Accordingly, the Court awards TracFone three times the amount of actual damages proved in this case, or $184,913.94. SeeRamada Inns, Inc. v. Gadsden Motel Co., 804 F.2d 1562 (11th Cir.1986) (affirming district court's award of treble trademark infringement damages); Punch Clock, Inc. v. Smart Software Dev., 553 F.Supp.2d 1353, 1359 (S.D.Fla.2008) (trebling damages for willful nature of infringement); 15 U.S.C. § 1117(e) (providing " rebuttable presumption that the violation is willful for purposes of determining relief if the violator, or a person acting in concert with the violator, knowingly provided or knowingly caused to be provided materially false contact information to the domain name registrar ... in registering ... a domain name." ).

Additionally, as discussed above, Defendants have failed to respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint and Motion for Default Judgment or otherwise participate in the present legal proceedings. Further, Defendants operated the infringing domain name for at least four and a half years, see Punch Clock, Inc. v. Smart Software Dev., 553 F.Supp.2d 1353, 1356, 1359 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (noting the “duration of the infringement,” Id. at 1359, as a factor supporting award of maximum statutory damages where defendant had been operating infringing domain name for more than six years), and “incorporate[d] the entirety” of Plaintiffs' mark in the domain name, CrossFit, 69 F.Supp.3d at 1102. Finally, and significantly, the infringing domain name is not “thedellsrevuelive.com” but rather “thedellslive.com.”

Mr. Kwan had a basis for his assumption that the 722-day infringement period was appropriate for his corrective damages calculation. See Punch Clock, Inc. v. Smart SoftwareDev., 553 F.Supp.2d 1353, 1359 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (“The Court also finds that seven years of corrective advertising is the appropriate measure of damages, due to the fact that Defendant's willful and blatant infringement of Plaintiff's mark and promotion of its own business with that mark has been ongoing for at least that long.”).

Nike, Inc. v. Austin, No. 6:09-cv-796; Louis VuittonMalletier& Oakley, Inc. v. Veit, 211 F.Supp.2d 567, 583 (E.D.Pa.2002); Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. Luban, 282 F.Supp.2d 123, 124-25 (S.D.N.Y.2003) (“The statute ‘does not provide guidelines for courts to use in determining an appropriate award' and is only limited by what ‘the court considers just.'”) (internal citation omitted); see also PetMed Express, Inc., 336 F.Supp.2d at 1217 (citing Tiffany and other cases for the same proposition); Punch Clock, Inc. v. Smart Software Dev., 553 F.Supp.2d 1353, 1357 (S.D.Fla.2008) (same). Many courts look to the Copyright Act's analogous provision, 17 U.S.C. § 504(c), in this situation. See, e.g., Tiffany, 282 F.Supp.2d at 125; Louis Vuitton, 211 F.Supp.2d at 583; Sara Lee Corp. v. Bags of N.Y., Inc., 36 F.Supp.2d 161, 166 (S.D.N.Y.1999).

¶¶ 31-32; see Punch Clock, Inc. v. Smart Software Dev., 553 F.Supp.2d 1353, 1358 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (holding that defendant's ongoing willful infringement of plaintiff s trademark bolstered plaintiffs allegations of defendant's bad faith intent to profit from domain name). Finally, as discussed supra, Plaintiffs “ARCHforensic” mark, which is incorporated in Defendants' “www.archforensics.com” domain name

Courts in this circuit have awarded damages more than the ACPA's statutory minimum in similar cases. See, e.g., Petmed Express, 336 F.Supp.2d at 1222 ($50,000 for each of two infringing domain names); Punch Clock, Inc. v. Smart Software Dev., 553 F.Supp.2d 1353, 1359 (S.D. Fla. 2008) ($100,000 for single infringing domain name); WFTV, Inc. v. Maverik Prod. Ltd. Liab. Co., No. 6:11-cv-1923-Orl-28KRS, 2013 WL 3119461, at *14 (M.D. Fla. June 18, 2013) ($20,000 for single infringing domain name); K.S.R. X-Ray Supplies, Inc., v. Se. X-Ray, Inc., No. 09-81454-Civ, 2010 WL 4317026, at *7 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 25, 2010) ($10,000 for one infringing domain name where no evidence of ongoing wrongful conduct).

See Id. at 1221-22 (awarding $50,000 per domain and $100,000 total); Richemont Int'l SA v. montblanchot.com, 2020 WL 6701932, at *10 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 13, 2020) (awarding $100,000 per domain because of the willful and blatant nature of the infringement); Punch Clock, Inc. v. Smart Software Develop., 553 F.Supp.2d 1353, 1359 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (same). Because Defendant acted in bad faith and the recent trend in this Circuit is to award $100,000 in those circumstances, we find that $100,000 is reasonable and should be awarded to Plaintiff.

com/ domain name or that Under Armour lost significant revenue due to Defendant's conduct. Compare Punch Clock, Inc. v. Smart Software Dev., 553 F. Supp. 2d 1353, 1358-59 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (awarding maximum damages where plaintiff showed significant loss of web site traffic due to defendant's website). Additionally, although the Court has found the https://lifesarmour.

See ECF No. [29] at 24. See Punch Clock, Inc. v. Smart Software Development, 553 F. Supp. 2d 1353, 1359 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (awarding $100,000.00 for the domain name at issue based upon, inter alia, the willful and blatant nature of the infringement in this case). The Court finds that this amount is reasonable and, therefore, awards such damages.

"The Eleventh Circuit has defined an exceptional case as a case that can be characterized as malicious, fraudulent, deliberate, and willful." Punch Clock, Inc. v. Smart Software Dev., 553 F. Supp. 2d 1353, 1359 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (citing Burger King Corp. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp., 15 F.3d 166, 168 (11th Cir. 1994)). In addition, a case may be deemed "exceptional" and merit an award of attorneys' fees under the Lanham Act when the defendant disregards legal proceedings and does not appear.