Case 8:21-cv-00364 Document 1 Filed 02/24/21 Page 1 of 25 Page ID #:1
`
`
`
`
`David A. Berstein (State Bar No. 204472)
`J. R. Dimuzio (State Bar No. 299803)
`BERSTEIN LAW, PC
`4000 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 600 East Tower
`Newport Beach, California 92660
`T: 949.783.4210
`
`E-mail: david@bersteinlaw.com; jr@bersteinlaw.com
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Arrowood Capital, Inc. d/b/a Tree House Recovery
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`ARROWOOD CAPITAL, INC. dba
`TREE HOUSE RECOVERY, a
`California corporation,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`FREEDOM HEALTHCARE OF
`AMERICA, LLC dba ADDICTION
`CAMPUSES, a Delaware limited
`liability company; FREEDOM
`HEALTHCARE PROPERTIES OF
`TEXAS, LLC, a Tennessee limited
`liability company; VERTAVA
`HEALTH, LLC, a Delaware limited
`liability company; VERTAVA
`HEALTH VIRTUAL CARE, LLC, a
`Delaware limited liability company;
`VERTAVA HEALTH
`OUTPATIENT TEXAS, LLC, a
`Delaware limited liability company;
`and DOES 1 through 20,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`
`
`1. Federal Trademark Infringement
`in Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114
`2. False Designation of Origin/Federal
`Unfair Competition Under 15
`U.S.C. § 1125(a)
`3. Federal Trademark Dilution in
`Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(1)
`4. Trademark Infringement in
`Violation of Cal. Business &
`Professions Code §§ 14200, et seq.
`5. Trademark Dilution in Violation of
`Cal. Business & Professions Code
`§§ 14200, et seq.
`6. False Advertising in Violation of
`Cal. Business & Professions Code
`§§ 17500, et seq.
`
`7. Violation of California Business &
`Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.
`
` -JURY TRIAL DEMANDED-
`
`
`
`1
` COMPLAINT
`
`
`NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660
`
`4000 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD, SUITE 600 EAST TOWER
`
`BERSTEIN LAW, PC
`
`
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 8:21-cv-00364 Document 1 Filed 02/24/21 Page 2 of 25 Page ID #:2
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff ARROWOOD CAPITAL, INC. doing business as TREE HOUSE
`
`RECOVERY hereby complains and alleges as follows:
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff ARROWOOD CAPITAL, INC. doing business as TREE HOUSE
`
`RECOVERY (hereinafter “THR” and/or “Plaintiff”), is a California corporation with its
`
`principal place of business located within this judicial district at 1901 Newport
`
`Boulevard, Suite 271, Costa Mesa, California 92627.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant FREEDOM HEALTHCARE OF AMERICA, LLC doing business as
`
`ADDICTION CAMPUSES (“FHA”), is a Delaware limited liability company with its
`
`principal place of business located Williamson County, Tennessee.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant FREEDOM HEALTHCARE PROPERTIES OF TEXAS, LLC (“FHA
`
`Texas”) is a Tennessee limited liability company with its principal place of business
`
`located in Davidson County, Tennessee (hereinafter FHA and FHA Texas are collectively
`
`referred to as “Addiction Campuses”).
`
`4.
`
`Defendant VERTAVA HEALTH, LLC (“Vertava Health”), is a Delaware limited
`
`liability company with its principal place of business located in Davidson County,
`
`Tennessee.
`
`5.
`
`Defendant VERTAVA HEALTH VIRTUAL CARE, LLC, (“Vertava Virtual”) is
`
`a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business located in
`
`Davidson County, Tennessee.
`
`6.
`
`Defendant VERTAVA HEALTH OUTPATIENT TEXAS, LLC (hereinafter
`
`“VERTAVA Texas”) is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of
`
`business located in Davidson County, Tennessee (hereinafter Vertava Health, Vertava
`
`Virtual, and Vertava Texas are collectively referred to as “Vertava”).
`
`7.
`
`Defendants Does 1 through 20, whose identities and addresses are unknown to
`
`Plaintiff THR, are individuals and/or corporate entities that engaged in the unlawful
`
`activities complained of herein. The Complaint will be amended, if appropriate, to
`
`2
` COMPLAINT
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660
`
`4000 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD, SUITE 600 EAST TOWER
`
`BERSTEIN LAW, PC
`
`

