1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

IN AND FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA MOTOR SALES, INC.,

a Florida Corporation, d/b/a

BOB TYLER TOYOTA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

EASTERN SHORE TOYOTA, LLC., 

An Alabama Limited Liability Company, 

DAPHNE AUTOMOTIVE, LLC.,

An Alabama Limited Liability Company, 

DAPHNE ENTERPRISES, INC.,

An Alabama corporation, and 

SHAWN ESFAHANI,

An individual,

Defendants. 

_____________________________________/

COMPLAINT FOR CYBERSQUATTING

AND RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION

COMES NOW, Plaintiff, Pensacola Motor Sales, Inc., (“Plaintiff” or “BOB 

TYLER”) by and through its attorneys hereby files a complaint against Defendants

Eastern Shore Toyota, LLC. (“EASTERN SHORE”), Daphne Automotive, LLC. 

(“DAPHNE AUTOMOTIVE”), Daphne Enterprises, Inc. (“DAPHNE ENTERPRISES”), 

Shawn Esfahani, (“ESFAHANI”) and Does 1- 10 for their blatant cybersquatting of 

Plaintiff’s Distinctive Trademark and related infringing and deceptive activities.

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 1 Filed 12/28/09 Page 1 of 23
2

And as support for this Complaint, Plaintiff offers the following allegations:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) 

as the Plaintiff’s cause of action arises under The Federal Trademark Act 

(“The Lanham Act of 1946”), 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et. seq. Further, this Court has 

jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s pendent and common law claims pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1367. 

2. Venue is proper within this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1400(a) and 

1391(b).

THE PARTIES

3. Plaintiff PENSACOLA MOTOR SALES, INC., d/b/a BOB TYLER TOYOTA, INC., 

is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State 

Florida, and has a principal place of business at 7201 N. Pensacola Boulevard, 

Pensacola, Florida 32505. 

4. Defendant Eastern Shore Toyota, LLC is a limited liability corporation duly 

organized and existing under the laws of the State of Alabama, and has a 

principal place of business at 29732 Frederick Blvd., Daphne, Alabama 

36526. 

5. Defendant Daphne Automotive, LLC., is a limited liability corporation duly 

organized and existing under the laws of the State of Alabama, and has a 

principal place of business at 29732 Frederick Blvd., Daphne, Alabama 

36526. 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 1 Filed 12/28/09 Page 2 of 23
3

6. Defendant Daphne Enterprises, Inc., is a corporation duly organized and 

existing under the laws of the State of Alabama, and has a principal place of 

business at 29732 Frederick Blvd., Daphne, Alabama 36526. 

7. Defendant Shawn Esfahani is an individual and upon information and belief 

is a principal with all of the named corporate defendants. Upon information 

and belief, Mr. Esfahani can be found at his principal place of business at 

29732 Frederick Blvd., Daphne, Alabama 36526. 

8. DOES 1-10 are persons and/or entities that are assisting the Defendants, or 

otherwise are liable for infringement of Plaintiff’s intellectual property 

rights, either directly or contributorily. Such DOES may include, but are not 

limited to: employees or business partners of Defendants, contract workers 

such as web designers or other persons or entities involved in the 

registration, use, and/or trafficking of the subject domain names. Once these 

Defendants’ true identity are known, the Plaintiff will amend this lawsuit and 

add the JOHN DOE Defendants’ true and correct names.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

9. BOB TYLER TOYOTA is a leader in the automotive sales industry and has 

been in business since 1997. 

10. Since 1997, BOB TYLER TOYOTA has grown to over 200 employees in sales, 

parts, service, Toyota Certified collision center, administration, detail, and 

other departments. As such, BOB TYLER TOYOTA is a major employer in the 

community. 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 1 Filed 12/28/09 Page 3 of 23
4

11. The BOB TYLER TOYOTA way of doing business includes 100% customer 

satisfaction in all areas. The company spends a considerable amount of time 

and money in conducting customer surveys after the sales or service

experience is completed after each contact with the dealership. The 

customer surveys are just one method in which BOB TYLER TOYOTA 

protects and polices its image, trademarks, and the goods/services which are 

offered under such trademarks. 

