Case 8:22-cv-01469-DFM Document 1 Filed 08/08/22 Page 1 of 17 Page ID #:1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Hubert H. Kuo (CA Bar No. 204036)
`David Yu (CA Bar No. 276471)
`Caixing Ma (CA Bar No. 323142)
`ARDENT LAW GROUP, PC
`4340 Von Karman Ave., Suite 290
`
`
`Newport Beach, CA 92660
`Telephone: (949) 299-0188
`Facsimile: (949) 299-0127
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff FLUMGIO TECHNOLOGY
`INC., a California corporation
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`Plaintiff FLUMGIO TECHNOLOGY, INC., a California corporation, for
`
`causes of action against named Defendants LA CARBONELLA WHOLESALE., a
`
`California corporation and M MUTAZ AL AYOUN ALDABBAGH, an individual
`
`(collectively “DEFENDANTS”), complain and allege as follows:
`
`//
`
`//
`
`//
`
`ARDENT LAW GROUP, PC
`4340 Von Karman Ave., Suite 290
`Newport Beach, CA 92660
`Telephone: (949) 299-0188
`Facsimile: (949) 299-0127
`
`1
`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
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`
` Case No.
` Assigned to Hon. Judge
` Courtroom:
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`FLUMGIO TECHNOLOGY, INC., a
`California corporation;
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`LA CARBONELLA WHOLESALE,
`a California corporation; M MUTAZ
`AL AYOUN ALDABBAGH, an
`individual, and DOES 1 through 10,
`inclusive.
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES:
`
`1. FEDERAL TRADEMARK
`INFRINGEMENT UNDER 15
`U.S.C. §§ 1114;
`2. FEDERAL UNFAIR
`COMPETITION AND FALSE
`ADVERTISING UNDER 15 U.S.C. §
`1125(a);
`3. COMMON LAW
`TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT;
`and
`4. UNFAIR COMPETITION AND
`FALSE ADVERTISING UNDER
`CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§
`17200 AND 17500, ET SEQ.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01469-DFM Document 1 Filed 08/08/22 Page 2 of 17 Page ID #:2
`
`
`
`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
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff FLUMGIO TECHNOLOGY, INC. (“PLAINTIFF” and/or
`
`“FLUMGIO”) is a California corporation, located at 14748 Nelson Ave., Unit C,
`
`City of Industry, CA 91744.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant LA CARBONELLA WHOLESALE(“LCW”) is a California
`
`corporation, with its principal place of business located at 10605 Lawson River
`
`Ave., Fountain Valley, CA 92708.
`
`3.
`
`PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that
`
`Defendant M MUTAZ AL AYOUN ALDABBAGH (“ALDABBAGH”) is at
`
`various times mentioned herein is an officer, director or agent of Defendant LCW
`
`and a resident of the County of Orange.
`
`4.
`
`Hereafter, LCW and ALDABBAGH may at times collectively be
`
`referred as DEFENDANTS.
`
`5.
`
`The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate,
`
`or otherwise, of the defendants named herein as DOES 1 through 25 inclusive, are
`
`unknown to PLAINTIFF who therefore sue said defendants by such fictitious names
`
`pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure § 474. PLAINTIFF will amend this
`
`Complaint to show their true names and capacities when the same have been
`
`ascertained.
`
`6.
`
`PLAINTIFF is informed and believe, and thereon allege that at all times
`
`relevant to this action each of the DEFENDANTS, including DOES 1 through 25
`
`inclusive, were responsible in some manner for the acts and omissions alleged in this
`
`Complaint, and that PLAINTIFF’S damages, both existing and prospective, are,
`
`were, and will be proximately caused by the acts and omissions of the
`
`DEFENDANTS, including DOES 1 through 25 inclusive.
`
`7.
