2As set forth herein, Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss isGRANTED as to Defendants’ trademark infringement, unfaircompetition, deceptive trade practices, and trademark dilutioncounterclaims. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss asto Defendants’ copyright infringement counterclaims forstatutory damages and attorney’s fees but DENIES the Motion asto Defendants’ copyright infringement counterclaims seekingother relief.I.
BACKGROUND The following facts are drawn fromthe Counterclaims,documents attached thereto as exhibits or incorporated byreference, and websites of which the Court takes judicialnotice.
Defendants ask the Court to take judicial notice of fivewebsites: the Miller-Motte College website home page, theHeritage website home page, the BSR webpages for Miller-MotteCollege – Cary and Heritage College – Oklahoma City, and aGoogle support page. (See Def. Req. for Judicial Notice.) TheCourt generally has the discretion to take judicial notice of internet material. Magnoni v. Smith & Laquercia, LLP, 701 F.Supp. 2d 497, 501 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); see also Patsy's ItalianRestaurant, Inc. v. Banas, 575 F. Supp. 2d 427, 443 n.18(E.D.N.Y. 2008) (“It is generally proper to take judicial noticeof articles and Web sites published on the Internet.”), aff’d,658 F.3d 254 (2d Cir. 2011). In addition, the authenticity of the websites and the printouts of the websites which Defendantsattach to their Request have not been challenged, and they are“not subject to reasonable dispute.” Fed. Rule Evidence 201(b). They are taken to be true for the purposes of this
Case 1:11-cv-08921-DAB Document 22 Filed 03/29/13 Page 2 of 30