Upload
lara-pearson
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/31/2019 Complaint Urban Motive Sportswear v Nike
1/26
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
URBAN MOTIVE SPORTSWEAR, INC., )
an Illinois corporation, and Lou Weisbach, ))Plaintiffs, ) Hon._________________________
)
v. )
) Civil Action No.________________
NIKE, INC. )
an Oregon corporation, )
) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendants. )
COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENTAND UNFAIR COMPETITION
Plaintiffs, Urban Motive Sportswear, Inc., (AUrban Motive@), and Lou Weisbach
(AWeisbach@), for their complaint against Defendant Nike, Inc., (ANike@), alleges as follows:
I. NATURE OF ACTION
1. This is a complaint for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and dilution
of Urban Motive and Weisbach=s trademark associated with its highly distinctive
ALottery Pick
@
sportswear clothing line. Defendants manufacture, sell and advertise the AJordan LS Lottery
Pick Jacket@ for men and the jackets are infringements and dilutive of Urban Motive and
Weisbach=s trademark.
II. PARTIES
2. Plaintiff, Urban Motives Sportswear, Inc., is an Illinois corporation with its
principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois.
3. Lou Weisbach is an individual who resides in Chicago, Illinois and is a co-
founder of Urban Motives Sportswear, Inc.
4. On information and belief, Defendant, Nike, Inc., is an Oregon corporation with
7/31/2019 Complaint Urban Motive Sportswear v Nike
2/26
its principal place of business in Beaverton, Oregon.
III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. This action arises under the federal Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. '1051 et seq., 15
U.S.C. ' 1114, 15 U.S.C. 1125, the Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 ILCS 510/1 et seq.,
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505 et seq., and the common
law of Illinois.
6. The amount in controversy in this action is in excess of $4,000,000.00.
7. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. '1121 and 28U.S.C.''
1331, 1332, 1338 and 1367 in that this case arises under the trademark laws if the United
States.
8. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Nike because Nike is conducting
business in the State of Illinois and this District, and has committed torts, the effect of which has
been felt in the State of Illinois and this District as alleged above, so as to submit itself to the
jurisdiction and process of this Court.
9. To the extent not already established on the record in hand, the factual contentions
of paragraph 1 above are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for
further investigation and discovery.
IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. Urban Motive And Weisbach And Their Asserted Trademark Rights
10. Urban Motive and Weisbach are the manufacturers of an energy drink, sportswear
apparel and other merchandise using their recognizable registered brand ALottery Pick@.
11. Urban Motive and Weisbach are the owners of the registered mark, ALottery
Pick@, associated with clothing and sports apparel. This registration is incontestable, and its
7/31/2019 Complaint Urban Motive Sportswear v Nike
3/26
existence is prima facie evidence of the validity of this mark. Urban Motive and Weisbach are
also the owners of common law trademark rights related to ALottery Pick@, including but not
limited to its association to clothing and sports apparel.
12. Plaintiffs own the trademark rights to ALottery Pick@, which was registered by
Lou Weisbach, May 2, 2006 with the United States Patent and Trademark Office for clothing,
including but not limited to: hats, t-shirts, jerseys, shorts, sweatshirts, warm ups, and footwear, and
was originally filed May 10, 2004, serial number 78-415,673. SEE ATTACHED
CERTIFICATE AS EXHIBIT A.
13. The Plaintiffs first used the mark May 24, 2004 and in commerce on June 8, 2004.
14. The mark is distinctive, either inherently or through establishment of acquired
distinctiveness in commerce through its association with the goods manufactured and distributed
by Plaintiffs.
15. The mark has been extensively and continuously used by Plaintiffs in association
with the sale of their products since June 8, 2004.
16. The ALottery Pick@ mark symbolizes the business goodwill of Urban Motive and
Weisbach, and is an intangible asset of substantial commercial value.
17. For several years, and prior to the acts of the Defendants herein alleged, Urban
Motive and Weisbach have used the ALottery Pick@ mark, alone and in combination, on or in
connection with advertising, marketing, and sales of its energy drink and apparel, throughout the
world, including the United States and this District.
18. Urban Motive and Weisbach has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in
advertising and promoting its products bearing the ALottery Pick@ mark in a wide range of media,
including television, print, radio, and on-line, and continues to advertise and promotes those
7/31/2019 Complaint Urban Motive Sportswear v Nike
4/26
products today.
19. Sales, advertising and promotion of the products of the Plaintiffs have amounted
to hundreds of thousands of dollars. As a result of such continuous and extensive sales,
advertising and promotion of its products, throughout the world, Urban Motive and Weisbach
were beginning to enjoy worldwide recognition and a world famous reputation, and the ALottery
Pick@ mark was becoming recognized by the public as emanating from Urban Motive and
Weisbach.