12. Bob Tyler, the founder of BOB TYLER TOYOTA is involved in all areas of the 

dealership each day. He is a long-time Pensacola resident with considerable 

ties to the community. For instance, Bob Tyler and BOB TYLER TOYOTA are 

involved in many civic activities which, give back to Pensacola and 

surrounding communities. Mr. Tyler supports many youth sports leagues, 

community art activities, and other neighborhood festivals throughout the 

year. Many of the staff are also involved in various civic and church 

activities, and are encouraged by Mr. Tyler to participate in their 

communities in a number of ways.

13. Automotive sales and repair services (and related goods and services) 

offered by BOB TYLER TOYOTA have been marketed and sold by BOB TYLER 

TOYOTA by way of extensive advertising in traditional media outlets as well 

as online via the Internet. 

14. For instance, BOB TYLER TOYOTA has, since at least 1998, owned and 

maintained the domain http://www.bobtylertoyota.com. Plaintiff also owns 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 1 Filed 12/28/09 Page 4 of 23
5

and operates http://www.bobtylerscion.com. The Internet presence of BOB 

TYLER TOYOTA is invaluable to the success of BOB TYLER TOYOTA’s 

business. Since long prior to the acts complained of herein, BOB TYLER 

TOYOTA has maintained an Internet Sales Department which specifically 

responds to and services customer inquiries that originate via the Internet. 

15. The Internet advertising and sales channel has become invaluable to the 

automotive sales industry. It is estimated that a large percentage of BOB 

TYLER TOYOTA’s sales leads originate from consumer searches of the 

Internet. 

16. All of BOB TYLER TOYOTO’s services are advertised with the “BOB TYLER” 

trademarks. The trademark “BOB TYLER” is prominently affixed to the 

dealership building and accompanying signs. The trademark is also 

prominently displayed in connection with all advertising of the BOB TYLER 

TOYOTA dealership, wherever it may appear. 

17. The Plaintiff’s trademarks are fully protectable under the common law and 

the Lanham Act in so much as they have become distinctive through 

extensive use in United States commerce. 

18. Plaintiff’s distinctive trademarks which include “BOB TYLER” when applied 

to the advertising of services signify to the purchaser that the services are 

rendered from BOB TYLER TOYOTA and are rendered in the highest quality.

BOB TYLER TOYOTA takes great pride and care to insure that its services are 

rendered in the highest standard in the industry. BOB TYLER TOYOTA’s 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 1 Filed 12/28/09 Page 5 of 23
6

“BOB TYLER” branded services have been widely accepted by the public for 

over 13 years and are hugely popular as evident by the financial success 

enjoyed by BOB TYLER TOYOTA. 

19. Plaintiff’s “BOB TYLER” trademarks are inherently distinctive and have been 

since Plaintiff’s first creation and use of the trademarks in Interstate 

Commerce at least as early as 1997. 

20. It is common for businesses to purchase domains which contain the 

trademark of their successful products or services in order to facilitate 

consumers’ search for the products or services. BOB TYLER TOYOTA has an 

active Internet presence which includes the operation of certain domains 

which include the “BOB TYLER” trademark, the tracking of Internet traffic to 

such websites, and generally the promotion of the “BOB TYLER” trademarks 

in the online marketplace. 

21. Plaintiff has created, by either its employees, or by contracted authors 

original visual and textual content which is displayed at Plaintiff’s websites

and is utilized for the purpose of marketing Plaintiff’s “BOB TYLER” services.

Plaintiff, therefore, is the copyright author and claimant of all original 

content appearing on Plaintiff’s websites as well as supporting marketing 

material such as television commercials, brochures, and the like.

