Amended Complaint

12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10Z.( 11-~::r: 12c;;.(

13~

~

14

15Z 16.(->.!.: 17:I:c;;.( 18~

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ROBERT A. KASHFIAN, ESQ. (SBN: 263173)[email protected]

RYAN D. KASHFIAN, ESQ. (SBN: 265293)ryan@kashfianlaw .com

GEORGE E. AKWO, ESQ. (SBN: 164670)[email protected]

KASHFIAN & KASHFIAN LLP1875 CENTURYPARKEAST, SUITE 1340CENTURYCITY, CALIFORNIA90067-2514(310) 751-7578 I Telephone(310) 751-7579 I Facsimile

OPHIRJ. BITTON, ESQ. (SBN: 204310)[email protected]

BITTON & ASSOCIATES12080 VENTURAPLACE,SUITEDSTUDIOCITY, CALIFORNIA91604-2634(818) 524 - 1223 I TELEPHONE(818) 524 - 1224 I FACSIMILEAttorneys for Plaintiff, SOLID 21, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SOLID 21, INC., a Nevada Corporationheadquartered In Los Angeles,California,

Plaintiff,vs.

HUBLOT OF AMERICA, a FloridaCorporation; LVMH MOETHENNESSY LOUIS VUITTTON,INC., a Delaware Corporation; LVMHWATCH & JEWELRY USA, INC., aDelaware Corporation; LVMH MOETHENNESSY LOUIS VUITTON S.A., aFrench Corporation; and DOES 1-10,inclusive,

Defendants.

CASENo: 2:11-CV-00468-DMG-JC

[Assigned to Judge Dolly M Gee inCourtroom 7J

DEDCOMPLAINT FOR:

1) TRADEMARKINFRINGEMENT;

2) UNFAIR COMPETITION;

3) FALSE DESCRIPTION;

4) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF;

5) DECLARATORY RELIEF

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

[PROPOSED] FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTFOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

-1-CASENo.2: Il-CV -00468-DMG-JC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

XXXXXXXXX

FILED CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT


BY: ___________________ DEPUTY

Case 2:11-cv-00468-DMG-JC Document 76 Filed 01/13/14 Page 1 of 18 Page ID #:1723

Jan. 13, 2014

KTI

12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10Z.( 11-g,.::t: 12[J.(

13~

~

14

15Z 16.(g,. 17:I:[J.( 18~

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiff SOLID 21 INC. (hereinafter "Plaintiff' and/or "SOLID 21 "), a

Nevada Corporation with its principal place of business in Los Angeles, California,

by and through its undersigned attorneys, alleges for its First Amended Complaint

against defendants HUBLOT OF AMERICA, a Florida Corporation; LVMH MOET

HENNESSY LOUIS VUITTTON, INC., a Delaware Corporation; LVMH WATCH

& JEWELRY USA, INC., a Delaware Corporation; their parent company LVMH

MOET HENNESSY LOUIS VUITTON S.A., a French Corporation; and DOES 1-

10, inclusive, (collectively, "DEFENDANTS") as follows:

I. NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is a complaint for Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition,

and False Description arising in Common law and under 32 and 43 of the

Lanham Act, 15 U.S.c. 1114(1) (Trademark Infringement) and 1125(a) and (c)

(Unfair Competition and False Description), for Unfair Business Practice arising

under California Business and Professions Code 14245 et seq. and 17200 et seq.,

and for declaratory relief (see, 15 U.S.C. 1065).

2. SOLID 21 is the owner of the registered and incontestable trademark

RED GOLD for, inter alia, fine jewelry and watches made from a special alloying

of gold with a distinct color made into fine jewelry in connection with the

manufacture, marketing and advertising of watches, necklaces, bracelets, rings,

anklets, cuff links, ornamental hair pins, belt buckles of precious metal, tie clips and

pegs and earrings known as "RED GOLD." The trademark is capsulated in the

following trademark information and in the trademark certificate attached hereto as

Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein as though fully set forth:

U.S. Trademark Registration No. 2,793,987

Mark: RED GOLD(R)

Registered: December 16, 2003

-2-CASENo. 2:1l-CV-00468-DMG-JC[pROPOSED] FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

138003-I_AmendedComplainC010013


78

9

10Z.( 11-"'"= 12(.fJ.(

13~

~

14

15Z 16.(-"'" 17:t(.fJ.( 18~

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

1 Owner: SOLID 21 Incorporated

2 In addition, on August 21, 2009, the Commissioner of Trademarks, United

3 States Patent and Trademark Office issued the following Notice of Use and

4 Incontestability in regards to Plaintiffs RED GOLD trademark (a true and correct

5 copy of said Notice of Incontestability is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 and

6 Incorporated herein as though fully set forth):

"The combined declaration of use and incontestability filed in

connection with the registration identified below meets the

requirements of Sections 8 and 15 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C.

