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