22. Plaintiff advertises its services in a variety of channels including: direct 

marketing, direct mail print media, radio, television, and via its websites. 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 1 Filed 12/28/09 Page 6 of 23
7

23. Since its first offering of its automotive sales services utilizing the “BOB 

TYLER” trademark, BOB TYLER TOYOTA has expended considerable 

financial resources in the development and promotion of the trademarks in 

traditional media and online media. It is estimated that BOB TYLER TOYOTA 

has spent millions of dollars in the promotion of the “BOB TYLER” trademark 

throughout Florida, the surrounding region, and beyond. 

24. It follows that through extensive advertising and supporting excellent 

service, BOB TYLER TOYOTA has, over time, developed substantial goodwill 

in the “BOB TYLER” trademarks in the minds of the consuming public.

25. Any unauthorized use of the “BOB TYLER” trademarks will and is causing

inestimable harm to BOB TYLER TOYOTA. 

THE DEFENDANTS’ SCHEME AND INFRINGING CONDUCT

26. On August 28, 2009, Defendants registered the infringing domains, namely,

http://www.bobtylersuzukiquotes.com, http://www.bobtylerprices.com, 

http://www.bobtylertotyotaprices.com, http://www.bobtylerquotes.com, 

http://www.bobtylertoyotapreowned.com, 

http://www.bobtylertoyotainventory.com, These domains include Plaintiff’s 

inherently distinctive trademark “BOB TYLER”. Defendants’ mere addition of 

the descriptive wording “quotes,” “prices,” “pre-owned,” and “inventory” to 

the domains does not absolve them of liability under the Anti-Cybersquatting 

Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”). The Registrants of the domains 

registered the domains after Plaintiff’s trademark became distinctive. Based 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 1 Filed 12/28/09 Page 7 of 23
8

upon the clear facts surrounding Defendants’ activities alleged herein, these 

Defendants registered the domains in bad faith as that term of art is 

understood and interpreted under the ACPA. Such bad faith registration was 

done with the intention to profit from same. 

27. Each of the infringing domains, namely 

http://www.bobtylersuzukiquotes.com, http://www.bobtylerprices.com, 

http://www.bobtylertotyotaprices.com, http://www.bobtylerquotes.com, 

http://www.bobtylertoyotapreowned.com, 

http://www.bobtylertoyotainventory.com were active immediately after 

registration. Only recently did the Defendants cause the domains to be 

temporarily inactive. Upon information and belief, Defendants populated 

these domains with the infringing content and offers to provide automotive 

retail services under the “BOB TYLER” trademark with the intent to misdirect 

Internet traffic to Defendants’ competing automotive sales business in a 

neighboring community. 

28. The content found at these websites (prior to their recent and temporary 

disabling) was a direct and slavish copy of Plaintiff’s original visual and 

textual content. 

29. Worse still, on each of these websites Defendants maintained a credit 

application form which was accessible via a hyperlink. Thus, consumers who 

mistakenly thought that they were on a website maintained and associated 

with BOB TYLER TOYOTA were induced to type-in their nonCase 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 1 Filed 12/28/09 Page 8 of 23
9

public/confidential financial information so that Defendants could evaluate 

their credit-worthiness for consideration of automotive loans. Based upon 

this, Defendants gained at least two valuable categories of information: (1) 

Defendants gained private financial information from customers that were 

deceived into believing they were offering such information to BOB TYLER 

TOYOTA; and (2) Defendants gained key traffic information of persons 

interested in purchasing an automobile from Plaintiff. For instance, even the 

most basic of Internet traffic reports will report information of persons that 

access the subject domains such as (1) time of access; (2) geographical 

location of access; (3) time spent on the domains; (4) tracking of where the 

customer clicked on the website (such information is valuable to determine 

what information is of most interest to a prospective customer); (5) tracking 

of whether a particular potential customer returned to the domains; (6) 

keywords used by the Internet searcher which led them to the subjecting 

infringing domains/websites; (7) and other key information that would 

assist marketers in evaluating the effectiveness of their websites and help 

shape and determine their marketing strategies. In essence, Defendants 

intentionally and willfully disguised themselves and deceived the public to 

believe that they were entering into a genuine website that was/is owned, 

controlled, maintained, or otherwise authorized by BOB TYLER TOYOTA. 

