Case Name: ASIA APPAREL, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Garrett CUNNEEN; Storm Jenkins, Defendants-Appellants, and Ripswear, Incorporated; John 1-10 Does, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-01-11
Citations: 118 F. App'x 782
Docket Number: No. 04-2245
Parties: ASIA APPAREL, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Garrett CUNNEEN; Storm Jenkins, Defendants—Appellants, and Ripswear, Incorporated; John 1-10 Does, Defendants.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 118
Pages: 782–782

Head Matter:
ASIA APPAREL, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Garrett CUNNEEN; Storm Jenkins, Defendants—Appellants, and Ripswear, Incorporated; John 1-10 Does, Defendants.
No. 04-2245.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 24, 2004.
Decided: Jan. 11, 2005.
Garrett Cunneen, Storm Jenkins, Appellants pro se.
James Daniel Bishop, Bishop, Capitano & Abner, PA, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Storm Jenkins and Garrett Cunneen appeal the district court's order imposing a preliminary injunction barring their commercial interference between Asia Apparel, LLC, and its customers, and further directing Appellants to cooperate in the transfer of an internet domain name. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Asia Apparel v. Ripswear, No. CA-02-469-MU (W.D.N.C. Sept. 17, 2004). We deny Appellants' emergency motion for a stay as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
To the extent Jenkins and Cunneen seek to appeal on behalf of Ripswear, Inc., this court will not consider the appeal. Pro se appellants may represent their own interests but not those of a company they serve. See, e.g., Rowland v. California Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194. 201-02. 113 S.Ct. 716. 121 L.Ed.2d 656 (1993) ("It has been the law for the better part of two centuries, for example, that a corporation may appear in federal court only through licensed counsel.").