Last month a federal jury sided with Hustler publisher Larry Flynt and LFP Inc. and approved a permanent injunction against nephews Jimmy Flynt II and Dustin Flynt, who sought to launch Flynt Media Corp., a competing adult entertainment company using the same family name.
The 72 websites controlled by Flynt Media Corp. and revealed in court papers filed at U.S. District Court include:
Jimmy Flynt II’s Flynt Media Corp., which he operates with brother Dustin Flynt, continues to challenge the court-ordered transfer of the domain names because it thinks that the injunction is too broad and not justified. Flynt Media Corp. has asked U.S. District Judge Howard Matz to amend it.
Jimmy Flynt II, in court papers provided to Matz, said that he never used most of the 72 domains in connection with active websites. The only domains that were ever connected to active websites were FlyntDistributions.com, FlyntCorp.com, FlyntNation.com and FlyntInteractive.com.
“I currently have plans to engage in business in the future in nonadult-themed goods and services and wish to use some of the domain names that I have registered in so doing,” Jimmy Flynt II wrote in a declaration to the court.
But Larry Flynt’s attorneys claim that Flynt Media Corp. is only trying to find loopholes in the jury’s award, and that “plaintiffs simply seek to foreclose such potential gamesmanship and to enjoy their well-earned peace in the matter.”
Flynt Media Corp. attorneys argue that the injunction shouldn’t include all of the company’s “Flynt” domain names that do not include the nephews’ first and last names.
They claim that Flynt Media Corp. was never on trial for cybersquatting and point out that some of the domain names can be used for websites that “have nothing to do with adult entertainment and therefore clearly fall out of the scope of the issues in this case.”
Larry Flynt’s attorneys, however, say that Flynt Media Corp. “Flynt-only” names infringe upon or are likely to be confused with Larry Flynt and his companies.
They’ve asked Matz to revisit and carefully word the final permanent injunction so that Flynt Media Corp. doesn’t try to “skirt the edges or play the margins of what is or is not permissible.”
Flynt Media Corp., meanwhile, also is challenging the injunction’s order of the destruction of DVD boxcovers printed for its videos, which apparently the company intends to remarket.
“[Flynt Media Corp.] should be allowed to physically alter any materials to comply with [the injunction], if they so choose,” their attorneys asked Matz. “Alteration may occur, for example, by placing labels in front of the name ‘Flynt’ on the DVD boxcovers with the first names of defendants.
“The requirement to destroy all materials that violate the terms of the order is unwarranted and overly broad.”
The two parties meet in front of Matz at U.S. District Court in Los Angeles on Feb. 8.