30. Upon information and belief, Defendant ESFAHANI is the principal behind all 

of the corporate Defendants and is the moving force behind the unlawful 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 1 Filed 12/28/09 Page 9 of 23
10

trade practices alleged herein. As the moving force for such unlawful 

activities, Defendant ESFAHANI is subject to liability for all of the acts 

complained of herein. 

31. Defendants offered their competing automotive sales services with a mark 

that is identical to Plaintiff’s trademark. 

32. The services offered by BOB TYLER TOYOTA and Defendants under the “BOB 

TYLER” trademark are identical.

33. BOB TYLER TOYOTA and the Defendants are direct competitors in the 

automotive sales arena, both in the online marketplace and geographically. 

34. BOB TYLER TOYOTA has priority of use in the United States of the subject 

trademark. Defendants’ use of the mark is junior and is thus an infringing 

use. 

35. Defendants’ use of the trademark is likely to cause consumer confusion.

There is not only a likelihood of confusion, but it is highly probable that the 

public will find Defendants’ “BOB TYLER” trademark confusingly similar to 

Plaintiff’s “BOB TYLER” trademark. 

36. Defendants are offering their infringing services in an identical trade channel 

as Plaintiff, namely via Internet sales. 

37. Defendants are advertising their infringing services in a manner that is 

identical to BOB TYLER TOYOTA’s advertising, namely via the Internet.

38. Defendants are intentionally seeking to profit from the goodwill associated 

with BOB TYLER TOYOTA and BOB TYLER TOYOTA’s services. Defendants’

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 1 Filed 12/28/09 Page 10 of 23
11

actions constitute willful violations of BOB TYLER TOYOTA’s intellectual 

property rights. Such intent is exhibited by Defendants’ slavish copying of 

elements of Plaintiff’s website and services and Defendant’s deceptive credit 

application as found on the subject websites. 

39. BOB TYLER TOYOTA is aware of instances of actual confusion in the 

marketplace. While some cases of trademark infringement require close 

calls in evaluating whether there is a likelihood of confusion, Defendants’ 

activities are a blatant and slavish copying of Plaintiff’s trademarks, websites, 

and manner of doing business.

40. BOB TYLER TOYOTA has been damaged and will continue to suffer actual 

damages if Defendants’ egregious activities are not restrained and punished 

by this Court. The fact that Defendants may have temporarily disabled or 

deactivated the subject domains is of no import. They must be permanently

enjoined to avoid future confusion and damage to BOB TYLER TOYOTA. To 

the extent that Defendants will attempt to escape liability by transferring, 

locking, or otherwise abandoning the subject domains, this Court should still 

find that violations of the ACPA have occurred in so much as the statute finds 

liability for “registration, use, and/or trafficking” in domains which contain 

the distinctive trademark of another with the bad faith intent to profit from 

same. There is no safe harbor in the statute under the facts of this case. 

41. Defendants have willfully sought to obtain private financial information from 

potential customers (some of which may have in fact ultimately purchased 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 1 Filed 12/28/09 Page 11 of 23
12

automobiles from Defendants) that were fraudulently induced to enter such 

information within the subject domains. Since the subject domains 

contained BOB TYLER TOYOTA’s trademark “BOB TYLER” it stands to reason 

that such consumers believed that they were offering and submitting their 

private financial information to BOB TYLER TOYOTA. Such initial interest 

confusion has caused harm. Defendants have illegally benefited monetarily 

from their scheme and other violations of Plaintiff’s intellectual property. 

Defendants have been unjust enriched by this scheme. 

42. Defendants, JOHN DOES 1-10, are persons who contributed to or were 

otherwise the moving force behind the registration, use, and/or trafficking of 

the subject domains and the other complained of activities. Upon 

information and belief, such other individuals and entities are found in this 

United States District. 

