Fuzzy Logic v. Trapflix and Snopp Dogg Amended Complaint PDF

Case 2:15-cv-06203-PA-SS Document 14 Filed 10/02/15 Page 1 of 29 Page ID #:55
D. Reuben (sBN e4312)

com
2
J
BN r 6279s)
com
& tnBLUM
RE
Floor
90024
990
989
8
4
5
Attorneys
for Plaintiff Fuzzy Logic Productions, Inc
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIF'OR{IA
10
l1
FUZZY LOGIC PRODUCTIONS, INC.,)

a New
York
corporation,
t2
Plaintiff,
13
t4
15
l6
Case
PLAINTIFF FUZZY LOGIC
PRODUCTTONS, r{C.'S FrRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR:
l.
v.)
TRAPFLIX, LLC,
liability company;
a California
)
) 2.
limited)
3
t7
a.k.a. Snoop Do
JOSEPH TOM a.
18
a.k.a. JT the Bigga
5.
Georgia
company; and DOES 1 THROUGH
6.
t9
LLC, a
20
2I
22
23
24
25
26
Defendants.
4.
10,
) 7.
) 8.
)
) 9.
) 10.
)
)
)
)
)
27
28
No. 2:15-CV-06203 (SSx)
11
COPYRIGHT
INFRINGEMENT
INFRINGEMENT OF AN
UNREGISTERED
TRADEMARK
VIOLATION OF FEDERAL
ANTI-DILUTION STATUTE
FALSE ADVERTISING
FALSE DESIGNATION OF
ORIGIN
COMMON LAW
TRADEMARK
INFRINGEMENT
LINFAIR COMPETITION
INJURY TO BUSINESS
REPUTATION AND
TRADEMARK DILUTION
I.INJUST ENRICHMENT
CONTRIBUTORY
INFRINGEMENT OF
COPYRIGHT
CONTRIBUTORY
TRADEMARK
INFRINGEMENT
Plaintiff Fuzzy Logic Productions, Inc. (hereinafter "FtJzzy Logic") for its
claims against Defendants Trapflix, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company
("Trapflix CA"), Trapflix, LLC, a Georgia Limited Liability Company ("Trapflix
GA"); calvin Broadus ("Broadus"), Joseph Tom ("Tom"), and DoES l-10
complains and alleges as follows.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.
7
8
9
10
This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the Copyright Act
of
1976, 17 U.S.C. $101 et seq., as well as 15 U.S.C. $1121. This Court also has
supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $$1331, 1338(a) and (b).
2.
Venue is appropriate in this District based on 28 U.S.C. $$1391(bX2).
THE PARTIES
11
t2
3.
t3
judicial district.
t4
4.
15
t6
l7
18
Fuzzy Logic is a New York Corporation, and conducts business in this
Upon information and belief, Defendant Trapflix CA is a California

limited liability company that conducts business in this judicial district.
5.
Upon information and belief, Defendant Trapflix GA is a Georgia limited
liability company that conducts business in this judicial district.
6.
Upon information and belief, Defendant Broadus, a.k.a. Snoop Dogg, is
l9
an individual residing in Los Angeles, California and conducts business in this
20
district.
2l
hereby
7.
Upon information and belief, Defendant Tom, a.k.a. Figg
judicial
Panamera,
22
a.k.a. JT the Bigga Figga, is an individual residing in Atlanta, Georgia and conducts
23
business in this judicial district.
24
8. The true names and capacities, whether individual,
corporate, or
25
otherwise, of Defendants DOES
26
Logic therefore sues these Defendants by these fictitious names. Ftzzy Logic will
27
amend this Complaint
28
when the same have been ascertained.
through 10 are unknown toFuzzy Logic, andFtzzy
to allege the true names and capacities of these defendants
9.
Fuzzy Logic is informed and believes that Does
I through 5, inclusive,
have acted or failed to act in concert with Trapflix
alleged herein, and are responsible
herein alleged. Ftzzy Logic is further informed and believes that at al| times herein
mentioned, the defendants sued herein as Does
affiliates, subsidiaries, employees, co-conspirators, and/or alter egos of Trapflix GA
andlor Defendant Tom and that in so doing the acts and things herein alleged, those
defendants were acting
permission and consent of each of the other defendants.
10
10.
GA and/or Defendant Tom as
in some manner for the injuries and damages

1
through 5, inclusive, were the agents,
within the scope and course of that agency and with
the
Fuzzy Logic is informed and believes that Does 6 through 10, inclusive,
l1
have acted or failed to act in concert with Trapflix
t2
alleged herein, and are responsible
13
herein alleged. Fuzzy Logic is further informed and believes that at all times herein
t4
mentioned, the defendants sued herein as Does
15
affiliates, subsidiaries, employees, co-conspirators, andlor alter egos of Trapflix CA
t6
andlor Defendant Broadus and that
l7
those defendants were acting within the scope and course of that agency and with the
l8
permission and consent of each of the other defendants.
t9
11.
CA
andlor Defendant Broadus as
in some manner for the injuries and damages

1
through 5, inclusive, were the agents,
in so doing the acts and things herein alleged,
Upon information and beliet Defendant Broadus is now and was, at all
20
times herein mentioned, the sole shareholder, director, and Chief Executive Officer
2t
CA. There exists, and at all times herein mentioned existed, a

unity of interest between Defendant Broadus and Trapflix CA such that any
22
of
Defendant Trapflix
23
individuality and separateness between Defendant Broadus and Trapflix CA have
24
ceased, and
25
12.
Trapflix CA is the alter ego of Defendant Broadus.

