Petroliam Nasional Berhad v. GoDaddy.com, Inc.
Filing
168
Administrative Motion for Entry of Final Judgment on Petronas's Claims and Voluntary Dismissal of Go Daddy's Counterclaim Without Prejudice re 165 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File, Order on Stipulation filed by GoDaddy.com, Inc.. Responses due by 2/13/2012. Replies due by 2/21/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration David Lansky Declaration ISO Administrative Motion, # 2 Exhibit A to David Lansky Declaration ISO Administrative Motion, # 3 Exhibit B to David Lansky Declaration ISO Administrative Motion, # 4 Proposed Order)(Lansky, David) (Filed on 1/30/2012) Modified on 1/31/2012 (vlk, COURT STAFF).
1
2
3
4
5
6
JOHN L. SLAFSKY, State Bar No. 195513
DAVID L. LANSKY, State Bar No. 199952
HOLLIS BETH HIRE, State Bar No. 203651
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Telephone: (650) 493-9300
Fax: (650) 493-6811
jslafsky@wsgr.com
dlansky@wsgr.com
hhire@wsgr.com
7
8
Attorneys for Defendant / Counterclaimant
GODADDY.COM, INC.
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
PETROLIAM NASIONAL BERHAD,
13
Plaintiff,
14
vs.
15
GODADDY.COM, INC.,
16
Defendant.
17
18
GODADDY.COM, INC.,
19
Counterclaimant,
20
vs.
21
PETROLIAM NASIONAL BERHAD,
22
Counterclaim Defendant.
23
24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT AND
DISMISSING COUNTERCLAIM W/O PREJUDICE
Case No. 4:09-cv-05939-PJH
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO.: 09-CV-5939 PJH
[PROPOSED] ORDER ENTERING
FINAL JUDGMENT ON PETRONAS’S
CLAIMS AND DISMISSING GO
DADDY’S COUNTERCLAIM
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Date:
Time:
Courtroom:
December 7, 2011
9:00 a.m.
3
Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton
1
On January 3, 2012 the Court granted the motion for summary judgment of Defendant and
2
Counterclaimant GoDaddy.com, Inc. (“Go Daddy”) as to all claims asserted by Plaintiff and
3
Counterclaim Defendant Petroliam Nasional Berhad (“Petronas”) in the above-captioned litigation
4
(“Petronas’s claims”) and denied GoDaddy’s motion for summary judgment as to its counterclaim
5
seeking to cancel Petronas’s PETRONAS AND DESIGN trademark registration, U.S. trademark
6
registration Reg. No. 2969707 (the “Trademark claim”).
7
8
9
The Court finds no just reason to delay entering final judgment in favor of Go Daddy as to
Petronas’s claims.
With the dismissal of Petronas’s claims, the only claim remaining in this lawsuit is the
10
Trademark claim. Go Daddy previously asserted a claim substantially identical to the Trademark
11
claim in an action before in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and
12
Appeal Board (“TTAB”), entitled GoDaddy.com, Inc., v. Petroliam Nasional Berhad, No.
13
92052741 (the “TTAB proceeding”) which was subsequently suspended in deference to this
14
lawsuit. Go Daddy now seeks to voluntarily dismiss the Trademark claim without prejudice and
15
to litigate the remainder of the claim in the TTAB proceeding.
16
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
17
1.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), the Court enters final judgment
18
for Go Daddy and against Petronas as to each and every claim asserted by Petronas in the above-
19
captioned litigation;
20
21
22
2.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), the Court enters Go Daddy’s
voluntary dismissal of the Trademark claim without prejudice; and
3.
Should the TTAB for any reason decline a request to lift the suspension of the
23
TTAB proceeding, then Go Daddy may advise this Court within 30 days of such TTAB decision
24
and seek rescheduling of trial of the Trademark claim before this Court.
25
26
Dated: ___________________
___________________________
27
Phyllis J. Hamilton
United States District Judge
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT AND
DISMISSING COUNTERCLAIM W/O PREJUDICE
Case No. 4:09-cv-05939-PJH
-1-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?