1058 and 1065. The combined declaration is accepted and

acknowledged. The registration remains in force.

REG NUMBER: 2793987

MARK: RED GOLD

OWNER: Solid 21 Incorporated

3. SOLID 21 seeks equitable relief, as well as compensatory and monetary

damages, costs and disbursements. (15 U.S.C. 1116 and 1117.) Plaintiff also

brings this action for monetary damages it has suffered and disgorgement of

DEFENDANTS' profits as a result of DEFENDANTS' unfair competition and

intentional violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).

II. JURISDICTION ANDVENUE

4. This Court has original subject-matter jurisdiction over this action

pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1121 and 28 U.S.c. 1331, 1338(a) and 1338(b) because

this action involves substantial claims arising under the United States Trademark

Act of 1946, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1051, et seq., including claims Trademark

Infringement, Unfair Competition, and False Description arising under 32 and 43

of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1114(1) (Trademark Infringement) and 1125(a)

28 (Unfair Competition and False Description), for Unfair Business Practice arising

-3-CASENo. 2:1l-CV-00468-DMG-JC[PROPOSED] FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT


138003-I_AmendedComplaint_Ol0613


13

14

15

1 under California Business and Professions Code 17200 et seq., and for injury to

2 business reputation. This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over related state

3 dilution and unfair competition in violation of the laws of the State of California

4 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1338(b), 1367 and the doctrine of supplemental

5 jurisdiction, because such state law claims are so related to the claims within the

6 Court's original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case and controversy.

7 5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the defendants because they

8 have personally availed themselves by doing substantial business in California.

9 6. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and (c)

10 because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims

11 occurred in this district, and a substantial part of the property that is the subject of

12 the action is situated in this district.

III. INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

7. This is a trademark case subject to district-wide assignment under Local

16 Rule 3-2(c).

17

18 IV. THE PARTIES

19 8. SOLID 21 is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the

20 State of Nevada with its principal place of business at 22287 Mulholland Highway

21 Suite 82, Calabasas, CA 91302.

22 9. SOLID 21 is informed and believes and on this basis alleges that

23 defendants HUBLOT OF AMERICA, a Florida Corporation; LVMH MOET

24 HENNESSY LOUIS VUITTTON, INC., a Delaware Corporation; LVMH WATCH

25 & JEWELRY USA, INC., a Delaware Corporation, are all wholly owned

26 subsidiaries or agents of LVMH MOET HENNESSY LOUIS VUITTON S.A., a

27 French Corporation, and together they infringe SOLID 21 's trademark through the

28 following wholly-owned subsidiarylbrand name: HUB LOT and LOUIS VUITTON.

-4-CASE No. 2:11-CV-00468-DMG-JC[PROPOSED] FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT



1 SOLID 21 is informed and believes and on this basis alleges that defendant LVMH

2 MOET HENNESSY LOUIS VUITTON is a corporation organized and existing

3 under the laws of France. They are infringing Plaintiffs trademark through the

4 following wholly-owned subsidiary/brand name: HUB LOT and LOUIS VUITTON.

5 10. Defendants DOES 1 to 10, inclusive are now, and/or at all times

6 mentioned in this Complaint were individuals and/or are licensed to do business

7 and/or actually doing business in the United States. Plaintiffs do not know the true

8 names and capacities, whether individual, partner or corporate, of DOES 1 to 10,

9 inclusive and for that reason DOES 1 to 10 are sued under such fictitious names

1 pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Section 19-1 and federal case law.11 SOLID 21 will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint to allege such names

12 and capacities as soon as they are ascertained. Defendants, and each of them, are

13 now and/or at all times mentioned in this Complaint were in some manner legally

14 responsible for the events, happening and circumstances alleged in this Complaint.

15 Defendants, and each of them, proximately subjected Plaintiffs to the unlawful

16 practices, wrongs, complaints, injuries and/or damages alleged in this Complaint.