`
`Based upon information and belief, PLAINTIFF alleges there exists,
`
`and at all times herein mentioned there existed, a unity of interest and ownership
`
`between ALDABBAGH, on the one hand, and LCW on the other hand, such that
`
`ARDENT LAW GROUP, PC
`4340 Von Karman Ave., Suite 290
`Newport Beach, CA 92660
`Telephone: (949) 299-0188
`Facsimile: (949) 299-0127
`
`2
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01469-DFM Document 1 Filed 08/08/22 Page 3 of 17 Page ID #:3
`
`
`
`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
`
`any individual and separateness between ALDABBAGH, on the one hand, and
`
`LCW, on the other hand, have ceased to exist, and ALDABBAGH is the alter ego of
`
`LCW in that LCW is, and at all times herein mentioned was a mere shell,
`
`instrumentality and conduit through which ALDABBAGH carried on his business
`
`and were so inadequately capitalized that, compared with the business to be done by
`
`LCW, and the risks of loss, its capitalization was illusory. ALDABBAGH
`
`completely controlled, dominated, managed and operated LCW and commingled the
`
`assets of each to suit the convenience of ALDABBAGH and to evade payment of
`
`the obligations owed to creditors of LCW.
`
`8.
`
`Adherence to the fiction of the separate existence of ALDABBAGH,
`
`on the one hand, and LCW, on the other hand, would permit an abuse of the
`
`corporate privilege and would sanction fraud and promote injustice in that
`
`ALDABBAGH have perpetrated fraudulent acts in the names of LCW and never
`
`taken the steps to maintain the corporate standing of LCW.
`
`VENUE AND JURISDICTION
`
`9.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction of this Complaint pursuant to
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. (Lanham Act), 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) (trademark) and 28
`
`U.S.C. § 2201 (Declaratory Judgment Act) because it includes claims for
`
`declaratory relief and infringement, including federally registered trademarks.
`
`10. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the parties as they all reside or
`
`do business in this judicial district.
`
`11. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)
`
`and (c), as DEFENDANTS reside in this judicial district, a substantial part of the
`
`events, omissions and acts which are the subject matter of this action occurred
`
`within the Central District of California.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`12. PLAINTIFF is a highly successful company which sells products
`
`relating to certain nicotine and vapor delivery system products.
`
`ARDENT LAW GROUP, PC
`4340 Von Karman Ave., Suite 290
`Newport Beach, CA 92660
`Telephone: (949) 299-0188
`Facsimile: (949) 299-0127
`
`3
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01469-DFM Document 1 Filed 08/08/22 Page 4 of 17 Page ID #:4
`
`
`
`13. PLAINTIFF is the owner of rights in the design mark FLUM in
`
`connection with electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid) comprised of flavorings in
`
`liquid form, other than essential oils, used to refill electronic cigarette cartridges;
`
`electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid) comprised of propylene glycol; electronic
`
`cigarette liquid (e-liquid) comprised of vegetable glycerin; electronic cigarettes;
`
`chemical flavorings in liquid form used to refill electronic cigarette cartridges;
`
`liquid nicotine solutions for use in electronic cigarettes sold in connection therewith
`
`(collectively, “Plaintiff’s Goods”), including United States Trademark Registration
`
`no. 6692431 filed on April 20, 2021, registered on April 5, 2022, with the first use
`
`in commerce date of at least as early as February 9, 2021 (referred to as the
`
`registered mark “FLUM”).
`
`14. Specifically, PLAINTIFF’S design mark for FLUM is described as a
`
`stylized design comprised of the word, FLUM, against a solid rectangle with a small
`
`triangle cutout towards the upper right side.
`
`
`
`15. PLAINTIFF’S registered mark is described as “a stylized design
`
`comprised of the word, FLUM, against a solid rectangle with a small triangle cutout
`
`towards the upper right side.”