`

`Case 8:21-cv-00364 Document 1 Filed 02/24/21 Page 3 of 25 Page ID #:3
`
`
`
`
`include the name or names of these individuals and/or corporate entities when such
`
`information becomes available.
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff THR is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times
`
`mentioned herein, each of the Defendants, including all Defendants sued under fictitious
`
`names, and those agents, employees, and/or independent contractors identified herein,
`
`were the agent and/or employee of each of the remaining Defendants, and in doing the
`
`things hereinafter alleged, were acting within the course and scope of this agency or
`
`employment.
`
`9.
`
`Defendants Addiction Campuses and Vertava, along with Does 1 – 20, shall be
`
`collectively referred to in this Complaint as “Defendants” where applied.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`10. This action arises from infringement of a Federally Registered Trademark in
`
`violation of Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)); from unfair
`
`competition and false designation of origin or sponsorship in violation of Section 43(a)
`
`of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)); and from unfair competition and false
`
`advertising in violation of California Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et
`
`seq. and 17500, et seq.
`
`11. The Court possesses subject-matter jurisdiction over the federal trademark, unfair
`
`competition, and false designation of origin or sponsorship claims in this action, pursuant
`
`to 15 U.S.C. § 1121 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338, and 1367.
`
`12. The Court possesses subject-matter jurisdiction over the California State Law
`
`claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1338 and 1367.
`
`13. The Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they have
`
`contacts with and conduct substantial business within the State of California and this
`
`judicial district. Defendants offer services that directly compete with Plaintiff THR’s
`
`services in this judicial district and unlawfully use Plaintiff THR’s registered trademark
`
`in related online advertising disseminated in this judicial district and intentionally
`
`3
` COMPLAINT
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660
`
`4000 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD, SUITE 600 EAST TOWER
`
`BERSTEIN LAW, PC
`
`

`

`Case 8:21-cv-00364 Document 1 Filed 02/24/21 Page 4 of 25 Page ID #:4
`
`
`
`
`targeted to this judicial district, in order to offer competing services for sale in this judicial
`
`district, causing tortious injury to Plaintiff THR, in this judicial district.
`
`14. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c), as
`
`Defendants transact affairs in this district, including by unlawfully offering to sell
`
`services in this judicial district, in connection with Plaintiff THR’s trademark.
`
`GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiff THR’s Business and its TREE HOUSE RECOVERY® Mark.
`
`15. Plaintiff THR is a leading addiction recovery facility and program, which provides
`
`a “True Bio-Psych-Social” program to end addiction.
`
`16. Plaintiff THR designed its program to be a holistic and sustainable treatment for
`
`addiction in men, which represents the only rehab in the world that treats the mind, body,
`
`and social aspects of addiction.
`
`17. Plaintiff THR began operations in Costa Mesa, California in April 2013 and
`
`markets its services across the United States and, in a large amount of these efforts,
`
`directly to other treatment centers, establishing a national brand.
`
`18. Additionally, Plaintiff THR offers its services through its website, located at
`
`www.treehouserecovery.com.
`
`19. Plaintiff THR owns all right, title, and interest in the TREE HOUSE
`
`RECOVERY® trademarks which are the subject of U.S. Trademark Reg. Nos. 5,012,191
`
`(reg. date August 2, 2016 in Classes 43 and 44) and 5,002,780 (reg. date July 19, 2016 in
`
`Class 44) (collectively referred to herein as the “THR TRADEMARKS”). True and
`
`correct copies the THR TRADEMARKS registrations are incorporated by reference and
`
`attached as Exhibits “A” and “B,” respectively.
`
`20. As a result of the extensive, exclusive, and continued use of the THR
`
`TRADEMARKS in connection with high quality addiction treatment services, chemical
`
`dependency and substance abuse treatment services offered by Plaintiff THR (hereinafter
`
`collectively “Addiction Treatment Services”), consumers have come to recognize and
`
`4
` COMPLAINT
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660
`
`4000 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD, SUITE 600 EAST TOWER
`
`BERSTEIN LAW, PC
`
`

