Case 2:17-cv-06059-BRO-GJS Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 1 of 22 Page ID #:1

1 DAVID J. STEELE, CA Bar No. 209797

david.steele@tuckerellis.com
2 HOWARD A. KROLL, CA Bar No. 100981
howard.kroll@tuckerellis.com
3 STEVEN E. LAURIDSEN, CA Bar No. 246364
steven.lauridsen@tuckerellis.com
4 TUCKER ELLIS LLP
515 South Flower Street
5 Forty-Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2223
6 Telephone: (213) 430-3400
Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
7
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
8 Coachella Music Festival, LLC and
Goldenvoice, LLC
9
10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Cleveland Columbus Denver Los Angeles San Francisco

11 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12 COACHELLA MUSIC ) Case No.: 2:17-cv-06059
FESTIVAL, LLC and )
13 GOLDENVOICE, LLC, )
TUCKER ELLIS LLP

) COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK

14 Plaintiffs )
) AND SERVICE MARK
15 v. ) INFRINGEMENT; FALSE
) DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN;
16 ROBERT TREVOR SIMMS and )
DILUTION; CYBERSQUATTING;
DOES 1-20, )
17 ) AND UNFAIR COMPETITION
Defendants. )
18 )
) DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
19 )
)
20 )
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
 Case 2:17-cv-06059-BRO-GJS Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 2 of 22 Page ID #:2

1 Plaintiffs Coachella Music Festival, LLC and Goldenvoice, LLC (collectively,

2 Plaintiffs) by and through their attorneys, Tucker Ellis LLP, file their complaint against
3 Defendants Robert Trevor Simms (Simms) and Does 1-20 (collectively, Defendants)
4 for injunctive relief and damages as follows:
5 Plaintiffs allege as follows, upon actual knowledge with respect to themselves and
6 their own acts, and on information and belief as to all other matters.
7 INTRODUCTION
8 1. Held annually, Plaintiffs Coachella Valley Music & Arts Festival
9 (COACHELLA) is one of the most critically acclaimed music and art festivals in the
10 world, with multiple bands, artists, food vendors, and stages. COACHELLA is a sold-out
Cleveland Columbus Denver Los Angeles San Francisco

11 event which attracts nearly 250,000 people (aggregated to nearly 750,000 daily attendees)
12 to Southern California each April.
13 2. Trading on the goodwill of Plaintiffs famous COACHELLA festival,
TUCKER ELLIS LLP

14 Defendants are attempting to operate a directly competitive festival which they have
15 named FILMCHELLA. Like Plaintiffs famous COACHELLA festival, Defendants
16 FILMCHELLA festival is advertised as a multi-day outdoor festival that features
17 numerous forms of entertainment, artists, and camping. Defendants describe their
18 festival as the Coachella for Movies and The Rock N Roll Experience for Filmmakers
19 & Fans. And just like COACHELLA, Defendants FILMCHELLA festival is advertised
20 to take place across three days in Southern California near the site where COACHELLA
21 is held. Plaintiffs have no objection to Defendants holding a festival of their own,
22 regardless of whether it features movies, films, music, or otherwise. Plaintiffs appreciate
23 the enthusiasm shown by Defendants but they simply want Defendants to use a
24 distinctive name of their own that does not infringe or trade on the goodwill of Plaintiffs
25 famous COACHELLA marks. Despite repeated requests from Plaintiffs asking them to
26 change the name of FILMCHELLA to one which avoids confusion, conflict, and false
27 association with the famous COACHELLA festival, Defendants have failed to do so.
28 Accordingly, Plaintiffs have been forced to file this action to protect the famous
-1-
 Case 2:17-cv-06059-BRO-GJS Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 3 of 22 Page ID #:3

1 COACHELLA trademarks and service marks from infringement, dilution, and

2 cybersquatting, and to protect the public from the likelihood of confusion caused by
3 Defendants.
4
5 THE PARTIES
6 3. Plaintiff Coachella Music Festival, LLC is a limited liability company
7 organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, having a principal place
8 of business in Los Angeles, California. Coachella Music Festival, LLC owns the
9 intellectual property rights to COACHELLA.
10 4. Plaintiff Goldenvoice, LLC is a limited liability company organized and
Cleveland Columbus Denver Los Angeles San Francisco

11 existing under the laws of the State of California, having a principal place of business in
12 Los Angeles, California. Goldenvoice, LLC produces the COACHELLA festival.
13 5. Defendant Robert Trevor Simms is a resident of the State of California with
TUCKER ELLIS LLP

