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, 

v. CASE NO.: 3:09-CV-00571-CIV-RS-MD 

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. 

_____________________________________/ 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, by and through undersigned counsel, pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure, hereby moves for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, and in support 

thereof states as follows: 

On December 28, 2009 the Plaintiff filed its original four (4) count Complaint alleging 

various violations of state and federal trademark law arising from the Defendants’ improper 

registration and use of domain names including the Plaintiff’s distinctive “BOB TYLER” 

trademark. (D.E. 1). Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants wrongfully registered 

and used, in competition with the Plaintiff, the following six (6) domain names: 

 www.bobtylersuzukiquotes.com, 

 www.bobtylerprices.com, 

 www.bobtylertotyotaprices.com, 

 www.bobtylerquotes.com, 

 www.bobtylertoyotapreowned.com, and 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 46 Filed 05/17/10 Page 1 of 50
2 

 www.bobtylertoyotainventory.com 

Id. 

 On February 16, 2010, the Plaintiff filed its first Amended Complaint adding a claim for 

violation of Florida Statute §668.704. (D.E. 24). 

 Since that time, Plaintiff conducted discovery by propounding two sets of interrogatories, 

one set of requests for admissions, and three sets of requests for production. Specifically, on 

March 15, 2010 Plaintiff propounded its First Set of Interrogatories including a request that the 

Defendants “[p]lease identify all domains that you have ever registered and/or used for any 

purpose.” After requesting an enlargement of time to respond, on April 22, 2010, Defendants 

provided a list of thousands of domain names, many of which include the famous or distinctive 

trademarks of third parties. Of particular concern to the Plaintiff was the discovery that in 

addition to the already identified domain names including the Plaintiff’s distinctive “BOB 

TYLER” trademark which the Defendants have registered, namely, 

 www.bobtylersuzukiquotes.com, 

 www.bobtylerprices.com, 

 www.bobtylertotyotaprices.com, 

 www.bobtylerquotes.com, 

 www.bobtylertoyotapreowned.com, and 

 www.bobtylertoyotainventory.com, 

the Defendants have registered at least eight (8) other domain names which include Plaintiff’s 

trademark. Specifically, the Plaintiff has identified the following domain names from 

Defendants’ discovery responses: 

 www.bobtylerusedsuzuki.com, 

 www.bobtylerusedcarquotes.com, 

 www.bobtylerusedcars.com, 

 www.bobtylerpreowned.com, 

 www.bobtylertoyotaquotes.com, 

 www.bobtylertoyotausedcars.com, 

 www.tyletoyota.com, and 

 www.tylrtoyota.com

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 46 Filed 05/17/10 Page 2 of 50
3 

See Exhibit A. 

Each of these newly discovered domain names includes the Plaintiff’s distinctive “BOB 

TYLER” trademark, and upon information and belief, each was used by the Defendants to 

compete with the Plaintiff, to create a false association with the plaintiff, to misidentify 

themselves as another (namely the Plaintiff), and/or to mislead the public. 

 Additionally, the new discovery responses and document production reveals that 

Defendants registered thousands of domain names which incorporate the famous and/or 

distinctive trademarks of third parties. This extensive portfolio includes the following domain 

names: 

1. Domain names registered by the Defendants which include the famous or distinctive 

“YOU TUBE” trademark or common misspellings thereof: 

 www.youtubeeasternshoretoyota.com, 

 www.youtubekia.com, 

 www.youtubenewcars.com, 

 www.youtubenissan.com, 

 www.youtubetoyota.com, 

 www.youtudenewcars.com, (intentionally misspelled) 

 www.bmwutube.com, 

 www.bmwyoutube.com 

 www.freebmwutube.com, 

 www.freehyundaiutube.com, 

 www.freekiautube.com, 

 www.freelexusutube.com, 

 www.freenissanutube.com, 

 www.freetoyotautube.com, 

 www.hyundaiutube.com, 

 www.kiautube.com, 

 www.lexusutube.com, 

 www.mybmwutube.com, 

 www.mylexusutube.com, 

 www.mytoyotautube.com, 

 www.newhyundaiutube.com, 

 www.newkiautube.com, 

 www.newnissanutube.com, 

 www.newtoyotautube.com, 

 www.nissanutube.com, 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 46 Filed 05/17/10 Page 3 of 50
4 

 www.thehyundaiutube.com, 

 www.thenissanutube.com, 

 www.thetoyotautube.com, 

 www.toyotautube.com, 

 www.utubehyundai.com, 

 www.utubekia.com, 

 www.utubelexus.com, 

 www.utubetoyota.com, 

 www.esh-youtube.com, 

 www.eshyoutube.com, 

 www.est-youtube.com, 

 www.estyoutube.com, 

 www.hk-youtube.com, 

 www.hod-youtube.com, 

 www.hodyoutube.com, 

 www.hondayoutube.com, 

 www.kia-youtube.com, 

 www.kiayoutube.com, 

 www.lexusutube.com, and 

 www.lexusyoutube.com. 

2. Domain names registered by the Defendants which include the famous or distinctive 

“YAHOO” trademark: 

 www.yahoonewcars.com, and 

 www.yahoousedvehicles.com. 

3. Domain names registered by the Defendants which include the famous or distinctive 

“ALLEN TURNER” trademark (Allen Turner is a direct competitor of the Defendants): 

 www.allenturnerusedcar.com, and 

 www.allenturnerusedsupercenter.com. 

4. Domain names registered by the Defendants which include the famous or distinctive 

“CARL GREGORY” trademark (Carl Gregory is a direct competitor of the Defendants): 

 www.carlgregory-usedcars.com, 

 www.carlgregory-usedcarsonline.com, 

 www.carlgregory-usedcarstore.com, and 

 www.carlgregoryusedtrucks.com. 

5. Domain names registered by the Defendants which include the famous or distinctive 

“CHUCK STEVENS” trademark (Chuck Stevens is a direct competitor of the 

Defendants): 

 www.chuckstevensusedcars.com, 

6. Domain names registered by the Defendants which include the famous or distinctive 

“CRAIG’S LIST” trademark or common misspellings thereof: 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 46 Filed 05/17/10 Page 4 of 50
5 

 www.craigslisttoyotasearch.com, 

 www.craigslistusedautos.com, 

 www.craigslistusedcarsearch.com, 

 www.craigslistvehiclesearch.com, and 

 www.criagslistpreowned.com, (intentionally misspelled). 

7. Domain names registered by the Defendants which include the famous or distinctive 

“EBAY” trademark: 

 www.ebayautoinventory.com, 

 www.ebayautoprices.com, 

 www.ebayautoquotes.com, 

 www.ebayautosearch.com, 

 www.ebaypreownedautos.com, 

 www.ebaypreownedinventory.com, 

 www.ebaypreownedprices.com, 

 www.ebaypreownedquotes.com, 

 www.ebaypreownedsearch.com, 

 www.ebayprewonedcarinventory.com, 

 www.ebayusedcarprices.com, 

 www.ebayusedcarquotes.com, 

 www.lexususedebay.com, 

 www.lexusebayprices.com, 

 www.toyotausedebay.com, 

 www.hondaebayprice.com, 

 www.hondaebayprices.com, 

 www.hyundaiebayprice.com, 

 www.toyotaebayprice.com, 

 www.toyotaebayprices.com, and 

 www.usedtoyotaebayprice.com. 

