Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. v. Royalcaribean.com
680 F. App'x 874
11th Cir.2017Background
- Cruise Traffic owned the Domain Names and, with Royal Caribbean’s knowledge, used them to promote Royal Caribbean cruises from 1999 to 2005.
- After the relationship ended, the Domain Names’ registrant was changed to Bindu Joseph (Mary Joseph George) residing in India, later listed a North Carolina address.
- Royal Caribbean filed an in rem action under the ACPA in March 2015 seeking injunctive relief against the Domain Names, contending lack of personal jurisdiction over the registrant and appropriateness of in rem jurisdiction.
- Notice was mailed to the registrant’s listed address, emailed, and published; deliveries were not successful, and defaults were entered when responses were not filed.
- Cruise Traffic moved to set aside defaults and to intervene; the district court denied both motions and entered a default judgment against the Domain Names, ordering transfer to Royal Caribbean.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed in rem jurisdiction, denied that Cruise Traffic or George were proper in rem defendants, and upheld the denial of the motion to set aside defaults as an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had in rem jurisdiction under the ACPA | Royal Caribbean argues registrant Joseph is proper defendant; in rem jurisdiction authorized. | Appellants contend lack of in rem jurisdiction because use/registration by Cruise Traffic/George means need for in personam. | Yes, in rem jurisdiction proper; registrant was Joseph and use by others did not make them defendants. |
| Whether Cruise Traffic/George could be treated as registrant or authorized licensee under §1125(d)(1)(D) | Only registrant or registrant’s authorized licensee liable for use; Joseph was registrant. | Cruise Traffic/George are de facto registrants or licensees due to control and use of Domain Names. | No; plain language limits liability to registrant or authorized licensee; Cruise Traffic not a proper defendant. |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion to set aside defaults | Defaults were willful, with bad faith, and setting aside would prejudice Royal Caribbean. | Defaults should be set aside due to equitable considerations and lack of clean hands by plaintiff. | No abuse of discretion; defaults were culpable, and prejudice to plaintiff supported denial. |
| Whether Royal Caribbean properly exercised due diligence under §1125(d)(2)(A) | Royal Caribbean mailed notices and published as required to locate a defendant. | Due diligence failed because notices may have been ineffective due to incorrect addresses earlier. | Yes, due diligence satisfied; proper notices were sent and published. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bird v. Parsons, 289 F.3d 865 (6th Cir. 2002) (liability for using a domain name limited to registrant or authorized licensee)
- Jysk Bed'N Linen v. Dutta-Roy, 810 F.3d 767 (11th Cir. 2015) (register includes re-registration; plain meaning of register)
- Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949 (11th Cir. 2009) (properly raised arguments not preserved; Rule 59/60 motions cannot raise new issues)
- Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2004) (principles on whether a district court considered raised issues on appeal)
- Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V Monada, 432 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2005) (standard for evaluating a district court’s denial of a motion for relief)
- Compania Interamericana Export–Import, S.A. v. Compania Dominicana de Aviacion, 88 F.3d 948 (11th Cir. 1996) (set forth factors for good-cause denial and prejudice in default judgments)
- United States v. Lopez, 562 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2009) (jurisdictional de novo review; burden on claimant)