Fuzzy Logic is further informed and believes, and on such basis alleges,
26
that at all times relevant, Defendant Trapflix CA was a mere vehicle, instrumentality
27
and conduit, through which Defendant Broadus carried on his business in Defendant
28
Trapflix CA's name exactly as he would have conducted his business individually and
J
that any separateness between Defendant Trapflix CA and Defendant Broadus does
not, and at all times relevant did not exist.
13.
Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and on such basis alleges that
Defendant Trapflix CA
operated
activities and business of Defendant Trapflix CA was carried out without the holding
of Directors or
proceedings were maintained, and Defendant Broadus entered
transactions with Defendant Trapflix CA.
and at
all times relevant was, controlled, dominated,
and
by Defendant Broadus as his individual business and alter ego, in that the
14.
10
is,
Shareholders meetings,
Adherence
no records or minutes of any
to the fiction of the existence of
corporate
into personal
separate existence of
ll
Defendant Trapflix CA as an entity distinct from Defendant Broadus would permit
t2
abuse
13
would enable Defendant Broadus to continue to commit the actions complained of in
I4
this Complaint while shielding himself from liability through the improper use of
15
Defendant Trapflix CA, thus aiding him in the consummation of a wrong.
l6
of the limited liability privilege and produce an inequitable result in that it
15.
Fuzzy Logic is informed and believes, and on such basis alleges, that
I7
Defendant Broadus, as the sole shareholder, director, and Chief Executive Officer
l8
Defendant Trapflix CA, maintains the right and ability to direct and supervise the
t9
actions of Defendant Trapflix CA and derives a direct financial interest
20
actions.
2l
16.
of
in such
Upon information and belief, Defendant Tom is now and was, at alltimes
22
herein mentioned, the sole shareholder, director, and Chief Executive Officer of
23
Defendant Trapflix
24
unity of interest between Defendant Tom and Trapflix GA such that any individuality
25
and separateness between Defendant Tom and Trapflix GA have ceased, and Trapflix
26
GA is the alter ego of Defendant Tom.
27
28
17.
GA.
There exists, and at all times herein mentioned existed, a
Fuzzy Logic is further informed and believes, and on such basis alleges,
that at all times relevant, Defendant Trapflix GA was a mere vehicle, instrumentality
4
and conduit, through which Defendant Tom carried on his business in Defendant
Trapflix GA's name exactly as he would have conducted his business individually and
tha| any separateness between Defendant Trapflix GA and Defendant Tom does not,
and at all times relevant did not exist.
18.
Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and on such basis alleges that
Defendant Trapflix GA is, and at all times relevant was, controlled, dominated, and
operated by Defendant Tom as his individual business and alter ego,
activities and business of Defendant Trapflix GA was carried out without the holding
of Directors or Shareholders
10
proceedings \ryere maintained, and Defendant Tom entered into personal transactions
ll
with Defendant Trapflix GA.
19.
t2
Adherence
meetings,
in that the
no records or minutes of any corporate
to the fiction of the existence of
separate existence of
13
Defendant Trapflix GA as an entity distinct from Defendant Tom would permit abuse
t4
of the limited liability privilege and produce an inequitable result in that it would
enable Defendant Tom to continue to commit the actions complained of in this
15
I6
Complaint while shielding himself from liability through the improper use of
l7
Defendant Trapflix GA, thus aiding him in the consummation of a wrong.
20.
l8
Fuzzy Logic is informed and believes, and on such basis alleges, that
t9
Defendant Tom, as the sole shareholder, director, and Chief Executive Offcer of
20
Defendant Trapflix GA, maintains the right and ability to direct and supervise the
2t
actions
22
actions.
of
Defendant Trapflix GA and derives a direct financial interest
in
such
ALLEGATI
23
21.
24
Fuzzy Logic is a film production company that has produced a number
of
25
works released on television and film, including the 2013 Oscar-winning film Curfew.
26
At all relevant times, Damon Russell was the owner and sole shareholder of Ftzzy
27
Logic.
28
22. In or about 2009, Russell began casting for "gangster" characters
throughout the state of Atlanta. He was subsequently contacted by Curtis Snow
t
J
("Snow"), a resident of an Atlanta neighborhood known as "the Bluff." Russell and
Snow agreed to work together on
experiences in the
this movie, which was entitled Snow on tha
loosely from Snow's experience and was marketed as being a"reality dtama," the film
was,
individual responsible for writing, directing, and shooting the film.
10
based
on
Snow's
Bluff. Over the next two years, Russell wrote, directed, and filmed
in fact, a narrative fiction film
23.
a fictional movie loosely
Bl"ff. Although Snow on tha Btuff
drew
based on real events. Russell was the primary
Upon information and belief, at aII relevant times, Snow was the owner
ll
and sole shareholder of Put
t2
represented to Russell that Put
13
right, title, and/or interest in Szow on tha Bluff. On or about December 26, 2011,
14
Snow executed an Assignment Agreement which served to irrevocably and forever
15
quitclaim, grant, transfer, assign and release to Fuzzy Logic all of Put A Piece Up
16
There and Melt
l7
licensing interest, in Snow on th BlufftoFlzzy Logic.
l8
24.
It
Piece Up There and Melt
A Piece Up There
and Melt
It Entertainment. Snow
It Entertainment held
its
Entertainment's right, title and interest, including copyright and
On or about December 27, 2011, Snow and Russell executed a "Life
19
Rights Agreement" through which Snow assigned to Fuzzy Logic the right to "use,
20
ftclionalize, andlor exploit in whole or in part [Snow's] life story, [Snow's] name,
likeness, poses, statements, writings, photographs, anecdotes, acts, appearances, and
2t
22
voices." The Life Rights Agreement further assigned Fuzzy Logic "in perpetuity and
23
throughout the universe all motion picture rights [...] all television rights, remake and
24
sequel rights, novelization rights, and all allied, ancillary, corollary rights, subsidiary,
25
merchandising rights including, without limitation, videocassette, videodisk,
26
soundtrack interactive, online which may be produced