8. Domain names registered by the Defendants which include the famous or distinctive “ED 

VOYLES” trademark (Ed Voyles is a direct competitor of the Defendants): 

 www.edvoylesusedkia.com, 

9. Domain names registered by the Defendants which include the famous or distinctive 

“FACEBOOK” trademark: 

 www.facebookhyundai.com, 

 www.facebookkia.com, 

 www.facebooklexus.com, 

 www.facebooknewcars.com, 

 www.facebooknissan.com, 

 www.facebooktoyota.com, 

 www.facebookusedcars.com, 

 www.freehyundaifacebook.com, 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 46 Filed 05/17/10 Page 5 of 50
6 

 www.freelexusfacebook.com, 

 www.freefacebookhyundai.com, 

 www.freefacebooklexus.com, 

 www.freefacebooknissan.com, 

 www.freenissanfacebooke.com, 

 www.kiafacebook.com, 

 www.lexusfacebook.com, 

 www.myfacebookhyundai.com, 

 www.myfacebooklexus.com, 

 www.myfacebooknissan.com, 

 www.myfacebooktoyota.com, 

 www.myhyundaifacebook.com, 

 www.mylexusfacebook.com, 

 www.mynissanfacebook.com, 

 www.mytoyotafacebook.com, 

 www.newfacebookhyundai.com, 

 www.newfacebooktoyota.com, 

 www.newkiafacebook.com, 

 www.newnissanfacebook.com, 

 www.newtoyotafacebook.com, 

 www.thefacebookhyundai.com, 

 www.thefacebooklexus.com, 

 www.thefacebooknissan.com, 

 www.thehyundaifacebook.com, 

 www.thekiafacebook.com, 

 www.thelexusfacebook.com, 

 www.thenissanfacebook.com, 

 www.thetoyotafacebook.com, 

 www.toyotafacebookonline.com, 

 www.hyundairfacebook.com, and 

 www.kia-facebook.com. 

10. Domain names registered by the Defendants which include the famous or distinctive 

“GATEWAY” trademark: 

 www.gateway-usedcars.com, 

 www.gatewaybadcredit.com, and 

 www.gatewayusedcars.com. 

11. Domain names registered by the Defendants which include the famous or distinctive 

“GOOGLE” trademark: 

 www.googlenewcars.com, and 

 www.googleusedvehicles.com. 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 46 Filed 05/17/10 Page 6 of 50
7 

12. Domain names registered by the Defendants which include the famous or distinctive 

“TWITTER” trademark: 

 www.hyundaitwitter.com, 

 www.esh-twitter.com, 

 www.eshtwitter.com, 

 www.est-twitter.com, 

 www.esttwitter.com, 

 www.hod-twitter.com, 

 www.hodtwitter.com, 

 www.lexustwitter.com, and 

 www.nissan-twitter.com. 

13. Domain names registered by the Defendants which include the famous or distinctive 

“JIM ELLIS” trademark (Jim Ellis is a direct competitor of the Defendants): 

 www.jimelliskia.com, and 

 www.jimellikia.com. 

14. Domain names registered by the Defendants which include the famous or distinctive 

“KEN BOGGS” trademark (Ken Boggs is a direct competitor of the Defendants): 

 www.kenboggsusedcars.com, and 

 www.kenbogsusedcars.com. 

15. Domain names registered by the Defendants which include the famous or distinctive 

“MSN” trademark: 

 www.msnnewcars.com, and 

 www.msnusedcars.com. 

16. Domain names registered by the Defendants which include the famous or distinctive 

“MYSPACE” trademark: 

 www.myspacenewcars.com, 

 www.eshmyspace.com, 

 www.estmyspace.com, 

 www.hod-myspace.com, 

 www.hondamyspace.com, and 

 www.lexusmyspace.com. 

17. Domain names registered by the Defendants which include the famous or distinctive 

“PAY PAL” trademark: 

 www.paypalnewcars.com, and 

 www.paypalusedcars.com. 

18. Domain names registered by the Defendants which include the famous or distinctive 

“ROB DOLL” trademark (Rob Doll is a direct competitor of the Defendants): 

 www.robdoll-nissan.com, 

 www.robdoll-nissanonline.com, 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 46 Filed 05/17/10 Page 7 of 50
8 

 www.robdoll-nissanstore.com, 

 www.robdoll-toyota.com, 

 www.robdollbadcredit.com, 

 www.robdollbestpriceusedcars.com, 

 www.robdollnewnissanprice.com, 

 www.robdollnissanquote.com, 

 www.robdollusedcars.com, 

 www.robdollusednissanprice.com, 

 www.robdollusednissanpriceonline.com, 

 www.robdollusednissanpricestore.com, and 

 www.robdollusedtrucks.com. 

19. Domain names registered by the Defendants which include the famous or distinctive 

“SANDY SANSING” trademark (Sandy Sansing is a direct competitor of the 

Defendants): 

 www.sandysansingbadcredit.com, 

 www.sandysansingbestprice.com, 

 www.sandysansingnissanbestprice.com, 

 www.sandysansingnissanbestquote.com, 

 www.sandysansingnissanusedcars.com, 

 www.sandysansingusedcars.com, and 

 www.sandysansingusednissans.com. 

20. Domain names registered by the Defendants which include the famous or distinctive 

“CHRIS MYERS” trademark (Chris Myers is a direct competitor of the Defendants): 

 www.chrimeirs.com, (intentionally misspelled) 

 www.chrismiers.com, (intentionally misspelled) 

 www.chrismiersautomall.com, (intentionally misspelled) 

 www.chrismiersautomotive.com, (intentionally misspelled) 

 www.chrismyersautomalleasternshore.com, 

 www.chrismyerseasternshore.com, and 

 www.chrismyersofeasternshore.com. 

21. Domain names registered by the Defendants which include the famous or distinctive 

“JAY” trademark (Jay Automotive Group is a direct competitor of the Defendants): 

 www.jaytoyota.com, 

 www.jay-toyota.com, 

 www.jaymazdausedcars.com, 

 www.jayscionunsedcars.com, 

 www.jaytoyotabadcredit.com, 

 www.jaytoyotabestpriceusedcars.com, 

 www.jaytoyotabestpriceusedtrucks.com, 

 www.jaytoyotaprice.com, 

 www.jaytoyotapriceonline.com, 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 46 Filed 05/17/10 Page 8 of 50
9 

 www.jaytoyotaquote.com, 

 www.jaytoyotausedcars.com, and 

 www.jaytoyotausedtrucks.com. 

