Wilens v. Automattic, Inc.

Filing 1

COMPLAINT against AUTOMATTIC, INC., TLDS L.L.C., Google Inc. ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0971-8643010.). Filed byJeffrey Wilens. (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet, # 3 Errata Certificate of Interested Persons)(Wilens, Jeffrey) (Filed on 5/25/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

LAKESHORE LAW CENTER
Jeffrey Wilens, Esq. (State Bar No. 120371)
18340 Yorba Linda Blvd., Suite 107-610
Yorba Linda, CA 92886
714-854-7205
714-854-7206 (fax)
[e-mail]
Attorney and Plaintiff in Pro Se

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN

9

DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

JEFFREY WILENS DBA
LAKESHORE LAW CENTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
AUTOMATTIC, INC.,
TLDS L.L.C. DBA SRSPLUS,
GOOGLE INC.,
and Does 1 through 100,
Defendants.

) Case No. _________________
)
)
)
)
)
) Demand for Jury Trial
) COMPLAINT FOR
) 1. Violation of Lanham Act (15 USC §
) 1125 (a) (1))
) 2. Violation of Anticybersquatting
) Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”)
) (15 USC § 1125 (d))
PARTIES

21

1. Plaintiff JEFFREY WILENS DBA LAKESHORE LAW CENTER, an individual, brings

22

this action on behalf of himself. Plaintiff is a resident of the State of California and

23

Central District of California and a competent adult.

24
25
26
27
28

2. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that Defendant
AUTOMATTIC, INC. is now, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint was, a
corporation based San Francisco, California, in the Northern District of California, and
doing business in the County of Orange, State of California, and throughout the State of
1
COMPLAINT

1

California and United States. It has not designated any principal place of business in

2

the State of California.

3
4

3. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that Defendant TLDS L.L.C.
DBA SRSPLUS is now, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint was, a corporation

5
6

based in the State of Virginia, and doing business in the County of Orange, State of

7

California, and throughout the State of California and United States. It has not

8

designated any principal place of business in the State of California.

9

4. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that GOOGLE INC. is now,

10

and at all times mentioned in this Complaint was, a corporation based in Mountain

11
12
13
14

View, California, and doing business in the County of Orange, State of California, and
throughout the State of California and United States. It has not designated any
principal place of business in the State of California.

15

5. Plaintiff does not know the true names or capacities of the Defendants sued herein as

16

DOES 1 through 100 inclusive, and therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious

17

names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities

18

when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of

19
20
21

these fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences
herein alleged, and that Plaintiff’s damages as herein alleged were proximately caused

22

by those Defendants. Each reference in this complaint to “Defendant” or “Defendants”

23

or to a specifically named Defendant refers also to all Defendants sued under fictitious

24

names.

25
26

6. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times herein
mentioned each of the Defendants, including all Defendants sued under fictitious

27
28

names, and each of the persons who are not parties to this action but are identified by
2
COMPLAINT

1

name or otherwise throughout this complaint, was the alter ego of each of the remaining

2

Defendants, was the successor in interest or predecessor in interest, and was the agent

3

and employee of each of the remaining Defendants and in doing the things herein

4

alleged was acting within the course and scope of this agency and employment.

5
JURISDICTION

6
7
8

7. This Court has jurisdiction because the lawsuit alleges violations of federal law, the
Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (a), (d).

9

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF THE LANHAM ACT (15 USC

10

§ 1125 (a) (1))

11
12
13

8. Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action the allegations contained in paragraphs 1
through 7 inclusive.

14

9. Plaintiff is an attorney licensed in the State of California and authorized to appear in all

15

state courts in California and a number of federal courts in California and Colorado, as

16

well as before the United States Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

17

10. Plaintiff holds trademarks or service marks on “Jeffrey Wilens” and “Lakeshore Law

18

Center.” He has had these since at least 1992. These common law trademarks are

19
20
21

pending registration under serial numbers 86193592 and 86193589 respectively.
11. Plaintiff operates a national law office under these trademarks and maintains websites

22

at www.lakeshorelaw.org and www.creditrepairdebt.org as well as at other Internet

23

locations.

24

12. There is only one attorney named Jeffrey Wilens in the USA and only one law firm

25

named Lakeshore Law Center in the USA. Plaintiff is known for a specialized practice in

26

consumer and employment law and it is not unusual for him to receive inquiries from

27
28

potential clients throughout the United States.
3
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4

13. Over the past 20 years, Plaintiff has spent tens of thousands of dollars advertising and
promoting his personal and business name.
14. Defendants are website hosts (Internet Service Providers) or domain name registrars.
15. Defendant AUTOMATTIC, INC. hosts all the websites operating under the

5
6
7
8

“Wordpress.com” domain name.
16. Defendant GOOGLE INC. hosts all the websites operating under the “Blogger” domain
name.

9

17. Defendant TLDS L.L.C. DBA SRSPLUS is the domain name registrar for

10

www.jeffreywilens.com. The registrant for that domain name is listed as “Konstantin

11
12
13
14

Petrov, Montazhnikov 24, Sankt-Peterburg, Russia,” which is obviously a fake name and
address and in no way related to Plaintiff. The registrant also lists a phone number of
812-000-0000, which is a fake number.

