Plaintiff sold products under the mark MULTISORB TECHNOLOGIES and the domain name “multisorb.com.” Defendant, a direct competitor of plaintiff, registered the domain name “multisorbtechnologies.com,” which redirected users to defendant’s competing website. Plaintiff filed suit for infringement and cybersquatting, among other claims. Defendant neither filed an answer to the complaint nor responded to plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The court granted plaintiff’s motion on its claim for infringement under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. The court based its decision primarily on its findings that plaintiff’s mark was arbitrary and strong, that defendant’s domain name and plaintiff’s mark were almost identical, and that the parties offered competing products. The defendant’s bad faith and the quality of defendant’s products also weighed in favor of plaintiff but to a lesser extent. The court held that the remaining factors were irrelevant. It deemed the actual-confusion factor irrelevant because the Lanham Act required only a likelihood of confusion, and it found the sophistication-of-the-purchasers factor irrelevant because even a sophisticated purchaser could not overcome the “extreme similarity” between the parties’ domain names.