Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc.
U.S. District Court ruling establishing the Zippo "Sliding Scale" test
Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997), was a decision by the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania holding that a court has personal jurisdiction over a website originating in a different territory, if the website is accessible to Internet users in the court's territory.
Zippo is a landmark opinion regarding personal jurisdiction for courts deciding Internet-oriented disputes, and it is one of the most frequently cited Internet law precedents. The case established a standard of jurisdictional analysis now known as the "Zippo test," or the "Zippo sliding scale test."
Background
Zippo Manufacturing Company, a Pennsylvania corporation, makes the well-known Zippo pocket lighters. Zippo.com was an unaffiliated California corporation that operated an Internet website offering access to USENET newsgroups. The Zippo.com company registered the domain names "zippo.com", "zippo.net", and "zipponews.com" without regard for the prior use of that name by the lighter company.
Zippo Manufacturing filed a complaint in its own Pennsylvania district court against Zippo.com, alleging trademark dilution, trademark infringement, and false designation under the Lanham Act and state trademark dilution statutes.
“Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc.” enters the record as u.S. District Court ruling establishing the Zippo "Sliding Scale" test. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Zippo, Manufacturing and District can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc.” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Zippo, Manufacturing and District provides the most credible route into that argument.
The strongest evidence will usually combine a dated visual record with documents produced by the authority responsible for the place. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 31, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q8072667. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1119 and 1997.
Modern boundaries and familiar names can conceal earlier jurisdictions or structures that do not align with the present site. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Treat names, boundaries and functions as historically changeable. Maps, plans, inventories and administrative records can clarify what the place meant at different dates.
- Historic place names
- Jurisdictional context
- Routes into maps and plans
Contemporary maps, plans, listed-building records, estate papers and the responsible local or national archive.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc.”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc. primary sources, Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc. archive and Zippo research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc.”?
- Which earlier names or jurisdictions may reveal additional records?
- What physical evidence or contemporary plan supports the description?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc.” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.