27
known or devised in the future in any and all languages, and any and all other rights
28
in any and all media, now
pertaining thereto, and the right to exploit the aforesaid rights in any manner and by
all means, whether now known or hereafter devised."
25.
In consideration for its execution of the Life Rights Agreement, Russell
agreed to grant Snow proflrt participation in the amount of twenty f,rve percent (25%)
of Snow on tha Bluff's net profits, payable if and when such profits were irrevocably
received by Fuzzy Logic.
26.
Snow on tha Bluffwas commercially released on or about June I g,2012
to critical acclaim. Snow on tha Bluff has been released on a variety of different
l0
platforms, including home DVD and through Netflix, a video streaming service that
has a national distribution. The trade name "Snow on tha Bluff' has achieved
1l
substantial national recognition and acquired secondary meaning. The public
l2
associates this mark with Russell,Fuzzy Logic and their
13
I4
of Fuzzy Logic's extensive and continuous use of the "Snow on tha Bluff' trademark
and trade name in interstate commerce, the mark and name have become, and
l5
continue to be, famous and distinctive.
27.
t6
work. Accordingly, by virtue
Fuzzy Logic is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant
t7
Trapflix GA is the owner and operator of "trapflix.com" (the "Infringing Website"),
18
an internet video streaming service and video retailer.
28.
t9
Fuzzy Logic is informed and believes and thereon alleges that with fuIl
20
knowledge of Fuzzy Logic's valuable copyright , trademark and trade name, and other
2t
intellectual property rights, Trapflix
22
"Trapflix Defendants") and Defendants Calvin Broadus and Joseph Tom (hereinafter
"Individual Defendants") began creating, producing, marketing andlor distributing
23
CA
and/or Trapflix
GA (collectively the
24
unauthorized movie sequels, amongst other things, marked as "Snow on tha
25
andlor "Snow on tha Bluff 3" (the "Infringing Marks") with the name "Snow on tha
26
Bluff'
27
Individual Defendants publicized the Infnging Marks to the public at large, both
28
through social media and internet advertisements.
spelled
in the same manner as Fuzzy Logic's
Bluff 2"
trademark and trade name.
29.
Fuzzy Logic is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, starting in
or about April 2015, Defendants have utilized Fuzzy Logic's trademark and
name to promote the Infringing Website, including marketing the unauthorized sequel
"Snow on tha Bluff 2" as a "Trapflix Exclusive" both on its website and on its
physical advertisements.
6
7
8
30.
trade
Fuzzy Logic is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, starting in
or about April 2015, Trapflix GA released the film "Snow on tha Bluff 2" on the
Infringing V/ebsite for streaming and home DVD purchase. "Snow on tha Bluff 2"
features title cards claiming that
10
Bigga Figga film," and "a Trapflix production." Additionally, the credits page lists
l1
"Figg Panamera" and "snoop Dogg" as the Executive Producers of "Snow on tha
Bluff 2" and lists "JT" as the creator of the story. In addition to the nearly identical
12
it is a "Trapflix original motion picture," "A JT the
t3
title (including the unique spelling of "tha"), "Snow on tha Bluff 2" utilizes many of
t4
the same elements as the original "Snow on tha Bluff," including the documentary
15
film style, uses many of the same actors, and shot similar
t6
31.
Fuzzy Logic
is informed and believes
scenes
in similar locations.
and thereon alleges that, by
I7
creating, marketing, and distributing works that clearly bear Ftzzy Logic's trademark
18
and trade name, the Defendants are clearly attempting to trade on the name
recognition attached to Fuzzy Logic's work while at the same time displacing Fuzzy
19
20
2l
Logic as the source of "Snow on tha Bluff' works and products in the relevant market.
32.
Fuzzy Logic is informed and believes and thereon alleges that one or
22
more of the Defendants have attempted to trademark "Snow on tha
23
Logic intends to oppose that registration upon publication of the proposed mark in the
24
Official Gazette. Moreover, Fuzzy Logic has demanded that Defendants
25
desist from distributing, selling, or offering for sale works marked with the Infringing
26
Marks. However, the Defendants have failed and refused to do so, and instead
27
continue to distribute, sell, or offer for sale works bearing the Infringing Marks.
28
Bluff,"
and,Fuzzy
cease and
33.
Defendants' marketing and distribution
of the works that bear the
Infringing Marks is likely to cause confusion and has caused confusion among
potential customers and others in the film industry as to the source, affiliation, and/or
sponsorship of those works.
34.
Fuzzy Logic also owns copyright in and relating to the "Snow on tha
Bluff' franchise.
on February 28,2012 by Russell, who subsequently assigned his copyright interest to
Fuzzy Logic.
certificate for "Snow on tha Bluff," registration number P4u003654744, is attached
10
hereto as Exhibit A.
ll
35.
The motion picture copyright to "Snow on tha Bluff'was registered
A true and correct copy of Fuzzy Logic's
motion picture copyright
Fuzzy Logic has already encountered numerous instances
of
actual
t2
confusion in which, by way of example, persons have inquired about the sequel to
l3
"Snow on tha Bluffl' when in fact they are referring to works originating with
t4
Defendants.
l5
36.
After discovering Defendants' infringement of the "Snow on tha Bluff'
l6
trademark and copyright, Fuzzy Logic immediately contacted Defendant Broadus'
17
attorney, advising him of Fuzzy Logic's rights to the "Snow on tha Bluffl' mark and
l8
franchise. Fuzzy Logic further provided documents evidencing the chain of title of
19
the Snow on tha Bluff copyright, as well as evidence of Defendants' infringement, and
20
demanded that Defendants immediately cease the infringing
2t
Defendants failed and refused to do so.
22
37.
activities. However,
In or about March, 2015, Russell was contacted by Defendant Tom, who
Bluff' copyright
23
acknowledged that Russell was the owner of the "Snow on tha
24
mark and asked Russell for how much he was willing to "right now" sell his interest
25
in the franchise. When Russell expressed reluctance to sell his interest, however,
26
Defendant Tom became combative and aggressive, and indicated that he intended to
27
continue his infringing activities.
28
F'IRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

