Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02419/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02419-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:44 Trademark Infringement

---

RESPONSE (No. 14-cv-02419-LHK) 

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 California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

San Francisco Division 

JEFFREY WILENS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DOE DEFENDANT NO. 1, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 14-cv-02419-LHK 

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST TO MODIFY PROPOSED 

JUDGMENT 

[RE: ECF Nos. 74, 76] 

INTRODUCTION 

The plaintiff Jeffrey Wilens ̶ an attorney who runs a law firm called Lakeshore Law Center ̶ 

sued Doe 1 for trademark infringement, cybersquatting, and defamation after Doe 1 registered 

domain names with variants of “Jeffrey Wilens” and “Lakeshore Law” and thereafter allegedly 

defamed Mr. Wilens and his law firm on the websites with those domain names. (See First 

Amended Complaint, ECF No. 23.)1

 The undersigned previously recommended that the district 

judge issue a judgment that included injunctive relief on the cybersquatting claim under the 

Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”). (Amended Report and Recommendation, 

ECF No. 72.) Mr. Wilens submitted comments asking for broader injunctive relief. (Comments, 

ECF No. 74.) In response to the district judge’s request (see ECF No. 76), the undersigned issues 

 

1

 Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pin cites are to the ECF-generated page 

numbers at the tops of the documents. 

Case 5:14-cv-02419-LHK Document 77 Filed 08/28/15 Page 1 of 4
2 

RESPONSE (No. 14-cv-02419-LHK) 

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 California 

this response to Mr. Wilens’s comments and suggests adding three sites to the judgment. 

STATEMENT 

The report and recommendation proposes that the district judge grant Mr. Wilens’s motion for 

default judgment and (1) award him $20,000 in statutory damages and $1,404 in litigation costs, 

(2) enjoin Doe 1’s cybersquatting on domains that contain the marks JEFFREY WILENS or 

LAKESHORE LAW CENTER, and (3) order the cancellation or transfer to Mr. Wilens of the 

following domain names: 

 jeffreywilens.com  lakeshorelawcenter.com  jeffreywilens.blogspot.com  lakeshorelawcenter.wordpress.com  attorneyjeffreywilens.wordpress.com  jeffreywilenslawyer.wordpress.com  unitedvictimsofjeffreywilens.wordpress.com  jeffreywilenslakeshorelaw.wordpress.com  jeffrey-wilens.blogspot.com 

(Amended Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 72 at 36-37.) 

 Mr. Wilens asks the Court to also specify that any domain registrar, hosting company, or ISP 

must cancel and transfer to him “any domain or website address” that contains the marks 

JEFFREY WILEN or LAKESHORE LAW CENTER (or variations on them by use of punctuation 

such as underscores or hyphens) even if they are not listed in the Amended Report and 

Recommendation. (Comments, ECF No. 74 at 2-3.) He wants the extra language so that he can 

obtain the cancellation and transfer to him of other domain names or website addresses that he 

identifies in the future. (Id.) 

In a declaration, he identifies four new sites that he discovered recently: 

 

 jeffrey-wilens.com 

 jeffreywilensscams.com 

 jeffreywilens2.wordpress.com 

 www.lakeshorelawcenterscam.wordpress.com 

 

(Wilens Decl., ECF No. 74 at 6-7, ¶¶ 4, 6, 8-9; Errata, ECF No. 75 at 1-2.) The first site has 

Case 5:14-cv-02419-LHK Document 77 Filed 08/28/15 Page 2 of 4
3 

RESPONSE (No. 14-cv-02419-LHK) 

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 California 

contents that are “identical” to those on jeffreywilens.com. (Wilens Decl., ECF No. 74 at 6, ¶ 4.) 