43. Only after demand was sent did Defendants take down the content from the 

infringing domains and temporarily disable the subject domains. These 

actions do not absolve the Defendants from liability since the ACPA finds 

liability for those who register, use, and/or traffic in domains that contain a 

distinctive trademark. The fact that Defendants may have temporarily 

disabled the content is of no import. BOB TYLER TOYOTA seeks various 

forms of relief for damages or statutory damages, an injunction, and transfer 

of the subject domains and any other domain that Defendants registered 

which contain Plaintiff’s distinctive trademark. Moreover, BOB TYLER 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 1 Filed 12/28/09 Page 12 of 23
13

TOYOTA seeks a remedy for any sales, or other financial benefit obtained by 

Defendants, as a result of their deceptive use of a credit application on the 

subject websites. 

I. UNFAIR COMPETITION/FALSE ADVERTISING UNDER THE LANHAM ACT

44. BOB TYLER TOYOTA incorporates paragraphs 1 through 43, and brings the 

following claim for unfair competition, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1125, against 

all Defendants.

45. BOB TYLER TOYOTA owns the exclusive trademark rights to the “BOB 

TYLER” trademarks.

46. As a direct result of BOB TYLER TOYOTA’ longstanding use, sales, 

advertising, and marketing, the “BOB TYLER” trademarks have acquired 

secondary and distinctive meaning among the public who have come to 

identify the “BOB TYLER” trademarks with BOB TYLER TOYOTA and its 

products and services.

47. Notwithstanding BOB TYLER TOYOTA’s well known and prior common law 

rights in the “BOB TYLER” trademarks, the Defendants have, with actual 

notice of BOB TYLER TOYOTA’s rights, and long after BOB TYLER TOYOTA 

established its rights in the trademarks adopted and used one or more of the 

“BOB TYLER” trademarks in conjunction with their sale, distribution, offer 

for sale, marketing and advertising of their competing services.

48. Defendants have used one or more of the “BOB TYLER” trademarks without 

authorization from BOB TYLER TOYOTA. Defendants’ use of the “BOB 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 1 Filed 12/28/09 Page 13 of 23
14

TYLER” trademarks in Florida, and interstate commerce, has caused and will 

cause a likelihood of confusion, deception and mistake, in that the buying 

public will conclude that the competing services offered are authorized, 

sponsored, approved or associated with BOB TYLER TOYOTA.

49. Defendants have utilized one or more of the “BOB TYLER” trademarks in 

conjunction with the competing and Infringing Services in an effort to delude 

and confuse the public into believing that the Infringing Services offered by 

Defendants were approved by, or had been authorized and/or sponsored by 

BOB TYLER TOYOTA.

50. The Infringing Services will dilute the goodwill and reputation of BOB TYLER 

TOYOTA.

51. The use of the “BOB TYLER” trademarks in conjunction with the Infringing 

Services, which Infringing Services offered are of an inferior quality to such 

services provided by BOB TYLER TOYOTA, will further dilute the good will 

and reputation of BOB TYLER TOYOTA.

52. The Defendants, by misappropriating and using the “BOB TYLER” 

trademarks in connection with the Infringing Services, are misrepresenting 

and will continue to misrepresent and falsely describe to the general public 

the origin and sponsorship of their services. The Defendants have caused 

such Infringing Services to enter into interstate commerce willfully, with full 

knowledge of the falsity of the designation of their origin and description and 

representation in an effort to mislead the purchasing public into believing 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 1 Filed 12/28/09 Page 14 of 23
15

that Defendants’ Infringing Services are authorized or emanate from BOB 

TYLER TOYOTA. 

53. These acts constitute a violation of §43(a) of The Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 

§1125(a).

54. The Defendants have obtained gains, profits, and advantages as a result of 

their unlawful acts. 

55. Said acts of infringement and unfair competition will cause irreparable injury 

to BOB TYLER TOYOTA if the Defendants are not restrained by the Court 

from further violation of BOB TYLER TOYOTA’ rights, as BOB TYLER TOYOTA 

has no adequate remedy at law.