14 his usual mailing address and principal residence in Marina Del Rey, California.
15 6. Defendant Simms is doing business as FILMCHELLA.
16 7. Plaintiffs are not aware of the true names and capacities of Defendants
17 named in this Complaint as Does 1-20, inclusive, and therefore brings this action against
18 these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to allege
19 these Defendants true names and capacities when ascertained.
20 8. At all times material to this action, each of the Defendants was the agent,
21 servant, employee, partner, alter ego, subsidiary, or joint venturer of each of the other
22 Defendants, and the acts of each of the Defendants were in the scope of such relationship;
23 in doing the acts and failing to act as alleged in this Complaint, each of the Defendants
24 acted with the knowledge, permission, and the consent of each of the other Defendants;
25 and, each of the Defendants aided and abetted the other Defendants in the acts or
26 omissions alleged in this Complaint.
27
28

-2-
 Case 2:17-cv-06059-BRO-GJS Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 4 of 22 Page ID #:4

1 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2 9. This case is a civil action arising under the Trademark Laws of the United
3 States, 15 U.S.C. 1051, et seq., under the California Business and Professions Code
4 17200, et seq., and California Common Law.
5 10. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims in this Complaint,
6 which arise under the Trademark Laws of the United States, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1121
7 and 28 U.S.C. 1338(a), and which involve a federal question, pursuant to
8 28 U.S.C. 1331.
9 11. This Court has pendent jurisdiction over the claims arising under California
10 law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(a) because the asserted state claims are substantially
Cleveland Columbus Denver Los Angeles San Francisco

11 related to the claims arising under the Trademark Laws of the United States.
12 Furthermore, this Court has pendent jurisdiction because both the state and federal claims
13 are derived from a common nucleus of operative facts and considerations of judicial
TUCKER ELLIS LLP

14 economy dictate the state and federal issues be consolidated for a single trial.
15 12. This Court has personal jurisdiction over all Defendants because they reside
16 in California. This Court also has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because
17 Defendants conduct systematic and continuous business within California related to the
18 unlawful activities at issue in this Complaint. Defendants continuously and systematically
19 solicit business from and conduct business with California residents using the Internet
20 through one or more fully interactive websites, accepting payments from California
21 residents, delivering infringing services to residents of California and advertising through
22 one or more California companies. In addition, Defendants have undertaken acts of
23 trademark infringement, service mark infringement, false designation of origin, dilution,
24 cybersquatting, and unfair competition that were purposefully directed at California with
25 knowledge that the brunt of the injury would be felt by Plaintiffs in California.
26 13. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391 because a substantial part of the
27 events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this judicial district, or a
28

-3-
 Case 2:17-cv-06059-BRO-GJS Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 5 of 22 Page ID #:5

1 substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated in this judicial
2 district.
3 PLAINTIFFS COACHELLA MUSIC FESTIVAL,
4 TRADEMARKS AND SERVICE MARKS
5 14. Plaintiffs own and produce COACHELLA, one of the countrys premier
6 music and arts festivals. Printouts of several news stories about COACHELLA are
7 attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 1. The caption from one photograph accompanying
8 a story from CNN reads, [a]n aerial view taken from a helicopter on Sunday shows how
9 big the [2011] festival is.
10 15. Held annually at the 78-acre Empire Polo Club in the beautiful Southern
Cleveland Columbus Denver Los Angeles San Francisco

11 California desert, COACHELLA is one of the most critically acclaimed music festivals in
12 the world.
13 16. COACHELLA was first held in October 1999 and drew some 25,000
TUCKER ELLIS LLP

14 attendees into the California desert in Southern California. Over the years,1 both
15 COACHELLAs attendance and its prominence have grown. Attendance to the sold-out
16 COACHELLA festival, aggregated over the multi-day event, now totals nearly 750,000
17 attendees per year.
18 17. For the past several years, tickets to COACHELLA sell out, and for the past
19 few years typically sell out in about an hour. Printouts of several news stories about
20 COACHELLA selling out are attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 2.
21 18. COACHELLA mixes some of the most groundbreaking artists from all
22 genres of music along with a substantial selection of art installations from all over the
23 world. COACHELLA attracts some of the worlds biggest mega-stars to perform. The list
24 of artists who have performed include: Beastie Boys, Bjork, Coldplay, Daft Punk,
25 Depeche Mode, Drake, Janes Addiction, Jay-Z, Kanye West, Kendrick Lamar, Lady
26 Gaga, Madonna, Nine Inch Nails, Oasis, Paul McCartney, Prince, Radiohead, Rage
27
1 Coachella was next held in April 2001 and has been held annually thereafter.
28

-4-
 Case 2:17-cv-06059-BRO-GJS Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 6 of 22 Page ID #:6

1 Against the Machine, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Roger Waters, The Cure, and Tool, to list
2 only a very few.
3 19. COACHELLA is about more than just music. The festivals venue also
4 includes camping facilities for some 15,000 attendees (complete with a karaoke lounge
5 and a general store), and an amazing selection of food and beverages from a wide range
6 of restaurants. The festival also features an extensive art exhibit which includes many
7 pieces of art (including sculpture and so-called interactive art). The music, the food, the
8 art, and of course, the fellowship of other attendees, taken together, makes
9 COACHELLA more than just a concert to attendit truly is an experience.
10 20. Plaintiffs own and operate COACHELLAs website, available at
Cleveland Columbus Denver Los Angeles San Francisco

