Boyko v. Kondratiev
2:23-cv-01186
D. Ariz.Jul 14, 2023Background
- Oleg Boyko (and Finstar-Holding LLC) own a federally registered trademark of the name “Oleg Boyko” and operate a reputation/biography website.
- Defendant Alexey Kondratiev registered the domain <olegvboyko.website> via NameCheap and posted disparaging, allegedly false statements about Boyko (some previously found defamatory in foreign litigation).
- WHOIS contact information for the Domain was false or removed, and Plaintiffs contend notice would prompt Kondratiev to transfer the domain outside U.S. jurisdiction.
- Plaintiffs moved ex parte for a TRO to freeze the domain, require NameCheap to transfer/control it, and prevent transfers; the Court required supplemental briefing on authority to bind NameCheap.
- The Court granted an ex parte TRO enjoining Kondratiev (and those acting in concert) from transferring the domain, set a $100 bond, converted the motion to one for preliminary injunction with a briefing/hearing schedule, but declined to issue an ex parte mandatory TRO against non‑party NameCheap.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Likelihood of success on cybersquatting (15 U.S.C. §1125) | Domain is identical (name) to Boyko’s registered mark and content shows bad‑faith tarnishment | No substantive opposition presented pre‑service / intent to profit not shown | Court: Plaintiffs likely to succeed on cybersquatting claim |
| Irreparable harm | False website content causes reputational injury and loss of goodwill | No response presented | Court: Plaintiffs showed likelihood of irreparable harm |
| Authority to issue ex parte TRO against non‑party NameCheap | Courts sometimes restrain registrars; All Writs Act could authorize relief or future concerted action could bind registrar | NameCheap had no notice and is not shown to be acting in concert with Kondratiev | Court: Declined to issue ex parte TRO as to NameCheap; Plaintiffs failed to show present authority to bind non‑party |
| Bond and notice (Rule 65) | Notice should be excused because notice risks immediate domain transfer; minimal bond appropriate | N/A (no response from defendant before service) | Court: Excused prior notice; set $100 bond; ordered service and converted TRO to preliminary injunction with briefing and hearing dates |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standard for preliminary injunctions/TROs)
- Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) (sliding‑scale balancing of injunction factors)
- DSPT Int’l, Inc. v. Nahum, 624 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2010) (elements of cybersquatting claim)
- Herb Reed Enters., LLC v. Fla. Entm’t Mgmt., Inc., 736 F.3d 1239 (9th Cir. 2013) (proof required for irreparable harm in trademark cases)
- Barahona‑Gomez v. Reno, 167 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 1999) (when a bond may be waived)
- Rent‑A‑Ctr., Inc. v. Canyon Television & Appliance Rental, Inc., 944 F.2d 597 (9th Cir. 1991) (intangible injuries and goodwill as irreparable harm)
- Adidas Am., Inc. v. Skechers USA, Inc., 890 F.3d 747 (9th Cir. 2018) (loss of control over reputation can constitute irreparable harm)