9
and
Copvright Infrinsement
Asainst Defen ants Tranflix GA. Josenh To
and Does 1-5
(17 U.S.C. 8501(a))
38.
Fuzzy Logic hereby repeats the allegations set forth in Paragraphs
through 36 of this Complaint, and incorporates them by this reference as though set
forth in full at this point.
39.
Fuzzy Logic is the exclusive owner of copyright in and related to the
"Snow on tha Bluff' hlm and related products and possesses a copyright registration
with the United States Copyright office relating to the copyrighted work.
40.
l0
Defendants Trapflix GA, Joseph Tom and Does 1-5 (the "Trapflix GA
1l
Defendants") have actual notice of Fuzzy Logic's exclusive copyright rights in the
t2
"Snow on tha
4I.
13
Bluff'
franchise.
The Trapflix GA Defendants failed to obtain Fuzzy Logic's consent or
to utllize,
t4
authonzation
l5
works, distribute, sell, transfer, rent, perform, andlor market Fuzzy Logic's copyright-
t6
protected works.
t7
42.
manufacture, reproduce, copy, display, prepare derivative
Without permission, the Trapflix GA Defendants intentionally
and
l9
knowingly prepared, produced, and distributed derivative works based on Fuzzy

Logic's protected works by creating, offering, advertising, promoting, retailing,
20
selling, and distributing related products which are, at a minimum, substantially
2t
similar to Fuzzy Logic's protected works.
18
22
43.
The Trapflix GA Defendants' "Snow on tha Bluff 2" is substantially
23
similar to "Snow on tha Bluffl' and constitutes unauthorized copying, reproduction,
24
distribution, creation of a derivative work, and/or public display of "Snow on tha
25
Bluff."
26
44. The Trapflix GA
Defendants' acts as herein alleged constitute
27
infringement of Fuzzy Logic's copyright works, including Fuzzy Logic's exclusive
28
rights to reproduce, distribute, andlor sell such protected material.

10
I
2
3
45. The Trapflix GA
Defendants' knowing and intentional copyright
will continue to cause substantial and

irreparable harm to Fuzzy Logic and has and will continue to cause damage to Fttzzy
Logic. Fuzzy Logic is therefore entitled to injunctive relief, statutory damages for
infringement as herein alleged has caused and
willful
reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
SECOND
infringement, the Trapflix GA Defendants' profits, actaal damages, and
Infringement Of An Unregistered Trademark
Asainst
dants Tranflix
10
1l
FOR RELIEF
Joseoh Tom. an d Does 1-5
115 U.S.C. S1125la))
46.
Ftzzy Logic hereby repeats the allegations set forth in Paragraphs I
t2
13
t4
47.
The actions complained of herein constitute willful infringement of an
in a manner likely to
15
unregistered trademark
l6
association, connection or affiliation between the Trapflix GA Defendants and Ftzzy
t7
Logic andlor the "Snow on tha Bluff' trademark and trade name. The Defendants'
unauthorized and infringing works, which are distributed bearing the Infringing
18
cause confusion and create
a false
t9
Marks, are likely to cause confusion or deception as to the affiliation, connection or
20
association of Fuzzy Logic's trademark with the Trapflix GA Defendants, and as to
2I
the origin, sponsorship and/or approval of these Defendants' works.
22
48. The foregoing acts of the Trapflix GA
Defendants constitute
23
infringement of an unregistered trademark in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham
24
Act, 1s U.S.C. $112s(a)(1XA).
25
26
27
49.
By reason of all the foregoing, Fuzzy Logic is being damaged by the

Trapflix GA Defendants' willful use of the Infringing Marks in the manner set forth
above and
will continue to be damaged
28
1l
unless the Trapflix GA Defendants are
enjoined from using, selling, or distributing products bearing the Infringing Marks or
any confusingly similar mark.
4
5
50.
Fuzzy Logic
will be irreparably injured by the continued
acts of the
Trapflix GA Defendants, unless such acts are enjoined.
51.
As a proximate result of the Trapflix GA Defendants' infringement of its
protected trademark and trade name, Fuzzy Logic has suffered and
suffer damages, in the form of lost profts and sales as well as the deprivation of the
value of its trademark and trade name as a corrunercial asset, in an amount according
to proof.
l0
52.
will continue
Under 15 U.S.C.$1117(a),Fuzzy Logic is entitled to recover damages
it,
1l
sustained by
12
action. Further, this is an exceptional case within the meaning of
l3
and therefore an award toFuzzy Logic of its reasonable attorney's fees is justified.
as
well as the Trapflix GA Defendants' profts and the costs of
t4
the
15 U.S.C. $1117(a),
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation ofFederal
15
t6
Statute
Apainst Defe ndants Tranflix GA. Josenh To
and Does 1-5
(15 U.S.C. 81125(c))
17
l8
to
53.
l9
20
forth in fuIl at this point.
2t
54.
Fuzzy Logic's "Snow on tha
Bluff'
trademark and trade name are
22
famous marks by virtue of their substantial inherent and acquired distinctiveness, its
23
national use, and the extensive publicity of the mark which has developed strong and
24
widespread recognition.
25
55.
The Trapflix GA Defendants' use of the Infnging Marks dilutes the
of Fuzzy Logic's
26
strength and distinctive quality
27
trademark and trade name and lessens the capacity of the trademarks to identify and
28
distinguish F uzzy Logic' s work.

t2
famous "Snow on tha Bluff'
56.
The acts and conduct of the Trapflix GA Defendants complained of
willful
herein constitute
4
5
57.
and deliberate dilution of Fuzzy Logic's "Snow on tha
Bluff'
The foregoing acts of the Trapflix GA Defendants constitute a violation
of the Federal anti-dilution statute, 15 U.S.C. g 1125(c).
58.
By reason of all the foregoing,Fuzzy Logic is being irreparably damaged
by the the Trapflix GA Defendants' willful use of the Infringing Marks in the manner
set forth above and
are enjoined from using, selling, or distributing products bearing the Infringing Marks
10
or any confusingly similar mark.
1l
59.
will continue to be damaged unless
the Trapflix GA Defendants
As a proximate result of the Trapflix GA Defendants' dilution of its
t2
13
suffer damages, in the form of lost profits and sales as well as the deprivation of the
t4
value of its trademark and trade name as a cornmercial asset, in an amount according
15
to proof.
t6
60.
will continue to
I7
sustained
18
action. Further, this is an exceptional case within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. $ I 117(a),
t9
and therefore an award to Fuzzy Logic of its reasonable attorney's fees is justified.
by it, as well
as the Trapflix
GA Defendants' profits and the costs of the
20
FOURTH CLAIM F'OR RE,LIEF
2T
False Advertisins
22
Against Defendants Trapflix GA. Joseph Tom. and Does l-5
23
ll5 rr- S.C. S1125lal)
24
61.
25
26
27
28
62.
In commercial advertisements for its products and services, the Trapflix
GA Defendants have used the Infringing Marks to promote its products and services.
T3
63.
The use of the Infringing Marks constitutes a false statement about the
it
Trapflix GA Defendants' works in that
segment
connection or affiliation between the Trapflix GA Defendants and the works of Fuzzy
Logic bearing the "Snow on tha Bluff'trademark and trade name.
of its
64.
audience
has a tendency to deceive a substantial
by causing confusion and creating a false association,
The false statement is material because
it is likely to influence the
purchasing decisions of its audience, and the Trapflix GA Defendants have caused the
false statement to enter interstate comerce by advertising to a national audience.
9
10
l1
l2
13
65.
The foregoing acts of the Trapflix GA Defendants constitute false

