Playspan Holdings, LLC v. Lee
Filing
8
ORDER Granting 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Motion Hearing re 3 Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is set for 11/17/2011 at 11:00 AM in LV Courtroom 7C before Judge Philip M. Pro. Signed by Judge Philip M. Pro on 11/8/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5
6
PLAYSPAN HOLDINGS, LLC,
7
Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
EDMUND LEE,
10
Defendant.
11
***
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:11-cv-01790-PMP-VCF
ORDER
UPON CONSIDERATION of Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining
12
13
Order Without Notice and for a Preliminary Injunction With Notice (Doc. #2, #3) to place
14
the domain name on hold, the supporting memorandum of points
15
and authorities, the supporting declaration and evidence, the record in this case, and for
16
other good cause shown,
17
THE COURT HEREBY FINDS THAT:
18
1.
Plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if the Court does not require
19
Name.com, Inc., the domain name registrar, to place the domain
20
name registration on hold and lock and deposit it with the Court, pending litigation of this
21
matter;
22
2.
Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim for cybersquatting
23
under the Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d), because
24
Plaintiff has demonstrated that Defendant registered the domain
25
name with a bad faith intent to profit from the ULTIMATE GAME CARD Marks (as
26
defined in the Complaint), which were distinctive and/or famous at the time Defendant
1
registered the domain name;
3.
2
The balance of hardships tips in favor of Plaintiff because issuance of the
3
temporary restraining order would merely place the infringing
4
domain name on hold and lock pending trial, and failure to issue the restraining order would
5
cause Plaintiff to suffer and incur additional expense in having to file additional lawsuit(s)
6
if the domain name were to be transferred to other registrants during the pendency of this
7
action;
4.
8
9
A temporary restraining order is in the public interest because issuance
would protect consumers against deception and confusion; and
5.
10
An ex parte temporary restraining order is appropriate because Defendant
11
previously moved the website to a hosting service in Amsterdam, indicating that Defendant
12
may transfer the domain name to a registrar outside of United States.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT, pending a trial on the
13
14
merits:
A.
15
16
Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order Without Notice (Doc.
#2) is hereby GRANTED;
B.
17
The domain name shall be immediately placed on
18
hold and lock by Name.com, Inc., which will deposit the domain name into the registry of
19
the Court;
20
21
22
C.
Name.com shall disable the current domain name server information
linked to the domain name;
D.
A nominal bond of $100 shall be required because the evidence indicates
23
that Defendant will suffer, if at all, only minimal damage by the issuance of this temporary
24
restraining order;
25
26
E.
Plaintiff may, in addition to the requirements of service identified in
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4 and 5, serve the Summons, Complaint, Motion for
2
1
Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, all supporting documentation,
2
this Order, and all other papers and pleadings upon Defendant by e-mail transmission; and
3
F.
The parties shall appear for hearing and oral argument on Plaintiff’s
4
Motion for a Preliminary Injunction With Notice (Doc. #3) on Thursday, November 17,
5
2011, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 7C, in the United States District Court, District of
6
Nevada, located at 333 S. Las Vegas Blvd., Las Vegas, Nevada, 89101. The parties shall be
7
prepared to address the issue of personal jurisdiction before the Court.
8
DATED: November 8, 2011
9
10
_______________________________
PHILIP M. PRO
United States District Judge
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3
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?