22. Domain names registered by the Defendants which include the famous or distinctive 

“JOHN MARAZZI” trademark (John Marazzi is a direct competitor of the Defendants): 

 www.marazziautomall.com, 

 www.marazziinfinitey.com, 

 www.marazziinfiniti.com, 

 www.marazziluxurycars.com, 

 www.marazzitoyota.com, and 

 www.marazziusedcars.com. 

23. Domain names registered by the Defendants which include the famous or distinctive 

“PALMER’S TOYOTA SUPERSTORE” trademark (Palmer’s Toyota Superstore is a 

direct competitor of the Defendants): 

 www.palmerspreowned.com, 

 www.palmerstoyotapreowned.com, 

 www.palmerstoyotausedcars.com, 

 www.palmersusedcars.com, 

 www.palmerstoyota.com, and 

 www.palmetoyota.com (intentionally misspelled). 

24. Domain names registered by the Defendants which include the famous or distinctive 

“REINHARDT MOTORS” trademark (Reinhardt Motors is a direct competitor of the 

Defendants): 

 www.reinhardtioyotausedcars.com (intentionally misspelled). 

25. Domain names registered by the Defendants which include the famous or distinctive 

“SPRINGHILL AUTOMOTIVE” trademark (Springhill Automotive, Inc. is a direct 

competitor of the Defendants): 

 www.springhillpreowned.com, 

 www.springhilltoyotapreowned.com, 

 www.springhilltoyotausedcars.com, and 

 www.springhillusedcars-toyota.com. 

26. Domain names registered by the Defendants which include the famous or distinctive 

“TAMERON AUTOMOTIVE GROUP” trademark (Tameron Automotive Group is a 

direct competitor of the Defendants): 

 www.tameronhondausedcars.com, and 

 www.tameronusedcars.com. 

27. Domain names registered by the Defendants which include the famous or distinctive 

“TREADWELL” trademark (Treadwell is a direct competitor of the Defendants): 

 www.treadwellusedcars.com. 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 46 Filed 05/17/10 Page 9 of 50
10 

28. Domain names registered by the Defendants which include the famous or distinctive 

“ATLANTIC CLASSIC CARS” trademark (Atlantic Classic Cars is a direct competitor 

of the Defendants): 

 www.usedcarsatlanticclassiccars.com. 

29. Domain names registered by the Defendants which include the famous or distinctive 

“COASTAL AUTOMOTIVE” trademark (Coastal Automotive is a direct competitor of 

the Defendants): 

 www.usedcarscoastalford.com. 

30. Domain names registered by the Defendants which include the famous or distinctive 

“DEAN MCCRARY” trademark (Dean McCrary is a direct competitor of the 

Defendants): 

 www.usedcarsdeanmccrary.com. 

It appears from Plaintiff’s initial review of the domain names disclosed in discovery that the 

Defendants have registered at least two hundred ten (210) domain names which include the 

trademarks of others in addition to the twelve (12) “BOB TYLER” domain names registered by 

the Defendants. Hundreds of the domain names in the Defendants’ domain name portfolio also 

include the trademarks of car manufacturers. While Defendants may sell cars, they most likely 

do not have authority to register those domain names. These facts go to the heart of at least 

Plaintiff’s claim for violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”) 

claim, and are also relevant to Plaintiff’s other claims. Thus, Plaintiff seeks leave to amend it 

complaint, and to file the attached Second Amended Complaint. See Exhibit B. 

 Also, in response to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Admissions, the Defendants 

admitted to “purchas[ing] Internet AdWords and/or Key Words which include Plaintiff’s “BOB 

TYLER” trademark from search engine providers including, but not limited to, Google, Yahoo, 

and others in order to drive traffic to [their] own website(s) offering goods and services which 

compete with the goods and services offered by the Plaintiff.” Defendants use of the “BOB 

TYLER” trademark as an Internet keyword is actionable, Plaintiffs were not previously aware of 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 46 Filed 05/17/10 Page 10 of 50
11 

Defendants’ infringing use, and, thus, Plaintiff’s proposed Second Amended Complaint includes 

a claim for trademark infringement of Plaintiff’s “BOB TYLER” trademark (in addition to the 

ACPA claim) associated with Defendant’s use of the same as an Internet keyword. See North 

American Medical Corp. v. Axiom Worldwide, Inc., 522 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 2008); Punch 

Clock, Inc. v. Smart Software Development, 553 F.Supp.2d 1353 (S.Dist. Fla. 2008); and 

Rescuecom Corp v. Computer Trouhbleshooters USA, Inc., 464 F.Supp.2d 1263 (N.Dist. Ga. 

2005). 

 In addition to the above, Defendants’ discovery responses have provided information to 

identify two of the possible “Doe” Defendants listed in the first Amended Complaint. 

Specifically, Plaintiff has identified MJMI Internet, LLC and Advanced Dealer Systems as 

entities which contributed to the acts of the other Defendants complained of in the Complaint by 

providing advice, assistance and technical support with regard to the registration of the 

complained of domain names and Internet key words. 

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

 Under Rule 15(a), courts must freely grant leave to amend when justice so requires. 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2); Spanish Broadcasting System of Fla. v. Clear Channel Communications, 

Inc., 376 F.3d 1065, 1071 (11th Cir. 2004); and McKinley v. Kaplan, 177 F.3d 1253, 1258 (11th 

Cir. 1999). “In the absence of any apparent or declared reason--such as undue delay, bad faith or 

dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments 

previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the 

amendment, futility of amendment, etc.--the leave sought should, as the rules require, be ‘freely 

given’.” McKinley, 177 F.3d at 1258 (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, (1962)), see

also Technical Resources Servs., Inc. v. Dornier Medical Sys., Inc., 134 F.3d 1458, 1463 (11th 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 46 Filed 05/17/10 Page 11 of 50
12 

Cir. 1998). “[L]eave to amend a pleading should be denied only when the amendment would be 

prejudicial to the opposing party, there has been bad faith on the part of the moving party, or the 

amendment would be futile.” Johnson v. Oroweat Foods Co., 785 F.2d 503, 509 (4th Cir. 1986). 

Courts have interpreted the language in Rule 15(a) as setting forth a “liberal policy of permitting 

amendments to ensure the determination of claims on their merits.” Marks v. Shell Oil Co., 830 

F.2d 68, 69 (6th Cir. 1987) (quoting Tefft v. Seward, 689 F.2d 637, 639 (6th Cir. 1982)). The 

purpose of the Rule is to provide litigants “the maximum opportunity for each claim to be 

decided on its merits rather than on procedural niceties.” Hardin v. Manitowoc-Forsythe Corp.,

691 F.2d 449, 456 (10th Cir. 1982). In Foman the Supreme Court held: 

If the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff may be a proper subject 

of relief, he ought to be afforded an opportunity to test his claim on the merits. In the 

absence of any apparent or declared reason--such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory 

motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments 

previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the 

amendment, futility of amendment, etc.--the leave sought should, as the rules require, be 

“freely given.” 