`
`16. PLAINTIFF has continuously used FLUM in commerce in the United
`
`States in connection with Plaintiff’s Goods since at least as early as February 9,
`
`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
`
`ARDENT LAW GROUP, PC
`4340 Von Karman Ave., Suite 290
`Newport Beach, CA 92660
`Telephone: (949) 299-0188
`Facsimile: (949) 299-0127
`
`4
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01469-DFM Document 1 Filed 08/08/22 Page 5 of 17 Page ID #:5
`
`
`
`2021, and is currently using FLUM in United States commerce in connection with
`
`Plaintiff’s Goods.
`
`17. PLAINTIFF has devoted substantial time, effort, and resources to the
`
`development and extensive promotion of FLUM and the products offered
`
`thereunder. As a result of PLAINTIFF’s efforts, the public has come to recognize
`
`and rely upon FLUM as an indication of the high quality associated with
`
`PLAINTIFF’S vaping-related products.
`
`18. As a result of PLAINTIFF’S long-term and widespread use of FLUM
`
`in the United States via internet, print advertising, and continuous and unsolicited
`
`media coverage, FLUM enjoys a high degree of consumer recognition.
`
`19. PLAINTIFF’S mark FLUM is inherently distinctive.
`
`20.
`
`In or around early November 2021, PLAINTIFF discovered on the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) website that DEFENDANT,
`
`on August 10, 2021, filed design trademark application no. 90875147, relating to
`
`electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid) comprised of flavorings in liquid form, other
`
`than essential oils, used to refill electronic cigarette cartridges; electronic cigarette
`
`liquid (e-liquid) comprised of propylene glycol; electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid)
`
`comprised of vegetable glycerin; electronic cigarettes; chemical flavorings in liquid
`
`form used to refill electronic cigarette cartridges; liquid nicotine solutions for use in
`
`electronic cigarettes (collectively, “Defendants’ Infringing Products”), for the below
`
`mark:
`
`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
`
`ARDENT LAW GROUP, PC
`4340 Von Karman Ave., Suite 290
`Newport Beach, CA 92660
`Telephone: (949) 299-0188
`Facsimile: (949) 299-0127
`
`5
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01469-DFM Document 1 Filed 08/08/22 Page 6 of 17 Page ID #:6
`
`
`
`
`
`21. DEFENDANTS describe the mark as following: “The mark consists of
`
`neon is written above flum. flum is written in a rectangle.”
`
`22. At the same time, DEFENDANTS filed the below specimen as
`
`evidence of use of the mark in commerce:
`
`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
`
`ARDENT LAW GROUP, PC
`4340 Von Karman Ave., Suite 290
`Newport Beach, CA 92660
`Telephone: (949) 299-0188
`Facsimile: (949) 299-0127
`
`6
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01469-DFM Document 1 Filed 08/08/22 Page 7 of 17 Page ID #:7
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`23. DEFENDANTS claims that it first used the mark as early as August 10,
`
`2021.
`
`24. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that
`
`DEFENDANT is manufacturing, producing marketing, distributing, offering for
`
`sale, and selling in interstate commerce vaping products bearing PLAINTIFF’S
`
`FLUM mark.
`
`25. As PLAINTIFF’S direct competitor, DEFENDANT is offering the
`
`Defendants’ Infringing Products to the same consumers as PLAINTIFF and
`
`ARDENT LAW GROUP, PC
`4340 Von Karman Ave., Suite 290
`Newport Beach, CA 92660
`Telephone: (949) 299-0188
`Facsimile: (949) 299-0127
`
`7
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01469-DFM Document 1 Filed 08/08/22 Page 8 of 17 Page ID #:8
`
`
`
`Defendants’ Infringing Products are sold next to or near PLAINTIFF’S products in
`
`overlapping channels of trade.
`
`26. Given that DEFENDANTS’ utilized PLAINTIFF’S FLUM mark down
`
`to the same details, DEFENDANT had knowledge of PLAINTIFF’S FLUM mark
`
`when it designed, manufactured, distributed, marketed, promoted, offered for sale,
`
`and sold Defendants’ Infringing Products. DEFENDANTS intentionally adopted
`
`and used the same exact mark, knowing that the FLUM mark would mislead and
`
`deceive consumers into believing that DEFENDANTS’ vaping products were
`
`produced, authorized, or licensed by PLAINTIFF, or that the vaping products
`
`originated from PLAINTIFF.
