Case 2:12-cv-00302-GZS Document 1 Filed 10/02/12 Page 1 of 14

PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

TAO LICENSING LLC, Plaintiff, v. TAO RESTAURANT LLC d/b/a TAO, CECILE STADLER, JOHN STADLER, and CARA STADLER, Defendants. Plaintiff Tao Licensing LLC (TAO Licensing or Plaintiff) alleges as follows, with knowledge as to its own actions, and upon information and belief as to all other matters: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This action arises under the federal Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq., and Civil Action No.:

COMPLAINT

related state statutes and common law doctrines. This Court has jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. 1121, 28 U.S.C. 1338(a) and (b), and 28 U.S.C. 1367(a). 2. Venue is proper in this judicial district. PARTIES 3. Plaintiff TAO Licensing is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal

place of business at 888 Seventh Avenue, Suite 3402, New York, NY 10106. 4. Defendant Tao Restaurant LLC is a Maine limited liability corporation with a

place of business, namely, a restaurant, at 22 Pleasant Street, Brunswick, Maine 04011. 5. Defendant Cecile Stadler is an individual located at 109 Holland Drive,

Phippsburg, Maine 04562.

{W3346862.1}

Case 2:12-cv-00302-GZS Document 1 Filed 10/02/12 Page 2 of 14

PageID #: 2

6. Maine 04562. 7. area. 8.

Defendant John Stadler is an individual located at 109 Holland Drive, Phippsburg,

Defendant Cara Stadler is an individual living in the Portland, Maine metropolitan

Upon information and belief, Cecile Stadler, John Stadler, and Cara Stadler are

co-owners of Tao Restaurant LLC. 9. At all relevant times, Defendants have been, and presently are, regularly doing

business in the State of Maine, and in this judicial district. PLAINTIFFS BUSINESS AND TRADEMARKS 10. Plaintiff and/or its licensees (hereinafter referred to collectively as Plaintiff) are

the owners of the widely successful and world-renowned TAO restaurants and nightclubs, which are Asian-themed food and entertainment venues located in Las Vegas and New York City (the TAO Venues). 11. The TAO Venues are among the largest, busiest, and most well-known restaurant

and entertainment venues in the United States, with the first restaurant opening in 2000 and the venues now frequented by millions of people each year. 12. The TAO Venues are frequently visited by celebrities, and consequently are

regularly mentioned in various publications and media outlets around the country. 13. Plaintiff follows the convention of naming each TAO Venue by placing its

geographic location immediately after the mark TAO (the TAO Mark). Thus, Plaintiffs New York and Las Vegas restaurants are known as TAO New York and TAO Las Vegas, respectively.

{W3346862.1}

Case 2:12-cv-00302-GZS Document 1 Filed 10/02/12 Page 3 of 14

PageID #: 3

14. atmosphere. 15.

The TAO Venues are well-known for the quality of their food, service, and

As a result of its aforementioned activities, Plaintiff has built up substantial

goodwill in its TAO Mark, which has become famous for restaurants and nightclubs. 16. Plaintiff is the owner of several United States trademark registrations for the TAO

Mark, as shown below: Trademark Goods / Services TAO TAO Restaurant services, in class 42 Registration No. 2,472,393 Registration Date July 24, 2001 April 6, 2010

Night clubs, special events and party planning; 3,770,321 and coordinating and providing facilities for entertainment events in the nature of parties and special events featuring music, singing, dancing, lectures, and celebrity or professional entertainment, in Class 41

True and correct copies of the above-mentioned registrations are attached hereto as Exhibit A. 17. Plaintiff has spent, and continues to spend, significant amounts of time and money

promoting the TAO Venues and ensuring that customers experiences at the TAO Venues are of the highest quality. Due to this significant expenditure of time and money, the restaurants operated under Plaintiffs TAO Mark are recognized by the general consuming public as highquality establishments with excellent food, service, and atmosphere. 18. As a result of this long and extensive use in connection with high quality Asian-

themed restaurants and entertainment venues, the general consuming public in the United States recognizes the TAO Mark as exclusively associated with high quality services emanating exclusively from Plaintiff. 19. The TAO Mark is famous, inherently distinctive and/or has acquired

distinctiveness, represents valuable goodwill, has gained a reputation for quality belonging
{W3346862.1}