`

`Case 8:21-cv-00364 Document 1 Filed 02/24/21 Page 5 of 25 Page ID #:5
`
`
`
`
`identify the THR TRADEMARKS as representative of such high quality Addiction
`
`Treatment Services.
`
`21. The THR TRADEMARKS have become a valuable asset of Plaintiff THR as well
`
`as a symbol of its goodwill and positive reputation.
`
`22. Plaintiff THR brings this lawsuit to protect the substantial good will that it has
`
`developed in its distinctive THR TRADEMARKS.
`
`23. Defendants’ actions, alleged herein, have threatened and impaired the goodwill
`
`and reputation for high quality Addiction Treatment Services that Plaintiff THR has
`
`worked hard to cultivate.
`
`24. Defendants have used the THR TRADEMARKS and/or confusingly similar marks
`
`on advertising to offer competing services to the same consumers served by Plaintiff
`
`THR.
`
`
`
`B. Defendants’ Business and Their Misconduct.
`
`25. Defendants are in the same business as Plaintiff THR: Providing facilities and
`
`services for the rehabilitation of individuals recovering from addiction and substance
`
`abuse.
`
`26. Defendants, like Plaintiff THR—and most addiction treatment/rehabilitation
`
`facilities—market their services nationwide, as such is consistent with the idea that those
`
`in recovery leaving their home state for treatment is advantageous because they are not
`
`surrounded by the people, places, and things enmeshed in their addiction.
`
`27. Plaintiff THR is informed and believes, through information available to the
`
`public, and based thereon, alleges that Defendants own and operate the websites located
`
`at the domain names: (1) www.treehouserehab.org and (2) www.vertavahealth.com.
`
`28. Additionally, Plaintiff THR is informed and believes, and based thereon, alleges
`
`that Defendants, as part of their nationwide marketing efforts, advertise and/or market
`
`their services directly to clients and potential clients located in California.
`
`29. Plaintiff THR is informed and believes, and based thereon, alleges that on or about
`
`June 24, 2015, Defendants registered the domain name www.treehouserehab.org.
`
`5
` COMPLAINT
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660
`
`4000 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD, SUITE 600 EAST TOWER
`
`BERSTEIN LAW, PC
`
`

