time's up v. actnow complaint

Upload: ryan-gile-esq

Post on 30-May-2018

214 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 8/14/2019 Time's Up v. ActNow Complaint

    1/11

    1

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    1516

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    GREENBERG

    TRAURIG,LLP

    3773HowardHu

    ghesParkway,

    Suite400North

    LasVe

    gas,

    Nevada

    89169

    (

    702)792-3773

    (70

    2)792-9002(fax)

    Mark G. Tratos (Bar No. 1086)F. Christopher Austin (Bar No. 6559)GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP

    3773 Howard Hughes ParkwaySuite 500 NorthLas Vegas, Nevada 89169Telephone: (702) 792-3773Facsimile: (702) 792-9002

    Counsel for Plaintiff

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    DISTRICT OF NEVADA

    Times Up, Inc., a Nevada corporation,

    Plaintiff,

    v.

    ActNow Media, Inc.

    Defendant.

    Case No.

    COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND

    INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

    (1) Trademark Infringement under15 U.S.C. 1115(c)

    (2) Unfair Competition under15 U.S.C. 1125(a)

    (3) Common Law Trademark

    Infringement(4) Deceptive Trade Practices under

    N.R.S. 598.0903, et seq.

    For its complaint against Defendant, Plaintiff Times Up, Inc. (Times Up) complains

    and alleges as follows:

    NATURE OF ACTION

    This is an action for trademark infringement and unfair competition under federal

    statutes, with pendent claims for common law trademark infringement, state deceptive

    trade practices, and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. Plaintiff

    seeks damages, attorneys fees, costs, and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.

    JURISDICTION

    1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

    1331 and 1338(a). This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law

    claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(a).

    Case 2:09-cv-00131-HDM-LRL Document 1 Filed 01/20/2009 Page 1 of 7

  • 8/14/2019 Time's Up v. ActNow Complaint

    2/11

    2

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    1516

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    GREEN

    BERG

    TRAURIG,LLP

    3773HowardHu

    ghesParkway,

    Suite400North

    LasVe

    gas,

    Nevada

    89169

    (702)792-3773

    (70

    2)792-9002(fax)

    2. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant based upon the following:

    (a) Defendant regularly conducts business in Las Vegas, Nevada; (b) Defendant operates a

    web site on the Internet that is accessible to residents of the State of Nevada; and (c)

    Defendant committed tortious acts that it knew or should have known would cause injury to

    Plaintiff in the State of Nevada.

    3. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada

    under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and (c). Venue lies in the unofficial Southern Division of this

    Court.

    PARTIES

    4. Plaintiff Times Up is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business

    in Las Vegas, Nevada. Times Up manufactures mouse pads and related computer

    accessories under its well-known DIGISPEC brand.

    5. Upon information and belief, Defendant ActNow Media, Inc. (ActNow) is a

    Georgia corporation with its principal place of business in Alpharetta, Georgia. Defendant

    regularly conducts business in the State of Nevada via a web site on the World Wide Web,which is accessible to Nevada residents.

    ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

    6. Plaintiff Times Up manufactures and sells mouse pad and related computer

    accessories under the marks WHEN YOU THINK OF MOUSE PADSTHINK OF

    DIGISPEC; WHEN YOU THINK OF MOUSE PADS DIGISPEC; and WHEN YOU THINK

    OF MOUSE PADS (collectively, the WHEN YOU THINK OF MOUSE PADS Marks or

    the Marks).

    7. Plaintiff Times Up owns the Marks and owns pending trademark applications

    before the United States Patent and Trademark Office for the marks WHEN YOU THINK

    OF MOUSE PADSTHINK OF DIGISPEC; and WHEN YOU THINK OF MOUSE PADS

    DIGISPEC in connection with the custom manufacturing of mouse pads, counter mats,

    coasters, notepads, calendars, cups and containers, and for online retail sales, catalog

    sales and wholesale distribution of mouse pads, counter mats, coasters, notepads,

    Case 2:09-cv-00131-HDM-LRL Document 1 Filed 01/20/2009 Page 2 of 7

  • 8/14/2019 Time's Up v. ActNow Complaint

    3/11

    3

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    1516

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    GREEN

    BERG

    TRAURIG,LLP

    3773HowardHu

    ghesParkway,

    Suite400North

    LasVe

    gas,

    Nevada

    89169

    (702)792-3773

    (70

    2)792-9002(fax)

    calendars, cups and containers. A copy of Plaintiffs federal trademark applications are

    attached hereto as Exhibit A.

    8. Plaintiff Times Up has invested significant time and money in developing the

    WHEN YOU THINK OF MOUSE PADS Marks and substantially more resources in

    promoting its products and services in the United States and throughout the world, for more

    than 11 years. The result of these efforts has been the establishment of a name and

    trademark that represents a business known as a provider of high quality goods and

    exceptional customer service.