advertising in violation of Section a3@) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.
$
112s(a)(1XB).
66.

Trapflix GA Defendants' use of the Infringing Marks in its advertising as set forth
will
continue to be damaged unless the Trapflix GA Defendants are
14
above and
l5
enjoined from creating, distributing or publishing cotmercial advertisements bearing
l6
the Infringing Marks or any confusingly similar mark.
I7
67.
18
t9
20
value of its trademark and trade name as a comercial asset, in an amount according
2l
to proof.
22
68.
will continue to
23
sustained by him, as well as the Trapflix GA Defendants' profits and the costs of the
24
action. Further, this is an exceptional case within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. $ 1117(a),
25
and therefore an awardtoFuzzy Logic
of its reasonable attorney's fees
is
justified.
26
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
27
False Designation of Origin
28
Asainst Defendants Tranflix GA. Joseph Tom. and Does 1-5

14
6g.FuzzyLogicn.,.*ffiionssetforthinParagraphsl
2
a
70.
The actions complained of herein constitute false designation by the
Trapflix GA Defendants of the origin of their goods bearing the Infringing Marks. By
selling and promoting its own goods bearing containing the "snow on tha Bluff'trade
name spelled in identical fashion to Fuzzy Logic's mark, the Trapflix GA Defendants
are passing
l0
engaging in unfair competition in a manner likely to cause confusion and create a false
1l
association, connection or affliation between the Trapflix GA Defendants' goods and
t2
Fuzzy Logic's "Snow on tha Bluffl' mark.
l3
71.
t4
designation
15
I6
l7
off their own goods as having originated with Fuzzy Logic, and is thereby
The foregoing acts
of the Trapflix GA
Defendants constitute false
of origin in violation of Section a3@) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.
I 12s(a)(1XA).
72.

Trapflix GA Defendants' use of the Infringing Marks in the manner set forth above
will continue to be damaged unless
18
and
t9
cteating, distributing or publishing commercial advertisements bearing the Infnging
20
Marks or any confusingly similar mark.
2t
73.
the Trapflix GA Defendants are enjoined from
As a proximate result of the Trapflix GA Defendants' dilution of
its
22
23
24
value of its trademark and trade name as a commercial asset, in an amount according
25
to proof.
26
27
74.
will continue
to
Under 15 U.S.C. $1117(a),Fuzzy Logic is entitled to recover damages
sustained by him, as well as the Trapflix GA Defendants'profits and the costs of the
28
15
action. Further, this is an exceptional case within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. $ I 117(a),
and therefore an award to Fuzzy Logic of its reasonable attorney's fees is justified.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Common Law Trademark In
Asainst Defendants Trapflix GA. Joseph rom. and Does 1-5
75.
forth in fulI at this point.
6.
By reason of all of the foregoing , Fuzzy Logic has acquired common law
Bluff' trademark and trade name in connection
10
trademark rights in its "Snow on tha
1t
with, among other things, motion picture productions and home video.
t2
77.
The actions of the the Trapflix GA Defendants herein complained of are
I4
likely to create confusion, mistake and deception of consumers, who are likely to
believe that the Trapflix GA Defendants' infnging products are authorized. by,
l5
licensed by, sponsored by or otherwise associated with the conmon law trademark
t6
rights in the "Snow on tha Bluff'trademark.
13
t7
78.
The actions of the the Trapflix GA Defendants herein complained of are
l8
also likely to create confusion, mistake, and deception of consumers, who are likely to
t9
believe that Fuzzy Logic's works bearing its "Snow on tha Bluffl' trademark are in
20
some way associated with the Trapflix GA Defendants due
2I
Infringing Marks.
22
79.
to their use of
the
[Jpon information and belief, the acts and conduct of Defendant Trapflix
23
GA and Joseph Tom complained of
24
infringement
25
trademark
26
disregard of Fuzzy Logic's valuable trademark rights.
of Fuzzy Logic's
herein constitute
willful and deliberate
in the "Snow on tha Bluff'

and that these acts and conduct will continue in willful and wanton
conmon law rights
27
28
t6
80. The foregoing acts of the Trapflix GA
I
2
infringement of Ftzzy Logic's "Snow on tha
conmon law of the State of California.
81.
Bluff'
Defendants constitute
trademark in violation of the
By reason of all the foregoing, Fuzzy Logic is being damaged by
the
and
creating, distributing or publishing cornmercial advertisements bearing the Infringing
Marks or any confusingly similar mark.
will continue to be damaged unless the Trapflix GA Defendants are enjoined from
82.
10
11
I2
value of its trademark and trade name as a commercial asset, in an amount according
l3
to proof.
will continue to
t4
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
l5
Unfair Co mpetition
I6
Against Defendants Trapflix GA. Joseph Tom. and Does 1-5
I7
l8
California Rusiness nnd
83.
stons Code
E 1
72fi
l9
20
2I
84.
The actions of the Trapflix GA Defendants complained of herein
22
constitute a misappropriation of Ftzzy Logic's trademark and the goodwill associated
23
herewith, acts of passing off, and an infringement of Fuzzy Logic's common law
24
rights in the "Snow on tha Bluff' trademark and trade name, all of which constitute
25
unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business practices in violation of Sections 17200 et.
26
seq. of the California Business and Professions Code.
27
28
85.
Upon information and belief, the acts and conduct of the Trapflix GA
Defendants complained of herein constitute