`

`Case 8:21-cv-00364 Document 1 Filed 02/24/21 Page 6 of 25 Page ID #:6
`
`
`
`
`30. Further, on or about November 22, 2016, Defendants filed with the United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) an application for registration of the design
`
`trademark: Where the mark consisted of the words “The Treehouse” separated by a green
`
`tree with light green leaves inside a green circle of varying thickness (U.S. Trademark
`
`Application No. 87245966) in Class 44 (hereafter the “INFRINGING MARK”). A true
`
`and correct copy of the ’966 Application is incorporated by reference and attached as
`
`Exhibit “C”.
`
`31.
`
`In the 966 Application, Defendants stated they first used the INFRINGING MARK
`
`anywhere and in commerce on “June 2015”.
`
`32. On or about February 29, 2017, the USPTO issued an Office Action against
`
`Defendants’ attempt to register the INFRINGING MARK through the ’966 Application.
`
`33.
`
`In the Office Action, the USPTO cited as the reason for its refusal, likelihood of
`
`confusion, pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act, with Plaintiff THR’s ’191 Mark,
`
`of the THR TRADEMARKS, which is the word mark “TREE HOUSE RECOVERY”.
`
`34. The USPTO, weighing the likelihood of confusion factors, made the determination
`
`the overall impression of Defendants’ INFRINGING MARK is dominated by the same
`
`commercial impression and meaning of the term “treehouse” and, thus, source confusion
`
`with Plaintiff’s THR TRADEMARKS was likely.
`
`35. Additionally, the USPTO determined that Defendants’ services were substantially
`
`similar, if not identical, to those of Plaintiff THR.
`
`36. As such, the USPTO provided Defendants with notice that the overall similarities
`
`between Defendants’ INFRINGING MARK and the THR TRADEMARKS and the
`
`services provided thereunder, along with the overall commercial impression created
`
`therefrom, were greater than the sum of any differences, and refusal under Section 2(d)
`
`of the Lanham Act was appropriate, absent a response from Defendants.
`
`37. Being given an opportunity to address the USPTO’s determination that the
`
`INFRINGING MARK likely does infringe on Plaintiff THR’s rights, Defendants refused
`
`to provide any response to the USPTO.
`
`6
` COMPLAINT
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660
`
`4000 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD, SUITE 600 EAST TOWER
`
`BERSTEIN LAW, PC
`
`

`

`Case 8:21-cv-00364 Document 1 Filed 02/24/21 Page 7 of 25 Page ID #:7
`
`
`
`
`38. After Defendants’ refusal to respond, on or about September 26, 2017, the USPTO
`
`issued a Notice of Abandonment on Defendants’ Application for Registration of the
`
`INFRINGING MARK.
`
`39. However, despite their failure to register, and notice of the existence of Plaintiff
`
`THR’s superior rights nationwide, Defendants continued to advertise and market through
`
`use of the INFRINGING MARK throughout the remainder of the United States,
`
`including, but not limited to, California.
`
`40. Plaintiff THR is informed and believes, and based thereon, alleges that Defendants
`
`use the domain name www.treehouserehab.org with the intent to divert Plaintiff THR’s
`
`actual and/or potential customers to Defendants’ website with the desire and intent that
`
`those redirected customers use Defendants’ services instead of Plaintiff THR.
`
`41. The domain name www.treehouserehab.org is confusingly similar to the THR
`
`TRADEMARKS
`
`and
`
`Plaintiff
`
`THR’s
`
`website
`
`domain
`
`name
`
`of
`
`www.treehouserecovery.com.
`
`42. Further, Defendants’ website located www.treehouserehab.org, displays the
`
`INFRINGING MARK and is likely to cause confusion, additionally, Defendants website
`
`located at www.treehouserehab.org, along with its accompanying display of the
`
`INFRINGING MARK, has caused actual confusion among members of the public
`
`between Defendants’ and Plaintiff THR’s website and services.
`
`43. Actual and/or potential customers were likely to be confused and/or actually
`
`deceived by Defendants’ use of the domain name www.treehouserehab.org.
`
`44. Actual and/or potential customers were likely to be confused and/or actually
`
`deceived by Defendants’ use of the INFRINGING MARK.
`
`45. Defendants use the domain name www.treehouserehab.org knowing that Plaintiff
`
`THR provides
`
`services
`
`substantially
`
`similar,
`
`if not
`
`identical,
`
`through
`
`www.treehouserecovery.com, which makes use of the THR TRADEMARKS and
`
`knowing that such would likely harm Plaintiff THR.
`
`/ / /
`
`7
` COMPLAINT
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660
`
`4000 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD, SUITE 600 EAST TOWER
`
`BERSTEIN LAW, PC
`
`