11 www.coachella.com. This website received over 25 million page views in 2016, and
12 hosted nearly 8 million users in over 11 million sessions. Screen captures of Plaintiffs
13 website, available at www.coachella.com, are attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 3.2
TUCKER ELLIS LLP

14 21. Plaintiffs also produce a mobile app for COACHELLA for use on iPhone /
15 iPad and Android devices. Screen captures of Plaintiffs app from iTunes and Google are
16 attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 4.
17 22. Plaintiffs extensively promote the COACHELLA festival through a variety
18 of media, including via the Internet on its website, available at www.coachella.com, and
19 on numerous social media sites including Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, to list a few.
20 Screen captures of Plaintiffs Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram accounts are attached to
21 this Complaint as Exhibit 5. As can be seen from Exhibit 5, Plaintiffs Facebook page has
22 over 1.9 million likes; their Twitter account is being followed by over eight hundred
23 sixty-two thousand Twitter users; and their Instagram account is being followed by over
24 one million Instagram users.
25 23. Plaintiffs invested over $625,000 dollars last year alone in media and related
26 content to promote COACHELLA.
27
2 Exhibit 3 consists of screen captures from Plaintiffs 2016 website.
28

-5-
 Case 2:17-cv-06059-BRO-GJS Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 7 of 22 Page ID #:7

1 24. An Internet search using the Google search engine for the term
2 COACHELLA music festival provides over 2 million hits; a cursory review of the
3 results shows nearly every hit was related to Plaintiffs festival; and the first search result
4 was to Plaintiffs www.coachella.com website.
5 25. Tracked online media impressions (advertisements) for COACHELLA from
6 March 1, 2016 through May 1, 2016 exceeded 70 million impressions.
7 26. Over 500 credentialed journalists, from print media, radio, television, and
8 the Internet reported live from the 2016 COACHELLA festival. The journalists
9 represented media outlets such as diverse as Time, Billboard, and the BBC.
10 27. Plaintiffs own the exclusive trademark and service mark rights to the
Cleveland Columbus Denver Los Angeles San Francisco

11 distinctive COACHELLA trademark and service mark, having used the mark in
12 connection with the festival and related goods and services since the first COACHELLA
13 festival in 1999.
TUCKER ELLIS LLP

14 28. Similarly, Plaintiffs own the exclusive trademark and service mark rights to
15 the distinctive COACHELLA (stylized) trademark and service mark, having used the
16 mark in connection with the festival and related goods and services since the first festival
17 in 1999. A copy of the design mark is depicted below:
18
19
20 29. Plaintiffs also own the exclusive trademark rights to the distinctive
21 COACHELLA VALLEY MUSIC AND ARTS FESTIVAL trademark and service mark,
22 having used the mark in connection with the festival and related goods and services since
23 the first festival in 1999.
24 30. Plaintiffs also own the exclusive trademark rights to the distinctive
25 CHELLA and CHELA trademarks and service marks, which are frequently used to refer
26 to COACHELLA and which Plaintiffs use in connection with a variety of goods and
27 services.
28

-6-
 Case 2:17-cv-06059-BRO-GJS Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 8 of 22 Page ID #:8

1 31. The COACHELLA, COACHELLA (stylized), CHELLA, CHELA, and

2 COACHELLA VALLEY MUSIC AND ARTS FESTIVAL marks are collectively
3 referred to in this Complaint as the COACHELLA Marks.
4 32. Since 1999, Plaintiffs use of the COACHELLA Marks has been extensive,
5 continuous, and substantially exclusive.
6 33. COACHELLA and the COACHELLA Marks have been the subject of
7 extensive newspaper articles, magazine articles, television and Internet news stories. See
8 Exhibits 1-2.
9 34. Plaintiffs have made, and continue to make, a substantial investment of time,
10 effort and expense in the production and promotion of COACHELLA and the
Cleveland Columbus Denver Los Angeles San Francisco

11 COACHELLA Marks.
12 35. The COACHELLA Marks are unique and distinctive and, as such, designate
13 a single source of origin.
TUCKER ELLIS LLP

14 36. As a result of Plaintiffs efforts and use, the COACHELLA Marks have
15 come to be recognized by the public and members of the trade as being associated
16 exclusively with Plaintiffs and COACHELLA.
17 37. Plaintiffs have entered into a very limited number of highly sought-after
18 licenses to use the COACHELLA Marks.
19 38. Similarly, Plaintiffs have entered into a limited number of official
20 sponsorships of COACHELLA and have been highly selective regarding authorized or
21 permitted use of the COACHELLA Marks by third-parties.
22 39. Plaintiffs expend substantial effort and expense to protect the COACHELLA
23 Marks distinctiveness in the marketplace. Plaintiffs extensively police unauthorized use
24 of the COACHELLA Marks and have sent countless cease and desist letters, and made
25 countless telephone calls, to combat misuse or unauthorized use of the
26 COACHELLA Marks.
27 40. Plaintiffs have filed numerous domain name complaints to remedy the
28 registration or use of identical or confusingly similar Internet domain names.