t7
willful and deliberate unfair competition
will continue in willful and wanton disregard of Fuzzy Logic's
and
trademark rights.
86.
valuable
and
creating, distributing or publishing conrnercial advertisements bearing the Infringing
Marks or any confusingly similar mark. Fuzzy Logic is therefore entitled to injunctive
relief under the california Business and Professions code.
will continue to be damaged unless the Trapflix GA Defendants are enjoined from
87.
Fuzzy Logic
acts of the
10
Trapflix GA Defendants, unless such acts are enjoined under California Business and
1l
Professions Code 17203.
t2
13
88.
Further, based upon the Trapflix GA Defendants' conduct, Fuzzy Logic
is entitled to restitution, damages, and compensation as allowed by law.
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RE LIEF
14
fniurv to Business Renu
l5
t6
Asainst
t7
18
and
Tr
nts Tranflix GA. Josenh Tom- an d Does 1-5
California B usiness and Professions
89.
Dilution
de S 14330
l9
20
2t
90.
Fuzzy Logic's "Snow on tha Bluffl' trademark is a distinctive mark in the
22
State of Californiaby virtue of their substantial inherent and acquired distinctiveness,
23
in California, and the extensive publicity of the mark in California,

which has resulted in strong, widespread recognition of the "Snorry on tha Bluff'
24
extensive use
25
trademark.
26
9I.
The actions of the the Trapflix GA Defendants complained of herein are
27
likely to injure the business reputation and dilute the distinctive quality of Fuzzy
28
Logic's well-known and famous "Snow on tha Bluff'trademark and trade name.
l8
92.
The foregoing acts of the Trapflix GA Defendants constitute dilution and
injury to business reputation in violation of Section 14330 of the California Business
and Professions Code.
93.
By reason of all the foregoing,Fuzzy Logic is being damaged by
the
and
creating, distributing or publishing comercial advertisements bearing the Infringing
Marks or any confusingly similar mark. Fuzzy Logic is therefore entitled to injunctive
relief under the California Business and Professions Code.
l0
will continue to be damaged
94.
Fuzzy Logic
unless the Trapflix GA Defendants are enjoined from
acts
of
the
11
Trapflix GA Defendants, unless such acts are enjoined under California Business and
t2
Professions Code
13
95.
t4
4330.
Further, based upon the Trapflix GA Defendants' conduct, Ftzzy Logic
l5
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
t6
Uniust Enrichment
l7
Asainst
tl7
18
19
ts Traoflix GA. Josenh T
96.
and Does 1-5
U.S.C. S501la))
Fuzzy Logic hereby repeats the allegations set forth
in Paragraphs
20
2t
22
97.
The Trapflix GA Defendants are indebted to Fuzzy Logic for the market
by the use of the Infringing Marks. By incorporating the
23
advantage they gained
24
"Snow on tha Bluff' mark into their unauthorized derivative works, The trapflix GA
25
Defendants were able to take advantage of the goodwill and reputation earned by
26
Fuzzy Logic and increase their own profits, thereby unjustly enriching themselves in
27
amounts, on information and belief, exceeding two million dollars.
28
t9
98.
To date, the Trapflix GA Defendants have failed to pay Ftzzy Logic the
amount of money which would fairly and adequately compensate it for the use of the
Infnging Marks. Fuzzy Logic is entitled to an awardof the Trapflix GA Defendants'
profits from products and services sold bearing the Infringing Marks.
5
6
99.
Further, based upon the Trapflix GA Defendants' conduct,Fuzzy Logic
TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Contributorv Convrisht Infringement
Aeainst All Defendants

(17 U.S.C. 8501(all and Common Law
10
11
100. Fuzzy Logic hereby repeats the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1
t2
13
t4
101. The Infringing Website is engaging in illegal conduct including but not
necessarily limited to the promotion, advertisement, offer for sale, sale and
15
t6
distribution of works that infringe onFuzzy Logic's copyrights in their works.
t7
102. Defendants have actual knowledge of the Infringing Website's illegal
l8
activities as herein alleged from, among other things, written notification by counsel
t9
and agents
20
notifications.
2t
for Fuzzy Logic.
Defendants have deliberately disregarded these
103. Defendants have materially encouraged, enabled, and contributed to
the
22
infringing conduct at the Infringing Website, including by materially contributing to,
23
intentionally inducing, and/or causing the creation, offering,
24
promotion, retailing, selling, hosting, display, and/or distribution of derivative works
25
andlor other related products which are, at a minimum, substantially similar to Fuzzy
26
Logic's protected works.
27
104. Defendants' acts as herein alleged materially contributed to infringement

of Fuzzy Logic's copyright works, including Fuzzy Logic's exclusive rights to
28
20
advertisement,
reproduce, distribute, and/or sell such protected material,
$501(a), et seq. and the common law.
4
5
105. Defendants' knowing
in violation of 17 U.S.C.
and intentional contributory copyright infringement
will continue to cause substantial and irreparable

harm to Fuzzy Logic and has and will continue to cause damage to Fuzzy Logic.
as herein alleged has caused and
Fuzzy Logic is therefore entitled to injunctive relief, statutory damages for willful
infringement, the Defendants' profits, actual damages, and reasonable attorney's fees
and costs.
ELE
CLAIM FOR RELIEF
l0
Contributorv Trademark Jnfrin gement
1t
Aeainst AII Defendants
l2
(15 U.S.C. S1051) and Common Law
13
106. Fuzzy Logic hereby repeats the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1
t4
l5
t6
107. The Infringing Website is engaging in illegal conduct including but not
necessarily limited to the promotion, advertisement, offer for sale, sale and
t7
18
distribution of works that infringe on Fuzzy Logic's valuable "Snow on tha Bluff'
t9
20
108. Defendants have actual knowledge of the Infringing Website's illegal
2l
activities as herein alleged from, among other things, written notification by counsel
22
and agents for Fuzzy Logic. Defendants have deliberately disregarded
23
notifications.
24
these
109. Defendants have materially encouraged, enabled, and contributed to
the
25
infringing conduct at the Infringing Website, including by materially contributing to,
26
intentionally inducing, andlor causing the creation, offering,
27
promotion, retailing, selling, hosting, display, andlor distribution of derivative works
28
in a manner likely to cause confusion and create a false association, connection or