Case 2:12-cv-00302-GZS Document 1 Filed 10/02/12 Page 4 of 14

PageID #: 4

exclusively to Plaintiff, and is widely recognized by the general consuming public of the United States as a designation of source for Plaintiffs restaurants and entertainment venues. DEFENDANTS ACTIVITIES 20. Defendant Tao Restaurant LLC operates an Asian restaurant under the name

TAO at 22 Pleasant Street, Brunswick, Maine 04011 (TAO Maine). 21. TAO Maine opened in or around May 2012, and has been offering Asian-themed

restaurant services under the mark TAO since such opening. 22. On information and belief, Defendant Cara Stadler is the head chef of TAO

Maine, and has been working in the Asian food industry for many years. 23. Due to Cara Stadlers long experience in the Asian food industry, on information

and belief, Cara Stadler had knowledge of Plaintiffs TAO Venues and Plaintiffs well-known and famous TAO Mark prior to Defendants first use of the TAO mark for their restaurant. 24. Defendants use of a mark identical to Plaintiffs TAO Mark, for services

identical to those offered by Plaintiff under the TAO Mark, makes it highly likely, if not inevitable, that consumers and members of the general public will be confused into assuming, incorrectly, that TAO Maine is owned by Plaintiff, or that there is an affiliation between the parties, or that Plaintiff has sponsored, endorsed, or approved of TAO Maine. 25. Defendants also use Plaintiffs TAO Mark as part of their domain name for their

restaurant website, which is <www.Tao-Maine.com>. 26. Moreover, this domain name follows the same naming convention as Plaintiffs

TAO Venues, i.e., placing the TAO mark before the geographic location of the restaurant. 27. even greater. Defendants use of this naming convention makes the likelihood of confusion

{W3346862.1}

Case 2:12-cv-00302-GZS Document 1 Filed 10/02/12 Page 5 of 14

PageID #: 5

28.

Plaintiffs first use of the TAO Mark was in 2000, and its U.S. Trademark

Registration Nos. 2,472,393 and 3,770,321 both issued well prior to Defendants first use of the mark TAO. Therefore, Plaintiffs TAO Mark has priority over Defendants use of the mark TAO. 29. Plaintiff attempted to resolve the dispute over Defendants use of the TAO Mark

without litigation by sending Defendants a letter notifying Defendants of Plaintiffs prior and superior rights in the TAO Mark, and requesting that they cease such use. 30. However, Defendants have refused to cease their infringing use of the TAO Mark,

and continue to operate TAO Maine, despite their knowledge of Plaintiffs prior and superior rights in the TAO Mark. 31. Defendants use of the names TAO and TAO Maine for their Asian restaurant

is an effort to free-ride on the enormous goodwill established by Plaintiffs well-known and famous TAO Venues. 32. Defendants, by their acts complained of herein, have infringed the TAO Mark,

diluted the unique commercial impression of the TAO Mark, unfairly competed with Plaintiff in the marketplace, and otherwise improperly used Plaintiffs reputation and goodwill to promote their restaurant services, which are not connected with, or authorized, approved, licensed, produced or sponsored by, Plaintiff.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF CLAIM I INFRINGEMENT OF A REGISTERED TRADEMARK (FEDERAL) 33. forth herein.
{W3346862.1}

Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 32 as if set

Case 2:12-cv-00302-GZS Document 1 Filed 10/02/12 Page 6 of 14

PageID #: 6

34.

