1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9 Athene Annuity and Life Company, et al., No. CV-24-01120-PHX-JZB
10 Plaintiffs, ORDER
11 v.
12 Athene Group Limited, et al.,
13 Defendants. 14 15 This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle. (Doc. 2). On July 18, 16 2025, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court.1 (Doc. 17 35). The Magistrate Judge has recommended that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default 18 Judgment, (Doc. 32), be granted in-part. To date, no objections have been filed. 19 1 This case is assigned to a Magistrate Judge. However, not all parties have 20 consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge. Thus, the matter is before this Court pursuant to General Order 21-25, which states in relevant part: 21 When a United States Magistrate Judge to whom a civil action has been 22 assigned pursuant to Local Rule 3.7(a)(1) considers dismissal to be appropriate but lacks the jurisdiction to do so under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) 23 due to incomplete status of election by the parties to consent or not consent to the full authority of the Magistrate Judge, 24 IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge will prepare a Report and 25 Recommendation for the Chief United States District Judge or designee.
26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED designating the following District Court Judges to review and, if deemed suitable, to sign the order of dismissal on 27 my behalf:
28 Phoenix/Prescott: Senior United States District Judge Stephen M. McNamee 1 STANDARD OF REVIEW 2 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 3 recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see Baxter v. 4 Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). Parties generally have fourteen days from 5 the service of a copy of the Magistrate’s recommendation within which to file specific 6 written objections to the Court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. Failure to 7 object to a Magistrate Judge’s recommendation relieves the Court of conducting de novo 8 review of the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings and waives all objections to those 9 findings on appeal. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). A failure to 10 object to a Magistrate Judge’s conclusion “is a factor to be weighed in considering the 11 propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal.” Id. 12 DISCUSSION 13 Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, (Doc. 14 35), and no Objections having been made by any party thereto, the Court hereby 15 incorporates and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as to 16 Plaintiffs’ claims for trademark infringement and unfair competition. However, the Court 17 declines to adopt the Report and Recommendation’s findings as to Plaintiffs’ 18 cybersquatting claim with the exception of one domain name—Athene.Network— 19 because the Court finds that the remaining 159 URLs identified by Plaintiffs and named 20 in this action as Doe Defendants are not actionable “domain names” within the meaning 21 of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”). 22 The Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiffs stated a claim for cybersquatting under 23 the ACPA against all Doe Defendants operating under a URL containing Plaintiffs’ 24 “Athene” mark—95 Doe Defendants in all—and has recommended that the Court award 25 Plaintiffs $2,030,000 in statutory damages against Defendant Athene Group Ltd. and Doe 26 Defendants 1–160, consisting of $100,000 for each of Defendant Athene Group Ltd.’s 27 “12 primary domains” and $10,000 for the remaining “83 sites and social media accounts 28 containing the Athene mark or something confusingly similar.” (Doc. 35 at 16). In 1 reaching this damages calculation, the Magistrate Judge trimmed the $2,680,000 in 2 statutory damages that Plaintiffs requested on the basis that 65 of the 148 URLs identified 3 by Plaintiffs did not contain the Athene mark or something confusingly similar. 4 Having not had the benefit of full briefing on the Motion due to Defendants’ 5 default, the Magistrate Judge did not thoroughly evaluate whether the 160 URLs 6 identified by Plaintiffs in the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) qualify as “domain 7 names” within the meaning of the ACPA. Upon a review of Plaintiffs’ FAC and Motion 8 for Default Judgment, the Court concludes that only one of the 160 identified URLs is a 9 domain name and thus actionable under the ACPA. 10 To understand why, it is helpful to begin with the definition of “domain name” 11 given in the ACPA: “The term ‘domain name’ means any alphanumeric designation 12 which is registered with or assigned by any domain name registrar, domain name 13 registry, or other domain name registration authority as part of an electronic address on 14 the Internet.” 