-7-
 Case 2:17-cv-06059-BRO-GJS Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 9 of 22 Page ID #:9

1 41. Based on Plaintiffs use, including the use described herein, Plaintiffs own
2 extensive common law trademark rights in the COACHELLA Marks.
3 42. In addition to their extensive common law rights, Plaintiffs own numerous
4 United States registrations for the COACHELLA Marks. Specifically, Plaintiffs own:
5 a. United States Service Mark Registration No. 3,196,119 for
6 COACHELLA. This Registration is incontestable under
7 15 U.S.C. 1065;
8 b. United States Trademark Registration No. 4,270,482 for COACHELLA;
9 c. United States Service Mark Registration No. 3,196,129 for
10 COACHELLA (stylized). This Registration is incontestable under
Cleveland Columbus Denver Los Angeles San Francisco

11 15 U.S.C. 1065;
12 d. United States Trademark Registration No. 4,266,400 for COACHELLA
13 (stylized);
TUCKER ELLIS LLP

14 e. United States Trademark Registration No. 5,235,905 for COACHELLA;

15 f. United States Trademark Registration No. 5,235,903 for COACHELLA
16 (stylized);
17 g. United States Service Mark Registration No. 3,196,128 for
18 COACHELLA VALLEY MUSIC AND ARTS FESTIVAL. This
19 Registration is incontestable under 15 U.S.C. 1065;
20 h. United States Trademark Registration No. 3,965,563 for COACHELLA
21 VALLEY MUSIC AND ARTS FESTIVAL;
22 i. United States Trademark Registration No. 4,008,651 for COACHELLA
23 VALLEY MUSIC AND ARTS FESTIVAL;
24 j. United States Trademark Registration No. 5,075,233 for CHELLA; and
25 k. United States Trademark Registration No. 3,851,272 for CHELA
26 (stylized). This Registration is incontestable under 15 U.S.C. 1065.
27 The registration certificate for each registration is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 6.
28

-8-
 Case 2:17-cv-06059-BRO-GJS Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 10 of 22 Page ID #:10

1 43. Having been widely promoted to the general public, and having exclusively
2 identified Plaintiffs and their goods and services, the COACHELLA Marks symbolize the
3 tremendous goodwill associated with Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs festival.
4 44. The COACHELLA Marks are a property right of incalculable value.
5 45. The COACHELLA Marks have for many years enjoyed unquestionable
6 fame as a result of the favorable general public acceptance and recognition.
7 46. The COACHELLA Marks are famous marks protected under
8 15 U.S.C. 1125(c).
9 DEFENDANTS BUSINESS
10 47. Defendants operate or intend to operate a film festival named
Cleveland Columbus Denver Los Angeles San Francisco

11 FILMCHELLA.
12 48. Defendants advertise the FILMCHELLA festival on websites available at
13 filmcoachella.com and filmchella.com. Screen captures of the www.filmcoachella.com
TUCKER ELLIS LLP

14 website and the www.filmchella.com website3 are attached to this Complainant as

15 Exhibit 7 (collectively, the FILMCHELLA website). The whois information for these
16 websites depicting Simms as their owner is attached as Exhibit 8.
17 49. Defendants also advertise the FILMCHELLA festival through a variety of
18 social media sites including Facebook and YouTube. Screen captures of these sites are
19 attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 9.
20 50. Defendants also use FILMCHELLA in their gmail email address,
21 filmchella@gmail.com, which is listed on the FILMCHELLA website. The
22 filmchella@gmail.com email address is used in connection with the FILMCHELLA
23 festival.
24 51. According to the FILMCHELLA website, as shown in Exhibit 7, the
25 FILMCHELLA festival is scheduled for September 29, 2017 through October 1, 2017 in
26 Joshua Tree, California.
27
Both of Defendants websites currently appear to have identical content as of the
3
28 drafting of this Complaint.

-9-
 Case 2:17-cv-06059-BRO-GJS Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 11 of 22 Page ID #:11

1 52. According to the FILMCHELLA website, the FILMCHELLA festival will

2 be the COACHELLA FOR MOVIES (see Exhibit 7).
3 53. Defendants echo this statement on their Facebook page. See Exhibit 9.
4 54. According to the FILMCHELLA website, the FILMCHELLA festival will
5 be THE ROCK N ROLL EXPERIENCE FOR FILMMAKERS & FANS and will
6 feature CAMPING, UNDER THE STARS as well as FILMS UNDER THE STARS,
7 IN THE DESERT and will be TECHNO FUELED, AND FULL OF FILMMAKERS.
8 See Exhibit 7.
9 55. According to the FILMCHELLA website, Defendants have been accepting
10 submissions from filmmakers to feature their films at the FILMCHELLA festival for a
Cleveland Columbus Denver Los Angeles San Francisco

11 fee. See Exhibit 7.