`

`Case 8:21-cv-00364 Document 1 Filed 02/24/21 Page 8 of 25 Page ID #:8
`
`
`
`
`46. Defendants use the INFRINGING MARK knowing that such use was likely to
`
`cause confusion and was causing actual confusion with the substantially similar THR
`
`TRADEMARKS.
`
`47. Plaintiff THR is informed and believes, and based thereon, alleges Defendants took
`
`these actions also knowing that Plaintiff THR’s principal place of business is in California
`
`and that such actions would likely harm Plaintiff THR in California.
`
`48. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct alleged, Plaintiff THR has
`
`been substantially harmed.
`
`49. Further, Defendants have infringed upon Plaintiff THR’s rights by and through
`
`Defendants’ keyword advertising.
`
`50. AdWords is a service provided by Google through which advertisers purchase
`
`terms (or keywords) that will trigger the display of their advertisements in Google search
`
`results.
`
`51. When an advertiser bids on a keyword, and when an internet user enters that
`
`keyword into the Google search engine, the keyword triggers the appearance of the
`
`advertiser’s advertisement in the search results. Specifically, the Google search engine
`
`presents an ordered list of relevant websites identified by the Google database with the
`
`most relevant website listed first. The Google search engine also presents a separate list
`
`of websites in a “sponsored links” section, either at the top or in the right margin of the
`
`search results screen.
`
`52. When the user clicks on an advertisement, the user is taken to the advertiser’s
`
`website.
`
`53. Advertisers pay Google based on the number of times internet users click on the
`
`advertiser’s advertisements.
`
`54. Plaintiff THR is informed and believes, and based thereon, alleges, Defendants
`
`have used Google’s AdWords services to bid on multiple keywords, spending thousands
`
`of dollars in their online marketing campaign.
`
`/ / /
`
`8
` COMPLAINT
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660
`
`4000 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD, SUITE 600 EAST TOWER
`
`BERSTEIN LAW, PC
`
`

`

`Case 8:21-cv-00364 Document 1 Filed 02/24/21 Page 9 of 25 Page ID #:9
`
`
`
`
`55. Plaintiff THR is informed and believes, and based thereon, alleges, Defendants,
`
`without Plaintiff THR’s consent, bid on several variations of the THR TRADEMARKS
`
`for use in Google AdWords including AdWords targeted at potential consumers in
`
`regions in and/or near Plaintiff’s locations in Costa Mesa, California and Portland,
`
`Oregon.
`
`56. When an internet user search using the THR TRADEMARKS, with the Google
`
`search engine, Defendants’ paid for advertisement, for Defendants’ addiction treatment
`
`services, utilizing the INFRINGING MARK, would display in the Google search results.
`
`57. As a result of Defendants’ use of the INFRINGING MARK through Google
`
`AdWords, internet users who searched for Plaintiff THR were diverted to Defendants’
`
`competitive website.
`
`58. Moreover, as a result of Defendants’ misconduct, actual confusion occurred about
`
`the relationship between Plaintiff THR and its service, on the one hand, and Defendants
`
`and their services, on the other hand. This confusion occurred because users who had
`
`searched the THR TRADEMARKS were looking for and expected to find Plaintiff
`
`THR’s website and/or information about Plaintiff THR’s services. Instead, such users
`
`were diverted to Defendants’ website.
`
`59. Defendants’ infringement through the use of Google AdWords was not limited to
`
`use of the INFRINGING MARK. Plaintiff THR is informed and believes, and based
`
`thereon, alleges Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of bidding on related
`
`keywords directed at causing confusion between Plaintiff THR’s services and
`
`Defendants’.
`
`60. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ misconduct, Plaintiff THR has
`
`been substantially harmed.
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`9
` COMPLAINT
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660
`
`4000 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD, SUITE 600 EAST TOWER
`
`BERSTEIN LAW, PC
`
`

