Central Source LLC v. freeannualcreditreport.site et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Central Source LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
freeannualcreditreports.club, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-01610-PHX-KML
ORDER
Plaintiff Central Source LLC seeks default judgment in this in rem action against
twelve domain names. (Doc. 13.) The court must consider seven factors when deciding
whether to enter default judgment. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir.
1986). The seven factors are:
(1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of plaintiff’s
substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the sum of money
at stake in the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material
facts; (6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong
policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on
the merits.
Id. These factors establish default judgment is appropriate.
1. Possibility of Prejudice
The first factor regarding the prejudice to Central Source weighs in favor of default
judgment because if “default judgment is not granted, [Central Source] will likely be
without other recourse for recovery.” PepsiCo, Inc. v. Cal. Sec. Cans, 238 F. Supp. 2d
1172, 1177 (C.D. Cal. 2002).
Case 2:25-cv-01610-KML Document 14 Filed 11/19/25 Page 1 of 5

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2. Merits of the Claims and Sufficiency of the Complaint
The second and third factors require assessing the merits of Central Source’s claims
and the sufficiency of its complaint.1 These factors “are often analyzed together and require
courts to consider whether a plaintiff has state[d] a claim on which [he] may recover.”
Vietnam Reform Party v. Viet Tan - Vietnam Reform Party, 416 F. Supp. 3d 948, 962 (N.D.
Cal. 2019).
The complaint asserts a single claim under the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer
Protection Act (“ACPA”). (Doc. 1 at 13.) “A plaintiff pursuing a cybersquatting claim
under the ACPA must show that: (1) the defendant registered, trafficked in, or used a
domain name; (2) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a protected mark
owned by the plaintiff; and (3) the defendant acted with bad faith intent to profit from that
mark.” Rearden LLC v. Rearden Com., Inc., 683 F.3d 1190, 1219 (9th Cir. 2012)
(simplified). Central Source’s complaint contains sufficient allegations establisahing these
elements.
Central Source has used the mark “AnnualCreditReport” since 2004. (Doc. 1 at 9.)
Since that time, the mark “has become famous and/or distinctive throughout the United
States.” (Doc. 1 at 11.) And “consumers immediately associate[] the AnnualCreditReport
mark . . . with Central Source.” (Doc. 1 at 9). Accepting the complaint’s factual allegations
as true, Central Source has common law trademark rights as well as statutory trademark
rights in its mark. And the defendant domain names, registered in 2025, contain the full
mark or small variations of it. The domain names easily satisfy the requirement of being
identical or confusingly similar to the mark.
Finally, Central Source has adequately alleged the defendant domain names were
registered with bad faith intent to profit from Central Source’s mark. The governing statute
provides a list of factors a court may consider when determining if bad faith exists, and
1 The current registrants of the various domain names may have no connection to each
other but as recognized in a similar case involving multiple domain names, “the principles
underlying permissive joinder support granting it here.” PragmaticPlay Int’l Ltd. v.
Agenpragmaticplay.live, No. CV-23-00497-PHX-DLR, 2024 WL 113306, at *4 (D. Ariz.
Jan. 10, 2024).
Case 2:25-cv-01610-KML Document 14 Filed 11/19/25 Page 2 of 5

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
those factors establish bad faith in this case. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(B))(i). In particular,
the defendant domain names do not reflect trademark or intellectual property rights of the
registrants, do not reflect the registrants’ legal names, the registrants have not engaged in
bona fide commercial or noncommercial use of the domain names, the registrants are using
the domain names to divert and confuse consumers, and the registrants did not provide
correct contact information when registering the domain names.
Central Source has stated a strong claim for relief under the ACPA. The second and
third factors support entry of default judgment.
3. Amount in Controversy
The fourth default judgment factor “requires that the court assess whether the
recovery sought is proportional to the harm caused by defendant’s conduct.” Landstar
Ranger, Inc. v. Parth Enterprises, Inc., 725 F. Supp. 2d 916, 921 (C.D. Cal. 2010). When
a large sum is at stake, this factor may weigh against default judgment. Curtis v.
Illumination Arts, Inc., 33 F. Supp. 3d 1200, 1212 (W.D. Wash. 2014). The only relief
Central Source seeks is an order requiring the registrars take all necessary steps to list
Central Source as the registrant of each defendant domain name. This limited relief is
proportional to the harm and this factor supports entry of default judgment.
4. Dispute Over Material Facts
The fifth factor is whether there are any disputes over material facts. The current
registrants of the domain names chose not to participate in this suit, meaning there is no
indication of such disputes. This factor weighs in favor of default judgment.
5. Excusable Neglect
Central Source served the complaint in the manner authorized by the governing
statute. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(2)(B). With no response from an interested party, there is no
indication of excusable neglect, and this factor supports default judgment. See Shanghai
Automation Instrument Co. v. Kuei, 194 F. Supp. 2d 995, 1005 (N.D. Cal. 2001)
(defendants’ failure to respond to complaint could not “be attributable to excusable
neglect” because “[a]ll were properly served with the Complaint, the notice of entry of
Case 2:25-cv-01610-KML Document 14 Filed 11/19/25 Page 3 of 5

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
default, as well as the papers in support of the instant motion.”).
6. Policy Favoring Decisions on the Merits
The seventh factor recognizes a preference for resolving matters on their merits.
This factor, as always, weighs against entry of default judgment. “However, the mere
existence of Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b) indicates that this preference, standing alone, is not
dispositive.” PepsiCo, 238 F. Supp. 2d at 1177 (quotation marks and citation omitted).
7. Default Judgment is Merited
The factors considered together establish default judgment is appropriate.
8. Damages
Although it is Central Source’s burden to prove the amount of its damages, Central
Source is not requesting monetary relief. Blumenthal Distrib., Inc. v. Comoch Inc., 652 F.
Supp. 3d 1117, 1131 (C.D. Cal. 2023). Rather—as required by statute—Central Source
requests only “the transfer of the domain name[s].” 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(2)(D). That is,
Central Source seeks an order directing it be listed as the registrant of defendant domain
names. That relief is appropriate here.
IT IS ORDERED the Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 13) is GRANTED. The
Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff Central Source LLC and against
the Defendant domain names freeannualcreditreport.site, freeannualcreditreports.club,
freeannualcreditreports.shop, freeannualcreditreports.store, freeannualcreditreports.xyz,
myannualcreditreport.club, myannualcreditreport.shop, myannualcreditreport.xyz,
freeannuallcreditreport.online, annual-credit-report-com.cfd, annual-credit-report.cfd, and
annual-credit-reportcom.cfd. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.
/
/
/
/
/
/
Case 2:25-cv-01610-KML Document 14 Filed 11/19/25 Page 4 of 5

- 5 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the registrars GoDaddy.com LLC and NameSilo,
LLC shall take all necessary steps to have plaintiff Central Source LLC listed as the
registrant for the defendant domain names.
Dated this 18th day of November, 2025.
Case 2:25-cv-01610-KML Document 14 Filed 11/19/25 Page 5 of 5