Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02656/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02656-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Skydive Arizona, Inc., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Cary Quattrocchi, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-2656-PHX-MHM

ORDER

The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s Motion to Require Defendants to Perform

Renewal Requirements to Effectuate Transfer of Domain Name. (Doc. 465). Having

conspired the Parties filings, the Court issues the following Order:

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On April 29, 2010, this Court entered a permanent injunction requiring Defendants,

among other things, to transfer six domain names to Plaintiff. (Doc. 448). Defendants

complied with the injunction as to five of the domain names. As to a sixth, 

<arizonaskydive.com>, Defendants informed Plaintiff that they could not make the required

transfer because they no longer owned the domain name, as they mistakenly allowed their

registration of <arizonaskydive.com> to expire on or about September 2008. In their

response, Defendants assert that it could not transfer, re-register, or re-purchase

<arizonaskydive.com> because a company called Dynadot now owns the domain name.

Since the filing of Plaintiff’s motion, <arizonaskydive.com> has been transferred to another

Case 2:05-cv-02656-DGC Document 505 Filed 07/30/10 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

domain name registrar, Annulet, Inc, and entering the domain name into an internet browser

brings up a page that indicates <arizonaskydive.com> is available for purchase through

www.buydomains.com. It appears that the current owner of the domain name is unknown.

Dynadot, however, was probably not the actual owner of the domain name, as it is a domain

name registration service that allows customers to utilize a private domain name registration

procedure whereby the contact information of the domain-name’s owner is replaced with that

of Dynadot, preventing members of the public from seeing who actually owns the domain

name. See Dynadot, Private Domain, available at

http://www.dynadot.com/domain/privacy.html (last visited July 28, 2010).

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants intentionally allowed their registration of

<arizonaskydive.com> to expire. Defendants claim their loss of this domain name was an

innocent mistake. Ultimately, Defendants’ motive for allowing their registration to lapse is

unimportant. What matters is that Defendants had an obligation to maintain their ownership

of <arizonaskydive.com>, but failed to do so, and, as a result, have not complied with the

permanent injunction. 

Prior to this lawsuit, <arizonaskydive.com> was the subject of a 2006 National

Arbitration Forum (“NAF”) dispute between the Parties brought in accordance with the

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Number’s (“ICANN”) Uniform Domain Name

Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDNDRP”). (Doc. 485, exh. B). The UDNDRP governed the

proceeding, as Enom Inc., the registrar of <arizonaskydive.com> at that time, had fully

incorporated the UDNDRP into its registration agreement. (Id. at 1). On September 25,

2006, a panel of the NAF ordered Defendants to transfer <arizonaskydive.com> to Plaintiff.

This transfer never occurred. Pursuant to the UDNDRP, a domain-name registrar is not

required to effectuate a domain-name transfer ordered through an administrative proceeding

if the losing party provides documentation demonstrating it has commenced a lawsuit against

the prevailing party that might affect the NAF’s decision . (Id., exh. C, p.6). Presumably,

Enom, Inc. did not transfer <arizonaskydive.com> to Plaintiff because Defendants notified

Case 2:05-cv-02656-DGC Document 505 Filed 07/30/10 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

Enom, Inc., of Count IV of their counterclaims in this lawsuit, which specifically asked this

Court to enjoin the transfer of <arizonaskydive.com> as ordered by the NAF. (Doc. #51,

Counterclaim at Count IV, p. 51–57, and prayer for relief, p. 57–58; Doc. # 174,

Counterclaim at Count IV, p. 46–52, and prayer for relief, p. 52–53).

Because Defendants utilized this lawsuit as a mechanism to prevent enforcement of

the NAF’s decision, Plaintiff argues that Defendants had an obligation to maintain the status

quo with respect to their ownership of <arizonaskydive.com> during the pendency of this

action. This reasoning is sound. Were it otherwise, litigation and arbitration decisions

concerning proper ownership of domain names could easily be thwarted by defendants who

allowed their domain name registrations to expire, then claimed they did so by mistake.

