Complaint KPMG KBMG

Case 1:11-cv-01583-MGC Document 1 Filed 03/08/11 Page 1 of 28
3. KPMG LLP provides to its clients, inter alia, professional services in interstate
commerce in the fields of accounting, auditing, tax, management, and financial and business
consulting under its famous name and mark KPMG.
4. Upon information and belief, Defendants offer similar professional services in
interstate commerce, including accounting, auditing, tax, management and financial and business
consulting services. Defendants advertise and promote those services at their website
WWW.KBLLC.COM.
5. Upon information and belief, the Individual Defendants control and direct the
business and operations of KBMG, derive financial benefit from the use of the name and mark
KBMG and were instrumental in Defendants’ selection of the name and mark KBMG.
6. Plaintiffs bring this action seeking, inter alia, a judgment that Defendants have:
(i) infringed the federally registered KPMG Marks by, inter alia, using the name and mark
KBMG, which is likely to cause confusion, mistake and deception in violation of § 32 of the
Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114; (ii) violated Plaintiffs’ rights under the federal unfair competition
law codified at § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) by, inter alia, using false
designations of origin, including KBMG, that are likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception
as to the affiliation, connection or association with Plaintiffs; (iii) diluted the distinctive quality
of Plaintiffs’ valuable rights in the KPMG Marks in violation of § 43(c) of the Lanham Act, 15
U.S.C. § 1125(c); (iv) diluted the distinctive quality of Plaintiffs’ valuable rights in the KPMG
Marks in violation of New York General Business Law 360-I; and (v) engaged in unfair
competition and trademark infringement in violation of the common law of New York.
7. Defendants’ acts have caused and continue to cause irreparable damage and injury
to Plaintiffs for which Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. Plaintiffs seek injunctive
-2-
relief, compensatory damages, Defendants’ profits, and other appropriate relief as set forth more
fully below.
PARTIES
8. KPMG International is a Swiss cooperative organized and existing under the laws
of Switzerland with a registered office address at Stadlin Advokatur, Baarerstrasse 12, 6300 Zug,
Switzerland. KPMG International carries on business activities for the overall benefit of the
KPMG network of member firms but does not provide professional services to clients, which
services are provided by member firms.
9. KPMG LLP is a limited liability partnership, duly organized under the laws of the
State of Delaware, with its headquarters located at 345 Park Avenue, New York, New York,
10154-0102. KPMG LLP is the United States member firm of KPMG International. KPMG
LLP is one of the “Big 4,” the name often used to collectively describe the four largest national
accounting and auditing firms in the United States. KPMG LLP has offices throughout the
United States, including five offices in the State of New York and two offices in the City of New
York. KPMG LLP provides to its clients throughout the United States the highest quality
professional services in the fields of accounting, auditing, tax, and management, financial and
business consulting (among others), including in the areas of mergers and acquisitions, financial
transactions and restructuring (collectively, “KPMG Services”).
10. Upon information and belief, KBMG is a limited liability company organized
under the laws of the State of New Jersey, with regular places of business at 6 East 45th Street,
10th Floor, New York, New York 10017 and at 106 Apple Street, Suite 101D, Tinton Falls, NJ
07724. KBMG competes with KPMG LLP in the United States by offering, in interstate
commerce, under the KBMG name and mark, professional services that are the same as or
substantially similar to the KPMG Services.
-3-
11. Upon information and belief, Howard S. Krant is a founder and principal of
KBMG. Upon information and belief, Krant resides in New Jersey.
12. Upon information and belief, Scott H. Bialick is a founder and principal of
KBMG. Upon information and belief, Bialick resides in New Jersey.
13. Upon information and belief, Lawrence Scott Gitlitz is a founder and principal of
KBMG. Upon information and belief, Gitlitz resides in New Jersey.
14. Upon information and belief, Michael H. Hoffman is a founder and principal of
KBMG. Upon information and belief, Hoffman resides in New Jersey.
15. Upon information and belief, the Individual Defendants direct and control the
business and operations of KBMG, derive financial benefit from the use of name and mark
KBMG and were instrumental in Defendants’ selection of the name and mark KBMG.
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
16. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1121(a),
28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1338(b). This Court has supplemental
jurisdiction over the state law claims herein pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. This Court may grant
Plaintiffs’ requested relief pursuant to the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq., and pursuant to
the relevant statutory and common law of the State of New York.
PERSONAL JURISDICTION
17. Defendant KBMG is subject to jurisdiction in New York because it has an office
for conduct of business in the State of New York where it regularly does and transacts business
under the name and mark KBMG. In addition, Defendant KBMG has committed, and continues
to commit, (i) the complained-of tortious acts of trademark infringement, dilution and unfair
competition within the State of New York, and (ii) the complained-of tortious acts of trademark
infringement, dilution and unfair competition outside of New York State causing injury to
-4-
Plaintiffs within New York State while regularly doing and soliciting business and engaging in a
persistent course of conduct within New York State, deriving substantial revenue for services
rendered within New York State, expecting the tortious conduct to have consequences in the
State of New York and deriving substantial revenue from interstate commerce.
18. Defendant Krant is subject to jurisdiction in New York because, upon information
and belief, he regularly does and transacts business in the State of New York using the name and
mark KBMG. In addition, upon information and belief, Defendant Krant has committed, and
continues to commit, (i) the complained-of tortious acts of trademark infringement, dilution and
unfair competition within the State of New York, and (ii) the complained-of tortious acts of
trademark infringement, dilution and unfair competition outside of New York State causing
injury to Plaintiffs within New York State while regularly doing and soliciting business and
engaging in a persistent course of conduct within New York State, deriving substantial revenue
for services rendered within New York State, expecting the tortious conduct to have
consequences in the State of New York and deriving substantial revenue from interstate
commerce.
19. Defendant Bialick is subject to jurisdiction in New York because, upon
information and belief, he regularly does and transacts business in the State of New York using
the name and mark KBMG. In addition, upon information and belief, Defendant Bialick has
committed, and continues to commit, (i) the complained-of tortious acts of trademark
infringement, dilution and unfair competition within the State of New York, and (ii) the
complained-of tortious acts of trademark infringement, dilution and unfair competition outside of
New York State causing injury to Plaintiffs within New York State while regularly doing and
soliciting business and engaging in a persistent course of conduct within New York State,
deriving substantial revenue for services rendered within New York State, expecting the tortious
-5-
conduct to have consequences in the State of New York and deriving substantial revenue from
interstate commerce.
20. Defendant Gitlitz is subject to jurisdiction in New York because, upon
the name and mark KBMG. In addition, upon information and belief, Defendant Gitlitz has
21. Defendant Hoffman is subject to jurisdiction in New York because, upon
the name and mark KBMG. In addition, upon information and belief, Defendant Hoffman has
-6-
VENUE
22. Venue is proper in the Southern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1391(b) and (c) because, inter alia, a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’
claims occurred in this district and KBMG resides in this district as it is subject to personal
jurisdiction in this district.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs’ Rights
23. The KPMG Marks are famous and immediately recognizable throughout the
United States and are used and closely associated with the KPMG Services. Comprehensive
descriptions of the KPMG Services are available at WWW.US.KPMG.COM. KPMG
International and KPMG member firms, including KPMG LLP, have continuously and
extensively used the KPMG Marks since 1987. Through this continuous use, Plaintiffs have
acquired strong statutory and common law rights in the KPMG Marks.
24. KPMG International owns several United States Trademark Registrations for the
KPMG Marks on the Principal Register, including Reg. Nos. 2,339,547 and 2,386,745. Each of
these registrations has become incontestable under § 15 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1065),
and, as a result, is conclusive evidence of the validity of the KPMG Marks and of the registration
of the KPMG Marks, KPMG International’s ownership of the KPMG Marks, and of its exclusive
