Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02419/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02419-13/pdf.json

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

---

1

Case No. 14-CV-02419-LHK 

ORDER ADOPTING AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ADOPTING RESPONSE TO 

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO MODIFY PROPOSED JUDGMENT

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 JOSE DIVISION

JEFFREY WILENS,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOE DEFENDANT NO. 1,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-CV-02419-LHK 

ORDER ADOPTING AMENDED 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

AND ADOPTING RESPONSE TO 

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO MODIFY 

PROPOSED JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 72

The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler’s Amended Report and 

Recommendation (the “Amended Report”) to grant Plaintiff Jeffrey Wilens’s (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. 

Wilens”) motion for default judgment. See ECF No. 72. The Amended Report was filed on July 

31, 2015.1 Id. The time for objections has passed, and Defendant Doe 1 (“Defendant” or “Doe 

1”) has not filed any. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). On August 11, 2015, 

Plaintiff filed a Request to Modify Proposed Judgment. ECF No. 74. On August 28, 2015, Judge 

Beeler filed a Response to Plaintiff’s Request to Modify Proposed Judgment. ECF No. 77. For 

 

1

The Amended Report supersedes the original Report and Recommendation filed on April 

28, 2015. ECF No. 67.

Case 5:14-cv-02419-LHK Document 79 Filed 09/18/15 Page 1 of 5
2

Case No. 14-CV-02419-LHK 

ORDER ADOPTING AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ADOPTING RESPONSE TO 

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO MODIFY PROPOSED JUDGMENT

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

the reasons stated below, the Court hereby ADOPTS Judge Beeler’s Amended Report and Judge 

Beeler’s Response to Plaintiff’s Request to Modify Proposed Judgment.

Plaintiff is an attorney who runs a law firm called Lakeshore Law Center. Amended 

Report at 1. Plaintiff brought this suit against Doe 1 for trademark infringement, cybersquatting in 

violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”), and defamation after 

Doe 1 registered domain names with variants of Plaintiff’s name and the name of his law firm. Id. 

These domain names hosted websites that presented objectively false allegations about Plaintiff

and his law firm. See id. at 4. In addition to suing Doe 1, Plaintiff had also originally sued 

Automattic, Inc. (“Automattic”), Google, Inc. (“Google”), and TLDS LLC (“TLDS”) for their 

roles in hosting Doe 1’s websites. Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff subsequently amended his complaint to 

dismiss Automattic, Google, and TLDS, and to proceed only against Doe 1. Id. Judge Beeler 

granted Plaintiff leave to serve Doe 1 by email, as Plaintiff was in constant communication with 

Doe 1 via email. Id. at 8-9. Despite having been served with notice of Plaintiff’s amended 

complaint, Doe 1 neither appeared nor filed an answer. Accordingly, on March 3, 2015, the Clerk 

entered default against Doe 1. ECF No. 57.

On March 15, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment against Doe 1. ECF No. 

58. Judge Beeler directed Plaintiff to serve Doe 1 with the motion by email, and Plaintiff filed his 

proof of service. ECF No. 59. Doe 1 again failed to oppose or appear at the April 23, 2015 

hearing on the motion for default judgment. The April 23, 2015 hearing spanned nearly fifty 

minutes, during which time Judge Beeler ordered Plaintiff to file a supplemental declaration 

addressing some of Judge Beeler’s questions, ECF No. 63, which Plaintiff did, ECF No. 64.

On July 31, 2015, Judge Beeler issued a comprehensive, 37-page Amended Report 

recommending (1) that the Clerk reassign the case to an Article III judge because Doe 1 never 

consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, see Amended Report at 2; and (2) that the newly 

assigned Article III judge grant Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment, see id. at 37. 

Specifically, Judge Beeler concluded that this Court has jurisdiction over Doe 1, id. at 12-15; 

Case 5:14-cv-02419-LHK Document 79 Filed 09/18/15 Page 2 of 5
3

Case No. 14-CV-02419-LHK 

ORDER ADOPTING AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ADOPTING RESPONSE TO 

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO MODIFY PROPOSED JUDGMENT

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

Plaintiff’s trademark claims fail because Plaintiff is unable to establish Doe 1’s commercial use, 

id. at 16-20; Plaintiff’s ACPA and defamation claims (neither of which contain a commercial use 

element) are supported in fact and law, id. at 20-25; the remaining factors support default 

judgment, id. at 25-26; equitable and injunctive relief are warranted, id. at 27-30; and statutory 

damages should be awarded in the amount of $20,000 plus costs, rather than the $100,000 plus 

costs sought by Plaintiff, id. at 30-37.

