ViaView, Inc. v. Chanson et al

Filing 10

ORDER Granting 6 EX PARTE MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by ViaView, Inc. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall have until 12/7/2012 to file Response to 6 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff shall file reply by 12/21/2021. Motion Hearing set for 1/2/2013 02:30 PM in LV Courtroom 7D before Judge Gloria M. Navarro. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 11/30/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

VIAVIEW, INC.,
4

Plaintiff,

5

vs.

6
7
8

BLUE MIST MEDIA; ERIC S. CHANSON;
KEVIN C. BOLLAERT; CODY ALVIAR;
ROY E. CHANSON; and AMY L.
CHANSON,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:12-cv-01657-GMN-GWF
ORDER

9

Defendants.
10

Pending before the Court is the Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and

11
12
13

Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 6) filed by Plaintiff ViaView, Inc. (“Plaintiff”).
I.

BACKGROUND
This case arises from Plaintiff’s ownership of the <isanyoneup.com> domain name and

14
15

all associated trademark rights and goodwill and Defendants’ use of the term “ISANYONEUP”

16

in various website domain names. (See McGibney Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 6-1; Mot. for Ex Parte

17

TRO Ex. 4-7, ECF Nos. 6-6, 6-7, 6-8, 6-9.) Specifically, Defendants operate a network of

18

websites, including <isanyoneup.net>, <isanyoneupnudes.com>, and <isanyoneupvideos.com>

19

(collectively, the “Infringing Domain Names”), where they publish “involuntary pornography.”

20

(Mot. for Ex Parte TRO at 3:21-23, Ex. 4-7, ECF Nos. 6-6, 6-7, 6-8, 6-9; Mot. for Ex Parte

21

TRO.)

22
23
24
25

Page 1 of 10

1

Plaintiff purchased the ISANYONEUP mark in April of 2012 and associates the mark

2

with its campaign to stop “bullying behavior.” Defendant, on the other hand, is attempting to

3

use this mark to direct consumers to its websites that display various pornographic images.1
In response to Defendants’ actions, on September 19, 2012, Plaintiff filed its complaint

4
5

asserting seven causes of action: (1) Cybersquatting in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d); (2)

6

Trademark Infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (3) Unfair Competition under 15

7

U.S.C. § 1125(a); (4) Common Law Trademark Infringement; (5) Breach of Contract; (6) Civil

8

Conspiracy; and (7) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations. (Compl. ¶¶ 51-92,

9

ECF No. 1.) Due to its concern that Defendants are attempting to relocate themselves and the

10

Infringing Domain Names to a location beyond the jurisdictional reach of this Court, Plaintiff

11

filed this Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for Preliminary

12

Injunction.

13

II.

14

LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 governs preliminary injunctions and temporary

15

restraining orders, and requires that a motion for temporary restraining order include “specific

16

facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint [that] clearly show that immediate and irreparable

17

injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in

18

opposition,” as well as written certification from the movant’s attorney stating “any efforts

19

made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b).

20

However, “[t]he urgency of obtaining a preliminary injunction necessitates a prompt

21

determination and makes it difficult to obtain affidavits from persons who would be competent

22

to testify at trial.” Flynt Distrib. Co., Inc. v. Harvey, 734 F.2d 1389, 1394 (9th Cir. 1984)

23

(citing 11 C. Wright and A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, Civil, § 2949 at 471

24
25
1

Currently, Defendants’ domains redirect to its non-infringing web site <yougotposted.com>.

Page 2 of 10

1

(1973)). Thus, “[t]he trial court may give even inadmissible evidence some weight, when to do

2

so serves the purpose of preventing irreparable harm before trial.” Id.

3

Temporary restraining orders are governed by the same standard applicable to

4

preliminary injunctions. See Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp. v. Reliant Energy Servs., Inc., 181

5

F.Supp. 2d 1111, 1126 (E.D. Cal. 2001). Specifically, a preliminary injunction may be issued

6

if a plaintiff establishes: (1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) likelihood of irreparable

7

harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in his favor; and

8

(4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555

9

U.S. 7, 20 (2008). “Injunctive relief [is] an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded

10

upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Id. at 22. Above all, a

11

temporary restraining order “should be restricted to serving [its] underlying purpose of

12

preserving the status quo and preventing irreparable harm just so long as is necessary to hold a

13

hearing, and no longer.” Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers

14

Local No. 70, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974).