56. BOB TYLER TOYOTA has suffered damages as a result of the aforesaid acts.

57. The Defendants committed the acts alleged herein intentionally, fraudulently, 

maliciously, willfully, wantonly, and oppressively with the intent to injure 

BOB TYLER TOYOTA and its business, or alternatively, with reckless 

disregard as to the harm their actions would cause BOB TYLER TOYOTA.

II. VIOLATION OF ANTI-CYBERSQUATTING CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

58. BOB TYLER TOYOTA incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 

through 57 of this Complaint.

59. Defendants have registered, trafficked in, and used in interstate commerce 

the domains http://www.bobtylersuzukiquotes.com, 

http://www.bobtylerprices.com, http://www.bobtylertotyotaprices.com, 

http://www.bobtylerquotes.com, 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 1 Filed 12/28/09 Page 15 of 23
16

http://www.bobtylertoyotapreowned.com, 

http://www.bobtylertoyotainventory.com (‘the infringing domains”) without 

the authorization of BOB TYLER TOYOTA with the bad faith intent of 

profiting off the “BOB TYLER” trademarks my misleading or deceiving the 

public into believing that BOB TYLER TOYOTA is associated or affiliated with, 

or sponsors or endorses Defendants, its products or services and websites 

offering competing products or services. Such registration, trafficking, 

and/or use was done after Plaintiff’s BOB TYLER trademark became 

distinctive. 

60. The aforesaid actions constitute cyberpiracy in violation of §43(d) of the 

Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. §1125(d).

61. Defendants unauthorized registration and use (and possible trafficking) of 

the infringing domains has caused, and unless and until restrained, enjoined 

and transferred to BOB TYLER TOYOTA, will continue to cause irreparable 

injury to BOB TYLER TOYOTA and to the goodwill associated with its “BOB 

TYLER” trademarks. BOB TYLER TOYOTA has no adequate remedy at law. 

III. VIOLATION OF FLORIDA UNFAIR COMPETITION

62. Plaintiff BOB TYLER TOYOTA repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 61

of this Complaint.

63. Plaintiff BOB TYLER TOYOTA has expended significant sums of money in 

advertising and marketing products featuring its trademarks, and in creating 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 1 Filed 12/28/09 Page 16 of 23
17

a consumer demand for such products in Florida and elsewhere in the United 

States. Consequently, these products have become widely known and 

accepted.

64. The Defendants have adopted and used one or more of the “BOB TYLER” 

trademarks in conjunction with their sale, distribution, offer for sale, 

marketing and advertising of Infringing Services in Florida, thereby passing 

them off as services authorized or distributed by BOB TYLER TOYOTA.

65. The Defendants have knowingly and willfully appropriated one or more of 

the “BOB TYLER” trademarks in an effort to create an impression that the 

Defendants’ competing services are sanctioned by BOB TYLER TOYOTA in 

order to misappropriate all of the goodwill associated with the “BOB TYLER” 

trademarks. 

66. The Defendants’ acts, as described above, constitute unfair competition and 

will, unless enjoined by this Court, result in the destruction and/or dilution 

of the goodwill of the “BOB TYLER” trademarks and of BOB TYLER TOYOTA’s

valuable property rights to the unjust enrichment of the Defendants.

67. The Infringing Services which were advertised, marketed, offered for sale 

and sold by the Defendants were calculated and likely to deceive and mislead 

the purchasers who paid monies or otherwise offered nonpublic/confidential financial information in the belief that they originate with 

or are authorized by BOB TYLER TOYOTA.

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 1 Filed 12/28/09 Page 17 of 23
18

68. The continued passing off by the Defendants of such unauthorized services as 

if such services originated with or were authorized by BOB TYLER TOYOTA, 

has caused and, unless restrained, will continue to cause serious and 

irreparable injury to BOB TYLER TOYOTA.

69. BOB TYLER TOYOTA has no adequate remedy at law and is suffering 

irreparable harm as a result of the aforesaid actions by the Defendants.