21
advertisement,
affiliation between Defendants and Fuzzy Logic andlor the "Snow on tha Bluff'
trademark and trade name. These unauthorized and infringing works, which are
distributed bearing the Infringing Marks through the Infringing Website, are likely to
cause confusion or deception as to the
Logic's trademark with the Defendants, and as to the origin, sponsorship and/or
approval of the Defendants' works.
110. Defendants'
affiliation, connection or association of Fuzzy
acts as herein alleged materially contributed to infringement
of Fuzzy Logic's trademark, in violation of 15 U.S.C. $1051, et seq. and the comon
1aw.
10
I I l.
Defendants' knowing
and intentional contributory
trademark
will continue to cause substantial and

harm to Fuzzy Logic and has and will continue to cause damage to Fuzzy
11
infringement as herein alleged has caused and
l2
irreparable
l3
t4
Logic. Fuzzy Logic is therefore entitled to injunctive relief, statutory damages for
willful infringement, the Defendants' profits, actual damages, and reasonable
l5
attorney's fees and costs.
l6
PRAYER
t7
WHEREFORE, Fuzzy Logic prays forjudgment on its claims as follows:
l8
For the First Claim for Relief
t9
1. For an injunction enjoining the Trapflix GA Defendants and their
20
parents, subsidiaries, and affiliated companies, their respective officers, agents,
2t
servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons
22
participation with them from using, affixing, offering for sale, selling, advertising or
23
promoting goods not emanating from Fuzzy Logic with any "Snow on tha Bluff'
24
trademark or any mark confusingly similar to Fuzzy Logic's "Snow on tha Bluffl'
25
in
active concert or
2.
27
For an injunction enjoining the Trapflix GA Defendants and their

parents, subsidiaries, and affiliated companies, their respective officers, agents,
28
servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons
26
22
in
active concert or
participation with them from diluting the distinctiveness and goodwill established by
Fuzzy Logic in the "Snow on tha
"Snow on tha Bluff'trademark or any confusingly similar mark.
3.
That
Bluff'
trademark and trade name by using any
it be ordered that all goods, products, signs, labels, brochures,
advertising and promotional material bearing the "Snow on tha
similar trademark in the Trapflix GA Defendants' possession or subject to the

Defendants' control or direction shall be delivered to Fuzzy Logic's counsel for
Bluff'
trademark or
maintenance during the pendency of this action and for destruction upon entry
Final Judgment.
10
l1
t2
4.
of
For the recovery of damages according to proof, but in excess of
$1,000,000.
5.
For a full accounting of all the Trapflix GA Defendants' profits derived
13
from their infringement of the "Snow on tha Bluffl' copyright and an award to Fuzzy
l4
Logic of such profits.
15
16
17
t8
t9
20
2l
22
23
6.
In the alternative to actual damages and profits pursuant to 17 U.S.C.

$501(b), for statutory damages for willful infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. g501(c),
which election Plaintiff will make prior to the rendering of final judgment.
7.
8.
For reasonable attorney's fees.
For any other relief as the Court may deem proper.
For the Second Claim for Relief
1.
For such injunctive relief as is described in the Prayer for Relief on the
first Claim for Relief above.
2.
That
24
25
similar trademark in the Trapflix GA Defendants' possession or subject to the the

Trapflix GA Defendants' control or direction shall be delivered to Fuzzy Logic's
26
Bluff'
trademark or
27
counsel for maintenance during the pendency of this action and for destruction upon
28
entry of a Final Judgment.

23
3.
1,000,000.
4.

from their infringement of the "Snow on tha
award to
1.
2.
11
l2
For the Third Claim for Relief
l0
trademark and trade name and an
Flzzy Logic of such prof,rts.
5.
6.
Bluff'
1,000,000.
3.
l3

t4
from their infringement of the "Snow on tha
15
awardtoFuzzy Logic of such profits.
4.
l6
That
Bluff'
trademark and trade name and an
l7
18
similar trademark
in Defendants'
Bluff' trademark or
l9
or subject to the the Trapflix GA

Defendants' control or direction shall be delivered to Fuzzy Logic's counsel for
20
destruction upon entry of a Final Judgment.
5.
6.
2t
22
23
24
25

For the Fourth Claim for Relief
1.
2.
26
27
possession
1,000,000.
28
24
3.

from their infringement of the "Snow on tha Bluff' trademark and trade name and an
2
a
awardtoFuzzy Logic of such profits.
4.
5.
4
5
For the Fifth Claim fo r Relief
1.
2.
9
10
1,000,000.
3.
l1

For a fuIl accounting of all the Trapflix GA Defendants' profits derived
l2
from their infringement of the "Snow on tha Bluff'trademark and trade name and an
13
award toFlzzy Logic of such profits.
4.
5.
t4
l5
l6
1.
2.
$
1.
27
28
Relief
2.
25
26
For the Seventh Claim
23
24
1,000,000.
3.
2t
22
for Relief
L9
20
For the Sixth
t7
l8
1,000,000.
3.
For the Eiehth Claim for Relief