371 U.S. at 182 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)); see also Duncan v. Manager, Dep't of Safety, 

397 F.3d 1300, 1315 (10th Cir. 2005); Frank v. U.S. West, 3 F.3d 1357, 1365 (10th Cir. 1993); 

Tillery v. Darby-Rogers Co., 2006 WL 2735162 (M.D. Fla. 2006). 

 The amendment sought would not be futile. The inclusion of the newly discovered 

“BOB TYLER” domain names goes directly towards the statutory damages which Plaintiff will 

be entitled to under the ACPA. See 15 U.S.C. §1117 (allowing a plaintiff so seek statutory 

damages of “not less than $1,000 and not more than $100,000 per domain name” for violation of 

the ACPA); see also Kiva Kitchen & Bath, Inc. v. capital Distributing, Inc., 319 FedAppx. 316 

(5th Cir. 2009)(affirming district court’s award of $100,00 per domain name, plus attorneys’ 

fees); Citigroup, Inc. v. Shui, 611 F.Supp.2d 507, 513 (E.D.Va. 2009)(awarding $100,000 per 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 46 Filed 05/17/10 Page 12 of 50
13 

domain name plus attorneys’ fees); Graduate Mgmt. Admission Council v. Raju, 267 F.Supp.2d 

505, 512-13 (E.D.va. 2003)(awarding $100,000 per domain name); and Verizon California, Inc. 

v. Onlinenic, Inc., 2008 WL 5352022 (N.D. Cal. 2008)(awarding $33.15 million in statutory 

ACPA damages). 

 Similarly, the inclusion of the domain names registered by the Defendants that include 

the distinctive or famous trademarks of others is relevant to a finding that the Defendants have 

acted in bad faith. See 15 U.S.C. §1125(d)(1)(B)(VIII)(listing “the person’s registration or 

acquisition of multiple domain names which the person knows are identical or confusingly 

similar to marks of others that are distinctive at the time of registration of such domain names . . . 

without regard to the goods or services of the parties” as one of the factors to be considered in an 

analysis of bad faith under the ACPA). 

 Thus, the facts sought to be included in the proposed Second Amended Complaint are 

relevant to the action and amendment would not be futile. 

 Plaintiff has not delayed in seeking this amendment. Rather, discovery only opened in 

this matter on March 1, 2010. (D.E. 32). Plaintiff began propounding discovery on March 14, 

2010, and Plaintiff only discovered the newly alleged facts after reviewing Defendants’ 

discovery responses served by U.S. Mail on April 22, 2010. 

 This case is still in its relative infancy. Trial is five (5) months away, discovery does not 

close until July 15, 2010, and the dispositive motion deadline is not until July 29, 2010. (D.E. 

34). Thus, the Defendants will not be prejudiced by the instant amendment. The Court should 

be guided by the Tillery case in its review of the timeliness of this request. Tillery, 2006 WL 

2735162. 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 46 Filed 05/17/10 Page 13 of 50
14 

 In Tillery, the Court granted the plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint 

with two (2) additional claims and an additional defendant approximately two (2) months after 

the close of the discovery and during the pendency of a motion for summary judgment. Id. 

While the defendants therein argued that plaintiffs unduly delayed in seeking to amend their 

pleadings and that such leave would be unduly prejudicial, the court held that the plaintiffs were 

not engaged in undue delay because they “were not aware of the facts surrounding [the new 

count] until taking depositions during discovery.” Id. Further, the court held that any prejudice 

could be cured by allowing them to conduct further discovery. Certainly, if amendment was 

permissible in the Tillery case, it should be permissible in the instant circumstances. 

Based on the above, Plaintiff asserts that good cause has been shown for permitting the 

Plaintiff to file the attached Second Amended Complaint. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court issue an Order granting 

Plaintiff leave to amend its pleading and that the Court adopt the attached Second Amended 

Complaint as the operative pleading. 

Dated: May 17, 2010 Respectfully submitted: 

 By: _s/FRANK HERRERA__ 

 Frank Herrera 

 Florida Bar No. 494801 

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

 9300 South Dadeland Boulevard, 

 Fourth Floor 

 Miami, Florida 33156 

 Tel.: (305) 670-1101 

 Fax.: (305) 670-1164 

 fherrera@qpwblaw.com

-and- 

 Patrick V. Douglas, Esq. 

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

 215 S. Monroe Street, Suite 510 

 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1804 

 Telephone: (850) 412-1042 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 46 Filed 05/17/10 Page 14 of 50
15 

 Facsimile: (850) 412-1043 

 Tel.: (305) 670-1101 

 Fax.: (305) 670-1164 

 pdouglas@qpwblaw.com 

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs 

CERTIFICATE OF RULE 7.1(B) CONFERENCE

 I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May 14, 2010 counsel for the Plaintiff conferred, by email, 

with counsel for the Defendants, J. Nixon Daniel, III, Esq., concerning the relief sought in this 

Motion, and that Mr. Daniel indicated, by response email on May 16, 2010 that the Defendans 

would not agree to the relief sought in this Motion. 

By: _s/FRANK HERRERA__ 

 Frank Herrera 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy hereof has been mailed on May 17, 2010, to: 

J. Nixon Daniel, III, Esq., Beggs & Lane, RLLP, Post Office Box 12950. 501 Commendencia 

Street, Pensacola, FL 32591-2950. 

 By: _s/FRANK HERRERA__ 

 Frank Herrera 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 46 Filed 05/17/10 Page 15 of 50
16 

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, 

v. CASE NO.: 3:09-CV-00571-CIV-RS-MD 

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. 

_____________________________________/ 

ORDER

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion For Leave to File a Second 

Amended Complaint, filed on May 17, 2010 [D.E. __]. Upon review of this motion, and for good 

cause shown, it is hereby: 

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. The Second Amended Complaint 

attached to Plaintiff’s Motion is hereby incorporated as the operative pleading in this action. 

Defendants shall have fourteen days from entry of this Order to respond to the Second Amended 

Complaint. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, this __ day of _____, 2010. 

 ____________________________ 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 46 Filed 05/17/10 Page 16 of 50
EXHIBIT A 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 46 Filed 05/17/10 Page 17 of 50
Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 46 Filed 05/17/10 Page 18 of 50
Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 46 Filed 05/17/10 Page 19 of 50
EXHIBIT B 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 46 Filed 05/17/10 Page 20 of 50
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, 

v. CASE NO.: 3:09-CV-00571-CIV-RS-MD 

EASTERN SHORE TOYOTA, LLC., 

An Alabama Limited Liability Company, 

DAPHNE AUTOMOTIVE, LLC., 

An Alabama Limited Liability Company, 

DAPHNE ENTERPRISES, INC., 

An Alabama corporation, 

SHAWN ESFAHANI, 

An individual, 

ADVANCED DEALER SYSTEMS 

A Texas corporation, 

MJMI INTERNET, LLC, 

A New Jersey limited liability company, 

DOES 3-10, 

 Defendants. 