15

18. Doe Defendant No. 1 is a currently unidentified person who has created a number of

16

websites for the purposes of diverting search engine traffic by clients and potential

17

clients of Plaintiff from Plaintiff’s websites to the websites controlled by Doe No. 1. He

18

did this for purposes of commercial gain and with intent to tarnish or disparage

19
20
21

Plaintiff’s marks by creating likelihood of confusion.
19. To that end, Doe No. 1 created an account with AUTOMATTIC, INC. so that he could

22

create Wordpress-hosted websites. Doe No. 1 was allowed by this defendant to use the

23

trademarked names in prominent fashion. Specifically, Doe No. 1 was allowed by

24

AUTOMATTIC,

25

lakeshorelawcenter.wordpress.com;

26

INC.

to

create

using

the

names:

attorneyjeffreywilens.wordpress.com;

jeffreywilenslawyer.wordpress.com; unitedvictimsofjeffreywilens.wordpress.com; and

27
28

websites

jeffreywilenslakeshorelaw.wordpress.com.
4
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4

20. Similarly, Doe No. 1 created an account with GOOGLE INC. which allowed him to
created a Blogger hosted website using the name jeffreywilens.blogspot.com.
21. Similarly, Doe No. 1 hired SRSPLUS to register the name “jeffreywilens.com” for a
website owned by Doe No. 1. SRSPLUS was immediately aware of the fake registrant

5
6

information provided by Doe No. 1.

7

22. Each of the Defendants knew or should have known Doe No. 1 was not Plaintiff and had

8

no legitimate purpose for using Plaintiff’s personal or business name in the domain

9

name of the websites.

10
11
12
13

23. Each of the Defendants is aware their actions were and are contributing to the
trademark infringements in that Plaintiff provided written notice on or about March 3,
2014 to each of the Defendants and provided specific information describing the

14

trademark infringements and each particular defendant’s role in perpetuating them.

15

Each of the Defendants responded in writing and stated they would not take any actions

16

to stop the trademark infringements which they were assisting absent an order from a

17

court of competent jurisdiction.

18
19
20
21
22

24. Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1125, subdivision (a) (1) by using in commerce the terms
or names “Jeffrey Wilens” and/or “Lakeshore Law Center” in a manner that is likely to
cause confusion or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection or association of the
ownership of the aforementioned websites.

23

25. As a result of these trademark infringements, Plaintiff has suffered damages in that

24

potential and actual clients have been misdirected to the offending websites by virtue of

25

the fact they appear prominently in the list of websites generated by “Googling” Jeffrey

26

Wilens or Lakeshore Law Center. If Doe No. 1 had not been allowed to use the names

27
28

“Jeffrey Wilens” or “Lakeshore Law Center” as the domain names, the search engines
5
COMPLAINT

1

would not have ranked these offending websites so highly.

2

26. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116 and 15 U.S.C. § 1117, Plaintiff is entitled to recover

3

equitable relief in the form of an injunction and cancellation of the improper domain

4

names, and damages sustained by Plaintiff.

5
6

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF THE ANTI–

7

CYBERSQUATTING PROTECTION ACT (ACPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)

8

27. Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action the allegations contained in paragraphs 1

9
10
11
12
13
14

through 26, inclusive.
28. As alleged previously, Defendants registered, trafficked in and used domain names
incorporating the personal and business names of Plaintiff, which are distinctive marks,
and with the bad faith intent to profit from those marks.
29. Most of the factors set forth in 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (d) (1) (B) (1) militate in favor of finding

15

bad faith, including these facts:

16

a) Plaintiff has trademark rights to the domain names;

17

b) The domain names consist of the legal name of Plaintiff and of his business;

18

c) There is no history of prior use of these domain names by Defendants before

19
20
21

October 2013;
d) Defendants have no bona fide noncommercial or fair use of the marks;

22

e) Defendants intended to divert consumers from Plaintiff’s legitimate websites to sites

23

controlled by Defendants which were set up to harm the goodwill represented by the

24

marks and to disparage the marks and create confusion;

25
26

f) Doe No. 1 provided false contact information when applying to register the domain
names and Defendants knowingly published that false information;

27
28

g) Doe No. 1 registered or set up multiple websites with domain names Defendants
6
COMPLAINT

1

knew were identical or confusingly similar to the marks of Plaintiff and Defendants

2

permitted him to do this.

3
4

30. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116, 15 U.S.C. § 1117 and 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (d) (1) (C), Plaintiff is
entitled to recover equitable relief in the form of an injunction, forfeiture or cancellation

5
6
7
8
9

of the domain names being used by Doe No. 1 and transfer of same to Plaintiff, and
damages sustained by Plaintiff.
31. In the alternative to actual damages, Plaintiff may elect to receive statutory damages of
$1,000 to $100,000 per domain name from Defendants.

10
11
12

REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff respectfully requests trial by jury.
DATED: May 27, 2014

13

Respectfully submitted,

14

By

15

JEFFREY WILENS
Attorney and Plaintiff in Pro Se

16

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

__/s/ Jeffrey Wilens________

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment on all causes of action against
Defendants as follows:
1. For a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from misusing Plaintiff’s trademarks
or service marks and cancellation of domain names and/or transfer of them to Plaintiff;
2. For actual damages on the first and second causes of action in an amount according to
proof;
3. For statutory damages of $100,000 for each domain name that was misused as alleged
above on the second cause of action;
4. For interest on the sum of money awarded as damages;

28
7
COMPLAINT

1

5. For costs of suit incurred herein; and

2

6. For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper.

3

DATED: May 27, 2014

4

Respectfully submitted,

5

By

6
7

__/s/ Jeffrey Wilens________
JEFFREY WILENS
Attorney and Plaintiff in Pro Se

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
COMPLAINT