Facebook, Inc. v. OnLineNic Inc

Background

The court had previously entered default judgment and a permanent injunction against the defendants in this trademark-infringement and cybersquatting case. On December 20, 2024, it ordered Leascend Technology Co., Ltd., formerly known as Xiamen 35.com Internet Technology Co., Ltd., to deposit $5.5 million in a United States escrow account by January 31, 2025. The order also barred Leascend from selling or transferring its domain-registration business or related ownership interests until it made the deposit and provided proof of it.

Leascend did not make the deposit. On April 4, 2025, the court found Leascend in civil contempt, meaning it had disobeyed a specific court order. The present order addressed the remedies for that contempt, Leascend’s request to pause proceedings during its appeal, plaintiffs’ request for an appeal bond, and plaintiffs’ request to seal certain materials.

Contempt Remedies

The court clarified that Leascend could end, or purge, the contempt in either of two ways: by paying the final judgment and the costs awarded against it, or by depositing $5.5 million in a United States escrow account to secure payment of the judgment.

The court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs’ motion for contempt remedies. It ordered:

- Leascend to pay a daily fine of $1,000 until it purges the contempt. - Verisign, Inc. to deactivate Leascend’s website at leasdgrp.com until the contempt is purged. - Leascend, but not attorney Karl Kronenberger, to pay plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in enforcing the escrow order and pursuing the contempt proceedings. The parties were directed to meet and confer about those amounts.

The fine and website deactivation were not to begin until 14 days after the order’s date, giving Leascend additional time to purge the contempt. The court denied without prejudice the balance of plaintiffs’ requested contempt remedies, including the remedies it did not order against Leascend, Verisign, or 35.com Info.

Motion to Stay Pending Appeal

The court denied Leascend’s motion to stay further proceedings while its appeal was pending. It found that Leascend had not made a strong showing that it was likely to succeed on appeal, had not shown irreparable harm without a stay, and had waited several months without complying with the escrow order. The court also found that delaying plaintiffs’ collection efforts would injure plaintiffs and that the public interest favored obedience to court orders and payment of judgments.

Appeal Bond

Plaintiffs requested a $210,000 appeal bond, consisting of estimated appeal costs and attorneys’ fees. The court granted in part and denied in part that motion. It ordered Leascend to post a $7,500 bond to secure payment of appeal costs, but declined to include the requested attorneys’ fees in the bond.

Sealing Motion

The court denied plaintiffs’ administrative motion to seal materials that a third party had designated as confidential. It ordered plaintiffs to re-file the unredacted materials on the public docket within seven days.

Disposition

The order granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs’ motion for contempt remedies, denied Leascend’s motion to stay pending appeal, granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs’ motion for an appeal bond, and denied the motion to seal.