Additionally, prior to the entry of the permanent injunction, Defendants had every

opportunity to inform this Court that their ownership of <arizonaskydive.com> had lapsed,

but failed to do so. Consequently, the Court has little sympathy for the predicament in which

Defendants now find themselves; in non-compliance with the permanent injunction.

The question becomes, then, what is the appropriate remedy. Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 70 governs enforcement of judgments requiring specific performance. “According

to its plain language, this rule applies only to parties who have failed to perform specific acts

pursuant to a judgment.” Westlake N. Prop. Owners Ass'n v. Thousand Oaks, 915 F.2d

1301, 1304 (9th Cir. 1990). Under the rule, “a district court may direct a party to complete

a specific act where the district court previously directed the same party to perform the same

act in its final judgment and that party has failed to comply.” Analytical Eng'g, Inc. v.

Baldwin Filters, Inc., 425 F.3d 443, 451 (7th Cir. 2005). Additionally, Rule 70 allows courts

to hold the disobedient party in contempt. FED.R.CIV.P. 70 (e).

There does not appear to be any dispute that Defendants have failed to comply with

the Court Order of specific performance regarding the transfer of <arizonaskydive.com>.

The Court finds, therefore, that Plaintiff has made a prima facie showing of contempt. United

States v. Ayres, 166 F.3d 991, 994 (9th Cir. 1999) (noting that the burden is on the party

alleging civil contempt to demonstrate the alleged contemnor violated the Court’s order).

Case 2:05-cv-02656-DGC Document 505 Filed 07/30/10 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Plaintiff requests that this Court force Defendants to re-purchase

<arizonaskydive.com>, then transfer it to Plaintiff. The Court, however, has serious

misgivings about the propriety of Plaintiff’s proposed remedy as it would require Defendants

to take an action that is not required by the permanent injunction; purchasing the domain

name from a third party. Nothing, however, prevents Defendants from repurchasing the

domain name and transferring it to Plaintiff, especially if they determine doing so would be

cheaper than non-compliance with the permanent injunction. 

- 4 -

Defendants’ sole defense appears to be that compliance with the permanent injunction is not

possible. “An alleged contemnor may defend against a finding of contempt by

demonstrating a present inability to comply.” Ayres, 166 F.3d at 994. “Ability to comply

is the crucial inquiry, and a court should weigh all the evidence properly before it determines

whether or not there is actually a present ability to obey.” United States v. Drollinger, 80

F.3d 389, 393 (9th Cir. 1996) (internal quotations omitted). While it is true that Defendants

cannot presently comply, their inability to do so is a direct consequence of their own failure

to maintain their ownership of <arizonaskydive.com>. In this circumstance, it would be

inequitable for Defendants to avoid any penalty for their self-inflicted inability to comply

with the permanent injunction, as such an outcome would reward their negligent conduct and

frustrate the ruling of the NAF. 

Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 70, the Court orders Defendants to comply with the

permanent injunction and transfer <arizonaskydive.com> to Plaintiff.1

 Should they fail to

make the required transfer, the Court will hold Defendants in contempt and sanction them

$10,000.00 for not complying with the permanent injunction. The Court finds that such an

amount will adequately compensate Plaintiff for the expense of recovering

<arizonaskydive.com>. In making this decision, the Court is not unaware that Plaintiff, as

Defendants suggest, might be able to rectify this situation on its own by initiating in rem

proceeding under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(2)(A). The Court finds, however, that it would be

inequitable to force Plaintiff to incur additional costs to rectify a problem caused by

Defendants. 

Accordingly,

Case 2:05-cv-02656-DGC Document 505 Filed 07/30/10 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Require Defendants to

Perform Renewal Requirements to Effectuate Transfer of Domain Name. (Doc. 465).

Defendants are ordered to comply with the permanent injunction and transfer

<arizonaskydive.com> to Plaintiff. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants will be found in contempt of court

and fined $10,000 if they have failed, within two weeks from the date of this Order, to

transfer <arizonaskydive.com> to Plaintiff.

DATED this 28th day of July, 2010.

Case 2:05-cv-02656-DGC Document 505 Filed 07/30/10 Page 5 of 5