Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04083/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04083-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
CNF Inc.
Plaintiff
THECNF.Com
Defendant

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CNF Inc.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

THECNF.COM,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C-05-04083 SC

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION

FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

JUDGMENT 

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff CNF, Inc. ("Plaintiff" or "CNF") brought this in

rem action under the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act

(the "ACPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d), against THECNF.COM

("Defendant"). Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion

for Entry of Default Judgment. For the reasons stated herein, the

Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion. 

II. BACKGROUND

On October 11, 2005, Plaintiff filed an in rem trademark

infringement action under the ACPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(2),

against Defendant in federal court. See Compl., Docket No. 1. 

Plaintiff claims to have properly served Defendant with a summons

and the Complaint on February 8, 2006. See Docket No. 15. 

Plaintiff then filed a request for Clerk's Entry of Default. See

Case 3:05-cv-04083-SC Document 35 Filed 11/22/06 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Docket No. 23. As a result, on July 28, 2006, the Clerk of the

Court entered default against Defendant. See Docket No. 25. 

Plaintiff then filed its Motion for Entry of Default Judgment. 

See Docket No. 30. Defendant has not responded to any of

Plaintiff's communications or court filings. 

III. LEGAL STANDARD

When evaluating a motion for default judgment, the Court must

"access the adequacy of service of process on the party against

whom default is requested." Board of Trustees of the N. Cal.

Sheet Metal Workers v. Peters, No. C-00-0395 VRW, 2000 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 19065, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2001). For an in rem

action, service of process is the mechanism by which the court

acquires the power over the defendant res to enforce a judgment

against it. United States v. 2,164 Watches, 366 F.3d 767, 771

(9th Cir. 2004). Improper or insufficient service of process

"leaves the court without jurisdiction over the 'defendant' (i.e.

the object in dispute)." Id. (internal quotations omitted). 

Failed service cannot support the entry of a default judgment,

even if the defendant has actual notice of the action, because the

court has not yet acquired jurisdiction. See Mason v. Genisco

Tech. Corp., 960 F.2d 849, 851 (9th Cir. 1992). 

IV. DISCUSSION

This case is an in rem action for ownership rights in a

domain name pursuant to the ACPA. To proceed with an in rem

action under the statute, Plaintiff must meet the numerous

Case 3:05-cv-04083-SC Document 35 Filed 11/22/06 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

statutory requirements of § 1125(d):

(2)(A) The owner of a mark may file an in rem civil action

against a domain name in the judicial district in which the

domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain

name authority that registered or assigned the domain name is

located if

(i) the domain name violates any right of the owner of a mark

registered in the Patent and Trademark Office, or protected

under subsection (a) or (c) of this section; and

(ii) the court finds that the owner--

(I) is not able to obtain in personam jurisdiction over a

person who would have been a defendant in a civil action

under paragraph (1); or

(II) through due diligence was not able to find a person who

would have been a defendant in a civil action under paragraph

(1) by--

(aa) sending a notice of the alleged violation and intent to

proceed under this paragraph to the registrant of the domain

name at the postal and e-mail address provided by the

registrant to the registrar; and

(bb) publishing notice of the action as the court may direct

promptly after filing the action.

(B) The actions under subparagraph (A)(ii) shall constitute

service of process.

A. Attempted Service of Process

As a threshold matter, under § 1125(d)(2)(A)(ii)(I) and (II),

Plaintiff "must convince the court that in personam jurisdiction

over a person is unavailable before an ACPA in rem action may

proceed." Porsche Cars North America, Inc. v. Porsche.net, 302

F.3d 248, 255 (4th Cir. 2002). To accomplish this, Plaintiff must

make reasonable efforts to alert potential defendants of the

pending legal action. From a review of the record, the only

contact between Plaintiff and Speedy Web, the registrant of

THECNF.COM, consists of a written letter and e-mail sent in August

of 2005. Compl. at ¶¶ 14-15, Ex. C and D. Though Plaintiff

claims to have served Defendant with the summons and Complaint,

and may have done so via e-mail, the physical address on the

Case 3:05-cv-04083-SC Document 35 Filed 11/22/06 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 4

Certificate of Service is different from that given in the

Complaint and Exhibit A. Plaintiff's Complaint states: 

The records of the domain name registrar for THECNF.COM

domain name identify the Registrant of the THECNF.COM domain

name as Speedy Web, with an address at Eight Thirty Eight

Camp Street, 4th Floor, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 and an

e-mail address at speedyweb@yeaweb.com. Compl. at ¶ 2.

When Plaintiff notified Defendant via U.S. mail and e-mail of its

intent to litigate, it used the above addresses. See Compl., Ex.

C and D. However, when Plaintiff attempted to serve Defendant

with a copy of the summons and Complaint, the documents were sent

to "650 Poydras Street, Suite 1150, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130." 

Docket No. 15 at 2, 5. According to Plaintiff's Complaint, this

address is for the domain name registrar, Intercosmos Media Group,

Inc. d/b/a directNIC.com. See Compl. at ¶ 3. Plaintiff should

have served the Complaint on the Registrant, Speedy Web, not on

the Domain Name Registrar, Intercosmos. Because Plaintiff mailed

the Complaint to the wrong address, the Court finds that Plaintiff

has failed to take sufficient steps to notify the appropriate

parties of the pending litigation. With actual knowledge of the

name and address of the entity which registered THECNF.COM,

Plaintiff should have been able to serve Speedy Web properly. As

a result, Plaintiff has failed to present convincing evidence that

it cannot obtain in personam jurisdiction over Speedy Web, as is

required to proceed in rem under the ACPA. 

The Court notes that the record reveals two problems with

Plaintiff's case, either of which makes default judgment

inappropriate. First, as discussed, Plaintiff has not convinced

the Court that in personam jurisdiction is unavailable. Second,

Case 3:05-cv-04083-SC Document 35 Filed 11/22/06 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Plaintiff neither published notice of the action nor explained why

the Court should waive the requirement under subsection (bb). 

V. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of

Default Judgment is DENIED. The Clerk's Entry of Default, Docket

No. 25, is VACATED. Plaintiff has sixty (60) days from the date

of this Order to submit a statement to the Court explaining the

status of the case. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 22, 2006 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-04083-SC Document 35 Filed 11/22/06 Page 5 of 5