right to use the KPMG Marks in commerce. Copies of records of these registrations,
downloaded from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, are attached hereto as Exhibit A and are
made part of this Complaint.
25. KPMG International has used an active website on the Internet under the domain
name WWW.KPMG.COM since 1992.
-7-
26. KPMG LLP’s website, WWW.US.KPMG.COM, provides information about
KPMG LLP, including its services, educational materials and seminars, office locations, contact
information, and recruiting information, among other things.
27. KPMG LLP employs more than 22,000 people delivering audit, tax and advisory
services in offices around the United States. Annual revenues of KPMG LLP from its services
rendered in the United States total in the billions of dollars. KPMG LLP spends millions of
dollars each year on marketing, advertising, recruiting, and community outreach programs in the
United States, all under or in connection with the KPMG Marks. As a result, the KPMG Marks
are famous and widely recognized by the general consuming public of the United States as a
designation of the source of KPMG services and in connection with KPMG LLP’s community
and philanthropic activities.
28. The KPMG Marks have acquired fame, secondary meaning and substantial
goodwill in the United States and worldwide, and are invaluable assets.
Defendants’ Willful Infringement of the KPMG Marks
29. Upon information and belief and unbeknownst to Plaintiffs, in 2004, the
Individual Defendants organized KBMG, which, according to the KBMG website at
WWW.KBLLC.COM, provides “traditional accounting and tax services, business consulting,
financial and estate planning as well as a variety” of other services. Upon information and
belief, Defendants provide many of the same services under the KBMG name and mark that
KPMG LLP provides under the KPMG Marks.
30. Upon information and belief, Defendants deliberately chose the name and mark
KBMG (the “Infringing Name”) to create confusion and the false appearance of endorsement or
sponsorship by, or affiliation with, Plaintiffs. Defendants further this confusion by displaying a
website at WWW.KBLLC.COM that resembles the color and style of Plaintiffs’ websites at
-8-
WWW.KPMG.COM and WWW.US.KPMG.COM (i.e., a blue and white color scheme, with the
KBMG name and logo prominently displayed in the upper left corner). Defendants thus enhance
the false impression that KBMG is affiliated with or sponsored by Plaintiffs.
31. On information and belief, Defendants purposefully selected the Infringing Name
in bad faith to trade off the goodwill of Plaintiffs’ famous KPMG Marks.
32. Plaintiffs first became aware of Defendants’ use of the Infringing Name recently.
33. Defendants are not and have never been licensed or otherwise authorized by
Plaintiffs to use the Infringing Name, or any other name, mark or domain name confusingly
similar to the KPMG Marks.
KPMG LLP’s and Defendants’ Services Compete
34. As noted above, KPMG LLP (under the famous KPMG Marks) and Defendants
(under the Infringing Name) offer, in interstate commerce, many of the same or substantially the
same professional services, including accounting, auditing, tax and management and financial
consulting services. KPMG LLP and Defendants are thus competitors in the marketplace for
these services.
35. In addition, the above-noted U.S. Trademark Registrations owned by KPMG
International specifically cover the following services, which are the same as or substantially the
same as the services offered by Defendants: accounting, auditing, tax and management
consulting services, and financial consulting. (See Ex. A, trademark registrations).
Plaintiffs’ Communication with Defendants
36. On or about January 24, 2011, counsel for KPMG LLP sent a letter via Federal
Express to Defendants informing them of their infringing and otherwise improper conduct.
Plaintiffs attempted to reach an amicable resolution, but were unable to do so.
-9-
Plaintiffs Are Being Irreparably Harmed
37. As a consequence of Defendants’ use of the Infringing Name, the public is likely
to believe mistakenly and to be confused into thinking that Defendants and their services
originate with, are affiliated with or are approved by Plaintiffs.
38. Such confusion and mistake have caused and will cause irreparable harm to
Plaintiffs. For example, dissatisfaction with Defendants or their services will mistakenly be
attributed to Plaintiffs, and any adverse publicity associated with Defendants will reflect
negatively upon Plaintiffs.
39. Plaintiffs will continue to be irreparably harmed as long as Defendants are
allowed to continue their use of the Infringing Name, or any other name, mark or domain name
including the initials “KBMG”, or any other word, term, phrase or combination or letters or
symbols confusingly similar to the KPMG Marks.
Count I - Trademark Infringement