Defendants unlawful and improper actions, as set forth above, are likely to cause

confusion, mistake, or deception as to the source, origin, affiliation, association or sponsorship of Defendants goods and/or services, and to falsely mislead consumers into believing that Defendants TAO Maine restaurant is owned by, affiliated or connected with, or approved by, Plaintiff. 35. Plaintiffs U.S. Trademark No. 2,472,393 for TAO for restaurant services is

incontestable pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1065. 36. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1115, Plaintiffs registrations are evidence of the validity

of the TAO Mark, of Plaintiffs ownership of the TAO Mark, and of Plaintiffs exclusive right to use and license the TAO Mark throughout the United States. 37. Accordingly, Defendants use of the TAO Mark constitutes infringement of

Plaintiffs registered trademarks, in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1114. 38. Defendants acts of infringement have caused Plaintiff to sustain monetary

damage, loss and injury, in an amount to be determined at trial. 39. Defendants have engaged in these activities willfully, so as to justify the

assessment of treble damages and attorneys fees under 15 U.S.C. 1117. 40. Defendants acts of infringement, unless enjoined by this Court, will continue to

cause Plaintiff to sustain irreparable damage, loss and injury, for which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. CLAIM II FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN AND UNFAIR COMPETITION (FEDERAL) 41. forth herein. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 40 as if set

{W3346862.1}

Case 2:12-cv-00302-GZS Document 1 Filed 10/02/12 Page 7 of 14

PageID #: 7

42.

Defendants unlawful and improper actions, as set forth above, are likely to cause

confusion, mistake or deception as to the source, origin or sponsorship of Defendants goods and/or services, and to falsely mislead consumers into believing that Defendants TAO Maine restaurant is owned by, affiliated or connected with, or are approved by, Plaintiff. 43. Accordingly, Defendants activities constitute a false designation of origin with

respect to the TAO Mark, and unfair competition in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1125(a). 44. Defendants acts of false designation of origin and unfair competition have caused

Plaintiff to sustain monetary damage, loss, and injury, in an amount to be determined at trial. 45. Defendants have engaged in these activities willfully, so as to justify the

assessment of treble damages under 15 U.S.C. 1117. 46. Defendants acts of false designation of origin and unfair competition, unless

enjoined by this Court, will continue to cause Plaintiff to sustain irreparable damage, loss and injury, for which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. COUNT III TRADEMARK DILUTION (FEDERAL) 47. forth herein. 48. Plaintiffs TAO Mark is famous and distinctive among the general consuming Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 46 as if set

public in the United States, and has been famous since long before Defendants commenced use of TAO. 49. Defendants use of the mark TAO for their TAO Maine restaurant is likely to

dilute the distinctive quality of the famous TAO Mark in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1125(c). 50. The acts of Defendants described above are unlawful and constitute violations of

the federal antidilution statute, 15 U.S.C. 1125(c).

{W3346862.1}

Case 2:12-cv-00302-GZS Document 1 Filed 10/02/12 Page 8 of 14

PageID #: 8

51.

Defendants acts of dilution have caused Plaintiff to sustain monetary damage,

loss, and injury, in an amount to be determined at trial. 52. Defendants have engaged in these activities willfully, so as to justify the

assessment of damages, including treble damages, under 15 U.S.C. 1117. 53. Defendants acts have caused substantial and irreparable damage and injury to

Plaintiff and in particular to its valuable goodwill in, and the distinctive quality of, its famous TAO Mark. Unless these acts are enjoined by this Court, they will continue to cause substantial and irreparable damage and injury to Plaintiff for which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. COUNT IV VIOLATION OF MAINES UNIFORM DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT (10 M.R.S. 1211 ET SEQ.) 54. forth herein. 55. Defendants activities complained of herein constitute deceptive trade practices in Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 53 as if set

the State of Maine, under Maines Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 10 M.R.S. 1212. 56. 57. Plaintiff has been injured by reason of Defendants deceptive acts or practices. Defendants aforesaid violations of Maines Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices

Act have caused Plaintiff to sustain monetary damage, loss and injury, in an amount to be determined at trial. 58. Defendants acts have caused substantial and irreparable damage and injury to

Plaintiff and in particular to its valuable goodwill in, and the distinctive quality of, its famous TAO Mark. Unless these acts are enjoined by this Court, they will continue to cause substantial and irreparable damage and injury to Plaintiff for which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.

