U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(d). For the reasons set forth below, the Court recommends that
Plaintiff’s motion be granted
against all defendants.
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff Facebook is a free online network that helps people connect and share with their friends, family, and the world around them. (
Mot. Default J.
at 1; First Am.Compl.
, Dkt. No. 36, ¶ 25.) Facebook owns numerous trademarks and service marks
(collectively “Facebook marks”)
which have been registered with the United States Patent andTrademark Office. (FAC, ¶ 29; Ex. D.) Facebook has continuously used its marks in interstatecommerce in the United States in connection with its online networking services since 2004.(FAC, ¶31.) Facebook asserts that its marks are recognizable to users and advertisers, and are
famous within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c). (FAC, ¶32; Pl.’s
Mot. at 2.)Each of the default defendants registered at least one Internet domain name that includesor misspells the FACEBOOK domain,
(hereinafter “infringing domain names”) or —
in the case of Cleanser Products
owned and operated websites to which Internet users were
redirected when they visited infringing domain names (hereinafter “landing websites”
or “landing pages”
). (FAC, Ex. A.; Decl.
of Ryan Spear in Support of Pl.’s Mot. for Default J. (“
, Ex. A.)Some owners of the infringing domain names worked with Cleanser Products to divertInternet users who were attempting to log-on to Facebook, but who accidentally misspelled thedomain, to instead reach deceptive, typosquatting sites, which then redirected users to a landingwebsite that looked like Facebook, but was owned by Cleanser Products. (
FAC, ¶¶ 15-16, 70-113, 120-
136; Pl.’s Mot. at 2
-3.)Facebook filed the instant suit on July 22, 2011 alleging cybersquatting under 15 U.S.C. §1125(d), federal trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114, false designation of originunder 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), trademark dilution under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c), breach of contract, andtortious interference with prospective economic advantage. (Dkt. No. 1.) Facebook filed its FirstAmended Complaint on December 12, 2011 alleging the same causes of action. (Dkt. No. 36.)
Case4:11-cv-03619-YGR Document186 Filed04/30/13 Page2 of 37