On August 11, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Request to Modify Proposed Judgment requesting 

changes to Judge Beeler’s recommended injunctive relief language. ECF No. 74. Plaintiff did so 

because, according to Plaintiff, Defendant has continued to publish and register domain names 

using variants of “Jeffrey Wilens” and “Lakeshore Law.” For example, Plaintiff says, Defendant 

published and registered “www.jeffrey-wilens.com” on July 29, 2015, id. ¶ 4, and 

“www.jeffreywilensscams.com” on August 7, 2015, id. ¶ 8. In total, Plaintiff identified four new 

websites Defendant allegedly created: 

 jeffrey-wilens.com

 jeffreywilensscams.com

 jeffreywilens2.wordpress.com

 lakeshorelawcenterscam.wordpress.com

Plaintiff proposed these changes “to make it clear that this order can be served on persons 

facilitating the cybersquatting or misuse of the domain names or reasonable variations thereof.” 

Id. at 2.

On August 19, 2015, the Court requested that Judge Beeler issue a response, if she so 

wished, to Plaintiff’s Request to Modify Proposed Judgment. ECF No. 76. Judge Beeler issued a 

response on August 28, 2015. ECF No. 77. In her response, Judge Beeler agreed that “[t]he first 

three sites can be added to the judgment.” Id. at 3. Judge Beeler rejected Plaintiff’s request to add 

the fourth site, www.lakeshorelawcenterscam.wordpress.com, because Plaintiff said nothing about 

the content of that site. Id. Further, Judge Beeler rejected Plaintiff’s proposal requiring the 

Case 5:14-cv-02419-LHK Document 79 Filed 09/18/15 Page 3 of 5
4

Case No. 14-CV-02419-LHK 

ORDER ADOPTING AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ADOPTING RESPONSE TO 

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO MODIFY PROPOSED JUDGMENT

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

cancellation or transfer to Plaintiff of “any domain or website address” that contains the marks 

JEFFREY WILEN or LAKESHORE LAW CENTER (or variations on them). Id. Judge Beeler 

did so because such relief, in her view, would be “too broad.” Id. “An injunction,” Judge Beeler 

explained, “must be tailored to the harm by the identified defendant, Doe 1,” and “[a]llowing the 

future transfer of any and all domain names with the marks . . . could reach conduct beyond Doe 

1’s conduct, including conduct that might not be cybersquatting (such as a gripe site where there is 

‘no bad faith intent to profit’).” Id. at 3-4.

The Court agrees with Judge Beeler. Although the Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff’s 

circumstances, requiring the cancellation or transfer to Plaintiff of “any domain or website 

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

variations thereof) would be too broad. Injunctive relief must be tailored to the harm by the 

identified defendant, Doe 1.

Subsequent to Judge Beeler’s response, Plaintiff filed a supplemental brief containing 

additional proposals for amending the proposed judgment on August 29, 2015. ECF No. 78. The 

Court finds that these proposals, framed as “additional safeguards,” are unnecessary and would be 

overly burdensome. Id. at 4-5. The Court also finds that the proposed judgment included in Judge 

Beeler’s Amended Report, which “enjoins Doe 1’s cybersquatting on domains that contain the 

marks JEFFREY WILENS or LAKESHORE LAW CENTER,” and “orders the cancellation or 

transfer to Plaintiff” of “domain names” that Plaintiff has shown were registered by Doe 1,

Amended Report at 36-37, is sufficiently tailored and provides Plaintiff adequate relief.

Thus, having reviewed Judge Beeler’s Amended Report and Response to Plaintiff’s 

Request to Modify Proposed Judgment, the Court concludes that the factual findings and legal 

holdings in those documents are well-founded. Accordingly, the Court adopts Judge Beeler’s 

Amended Report and Response to Plaintiff’s Request to Modify Proposed Judgment, and denies 

Plaintiff’s request to add the fourth website and for “additional safeguards.” Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Default Judgment is hereby GRANTED. The Court enters judgment in favor of Plaintiff on 

Case 5:14-cv-02419-LHK Document 79 Filed 09/18/15 Page 4 of 5
5

Case No. 14-CV-02419-LHK 

ORDER ADOPTING AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ADOPTING RESPONSE TO 

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO MODIFY PROPOSED JUDGMENT

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

Plaintiff’s ACPA and defamation claims and hereby:

1. awards Plaintiff $20,000 in statutory damages, and $1,404 in litigation costs;

2. enjoins Doe 1’s cybersquatting on domains that contain the marks JEFFREY

WILENS or LAKESHORE LAW CENTER;

3. orders the cancellation or transfer to Plaintiff 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

 jeffrey-wilens.com

 jeffreywilensscams.com

 jeffreywilens2.wordpress.com

and;

4. orders Plaintiff to serve this Order on Doe 1 by email.

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 18, 2015 _______________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-02419-LHK Document 79 Filed 09/18/15 Page 5 of 5