70. BOB TYLER TOYOTA has suffered damages as a result of the aforesaid acts.

71. The Defendants committed the acts alleged herein intentionally, fraudulently, 

maliciously, willfully, wantonly and oppressively with the intent to injure 

BOB TYLER TOYOTA and its business, or alternatively, with reckless 

disregard as to the harm their actions would cause to BOB TYLER TOYOTA.

IV. DILUTION IN VIOLATION OF FLORIDA STATUTE § 495.151

72. BOB TYLER TOYOTA repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 71 of this 

Complaint.

73. The infringing, unauthorized, and unlawful acts of the Defendants as alleged 

above have, and will continue to have, the effect of diluting the distinctive 

quality of the “BOB TYLER” trademarks. Said acts constitute an unlawful 

dilution of BOB TYLER TOYOTA’ rights at common law and under the Florida 

Anti-Dilution Statute, Fla.Stat. §495.151.

74. The Defendants’ commercial exploitation of the “BOB TYLER” trademarks in 

conjunction with the offering of the Infringing Services will cause confusion 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 1 Filed 12/28/09 Page 18 of 23
19

in the marketplace regarding the sponsorship and origin of such services and 

will tarnish BOB TYLER TOYOTA’s reputation in the marketplace.

75. BOB TYLER TOYOTA has no adequate remedy at law and has suffered 

irreparable harm and damage as a result of the Defendants’ acts. BOB TYLER 

TOYOTA will continue to suffer irreparable harm and damage as a result of 

Defendants’ acts unless injunctive relief is granted as requested. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff BOB TYLER TOYOTA demands a Preliminary 

Injunction, and consistent with that, entry of a judgment against each and every 

Defendant as follows:

1. Permanent injunctive relief restraining each Defendant, its officers, agents, 

servants, employees and attorneys, and all those in active concert or 

participation with them, from:

a. further infringing the “BOB TYLER” trademarks by distributing, circulating, 

marketing, offering for sale, advertising, promoting, displaying or otherwise 

offering any services or products not authorized by BOB TYLER TOYOTA, 

including but not limited to “automotive retail services” and related goods 

and services and supporting materials (whether in print or in electronic 

form) bearing any simulation, reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable 

imitation of any of the “BOB TYLER” trademarks. 

b. using any simulation, reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation 

of any of the “BOB TYLER” trademarks in connection with the promotion, 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 1 Filed 12/28/09 Page 19 of 23
20

advertisement, display, sale, offer for sale, circulation or distribution of any 

services not authorized by BOB TYLER TOYOTA in such a fashion as to relate 

or connect, or tend to relate or connect, such services in any way with BOB 

TYLER TOYOTA or any services offered for sale, sponsored or approved by, 

or connected with BOB TYLER TOYOTA.

c. making any statement or representation whatsoever, or using any false 

designation of origin or false description, or performing any act, which can or 

is likely to lead the trade or public, or individual members thereof, to believe 

that any services offered for sale by the Defendants are in any manner 

associated or connected with Plaintiff BOB TYLER TOYOTA. 

d. engaging in any other activity constituting unfair competition with BOB 

TYLER TOYOTA, or constituting an infringement of any of the BOB TYLER 

TOYOTA trademarks or of BOB TYLER TOYOTA’s rights in, or to use or to 

exploit, said trademarks, or constituting any dilution of any of BOB TYLER 

TOYOTA’s names, reputation, or good will;

e. effecting assignments or transfers, forming new entities or association or

utilizing any other device for the purpose of circumventing or otherwise 

avoiding the prohibitions set forth in Subparagraphs (a) through (d);

f. secreting, destroying altering, removing or otherwise dealing with the 

unauthorized Infringing domains or associated goods/services or any books 

or records which may contain any information relating to the selling, 

marketing, offering for sale, advertising, promoting or displaying of all 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 1 Filed 12/28/09 Page 20 of 23
21

unauthorized services which infringe any of BOB TYLER TOYOTA’ “BOB 

TYLER” trademarks; and

g. from aiding, abetting, contributing to or otherwise assisting anyone from 

infringing upon the “BOB TYLER TOYOTA” trademarks.