The second “republished some of the same information” from jeffrey-wilens.com. (Id. ¶ 6.) The 

third contains “the same content as the previously shut down Wordpress blogs.” (Id. ¶ 8.) The 

fourth is described as another website by Doe 1. (Id. ¶ 9.) The domain registrar suspended the first 

site but will not transfer the domain to Mr. Wilens without a court order, and the host of the third 

website suspended the third site but it took 10 days for that to happen. (Id. ¶¶ 5, 8.) Mr. Wilens is 

waiting for responses regarding the second and fourth websites. (Id. ¶¶ 7, 9.) 

ANALYSIS 

Mr. Wilens submitted a declaration establishing the four new sites. (See Statement.) For the 

first three sites, Mr. Wilens’s declaration establishes the same offending content. His declaration 

says nothing about the content of the fourth site. 

The first three sites can be added to the judgment. The undersigned’s Amended Report and 

Recommendation analyzed why they can be added: they contain the same defamatory content, and 

the complaint gives fair notice of the injunctive relief sought, defined not just as the transfer of the 

domain names and website addresses in the complaint but more specifically as the enjoining of 

Doe 1’s conduct. (See Amended Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 72 at 28:20-29:7.) 

Mr. Wilens says nothing about the content of the fourth site, though, and he cites no authority 

to support his proposed language requiring the cancellation or transfer to him of “any domain or 

website address” that contains the marks JEFFREY WILEN or LAKESHORE LAW CENTER (or 

variations on them). The undersigned’s view is that the relief he requests is too broad. 

An injunction must be tailored to the harm by the identified defendant, Doe 1. The proposed 

injunction here does: it enjoins Doe 1 from cybersquatting with Mr. Wilens’s marks, and it 

transfers the domain names that Mr. Wilens showed were registered by Doe 1. That is the most 

that the court can order. See Chanel, Inc. v. Lin, No. C-09-04996-JCS, 2010 WL 2557503, at *12 

(N.D. Cal. May 7, 2010) (recommending transfer of domain names where the plaintiff provided 

evidence tying the defendants to the domain names), adopted, C-09-04996-SI, 2010 WL 2557561 

(N.D. Cal. June 21, 2010). Allowing the future transfer of any and all domain names with the 

marks is too broad because it could reach conduct beyond Doe 1’s conduct, including conduct that 

Case 5:14-cv-02419-LHK Document 77 Filed 08/28/15 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

RE

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 

mig

sam

dec

the

reg

Put

reli

tran

ESPONSE (N

ght not be cy

me is true for

claration doe

e representati

For future s

gistrars, web 

t another wa

ief from Aut

The follow

nsferred to M







DATED: 

No. 14-cv-02

ybersquattin

r the fourth s

es not establi

ion that it is 

sites that Mr

hosting com

ay, Mr. Wile

tomattic or f

wing domain 

Mr. Wilens: 

jeffrey-wile

jeffreywilen

jeffreywilen

August 28, 2

2419-LHK) 

ng (such as a 

site: perhaps

ish that (and

a blog by D

r. Wilens ide

mpanies, and

ns may rely 

from other pr

names may 

ens.com 

nsscams.com

ns2.wordpres

2015 

gripe site w

s it contains 

d the undersi

Doe 1). 

entifies, he c

d ISPs to sho

on the court

roviders for 

CONCLU

be added to 

m

ss.com 

_____

LAUR

Unite

where there is

the defamat

igned is unw

can send the j

ow that the c

t’s injunction

future sites 

USION 

the list of do

__________

REL BEELE

ed States Ma

s “no bad fai

tory content,

willing to sur

judgment an

ourt has enjo

n against Do

that he ident

omain name

___________

ER 

agistrate Judg

ith intent to 

, but Mr. Wi

rmise it based

nd order to d

oined Doe 1

oe 1 to obtain

tifies. 

es to be canc

__________

ge 

4

profit”). The

lens’s 

d only on 

domain 

’s conduct. 

n further 

elled or 

______ 

4

e

Case 5:14-cv-02419-LHK Document 77 Filed 08/28/15 Page 4 of 4