15 U.S.C. § 1127; see also Jones v. Hollywood Unlocked, Inc., 2:21-cv- 15 07929-MEMF(PVCx), 2022 WL 18674459, at *25 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2022) (“To 16 qualify as a domain name, the domain name must be registered with a registry 17 operator.”). Importantly, domain names are not necessarily equivalent to URLs (Uniform 18 Resource Locators), also known as web addresses. As one district court that has 19 considered the issue has explained: 20 Each web page within a website has its own URL, for example 21 “a2zsolutions.com/desks/floor/laptraveler/dkfl-lt.htm.” Interactive Prod. 22 Corp. v. a2z Mobile Office Sols., Inc., 326 F.3d 687, 691 (6th Cir. 2003). A 23 URL consists of a domain name (a2zsolutions.com) and a “post-domain 24 path” (/desks/floor/laptraveler/dkfl-lt.htm). Id. As one court put it, the post- 25 domain path is “the text that comes after the slash.” Patmont Motor Werks, 26 Inc. v. Gateway Marine, Inc., No. 3:96-cv-02703-TEH, 1997 WL 811770, 27 at *4 n.6 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 1997) (“goped” in 28 “www.idiosync.com/goped”). 1 United Fed’n of Churches, LLC v. Johnson, 522 F.Supp.3d 842, 851 (W.D. Wash. 2021), 2 aff’d in part, vacated in part on other grounds, No. 23-35060, 2023 WL 8271978 (9th Cir. 3 Nov. 30, 2023); see also Office Depot Inc. v. Zuccarini, 596 F.3d 696, 698–99 (9th Cir. 4 2010) (discussing the structure of the domain name system). 5 As is relevant here, some social media sites allow the user to create a personalized 6 URL, known as a “vanity URL,” where such vanity URL is contained in or comprises the 7 post-domain path. See Johnson, 522 F. Supp. 3d at 851 (“some social media websites, 8 such as Facebook, permit a user to create a unique, personalized URL known as a “vanity 9 URL.”). Take, for instance, one of the URLs named as a Doe Defendant in this action: 10 https://facebook.com/Athene.Network/. Within this URL, “Athene.Network” is the vanity 11 URL, or post-domain path. The domain name, distinct from the post-domain path, 12 remains facebook.com. See also Jones, 2022 WL 18674459, at *25 (“The handle specific 13 portion of a Twitter website does not designate a domain name in and of itself. Instead, it 14 qualifies as a “post-domain path” and thus [is] distinct from the domain name itself.”).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9 Athene Annuity and Life Company, et al., No. CV-24-01120-PHX-JZB
10 Plaintiffs, ORDER
11 v.
12 Athene Group Limited, et al.,
13 Defendants. 14 15 This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle. (Doc. 2). On July 18, 16 2025, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court.1 (Doc. 17 35). The Magistrate Judge has recommended that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default 18 Judgment, (Doc. 32), be granted in-part. To date, no objections have been filed. 19 1 This case is assigned to a Magistrate Judge. However, not all parties have 20 consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge. Thus, the matter is before this Court pursuant to General Order 21-25, which states in relevant part: 21 When a United States Magistrate Judge to whom a civil action has been 22 assigned pursuant to Local Rule 3.7(a)(1) considers dismissal to be appropriate but lacks the jurisdiction to do so under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) 23 due to incomplete status of election by the parties to consent or not consent to the full authority of the Magistrate Judge, 24 IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge will prepare a Report and 25 Recommendation for the Chief United States District Judge or designee.
26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED designating the following District Court Judges to review and, if deemed suitable, to sign the order of dismissal on 27 my behalf:
28 Phoenix/Prescott: Senior United States District Judge Stephen M. McNamee 1 STANDARD OF REVIEW 2 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 3 recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see Baxter v. 4 Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). Parties generally have fourteen days from 5 the service of a copy of the Magistrate’s recommendation within which to file specific 6 written objections to the Court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. Failure to 7 object to a Magistrate Judge’s recommendation relieves the Court of conducting de novo 8 review of the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings and waives all objections to those 9 findings on appeal. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). A failure to 10 object to a Magistrate Judge’s conclusion “is a factor to be weighed in considering the 11 propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal.” Id. 12 DISCUSSION 13 Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, (Doc. 14 35), and no Objections having been made by any party thereto, the Court hereby 15 incorporates and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as to 16 Plaintiffs’ claims for trademark infringement and unfair competition. However, the Court 17 declines to adopt the Report and Recommendation’s findings as to Plaintiffs’ 18 cybersquatting claim with the exception of one domain name—Athene.Network— 19 because the Court finds that the remaining 159 URLs identified by Plaintiffs and named 20 in this action as Doe Defendants are not actionable “domain names” within the meaning 21 of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”). 22 The Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiffs stated a claim for cybersquatting under 23 the ACPA against all Doe Defendants operating under a URL containing Plaintiffs’ 24 “Athene” mark—95 Doe Defendants in all—and has recommended that the Court award 25 Plaintiffs $2,030,000 in statutory damages against Defendant Athene Group Ltd. and Doe 26 Defendants 1–160, consisting of $100,000 for each of Defendant Athene Group Ltd.’s 27 “12 primary domains” and $10,000 for the remaining “83 sites and social media accounts 28 containing the Athene mark or something confusingly similar.” (Doc. 35 at 16). In 1 reaching this damages calculation, the Magistrate Judge trimmed the $2,680,000 in 2 statutory damages that Plaintiffs requested on the basis that 65 of the 148 URLs identified 3 by Plaintiffs did not contain the Athene mark or something confusingly similar. 4 Having not had the benefit of full briefing on the Motion due to Defendants’ 5 default, the Magistrate Judge did not thoroughly evaluate whether the 160 URLs 6 identified by Plaintiffs in the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) qualify as “domain 7 names” within the meaning of the ACPA. Upon a review of Plaintiffs’ FAC and Motion 8 for Default Judgment, the Court concludes that only one of the 160 identified URLs is a 9 domain name and thus actionable under the ACPA. 10 To understand why, it is helpful to begin with the definition of “domain name” 11 given in the ACPA: “The term ‘domain name’ means any alphanumeric designation 12 which is registered with or assigned by any domain name registrar, domain name 13 registry, or other domain name registration authority as part of an electronic address on 14 the Internet.” 15 U.S.C. § 1127; see also Jones v. Hollywood Unlocked, Inc., 2:21-cv- 15 07929-MEMF(PVCx), 2022 WL 18674459, at *25 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2022) (“To 16 qualify as a domain name, the domain name must be registered with a registry 17 operator.”). Importantly, domain names are not necessarily equivalent to URLs (Uniform 18 Resource Locators), also known as web addresses. As one district court that has 19 considered the issue has explained: 20 Each web page within a website has its own URL, for example 21 “a2zsolutions.com/desks/floor/laptraveler/dkfl-lt.htm.” Interactive Prod. 22 Corp. v. a2z Mobile Office Sols., Inc., 326 F.3d 687, 691 (6th Cir. 2003). A 23 URL consists of a domain name (a2zsolutions.com) and a “post-domain 24 path” (/desks/floor/laptraveler/dkfl-lt.htm). Id. As one court put it, the post- 25 domain path is “the text that comes after the slash.” Patmont Motor Werks, 26 Inc. v. Gateway Marine, Inc., No. 3:96-cv-02703-TEH, 1997 WL 811770, 27 at *4 n.6 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 1997) (“goped” in 28 “www.idiosync.com/goped”). 1 United Fed’n of Churches, LLC v. Johnson, 522 F.Supp.3d 842, 851 (W.D. Wash. 2021), 2 aff’d in part, vacated in part on other grounds, No. 23-35060, 2023 WL 8271978 (9th Cir. 3 Nov. 30, 2023); see also Office Depot Inc. v. Zuccarini, 596 F.3d 696, 698–99 (9th Cir. 4 2010) (discussing the structure of the domain name system). 