`

`Case 8:21-cv-00364 Document 1 Filed 02/24/21 Page 10 of 25 Page ID #:10
`
`
`
`
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`FEDERAL TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
`
`IN VIOLATION OF 15 U.S.C. § 1114
`
`BY PLAINTIFF THR AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
`
`61. Plaintiff THR realleges each and every allegation set forth in Paragraphs 1 through
`
`60, inclusive, and incorporates them by reference herein.
`
`62. As herein alleged, Defendants’ willful, deliberate, and unauthorized use of Plaintiff
`
`THR’s registered THR TRADEMARKS has caused confusion and is likely to continue
`
`to cause confusion, mistake, and deception in that consumers are likely to associate and
`
`believe Defendants and their services are associated with, connected to, affiliated with,
`
`authorized by, endorsed by, licensed by, and/or sponsored by Plaintiff THR, in violation
`
`of Section 32(b) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1).
`
`63. As a direct and legal result of Defendants’ unauthorized use of Plaintiff’s THR
`
`TRADEMARKS, Defendants have damaged and will continue to damage Plaintiff
`
`THR’s goodwill and reputation, and have caused and are likely to continue to cause a
`
`loss of profits for Plaintiff THR.
`
`64. Defendants’ actions have caused and, unless restrained and enjoined by the Court,
`
`will continue to cause irreparable harm to Plaintiff THR and to the public, who is
`
`confused by Defendants’ unauthorized use of Plaintiff’s THR TRADEMARKS.
`
`65. Plaintiff THR has no adequate remedy at law to prevent Defendants from
`
`continuing their infringing actions and from injuring Plaintiff THR.
`
`66. As a further direct and legal result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff THR has been
`
`damaged and will continue to sustain damage and is entitled to receive compensation
`
`arising from its lost profits and efforts necessary to minimize and/or prevent customer
`
`and consumer confusion, in an amount to be proven at the time of trial.
`
`67.
`
`In addition, Plaintiff THR is entitled to disgorge Defendants’ profits, and is entitled
`
`to interest and to its attorney’s fees and costs in bringing this action, all in an amount to
`
`be proven at the time of trial.
`
`10
` COMPLAINT
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660
`
`4000 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD, SUITE 600 EAST TOWER
`
`BERSTEIN LAW, PC
`
`

`

`Case 8:21-cv-00364 Document 1 Filed 02/24/21 Page 11 of 25 Page ID #:11
`
`
`
`
`68. Plaintiff THR is further entitled to injunctive relief as set forth above, and to all
`
`other and further forms of relief this Court deems appropriate.
`
`69. The damages sustained by Plaintiff THR as a result of the conduct alleged herein
`
`should be trebled in accordance with 15 U.S.C. § 1117(b).
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN/FEDERAL UNFAIR COMPETITION
`
`UNDER 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
`
`BY PLAINTIFF THR AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
`
`70. Plaintiff THR realleges each and every allegation set forth in Paragraphs 1 through
`
`69, inclusive, and incorporates them by reference herein.
`
`71. As herein alleged, Defendants’ unauthorized use of the THR TRADEMARKS in
`
`connection with their purported offering for sale and selling of exact or substantially
`
`similar Addiction Treatment Services constitutes unfair competition and false
`
`designation of origin in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §
`
`1125(a), because Defendants’ use suggests a false designation of the origin of the services
`
`that they are purporting to sell.
`
`72. As a direct and legal result Defendants’ unauthorized use of the THR
`
`TRADEMARKS, Defendants have damaged and will continue to damage Plaintiff THR
`
`and Plaintiff THR’s goodwill and reputation; and have caused and are likely to continue
`
`to cause a loss of profits for Plaintiff THR.
`
`73. Defendants’ actions have caused and will continue to cause irreparable harm to
`
`Plaintiff THR and to the public, who is confused by Defendants’ unauthorized use of the
`
`THR TRADEMARKS, unless restrained and enjoined by this Court.
`
`74. Plaintiff THR has no adequate remedy at law to prevent Defendants from
`
`continuing their infringing actions and from injuring Plaintiff THR.
`
`75. As a further direct and legal result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff THR has been
`
`damaged and will continue to sustain damage and is entitled to receive compensation
`
`11
` COMPLAINT
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660
`
`4000 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD, SUITE 600 EAST TOWER
`
`BERSTEIN LAW, PC
`
`