_____________________________________/ 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

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

and through its attorneys hereby files this, its Second Amendment Complaint (as a matter of 

right) against Defendants Eastern Shore Toyota, LLC. (“EASTERN SHORE”), Daphne 

Automotive, LLC. (“DAPHNE AUTOMOTIVE”), Daphne Enterprises, Inc. (“DAPHNE 

ENTERPRISES”), Shawn Esfahani, (“ESFAHANI”), ADVANCED DEALER SYSTEMS, 

MJMI INTERNET, LLC, and Does 3-10 for their blatant cybersquatting of Plaintiff’s Distinctive 

Trademark and related infringing and deceptive activities. And as support for this Complaint, 

Plaintiff offers the following allegations: 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 46 Filed 05/17/10 Page 21 of 50
2 

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). 

3. Personal jurisdiction is proper in so much as: (a) Defendants have conceded personal 

jurisdiction by filing their Answer [D.E. 7]; (b) Defendants actively conduct business in 

this District; and (c) Florida Statute § 668.704(6) finds personal jurisdiction proper. 

THE PARTIES 

4. 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. 

5. 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. 

6. 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. 

7. 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. 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 46 Filed 05/17/10 Page 22 of 50
3 

8. 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. 

9. Defendant Advanced Dealer Systems is, upon information and belief, a Texas entity, 

formerly named as a “Doe” defendant in this action who upon information and belief 

contributed to the acts of the other Defendants complained of herein by providing advice, 

assistance and technical support with regard to the registration of the complained of 

domain names and Internet key words. 

10. Defendant MJMI Internet, LLC is, upon information and belief, a New Jersey limited 

liability company, formerly named as a “Doe” defendant in this action who upon 

information and belief contributed to the acts of the other Defendants complained of 

herein by providing advice, assistance and technical support with regard to the 

registration of the complained of domain names and Internet key words. 

11. 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 identities are known, the Plaintiff will amend this lawsuit 

and add the JOHN DOE Defendants’ true and correct names. 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 46 Filed 05/17/10 Page 23 of 50
4 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

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

business since 1997. 

13. 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. 

14. 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. 

15. 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. 

16. 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. 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 46 Filed 05/17/10 Page 24 of 50
5 

17. For instance, BOB TYLER TOYOTA has, since at least 1998, owned and maintained the 

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

18. 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. 

19. All of BOB TYLER TOYOTA’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. 

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

Act insomuch as they have become distinctive through extensive use in United States 

commerce. 

21. Plaintiff is the owner of United States Federal Trademark Application Serial No. 

77/959,053 for “BOB TYLER” for use in connection with automobile dealerships. 

22. 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 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 46 Filed 05/17/10 Page 25 of 50
6 

great pride and care to insure that its services are rendered in the highest standard in the 

industry. BOB TYLER TOYOTA’s “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. 

23. 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. 

24. 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. 

25. 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. 

26. Plaintiff advertises its services in a variety of channels including: direct marketing, direct 

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

27. 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 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 46 Filed 05/17/10 Page 26 of 50
7 

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. 

28. 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. 

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

harm to BOB TYLER TOYOTA. 

THE DEFENDANTS’ SCHEME AND INFRINGING CONDUCT

30. On or about August 28, 2009, Defendants registered the infringing domains, namely: 

 www.bobtylersuzukiquotes.com, 

 www.bobtylerprices.com, 

 www.bobtylertotyotaprices.com, 

 www.bobtylerquotes.com, 

 www.bobtylertoyotapreowned.com, 

 www.bobtylertoyotainventory.com, 

 www.bobtylerusedsuzuki.com, 

 www.bobtylerusedcarquotes.com, 

 www.bobtylerusedcars.com, 

 www.bobtylerpreowned.com, 

 www.bobtylertoyotaquotes.com, 

 www.bobtylertoyotausedcars.com, 

 www.tyletoyota.com, and 

 www.tylrtoyota.com 

31. These domains include Plaintiff’s inherently distinctive trademark “BOB TYLER”. 

Defendants’ mere addition of the descriptive wording “quotes,” “prices,” “pre-owned,” 

“inventory,” and/or “used cars” 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 

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

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 46 Filed 05/17/10 Page 27 of 50
8 

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. 

32. Each of the infringing domains, namely, 

 www.bobtylersuzukiquotes.com, 

 www.bobtylerprices.com, 

 www.bobtylertotyotaprices.com, 

 www.bobtylerquotes.com, 

 www.bobtylertoyotapreowned.com, 

 www.bobtylertoyotainventory.com, 

 www.bobtylerusedsuzuki.com, 

 www.bobtylerusedcarquotes.com, 

 www.bobtylerusedcars.com, 

 www.bobtylerpreowned.com, 

 www.bobtylertoyotaquotes.com, 

 www.bobtylertoyotausedcars.com, 

 www.tyletoyota.com, and 

 www.tylrtoyota.com 

were active immediately after registration. Only recently did the Defendants cause the 

domains to be 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. 

33. The content found at these websites (prior to their recent disabling) contained Plaintiff’s 

identifying information or otherwise contained content (and domain names) that were 

Defendants’ attempt to represent themselves directly, or by implication, to be Plaintiff. 

Such false and fraudulent representations were without the authority or approval of 

Plaintiff. 

34. Worse still, on each of these websites Defendants maintained a credit application form 

which was accessible via a hyperlink. The domain names and websites were set up to 

induce, request, or solicit residents of this state to provide identifying information. 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 46 Filed 05/17/10 Page 28 of 50
9 

Consumers who mistakenly thought that they were on a website maintained and 

associated with BOB TYLER TOYOTA were induced to type-in their nonpublic/confidential financial information so that Defendants could evaluate their creditworthiness for consideration of automotive loans. Based upon this, Defendants gained, or 

otherwise had the ability to gain, at least two valuable categories of information: (1) 

private financial information from customers that were deceived (or could be deceived) 

into believing they were offering such information to BOB TYLER TOYOTA; and (2) 

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. 

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

corporate Defendants and is the moving force behind the unlawful trade practices alleged 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 46 Filed 05/17/10 Page 29 of 50
10 

herein. As the moving force for such unlawful activities, Defendant ESFAHANI is 

subject to liability for all of the acts complained of herein. 

36. Defendants offered their competing automotive sales services with a mark that is 

identical to Plaintiff’s trademark. 

37. Subsequent to Plaintiff’s use of its distinctive “BOB TYLER” trademark, Defendants 

purchased Internet keywords which include Plaintiff’s “BOB TYLER” trademark from 

search engine providers including, but not limited to Google, Yahoo, and others in order 

to drive traffic to their own website(s) offering goods and services which compete with 

the goods and services offered by the Plaintiff. 

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

TYLER” trademark are identical. 

39. BOB TYLER TOYOTA and the Defendants are direct competitors in the automotive 

sales arena, both in the online marketplace and geographically. 

40. 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. 