17 Defendants, and each of them, are now and/or at all times mentioned in this

18 Complaint were the agents, servants and/or employees of some or all other

19 Defendants, and vice-versa, and in doing the things alleged in this Complaint,

20 Defendants are now and/or at all times mentioned in this Complaint were acting

21 within the course and scope of that agency, servitude and/or employment.

22 Defendants, and each of them, are now and/or at all times mentioned in this

23 Complaint were members of and/or engaged in a joint venture, partnership and

24 common enterprise, and were acting within the course and scope of, and in

25 pursuance of said joint venture, partnership and common enterprise. Defendants, and

26 each of them, at all times mentioned in this Complaint concurred and contributed to

27 the various acts and omissions of each and every one of the other Defendants in

28 proximately causing the complaints, mjunes and/or damages alleged in this

-5-[PROPOSED] FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTFOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

CASE No. 2:11-CV-00468-DMG-JCUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



89 11. SOLID 21 is the owner of a United States trademark registration as it

1 Complaint. Defendants, and each of them, at all times mentioned in this Complaint

2 approved of, condoned and/or otherwise ratified each and every one of the acts

3 and/or omissions alleged in this Complaint. Defendants, and each of them, at all

4 times mentioned in this Complaint aided and abetted the acts and omissions of each

5 and every one of the other Defendants thereby proximately causing the damages

6 alleged in this Complaint.

7

v. FACTS COMMON TO ALL ALLEGATIONS

10 relates to fine jewelry, watches, and related goods and services using its famous

11 RED GOLD mark, including Reg. No. 2,793,987 (referred to hereinafter as the

12 "RED GOLD Registrations") (see Exhibit 1 hereto).

13 12. For over five years, SOLID 21 has been continuously and exclusively

14 using and promoting its RED GOLD trademark in connection with the design,

15 manufacture, marketing and advertising of fine jewelry, watches and related goods

16 and services.

17 13. The RED GOLD Registration is valid, subsisting and prima facie

18 evidence of the validity of the mark covered by the RED GOLD Registration,

19 SOLID 21's ownership of this mark, and SOLID 21's exclusive right to use the RED

20 GOLD Registration in commerce nationwide. The RED GOLD(R) mark for Reg.

21 No. 2,793,987 has become incontestable.

22 14. SOLID 21 has spent significant sums advertising and promoting its

23 products and services throughout the United States and expanding its business

24 offering goods and related products and services under the distinctive RED GOLD

25 mark. Solid 21 has spent millions of dollars in promotional efforts to brand RED

26 GOLD(R), including direct advertising, aggressive public relations effort and

27 product placement. As part of this effort, Solid 21 has hosted several all-jewelry

28 runway shows highlighting RED GOLD in cites such s New York, Washington


CASE No. 2:11-CV-00468-DMG-JCUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10Z-< 11-f,!,.;I: 12(J)

-< 13~

~

14

15

Z 16-

910

DEFENDANTS

(Trademark Infringement under Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 3231)

1 disregard for SOLID 21 's trademark.

2 21. DEFENDANTS' use of RED GOLD with respect to their marketing,

3 advertising and sale of their own product line of fine jewelry is directly competitive

4 with Plaintiffs use of RED GOLD in the same market and is likely to cause

5 confusion, reverse confusion, mistake, and/or deception as to the source of

6 DEFENDANTS' goods and services.

7

8 VI. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (COUNT 1) AGAINST ALL

11 22. SOLID 21 repeats and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 21 as if fully set

12 forth herein.

13 23. SOLID 21 is the owner of all right, title and interest in and to the RED

14 GOLD Trademark Registration.

15 24. DEFENDANTS' use of the RED GOLD mark to market, advertise

16 and sell their product line of fine jewelry and watches is likely to cause confusion,

17 reverse confusion, mistake and/or deception as to the source, sponsorship or

18 approval of DEFENDANTS' product line in the mistaken belief that SOLID 21 has

19 somehow affiliated, connected or associated with DEFENDANTS.

20 25. DEFENDANTS' aforesaid acts constitute trademark infringement of a

21 federally registered trademark in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1114.

22 26. By reason of DEFENDANTS' aforesaid acts, SOLID 21 has suffered

23 and will continue to suffer damage and injury to its business, reputation and good

24 will, and will sustain loss of revenue and profits, while DEFENDANTS profit by

25 their prohibited use.

26 27. Unless and until enjoined by this Court, DEFENDANTS will continue

27 to perform the acts complained of herein and cause said damages and injury, all to

28 the immediate and irreparable harm of SOLID 21.