12 56. After being contacted by Plaintiffs, Defendants changed some of their
13 marketing materials for FILMCHELLA to read FILMCHILLA. However, this-single
TUCKER ELLIS LLP

14 letter change is insufficient to dispel any consumer confusion as to the sponsorship by or

15 association with COACHELLA. Nor is this change sufficient to correct or counteract the
16 illegal activity alleged in this Complaint.
17 57. Notwithstanding this purported name change, Defendants are still using
18 FILMCHELLA on social media and are still using FILMCHELLA as their social media
19 handles. See Exhibit 9.
20 58. Notwithstanding this purported name change, Defendants are still
21 maintaining and using the FILMCHELLA website, which is accessible at both
22 filmcoachella.com and filmchella.com.
23 59. Notwithstanding this purported name change, Defendants are also still using
24 the COACHELLA Marks in meta description tags and meta keyword tags for its
25 infringing websites. As an example, a copy of the HTML source code for the website
26 accessible at filmchella.com is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 10.
27 60. Defendants and Plaintiffs are competitors and both operate in the festival
28 industry, and both are located in Southern California.

-10-
 Case 2:17-cv-06059-BRO-GJS Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 12 of 22 Page ID #:12

1 61. The FILMCHELLA festival is marketed to many of the same or similar

2 consumers who attend or would attend COACHELLA. In fact, Defendants have gone to
3 great lengths to imitate COACHELLA. Like COACHELLA, the FILMCHELLA festival
4 is a three-day event featuring live music, camping, and outdoor entertainment.
5 62. Defendants are not affiliated with Plaintiffs, or with COACHELLA.
6 63. Defendants are not licensed to use the COACHELLA Marks.
7 64. Defendants had constructive notice of Plaintiffs rights in Plaintiffs federally
8 registered COACHELLA Marks under 15 U.S.C. 1072.
9 65. FILMCHELLA (and FILMCHILLA) is similar in sight, sound and meaning
10 to the COACHELLA Marks.
Cleveland Columbus Denver Los Angeles San Francisco

11 66. Defendants adopted and used FILMCHELLA to market their festival

12 because it is similar to the COACHELLA Marks.
13 67. Defendants use of FILMCHELLA to market their festival was done with
TUCKER ELLIS LLP

14 actual knowledge of COACHELLA and the COACHELLA Marks.

15 68. On or about March 7, 2017, Plaintiffs counsel sent Simms a cease and
16 desist letter regarding Plaintiffs rights in the COACHELLA Marks and Defendants use
17 of FILMCHELLA for their competitive festival, thus providing actual notice to
18 Defendants of Plaintiffs rights in the COACHELLA Marks.
19 69. Defendants continued to advertise and promote the FILMCHELLA festival,
20 even after receipt of this cease and desist letter and after multiple subsequent
21 communications from Plaintiff demanding they stop using FILMCHELLA.
22 70. Simms has also applied to register FILMCHELLA as a trademark with the
23 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. This application was assigned U.S. Trademark Serial
24 No. 87/395,026. On August 8, 2017, when the mark published in the U.S. Official
25 Gazette, Plaintiff Coachella Music Festival, LLC filed a Notice of Opposition before the
26 Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, seeking to prevent the registration of
27 FILMCHELLA. This opposition has been assigned Proceeding No. 91236031 and is
28 currently pending before the Board.

-11-
 Case 2:17-cv-06059-BRO-GJS Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 13 of 22 Page ID #:13

1 71. Defendants have repeatedly requested that Simms abandon his trademark
2 application for FILMCHELLA and cease all use of FILMCHELLA or any similar
3 designation, but he has refused to do so.
4 HARM TO PLAINTIFFS AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC
5 72. Defendants unauthorized use of FILMCHELLA, or any similar designation
6 thereto, creates a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or
7 endorsement of Defendants film festival, and is likely to falsely suggest a sponsorship,
8 connection, license, or association with Plaintiffs.
9 73. Defendants activities have irreparably harmed and, if not enjoined, will
10 continue to irreparably harm Plaintiffs and the COACHELLA Marks.
Cleveland Columbus Denver Los Angeles San Francisco

11 74. Defendants activities have irreparably harmed, and if not enjoined, will
12 continue to irreparably harm the general public who has an inherent interest in being free
13 from confusion, mistake, and deception.
TUCKER ELLIS LLP