`

`Case 8:21-cv-00364 Document 1 Filed 02/24/21 Page 12 of 25 Page ID #:12
`
`
`
`
`arising from Plaintiff THR’s lost profits and efforts necessary to minimize and/or prevent
`
`customer and consumer confusion, in an amount to be proven at the time of trial.
`
`76.
`
`In addition, Plaintiff THR is entitled to disgorge Defendants’ profits, and is entitled
`
`to interest and to its attorney’s fees and costs in bringing this action, all in an amount to
`
`be proven at the time of Trial.
`
`77. Plaintiff THR is further entitled to injunctive relief as set forth above, and to all
`
`other and further forms of relief this Court deems appropriate.
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`FEDERAL TRADEMARK DILUTION
`
`IN VIOLATION OF 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(1)
`
`BY PLAINTIFF THR AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
`
`78. Plaintiff THR realleges each and every allegation set forth in Paragraphs 1 through
`
`77, inclusive, and incorporates them by reference herein.
`
`79. Plaintiff THR is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, notwithstanding
`
`Defendants’ knowledge of Plaintiff’s federal registration and common law rights in the
`
`THR TRADEMARKS, Defendants have commercially used, reproduced, copied, or
`
`colorably imitated the THR TRADEMARKS, in connection with the sale, offering for
`
`sale, and/or advertising of exact or substantially similar Addiction Treatment Services in
`
`a manner which has caused and will likely continue to cause confusion, mistake, or
`
`deception among the purchasing public as to the source of the Defendants’ addiction
`
`treatment services. Not only have Defendants used the confusingly similar, if not
`
`identical, mark in commerce, but they have also used it for substantially similar, if not
`
`identical, services. Defendants’ conduct in this regard is likely to dilute the distinctive
`
`qualities of the THR TRADEMARKS by lessening the capacity of such a trademark to
`
`identify and distinguish Plaintiff THR’s services in the marketplace, and has resulted in
`
`an actual present injury to Plaintiff THR and its THR TRADEMARKS, in violation of
`
`Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(c).
`
`80. As a direct and legal result of Defendants’ unauthorized use of the THR
`
`12
` COMPLAINT
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660
`
`4000 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD, SUITE 600 EAST TOWER
`
`BERSTEIN LAW, PC
`
`

`

`Case 8:21-cv-00364 Document 1 Filed 02/24/21 Page 13 of 25 Page ID #:13
`
`
`
`
`TRADEMARKS, Defendants have damaged and will continue to damage Plaintiff’s
`
`goodwill and reputation, and have caused and are likely to continue to cause a loss of
`
`profits for Plaintiff THR.
`
`81. Defendants’ actions have caused and, unless restrained and enjoined by this Court,
`
`will continue to cause irreparable harm to Plaintiff THR and to the public, who is
`
`confused by Defendants’ unauthorized use of Plaintiff’s THR TRADEMARKS. Plaintiff
`
`THR has no adequate remedy at law to prevent Defendants from continuing their
`
`infringing actions and from injuring Plaintiff.
`
`82. As a further direct and legal result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff THR has been
`
`damaged and will continue to sustain damage and is entitled to receive compensation
`
`arising from its lost profits and efforts necessary to minimize and/or prevent consumer
`
`confusion, in an amount to be proven at the time of Trial.
`
`83.
`
`In addition, Plaintiff THR is entitled to disgorge Defendants’ profits, and is entitled
`
`to interest and to its attorneys’ fees and costs in bringing this action, all in an amount to
`
`be proven at the time of Trial.
`
`84. Plaintiff is further entitled to injunctive relief as set forth above, and to all other
`
`and further forms of relief this Court deems appropriate.
`
`85. The damages sustained by Plaintiff THR as a result of the conduct alleged herein
`
`should be trebled in accordance with 15 U.S.C. § 1117(b).
`
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT IN VIOLATION OF
`
`CALIFORNIA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE §§ 14200, ET SEQ.
`
`BY PLAINTIFF THR AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
`
`86. Plaintiff THR realleges each and every allegation set forth in Paragraphs 1 through
`
`85, inclusive, and incorporates them by reference herein.
`
`87. As herein alleged, Defendants’ willful, deliberate, and unauthorized use of the
`
`THR TRADEMARKS has caused confusion and is likely to continue to cause confusion,
`
`mistake, and deception in that consumers are likely to associate and believe Defendants
`
`13
` COMPLAINT
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660
`
`4000 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD, SUITE 600 EAST TOWER
`
`BERSTEIN LAW, PC
`
`

