Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
COMPLAINT FOR
Plaintiff,
14
15
No.
SINFORIANO SILVA,
-vs.-
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Defendants.
24
25
1. FEDERAL TRADEMARK
INFRINGEMENT;
2. UNFAIR COMPETITION;
3. COMMERCIAL
DISPARAGEMENT;
4. STATE LAW COMMON LAW
AND STATUTORY TRADE
NAME INFRINGEMENT;
5. INTERFERENCE WITH
PROSPECTIVE BUSINESS
ADVANTAGE;
6. ACCOUNTING;
7. TEMPORARY, PRELIMINARY
AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF
26
27
28
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs allege:
1.
These claims arise under the laws of the United States, particularly
under the federal Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), and under the laws of the
U.S.C. 1331 and 1138(a). Jurisdiction is also proper pursuant to the Court's
supplemental jurisdiction as provided in 28 U.S.C. 1367 in that the state law claims
alleged herein are so related to the federal claims that they form part of the same case
10
11
1391(c) in that some defendants reside in this District, transact affairs in this District
12
and that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims herein
13
14
3.
15
16
California.
4.
17
18
5.
23
24
25
26
California.
21
22
19
20
6.
7.
2006.
resident of Orange County, California.
8.
27
28
COMPLAINT
9.
does business in Orange County under the fictitious business name of La Hacienda
10.
business in Orange County under the fictitious business name of El Nuevo Monterrey
11.
unknown at the time of filing of this Complaint, and who will be identified as soon as
their identities are ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based upon
10
such information and belief alleges, that each of the defendants, including the DOE
11
defendants, are responsible for the actions complained of herein and that in so acting,
12
13
14
12.
15
Marcos (The Red Light of San Marcos) and is owner of the federally registered
16
17
18
musical group. Plaintiffs registration was issued on June 3, 2008 and continues in
19
full force and effect, and is incontestable under the provisions of 15 U.S.C. 1065.
20
13.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14.
Plaintiff has controlled and owned his musical group La Luz Roja de
COMPLAINT
17.
Light). Plaintiffs musical group is often advertised with the salient term La Luz
18.
La Luz Roja.
6
7
19.
Julio Barrios are former members of plaintiffs musical group who left the group
some ten years ago. None of the three defendants mentioned in this paragraph were
10
owners of the group or the group name. Each was paid a fixed amount for each gig
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20.
in or about the year 2005, and left the group after approximately one years time.
21.
in or about the year 2006, and left the group after approximately two years time.
22.
or about the year 2005, and left the group after approximately one years time.
23.
19
group. Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that defendant Pablo Arteaga is a
20
21
24.
22
the wife of Alberto Campillo and has sought to register the mark LA BRILLANTE
23
LUZ ROJA DE BETO CAMPILLO in her own name as the owner of the mark in an
24
intent to use application filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office
25
26
25.
27
28
COMPLAINT
Although defendants may claim that the names they use to market their groups are
have been advertised using the salient term La Luz Roja in bold letters and more
often than not the phrase La Luz Roja de San Marcos in the advertising of
defendants groups.
26.
10
27.
11
the owner of the La Luz Roja de San Marcos mark and that the use of plaintiffs
12
13
14
28.
15
Cortez has ignored plaintiffs advisements and has booked one or more of
16
defendants groups and advertised them using the La Luz Roja salient term if not
17
the full name, La Luz Roja de San Marcos, in the advertising of such
18
performances.
19
29.
20
21
22
23
30.
24
owner of the La Luz Roja de San Marcos mark and that the use of plaintiffs Mark
25
26
27
28
31.
has ignored plaintiffs advisements and has booked one or more of defendants
COMPLAINT
groups and advertised them using the La Luz Roja salient term if not the full name,
32.
to continue unless and until this Court issues and injunction enjoining defendants
conduct.
33.
defendants and each of them unless enjoined, including loss of reputation (customers
tricked into buying a ticket for a performance by a pirate group are less likely to
believe ads for the actual group in the future), loss of income (venue operators pay
10
less for a pirate group, forcing the actual group to compete against itself on price
11
for its services), consumer confusion and market saturation, to name a few of the
12
13
reputation, earning ability and bottom line is incalculable; the harm is irreparable.
14
15
16
17
18
34.
19
35.
20
36.
21
mark LUZ ROJA DE SAN MARCOS, Reg. No. 3,440,398 for entertainment services
22
of a musical group.
23
37.
24
25
26
27
38.