h. Directing that Defendants deliver for destruction all unauthorized 

advertisements relating thereto in their possession or under their control 

bearing any of the BOB TYLER TOYOTA “BOB TYLER” trademarks or any 

simulation, reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitations thereof, 

and all heat transfers, screens, matrices, and other means of making same.

i. Directing the Defendants as Registrants of the infringing domains 

http://www.bobtylersuzukiquotes.com, http://www.bobtylerprices.com, 

http://www.bobtylertotyotaprices.com, http://www.bobtylerquotes.com, 

http://www.bobtylertoyotapreowned.com, 

http://www.bobtylertoyotainventory.com, and other domains later found to 

be infringing to immediately transfer the domains to Plaintiff’s care, and if 

necessary, directing the Registrar of these domains to assist in the transfer of 

same. Directing the Defendants to transfer any other domains which contain 

Plaintiff’s trademark “BOB TYLER” or any domain which includes a term or 

phrase that is confusingly similar to Plaintiff’s “BOB TYLER” trademarks, and 

if necessary, the Registrar of those domains to assist in the transfer of same. 

j. Directing such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate to prevent the 

trade and public from gaining the erroneous impression that any products 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 1 Filed 12/28/09 Page 21 of 23
22

advertised, marketed, manufactured, sold or otherwise circulated or 

promoted by Defendants are authorized by BOB TYLER TOYOTA, or related 

in any way to BOB TYLER TOYOTA’ services or products.

k. That BOB TYLER TOYOTA be awarded from each Defendant, as a result of 

each Defendant’s unlawful registration of domains which include the “BOB 

TYLER” trademarks, three times each Defendants’ profits therefrom, after an 

accounting, or, in the alternative statutory damages, should BOB TYLER 

TOYOTA opt for such relief, consisting of One Hundred Thousand Dollars 

($100,000.00) for each of the “BOB TYLER” trademarks infringed upon by 

each Defendant per type of good/service, and to the extent this Court 

concludes such infringement was willful, One Million Dollars

($1,000,000.00), for each of BOB TYLER TOYOTA’s “BOB TYLER” trademarks 

infringed upon by each of the Defendants per type of good/service..

l. That BOB TYLER TOYOTA be awarded the statutory maximum for each act of 

cybersquatting by Defendants, which includes, but is not limited to the 

statutory maximum per domain of One Hundred Thousand Dollars 

($100,000.00) for at least a total of Six Hundred Thousand Dollars 

($600,000.00). 

m. That BOB TYLER TOYOTA be awarded the transfer of the domains 

http://www.bobtylersuzukiquotes.com, http://www.bobtylerprices.com, 

http://www.bobtylertotyotaprices.com, http://www.bobtylerquotes.com, 

http://www.bobtylertoyotapreowned.com, 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 1 Filed 12/28/09 Page 22 of 23
23

http://www.bobtylertoyotainventory.com, and any other domains which 

include the “BOB TYLER” trademarks or any other domains that contain any 

word or phrase that is confusingly similar to the “BOB TYLER” trademarks.

That all accompanying traffic reports or other site analytics associated with 

all such domains be produced and awarded to BOB TYLER TOYOTA. 

n. That BOB TYLER TOYOTA be awarded its reasonable attorneys’ fees and 

investigative fees..

o. That BOB TYLER TOYOTA be awarded its costs in bringing this action.

p. That BOB TYLER TOYOTA be awarded punitive damages for the Defendants’ 

willful acts of unfair competition under Florida’s common law.

q. That BOB TYLER TOYOTA have such other and further relief that this Court 

deems just.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury for all issues so triable. 

Dated: December 28, 2009

Respectfully submitted,

/s Patrick V. Douglas________

Patrick V. Douglas

Florida Bar No. 0068639

John S. Derr

Florida Bar No. 0359025

QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, WOOD & BOYER, P.A.

215 South Monroe Street, Suite 510

Tallahassee, FL 32301-1804

Tel.: (850) 412-1042

Fax.: (850) 412-1043

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 1 Filed 12/28/09 Page 23 of 23