Larry Flynt’s Attorneys Demand Nephews Hand Over Websites

Jan 20, 2010 12:15 PM PST
LOS ANGELES — Larry Flynt’s attorneys, telling a judge Tuesday that they’re not the nephews’ “compliance officer,” have demanded that Flynt Media Corp. hand over at least 50 company websites.

Last month a federal jury sided with Hustler publisher Larry Flynt and LFP Inc. and approved a permanent injunction against his nephews who sought to launch Flynt Media Corp., a competing adult entertainment company using the same family name.

Despite the court loss, Flynt Media Corp. continues to challenge a court-ordered transfer of 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.

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.”

“Plaintiffs seek finality to this proceeding,” said Jonathan Brown, one of Larry Flynt’s attorneys. “It is neither the intent nor desire of plaintiffs to act as the compliance officer for defendants.”

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 domain names such as or “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.”

But Larry Flynt’s attorneys note the nephews could use domain names with their full names in them.

“Nothing in the permanent injunction prohibits defendants from using domain names such as or or or any other, almost infinite number of, permutations of the same,” Brown said.

The two parties meet in front of Matz at U.S. District Court in Los Angeles on Feb. 8.

More Adult Industry News »
About / Contact