`
`27. PLAINTIFF uses its FLUM mark extensively and continuously before
`
`DEFENDANT began: (i) using the FLUM mark on vaping products or (ii)
`
`designing, manufacturing distributing, marketing, promoting, offering for sale, and
`
`selling the Defendants’ Infringing Products.
`
`28. DEFENDANTS’ activities are likely to cause confusion before, during
`
`and after the time of purchase because purchasers, prospective, purchasers, and
`
`other viewing DEFENDANTS’ Infringing Products at the point of sale or used by a
`
`consumer are likely – due to DEFENDANTS’ use of confusingly similar products of
`
`PLAINTIFF’S FLUM mark – to mistakenly attribute the vaping related products to
`
`PLAINTIFF. By causing a likelihood of confusion, mistake, and deception,
`
`DEFENDANTS are inflicting irreparable harm on the goodwill symbolized by
`
`PLAINTIFF’S FLUM mark and the reputation for quality that it embodies.
`
`29. As a result of PLAINTIFF’S prior rights, in the nature of earlier use
`
`dates in commerce in the United States for FLUM, DEFENDANTS’ use of the
`
`infringing products is likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception with respect to
`
`the source and origin of goods offered by PLAINTIFF and goods offered by
`
`DEFENDANTS under their respective marks, and confusion as to sponsorship,
`
`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
`
`ARDENT LAW GROUP, PC
`4340 Von Karman Ave., Suite 290
`Newport Beach, CA 92660
`Telephone: (949) 299-0188
`Facsimile: (949) 299-0127
`
`8
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01469-DFM Document 1 Filed 08/08/22 Page 9 of 17 Page ID #:9
`
`
`
`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
`
`affiliation or relation between PLAINTIFF and DEFENDANTS under 15 § USC
`
`1052(d).
`
`30.
`
`If DEFENDANTS are permitted to continue to own NENO FLUM
`
`design mark, despite this likelihood of confusion, PLAINTIFF’S rights in and to its
`
`mark FLUM in connection with Plaintiff’s goods will be impaired and PLAINTIFF
`
`will be damaged.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S CORRESPONDENCE WITH DEFENDANT PRIOR TO
`
`FILING THE PRESENT COMPLAINT
`
`31. On or around December 20, 2021, PLAINTIFF served
`
`to
`
`DEFENDANTS with a cease and desist letter, demanding that DEFENDANTS
`
`cease the use of PLAINTIFF’S FLUM mark (the “Demand Letter”), mailed via
`
`USPS certified mail.
`
`32. The Letter demanded that DEFENDANTS respond to PLAINTIFF’S
`
`demands by around December 31, 2022.
`
`33. As of today, DEFENDANTS have not provided any response to
`
`PLAINTIFF’S Demand Letter.
`
`34. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that
`
`DEFENDANT continues to use the FLUM mark in connection with the sale of
`
`vaping products that directly compete with vaping products offered by PLAINTIFF.
`
`DEFENDANT began selling the Counterfeit Products well after PLAINTIFF
`
`established protectable rights in its FLUM mark.
`
`35. On further information and belief, DEFENDANT knowingly, willfully,
`
`intentionally, and maliciously adopted and used a confusingly similar imitation of
`
`PLAINTIFF’S FLUM mark.
`
`COUNT I
`
`(Federal Trademark Infringement Against All Defendants)
`
`36. PLAINTIFF re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference the above
`
`paragraphs of this Complaint as if set forth here in full.