-8-[PROPOSED] FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTFORTRADEMARKINFruNGEMENT

CASENo. 2:II-CV-00468-DMG-JC

138003-1_AmendedComplainl_Ol0613




11

138003-lj,mendedComplainl_Ol0613

20 (Unfair Competition under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a))

1 VIII. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

2 (Trademark Infringement under Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 4334)

3 28. SOLID 21 repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 27.

4 29. DEFENDANTS' use of the RED GOLD mark to market, advertise and

5 sell their product line of fine jewelry is likely to cause confusion, reverse confusion,

6 mistake or deception as to the source, sponsorship or approval of DEFENDANTS'

7 product line in the mistaken belief that SOLID 21 has somehow affiliated, connected

8 or associated with DEFENDANTS.

9 30. DEFENDANTS' aforesaid acts constitute trademark infringement 10

10 violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).

31. By reason of DEFENDANTS' aforesaid acts, SOLID 21 has suffered

12 and will continue to suffer damage and injury to their business, reputation and good

13 will, and has and will sustain loss of revenues and profits, while DEFENDANTS

14 profit by their prohibited use.

15 32. Unless and until enjoined by this Court, DEFENDANTS will continue to

16 perform the acts complained of herein and cause said damages and injury, all to the

17 immediate and irreparable harm of Plaintiffs.

18

19 X. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

21 33. SOLID 21 repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 32 as if fully set

22 forth herein.

23 34. Through extensive, continuous and exclusive use for over four years,

24 SOLID 21 is the owner of all rights, title and interest in and to, and has acquired

25 secondary meaning in, the distinctive RED GOLD Mark for its manufacture,

26 marketing, advertising and sale of fine jewelry, watches, and related goods and

27 services. For the purpose of this cause of action, the mark being the words RED

28 GOLD used in this order "RED GOLD."




12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10Z.( 11y..

l: 12fJ1.(

13~

~

14

15Z 16.(-y.. 17l:fJ1.( 18~

19

20

21

35. Through SOLID 21's ownership of the RED GOLD Mark and

reliance on the value and goodwill of the RED GOLD Mark, Plaintiff maintains a

financial interest in its exclusive use of the RED GOLD Marks.

36. DEFENDANTS' use of the RED GOLD Mark to market, advertise

and sell their product line of fine jewelry and watches is likely to cause confusion,

reverse confusion, mistake or deception as to the source, sponsorship or approval of

DEFENDANTS' product line in the mistaken belief that SOLID 21 has somehow

affiliated, connected or associated with DEFENDANTS.

37. DEFENDANTS' aforesaid acts constitute unfair competition with

SOLID 21 in violation ofthe Lanham Act, 15U.S.C. 1125(a).


and will continue to suffer damage and injury to its business, reputation and good

will, and will sustain loss of revenues and profits, while DEFENDANTS profit by

their prohibited use.

39. Unless and until enjoined by this Court, DEFENDANTS' will continue

to perform the acts complained of herein and cause said damages and injury, all to

the immediate and irreparable harm of Plaintiffs.

XI. FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

(COMMON LAW TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT)

40. SOLID 21 repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 39 as if fully set

22 forth herein.

23 41. Defendants acts alleged herein and specifically, without limitation,

24 Defendants' use of the RED GOLD mark, infringe SOLID 21 's exclusive

25 trademark rights in the RED GOLD mark, in violation of the common law.

26 42. As a result of Defendants' acts as alleged above, SOLID 21 has

27 incurred damages in an amount to be proven at trial consisting of, among other

28 things, diminution in the value of the goodwill associated with the RED GOLD



138003-I_AmendedComplainl_010613

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


1 mark.

2

3 XII. SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

4 (Unfair Competition under California Business & Professions Code 17200 et seq.)


6 forth herein.

7 44. Through SOLID 21 's ownership of the RED GOLD Mark and

8 reliance on the value and goodwill of the RED GOLD Mark, Plaintiff maintains a

9 financial interest in its exclusive use of the RED GOLD Marks. For the purpose of

10 this cause of action, the mark being the words RED GOLD used in this order

11 "RED GOLD."

12 45. DEFENDANTS' use of the RED GOLD mark to market, advertise

13 and sell their product line of fine jewelry is likely to cause confusion, reverse

14 confusion, mistake or deception as to the source, sponsorship or approval of

15 DEFENDANTS' product line in the mistaken belief that SOLID 21 has somehow

16 affiliated, connected or associated with DEFENDANTS.

