Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Gioconda Law Group PLLC v. Arthur Wesley Kenzie - Preliminary Injunction

Gioconda Law Group PLLC v. Arthur Wesley Kenzie - Preliminary Injunction

Ratings: (0)|Views: 43|Likes:
Published by Joseph Gioconda
Preliminary Injunction entered by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Defendant Arthur Wesley Kenzie for cybersquatting, intentional interception of electronic communications.
Preliminary Injunction entered by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Defendant Arthur Wesley Kenzie for cybersquatting, intentional interception of electronic communications.

More info:

Published by: Joseph Gioconda on Aug 22, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/22/2012

pdf

text

original

 
---------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
GIOCONDA LAW
GROUP
PLLC,
) 
a New York Professional Limited Liability ) Company, )
)
JUDGE OETKENPlaintiff, )
)
No.
12
CV 4919 (JPO)
v.
)
)
ARTHUR WESLEY KENZIE, ) an individual, )
) 
Defendant. )
)
Upon the Complaint and the Order to Show Cause Why a Preliminary InjunctionShould Not Be Entered dated July 25, 2012, and the Defendant having been served withthe Complaint and the Order to Show Cause by International Registered Mail, and nothaving opposed the relief sought herein, the Court issues the following PreliminaryInjunction:
1.
This is an action for cybersquatting under the AnticybersquattingConsumer Protection Act, for federal trademark infringement and false designation
of
origin in violation
of
the Lanham Act, for unlawful interception and disclosure
of
electronic communications in violation
of
the Wiretap Act, for violations
of
Sections 349and 350
of
the New York General Business Law, and for trademark infringement andunfair competition in violation
of
the common law
of
the State
of
New
York;
2.
This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter
of
this action pursuantto Section 39
of
the Lanham Act,
15
.S.c.
§
1121,28
U.S.c.
§§
1331
and 1338 (a) for
COPIESMAILED
TOPRO
SEPARTY
otl\UG
2
1
2012
Case 1:12-cv-04919-JPO Document 14 Filed 08/21/12 Page 1 of 9
 
the claims arising out
of
violations
of
the Lanham Act, under
18
U.S.C.
§
2510 and 2511for the acts
of
unlawful interception and disclosure
of
electronic communications, hassupplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U .S.C.
§
1367 for the claims arising out
of
theviolation
of
Sections 349 and 350
of
the
New
York Business Law, and all other claimsarising under the common law
of
the State
of
New
York; and under
§§
1338(b) and 1367for the claims arising under the common law
of
unfair competition.3. This Court possesses personal jurisdiction over the Defendant because theDefendant intentionally directed tortious conduct toward
New
York and this JudicialDistrict, with knowledge that such conduct would be likely to cause harm to the Plaintiffand to the public located in New York.4. Venue is proper in this Judicial District under 28U.S.C.
§
1391, as asubstantial part
of
the events giving rise to this action occurred in this Judicial District.5. The Plaintiff is the record owner
of
the Gioconda Law Group ServiceMark
No.4,
130,021, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 (the "Gioconda Law GroupService Mark"). The Plaintiff has proffered evidence that the Gioconda
Law
GroupService Mark is distinctive, valid and enforceable.
6.
The Plaintiff has demonstrated that it is likely to prevail
on
its claim forcybersquatting under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, for its claim
of
federal trademark infringement and false designation
of
origin in violation
of
the LanhamAct, for its claim
of
unlawful interception and disclosure
of
electronic communications inviolation
of
the Wiretap Act, for its claim
of
violations
of
Sections 349 and 350
of
theNew York General Business Law, and for its claims
of
trademark infringement and unfaircompetition in violation
of
the common law
of
the State
of
New York.2 
Case 1:12-cv-04919-JPO Document 14 Filed 08/21/12 Page 2 of 9
 
7.
The Plaintiff has demonstrated that it and the public would sufferirreparable harm in the absence
of
a Preliminary Injunction. The Plaintiff has also shownthat the balance
of
hardships should an injunction issue tips in its favor, and the Plaintiffhas shown that enjoining the Defendant's activities is in the public interest.WHEREFORE IT
IS
ORDERED THAT:
A. 
Defendant and his agents, servants, employees and all those in active concertor participation with him who receive actual notice
of
the terms hereof, shallbe and are preliminary restrained and enjoined from:
1. 
Using any Internet domain name or electronic mail address that simulates,reproduces, counterfeits, copies or imitates the Gioconda Law GroupService Mark;2. Intercepting, receiving and/or disclosing the contents
of
any electronicmail or other communications intended for, or addressed to the
Plaintiff~
3. Creating, registering or exercising control over any Internet domainname(s) and/or websites(s) to simulate or impersonate the Plaintiff;
4. 
Engaging in any course
of
conduct whatsoever likely to cause confusion,mistake or deception with the Plaintiff;
5. 
Using any false or misleading description or representation tending tofalsely describe or represent the Defendant's identity, services, domainname(s), electronic mail address( es) or website(s) as being those
ofthe
Plaintiff, or sponsored by or associated with the Plaintiff, and fromoffering any such services into commerce;
3 
Case 1:12-cv-04919-JPO Document 14 Filed 08/21/12 Page 3 of 9

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->