`
`ARDENT LAW GROUP, PC
`4340 Von Karman Ave., Suite 290
`Newport Beach, CA 92660
`Telephone: (949) 299-0188
`Facsimile: (949) 299-0127
`
`9
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01469-DFM Document 1 Filed 08/08/22 Page 10 of 17 Page ID #:10
`
`
`
`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
`
`37. DEFENDANTS, without authorization
`
`from PLAINTIFF, have
`
`purportedly used and are purportedly continuing to use spurious designations that
`
`are
`
`identical, or substantially
`
`indistinguishable from PLAINTIFF’S FLUM
`
`registered mark in interstate commerce.
`
`38. The forgoing acts of DEFENDANTS are intended to cause, have
`
`caused, and are likely to continue to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive
`
`consumers, the public, and the trade into believing that DEFENDANTS’ vaping
`
`related products are genuine or authorized products of PLAINTIFF, in violation of
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1114.
`
`39. Based upon
`
`information and belief, PLAINTIFF alleges
`
`that
`
`DEFENDANTS have acted with knowledge of PLAINTIFF’S ownership of the
`
`FLUM registered mark and with deliberate intention to unfairly benefit financially
`
`from PLAINTIFF’S goodwill use of the registered mark.
`
`40. Upon information and belief, PLAINTIFF alleges DEFENDANTS
`
`intend to continue their infringing act(s), unless restrained by this Court.
`
`41. DEFENDANTS’ act(s) has damaged and will continue to damage
`
`PLAINTIFF.
`
`42. Defendants’ actions constitute knowing, deliberate and willful
`
`infringement of Flumgio’s federally registered mark FLUM. The knowing and
`
`intentional nature of the acts set forth herein renders this an exceptional case under
`
`15 U.S.C. § 117(a).
`
`43.
`
`In light of the foregoing, PLAINTIFF is entitled to injunctive relief
`
`prohibiting DEFENDANTS from using PLAINTIFF’S FLUM mark or any marks
`
`identical and/or confusingly similar thereto for any purpose, and to recover from
`
`DEFENDANTS all damages, including profits, actual damages, enhanced profits
`
`and damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees, that PLAINTIFF has sustained
`
`and will sustain as a result of such infringing act(s), in an amount not yet known, as
`
`well as the costs of this action.
`
`ARDENT LAW GROUP, PC
`4340 Von Karman Ave., Suite 290
`Newport Beach, CA 92660
`Telephone: (949) 299-0188
`Facsimile: (949) 299-0127
`
`10
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01469-DFM Document 1 Filed 08/08/22 Page 11 of 17 Page ID #:11
`
`
`
`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
`
`COUNT II
`
`(Federal Unfair Competition and False Advertising Against all Defendants)
`
`44. PLAINTIFF re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference the
`
`allegations in the proceedings paragraphs of this Complaint as if set forth herein.
`
`45. PLAINTIFF’S FLUM registered mark is nonfunctional and has an
`
`inherently distinctive quality that has achieved a high degree of consumer
`
`recognition and serves to identify PLAINTIFF as the source of high quality goods.
`
`46. DEFENDANTS’ alleged advertising, distribution, and sale are likely to
`
`confuse, mislead, or deceive consumers, the public, and the trade as to the origin,
`
`source, sponsorship, or affiliation of said products, and are intended, and are likely
`
`to cause such parties to believe in error that the DEFENDANTS’ vaping related
`
`products have been authorized, sponsored, approved, endorsed or licensed by
`
`PLAINTIFF, or that DEFENDANTS are in some way affiliated with PLAINTIFF.
`
`47. DEFENDANTS’ use of PLAINTIFF’S FLUM mark is without
`
`PLAINTIFF’S permission or authority and is in total disregard of PLAINTIFF’S
`
`rights to control its mark.
`
`48. DEFENDANT has made false representations, false descriptions, and
`
`false designations of, on or in connection with its goods in violation of 15 U.S.C. §
`
`1125(a). DEFENDANT’S activities have caused and, unless enjoined by this Court,
`
`will continue to cause a likelihood of confusion and deception of members of the
`
`trade and public, and, additionally, injure to PLAINTIFF’S goodwill and reputation
`
`as symbolized by PLAINTIFF’S FLUM mark, for which PLAINTIFF has no
`
`adequate remedy at law.
