the claims pertain to the use of the Register.com, first step on the web or similar marks. We dismiss this part of Verio's appeal and remand for modification the first paragraph of the injunction by deleting the reference to the first step on the web mark.