41. 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. 

42. Defendants are offering their infringing services in an identical trade channel as Plaintiff, 

namely via Internet sales. 

43. Defendants are advertising their infringing services in a manner that is identical to BOB 

TYLER TOYOTA’s advertising, namely via the Internet. 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 46 Filed 05/17/10 Page 30 of 50
11 

44. Defendants are intentionally seeking to profit from the goodwill associated with BOB 

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

45. 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. 

46. 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 insomuch 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. 

47. Defendants have willfully sought to obtain private financial information from potential 

customers (some of which may have in fact ultimately purchased automobiles from 

Defendants) that were fraudulently induced to enter such information within the subject 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 46 Filed 05/17/10 Page 31 of 50
12 

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 unjustly enriched by this scheme. 

48. 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. 

49. 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 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. FALSE ADVERTISING UNDER THE LANHAM ACT 

50. BOB TYLER TOYOTA incorporates paragraphs 1 through 49, and brings the following 

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

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 46 Filed 05/17/10 Page 32 of 50
13 

51. BOB TYLER TOYOTA owns the exclusive trademark rights to the “BOB TYLER” 

trademarks. 

52. 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. 

53. 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. 

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

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

55. 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. 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 46 Filed 05/17/10 Page 33 of 50
14 

56. Subsequent to Plaintiff’s use of its distinctive “BOB TYLER” trademark, Defendants 

purchased Internet keywords which include Plaintiff’s “BOB TYLER” trademark from 

search engine providers including, but not limited to Google, Yahoo, and others in order 

to drive traffic to their own website(s) offering goods and services which compete with 

the goods and services offered by the Plaintiff. 

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

TOYOTA. 

58. 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. 

59. 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 that Defendants’ Infringing Services are authorized or emanate from BOB 

TYLER TOYOTA. 

60. These acts constitute a violation of §43(a) of The Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125(a). 

61. The Defendants have obtained gains, profits, and advantages as a result of their unlawful 

acts. 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 46 Filed 05/17/10 Page 34 of 50
15 

62. 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’s rights, as BOB TYLER TOYOTA has no 

adequate remedy at law. 

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

64. 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. UNFAIR COMPETITION UNDER THE LANHAM ACT

65. BOB TYLER TOYOTA incorporates paragraphs 1 through 49, and brings the following 

claim for unfair competition/infringement of an unregistered trademark, pursuant to 15 

U.S.C. §1125, against all Defendants. 

66. Plaintiff’s “BOB TYLER” trademark for use in connection with auto sales and related 

goods and services is inherently distinctive. 

67. By and through extensive advertising and other promotional efforts, Plaintiff’s “BOB 

TYLER” trademark has acquired distinctiveness and secondary meaning. 

68. By and through extensive advertising and other promotional efforts, Plaintiff has acquired 

considerable goodwill associated with the use of its distinctive “BOB TYLER” 

trademark. 

69. Subsequent to Plaintiff’s use of its distinctive “BOB TYLER” trademark, Defendants 

purchased Internet keywords which include Plaintiff’s “BOB TYLER” trademark from 

search engine providers including, but not limited to Google, Yahoo, and others in order 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 46 Filed 05/17/10 Page 35 of 50
16 

to drive traffic to their own website(s) offering goods and services which compete with 

the goods and services offered by the Plaintiff. 

70. Defendants’ use of the phrase “BOB TYLER” as an Internet keyword as described herein 

is likely to cause confusion among consumers and is an infringement of Plaintiff’s “BOB 

TYLER” trademark. 

71. Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendants use of “BOB TYLER” as an Internet keyword. 

72. The acts complained of herein have caused irreparable harm to the Plaintiff. 

III. VIOLATION OF ANTI-CYBERSQUATTING CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 

73. BOB TYLER TOYOTA incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 49 

of this Complaint. 

74. Defendants have registered, trafficked in, and used in interstate commerce the domains 

 www.bobtylersuzukiquotes.com, 

 www.bobtylerprices.com, 

 www.bobtylertotyotaprices.com, 

 www.bobtylerquotes.com, 

 www.bobtylertoyotapreowned.com, 

 www.bobtylertoyotainventory.com, 

 www.bobtylerusedsuzuki.com, 

 www.bobtylerusedcarquotes.com, 

 www.bobtylerusedcars.com, 

 www.bobtylerpreowned.com, 

 www.bobtylertoyotaquotes.com, 

 www.bobtylertoyotausedcars.com, 

 www.tyletoyota.com, and 

 www.tylrtoyota.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, their products or services and websites offering competing products or 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 46 Filed 05/17/10 Page 36 of 50
17 

services. Such registration, trafficking, and/or use was done after Plaintiff’s BOB TYLER 

trademark became distinctive. 

75. The aforesaid actions constitute cyberpiracy in violation of §43(d) of the Trademark Act 

of 1946, 15 U.S.C. §1125(d). 

76. 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. 

77. Defendants have, upon information and belief also registered the following domain 

names: 

 www.youtubeeasternshoretoyota.com, 

 www.youtubekia.com, 

 www.youtubenewcars.com, 

 www.youtubenissan.com, 

 www.youtubetoyota.com, 

 www.youtudenewcars.com, (intentionally misspelled) 

 www.bmwutube.com, 

 www.bmwyoutube.com 

 www.freebmwutube.com, 

 www.freehyundaiutube.com, 

 www.freekiautube.com, 

 www.freelexusutube.com, 

 www.freenissanutube.com, 

 www.freetoyotautube.com, 

 www.hyundaiutube.com, 

 www.kiautube.com, 

 www.lexusutube.com, 

 www.mybmwutube.com, 

 www.mylexusutube.com, 

 www.mytoyotautube.com, 

 www.newhyundaiutube.com, 

 www.newkiautube.com, 

 www.newnissanutube.com, 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 46 Filed 05/17/10 Page 37 of 50
18 

 www.newtoyotautube.com, 

 www.nissanutube.com, 

 www.thehyundaiutube.com, 

 www.thenissanutube.com, 

 www.thetoyotautube.com, 

 www.toyotautube.com, 

 www.utubehyundai.com, 

 www.utubekia.com, 

 www.utubelexus.com, 

 www.utubetoyota.com, 

 www.esh-youtube.com, 

 www.eshyoutube.com, 

 www.est-youtube.com, 

 www.estyoutube.com, 

 www.hk-youtube.com, 

 www.hod-youtube.com, 

 www.hodyoutube.com, 

 www.hondayoutube.com, 

 www.kia-youtube.com, 

 www.kiayoutube.com, 

 www.lexusutube.com, 

 www.lexusyoutube.com, 

 www.yahoonewcars.com, 

 www.yahoousedvehicles.com, 

 www.allenturnerusedcar.com, 

 www.allenturnerusedsupercenter.com, 

 www.carlgregory-usedcars.com, 

 www.carlgregory-usedcarsonline.com, 

 www.carlgregory-usedcarstore.com, 

 www.carlgregoryusedtrucks.com, 

 www.chuckstevensusedcars.com, 

 www.craigslisttoyotasearch.com, 

 www.craigslistusedautos.com, 

 www.craigslistusedcarsearch.com, 

 www.craigslistvehiclesearch.com, 

 www.criagslistpreowned.com, (intentionally misspelled). 