`
`49. DEFENDANTS’ acts have damaged and will continue to damage
`
`PLAINTIFF, and PLAINTIFF has no adequate remedy at law.
`
`50.
`
`In light of the foregoing, PLAINTIFF is entitled to injunctive relief
`
`prohibiting DEFENDANTS from using PLAINTIFF’S FLUM mark, or any marks
`
`confusingly similar thereto, and to recover all damages, including attorneys’ fees,
`
`ARDENT LAW GROUP, PC
`4340 Von Karman Ave., Suite 290
`Newport Beach, CA 92660
`Telephone: (949) 299-0188
`Facsimile: (949) 299-0127
`
`11
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01469-DFM Document 1 Filed 08/08/22 Page 12 of 17 Page ID #:12
`
`
`
`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
`
`that PLAINTIFF has sustained and will sustain, and all alleged gains, profits and
`
`advantages obtained by DEFENDANTS as a result of their infringing acts alleged
`
`above in an amount not yet known, as well as the costs of this action.
`
`51. DEFENDANTS’ actions demonstrate an intentional, willful, and
`
`malicious intent to trade on the goodwill associated with PLAINTIFF’S FLUM
`
`mark to the great and irreparable injury of PLAINTIFF. The knowing, intentional
`
`and willful nature of the acts set forth herein renders this an exceptional case under
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1117(a)
`
`COUNT III
`
`(Common Law Trademark Infringement Against all Defendants)
`
`52. PLAINTIFF re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference the
`
`allegations in the proceedings paragraphs of this Complaint as if set forth herein.
`
`53. DEFENDANTS’ acts constitute common law trademark infringement
`
`and unfair competition, and have created and will continue to create, unless
`
`restrained by this COURT, a likelihood of confusion to the irreparable injury of
`
`PLAINTIFF. PLAINTIFF has no adequate remedy at law for this injury.
`
`54. On information and belief, DEFENDANTS acted with full knowledge
`
`of PLAINTIFF’S use of, and statutory and common law rights to, PLAINTIFF’S
`
`FLUM mark and without regard to the likelihood of confusion of the public, created
`
`by DEFENDANTS’ activities.
`
`55. DEFENDANTS’ actions demonstrate an intentional, willful, and
`
`malicious intent to trade on the goodwill associated with PLAINTIFF’S FLUM
`
`mark to the great and irreparable injury of PLAINTIFF.
`
`56. As a result DEFENDANT’S acts, PLAINTIFF has been damages in an
`
`amount yet determined or ascertained. At minimum, however, PLAINTIFF is
`
`entitled to injunctive relief, to an accounting of DEFENDANTS’ profits, damages,
`
`and costs. Further, in light of the deliberate and malicious use of a confusingly
`
`similar imitation of PLAINTIFF’S FLUM mark, and the need to deter
`
`ARDENT LAW GROUP, PC
`4340 Von Karman Ave., Suite 290
`Newport Beach, CA 92660
`Telephone: (949) 299-0188
`Facsimile: (949) 299-0127
`
`12
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01469-DFM Document 1 Filed 08/08/22 Page 13 of 17 Page ID #:13
`
`
`
`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
`
`DEFENDANTS from engaging in similar conduct in the future, PLAINTIFF
`
`additionally is entitled to punitive damages.
`
`COUNT IV
`
`(California Unfair Competition and False Advertising Against all Defendants)
`
`57. PLAINTIFF re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference the
`
`allegations in the proceedings paragraphs of this Complaint as if set forth herein.
`
`58. PLAINTIFF owns and enjoys common law trademark rights to
`
`PLAINTIFF’S FLUM mark in California and throughout the United States.
