Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hamptons Locations, Inc. v. Rubens

May 25, 2006


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hurley, District Judge


Plaintiffs Hamptons Locations, Inc. and Nancy Grigor ("Grigor") (collectively, "Plaintiffs") filed the present action against defendants Richard Rubens ("Richard"), Barbara Rubens ("Barbara"), and Darrell Rubens ("Darrell") (collectively, "Defendants") claiming damages arising out of Defendants' use of an allegedly infringing website. By Memorandum of Decision and Order dated September 30, 2005 (the "September 30, 2005 Order"), the Court granted Barbara's and Richard's motion for summary judgment and denied Darrell's motion for summary judgment. Both Plaintiffs and Darrell have moved for reargument. For the reasons that follow, Darrell's motion for reargument is denied; Plaintiff's motion for reargument is granted. Upon reconsideration, the Court adheres to its original ruling regarding Barbara and thus, summary judgment as to Barbara is granted. With respect to Richard, however, upon reconsideration, summary judgment is denied.


The background of this case is set forth in the September 30, 2005 Order, familiarity with which is assumed. Thus, the Court will only state the facts necessary for disposition of the instant motion.

Grigor is the owner, President, and sole employee of plaintiff Hamptons Locations, Inc., a New York corporation. Since 1994, Hamptons Locations, Inc. has used the service mark and business name "Hamptons Locations" and the domain name ""

On July 8, 1999, a company called "DSNY" registered the domain name "" The only difference between this domain name and Plaintiffs' business name, i.e., Hamptons Locations, is the absence of the letter "s" between the words "Hampton" and "Location." Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants, through the name DSNY, caused the registration of this mark and then tried to sell the domain name back to Plaintiffs in violation of section 1125(d) of the Lanham Act, also known as the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act ("ACPA"). Plaintiffs also charged Defendants with unfair competition.

In the September 30, 2005 Order, the Court found that there was no evidence in the record linking Barbara and Richard to DSNY and therefore dismissed Plaintiffs' ACPA claim against them. (Sept. 30, 2005 Order at 16.) As for Darrell, the Court found that "[a]lthough the evidence linking Darrell to DSNY is marginal at best, the Court cannot state as a matter of law that no reasonable trier of fact could conclude that Darrell was sufficiently linked to DSNY so as subject him to liability under the ACPA." (Id.) Thus, Darrell's motion for summary judgment was denied as to Plaintiffs' ACPA claim.

With respect to Plaintiffs' claim for unfair competition, the Court found that there was no evidence that "Barbara or Richard were in any way involved in any use of the site" and therefore dismissed Plaintiffs' claims of unfair competition as against Richard and Barbara. The unfair competition claim was sustained as to Darrell, however, based, inter alia, on evidence that he used this site.


I. Applicable Legal Standard for Reargument

The standard for a motion for reconsideration "is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or [factual] data that the court overlooked -- matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court." Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995); see also Arum v. Miller, 304 F. Supp. 2d 344, 347 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) ("To grant such a motion the Court must find that it overlooked matters or controlling decisions which, if considered by the Court, would have mandated a different result.") (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). "The major grounds justifying reconsideration are 'an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.'" Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. National Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992) (quoting 18 C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure § 4478 at 790). Thus, a "party may not advance new facts, issues, or arguments not previously presented to the Court." National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Stroh Cos., 265 F.3d 97, 115 (2d Cir. 2001)(quoting Polsby v. St. Martin's Press, No. 97 Civ. 690, 2000 WL 98057, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2000)).

II. Darrell's Motion for Reconsideration is Denied

Essentially, Darrell argues that the Court misapplied the law and the facts by according too much weight to Plaintiffs' evidence and either disregarding or not sufficiently considering Defendants' evidence. The Court disagrees.

Contrary to Darrell's contentions, the Court did not "rely" on the evidence submitted by Plaintiffs; it merely found that based on the record before it, a reasonable trier of fact could infer that Darrell used the allegedly infringing website and was involved in its registration. After reviewing Darrell's arguments made in support of the instant motion, the Court finds that they are a mere rehashing of the same arguments he made unsuccessfully in support of his motion for summary judgment. Having failed to show ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.