17 46. DEFENDANTS' aforesaid acts constitute unfair competition with

18 Plaintiff within the meaning of California Business and Professions Code 17200.


20 and will continue to suffer damage and injury to their business, reputation and good

21 will, and will sustain loss of revenues and profits, while DEFENDANTS profit by


23 48. Pursuant to California Business & Professions Code 17203, Cisco is

24 entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief ordering DEFENDANTS and

25 each of them to cease this unfair competition, as well as disgorgement of all of

26 DEFENDANTS' profits associated with this unfair competition. Unless and until

27 enjoined by this Court, DEFENDANTS will continue to perform the acts

28 complained of herein and cause said damages and injury, all to the immediate and

-11-[PROPOSED] FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTFORTRADEMARKINFruNGEMENT

CASENo. 2:II-CV-00468-DMG-JCUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



78

9

10Z.( 11-"'"l: 12(.f).(

13~

~

14

15Z 16.(-"'" 17:I:(.f)

18.(~

1 irreparable harm of SOLID 21.

2

3 XIII. SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

4 (Trademark Dilution under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(c

5 49. SOLID 21 repeats and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 48 as if fully set

6 forth herein.

50. SOLID 21 's RED GOLD Mark and Registration is a distinctive mark

that has become famous, and/or alternatively the amber gold hue created and devised

by SOLID 21 is a distinctive mark that has become famous.

51. DEFENDANTS' commercial use of the RED GOLD mark, in

whichever form, to market, advertise and sell their product line of luxury wrist

watches and fine jewelry is causing dilution of the distinctive quality of the RED

GOLD Mark and Registration.

52. DEFENDANTS' aforesaid acts constitute trademark dilution In

violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(c).


and will continue to suffer damage and injury to its business, reputation and good

will, and will sustain loss of revenues and profits, while DEFENDANTS profit by





23

24 XIV. EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

25 (False Description under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a


27 forth herein.

28 III


CASENo.2: ll-CV -00468-DMG-JCUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



11 58. SOLID 21 avers that DEFENDANTS' use of the term RED GOLD

1 56. SOLID 21 's RED GOLD Mark and Registration is a distinctive mark

2 that has become famous, and/or alternatively the amber gold hue created and devised

3 by SOLID 21.

4 57. DEFENDANTS' commercial use of the RED GOLD mark, in

5 whichever form, to market, advertise and sell their product line of fine jewelry

6 including watches is likely to create confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive

7 consumers as to the affiliation, connection or association of SOLID 21 's products, or

8 to deceive consumers as to the origin, sponsorship or approval of SOLID 21 's

9 products, all in dilution of the distinctive quality of the RED GOLD(R) Mark and

10 Registration.

12 comprises a false description or representation of such business or products under 15

13 V.S.C. 1125(a) (Section 43(a) ofthe Lanham Act).





18

19 xv. NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS20 (Trademark Dilution under California Business and Professions Code 14330)

21 60. SOLID 21 repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 59 as if fully set

22 forth herein.

23 61. SOLID 21 is the owner of the famous and distinctive RED GOLD

24 Mark and Registration.

25 62. DEFENDANTS' commercial use of the RED GOLD mark, in

26 whichever form, to market, advertise and sell their product line of fine jewelry is

27 causing likelihood of injury to business reputation or of dilution of the distinctive

28 quality of the RED GOLD Mark and Registration.





1 63. DEFENDANTS' aforesaid acts constitute trademark dilution In

2 violation of California Business and Professions Code 14330.








10

11

12

13

XVI. TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

(Declaratory Relief)

66. SOLID 21 repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 65 as if fully set

14 forth herein.

15 67. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists relating to the rights

16 and duties of the parties herein in the RED GOLD Mark for which judicial

17 determination is required.

18 68. SOLID 21 is and has been, for over five years, the owner of the RED

19 GOLD mark as evidenced by, among other things, the RED GOLD

20 Registrations.

21 69. SOLID 21 has taken all necessary steps to perfect its RED GOLD

22 Registrations and has filed all items necessary to make the RED GOLD mark

23 incontestable.

24 70. DEFENDANTS and each of them have infringed upon SOLID 21's

25 rights by, among other things, using the "RED GOLD" mark to describe and

26 market its products.