`
`59. DEFENDANTS’ unlawful acts in appropriating rights in
`
`PLAINTIFF’S FLUM mark were intended to capitalize on PLAINTIFF’S goodwill
`
`associated therewith for DEFENDANTS’ own pecuniary gain. PLAINTIFF has
`
`expended substantial time, resources and effort to obtain an excellent reputation for
`
`their respective brands. As a result of PLAINTIFF’s efforts, DEFENDANTS are
`
`now unjustly enriched and are benefiting from property rights that rightfully belong
`
`to PLAINTFF.
`
`60. DEFENDANTS’ unauthorized use of PLAINTIFF’S FLUM mark has
`
`caused and is likely to cause confusion as to the source of DEFENDANTS’
`
`products, all to the detriment of PLAINTIFF.
`
`61. DEFENDANTS’ acts are willful, deliberate and intended to confuse the
`
`public and to injure PLAINTFF.
`
`62. DEFENDANTS’ acts constitute unfair competition under California
`
`common law.
`
`63. PLAINTIFF has been irreparably harmed and will continue to be
`
`irreparably harmed as a result of DEFENDANTS’ unlawful acts unless
`
`DEFENDANTS are permanently enjoined from their unlawful conduct.
`
`64. The conduct herein complained of was extreme, outrageous, fraudulent,
`
`and was inflicted on PLAINTIFF in reckless disregard of PLAINTIFF’S rights.
`
`Said conduct was despicable and harmful to PLAINTIFF, and as such supports an
`
`ARDENT LAW GROUP, PC
`4340 Von Karman Ave., Suite 290
`Newport Beach, CA 92660
`Telephone: (949) 299-0188
`Facsimile: (949) 299-0127
`
`13
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01469-DFM Document 1 Filed 08/08/22 Page 14 of 17 Page ID #:14
`
`
`
`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
`
`award of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish and
`
`make an example of the DEFENDANTS and to deter them from similar such
`
`conduct in the future.
`
`65. DEFENDANTS’ acts have damaged and will continue to damage
`
`PLAINTIFF.
`
`66.
`
`In light of the foregoing, PLAINTIFF is entitled to injunctive relief
`
`prohibiting DEFENDANTS from using PLAINTIFF’S FLUM mark, and to recover
`
`all damages, including attorneys’ fees, that PLAINTIFF has sustained and will
`
`sustain and all gains, profits and advantages obtained by DEFENDANTS as a result
`
`of their infringing acts alleged above in an amount not yet known, as well as the
`
`costs of this action.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against all DEFENDANTS for
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`all causes of action as follows:
`
`a. That PLAINTIFF be granted injunctive relief under 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et
`
`seq.; California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 and 17500 et
`
`seq.; and federal law and California common law of contributory
`
`trademark infringement and vicarious trademark infringement;
`
`specifically, that DEFENDANTS and all of their respective officers,
`
`agents, servants, representatives, employees, attorneys, and all other
`
`persons acting in concert with them be enjoined from:
`
`1. Using the FLUM mark, and any mark confusingly similar to the FLUM
`
`mark, in connection with electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid)
`
`comprised of flavorings in liquid form, other than essential oils, used to
`
`refill electronic cigarette cartridges; electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid)
`
`comprised of propylene glycol; electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid)
`
`comprised of vegetable glycerin; electronic cigarettes; chemical
`
`flavorings in liquid form used to refill electronic cigarette cartridges;
`
`ARDENT LAW GROUP, PC
`4340 Von Karman Ave., Suite 290
`Newport Beach, CA 92660
`Telephone: (949) 299-0188
`Facsimile: (949) 299-0127
`
`14
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01469-DFM Document 1 Filed 08/08/22 Page 15 of 17 Page ID #:15
`
`
`
`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
`
`liquid nicotine solutions for use in electronic cigarettes sold in
`
`connection therewith;
`
`2. Directly or indirectly engage in false advertising or promotions of
`
`FLUM products and/or products bearing the FLUM mark;
`
`3. Making or inducing others to make any false, misleading or deceptive
`
`statement or fact, or representation of fact in connection with the
`
`promotion, circulation or distribution of FLUM products by making
`
`false representations regarding PLAINTIFF’S products;
`
`b. That DEFENDANT be ordered to cease offering for sale, marketing, and
`
`selling and to recall all infringing products, or any goods bearing
`
`PLAINTIFF’S FLUM mark or any other confusingly similar imitation of
`
`PLAINTIFF’S FLUM mark that are in DEFENDANT’S possession or
`
`have been shipped by DEFENDANT or under its authority, to any
`
`customer, including but not limited to, any wholesaler, distributor, retailer,
`
`consignor, or marketer, and also to deliver to each such store or customer a
`
`copy of this Court’s order as it relates to sais injunctive relief against
`
`DEFENDANT.