 www.ebayautoinventory.com, 

 www.ebayautoprices.com, 

 www.ebayautoquotes.com, 

 www.ebayautosearch.com, 

 www.ebaypreownedautos.com, 

 www.ebaypreownedinventory.com, 

 www.ebaypreownedprices.com, 

 www.ebaypreownedquotes.com, 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 46 Filed 05/17/10 Page 38 of 50
19 

 www.ebaypreownedsearch.com, 

 www.ebayprewonedcarinventory.com, 

 www.ebayusedcarprices.com, 

 www.ebayusedcarquotes.com, 

 www.lexususedebay.com, 

 www.lexusebayprices.com, 

 www.toyotausedebay.com, 

 www.hondaebayprice.com, 

 www.hondaebayprices.com, 

 www.hyundaiebayprice.com, 

 www.edvoylesusedkia.com, 

 www.facebookhyundai.com, 

 www.facebookkia.com, 

 www.facebooklexus.com, 

 www.facebooknewcars.com, 

 www.facebooknissan.com, 

 www.facebooktoyota.com, 

 www.facebookusedcars.com, 

 www.freehyundaifacebook.com, 

 www.freelexusfacebook.com, 

 www.freenissanfacebooke.com, 

 www.kiafacebook.com, 

 www.lexusfacebook.com, 

 www.myfacebookhyundai.com, 

 www.myfacebooklexus.com, 

 www.myfacebooknissan.com, 

 www.myfacebooktoyota.com, 

 www.myhyundaifacebook.com, 

 www.mylexusfacebook.com, 

 www.mynissanfacebook.com, 

 www.mytoyotafacebook.com, 

 www.newfacebookhyundai.com, 

 www.newfacebooktoyota.com, 

 www.newkiafacebook.com, 

 www.newnissanfacebook.com, 

 www.newtoyotafacebook.com, 

 www.thefacebookhyundai.com, 

 www.thefacebooklexus.com, 

 www.thefacebooknissan.com, 

 www.thehyundaifacebook.com, 

 www.thekiafacebook.com, 

 www.thelexusfacebook.com, 

 www.thenissanfacebook.com, 

 www.thetoyotafacebook.com, 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 46 Filed 05/17/10 Page 39 of 50
20 

 www.toyotafacebookonline.com, 

 www.hyundairfacebook.com, 

 www.kia-facebook.com, 

 www.gateway-usedcars.com, 

 www.gatewaybadcredit.com, 

 www.gatewayusedcars.com, 

 www.googlenewcars.com, 

 www.googleusedvehicles.com, 

 www.hyundaitwitter.com, 

 www.esh-twitter.com, 

 www.eshtwitter.com, 

 www.est-twitter.com, 

 www.esttwitter.com, 

 www.hod-twitter.com, 

 www.hodtwitter.com, 

 www.lexustwitter.com, 

 www.nissan-twitter.com, 

 www.jimelliskia.com, 

 www.kenbogsusedcars.com, 

 www.msnnewcars.com, 

 www.msnusedcars.com, 

 www.myspacenewcars.com, 

 www.eshmyspace.com, 

 www.estmyspace.com, 

 www.hod-myspace.com, 

 www.hondamyspace.com, 

 www.lexusmyspace.com, 

 www.paypalnewcars.com, 

 www.paypalusedcars.com, 

 www.robdoll-nissan.com, 

 www.robdoll-nissanonline.com, 

 www.robdoll-nissanstore.com, 

 www.robdoll-toyota.com, 

 www.robdollbadcredit.com, 

 www.robdollbestpriceusedcars.com, 

 www.robdollnewnissanprice.com, 

 www.robdollnissanquote.com, 

 www.robdollusedcars.com, 

 www.robdollusednissanprice.com, 

 www.robdollusednissanpriceonline.com, 

 www.robdollusednissanpricestore.com, 

 www.robdollusedtrucks.com, 

 www.sandysansingbadcredit.com, 

 www.sandysansingbestprice.com, 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 46 Filed 05/17/10 Page 40 of 50
21 

 www.sandysansingnissanbestprice.com, 

 www.sandysansingnissanbestquote.com, 

 www.sandysansingnissanusedcars.com, 

 www.sandysansingusedcars.com, 

 www.sandysansingusednissans.com. 

 www.yahoonewcars.com, 

 www.yahoousedvehicles.com, 

 www.chrimeirs.com, 

 www.chrismiers.com, 

 www.chrismiersautomall.com, 

 www.chrismiersautomotive.com, 

 www.chrismyersautomalleasternshore.com, 

 www.chrismyerseasternshore.com, 

 www.chrismyersofeasternshore.com, 

 www.esterbrooktoyotausedcars.com, 

 www.freefacebookhyundai.com, 

 www.freefacebooklexus.com, 

 www.freefacebooknissan.com, 

 www.glynnsmithusedcars.com, 

 www.jaytoyota.com, 

 www.jay-toyota.com, 

 www.jaymazdausedcars.com, 

 www.jayscionunsedcars.com, 

 www.jaytoyotabadcredit.com, 

 www.jaytoyotabestpriceusedcars.com, 

 www.jaytoyotabestpriceusedtrucks.com, 

 www.jaytoyotaprice.com, 

 www.jaytoyotapriceonline.com, 

 www.jaytoyotaquote.com, 

 www.jaytoyotausedcars.com, 

 www.jaytoyotausedtrucks.com, 

 www.jimellikia.com, 

 www.kenboggsusedcars.com 

 www.marazziautomall.com, 

 www.marazziinfinitey.com, 

 www.marazziinfiniti.com, 

 www.marazziluxurycars.com, 

 www.marazzitoyota.com, 

 www.marazziusedcars.com, 

 www.mcconnellusedcars.com, 

 www.palmerspreowned.com, 

 www.palmerstoyotapreowned.com, 

 www.palmerstoyotausedcars.com, 

 www.palmersusedcars.com, 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 46 Filed 05/17/10 Page 41 of 50
22 

 www.palmerstoyota.com, 

 www.palmetoyota.com, 

 www.reinhardtioyotausedcars.com, 

 www.springhillpreowned.com, 

 www.springhilltoyotapreowned.com, 

 www.springhilltoyotausedcars.com, 

 www.springhillusedcars-toyota.com, 

 www.tameronhondausedcars.com, 

 www.tameronusedcars.com, 

 www.toyotaebayprice.com, 

 www.toyotaebayprices.com, 

 www.treadwellusedcars.com, 

 www.usedcarsatlanticclassiccars.com, 

 www.usedcarscoastalford.com, 

 www.usedcarsdeanmccrary.com, and 

 www.usedtoyotaebayprice.com. 