20. The ALottery Pick@ mark is becoming famous and represent property of great
value and goodwill to Urban Motive and Weisbach.
21. In addition, prior to the acts of the Defendants, Urban Motive and Weisbach, did a
great amount of marketing and promotions of their products in the Chicagoland area, their
hometown, including, gifting several pieces of their ALottery Pick@ apparel to the two sons of
former Chicago Bulls star, Michael Jordan.
22. Upon information and belief, Michael Jordan has a long standing business
relationship with Defendant which includes a clothing line.
23. Urban Motive is a tiny company in comparison to Nike. It does not have the
resources to compete with Nike with regards to manufacturing, sales, advertising, marketing and
promotions.
24. Nike=s blatant disregard of Plaintiff=s rights was an unfair attempt to push Plaintiff
out of the market place.
B. Defendant Nike s Unauthorized Use of Urban Motive and Weisbach s
Trademark
25. On information and belief, subsequent to Urban Motive and Weisbach=s use of the
7/31/2019 Complaint Urban Motive Sportswear v Nike
5/26
ALottery Pick@ mark as alleged above, and with actual knowledge of Urban Motive and Weisbach=s
use of the ALottery Pick@ mark, and with willful intent to misrepresent the source of Defendant=s
goods, Defendants manufactured, sold and advertised the AJordan LS Lottery Pick Jacket@ for men,
distributed worldwide through its stores, website and various other merchandising websites.
REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS OF DEFENDANT=S INFRINGING PRODUCT AND
ACTIVITIES ARE ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT B.
26. Defendant=s product is marketed, promoted and sold via its stores around the
world, its website and various other merchandising websites and features the ALottery Pick@ jacket.
27. Defendant has no consent, license, approval or other authorization to use the
ALottery Pick@ mark in connection with its products.
28. Upon information and belief, Defendant has used the mark, ALottery Pick@ with
actual knowledge of Plaintiff=s rights in the ALottery Pick@ mark, and in conscious disregard of
Plaintiff=s rights.
VI. COUNT ONE - TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
29. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1
through 28 of this Complaint.
30. Defendant=s use of the AJordan LS Lottery Pick Jacket@ mark, which is
confusingly similar to and includes Plaintiff=s energy drink name and apparel clothing line name
and markALottery Pick@, is likely to cause confusion and mistake. Such use by Defendant of the
infringingAJordan LS Lottery Pick Jacket
@mark deceives, and is likely to deceive, others into
believing that Defendant=s apparel is sponsored by, approved by, or affiliated with Plaintiff
constituting trademark infringement in violation of the Lanham Act ' 32, 15 U.S.C. ' 1114.
31. Plaintiff has been and continues to be damaged in a manner that cannot be fully
7/31/2019 Complaint Urban Motive Sportswear v Nike
6/26
measured or compensated in economic terms and for which there is not adequate remedy at law.
The actions of Defendant have damaged and will continue to damage Plaintiff=s rights, reputation,
and goodwill. Such irreparable harm will continue unless Defendant=s acts are restrained and/or
enjoined during the pendency of this action and thereafter.
32. Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendant=s actions in an amount to be proven at
trial.
VII. COUNT TWO - FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN
33. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the allegations contained in
paragraphs 1 through 28 of this Complaint.
34. Defendant=s use of the infringing AJordan LS Lottery Pick Jacket@ mark
constitutes false designation of origin, false or misleading description, and/or false or misleading
representation. Such unauthorized use causes, and is likely to cause, confusion, mistake, or
deception of others, as to the affiliation, connection, or association of Defendant with Plaintiffs,
and also causes, and is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception as to the origin,
sponsorship, or approval of the goods and services of Defendant with those of the Plaintiff.
35. Such false designation, description, and/or representation constitutes unfair
competition and is an infringement of Plaintiff=s rights in its ALottery Pick@ mark in violation of the
Lanham Act '43(a), 15 U.S.C. ' 1125(a).
36. Defendant knew or should have known, of Plaintiff=s rights, and Defendant=s false
description, false representation, and false designation of origin were knowing, willful, and
deliberate, making this an exceptional case within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. ' 1117.
37. Plaintiff has been, and will continue to be, damaged by such false description,
false representation, and false designation of origin in a manner and amount that cannot be fully
7/31/2019 Complaint Urban Motive Sportswear v Nike
7/26
measured or compensated in economic terms. Defendant=s actions have damaged, and will
continue to damage, Plaintiff=s rights, reputation, and goodwill, and may discourage current and
potential customers from dealing with Plaintiff. Such irreparable harm will continue unless
Defendant=s acts are restrained and/or enjoined during the pendency of this action and thereafter.
38. Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendant=s actions in an amount to be proven at
trial.