{W3346862.1}

Case 2:12-cv-00302-GZS Document 1 Filed 10/02/12 Page 9 of 14

PageID #: 9

COUNT V TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT (COMMON LAW) 59. forth herein. 60. Plaintiff owns all right, title and interest in and to the TAO Mark as described Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 58 as if set

above, including all common law rights in the TAO Mark. 61. Defendants use of the mark TAO for their TAO Maine restaurant is

unauthorized, and is likely to cause consumer confusion. 62. By the acts described above, Defendants have engaged in trademark infringement

in violation of the common law of the State of Maine. 63. 64. Defendants wrongful acts will continue unless and until enjoined by this Court. Defendants acts have caused substantial and irreparable damage and injury to

Plaintiff and in particular to its valuable goodwill in, and the distinctive quality of, its famous TAO Mark. Unless these acts are enjoined by this Court, they will continue to cause substantial and irreparable damage and injury to Plaintiff for which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. 65. Maine. COUNT VI UNFAIR COMPETITION (COMMON LAW) 66. forth herein. 67. Defendants have advertised, offered, and sold services through the unauthorized Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 65 as if set Plaintiff is thus entitled to an injunction under the common law of the State of

use of Plaintiffs TAO Mark, thereby improperly trading upon Plaintiffs goodwill and valuable rights in and to its TAO Mark.

{W3346862.1}

Case 2:12-cv-00302-GZS Document 1 Filed 10/02/12 Page 10 of 14

PageID #: 10

68.

Defendants committed the above alleged acts willfully, and in conscious disregard

of Plaintiffs rights under the common law of the State of Maine. 69. By the acts described above, Defendants have engaged in unfair competition in

violation of the common law of the State of Maine. 70. 71. Defendants wrongful acts will continue unless and until enjoined by this Court. Defendants acts have caused, and will continue to cause, irreparable injury to

Plaintiff. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. 72. of Maine. COUNT VII Cybersquatting (Federal Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(d)(1)) Plaintiff is thus entitled to an injunction pursuant to the common law of the State

73. forth herein. 74.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 72 as if set

The <TAO-Maine.com> domain name that Defendants have registered is

identical to, and/or confusingly similar to, Plaintiffs TAO Mark, which was distinctive and/or famous at the time Defendants registered the <TAO-Maine.com> domain name. 75. Defendants registered and used the <TAO-Maine.com> domain name with a bad-

faith intent to profit from Plaintiffs TAO Mark. 76. Defendants activities as alleged herein violate the federal Anticybersquatting

Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(d)(1). 77. Defendants have made no bona fide noncommercial or fair use of the TAO Mark

or the <TAO-Maine.com> domain name.

{W3346862.1}

10

Case 2:12-cv-00302-GZS Document 1 Filed 10/02/12 Page 11 of 14

PageID #: 11

78.

By registering and using the <TAO-Maine.com> domain name, Defendants

intended to divert consumers away from Plaintiffs website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Defendants website with Plaintiff in a manner that harms the goodwill represented by Plaintiffs TAO Mark. 79. 80. Defendants wrongful acts will continue unless and until enjoined by this Court. Defendants acts have caused, and will continue to cause, irreparable injury to

Plaintiff. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. 81. Plaintiff is thus entitled to an injunction, and to have the Defendants transfer the

<TAO-Maine.com> domain name to Plaintiff.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff TAO Licensing LLC demands judgment against Defendants Tao Restaurant LLC, Cecile Stadler, John Stadler, and Cara Stadler: A. For a preliminary and permanent injunction against Defendants and each of their

affiliates, officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the Order by personal service or otherwise: 1. Restraining and enjoining use of the TAO Mark, or any other

reproduction, counterfeit, copy, colorable imitation or confusingly similar variation of the TAO Mark, including use of the TAO Mark, or any other reproduction, counterfeit, copy, colorable imitation or confusingly similar variation of the TAO Mark in communications with public media distributed to or within the United States, or in any other manner suggesting in any way that Defendants and/or their activities, establishments, services or products originate from, are

