BGC, Inc. v. Bryant

Background

BGC, Inc. alleged that Kimberly Bryant, BGC’s founder and former chief executive, was removed by the board on August 12, 2022. BGC alleged that, after her removal, Bryant accessed BGC’s web-hosting account, altered or deleted website data, and redirected BGC’s original domain names—blackgirlscode.com, blackgirlscode.org, blackgirlscode.site, and blackgirlscode.net—to Bryant’s own website.

BGC said its website was central to its operations and mission. It allowed people to enroll in programs, learn about events and chapters, volunteer, and donate. BGC also alleged that the domain names had been used exclusively for the BGC website since 2011 and had helped build the organization’s name, trademark, goodwill, and online presence.

BGC initially sought a temporary restraining order, but the court denied that request because BGC had not shown a sufficient likelihood of success on the claims as then pleaded. The court allowed BGC to amend its complaint. BGC then asserted claims for conversion, violation of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and violation of California’s Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, and filed a renewed request for emergency relief.

Court’s analysis

A temporary restraining order uses the same standard as a preliminary injunction. The court considered whether BGC showed likely success or serious legal questions, likely irreparable harm without immediate relief, a balance of hardships favoring BGC, and that relief served the public interest.

The court found that BGC demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable harm. The parties did not dispute that Bryant had redirected the original domain names, and the evidence showed that BGC’s new website did not appear within the first 15 pages of Google results for “black girls code.” The court concluded that people might therefore be unable to find BGC, which could damage its goodwill and interfere with recruiting girls and volunteers, operating programs, receiving donations, and fulfilling its mission.

The court also found that the balance of hardships and the public interest sharply favored BGC. Bryant had not identified equities favoring her and agreed that the court’s earlier concerns about BGC’s ability to solicit donations and engage with the public remained appropriate.

The court did not finally decide who owned the original domain names or whether BGC would prevail on its claims. Instead, it found serious legal questions concerning domain-name ownership. In particular, Bryant registered the domains before forming BGC, but the domains were used only for the company’s website, information, and registered trademark. The court described that ownership issue as a novel legal question underlying each of BGC’s claims.

Order

Judge Jacquelyn Corley granted BGC’s renewed request for a temporary restraining order. By the stated deadline, the order required Bryant to:

The order also prohibited Bryant from changing the domain-name system configuration or the content of the original domain names and website. The court required no bond and set a status conference for September 28, 2022, to discuss next steps, including preliminary-injunction proceedings or combining those proceedings with a trial on the merits.