28
COMPLAINT
39.
advertising are similar to plaintiffs mark in that as used by defendants they either are
identical to plaintiffs mark or contain additional terms that do not alter the salient
40.
8
9
10
11
41.
and that of defendants is identical, i.e. the Regional Mexican music market in the
United States.
42.
12
and each of them wherein one or more of defendants musical groups is advertised
13
using the mark of plaintiffs musical group, i.e. LA LUZ ROJA DE SAN MARCOS.
14
43.
15
each of them in using plaintiffs mark, or at a minimum the salient term La Luz
16
17
defendants musical groups is to confuse the public into believing that the musical
18
19
20
21
22
23
44.
For the violations detailed above, and any others shown hereafter,
24
25
26
addition, plaintiff is entitled to recover treble damages and attorneys fees against
27
defendants and each of them for defendants use of a counterfeit mark. 15 U.S.C.
28
COMPLAINT
each of the defendants for the violations described herein in an amount not less than
$1,000 or more than $200,000 per type of goods or services sold, offered for sale or
47.
and are willful. Plaintiff is entitled to recover statutory damages for willful violations
1117(c).
8
9
48.
this Court, defendants will continue to infringe plaintiffs service mark and trade
10
11
compensation will not afford plaintiffs adequate relief for the damage to their trade
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
49.
20
21
of origin, false description of fact and false representation likely to cause confusion,
22
23
24
25
26
52.
27
defendants profits, any damages sustained by plaintiff and plaintiffs costs, and
28
COMPLAINT
3
4
5
6
7
54.
false promotion and misrepresentation of the nature, characteristic and qualities of the
10
11
12
13
14
defendants profits, any damages sustained by plaintiff and plaintiffs costs, and
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
59.
This claim for relief arises under the laws of the State of California
24
infringement and dilution, California Bus. & Prof. Code 14330 et seq., and
25
14402 et seq.
26
27
62.
28
COMPLAINT
63.
described herein were undertaken willfully and with the intention of causing
64.
injury that defendants illegal actions have caused and will continue to cause plaintiff
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to stop defendants ongoing acts of unfair
competition.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
65.
This claim for relief arises under the common law of the State of
17
with the prospective business advantage of plaintiff by interfering with the right of
18
plaintiffs to exploit and benefit commercially from his LA LUZ ROJA DE SAN
19
MARCOS mark and the good will arising from his musical group La Luz Roja de
20
San Marcos.
21
68.
22
23
24
69.
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT
3
4
5
6
7
70.
This claim for relief arises under the common law of the State of
to defendants from their misleading and deceptive practices described herein, which
10
ledgers, etc. which will provide this information are in the possession of defendants
11
and each of them. The amount of damages, profits and interest owing to plaintiff
12
13
of them.
14
73.
15
the usurpation of plaintiffs trade name and service mark without accounting to
16
plaintiff for the income and profits realized by defendants and each of them as a
17
18
74.
19
monies received by defendants and each of them from their use of the mark and trade
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
75.
27
continue to harm the interests of plaintiff in his trade name La Luz Roja de San
28
Marcos and his federally registered trademark LA LUZ ROJA DE SAN MARCOS.
COMPLAINT
If this court does not issue a temporary, preliminary and permanent injunction against
defendants and each of them prohibiting the use of the LA LUZ ROJA DE SAN
MARCOS mark and trade name in connection with the goods and services of
defendants musical group, plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm for which there is no
6
7
1.
9
10
For an order requiring defendants to show cause, if they have any, why
they should not be enjoined as set forth below, during the pendency of this action.
2.
11
permanent injunction, all enjoining defendants and each of them and their agents,
12
13
participation with them who receive actual notice of the order by personal service
14
15
(a) Using the name La Luz Roja de San Marcos or any confusingly
16
similar or colorable imitation of the name, including without limitation the phrase
17
18
19
(b) Using the name La Luz Roja de San Marcos or any confusingly
20
similar or colorable imitation of the name, including without limitation the phrase
21
La Luz Roja, in any manner for the purpose of enhancing the commercial value
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT
1
2
3.
promotional literature, advertising, tickets, goods and other material bearing the
4.
5.
6.
10
11
12
13
For statutory damages in an mount not less than $1,000 nor greater than
14
$200,000 per type of goods or services sold, with respect to the infringement of
15
16
9.
17
willful, for statutory damages in an amount not less than $1,000 nor greater than
18
19
20
21
22
activities in connection with the use of the name La Luz Roja de San Marcos.
23
24
25
15. For such other relief as the court may deem appropriate.
26
27
28
COMPLAINT
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
COMPLAINT