Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-10-02255/USCOURTS-ca8-10-02255-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Western District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-2255

___________

Curtis J. Neeley, Jr., * 

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Arkansas.

NameMedia, Inc.; Network *

Solutions, Inc.; Google, Inc., *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: July 26, 2010 

Filed: August 12, 2010

___________

Before COLLOTON, HANSEN and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Curtis Neeley, Jr., filed this interlocutory appeal from the district court’s1

 grant

of the defendants’ motions to dismiss and for partial summary judgment. Neeley

brought suit alleging a conspiracy by the defendants to “cybersquat” on two domain

names that he had previously registered. See 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(A). Neeley’s

domain registrations expired in 2003, while he was hospitalized, and NameMedia,

Inc., purchased the domain names on the day the registrations expired. He further

Appellate Case: 10-2255 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/12/2010 Entry ID: 3692902
2

In a separate order on the same day, the district court reconsidered parts of its

March 1 order and reinstated some of Neeley’s claims.

-2-

alleges that the defendants ignored his alleged trademark rights. See 17 U.S.C. § 106.

Neeley seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages. NameMedia has

counterclaimed, alleging that Neeley’s registration of namemedias.com constitutes

cybersquatting. See § 11 U.S.C. § 1125(d).

On March 1, 2010, the district court granted summary judgment for

NameMedia on some, but not all, of Neeley’s claims and dismissed certain claims

against Google, Inc. On May 20, 2010, the court dismissed Neeley’s claims against

Network Solutions, Inc., including his claims for injunctive relief.2

 Neeley filed this

appeal from the March 1 and May 20 orders. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss

the appeal, arguing that we lack jurisdiction because the appeal is interlocutory in

nature.

Subject to certain limited exceptions, federal courts of appeals only have

jurisdiction over “final decisions of the district courts of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. “A final decision generally is one that ‘ends the litigation on the merits and

leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.’” Clos v. Corr. Corp. of

America, 597 F.3d 925, 928 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting McAdams v. McCord, 533 F.3d

924, 927 (8th Cir. 2008)). One exception to the final judgment rule is set out in 28

U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), which grants the courts of appeals jurisdiction over interlocutory

appeals from orders refusing to grant an injunction.

The orders from which Neeley appeals are indisputably not final decisions

under § 1291. See Huggins v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 566 F.3d 771, 773

(8th Cir. 2009) (“[W]e generally consider only orders that dispose of all claims as

final and appealable under § 1291.”). However, the district court’s denial of Neeley’s

claims for injunctive relief falls within § 1292’s exception to the final judgment rule.

Appellate Case: 10-2255 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/12/2010 Entry ID: 3692902
-3-

We therefore have jurisdiction over Neeley’s appeal of that portion of the district

court’s order. See Izaak Walton League of Am., Inc. v. Kimbell, 558 F.3d 751, 763

(8th Cir. 2009). To the extent Neeley appeals other portions of the district court’s

orders, we grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss. We review the district court’s

denial of Neeley’s claims for injunctive relief for abuse of discretion. See Coyne's &

Co., Inc. v. Enesco, LLC, 553 F.3d 1128, 1131 (8th Cir. 2009). We agree with the

district court that Neeley has not shown irreparable harm or any likelihood of success

on the merits. See General Motors Corp. v. Harry Brown’s, LLC, 563 F.3d 312, 316

(8th Cir. 2009) (outlining the requirements for injunctive relief). We find no abuse of

discretion and affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 10-2255 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/12/2010 Entry ID: 3692902