5 As is relevant here, some social media sites allow the user to create a personalized 6 URL, known as a “vanity URL,” where such vanity URL is contained in or comprises the 7 post-domain path. See Johnson, 522 F. Supp. 3d at 851 (“some social media websites, 8 such as Facebook, permit a user to create a unique, personalized URL known as a “vanity 9 URL.”). Take, for instance, one of the URLs named as a Doe Defendant in this action: 10 https://facebook.com/Athene.Network/. Within this URL, “Athene.Network” is the vanity 11 URL, or post-domain path. The domain name, distinct from the post-domain path, 12 remains facebook.com. See also Jones, 2022 WL 18674459, at *25 (“The handle specific 13 portion of a Twitter website does not designate a domain name in and of itself. Instead, it 14 qualifies as a “post-domain path” and thus [is] distinct from the domain name itself.”). 15 Of the 160 Doe Defendants named in this action, Plaintiffs have identified only 16 one domain name that can support an ACPA cause of action for cybersquatting: 17 Athene.Network, as registered with Namecheap, Inc. The other URLs, as will be 18 explained, do not include Plaintiffs’ mark Athene in the domain name; rather, they 19 include “Athene” as either a post-domain path, a subdomain, or, as in the dozens of 20 instances identified by the Magistrate Judge, not at all. 21 As the Magistrate Judge correctly found, 65 of the URLs identified by Plaintiffs 22 do not include the Athene mark or anything confusingly similar. These URLs thus cannot 23 support a cause of action for cybersquatting, because, by definition, cybersquatting or 24 cyberpiracy is expressly concerned with “unfair competition by misuse of a domain 25 name.” 4 McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition (“McCarthy”) § 25A:48 (5th 26 ed. 2025); see also 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d). “Under the classic definition, a ‘cybersquatter’ is 27 a person who knowingly obtains from a registrar a domain name consisting of the mark 28 or name of a company for the purpose of ransoming the right to that domain name back 1 to the legitimate owner for a price.” McCarthy, supra. 2 All but one of the remaining URLs that Plaintiffs identify and name as Doe 3 Defendants include Plaintiffs’ Athene mark as a vanity URL or a post-domain path, but 4 not as a domain name. These Doe Defendants consist largely of social media accounts 5 such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and X accounts and, in a couple of instances, 6 URLs to mobile applications in app stores. Examples include 7 “https://facebook.com/Athene.Network,” which is a Facebook account with a vanity URL 8 featuring Plaintiffs’ Athene mark, “https://youtube.comAtheneGamingOfficial,” a 9 YouTube channel with a similar Athene-associated vanity URL, and 10 “https://apps.apple.com/us/app/athene-network/id6473136372,” the URL to a mobile 11 application featuring Plaintiffs’ mark and available in Apple’s online store. As explained 12 above, these vanity URLs and post-domain paths are not domain names within the 13 meaning of the ACPA; consequently, Plaintiffs have not stated a claim for cybersquatting 14 with respect to these URLs. 15 The sole remaining URL identified by Plaintiffs, apart from Athene.Network, is 16 game.athene.network. While the misuse of Plaintiffs’ mark is contained in the domain, 17 rather than a post-domain path, this URL functions as merely a subdomain, or a “third- 18 level domain,” of Athene.Network. See GoForIt Ent., LLC v. DigiMedia,com L.P., 750 19 F. Supp. 2d 712, 718 (N.D. Tex. 2010) (“A domain name can also include a subdomain, 20 i.e., a word that appears to the left of the second level domain name in a web address. If 21 “machine.widget.com” were a web address, “machine” would be the subdomain of the 22 parent “widget.com” domain name.”). Plaintiffs are not entitled to recover separately for 23 game.athene.network under the ACPA because does not constitute an independent 24 domain name from Athene.Network. See id. at 725. 25 The Court notes that Plaintiffs described the Doe Defendants as comprising of “12 26 primary domains” and “148 separate websites.” (Doc. 32 21). However, it is unclear from 27 either the Motion or the First Amended Complaint what the 12 supposed primary 28 domains are, apart from Athene.Network. Plaintiffs also state in the Motion for Default 1 Judgment that the 12 domain names in question have been fraudulently registered in the 2 UK, referencing the FAC. However, the FAC appears to contain no references to any 3 such fraudulent UK registrations. (Id.) The Court cannot conclude that any of the 4 remaining 11 “primary domains” that Plaintiffs allude to fall within the meaning of the 5 ACPA. 6 Proceeding to the appropriate amount of statutory damages to which Plaintiffs are 7 entitled, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to recover the statutory maximum of 8 $100,000 for a single domain name. As the Magistrate Judge found, “Defendants 9 willfully and egregiously used cybersquatting to profit from Plaintiffs’ marks; they used 10 false contact information to conceal their identities; and [they] engaged in an expansive 11 operation aimed at profiting from Plaintiffs’ marks.” (Doc. 35 at 16). The Court agrees 12 that the sheer number of associated social media accounts and apps associated with the 13 Athene.Network domain name support an award of the maximum statutory damages for 14 Defendant’s misuse of the domain name: $100,000. Accordingly, the Court awards 15 statutory damages to Plaintiffs pursuant to the ACPA in the amount of $100,000. 