{W3346862.1}

11

Case 2:12-cv-00302-GZS Document 1 Filed 10/02/12 Page 12 of 14

PageID #: 12

affiliated with or authorized by Plaintiff, or that Plaintiff and/or its activities, restaurants, venues, services or products are affiliated in any way with Defendants. 2. Restraining and enjoining the use of any other mark, term, slogan, tagline

or phrase which suggests or tends to suggest in any way that Defendants and/or their activities, restaurants, services or products originate from, are affiliated with, or authorized by, Plaintiff, or that Plaintiff or its activities, restaurants, venues, services or products are affiliated in any way with Defendants. 3. Restraining and enjoining the use in connection with any goods or

services, of any false or deceptive designation, description or representation, whether by words or symbols, which suggests or implies any relationship with Plaintiff or gives Defendants an unfair competitive advantage in the marketplace. 4. TAO Mark. 5. Restraining and enjoining Defendants from violating Maines Uniform Restraining and enjoining Defendants from diluting the strength of the

Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 10 M.R.S. 1211, et seq. 6. Restraining and enjoining Defendants from engaging in any acts of

common law trademark infringement, unfair competition, dilution or misappropriation which would damage or injure Plaintiff. 7. Restraining and enjoining Defendants from inducing, encouraging,

instigating, aiding, abetting, or contributing to any third party usage of the TAO Mark. 8. Restraining and enjoining Defendants from using the TAO Mark as a

domain name or as any part of a domain name.

{W3346862.1}

12

Case 2:12-cv-00302-GZS Document 1 Filed 10/02/12 Page 13 of 14

PageID #: 13

B.

That in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 1118, all materials, packaging, labels, tags,

pamphlets, brochures, signs, sales literature, stationery, advertisements, billboards, banners, posters, documents and the like in the possession or under the control of Defendants and their affiliates, and all plates, molds, matrices, negatives, masters and other means of making the same, which might, if used, violate the Order herein granted, be delivered up and destroyed as the Court shall direct. C. That in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 1125(d)(1)(C), the <TAO-Maine.com>

domain name be transferred to Plaintiff. D. That in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 1116, Defendants file with the Court and

serve on counsel for Plaintiff within thirty (30) days after service on Defendants of such Order, or within such extended period as this Court may direct, a report in writing and under oath, setting forth in detail the manner and form in which Defendants have complied with the Order. E. For an award of Defendants profits or other advantages, Plaintiffs damages

resulting from Defendants unlawful acts set forth herein, in an amount to be proven at the time of trial, together with legal interest from the date of accrual thereof. F. For an award of treble damages, in an amount to be proven at the time of trial,

pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117. G. For an award of exemplary and punitive damages and/or increased profits, in an

amount to be proven at the time of trial. H. action. I. For an award of costs of this action. For an award of attorneys fees and disbursements incurred by Plaintiff in this

{W3346862.1}

13

Case 2:12-cv-00302-GZS Document 1 Filed 10/02/12 Page 14 of 14

PageID #: 14

J. proper.

For an award of such other and further relief as the Court may deem equitable and

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: October 2, 2012

By: /s/ Mark E. Porada Mark E. Porada PIERCE ATWOOD LLP Merrills Wharf 254 Commercial Street Portland, Maine 04101 Telephone: (207) 791-1108 Facsimile: (207) 791-1350 mporada@pierceatwood.com Howard J. Shire Aaron D. Johnson KENYON & KENYON LLP One Broadway New York, New York 10004-1007 Telephone: (212) 425-7200 Facsimile: (212) 425-5288 hshire@kenyon.com ajohnson@kenyon.com Attorneys for Plaintiff TAO Licensing LLC

{W3346862.1}

14

Case 2:12-cv-00302-GZS Document 1-1 Filed 10/02/12 Page 1 of 3

PageID #: 15

Exhibit A

Case 2:12-cv-00302-GZS Document 1-1 Filed 10/02/12 Page 2 of 3

PageID #: 16

Case 2:12-cv-00302-GZS Document 1-1 Filed 10/02/12 Page 3 of 3

PageID #: 17