Name.Space, Inc. v. Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers, 795 F.3d 1124

ICANN creates and assigns top level domains and governs the DNS Root; in 2012 it ran an application round for new gTLDs with substantial procedural changes from 2000.
Name.space, a registry that focuses on expressive TLDs, challenges the 2012 Round's rules as applied to themselves, alleging antitrust, trademark, and related claims.
The complaint asserts ICANN’s conduct was coordinated with its board and industry insiders, potentially altering the market for TLDs and domain registrations.
ICANN’s authority over the DNS and Root originated with the DOC; in 2009 DOC relinquished formal policy control, though ICANN remains under contract with the DOC for the IANA functions.
The district court dismissed most claims; the Ninth Circuit reviews de novo, evaluating whether the complaint plausibly alleged a conspiracy under §1 and other antitrust and related claims.
The 2012 Round introduced a larger, more complex guidebook, higher fees, and a per-application limit, with most applicants being industry insiders.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §1 claim plausibly alleges a conspiracy	Name.space asserts a conspiratorial agreement among ICANN, its board, and insiders.	ICANN's actions were independent business decisions consistent with its contract with the DOC; no rigging alleged.	No plausible conspiracy; no §1 claim.
Whether ICANN can be liable under §2 for monopolization	ICANN’s control over TLDs gives it monopoly power in relevant markets.	ICANN is not a market participant in the claimed markets; even if it were, there is no wrongful acquisition or predatory conduct.	No §2 monopoly liability; ICANN not a monopolist based on pleaded allegations.
Ripeness of trademark and unfair competition claims	ICANN’s acceptance of applications for TLDs using name.space’s marks infringes or deceives.	Claims are not ripe because no actual or imminent delegation or use of the marks occurred.	Claims unripe; no adjudication at this stage.
Tortious interference claims viability	ICANN’s actions disrupted existing contracts or prospective economic relationships.	Plaintiff fails to allege specific contracts or plausible disruptions.	Claims properly dismissed.
California unfair competition claim viability	Unfair competition encompasses antitrust or trademark violations by ICANN’s conduct.	Antitrust and trademark claims are not stated; no unlawful act proven.	Claim dismissed.

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard for §1 conspiracies)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (agreement must be plausible; mere possibility not enough)
Kendall v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 518 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2008) (evidence must raise reasonable expectation of illegal agreement)
ICANN Transparency, 611 F.3d 495 (9th Cir. 2010) (dismissal affirmed in part for lack of rigging allegations)
Mercy-Peninsula Ambulance, Inc. v. San Mateo Cnty., 791 F.2d 755 (9th Cir. 1986) (non-competitor cannot be charged with monopolistic exclusion of competition)
Pac. Bell Tel. Co. v. Linkline Commc’ns, Inc., 555 U.S. 438 (2009) (business decisions and pricing are not restrained by §2 absent predatory conduct)
Verizon Commc’ns Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 398 (2004) (freedom to contract with others; no duty to deal imposed on monopolists)
Olde Monmouth Stock Transfer Co. v. Depository Trust & Clearing Corp., 485 F.Supp.2d 387 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (market power exists only for actual competitors in the relevant market)
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (antitrust claims require plausible conspiracy allegations)
Swedlow, Inc. v. Rohm & Haas Co., 455 F.2d 884 (9th Cir. 1972) (ripeness analysis for pending infringement claims)