VIII. COUNT THREE - FEDERAL TRADEMARK DILUTION
39. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1
through 28 of this Complaint.
40. As a result of Plaintiff=s almost eight years of use and promotion of the ALottery
Pick@ name and mark for its energy drink and apparel, the Defendant=s mark for its Jordan jacket
has had the advantage of Plaintiff=s sales and promotions of its products under the ALottery Pick@
mark, which have been substantial and extensive.
41. Defendant=s unauthorized use of the name and markALottery Pick@ constitutes a
commercial use in commerce and dilutes the distinctive quality of Plaintiff=s famous mark. Upon
information and belief, Defendant willfully intended to trade on Plaintiff=s reputation and to cause
the dilution of the aforementioned trademark in violation of the Lanham Act '43(c), 15 U.S.C. '
1125 (c).
42. Plaintiff has been and will continue to be damaged by Defendant=s dilution of the
ALottery Pick@ mark that cannot be fully measured or compensated in economic terms.
Defendant=s actions have damaged, and will continue to damage Plaintiff=s business, market,
reputation, and goodwill, and may discourage current and potential customers from dealing with
Plaintiff. Such irreparable harm will continue unless Defendant=s acts are restrained and/or
enjoined during the pendency of this action and thereafter.
7/31/2019 Complaint Urban Motive Sportswear v Nike
8/26
43. Plaintiffs has been damaged by Defendant=s actions in an amount to be proven at
trial.
IX. COUNT FOUR - UNFAIR COMPETITION UNDER ILLINOIS LAW
44. Plaintiffs repeats and realleges each of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1
through 28 of this Complaint.
45. Defendant=s conduct complained of herein above constitutes unfair competition
under the common law of Illinois.
46. By reason of and as a direct result of the above identified acts of unfair
competition, Defendant has caused Plaintiffs substantial and irreparable harm, the full extent of
which is currently unknown.
47. The acts complained of herein above have caused irreparable harm, damage
and injury to Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs has no adequate remedy at law.
48. Defendant=s acts were in bad faith, in conscious and deliberate disregard of
Plaintiffs= rights, and were performed with the intention of depriving Plaintiffs of their rights.
Accordingly, Defendant=s conduct merits, and Plaintiff seeks, an award of punitive damages in an
amount sufficient to punish Defendant and deter such conduct in the future.
49. Plaintiffs has been damaged by Defendant=s actions in an amount to be proven attrial.
X. COUNT FIVE - VIOLATION OF THE ILLINOIS CONSUMER FRAUD
AND DECEPTIVE PRACTICES ACT
50. Plaintiffs repeats and realleges each of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1
through 28 of this Complaint.
51. The use by the Defendant of the infringing name and markAJordan LS Lottery
Pick Jacket@ infringes Plaintiffs=ALottery Pick@name and mark and constitutes an unfair method of
7/31/2019 Complaint Urban Motive Sportswear v Nike
9/26
compensation in business and an unfair trade practice in business, as well as fraudulent
representation, which are damaging to the public interest in violation of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505, et seq.
52. The use by Defendant of a mark that infringes Plaintiffs= name and mark in
connection with the sale of Plaintiffs= energy drink and clothing has been knowing, willful and
deliberate.
53. Plaintiff has been and will continue to be irreparably injured by reason of
Defendant=s unfair methods of competition and unfair trade practices in violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act. Such irreparable injury will continue unless the
acts of Defendant are enjoined during the pendency of this action and thereafter.
54. Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendant=s actions in an amount to be proven at
trial.
XI. COUNT FOUR - COMMON LAW TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
55. Plaintiffs repeats and realleges each of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1
through 28 of this Complaint
56. Urban Motive and Weisbach were the first to use the ALottery Pick@ mark in
association with the sale of its energy drink and clothing. As a result of the continued activity the
ALottery Pick@ mark has become identified in the public mind as the manufacturer and/or licensor
of the products to which the name and/or markALottery Pick@ are applied.
57. As a result of the experience, care, and service of Plaintiff, their ALottery Pick@
brand is becoming widely known and have acquired a reputation for quality and aesthetic styling.
The ALottery Pick@ mark have become distinctive.
58. Defendant, with knowledge of and with intentional disregard of Plaintiffs= rights,
advertised, promoted and sold products using Plaintiffs= mark. The products are still being sold
7/31/2019 Complaint Urban Motive Sportswear v Nike
10/26
on the internet, such acts by the Defendant is likely to cause, has caused, and will continue to cause
confusion as to the source and/or sponsorship of Defendant=s products and services.
59. Defendant=s acts constitute willful infringement of Plaintiffs= exclusive rights in
the ALottery Pick@ mark, in violation of the common law. Be reason of Defendant=s actions,
Urban Motive and Weisbach has suffered irreparable harm to the valuable ALottery Pick@ mark.
