719 F.Supp.3d 1133
D. Or.2024Background
- cPanel, LLC is a Texas-based software developer that sells hosting automation software under the registered trademark “CPANEL.”
- Defendants Hesam Asli and Siavash Dashti, operating as "Licenseman," allegedly sold illicit and counterfeit cPanel licenses using a network of domains that targeted U.S. customers.
- Plaintiff discovered the scheme via users seeking technical support for these illicit licenses, uncovering that Defendants had circumvented license restrictions and rerouted software verification to servers under their control.
- Defendant Dashti denied involvement beyond providing his financial information and administration for domain accounts, but evidence contradicted this.
- cPanel sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin Defendants and specific non-party service providers from ongoing infringement and to freeze related assets, after evidentiary discovery and the revelation of Defendants' identities.
- Defendants are based overseas, employ privacy mechanisms to hide their activities, and have attempted to frustrate detection and enforcement efforts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal Jurisdiction over Defendants | Defendants purposefully targeted the U.S. market and cPanel rights. | No argument (Dashti did not contest jurisdiction). | Court has jurisdiction under Rule 4(k)(2). |
| Likelihood of Success on the Merits | Overwhelming evidence supports copyright/trademark/DMCA violations. | Dashti claims no substantive involvement; denies wrongdoing. | Plaintiff likely to succeed on all major claims. |
| Risk of Irreparable Harm / Mootness | Harm ongoing; cessation is voluntary and easily reversible. | No harm exists; has made infringing domains inaccessible. | No mootness—voluntary cessation doctrine applies. |
| Scope of Preliminary Injunction and Non-party Reach | Named service providers should be enjoined; broad asset freeze needed. | Relief sought is overbroad and improper against non-parties. | Injunction granted in part, narrowed to binding only parties or those in active concert; non-parties require notice/opportunity to be heard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) (sets forth the purposeful direction test for personal jurisdiction in tort cases)
- Brookfield Commc’ns, Inc. v. West Coast Ent. Corp., 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999) (test for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act)
- Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007) (copyright infringement standards)
- Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Akanoc Sols., Inc., 658 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2011) (trademark counterfeiting requirements)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 141 S. Ct. 1017 (2021) (relation of claims to forum activities for jurisdiction)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (reasonableness of exercise of jurisdiction)
- Regal Knitwear Co. v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 9 (1945) (scope of Rule 65 injunctions and binding non-parties)