25
1.
I
2
2.
3.
1.
excess of
for Relief
f,rrst Claim for Relief above.
2.
l0
in
For the Ninth
7
8
For the recovery of damages according to proof, but
$1,000,000.
For restitution, damages, and compensation according to proof, but in
excess of $1,000,000.
3.
11
For a fulI accounting of all the Trapflix GA Defendants' profts derived
l2
from their infringement of the "Snow on tha Bluff' trademark, copyright, and trade
l3
name and an award toFuzzy Logic of such profits.
4.
l4
l5
For the Tenth Claim for Relief
1.
t6
For an injunction enjoining Defendants and their parents, subsidiaries,
17
and affiliated companies, their respective officers, agents, servants, employees, and
18
attorneys
I9
affixing, offering for sale, selling, advertising or promoting goods not emanating from
20
Fuzzy Logic with any "Snow on tha Bluff' trademark or any mark confusingly similar
2T
to Fuzzy Logic's "Snow on tha Bluff' trademark and trade name.
2.
22
and those persons
in active concert or participation with them from using,
For an injunction enjoining Defendants and their parents, subsidiaries,
23
and affiliated companies, their respective officers, agents, servants, employees, and
24
attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with them from diluting
25
the distinctiveness and goodwill established by Fuzzy Logic in the "Snow on tha
26
Bluff'
27
confusingly similar mark.
trademark and trade name by using any "snow on tha Bluffl' trademark or any
28
26
3.
That
similar trademark in Defendants' possession or subject to the Defendants' control or
direction shall be delivered to Fuzzy Logic's counsel for maintenance during the
pendency of this action and for destruction upon entry of a Final Judgment.
4.
l
8
l0
Bluff'
trademark or
in
$1,000,000.
5.
For a full accounting of all Defendants' profits derived from their

contributory infringement of the "Snow on tha Bluff' copyright and an award to
Fuzzy Logic of such profits
ll
6.
In the alternative to actual
damages and profits pursuant
to
t2
$501(b), for statutory damages for
13
which election Plaintiff will make prior to the rendering of final judgment.
7.
8.
t4
l5
t6
willful infringement
17 U.S.C.
pursuant to 17 U.S.C. g50l(c),

For the Eleventh Claim for Relief
1.
T7
18
excess of
tenth Claim for Relief above.
2.
I9
That
20
advertising and promotional material bearing the "Snow on tha Bluff' trademark or
2I
similar trademark in Defendants' possession or subject to the Defendants' control or
22
direction shall be delivered to Fuzzy Logic's counsel for maintenance during the
23
pendency of this action and for destruction upon entry of a Final Judgment.
3.
24
25
26
in
excess of
1,000,000.
4.
For a full accounting of all Defendants' profits derived from their
27
contributory infringement of the "Snow on tha Bluff' trademark and trade name and
28
an award toFuzzy Logic of such prohts.

27
I
2
J
4
5
6
7
5.
6.
For All Claims for Relief
1.
2.
3.
4.
For attorney's fees as permitted by statute.

For costs of suit.
For pre-judgment interest on damages awarded.
For such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.
Dated: October 2,2015
REUBEN RAUCHER & BLUM
10
11
t2
l3
By:
/s/
Stephen L. Raucher
Attorneys r Plaintiff Fuzzy Lo gic
t4
l5
l6
t7
l8
t9
20
2l
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
28
I
2
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff Fuzzy Logic Productions, Inc. hereby demands trial by jury on all causes
of action.
Dated: October
2,2015
REUBEN RAUCHER & BLUM
6
7
8
By:
/sl
Stephen L. Raucher
Attorneys for Plaintiff Fuzzy Logic
l0
l1
l2
13
t4
15
I6
I7
18
I9
20
2l
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29

Fuzzy Logic v. Trapflix and Snopp Dogg Amended Complaint PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fuzzy Logic v. Trapflix and Snopp Dogg Amended Complaint PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:15-cv-06203-PA-SS Document 14 Filed 10/02/15 Page 1 of 29 Page ID #:55

D. Reuben (sBN e4312)

for Plaintiff Fuzzy Logic Productions, Inc

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIF'OR{IA

FUZZY LOGIC PRODUCTIONS, INC.,)

PLAINTIFF FUZZY LOGIC

PRODUCTTONS, r{C.'S FrRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR:

a.k.a. JT the Bigga

No. 2:15-CV-06203 (SSx)

Case 2:15-cv-06203-PA-SS Document 14 Filed 10/02/15 Page 2 of 29 Page ID #:56

claims against Defendants Trapflix, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company

("Trapflix CA"), Trapflix, LLC, a Georgia Limited Liability Company ("Trapflix

complains and alleges as follows.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Venue is appropriate in this District based on 28 U.S.C. $$1391(bX2).

Fuzzy Logic is a New York Corporation, and conducts business in this

Upon information and belief, Defendant Trapflix CA is a California

Upon information and belief, Defendant Trapflix GA is a Georgia limited

liability company that conducts business in this judicial district.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Broadus, a.k.a. Snoop Dogg, is

an individual residing in Los Angeles, California and conducts business in this

Upon information and belief, Defendant Tom, a.k.a. Figg

business in this judicial district.

8. The true names and capacities, whether individual,

otherwise, of Defendants DOES

amend this Complaint

when the same have been ascertained.

through 10 are unknown toFuzzy Logic, andFtzzy

to allege the true names and capacities of these defendants

Case 2:15-cv-06203-PA-SS Document 14 Filed 10/02/15 Page 3 of 29 Page ID #:57

Fuzzy Logic is informed and believes that Does

have acted or failed to act in concert with Trapflix

alleged herein, and are responsible

mentioned, the defendants sued herein as Does

affiliates, subsidiaries, employees, co-conspirators, and/or alter egos of Trapflix GA

defendants were acting

permission and consent of each of the other defendants.

GA and/or Defendant Tom as

in some manner for the injuries and damages

through 5, inclusive, were the agents,

within the scope and course of that agency and with

have acted or failed to act in concert with Trapflix

alleged herein, and are responsible

mentioned, the defendants sued herein as Does

affiliates, subsidiaries, employees, co-conspirators, andlor alter egos of Trapflix CA

andlor Defendant Broadus and that

permission and consent of each of the other defendants.

andlor Defendant Broadus as

in some manner for the injuries and damages

through 5, inclusive, were the agents,

in so doing the acts and things herein alleged,

CA. There exists, and at all times herein mentioned existed, a

individuality and separateness between Defendant Broadus and Trapflix CA have

Trapflix CA is the alter ego of Defendant Broadus.

Case 2:15-cv-06203-PA-SS Document 14 Filed 10/02/15 Page 4 of 29 Page ID #:58

not, and at all times relevant did not exist.

proceedings were maintained, and Defendant Broadus entered

transactions with Defendant Trapflix CA.

all times relevant was, controlled, dominated,

no records or minutes of any