14 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

15 (Trademark Infringement Under 15 U.S.C. 1114(1))
16 75. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each of the allegations
17 contained in Paragraphs 1 through 74 of this Complaint as though fully set forth here.
18 76. Defendants use in commerce of the COACHELLA Marks and variations
19 thereof, including FILMCHELLA, is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or to deceive.
20 77. The above-described acts of Defendants constitute trademark infringement
21 in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1114(1), entitling Plaintiffs to relief.
22 78. Defendants have unfairly profited from the trademark infringement alleged.
23 79. By reason of Defendants acts of trademark infringement, Plaintiffs have
24 suffered damage to the goodwill associated with the COACHELLA Marks.
25 80. Defendants acts of trademark infringement have irreparably harmed and, if
26 not enjoined, will continue to irreparably harm Plaintiffs and their federally registered
27 trademarks.
28

-12-
 Case 2:17-cv-06059-BRO-GJS Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 14 of 22 Page ID #:14

1 81. Defendants acts of trademark infringement have irreparably harmed, and if

2 not enjoined, will continue to irreparably harm the general public which has an interest in
3 being free from confusion, mistake, and deception.
4 82. By reason of Defendants acts, Plaintiffs remedy at law is not adequate to
5 compensate it for the injuries inflicted by Defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled
6 to entry of a temporary restraining order against Defendants and preliminary and
7 permanent injunctive relief pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1116.
8 83. By reason of Defendants willful acts of trademark infringement, Plaintiffs
9 are entitled to damages, and that those damages be trebled under 15 U.S.C. 1117.
10 84. This is an exceptional case making Plaintiffs eligible for an award of
Cleveland Columbus Denver Los Angeles San Francisco

11 attorneys fees under 15 U.S.C. 1117.

12 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
13 (Trademark Infringement and False Designation of Origin
TUCKER ELLIS LLP

14 Under 15 U.S.C. 1125(a))

15 85. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each of the allegations
16 contained in Paragraphs 1 through 84 of this Complaint as though fully set forth here.
17 86. Defendants use in commerce of the COACHELLA Marks and variations
18 thereof, including FILMCHELLA, is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to
19 deceive the relevant public that Defendants goods or services are authorized, sponsored
20 or approved by or are affiliated with Plaintiffs.
21 87. The above-described acts of Defendants constitute trademark infringement
22 of the COACHELLA Marks and false designation of origin in violation of
23 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), entitling Plaintiffs to relief.
24 88. Defendants have unfairly profited from the actions alleged.
25 89. By reason of the above-described acts of Defendants, Plaintiffs have
26 suffered damage to the goodwill associated with the COACHELLA Marks.
27 90. The above-described acts of Defendants have irreparably harmed and, if not
28 enjoined, will continue to irreparably harm Plaintiffs and the COACHELLA Marks.

-13-
 Case 2:17-cv-06059-BRO-GJS Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 15 of 22 Page ID #:15

1 91. The above-described acts of Defendants have irreparably harmed and, if not
2 enjoined, will continue to irreparably harm the general public which has an interest in
3 being free from confusion, mistake, and deception.
4 92. By reason of Defendants acts, Plaintiffs remedy at law is not adequate to
5 compensate it for the injuries inflicted by Defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled
6 to entry of a temporary restraining order against Defendants and preliminary and
7 permanent injunctive relief pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1116.
8 93. Because the above-described acts of Defendants were willful, Plaintiffs are
9 entitled to damages, and that those damages be trebled, under 15 U.S.C. 1117.
10 94. This is an exceptional case making Plaintiffs eligible for an award of
Cleveland Columbus Denver Los Angeles San Francisco

11 attorneys fees under 15 U.S.C. 1117.

12 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
13 (Dilution Under 15 U.S.C. 1125(c))
TUCKER ELLIS LLP

14 95. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each of the allegations

15 contained in Paragraphs 1 through 94 of this Complaint as though fully set forth here.
16 96. Plaintiffs COACHELLA Marks are famous, as that term is used in
17 15 U.S.C. 1125(c), and were famous before Defendants use of the COACHELLA
18 Marks and variations thereof in commerce, based on, among other things, the inherent
19 distinctiveness and federal registration of the COACHELLA Marks and the extensive,
20 and exclusive nationwide use, advertising, promotion, and recognition of the
21 COACHELLA Marks.
22 97. Defendants use of the COACHELLA Marks and variations thereof,
23 including FILMCHELLA, in commerce is likely to cause dilution by blurring or dilution
24 by tarnishment of the COACHELLA Marks.
25 98. The above-described acts of Defendants constitute dilution by blurring and
26 dilution by tarnishment in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1125(c), entitling Plaintiffs to relief.
27 99. Defendants have unfairly profited from the actions alleged.
28

-14-
 Case 2:17-cv-06059-BRO-GJS Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 16 of 22 Page ID #:16