    9. Times Up began using the WHEN YOU THINK OF MOUSE PADS Marks in

    connection with its mouse pad and related computer accessories in 1998 and since that

    time has continuously used the Marks in connection with the advertising and promotion of

    its products and services in the United States and around the world.

    10. Based on its extensive use, Times Up owns the exclusive right to use the

    WHEN YOU THINK OF MOUSE PADS Marks in connection with mouse pads and related

    computer accessories.11. On or about January 6, 2009, Defendant began using a confusingly similar

    variation of Plaintiffs WHEN YOU THINK OF MOUSE PADS Marks to advertise its line of

    mouse pads and computer accessories. Specifically, Defendants commenced sending out

    widely distributed flyers via email to advertise their competing products. See Defendant

    Flyer, attached hereto as Exhibit B.

    12. The title of the flyer reads in large bold type: When You Think of

    Mouse Pads and Counter Mats, exactly copying Plaintiffs Marks. (See

    Exhibit B). Directly beneath this title, Defendant has placed its own MOUSE MESSAGES,

    and MAT MESSAGES name together with a collage of images showing Defendants

    products.

    13. The title of the flyer is confusingly similar if not identical to Plaintiffs WHEN

    YOU THINK OF MOUSE PADS Marks.

    Case 2:09-cv-00131-HDM-LRL Document 1 Filed 01/20/2009 Page 3 of 7

  • 8/14/2019 Time's Up v. ActNow Complaint

    4/11

    4

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    1516

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    GREEN

    BERG

    TRAURIG,LLP

    3773HowardHu

    ghesParkway,

    Suite400North

    LasVe

    gas,

    Nevada

    89169

    (702)792-3773

    (70

    2)792-9002(fax)

    14. By using a title on this flyer that is confusingly similar to Plaintiffs Marks,

    Defendant is attempting to intentionally trade on Plaintiffs trade identity and goodwill to

    confuse consumers, to use Plaintiffs goodwill to cause potential consumers to examine

    Defendants flyer and products and/or to cause consumers to wrongfully believe that

    Defendant or its products are somehow affiliated with Plaintiff when such is not the case, or

    at the very least, to cause initial interest confusion in order to entice the consumer to read

    Defendants advertisement, by making the consumer initially believe the advertisement is

    associated with Plaintiff.

    15. Plaintiffs Marks were distinctive at the time Defendant began its use of a

    confusingly similar mark.

    16. Upon information and belief, Defendant did not believe or have reasonable

    grounds to believe that the use of a confusingly similar variation of Plaintiffs protected

    Marks was a fair use or otherwise lawful.

    17. Defendant is not entitled use Plaintiffs WHEN YOU THINK OF MOUSE

    PADS Marks to compare Defendants products to Plaintiff. Plaintiffs WHEN YOU THINKOF MOUSE PADS Marks are unnecessary to identify Plaintiff or its products, and Plaintiffs

    products can be readily identified without using Plaintiffs WHEN YOU THINK OF MOUSE

    PADS Marks.

    18. Further, Defendants use of large, bolded text to set off its infringing use of

    Plaintiffs Marks from the rest of the flyer, and Defendants prominent, indeed primary,

    placement of Plaintiffs WHEN YOU THINK OF MOUSE PADS Marks as the fist line and

    title of the flyer, together with the bold and large text of Plaintiffs DIGISPEC mark

    wrongfully suggest Plaintiffs sponsorship or endorsement of Defendant or the Defendants

    products.

    FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

    (Trademark Infringement under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(c))

    19. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set

    forth herein.

    Case 2:09-cv-00131-HDM-LRL Document 1 Filed 01/20/2009 Page 4 of 7

  • 8/14/2019 Time's Up v. ActNow Complaint

    5/11

    5

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    1516

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    GREEN

    BERG

    TRAURIG,LLP

    3773HowardHu

    ghesParkway,

    Suite400North

    LasVe

    gas,

    Nevada

    89169

    (702)792-3773

    (70

    2)792-9002(fax)

    20. Defendants use in commerce of a mark identical and/or confusingly similar to

    Plaintiffs Marks in connection with Defendants web site, mouse pads and computer-

    related goods and services, constitutes a reproduction, copying, counterfeiting, and

    colorable imitation of Plaintiffs name in a manner that is likely to cause confusion or

    mistake or is likely to deceive consumers.

    21. Defendants use of Plaintiffs Marks has created a likelihood of confusion

    among consumers who may falsely believe that Defendants business and/or goods and

    services are associated with Plaintiffs or that Plaintiff sponsors or approves of Defendants

    products or commercial activities.

    22. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants infringement, Plaintiff has

    suffered, and will continue to suffer, monetary loss and irreparable injury to its business,

    reputation, and goodwill.

    SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

    (Unfair Competition under Lanham Act 1125(a))

    23. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as if fully setforth herein.

