Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-07093/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-07093-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MOHAMMAD MUKATI, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

JOHN DOE, ET AL., 

Defendants.

CASE NO. 17-cv-07093-YGR 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED 

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 

ORDER; ADVANCING CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE

Re: Dkt. No. 16 

The Court is in receipt of plaintiff’s supplemental filing in support of his renewed motion 

for a temporary restraining order. (Dkt. No. 19 (“Supplemental Filing”); Dkt. No. 16 (“Renewed 

TRO Motion”).) The filing was made in response to the Court’s order requesting plaintiff to 

submit proof of ownership regarding the domain names at issue in this case (the “Domain 

Names”), namely copies of “‘receipts for buying the domains, the cloudflare accounts and the 

google analytics . . . with respect to each and every domain name at issue in plaintiff’s Renewed 

TRO Motion . . . .’” (Dkt. No. 17 (quoting Dkt. No. 16-4 at ECF 73).) The Court also specifically 

ordered that the evidence “be organized by domain name.” (Id.) 

Despite the Court’s order, plaintiff appears to have produced a massive data dump which is 

not organized in any coherent manner.1

 In certain instances, the information does not even pertain 

 1

 Plaintiff’s domain name index was apparently provided to the Court in an attempt to 

organize the produced evidence. (See Supplemental Filing at ECF 505–12.) Aside from failing to 

list the Domain Names in any logical order (let alone alphabetical order), the index directs the 

Court to page numbers that are often wrong. For example, the index represents to the Court that 

the domain name successfultrucking.com appears on Bates page 000001. (See Supplemental 

Filing at ECF 511.) However, that page provides no information regarding 

successfultrucking.com. Rather, it pertains to the domain name brassygal.com, which is not even 

at issue in the underlying action. (See id. at ECF 6.) As another example, the index represents to 

the Court that the domain name 123-movies.tv appears on Bates page 000474. (See id. at ECF 

509.) However, that page displays a PayPal receipt seemingly unrelated to 123-movies.tv. (Id. at 

ECF 479.) 

Case 4:17-cv-07093-YGR Document 20 Filed 01/17/18 Page 1 of 2
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

to plaintiff’s ownership as of the date Defendant Doe (“defendant”) allegedly took control over the 

Domain Names.2

It is not the Court’s task to scour the disorganized record to discern plaintiff’s ownership 

over the Domain Names, or lack thereof, on the relevant date. Rather, the onus is on plaintiff to 

do so. In light of the numerous deficiencies with respect to the factual record, the Court DENIES

plaintiff’s Renewed TRO Motion. 

Accordingly, the Court ADVANCES the case management conference currently set for 

March 19, 2018 to January 29, 2018 on the Court’s 2:00 p.m. calendar, in the Federal 

Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California, Courtroom 1. Because defendant’s identity is 

unknown, plaintiff is not required to file a case management statement in advance of the 

conference. 

This Order terminates Docket Number 16. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 17, 2018 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

 2

 For example, the index represents to the Court that the domain name frenchseries.com 

appears on Bates page 000132. (See Supplemental Filing at ECF 507.) While that page in fact 

shows a domain renewal for that domain name, it indicates that the 1-year renewal would have 

expired as of February 25, 2017, far before defendant allegedly took control over the Domain 

Names. 

Case 4:17-cv-07093-YGR Document 20 Filed 01/17/18 Page 2 of 2