1 100. By reason of Defendants acts, Plaintiffs have suffered damage to the

2 goodwill associated with the COACHELLA Marks and have suffered and will continue
3 to suffer irreparable harm.
4 101. By reason of Defendants acts, Plaintiffs remedy at law is not adequate to
5 compensate them for the injuries inflicted by Defendants.
6 102. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to entry of a temporary restraining order
7 against Defendants and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief pursuant to
8 15 U.S.C. 1116.
9 103. By reason of Defendants willful acts, Plaintiffs are entitled to damages, and
10 that those damages be trebled, under 15 U.S.C. 1117.
Cleveland Columbus Denver Los Angeles San Francisco

11 104. This is an exceptional case making Plaintiffs eligible for an award of

12 attorneys fees under 15 U.S.C. 1117.
13 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
TUCKER ELLIS LLP

14 (Cybersquatting Under 15 U.S.C. 1125(d))

15 105. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each of the allegations
16 contained in Paragraphs 1 through 104 of this Complaint as though fully set forth here.
17 106. Defendants registered, trafficked in, or used the filmcoachella.com and
18 filmchella.com domain names (collectively, the Infringing Domain Names).
19 107. The COACHELLA Marks were distinctive and federally registered at the
20 United States Patent and Trademark Office at the time Defendants registered and used the
21 Infringing Domain Names.
22 108. The Infringing Domain Names are confusingly similar to the COACHELLA
23 Marks.
24 109. Defendants registered, trafficked in, or used the Infringing Domain Names
25 with a bad faith intent to profit from the COACHELLA Marks.
26 110. Defendants do not have any intellectual property rights or any other rights in
27 the COACHELLA Marks.
28

-15-
 Case 2:17-cv-06059-BRO-GJS Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 17 of 22 Page ID #:17

1 111. The Infringing Domain Names do not consist of the legal name of any of the
2 Defendants, nor a name that is otherwise commonly used to identify any of the
3 Defendants.
4 112. Defendants have not made any prior use of any of the Infringing Domain
5 Names in connection with the bona fide offering of any goods or services.
6 113. Defendants have not made any bona fide fair use of the COACHELLA
7 Marks on a website accessible under the Infringing Domain Names.
8 114. Defendants registered and used the Infringing Domain Names to divert
9 consumers from Plaintiffs www.coachella.com website to a website accessible under the
10 Infringing Domain Names for Defendants commercial gain by creating a likelihood of
Cleveland Columbus Denver Los Angeles San Francisco

11 confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of his website.

12 115. The COACHELLA Marks are famous within the meaning of
13 15 U.S.C. l125(c).
TUCKER ELLIS LLP

14 116. Defendants registration, use, or trafficking in the Infringing Domain Names

15 constitutes cybersquatting in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1125(d), entitling Plaintiffs to
16 relief.
17 117. By reason of Defendants acts alleged herein, Plaintiffs remedy at law is not
18 adequate to compensate them for the injuries inflicted by Defendants. Accordingly,
19 Plaintiffs are entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief pursuant to
20 15 U.S.C. 1116.
21 118. By reason of Defendants acts alleged herein, Plaintiffs are entitled to
22 recover Defendants profits, actual damages and the costs of the action, or statutory
23 damages under 15 U.S.C. 1117, on election by Plaintiffs, in an amount of one hundred
24 thousand dollars ($100,000) per domain name infringement.
25 119. This is an exceptional case making Plaintiffs eligible for an award of
26 attorneys fees under 15 U.S.C. 1117.
27
28

-16-
 Case 2:17-cv-06059-BRO-GJS Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 18 of 22 Page ID #:18

1 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

2 (Violation of California Unfair Competition and Trademark Law)
3 120. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each of the allegations
4 contained in Paragraphs 1 through 119 of this Complaint as though fully set forth here.
5 121. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants are in direct competition
6 with Plaintiffs.
7 122. Defendants willful, knowing and unauthorized promotion, advertisement,
8 sale and offering for sale of infringing goods and services causing confusion as to the
9 source of the goods and causing harm to Plaintiffs goodwill is an unlawful appropriation
10 of Plaintiffs exclusive rights in the COACHELLA Marks and variations thereof.
Cleveland Columbus Denver Los Angeles San Francisco

11 123. Such acts constitute unfair trade practices and unfair competition under
12 California Business and Professions Code 17200, et seq., and under the common law
13 of the State of California.
TUCKER ELLIS LLP

14 124. Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code 17203, Defendants

15 are required to disgorge and restore to Plaintiffs all profits and property acquired by
16 means of Defendants unfair competition with Plaintiff.
17 125. Due to Defendants conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to
18 suffer irreparable harm. It would be difficult to ascertain the amount of money damages
19 that would afford Plaintiffs adequate relief at law for Defendants acts and continuing
20 acts. Plaintiffs remedy at law is not adequate to compensate them for the injuries already
21 inflicted and further threatened by Defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to
22 preliminary and permanent injunctive relief pursuant to California Business and
23 Professions Code 17203.
24 126. Defendants conduct has been intentional and willful and in conscious
25 disregard of Plaintiffs rights and, therefore, Plaintiffs are entitled to exemplary or
26 punitive damages under the common law of the State of California in an amount
27 appropriate to punish Defendants and to make an example of them to the community.
28