16 Though the Court adjusts the statutory damages as explained above, the Court 17 adopts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation as to injunctive relief because, as the 18 Magistrate Judge explained, the injunctive relief to which Plaintiffs have shown 19 entitlement to under the Lanham Act is independent of Plaintiffs’ cybersquatting claim. 20 Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ requested injunctive relief with modifications as 21 appropriate.2
22 2 Apart from adjusting the deadline for Defendants to comply with the Court’s relief, the Court declines to enter the provision in Plaintiffs’ requested injunctive relief that would 23 enjoin Defendants from “[o]therwise engaging in any course of conduct likely to cause confusion, deception, or mistake, trademark infringement, dilution, false designation of 24 origin, cybersquatting, or unfair competition under the law of the United States and the State of Arizona,” (Doc. 32-3 at 5), for the reason that the requested relief is too vague 25 and amorphous. The Court also declines to order “the registrars, web hosts, or platforms hosting or 26 maintaining Defendants’ websites, social media accounts, and mobile applications” to transfer, disable, or deactivate the infringing websites, accounts, applications, or other 27 entities. The subject registrars, web hosts, or platforms are nonparties, and the Court lacks the authority to bind nonparties to an injunction except as otherwise provided in 28 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2)(c). See Nutramax Labs., Inc. v. Tovar, Case No. 5:23-cv-02366-MRA-SP, 2024 WL 3221731, at *8–9 (C.D. Ca. May 23, 2024). 1 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, 2 IT IS ORDERED adopting as modified the Report and Recommendation of the 3 Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 35). 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting in-part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default 5 Judgment. (Doc. 32). 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED awarding Plaintiffs $100,000 in statutory 7 damages against Defendant Athene Group Ltd. and Defendant JOHN DOE 1 d/b/a 8 https://athene.network, jointly and severally. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED permanently enjoining Defendants, their 10 officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and all those in active concert or 11 participation with them, from: 12 1. Using the ATHENE Marks or any reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable 13 imitation thereof for and in connection with any goods, services, mobile 14 applications, any packaging, or in any URL, including the URLs listed in the 15 First Amended Complaint (Doc. 21); 16 2. Operating these infringing websites, webpages, social media accounts, or 17 mobile applications or any similar URL featuring the term “Athene”; 18 3. Offering or promoting any Athene.Network mobile apps; 19 4. Taking actions to transfer, sell, copy, or transmit any infringing website, 20 webpage, social media account, or mobile application from their current 21 registrars or platforms to any other registrar or platform or to any other entity, 22 for the purpose of circumventing or otherwise avoiding any of the prohibitions 23 set forth in this Order; and 24 5. Using, linking, transferring, selling, exercising control over, or otherwise 25 owning any website, webpage, social media account, mobile application, or 26 any other domain name that incorporates, in whole or in part, any of the 27 ATHENE Marks, or any domain name that is used in connection with an 28 infringing website or page. 