15

III.

16

DISCUSSION
For the reasons discussed below, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has carried its burden

17

by establishing each of the four requirements discussed below. Accordingly, the Court finds

18

that Plaintiff is entitled to an ex parte temporary restraining order directing the domain name

19

registrar to transfer and place the Infringing Domain Names on hold pending trial.

20

A.

21

Before Plaintiff is entitled to a TRO, it must first establish that it will likely succeed on

Likelihood of Success on the Merits

22

the merits of a claim that would entitle the plaintiff to the equitable remedy of a TRO. See

23

Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges seven claims for relief. (Compl., ECF

24

No. 1.) Because the Court finds that Plaintiff has carried its burden on its claim under the Anti-

25

Page 3 of 10

1

Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d), the Court need not

2

address whether Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of its remaining six claims.
The Ninth Circuit recognizes that “cybersquatting occurs when a person other than the

3
4

trademark holder registers the domain name of a well known trademark and then attempts to

5

profit from this by either ransoming the domain name back to the trademark holder or by using

6

the domain name to divert business from the trademark holder to the domain name holder.”

7

Bosley Med. Inst., Inc. v. Kremer, 403 F.3d 672, 680 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing DaimlerChrysler v.

8

The Net Inc., 388 F.3d 201, 204 (6th Cir. 2004). The ACPA provides that an owner of a mark

9

may hold a person civilly liable, if that person:

10

(i) has a bad faith intent to profit from that mark . . . ; and
(ii) registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name that –
(I) in the case of a mark that is distinctive at the time of registration of the
domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to that mark;
(II) in the case of a famous mark that is famous at the time of registration
of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to or dilutive of
that mark . . ..

11
12
13
14
15

15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(A) (emphasis added). Thus, to establish its cybersquatting claim,

16

Plaintiff will have to show that (1) it owns a trademark; (2) that trademark is “distinctive [or

17

famous] at the time of registration of the domain name; (3) Defendants “registered, trafficked

18

in, or used a domain name” that is “identical or confusingly similar” to Plaintiff’s mark, and

19

(4) Defendants had a bad faith intent to profit from Plaintiff’s mark. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(A).

20

1.

21

Plaintiff’s ownership of the ISANYONEUP mark.

Plaintiff purchased the <isanyoneup.com> domain name and all associated trademark

22

rights and goodwill in April of 2012. Thus, Plaintiff can likely establish its common law

23

ownership of the ISANYONEUP mark, thereby establishing this element of the cybersquatting

24

claim.

25

Page 4 of 10

1

2.

2
3

Plaintiff’s trademark was distinctive or famous at the time Defendants
registered their domain names.

Trademarks are generally classified as either (1) generic; (2) descriptive; (3) suggestive;

4

(4) arbitrary; or (5) fanciful. Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 767 (1992).

5

Suggestive, arbitrary, and fanciful marks are all “deemed inherently distinctive and are entitled

6

to protection” because “their intrinsic nature serves to identify a particular source of a product.”

7

Id. Arbitrary marks are those marks that do not suggest the goods and services offered. Official

8

Airline Guides, Inc. v. Goss, 6 F.3d 1385 (9th Cir. 1993) (“An arbitrary mark consists of

9

common words arranged in an arbitrary way that is non-descriptive of any quality of the goods

10

or services”); Interstellar Starship Servs., Ltd v. Epix, Inc., 304 F.3d 936 n.6 (9th Cir. 2002)

11

(“‘arbitrary’ trademarks are common words used in uncommon or unexpected ways”).

12

Suggestive marks require “imagination, thought, or perception to link the trademark with the

13

goods.” Interstellar Starship, 304 F.3d at n.6.

14

In this case, Plaintiff can likely establish that its ISANYONEUP mark is either arbitrary

15

or suggestive because the words in the mark requires at least “imagination, thought, or

16

perception to link the trademark with the goods.” Thus, Plaintiff can likely show that its mark

17

is inherently distinctive, which satisfies this element of the cybersquatting claim.

18
19
20
21

3.

Defendants registered and used a domain name that is “identical or
confusingly similar” to Plaintiff’s mark.