(Violation of § 32(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1))
(Against all Defendants)
40. Plaintiffs re-allege paragraphs 1-39 as though set forth in full herein.
41. KPMG International owns and KPMG LLP is licensed to use the KPMG Marks in
the United States to identify its auditing, tax and advisory services, including on KPMG LLP’s
website at WWW.US.KPMG.COM. KPMG International’s federal registrations for the KPMG
Marks are valid, subsisting, and in full force and effect, and have become incontestable. Such
registrations constitute prima facie evidence of the validity of the KPMG Marks and of KPMG
LLP’s right to use the KPMG Marks in the United States in connection with its services.
42. Such registrations provide constructive notice to Defendants and all others of
KPMG International’s claim to ownership of the KPMG Marks pursuant to Section 22 of the
Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1072).
- 10 -
43. Through KPMG LLP’s extensive expenditure of time, money, labor, and other
efforts in marketing and promoting the KPMG Marks in the United States, KPMG LLP has
created a distinctive designation to the U.S. public that it is the source of the KPMG Services
associated with the KPMG Marks, and KPMG LLP has developed exceedingly valuable
goodwill and reputation for the KPMG Marks in the United States.
44. Despite Plaintiffs’ well known and established prior rights in the KPMG Marks,
Defendants used and are using the Infringing Name in connection with the same or substantially
the same services that are provided by KPMG LLP in the United States under the KPMG Marks,
which services move through the same or similar channels of trade and are sold to the same or
similar classes of customers.
45. Defendants have continued their unauthorized and infringing use of the Infringing
Name even after receiving a demand from counsel for KPMG LLP that such activity cease.
46. Defendants’ use of the Infringing Name is likely to cause confusion, mistake
and/or deception. For example, by reason of Defendants’ use of the Infringing Name, the public
is likely to believe, contrary to fact, that Defendants are affiliated with Plaintiffs, that
Defendants’ website is approved by or connected with Plaintiffs, and that Defendants’ services
are approved by or associated with Plaintiffs.
47. Unless enjoined, Defendants will continue their unauthorized use of the Infringing
Name.
48. Defendants’ aforementioned uses of the Infringing Name constitute willful and
knowing infringement of the KPMG Marks, in violation of Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act,
15 U.S.C. § 1114(1).
- 11 -
49. Defendants’ infringement has caused irreparable injury and damage to Plaintiffs,
and unless enjoined will continue to cause irreparable injury and damage to Plaintiffs for which
Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.
50. Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive, monetary and other relief pursuant to Sections
34, 35 and 36 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1116, 1117, and 1118.
Count II - False Designation of Origin and False Representations