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, within 30 days from the date of this 2 Order, Defendants will transfer (or upon request from Athene, permanently disable and 3 deactivate) all such websites, social media accounts, and mobile applications, along with 4 any other websites, social media accounts, or mobile applications promoting the 5 “Athene.Network” goods and services, including the websites, social media accounts, and 6 mobile applications offered and promoted at the following URLs: 7 (1) https://athene.network 8 (2) https://game.athene.network/ 9 (3) https://apps.apple.com/us/app/athene-network/id6473136372 10 (4) https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=network.athene.app&pli=1 11 (5) https://facebook.com/Athene.Network/ 12 (6) https://facebook.com/AtheneNetwork.Airdrop 13 (7) https://facebook.com/AtheneNetwork.AirdropATH 14 (8) https://facebook.com/AtheneNetwork.AirdropFree 15 (9) https://facebook.com/AtheneNetwork.AirdropMienPhi 16 (10) https://facebook.com/AtheneNetwork.HaNoi 17 (11) https://facebook.com/profile.php?id=100091085347665 18 (12) https://facebook.com/profile.php?id=100095695086585 19 (13) https://facebook.com/profile.php?id=61550820394109 20 (14) https://facebook.com/profile.php?id=61554016753581 21 (15) https://facebook.com/profile.php?id=61554380192222 22 (16) https://facebook.com/profile.php?id=61554835247820 23 (17) https://facebook.com/profile.php?id=61554967574111 24 (18) https://facebook.com/profile.php?id=61555117089388 25 (19) https://facebook.com/profile.php?id=61555142138641 26 (20) https://facebook.com/profile.php?id=61555243691732 27 (21) https://facebook.com/profile.php?id=61555323791002 28 (22) https://facebook.com/profile.php?id=61555454653378 1 (23) https://facebook.com/profile.php?id=61555613137995 2 (24) https://facebook.com/profile.php?id=61555707177094 3 (25) https://facebook.com/profile.php?id=61555733217711 4 (26) https://facebook.com/profile.php?id=61555733679847 5 (27) https://facebook.com/profile.php?id=61555968237160 6 (28) https://facebook.com/profile.php?id=61555990235716 7 (29) https://facebook.com/profile.php?id=61556535063641 8 (30) https://facebook.com/profile.php?id=61556574853678 9 (31) https://facebook.com/profile.php?id=61556613921896 10 (32) https://facebook.com/profile.php?id=61557013525340 11 (33) https://facebook.com/profile.php?id=61557218309523 12 (34) https://facebook.com/profile.php?id=61557310174301 13 (35) https://facebook.com/profile.php?id=61557562427736 14 (36) https://facebook.com/profile.php?id=61557699068388 15 (37) https://facebook.com/profile.php?id=61557911259150 16 (38) https://facebook.com/profile.php?id=61557979413940 17 (39) https://facebook.com/profile.php?id=61558213079195 18 (40) https://facebook.com/profile.php?id=61558682979990 19 (41) https://facebook.com/profile.php?id=61558822988791 20 (42) https://facebook.com/profile.php?id=61558865256910 21 (43) https://facebook.com/profile.php?id=61558918950660 22 (44) https://facebook.com/profile.php?id=61559516796168 23 (45) https://facebook.com/profile.php?id=61559698958268 24 (46) https://facebook.com/profile.php?id=61559900617533 25 (47) https://facebook.com/profile.php?id=61560095620995 26 (48) https://facebook.com/profile.php?id=61560243772465 27 (49) https://facebook.com/profile.php?id=61561156694033 28 (50) https://facebook.com/profile.php?id=61561904619274 1 (51) https://facebook.com/profile.php?id=61562283274287 2 (52) https://facebook.com/profile.php?id=61563573455979 3 (53) https://facebook.com/profile.php?id=61563791063961 4 (54) https://facebook.com/profile.php?id=61564188597476 5 (55) https://facebook.com/VietNam.Athene 6 (56) https://facebook.com/VietNam.AtheneNetWork 7 (57) https://facebook.com/Athene.HaNoi 8 (58) https://instagram.com/ath_seller/ 9 (59) https://instagram.com/athene.network/ 10 (60) https://instagram.com/athene.networks/ 11 (61) https://instagram.com/athene_network 12 (62) https://instagram.com/athene_network._/ 13 (63) https://instagram.com/athene_network_ 14 (64) https://instagram.com/athene_network_angel/ 15 (65) https://instagram.com/athene_network_global/ 16 (66) https://instagram.com/athene_network_official/ 17 (67) https://instagram.com/athene_network_portugal_brasil/ 18 (68) https://instagram.com/athene_network1/ 19 (69) https://instagram.com/athene_update/ 20 (70) https://instagram.com/athenenetwork 21 (71) https://instagram.com/athenenetwork0021 22 (72) https://instagram.com/athenenetwork2006/ 23 (73) https://instagram.com/athenenetworkcoin 24 (74) https://instagram.com/athenenetworkseller/ 25 (75) https://instagram.com/athetne.network.jp/ 26 (76) https://instagram.com/fuyeathene/ 27 (77) https://instagram.com/network.athene/ 28 (78) https://instagram.com/networkathene/ 1 (79) https://instagram.com/official_pi_athene_network/ 2 (80) https://instagram.com/__athene_network__/ 3 (81) https://t.me/athene_official_bot 4 (82) https://t.me/AtheneNetwork_Ann 5 (83) https://t.me/AtheneNetwork_Official 6 (84) https://tiktok.com/@_atheneairdropnetwork 7 (85) https://tiktok.com/@athena_network 8 (86) https://tiktok.com/@athene.network 9 (87) https://tiktok.com/@athene.network.my 10 (88) https://tiktok.com/@athene.network.re 11 (89) https://tiktok.com/@athene.network2 12 (90) https://tiktok.com/@athene.network3 13 (91) https://tiktok.com/@athene.network4 14 (92) https://tiktok.com/@athene.network5 15 (93) https://tiktok.com/@athene.network6 16 (94) https://tiktok.com/@athene_network 17 (95) https://tiktok.com/@athene_network._ 18 (96) https://tiktok.com/@athene_network2024 19 (97) https://tiktok.com/@athene112 20 (98) https://tiktok.com/@athenenerwork 21 (99) https://tiktok.com/@athenenetwork 22 (100) https://tiktok.com/@athenenetwork_king 23 (101) https://tiktok.com/@athenenetwork02 24 (102) https://tiktok.com/@athenenetwork1 25 (103) https://tiktok.com/@athenenetwork413 26 (104) https://tiktok.com/@atheneturkiye 27 (105) https://tiktok.com/@network.athene 28 (106) https://twitter.com/anthenenetwork 1 (107) https://twitter.com/Athene__Network 2 (108) https://twitter.com/Athene_ATH 3 (109) https://twitter.com/athene_networ 4 (110) https://twitter.com/Athene_Network 5 (111) https://twitter.com/Athene_Token 6 (112) https://twitter.com/AtheneGem 7 (113) https://twitter.com/AtheneGems 8 (114) https://twitter.com/athenenetwkarmy 9 (115) https://twitter.com/AtheneNetworkS 10 (116) https://twitter.com/AtheneNetworkx 11 (117) https://twitter.com/BigDott_Athene 12 (118) https://twitter.com/news_athene 13 (119) https://x.com/AbdulSa99913276 14 (120) https://x.com/allahajmal 15 (121) https://x.com/ATH_GEM_MOON 16 (122) https://x.com/Athen_Networ 17 (123) https://x.com/athenanetwork81 18 (124) https://x.com/Athene_Natwork 19 (125) https://x.com/athene_net_news 20 (126) https://x.com/Athene_Supports 21 (127) https://x.com/Athene100days 22 (128) https://x.com/Athene3834 23 (129) https://x.com/AtheneDev 24 (130) https://x.com/AtheneGlobal 25 (131) https://x.com/AtheneNetw1111 26 (132) https://x.com/AtheneNetw11532 27 (133) https://x.com/AtheneNetw15945 28 (134) https://x.com/AtheneNetw19549 1 (135) https://x.com/AtheneNetw55113 2 (136) https://x.com/AtheneNetw7991 3 (137) https://x.com/athenenetwork55 4 (138) https://x.com/athnetwork2024 5 (139) https://x.com/buy_sell46359 6 (140) https://x.com/cbd_cbd_cbg 7 (141) https://x.com/DongAguero94 8 (142) https://x.com/ducbill01 9 (143) https://x.com/fackseam024 10 (144) https://x.com/FaizanKhan56342 11 (145) https://x.com/FazalJalil16252 12 (146) https://x.com/Hjiug295532 13 (147) https://x.com/jp_athene 14 (148) https://x.com/KMabag85372 15 (149) https://x.com/MiloDaniel65755 16 (150) https://x.com/o_earth288901 17 (151) https://x.com/paypaypoin 18 (152) https://x.com/sakizogo 19 (153) https://x.com/Tapswapc 20 (154) https://x.com/Thauhid20220 21 (155) https://x.com/TiaoZhe77512 22 (156) https://x.com/TiaoZhe77972 23 (157) https://x.com/UgochukwuIkwue1 24 (158) https://x.com/VietNguyen38482 25 (159) https://youtube.com/@AtheneGamingOfficial 26 (160) https://youtube.com/@AtheneNetworkOfficial 27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that because Defendants have not appeared in this 28 action and are in default, this Order authorizes the subject registrars, web hosts, and || platforms to transfer to Plaintiffs (or permanently disable) the above-listed domains and 2|| any related websites, mobile applications, or accounts controlled by Defendants without 3 || any consent or other action by Defendants. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall serve this Order by sending it: 5 || (a) by e-mail to the e-mail addresses identified in the Court’s September 18, 2024 Order 6 || (Doc. 20); by email or other electronic submission to the registrar, web host, or platform for each of the above-listed domains, social media accounts, or mobile applications, as 8 || the case may be; and (3) in a hard copy format to the registrar for the Athene.Network || domain name, Namecheap, Inc., located at 4600 East Washington St., Suite 305, Phoenix, AZ 85034. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to enter judgment || accordingly and to send a copy of this Order to Defendants via email to the following 13 |} email addresses: 14 (1) dev @athene.network; 15 (2) partner @ athene.network; 16 (3) support @ athene.network; and 17 (4) 719dd69cd94944e09ff06cfaf88ae428 protect @ withheldforprivacy.com. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs have up to and including September || 6, 2025 to file an application for attorney fees and costs. 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to terminate this case. 21 Dated this 22nd day of August, 2025. 22 33 Ligh ia oem 74 Stephen M. McNamee Senior United States District Judge 25 26 27 28
-14-