the Travelers Indemnity Company v. DEEPAK RAJANI; TRAVELLERS.COM, an Internet domain name

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1118
THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DEEPAK RAJANI; TRAVELLERS.COM, an Internet domain name,
Defendants – Appellants,
DEAR!NET ONLINE E.K.,
Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District
Judge. (1:10-cv-00448-LO-JFA)
Submitted: February 26, 2013 Decided: April 4, 2013
Before KING, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Deepak Rajani, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Hanley Bald, Michael
Ryan Justus, FINNEGAN HENDERSON FARABOW GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP,
Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Deepak Rajani appeals from the district court’s final
and related orders in this action initiated by The Travelers
Indemnity Company (“Travelers”), regarding a website registered
to Rajani. Travelers alleged, and the district court agreed,
that Rajani’s offending website violated the Anticybersquatting
Consumer Protection Act and other laws. See 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)
(2006). By order entered on July 29, 2011, the district court
granted Travelers’ motion for partial summary judgment and
ordered that VeriSign, Inc. change the registrar of the domain
name TRAVELLERS.COM to CSC Corporate Domains, Inc., and that CSC
Corporate Domains, Inc. register the domain name TRAVELLERS.COM
in the name of Travelers. The order noted it would provide its
reasoning “in the memorandum opinion to follow.” (R. 194).
That later memorandum to follow was entered on November 28,
2011, and provided cogent reasoning for its decision to grant
partial summary judgment to Travelers. (R. 221). After ruling
on the remaining matters in the action, the court dismissed the
case in its final order entered on December 1, 2011. (R. 222).
Rajani appeals from the final order alleging that the
district court lacked jurisdiction and arguing that the court

-- 2 of 3 --

3
erred in granting relief to Travelers.∗ We have reviewed the
record in this case and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in its
orders. See The Travelers Indem. Co. v. TRAVELLERS.COM, No.
1:10-cv-00448-LO-JFA (E.D. Va. July 29, Nov. 28, and Dec. 1,
2011). We deny the remaining pending motions in this appeal as
moot and dispense with oral argument as the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
∗ Rajani attempts to appeal from numerous other district
court orders but all previous appeals and appellate actions,
related to the instant district court litigation, were dismissed
because the orders were interlocutory, unappealable orders.
See The Travelers Indem. Co. v. Rajani, No. 11-1508; Rajani v.
The Travelers Indem. Co. No. 11-228; The Travelers Indem. Co. v.
Rajani, No. 11-1827.

-- 3 of 3 --