`

`Case 8:21-cv-00364 Document 1 Filed 02/24/21 Page 14 of 25 Page ID #:14
`
`
`
`
`and their addiction treatment services are associated with, connected to, affiliated with,
`
`authorized by, endorsed by, licensed by, and/or sponsored by Plaintiff THR, in violation
`
`of California Business & Professions Code § 14245(a)(1).
`
`88. As a direct and legal result of Defendants’ unauthorized use of Plaintiff’s THR
`
`TRADEMARKS, Defendants have damaged and will continue to damage Plaintiff
`
`THR’s goodwill and reputation, and have caused and are likely to continue to cause a
`
`loss of profits for Plaintiff.
`
`89. Defendants’ actions have caused and, unless restrained and enjoined by the Court,
`
`will continue to cause irreparable harm to Plaintiff THR and to the public, who is
`
`confused by Defendants’ unauthorized use of Plaintiff THR’s THR TRADEMARKS.
`
`Plaintiff THR has no adequate remedy at law to prevent Defendants from continuing their
`
`infringing actions and from injuring Plaintiff THR.
`
`90. As a further direct and legal result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff THR has been
`
`damaged and will continue to sustain damage and is entitled to receive compensation
`
`arising from its lost profits and efforts necessary to minimize and/or prevent customer
`
`and consumer confusion, in an amount to be proven at the time of Trial.
`
`91.
`
`In addition, Plaintiff THR is entitled to disgorge Defendants’ profits, and is entitled
`
`to interest and to its attorneys’ fees and costs in bringing this action, all in an amount to
`
`be proven at the time of Trial.
`
`92. Plaintiff THR is further entitled to punitive damages, injunctive relief, destruction
`
`of all materials bearing Plaintiff THR’s THR TRADEMARKS, and to all other and
`
`further forms of relief this Court deems appropriate.
`
`FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`TRADEMARK DILUTION IN VIOLATION OF
`
`CALIFORNIA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE §§ 14200, ET SEQ.
`
`BY PLAINTIFF THR AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
`
`93. Plaintiff THR realleges each and every allegation set forth in Paragraphs 1 through
`
`92, inclusive, and incorporates them by reference herein.
`
`14
` COMPLAINT
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660
`
`4000 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD, SUITE 600 EAST TOWER
`
`BERSTEIN LAW, PC
`
`

`

`Case 8:21-cv-00364 Document 1 Filed 02/24/21 Page 15 of 25 Page ID #:15
`
`
`
`
`94. Plaintiff THR is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, notwithstanding
`
`Defendants’ knowledge of Plaintiff’s federal registration, and common law rights in the
`
`THR TRADEMARKS, Defendants have commercially used, reproduced, copied, or
`
`colorably imitated Plaintiff’s THR TRADEMARKS, in connection with the sale, offering
`
`for sale, and/or advertising of substantially similar, if not identical, addiction treatment
`
`services in a manner which has caused and will likely continue to cause confusion,
`
`mistake, or deception among the purchasing public as to the source of the addiction
`
`treatment services. Specifically, Defendants have used Plaintiff’s THR TRADEMARKS
`
`in commerce to offer for sale and sell of addiction treatment services.
`
`95. Not only have Defendants used the confusingly similar, if not identical, mark in
`
`commerce, but they h