Case Name: DIANE VON FURSTENBERG STUDIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Catherine SNYDER, d/b/a Cathy 3254, d/b/a katrina3254@vendio.com, d/b/a katrina3254@mailstep.com, d/b/a Fairfax Trading Company, Defendant-Appellant, and John Does, 1-15; XYZ Corporations, 1-15, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-09-18
Citations: 294 F. App'x 10
Docket Number: No. 07-2172
Parties: DIANE VON FURSTENBERG STUDIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Catherine SNYDER, d/b/a Cathy 3254, d/b/a katrina3254@vendio.com, d/b/a katrina3254@mailstep.com, d/b/a Fairfax Trading Company, Defendant-Appellant, and John Does, 1-15; XYZ Corporations, 1-15, Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 294
Pages: 10–11

Head Matter:
DIANE VON FURSTENBERG STUDIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Catherine SNYDER, d/b/a Cathy 3254, d/b/a katrina3254@vendio.com, d/b/a katrina3254@mailstep.com, d/b/a Fairfax Trading Company, Defendant-Appellant, and John Does, 1-15; XYZ Corporations, 1-15, Defendants.
No. 07-2172.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 3, 2008.
Decided: Sept. 18, 2008.
Catherine Snyder, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin B. Bedell, Janet Shih Hajek, Green-berg & Traurig, LLP, McLean, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Catherine Snyder appeals the district court's order entering judgment against her on Plaintiffs trademark infringement claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1114 (2000), trademark dilution claim under 15 U.S.C.A. § 1125(c) (West 1998 & Supp. 2008), and under Virginia common law. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. See Diane Von Furstenberg Studio v. Snyder, No. l:06-ev-01356-JCC, 2007 WL 3143690 (E.D.Va. filed Oct. 23, 2007; entered Oct. 24, 2007). 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.
We note that the district court erred in holding that the Plaintiff's registration provided Snyder with constructive notice for the purposes of the damages award. This error was harmless, however, because Plaintiff was enti-tied to elect statutory damages even if Snyder had no actual notice of the registration of Plaintiff's mark. See 15 U.S.C. § 1116(d)(1)(B)(I), 1117(c) (2000).