The Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Zhang et al, No. 1:2020cv00450 - Document 25 (E.D. Va. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION re Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge T. S. Ellis, III on 7/22/20. (klau, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
The Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Zhang et al Doc. 25 Case 1:20-cv-00450-TSE-MSN Document 25 Filed 07/22/20 Page 1 of 15 PageID# 243 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY) OF AMERICA, ) Plaintiff, ) ) V. ) Civil Action No. l:20-cv-450 ) pru.com,a domain name,and FRANK ZHANG, Defendants. ) ) ) MEMORADUM OPINION This anti-cybersquatting and trademark infringement action is before the Court on defendant Frank Zhang's motion to dismiss plaintiffs complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and/or Rule 12(b)(2) or to transfer the case to the District of Arizona pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Zhang has filed his motion individually and on behalf of the subject res, <pru.com>, a domain name (the "Domain Name"). Plaintiff, The Prudential Company of America, opposes defendant's motion, arguing that plaintiff properly brought this in rem action against the Domain Name in the Eastem District of Virginia. For the reasons that follow, defendant Zhang's motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. Zhang's motion to dismiss is granted insofar as all claims against defendant Zhang in plaintiffs complaint are dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. Zhang's motion to dismiss is denied insofar as Zhang seeks dismissal of plaintiffs in rem anti-cybersquatting claim against the Domain Name. Plaintiff has adequately plead an in rem anti-cybersquatting claim against the Domain Name,and there is in rem jurisdiction to proceed against the Domain Name in the Eastem District of Virginia pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(2). Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:20-cv-00450-TSE-MSN Document 25 Filed 07/22/20 Page 2 of 15 PageID# 244 Case 1:20-cv-00450-TSE-MSN Document 25 Filed 07/22/20 Page 3 of 15 PageID# 245 Case 1:20-cv-00450-TSE-MSN Document 25 Filed 07/22/20 Page 4 of 15 PageID# 246 Case 1:20-cv-00450-TSE-MSN Document 25 Filed 07/22/20 Page 5 of 15 PageID# 247 Case 1:20-cv-00450-TSE-MSN Document 25 Filed 07/22/20 Page 6 of 15 PageID# 248 Case 1:20-cv-00450-TSE-MSN Document 25 Filed 07/22/20 Page 7 of 15 PageID# 249 Case 1:20-cv-00450-TSE-MSN Document 25 Filed 07/22/20 Page 8 of 15 PageID# 250 Case 1:20-cv-00450-TSE-MSN Document 25 Filed 07/22/20 Page 9 of 15 PageID# 251 Case 1:20-cv-00450-TSE-MSN Document 25 Filed 07/22/20 Page 10 of 15 PageID# 252 Case 1:20-cv-00450-TSE-MSN Document 25 Filed 07/22/20 Page 11 of 15 PageID# 253 Case 1:20-cv-00450-TSE-MSN Document 25 Filed 07/22/20 Page 12 of 15 PageID# 254 Case 1:20-cv-00450-TSE-MSN Document 25 Filed 07/22/20 Page 13 of 15 PageID# 255 Case 1:20-cv-00450-TSE-MSN Document 25 Filed 07/22/20 Page 14 of 15 PageID# 256 Case 1:20-cv-00450-TSE-MSN Document 25 Filed 07/22/20 Page 15 of 15 PageID# 257
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
