Greenberg Gross LLP v. GreenbergGrossLLP.com

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Greenberg Gross LLP,
Plaintiff,
v.
GreenbergGrossLLP.com,
Defendant.
No. CV-25-01176-PHX-MTL
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for an Order Waiving Service
by Publication and Directing Entry of Default (Doc. 25). Plaintiff requests an order from
the Court waiving the publication requirement imposed by
15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(2)(A)(ii)(II)(bb). (Id.) Plaintiff also asks the Court to direct the Clerk
of Court to enter default as to in rem Defendant <GreenbergGrossLLP.com> domain name.
(Id.)
I.
Plaintiff must “publish[] notice of the action as the court may direct.”
15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(2)(A)(ii)(II)(bb). The statutory text is “permissive” and “grants the
Court discretion to waive publication.” Ent. USA Inc. v. Baldinsky, 641 F. Supp. 3d 794,
799-800 (D. Ariz. 2022). In Baldinsky, the court found:
Where . . . [a] registrant of a domain name has concealed his or her identity
by registering the domain name under a fictitious name and has made himself
or herself impossible to find by listing an inaccurate postal address and phone
number, and possibly an inaccurate email address as well, and there is no
Case 2:25-cv-01176-MTL Document 29 Filed 02/12/26 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
way to know the city or even the country in which he or she might reside,
there is simply no manner of publication that reasonably could be expected
to reach the registrant. Impossibility is reason enough for the Court to decline
to direct publication.
Id. at 800-01.
II.
The present case presents similar circumstances to Baldinsky. Here, the registrants,
across three different countries, have concealed their identities. The Court therefore adopts
the same finding as the Baldinsky court. That is, effective notice by publication is
impossible. The Court will waive the publication requirement under
15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(2)(A)(ii)(II)(bb).
The Court also finds that, based on Plaintiff’s diligent efforts to provide notice to
the registrants via mail and email (Doc. 25 at 7-8), Plaintiff has satisfied
15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(2)(A)(ii)(II)(aa). Because Plaintiff has complied with the service
provisions of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, the Court will direct the
Clerk of Clerk to enter default as to the Defendant domain name.
III.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application (Doc. 25) is GRANTED. The Court
waives the requirement in 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(2)(A)(ii)(II)(bb), so Plaintiff need not
effectuate service via publication.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to enter default
as to in rem Defendant <GreenbergGrossLLP.com> domain name.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for Extension of
Time to Effectuate Service of Process (Doc. 27) is DENIED as moot.
Dated this 12th day of February, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-01176-MTL Document 29 Filed 02/12/26 Page 2 of 2