(Violation of § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a))
51. Plaintiffs re-allege paragraphs 1 - 50 as though set forth in full herein.
52. Defendants’ use of the Infringing Name as set forth above constitutes false
designation of origin and false descriptions and representations of fact, in that such use is likely
to cause confusion, mistake and/or deception as to the affiliation, connection or association of
Defendants and/or their services with Plaintiffs and/or the services provided by KPMG LLP in
the United States.
53. For example, Defendants’ use of the Infringing Name is likely to cause the public
to believe falsely that Defendants and their services originate with or are sponsored, approved or
licensed by, or are in some other way associated or connected with Plaintiffs and/or the services
of KPMG LLP conducted under the KPMG Marks.
54. Defendants’ acts complained of herein constitute willful violations of Section
43(a)(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125(a).
55. Defendants’ acts complained of herein have caused irreparable injury and damage
to Plaintiffs, and unless enjoined will continue to cause irreparable injury and damage to
Plaintiffs for which Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.
56. Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive, monetary and other relief pursuant to Sections
34, 35 and 36 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1116, 1117, and 1118.
- 12 -
Count III - Trademark Dilution

(Violation of § 43(c) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c))
57. Plaintiffs re-allege paragraphs 1-56 as though fully set forth herein.
58. KPMG LLP has extensively used the KPMG Marks in the United States for many
years to identify its services. By virtue of KPMG LLP’s long, extensive and continuous use of
the KPMG Marks in interstate commerce, the KPMG Marks have acquired great recognition and
have become and continue to be famous within the meaning of Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act,
15 U.S.C. § 1125(c).
59. The KPMG Marks were famous and distinctive in the United States years before
Defendants commenced use of the Infringing Name.
60. Defendants’ aforementioned use of the Infringing Name is likely to cause dilution
by blurring in that such use impairs the distinctiveness of the famous KPMG Marks, and dilution
by tarnishment of the famous KPMG Marks in that such use by persons or entities not affiliated
with Plaintiffs harms the reputation of the famous KPMG Marks.
61. Defendants’ acts set forth above constitute trademark dilution in violation of
Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c).
62. Defendants’ acts of dilution by blurring and dilution by tarnishment have caused
irreparable injury and damage to Plaintiffs, and unless this Court enjoins Defendants from further
commission of said acts, Plaintiffs will continue to suffer irreparable injury and damage for
which they have no adequate remedy at law.
63. Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive, monetary and other relief pursuant to
Sections 34, 35 and 36 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1116, 1117, 1118, and 1125(c).
- 13 -
Count IV - Dilution
(Violation of New York General Business Law 360-I)
65. The KPMG Marks are famous and are of a distinctive quality. KPMG LLP has
used the KPMG Marks in the United States, including in the State of New York, for many years
to identify its services. By virtue of KPMG LLP’s long, extensive and continuous use of the
KPMG Marks throughout the United States, including in the State of New York, the KPMG
Marks have acquired great recognition and have become and continue to be famous.
66. The KPMG Marks were famous and distinctive in the State of New York years
before Defendants commenced use of the Infringing Name.
67. Defendants’ aforementioned use of the Infringing Name in commerce in the State
of New York is likely to dilute the distinctive quality of the KPMG Marks, and, among other
things, to diminish the KPMG Marks’ ability to serve as source identifiers.
68. As a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants’ willful violation of
Plaintiffs’ rights, Plaintiffs’ business reputation and the goodwill associated with their KPMG
Marks and the favorable associations that consumers and the public make with the KPMG Marks
have been diluted, impaired and diminished.
69. Defendants’ acts set forth above constitute trademark dilution in violation of New
York General Business Law 360-I.
70. Defendants’ acts of dilution have caused irreparable injury and damage to
Plaintiffs, and unless this Court enjoins Defendants from further commission of said acts,
Plaintiffs will continue to suffer irreparable injury and damage for which they have no adequate
remedy at law.
- 14 -
71. On information and belief, because of Defendants’ knowledge and awareness of
the fame and distinctiveness of the KPMG Marks at the time they adopted and used the
Infringing Name, Defendants’ actions were willful, and intentionally designed to trade off of and
dilute the fame of the KPMG Marks.
72. Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive, monetary and other relief pursuant to New
York General Business Law 360-I.
Count V - Common Law Trademark Infringement

(Violation of New York Unfair Competition Law)
74. Defendants’ use in the State of New York of the Infringing Name as complained
of above capitalizes and trades upon and is intended to capitalize and trade upon the goodwill
and reputation of Plaintiffs and the KPMG Marks.
75. Defendants’ acts complained of above are designed with the intent to mislead and
deceive persons into believing that Defendants are sponsored, endorsed, licensed or authorized
by Plaintiffs or affiliated, connected or associated in some way with Plaintiffs, which they are
not.
76. Without Plaintiffs’ authorization, Defendants have intentionally and unlawfully
copied the KPMG Marks for the calculated purpose of passing off and/or palming off their
services as those of KPMG LLP, thereby trading upon the goodwill and reputation of Plaintiffs’
KPMG Marks, thus deceiving the public as to the true nature and source of Defendants’ services,
and falsely suggesting a connection or associate with Plaintiffs, all to Defendants’ profit and to
the damage and detriment of Plaintiffs.
77. Defendants’ past and continued copying and imitation of the KPMG Marks
falsely designate the origin of Defendants’ services, and are likely to cause consumer confusion,
- 15 -
mistake or deception. Defendants have committed unlawful predatory practices intended to
deceive consumers rather than engage in legitimate competition.
78. Defendants’ acts of trademark infringement and unfair competition complained of
herein have caused irreparable injury and damage to Plaintiffs, and unless enjoined will continue
to cause irreparable injury and damage to Plaintiffs for which Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy
at law.
79. For this unfair competition, Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive, monetary and
other relief pursuant to the common law of New York.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray the Court for its judgment:
1. Enjoining Defendants and Defendants’ officers, agents, servants, employees, and
attorneys, and all others acting in active concert or participation with them, who receive actual
notice of the judgment, from using as or as part of any trademark, service mark, trade name,
company name, corporate name, domain name, or other indicia of origin: (a) KBMG, or (b) any
other word, term, phrase or combination of letters or symbols that is confusingly similar to any
of the KPMG Marks;
2. Directing Defendants to provide an accounting of all revenues and profits derived
from their activities under the Infringing Name, or any other word, term, phrase or combination
of letters or symbols that is confusingly similar to any of the KPMG Marks;
3. Directing Defendants to deliver up for destruction any and all promotional
materials, advertisements, brochures, letterhead, business cards, and all prints, mechanicals,
plates or means to produce any such promotional materials bearing the Infringing Name;
4. Awarding Plaintiffs:
- 16 -