Here, it can hardly be disputed that Defendants’ domain names are “identical or
confusingly similar” to Plaintiff’s mark. Specifically, each of the allegedly infringing domain
names contains the entirety of Plaintiff’s ISANYONEUP mark. Defendants failed to include

22

any indication that the allegedly infringing domain names originate from anyone other than
23

Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff has established a likelihood that it will succeed in establishing
24
25

that the Defendants registered and used a domain name that is “identical or confusingly
similar” to Plaintiff’s ISANYONEUP mark.
Page 5 of 10

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

4.

Defendants’ bad faith intent to profit from Plaintiff’s mark.

The ACPA includes a non-exhaustive list of nine factors that a court may consider when
determining whether a given defendant has acted with the requisite bad faith:
(I) the trademark or other intellectual property rights of the person, if any, in the
domain name;
(II) the extent to which the domain name consists of the legal name of the person
or a name that is otherwise commonly used to identify that person;
(III) the person's prior use, if any, of the domain name in connection with the
bona fide offering of any goods or services;
(IV) the person's bona fide noncommercial or fair use of the mark in a site
accessible under the domain name;
(V) the person's intent to divert consumers from the mark owner's online location
to a site accessible under the domain name that could harm the goodwill
represented by the mark, either for commercial gain or with the intent to tarnish
or disparage the mark, by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source,
sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the site;
(VI) the person's offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain name to
the mark owner or any third party for financial gain without having used, or
having an intent to use, the domain name in the bona fide offering of any goods
or services, or the person's prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;
(VII) the person's provision of material and misleading false contact information
when applying for the registration of the domain name, the person's intentional
failure to maintain accurate contact information, or the person's prior conduct
indicating a pattern of such conduct;
(VIII) the person's registration or acquisition of multiple domain names which
the person knows are identical or confusingly similar to marks of others that are
distinctive at the time of registration of such domain names, or dilutive of famous
marks of others that are famous at the time of registration of such domain names,
without regard to the goods or services of the parties; and
(IX) the extent to which the mark incorporated in the person's domain name
registration is or is not distinctive and famous within the meaning of subsection
(c) of this section.
15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(B).
The Court agrees with Plaintiff that most, if not all, of these factors supports a finding
that, at the very least, Plaintiff will likely succeed in establishing that Defendants acted with the
requisite bad faith. Specifically, Defendants use the allegedly infringing domain names to
direct consumers to its <yougotposted.com> website. Thus, Defendants have the apparent
Page 6 of 10

1

intent to divert consumers from Plaintiff’s website with the result of creating confusion among

2

consumers as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Defendants’ website.

3

Additionally, the entire mark is incorporated in each of the Defendants’ allegedly infringing

4

domain names. These factors in particular weigh heavily in favor of finding a high likelihood

5

that Plaintiff will establish the requisite bad faith.

6

B.

7

Once a plaintiff in a trademark action has established that it is likely to succeed on the

Likelihood of Irreparable Harm in the Absence of Preliminary Relief

8

merits, irreparable injury is generally presumed. Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Moose Creek,

9

Inc., 486 F.3d 629, 633 (9th Cir. 2007). Because the Court finds a high likelihood that Plaintiff

10

will succeed on the merits, the Court also finds that Plaintiff has carried its burden in

11

establishing that it will likely suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief.
The Balance of Equities Tips in Plaintiff’s Favor

12

C.

13

The balancing aspect of the TRO analysis requires courts to weigh “the competing

14

claims of injury and [] consider the effect on each party of the granting or withholding of the

15

requested relief.” Amoco Prod. Co. v. Village of Gambell, AK, 480 U.S. 531, 542 (1987). In

16

this case, Defendants will suffer only minimal harm as a result of the TRO. Specifically,

17

Defendants are using their allegedly infringing domain names to direct further traffic to its

18

<yougotposted.com> website. It appears that none of Defendants’ content will actually be

19

inaccessible. On the other hand, if the TRO were not issued, Plaintiff would suffer significant

20

injury. Without the TRO, Defendants could travel to a location beyond the jurisdictional reach

21

of this Court in order to continue its allegedly infringing activities. Accordingly, Defendants

22

could continue to tarnish Plaintiff’s name and brand.

23

Finally, consistent with the underlying purpose of TROs, issuance of this TRO will

24

maintain the status quo. “[T]he status quo is the last uncontested status which preceded the

25

pending controversy.” Tanner Motor Livery, Ltd. v. Avis, Inc., 316 F.2d 804, 809 (9th Cir.