78. Each of the above domain names is, upon information and belief, a domain name which 

incorporates the famous or distinctive trademark of a third party. The Defendants’ 

registration of these domain names supports a finding of bad faith under the ACPA. 

IV. VIOLATION OF FLORIDA UNFAIR COMPETITION 

79. Plaintiff BOB TYLER TOYOTA repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 49 of this 

Complaint. 

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

and marketing products featuring its trademarks, and in creating a consumer demand for 

such products in Florida and elsewhere in the United States. Consequently, these products 

have become widely known and accepted. 

81. 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. 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 46 Filed 05/17/10 Page 42 of 50
23 

82. 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. 

83. 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. 

84. 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 non-public/confidential financial information in the belief 

that they originate with or are authorized by BOB TYLER TOYOTA. 

85. 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. 

86. BOB TYLER TOYOTA has no adequate remedy at law and is suffering irreparable harm 

as a result of the aforesaid actions by the Defendants. 

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

88. 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. 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 46 Filed 05/17/10 Page 43 of 50
24 

V. DILUTION IN VIOLATION OF FLORIDA STATUTE § 495.151

89. BOB TYLER TOYOTA repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 49 of this Complaint. 

90. 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’s rights at common law and under the Florida Anti-Dilution Statute, Fla.Stat. 

§495.151. 

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

conjunction with the offering of the Infringing Services will cause confusion in the 

marketplace regarding the sponsorship and origin of such services and will tarnish BOB 

TYLER TOYOTA’s reputation in the marketplace. 

92. 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. 

VI. VIOLATION OF FLORIDA STATUTE § 668.704

93. BOB TYLER TOYOTA repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 49 of this Complaint. 

94. Defendants have fraudulently used Plaintiff’s identifying information in order to 

represent themselves, directly, or by implication, to be Plaintiff, without the authority of 

Plaintiff, through the use of web pages or multiple domain names. 

95. Defendants’ actions have occurred with a frequency as to constitute a pattern or practice. 

96. Defendants have used such fraudulent web pages and domain names to induce, request, 

or solicit a resident of Florida to provide identifying information. 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 46 Filed 05/17/10 Page 44 of 50
25 

97. Plaintiff is an owner of a web page, trademark, or service mark who is adversely affected 

by Defendants’ violation. 

98. Pursuant to Florida Statute §668.704(2)(a) Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief to 

restrain Defendants from continuing the violation (or beginning the same, or similar 

activity in the future). 

99. Pursuant to Florida Statute §668.704(2)(b) Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages in an 

amount equal to the greater of: (1) actual damages arising from the violation; or (2) the 

sum of $5,000 for each violation of the same nature. 

100. Pursuant to Florida Statute §668.704(3) Plaintiff sets forth that this Court may 

increase the award of actual damages to an amount not to exceed three times the actual 

damages sustained if the Court finds that the violations have occurred with a frequency as 

to constitute a pattern and practice. 

101. Pursuant to Florida Statute §668.704(5) Plaintiff has incurred attorneys’ fees and 

court costs in seeking to enforce against this violation. 

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 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 46 Filed 05/17/10 Page 45 of 50
26 

(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, 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 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 46 Filed 05/17/10 Page 46 of 50
27 

contain any information relating to the selling, marketing, offering for sale, advertising, 

promoting or displaying of all unauthorized services which infringe any of BOB TYLER 

TOYOTA’s “BOB TYLER” trademarks; 

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

the “BOB TYLER TOYOTA” trademarks; and 

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 

 www.bobtylersuzukiquotes.com, 

 www.bobtylerprices.com, 

 www.bobtylertotyotaprices.com, 

 www.bobtylerquotes.com, 

 www.bobtylertoyotapreowned.com, 

 www.bobtylertoyotainventory.com, 

 www.bobtylerusedsuzuki.com, 

 www.bobtylerusedcarquotes.com, 

 www.bobtylerusedcars.com, 

 www.bobtylerpreowned.com, 

 www.bobtylertoyotaquotes.com, 

 www.bobtylertoyotausedcars.com, 

 www.tyletoyota.com, and 

 www.tylrtoyota.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 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 46 Filed 05/17/10 Page 47 of 50
28 

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 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’s services or 

products. 

k. Its actual damages for Defendants’ unfair competition and false advertising. 

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 One Million Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,400,000.00). 

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

 www.bobtylersuzukiquotes.com, 

 www.bobtylerprices.com, 

 www.bobtylertotyotaprices.com, 

 www.bobtylerquotes.com, 

 www.bobtylertoyotapreowned.com, 

 www.bobtylertoyotainventory.com, 

 www.bobtylerusedsuzuki.com, 

 www.bobtylerusedcarquotes.com, 

 www.bobtylerusedcars.com, 

 www.bobtylerpreowned.com, 

 www.bobtylertoyotaquotes.com, 

 www.bobtylertoyotausedcars.com, 

 www.tyletoyota.com, and 

 www.tylrtoyota.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 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 46 Filed 05/17/10 Page 48 of 50
29 

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 Defendants be restrained from using such fraudulent web pages and domain names to 

induce, request, or solicit anyone to provide identifying information. 

r. That pursuant to Florida Statute §668.704(2)(a) that BOB TYLER TOYOTA be entitled to 

injunctive relief to restrain Defendants from continuing the violation (or beginning the 

same, or similar activity in the future). 

s. That pursuant to Florida Statute §668.704(2)(b) that BOB TYLER TOYOTA be entitled to 

recover damages in an amount equal to the greater of: (1) actual damages arising from the 

violation; or (2) the sum of $5,000 for each violation of the same nature. 

t. That pursuant to Florida Statute §668.704(3) that the Court increase the award of actual 

damages to an amount not to exceed three times the actual damages sustained by finding 

that the violations have occurred with a frequency as to constitute a pattern and practice. 

u. 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. 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 46 Filed 05/17/10 Page 49 of 50
30 

Dated: May 17, 2010 Respectfully submitted: 

 By: _s/FRANK HERRERA__ 

 Frank Herrera 

 Florida Bar No. 494801 

 Email: fherrera@qpwblaw.com

 Gustavo Sardiña (to be admitted to the District) 

 Florida Bar No. 31162 

 Email: gsardina@qpwblaw.com 

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

 9300 South Dadeland Boulevard, 

 Fourth Floor 

 Miami, Florida 33156 

 Tel.: (305) 670-1101 

 Fax.: (305) 670-1164 

 -and- 

 Patrick V. Douglas, Esq. 

 Florida Bar No. 68639 

 Email: pdouglas@qpwblaw.com

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

 215 S. Monroe Street, Suite 510 

 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1804 

 Telephone: (850) 412-1042 

 Facsimile: (850) 412-1043 

 Tel.: (305) 670-1101 

 Fax.: (305) 670-1164 

 Attorneys for the Plaintiff 

Case 3:09-cv-00571-RS-MD Document 46 Filed 05/17/10 Page 50 of 50