LOS ANGELES — Flynt Media Corp. claims that Larry Flynt’s injunction against the company is too broad and not justified and has asked a federal judge to amend it.

Last month a federal jury sided with Hustler publisher Larry Flynt and LFP Inc. in a trademark infringement case 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.

But Flynt Media Corp. attorneys now are challenging the injunction over four points: the court-ordered disclaimer on company products, the restrictions on the font used for nephews Jimmy and Dustin, the transfer of domain names and the destruction of materials.

Flynt Media Corp. attorneys claim that fast-approaching, court-imposed deadlines over the destruction of DVDs and other materials would mean that the nephews would be irreparably harmed.

The defense attorneys particular concern over the injunction is the order transferring to Larry Flynt and LFP all “Flynt” domain names that do not include the nephews’ first and last names.

They claim that the jury verdict is overbroad and unjustified and that Flynt Media Corp. was never on trial for cybersquatting, which requires proof of elements from an unregistered trademark infringement claim and federal unfair competition claim.

“For examples, domain names owned by defendants such as FlyntBank.com or FlyntBrothers.com fall under the transfer requirements of the injunction but if and when used, 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,” defense attorneys said in a motion.

“Moreover, most of the domain names registered and owned by defendants were never used at all in connection with any enterprise, but merely registered. This list is over 50 domain names long. It would be manifestly unjust to require the transfer of such domain names and would be clear error.”

Further, Flynt Media Corp. attorneys said that the only issue the jury was asked to consider was whether the term “Flynt” used on DVDs, DVD box covers, and other promotional items.

“The jury was not instructed on cybersquatting law, and was not presented with a special verdict question regarding defendants’ domain names or whether the domain names were uses of a mark that were likely to cause confusion,” the attorneys said.

Flynt Media Corp. is asking U.S. Judge Howard Matz to issue a stay over the injunction and will make their case in front of him at U.S. District Court in Los Angeles on Feb. 1.