`
`c. That DEFENDANTS file, within ten (10) days from entry of an injunction,
`
`a declaration with this Court signed under penalty of perjury certifying the
`
`manner in which Defendants have complied with the terms of the
`
`injunction;
`
`d. That DEFENDANT be ordered to deliver up for impoundment and for
`
`destruction, all footwear, bags, boxes, labels, tags, signs, packages,
`
`receptacles, advertising, sample books, promotional materials, stationery,
`
`or other materials in the possession, custody or under the control of
`
`DEFENDANT that are found to adopt, infringe, or dilute any of
`
`PLAINTIFF’S trademarks or that otherwise unfairly compete with
`
`PLAINTIFF and its products;
`
`ARDENT LAW GROUP, PC
`4340 Von Karman Ave., Suite 290
`Newport Beach, CA 92660
`Telephone: (949) 299-0188
`Facsimile: (949) 299-0127
`
`15
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01469-DFM Document 1 Filed 08/08/22 Page 16 of 17 Page ID #:16
`
`
`
`e. That DEFENDANT be compelled to account to PLAINTIFF for any and
`
`all profits derived by DEFENDANT from the sale or distribution of the
`
`infringing products;
`
`f. That PLAINTIFF be awarded all damages caused by the acts forming the
`
`basis of this Complaint;
`
`g. That based on DEFENDANT’S knowing and intentional use of a
`
`confusingly similar product with PLAINTIFF’S FLUM mark, the damages
`
`awarded should be trebled and the award of DEFENDANT’S profits be
`
`enhanced as provided for by 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a);
`
`h. That DEFENDANT be required to pay to PLAINTIFF the costs and
`
`reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred by PLAINTIFF in this action pursuant
`
`to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) and the state statutes cited in this Complaint;
`
`i. That based on DEFENDANTS’ willful and deliberate infringement of
`
`PLAINTIFF’S FLUM mark, and to deter such conduct in the future,
`
`PLAINTIFF be awarded punitive damages;
`
`j. That PLAINTIFF be granted prejudgment and post judgment interest;
`
`k. That PLAINTIFF be granted such further relief as the Court may deem
`
`just
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: August 5, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`ARDENT LAW GROUP, PC
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Caixing Ma
`David Yu
`Caixing Ma
`Attorneys for Plaintiff FLUMGIO
`TECHNOLOGY INC., a California
`corporation
`
`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
`
`ARDENT LAW GROUP, PC
`4340 Von Karman Ave., Suite 290
`Newport Beach, CA 92660
`Telephone: (949) 299-0188
`Facsimile: (949) 299-0127
`
`16
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01469-DFM Document 1 Filed 08/08/22 Page 17 of 17 Page ID #:17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs
`
`hereby demand a trial by jury as to all claims in this litigation.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: August 5, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`ARDENT LAW GROUP, PC
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Caixing Ma
`David Yu
`Caixing Ma
`Attorneys for Plaintiff FLUMGIO
`TECHNOLOGY INC., a California
`corporation
`
`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
`
`ARDENT LAW GROUP, PC
`4340 Von Karman Ave., Suite 290
`Newport Beach, CA 92660
`Telephone: (949) 299-0188
`Facsimile: (949) 299-0127
`
`17
`COMPLAINT
`
`