Koenig v. All.com
Filing
20
Final Judgment. ORDERED that Plaintiff Eric Haddad Koenig's Motion for Default Judgment is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that judgment be entered in favor of the Plaintiff Eric Haddad Koenig and against the domain name ALL.COM. It is further ORDERED that judgment be entered against the Defendant domain name ALL.COM and that the domain name be transferred to Eric Haddad Koenig pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (d)(2)(D)(I). (See Order For Details). Signed by District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee on 7/31/09. (nhall)
JLJOCH
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
UUL3'I2OB9 '
i
Eric Haddad Koenig, Plaintiff,
v.
) )
) Case No. l:08-CV-1169(GBL)
ALL.COM, Defendant.
) )
Final
Judgment
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the June 9,
2009
Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Thomas Rawles Jones, Jr. regarding Plaintiff Eric Koenig's unopposed
Motion for Entry of Default Judgment against Defendant
ALL.COM.
This case concerns Magistrate Judge Jones'
recommendation that the Court enter default judgment in favor of Plaintiff Eric Koenig because the registrant of
the domain name ALL.COM is in violation of Mr. Koenig's
rights as owner of the mark ALL.COM pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1125. 15 U.S.C. §1125 imposes civil liability on any
person causing dilution of any name or symbol in commerce
that causes harm to any person believed to be damaged by
such act.
15 U.S.C.
§1125(A).
No objection has been
raised to this Report and Recommendation.
Magistrate Judge
Jones found that Mr. Koenig:
protected under 15 U.S.C.
(1) owns a mark that is
(2) that the
§1125{a);
registrant's use of the domain name violates Mr. Koenig's rights in the ALL.COM mark pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1125(a)
because the registrant in bad faith registered and used the
domain name, which is confusingly similar to Mr. Koenig's
mark; and {3)
Mr. Koenig cannot obtain personal
jurisdiction over any defendant in this case despite his
due diligence in attempting to do so. For these reasons,
Magistrate Judge Jones recommends that Mr. Koenig's motion
for default judgment be granted, that default judgment be
entered against Defendant domain name under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 55(b)(2), and that domain name be
transferred to Plaintiff pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
§1125(d)(2)(D)(I). The Court adopts Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation and enters judgment in favor of Plaintiff Eric Koenig and awards Plaintiff the domain name
ALL.COM.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) provides that
a magistrate judge may hear a dispositive motion, without
the consent of the parties, and recommend the disposition
of the matter to a district judge.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (b) .
A
party must serve any objections to the magistrate judge's
recommendation within ten days of being served with a copy
of the order.
Id.
The district judge to whom a case is
assigned shall make a de novo determination of those
portions of the magistrate judge's recommendation to which
objection is made. 28 U.S.C. §636 (2000). The Court may
accept,
reject,
or modify,
in whole or in part,
the Id. The
magistrate judge's
findings or recommendations.
Court may also request and receive further evidence on the
matter. Id.
Having reviewed the aforementioned Motion and Judge
Jones'
Report and Recommendation and seeing that no timely
objection has been filed under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72(b), this Court adopts Judge Jones' Proposed
Findings of Fact and Recommendations,
and it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiff Eric Haddad Koenig's Motion for
Default Judgment is GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED that judgment be entered in favor of the
Plaintiff Eric Haddad Koenig and against the domain name
ALL.COM. It is further
ORDERED that judgment be entered against the Defendant
domain name ALL.COM and that the domain name be transferred
to Eric Haddad Koenig pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
1125 (d) (2)
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?