    24. Defendants use in commerce of a mark identical and/or confusingly similar to

    Plaintiffs Marks in connection with Defendants goods and services constitutes a false

    designation of origin and/or a false or misleading description or representation of fact,

    which is likely to cause confusion, cause mistake, or deceive as to affiliation, connection, or

    association with Plaintiff, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of Defendants

    products or commercial activities by Plaintiff.

    25. By using Plaintiffs Marks with the knowledge that Plaintiff owns and has

    used, and continues to use, its Marks in Las Vegas, across the United States, and around

    the world, Defendant has intended to cause confusion, cause mistake, or deceive

    consumers.

    26. As a direct and proximate result of such unfair competition, Plaintiff has

    suffered, and will continue to suffer, monetary loss and irreparable injury to its business,

    Case 2:09-cv-00131-HDM-LRL Document 1 Filed 01/20/2009 Page 5 of 7

  • 8/14/2019 Time's Up v. ActNow Complaint

    6/11

    6

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    1516

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    GREEN

    BERG

    TRAURIG,LLP

    3773HowardHu

    ghesParkway,

    Suite400North

    LasVe

    gas,

    Nevada

    89169

    (702)792-3773

    (70

    2)792-9002(fax)

    reputation, and goodwill.

    THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

    (Common Law Trademark Infringement)

    27. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set

    forth herein.

    28. By virtue of having used and continuing to use its Marks, Plaintiff has

    acquired common law rights in that mark.

    29. Defendants use of a mark identical and/or confusingly similar to Plaintiffs

    Marks infringes Plaintiffs common law rights in its trademark, and this use is likely to cause

    confusion, mistake, or deception among consumers, who will believe that Defendants

    mouse pads and/or computer accessories originate from, or are affiliated with, or endorsed

    by Plaintiff when, in fact, they are not.

    30. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants infringement of Plaintiffs

    common law trademark rights under Nevada and other common law, Plaintiff has suffered,

    and will continue to suffer, monetary damages and irreparable injury to its business,reputation, and goodwill.

    FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

    (Deceptive Trade Practices

    under N.R.S. 598.0915)

    31. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set

    forth herein.

    32. Upon information and belief, in the course of operating its business,

    Defendant knowingly made false representations as to affiliation, connection and/or

    association with Plaintiff by using a mark confusingly similar to Plaintiffs Marks and

    otherwise engaged in deceptive trade practices.

    33. As the direct and proximate result of Defendants conduct, Plaintiff has

    suffered, and will continue to suffer, monetary damages and irreparable injury to its

    business, reputation, and goodwill.

    Case 2:09-cv-00131-HDM-LRL Document 1 Filed 01/20/2009 Page 6 of 7

  • 8/14/2019 Time's Up v. ActNow Complaint

    7/11

    7

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    1516

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    GREEN

    BERG

    TRAURIG,LLP

    3773HowardHu

    ghesParkway,

    Suite400North

    LasVe

    gas,

    Nevada

    89169

    (702)792-3773

    (70

    2)792-9002(fax)

    PRAYER FOR RELIEF

    WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that the Court grant the following relief:

    A. A preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting Defendant, its respective

    officers, agents, servants, employees and/or all persons acting in concert or participation

    with them, or any of them, from using Plaintiffs Marks or confusingly similar variations

    thereof, alone or in combination with any other letters, words, letter strings, phrases or

    designs, in commerce or in connection with any business or for any other purpose

    (including, but not limited to, on email flyers, web sites and in domain names);

    B. An award of compensatory, consequential, statutory, and punitive damages to

    Plaintiff in an amount to be determined at trial;

    D. An award of interest, costs and attorneys fees incurred by Plaintiff in

    prosecuting this action; and

    E. All other relief to which Plaintiff is entitled.

    DATED: January 20, 2009.

    GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP

    /s/ F. Christopher AustinMark G. Tratos (Bar No. 1086)F. Christopher Austin (Bar No. 6559)3773 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 400 NLas Vegas, Nevada 89169Counsel for Plaintiff

    Case 2:09-cv-00131-HDM-LRL Document 1 Filed 01/20/2009 Page 7 of 7

  • 8/14/2019 Time's Up v. ActNow Complaint

    8/11

    Case 2:09-cv-00131-HDM-LRL Document 1-3 Filed 01/20/2009 Page 1 of 4

  • 8/14/2019 Time's Up v. ActNow Complaint

    9/11

    Case 2:09-cv-00131-HDM-LRL Document 1-3 Filed 01/20/2009 Page 2 of 4

  • 8/14/2019 Time's Up v. ActNow Complaint

    10/11

    Case 2:09-cv-00131-HDM-LRL Document 1-3 Filed 01/20/2009 Page 3 of 4

  • 8/14/2019 Time's Up v. ActNow Complaint

    11/11

    Case 2:09-cv-00131-HDM-LRL Document 1-3 Filed 01/20/2009 Page 4 of 4