Unless Defendant is restrained from further infringement on the ALottery Pick mark, Urban Motive
and Weisbach will continue to suffer irreparable harm.
60. Urban Motive and Weisbach has no remedy at law that will adequately
compensate it for the irreparable harm that it will suffer if Defendant=s conduct is allowed to
continue.
61. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant=s conduct, Urban Motive and
Weisbach has suffered damages to the valuable ALottery Pick@ mark, and other damages in an
amount to be proved at trial.
XII - PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Urban Motive and Weisbach demand entry of a judgment granting relief
against the Defendant as follows:
A. That Defendant and all officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys and all
other persons in active concert or participation with any of them, be enjoined and restrained during
the pendency of this action and permanently thereafter from using the ALottery Pick@ mark, or any
confusingly similar name or mark in connection with identifying Defendant=s products;
B. That Defendant and all officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys and all
other persons in active concert or participation with any of them, be enjoined and restrained during
the pendency of this action and permanently thereafter from all acts of false description and
representation and false designation of origin, all acts of unfair competition and unfair business
7/31/2019 Complaint Urban Motive Sportswear v Nike
11/26
practices, including the marketing, promotion and sale of online products that is likely to cause
mistake, or deceive, including the use ofAJordan LS Lottery Pick Jacket@ and any other mark that
is confusingly similar to Plaintiffs= mark:
C. That Defendant be directed to file with this Court and serve on Plaintiffs= counsel
within thirty (30) days after the service of an injunction, a report in writing, under oath, setting
forth in detail the manner and form in which the Defendant has compiled with the injunction;
D. That Defendant be required to pay Plaintiff such damages as Plaintiff has
sustained, or will sustain, in consequence of Defendant=s trademark infringement, false
designation of origin, unfair competition, unfair business practices, and trademark dilution, and to
account for all gains, profits, and advantages derived by Defendant that are attributable to such
unlawful acts; and that such damages be trebled as provided by 15 U.S.C. ' 1117 and 815 ILCS
505 and 510;
E. That the Court adjudge this to be an exceptional case and require the Defendant to
pay over to Plaintiffs the cost of this action, including reasonable attorneys fees and interest as
provided by 15 U.S.C. ' 1116 and 815 ILCS 505 and 510:
F. The Defendant be ordered to pay Plaintiffs prejudgment and post judgment
interest on all sums allowed by law;
G. For an Order permitting Urban Motive and Weisbach, and/or auditors for Urban
Motive and Weisbach, to audit and inspect the books, records, and premises of the Defendant and
related corporations for a period of three (3) months after entry of final relief in this matter, to
determine the scope of the Defendant=s past use of Plaintiffs= intellectual property, including all
manufacturing, distribution, and sales of products bearing the ALottery Pick@ mark, as well as
Defendant=s compliance with the orders of the Court;
H. For an award of Urban Motive and Weisbach= damages arising out Defendant=s
7/31/2019 Complaint Urban Motive Sportswear v Nike
12/26
acts;
I. For an Order requiring Defendant to file with the Court and provide to Plaintiffs
an accounting of all sales and profits realized by Defendant=s through the use of Plaintiffs= mark.
J. That Plaintiffs have such other and further relief as the Court may deem equitable.
XIII - DEMAND FOR JURY
Plaintiffs, Urban Motive and Weisbach, demands a trial by jury for all issues so triable.
DATED this 20th day of April, 2012
s/ Randy CrumptonRandy Cumpton (6227291)70 West Madison, Suite 1400
Chicago, Illinois 60602312-214-3327Email: [email protected]
Attorney for Plaintiffs
7/31/2019 Complaint Urban Motive Sportswear v Nike
13/26
7/31/2019 Complaint Urban Motive Sportswear v Nike
14/26
7/31/2019 Complaint Urban Motive Sportswear v Nike
15/26
7/31/2019 Complaint Urban Motive Sportswear v Nike
16/26
7/31/2019 Complaint Urban Motive Sportswear v Nike
17/26
7/31/2019 Complaint Urban Motive Sportswear v Nike
18/26
7/31/2019 Complaint Urban Motive Sportswear v Nike
19/26
7/31/2019 Complaint Urban Motive Sportswear v Nike
20/26
7/31/2019 Complaint Urban Motive Sportswear v Nike
21/26
7/31/2019 Complaint Urban Motive Sportswear v Nike
22/26
7/31/2019 Complaint Urban Motive Sportswear v Nike
23/26
7/31/2019 Complaint Urban Motive Sportswear v Nike
24/26
7/31/2019 Complaint Urban Motive Sportswear v Nike
25/26
7/31/2019 Complaint Urban Motive Sportswear v Nike
26/26