Page 7 of 10

1

1963). Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(C), “[i]n any civil action involving the registration,

2

trafficking, or use of a domain name . . . , a court may order the forfeiture or cancellation of the

3

domain name or the transfer of the domain name to the owner of the mark.” By returning the

4

allegedly infringing domain names to the Registrar, this injunctive relief will return the parties

5

to the respective positions that they held before Defendants began using the allegedly infringing

6

domains.

7

D.

8

The primary goal of trademark law is “to protect consumers against deceptive

The issuance of a TRO benefits the public’s interest.

9

designations of . . . origin . . ..” Int’l Order of Job’s Daughters v. Lindeburg and Co., 633 F.2d

10

912, 918 (9th Cir. 1980). Plaintiff purchased the ISANYONEUP mark and associates the mark

11

with its campaign to stop “bullying behavior.” Defendant, on the other hand, is attempting to

12

use this mark to direct consumers to its websites that display various pornographic images.

13

Thus, when consumers attempt to reach Plaintiff’s website, some consumers may inadvertently

14

be subjected to adult content due to the confusing similarity between Plaintiff’s mark and

15

Defendants’ domain names. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has carried its burden in

16

establishing that the public will benefit from the issuance of a TRO.

17

IV.

18

NOTICE VIA EMAIL
As discussed above, Plaintiff's counsel has adequately explained why a TRO should

19

issue without notice. Additionally, Plaintiff's counsel asserts in this motion that he has made

20

multiple efforts to give Defendants notice. (Mot. for Ex Parte TRO 21:3-18, ECF No. 6.)

21

Despite its efforts to give notice, Defendants have stopped responding to Plaintiff’s

22

communications. (Id. at 21.) Furthermore, Plaintiffs have adequately demonstrated that

23

Defendants are aware of the instant action, as evidenced by the chat conversations between

24

Defendants Eric Chanson and Cody Alviar. (See Mot. for Ex Parte TRO Ex. 1 at 16, ECF No.

25

6-3.) Accordingly, to facilitate a just, speedy, and efficient determination of Plaintiff’s request

Page 8 of 10

1

for a preliminary injunction, the Court grants the requested leave to serve the complaint and

2

notice of the TRO by email.

3

V.

CONCLUSION

4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining

5

Order (ECF No. 6) filed by Plaintiff ViaView, Inc. is GRANTED. Defendants, including

6

without limitation, all of its respective partners, officers, agents, servants, employees, and all

7

other persons acting in concert or participation with Defendant, are temporarily enjoined and

8

restrained from (A) registering or trafficking in any domain name containing the

9

ISANYONEUP mark or any confusingly similar variations thereof, alone or in combination

10

with any other letters, words, phrases or designs; (B) operating or maintaining any website that

11

includes the ISANYONEUP mark in the domain, or any confusingly similar variations thereof,

12

alone or in combination with any letters, words, phrases or designs; and (C) using the

13

ISANYONEUP mark or any confusingly similar variations thereof, alone or in combination

14

with any other letters, words, letter strings, phrases or designs in commerce (including, but not

15

limited to, on any website or within any hidden text or metatags within any website).

16

Defendant shall immediately cease and desist any and all use of Plaintiff’s marks and any and

17

all variants thereof, including use of the Infringing Domain Names, and take all necessary

18

actions to transfer the Infringing Domain Name to Plaintiff ViaView, Inc.

19

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(C), the domain

20

names <isanyoneup.net>, <isanyoneupnudes.com>, and <isanyoneupvideos.com> shall be

21

immediately locked by the Registrar and/or its successor registrars and transferred to Plaintiff

22

ViaView, Inc.

23
24

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff ViaView, Inc. shall post a nominal bond of
one hundred dollars ($100) for each domain name at issue because the evidence indicates that

25

Page 9 of 10

1

Defendant will suffer only minimal, if any, damage by the issuance of this temporary

2

restraining order.

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall have until December 7, 2012, to

4

file their Response Brief. Thereafter, Plaintiff shall have until December 21, 2012, to file its

5

Reply Brief. The matter shall be set for hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary

6

Injunction on Jan. 2, 2013

7

, at 2:30 pm
.

DATED this 30th day of November, 2012.

8
9
10
11
12
13

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 10 of 10