MGM Resorts International v. Unknown Registrant of www.imgmcasino.com
Filing
24
ORDER Accepting and Adopting 22 Report and Recommendation, to the extent that it is not inconsistent with this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MGM'S 18 Motion for Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MGM's request for Default Judgment is GRANTED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MGM is awarded the maximum statutory damagesagainst Defendant in the amount of $100,000.00 and postjudgment interest on the principal sum at the judgment rate from the date of entry of the Judgment until paid in full.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MGM's request for a permanent injunction is DENIED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the infringing domain name, <www.imgmcasino.com>, shall be transferred to Plaintiff.Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 9/23/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - PS)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3
MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
4
Plaintiff,
5
vs.
6
7
UNKNOWN REGISTRANT OF
WWW.IMGMCASINO.COM,
8
Defendant.
9
ORDER
Pending before the Court is the Repor
10
11
Case No.: 2:14-cv-1613-GMN-VCF
Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach. (ECF No. 22). Plaintiff MGM Resorts International
), to which Defendant Unknown Registrant of
12
13
www.imgmcasino.com
14
Court will adopt Judge Ferenbach
15
I.
did not respond.1 For the reasons discussed below, the
BACKGROUND
The Court accepts the Magistrate Judge s recitation of the background facts as stated in
16
17
the R&R and adopts them. Judge Ferenbach recommended that the Court enter default
18
judgment against Defendant, award statutory damages to Plaintiff, and
19
for a permanent injunction. (R&R 23:7-13, ECF No. 22). Plaintiff filed an objection only to the
20
recommendation that the Court deny the request for a permanent injunction. (ECF No. 23).
21
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a
22
23
United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B);
24
D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo
25
1
nse was due August 7, 2015, ten
Page 1 of 4
s objections were filed. LR IB 3-2(a).
1
determination of those portions of the Report to which objections are made. Id. The Court may
2
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
3
Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b).
4
III.
DISCUSSION
5
A. Permanent Injunction
6
Plaintiff objects to Judge Fe
7
against Defendant. To obtain a permanent injunction, a plaintiff must show:
8
suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages,
9
are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of the hardships
10
between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public
11
interest would not be dis
12
Q.R.T.M., S.A. de C.V., 762 F.3d 867, 879 (9th Cir. 2014).
13
harm must be demonstrated to obtain a permanent injunction in a trademark infringement
14
action. Herb Reed Enterprises, LLC v. Florida Entm t Mgmt., Inc., 736 F.3d 1239, 1249 (9th
15
Cir. 2013) cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 57 (2014).
16
La Quinta Worldwide LLC v.
grounded in platitudes rather than evidence
17
[A]ctual irreparable
Id. At 1250.2
Plaintiff maintains that it has shown actual irreparable harm because it has submitted a
18
declaration stating,
19
represented by the MGM mark . . . this loss of control over its goodwill and reputation is
20
21
(Chaparian Decl. ¶ 17, ECF No. 7). The Court must take
allegations as true in a default judgment. Geddes v. United Fin. Grp., 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th
22
23
24
2
Although the plaintiff in Herb Reed requested a preliminary injunction rather than a permanent injunction, the
Ninth Circuit has found that the standard for preli
Herb Reed, 736 F.3d at 1249 (citing Amoco Prod. Co. v. Village of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 546 n.12
(1987)).
25
Page 2 of 4
1
Cir. 1977). However, a default judgment does not relieve Plaintiff of its burden to provide
2
factual allegations for the Court to take as true. Merely stating that Plaintiff has suffered
3
irreparable harm is not a demonstration of irreparable harm as required by the Ninth Circuit.
4
Herb Reed Enterprises, LLC, 736 F.3d at 1249. Thus, Plaintiff has provided the Court only
5
with conclusory assertions rather than a sufficient factual basis to support a permanent
6
injunction. Accordingly,
or a permanent injunction is denied.
7
B. Transfer of the Domain Name
8
One issue remains to be addressed: Plaintiff asks the Court to order the transfer of the
9
infringing domain. Courts may use their discretion to determine whether to transfer domain
10
names to the trademark owners in cybersquatting cases. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(C). Based on
11
12
, to Plaintiff is appropriate.
13
IV.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 22), is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED to the extent that it is not inconsistent with this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
ment and
Permanent Injunction, (ECF No.18), is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
request for default judgment is
GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MGM is awarded the maximum statutory damages
21
against Defendant in the amount of $100,000.00 and postjudgment interest on the principal sum
22
at the judgment rate from the date of entry of the Judgment until paid in full.
23
24
25
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
st for a permanent injunction is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the infringing domain name,
Page 3 of 4
1
, shall be transferred to Plaintiff.
2
The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case.
3
DATED this 23rd day of September, 2015.
4
5
6
7
___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Judge
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 4 of 4
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?