Bright Imperial Limited v. RT Mediasolutions s.r.o. et al

Filing 179

ORDER, for the reasons above, as well as those set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation 170 , it is hereby ORDERED that the Plaintiff's 145 Motion for Default Judgment against the in rem defendant domain names is DENIED. (See Order for details). Signed by District Judge Liam O'Grady on 9/17/12. (dper)

I

L

E

rr\

SEP I 7 2012

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
ALEXANDRIA. VIRGINIA

Alexandria Division

Bright Imperial LTD.,

Plaintiff,
-v-

Civil Action No. l-ll-CV-935

RTMEDIASOLUTIONS S.R.O., ETAL.
Defendants.

ORDER

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 170) of the Magistrate
Judge, denying Plaintiff's Motion For Default Judgment (Dkt. No. 145) against defendant

domain names <my-redtube.com>, <redtube24.com>, <redtube24.net>, <redtubehardcore.com>, <red-tube-porn.net>, and <reds-tube.com> (the "in rem defendant domain
names"). The Plaintiff objected to the Magistrate Judge's report (Dkt. No. 171). the in personam

defendants in the case filed an Opposition (Dkt. No. 176), and the Plaintiff filed a Reply (Dkt.
No. 177).

The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, as well as
the pleadings and relevant briefs from all parties, and agrees that granting default judgment at
this time would be premature. Even though the in rem defendant domain names are in default, it

remains the Plaintiff's burden to prove that they infringe on Plaintiff's mark. The validity of
Plaintiffs mark will be tested in the course of its case against the inpersonam defendants. That
case must be resolved before the Court grants default judgment against the in rem defendant
domain names.