27 71. As such a judicial determination is needed setting forth the respective

28 rights, interests, and duties of all parties to this action. Specifically, SOLID 21 seeks



138003-I_AmendedComplain1_010613




XVII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, SOLID 21 prays that the Court award the following relief:

1. That DEFENDANTS, and their agents, officers, employees,

representatives, successors, assigns, attorneys and all other persons acting for, with,

by, through or under authority from DEFENDANTS, and each of them, be

preliminarily and permanently enjoined from:(a) using SOLID 21 's trademark

depicted in Exhibit 1, or any colorable imitation thereof; (b) using any trademark

that imitates or is confusingly similar to or in anyway similar to SOLID 21 's

trademark RED GOLD, or that is likely to cause confusion, mistake, deception, or

public misunderstanding as to the origin of SOLID 21 's products or their

connectedness to DEFENDANTS, and each of them.

2. That DEFENDANTS, and each of them, be required to file with the

Court and serve on SOLID 21 within thirty (30) days after entry of the Injunction, a

report in writing under oath setting forth in detail the manner and form in which

DEFENDANTS, and each of them, have complied with the Injunction

3. That, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117, DEFENDANTS be held liable for

all damages suffered by SOLID 21 resulting from the acts alleged herein;

4. That, pursuant to 15 U.S.c. 1117, DEFENDANTS, and each of them,

be compelled to account to SOLID 21, and that SOLID 21 be awarded, for any and

all profits, gains, and advantages derived by DEFENDANTS, and each of them,

26 from its illegal acts complained of herein;

28 deliver up for destruction product inventory (including watches and jewelry) all

7

8

9

10Z.( 11->be:c 12C'J.(

13~

~

14

15Z 16.(-IJ. 17::eC'J.( 18~

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

27

6

138003-I_AmendedComplainC010613

1 the following declaratory relief: (1) that its RED GOLD Registrations owned by

2 SOLID 21 be deemed incontestable in accordance with 15 USC 1065; and (2) that

3 DEFENDANTS, each or some of them, acted in bad faith in their infringing use of

4 the RED GOLD mark.

5

5. That DEFENDANTS be ordered pursuant to 15 U.S.c. 1118 to

-15-CASE NO.2: n-cv -00468-DMG-JC[PROPOSED] FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT



1 containers, labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles, advertising,

2 promotional material or the like in possession, custody or under the control of

3 DEFENDANTS bearing a trademark found to infringe SOLID 21 's RED GOLD

4 trademark rights, as well as all plates, matrices, and other means of making the

5 same;

6 That the Court declare this to be an exceptional case and award SOLID6.

7 21 its full costs and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 15 V.S.C. 1117(a) and

8 1125(c), and award SOLID 21 punitive and treble damages due to DEFENDANTS'

9 willful and intentional acts of trademark infringement, trademark dilution and unfair

10 competition;

11 7. Injunctive relief prohibiting DEFENDANTS, and each of them, from

12 engaging in the unlawful, unfair, deceptive, and misleading business practices

13 described herein;

14 8. Restoration of all money gained by DEFENDANTS, and each of them,

15 by wrongly using the unlawful, unfair, deceptive, and misleading business practices

16 described in this Complaint;

17 9. That it be determined that SOLID 21 's RED GOLD Registrations are

18 incontestable;

19 10. That it be determined that DEFENDANTS, each or some of them, acted

20 in bad faith in their infringing use of the RED GOLD mark.

21 11. That the Court grant Plaintiff any other remedy to which it may be

22 entitled as provided for in 15 V.S.C. 1116 and 1117 or under state law;

23 12. Interest on the above-requested damages;

24

25

26 III

27 III

28 III

13. Costs of this action and,

14. For such and other further relief that the court deems just and proper.





1 Respectfully Submitted,

2 this 6th day of January, 2014

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10Z< 11-~;e 12[?J

< 13~

~

14

15

Z 16

4 demands a trial by jury.

5

6Respectfully Submitted,

7this 6th day of January, 2014

8

9

10Z.( 11g.:r; 12~.(

l3~

~

14

15Z 16.(===:g. 17:r;~

18.(~

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY1

2

3 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b) SOLID 21 hereby

ERT A. KASH AN, ESQ.RYAN D. KASHFIA ESQ.GEORGE E. AKWO, ESQ.

Attorneys for Plaintiff,SOLID 21 INCORPORATED




Documents

Amended Complaint