Complaint KPMG KBMG

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Complaint KPMG KBMG

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:11-cv-01583-MGC Document 1 Filed 03/08/11 Page 1 of 28

Case 1:11-cv-01583-MGC Document 1 Filed 03/08/11 Page 2 of 28

consulting under its famous name and mark KPMG.

4. Upon information and belief, Defendants offer similar professional services in

services are provided by member firms.

transactions and restructuring (collectively, “KPMG Services”).

substantially similar to the KPMG Services.

KBMG. Upon information and belief, Krant resides in New Jersey.

KBMG. Upon information and belief, Bialick resides in New Jersey.

KBMG. Upon information and belief, Gitlitz resides in New Jersey.

KBMG. Upon information and belief, Hoffman resides in New Jersey.

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

19. Defendant Bialick is subject to jurisdiction in New York because, upon

20. Defendant Gitlitz is subject to jurisdiction in New York because, upon

21. Defendant Hoffman is subject to jurisdiction in New York because, upon

jurisdiction in this district.

descriptions of the KPMG Services are available at WWW.US.KPMG.COM. KPMG

made part of this Complaint.

name WWW.KPMG.COM since 1992.

26. KPMG LLP’s website, WWW.US.KPMG.COM, provides information about

information, and recruiting information, among other things.

and philanthropic activities.

Defendants’ Willful Infringement of the KPMG Marks

Individual Defendants organized KBMG, which, according to the KBMG website at

WWW.KBLLC.COM, provides “traditional accounting and tax services, business consulting,

KPMG LLP provides under the KPMG Marks.

the false impression that KBMG is affiliated with or sponsored by Plaintiffs.

similar to the KPMG Marks.

KPMG LLP’s and Defendants’ Services Compete

35. In addition, the above-noted U.S. Trademark Registrations owned by KPMG

consulting services, and financial consulting. (See Ex. A, trademark registrations).

Plaintiffs’ Communication with Defendants

Plaintiffs attempted to reach an amicable resolution, but were unable to do so.

Plaintiffs Are Being Irreparably Harmed

originate with, are affiliated with or are approved by Plaintiffs.

negatively upon Plaintiffs.

39. Plaintiffs will continue to be irreparably harmed as long as Defendants are

symbols confusingly similar to the KPMG Marks.

Count I - Trademark Infringement

website at WWW.US.KPMG.COM. KPMG International’s federal registrations for the KPMG

Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1072).

similar classes of customers.

are approved by or associated with Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.

Count II - False Designation of Origin and False Representations

51. Plaintiffs re-allege paragraphs 1 - 50 as though set forth in full herein.

to cause confusion, mistake and/or deception as to the affiliation, connection or association of

the United States.

of KPMG LLP conducted under the KPMG Marks.

54. Defendants’ acts complained of herein constitute willful violations of Section

43(a)(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125(a).

Plaintiffs for which Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.

Count III - Trademark Dilution

Defendants commenced use of the Infringing Name.

with Plaintiffs harms the reputation of the famous KPMG Marks.

Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c).

which they have no adequate remedy at law.

before Defendants commenced use of the Infringing Name.

things, to diminish the KPMG Marks’ ability to serve as source identifiers.

68. As a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants’ willful violation of

have been diluted, impaired and diminished.

York General Business Law 360-I.

71. On information and belief, because of Defendants’ knowledge and awareness of