Diane Von Furstenberg Studio v. Snyder , 294 F. App'x 10 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-2172
DIANE VON FURSTENBERG STUDIO,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CATHERINE SNYDER, d/b/a Cathy 3254, d/b/a
katrina3254@vendio.com, d/b/a katrina3254@mailstep.com, d/b/a
Fairfax Trading Company,
Defendant - Appellant,
and
JOHN DOES, 1-15; XYZ CORPORATIONS, 1-15,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:06-cv-01356-JCC)
Submitted: September 3, 2008 Decided: September 18, 2008
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Catherine Snyder, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin B. Bedell, Janet Shih
Hajek, GREENBERG & TRAURIG, LLP, McLean, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Catherine Snyder appeals the district court’s order
entering judgment against her on Plaintiff’s trademark infringement
claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1114 (2000), trademark dilution claim under
15 U.S.C.A. § 1125(c) (West 1998 & Supp. 2008), and under Virginia
common law. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. See
Diane Von Furstenberg Studio v. Snyder, No. 1:06-cv-01356-JCC (E.D.
Va. filed Oct. 23, 2007; entered Oct. 24, 2007).* We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
*We note that the district court erred in holding that the
Plaintiff’s registration provided Snyder with constructive notice
for the purposes of the damages award. This error was harmless,
however, because Plaintiff was entitled to elect statutory damages
even if Snyder had no actual notice of the registration of
Plaintiff’s mark. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1116(d)(1)(B)(I), 1117(c)
(2000).
- 3 -