-17-
 Case 2:17-cv-06059-BRO-GJS Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 19 of 22 Page ID #:19

1 REQUEST FOR RELIEF

2 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request judgment against Defendants as follows:
3 1. That the Court enter a judgment against Defendants that Defendants have:
4 a. Infringed the rights of Plaintiffs in the COACHELLA Marks that have
5 been federally registered in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1114(1);
6 b. Infringed the rights of Plaintiffs in the COACHELLA Marks in violation
7 of 15 U.S.C. 1125(a);
8 c. Infringed the rights of Plaintiffs in the COACHELLA Marks in violation
9 of 15 U.S.C. 1125(c);
10 d. Infringed the rights of Plaintiffs in the COACHELLA Marks in violation
Cleveland Columbus Denver Los Angeles San Francisco

11 of 15 U.S.C. 1125(d); and

12 e. Engaged in unfair competition and deceptive acts and practices in
13 violation of California Business and Professions Code 17200, et seq.
TUCKER ELLIS LLP

14 and California common law.

15 2. That each of the above acts was willful.
16 3. That the Court issue a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction,
17 and permanent injunction enjoining and restraining Defendants and their agents, servants,
18 employees, successors and assigns, and all other persons acting in concert with or in
19 conspiracy with or affiliated with Defendants, from:
20 a. Engaging in any infringing activity including advertising, promoting,
21 marketing, franchising, selling and offering for sale any goods or services
22 in connection with the COACHELLA Marks or any similar mark,
23 including but not limited to FILMCHELLA and FILMCHILLA;
24 b. Registering or seeking to register FILMCHELLA, FILMCHILLA, or any
25 similar designation, as a trademark in the United States;
26 c. Engaging in any activity which lessens the distinctiveness or tarnishes the
27 COACHELLA Marks;
28 d. Registering, using, or trafficking in any domain name that is identical or

-18-
 Case 2:17-cv-06059-BRO-GJS Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 20 of 22 Page ID #:20

1 confusingly similar to the COACHELLA Marks;

2 e. Engaging in any unfair competition with Plaintiffs; and
3 f. Engaging in any deceptive acts.
4 4. That U.S. Trademark Serial No. 87/395,026 for FILMCHELLA be refused
5 registration by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
6 5. That Plaintiffs be awarded damages for Defendants trademark infringement
7 and unfair competition and that these damages be trebled due to Defendants willfulness,
8 in accordance with the provisions of 15 U.S.C. 1117.
9 6. That Plaintiffs be awarded all profits resulting from Defendants
10 infringement of Plaintiffs rights and by means of Defendants unfair competition with
Cleveland Columbus Denver Los Angeles San Francisco

11 Plaintiffs.
12 7. That Defendants be ordered to account for and disgorge to Plaintiffs all
13 amounts by which Defendants have been unjustly enriched by reason of the unlawful acts
TUCKER ELLIS LLP

14 complained of.
15 8. That Plaintiffs be awarded $100,000 per infringing domain name in statutory
16 damages by reason of Defendants cybersquatting in accordance with the provisions of
17 15 U.S.C. 1117;
18 9. That Plaintiffs be awarded an amount sufficient to reimburse Plaintiffs for
19 the costs of corrective advertising.
20 10. For prejudgment interest on all infringement damages.
21 11. That the Court award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys fees pursuant to
22 15 U.S.C. 1117, California law, and any other applicable provision of law.
23
24
25
26
27
28

-19-
 Case 2:17-cv-06059-BRO-GJS Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 21 of 22 Page ID #:21

1 12. That the Court award Plaintiffs their costs of suit incurred herein.
2 13. For such other or further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
3
4
5 Dated: August 15, 2017 Tucker Ellis LLP
6 By: /s/David J. Steele
David J. Steele
7 Howard A. Kroll
Steven E. Lauridsen
8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
9 Coachella Music Festival, LLC
Goldenvoice, LLC
10
Cleveland Columbus Denver Los Angeles San Francisco

11
12
13
TUCKER ELLIS LLP

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-20-
 Case 2:17-cv-06059-BRO-GJS Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 22 of 22 Page ID #:22

1 DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

2 Plaintiffs Coachella Music Festival, LLC and Goldenvoice, LLC hereby demand a
3 trial by jury to decide all issues so triable in this case.
4
5 Dated: August 15, 2017 Tucker Ellis LLP
6
By: /s/David J. Steele
7 David J. Steele
Howard A. Kroll
8 Steven E. Lauridsen
9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Coachella Music Festival, LLC
10 Goldenvoice, LLC
Cleveland Columbus Denver Los Angeles San Francisco

11
12
13
TUCKER ELLIS LLP

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-21-
1278673.1