Case 2:22-cv-02230-KJN Document 1 Filed 12/15/22 Page 1 of 19
`
`
`
`SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
`A Limited Liability Partnership
`Including Professional Corporations
`JESSE A. SALEN, Cal. Bar No. 292043
`DANIEL N. YANNUZZI, Cal. Bar No. 196612
`12275 El Camino Real, Suite 100
`San Diego, California 92130-2006
`Telephone: 858.720.8900
`Facsimile: 858.509.3691
`E mail
`jsalen@sheppardmullin.com
`
`dyannuzzi@sheppardmullin.com
`
`
`Attorneys Plaintiff for Lamps Plus, Inc.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO DIVISION
`
` Civil Action No. ______
`
`PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
`
`1. Trademark Infringement (15
`U.S.C. § 1114);
`
`2. Counterfeiting (15 U.S.C. §
`1114);
`
`3. Unfair Competition (15 U.S,C. §
`1125(a));
`
`4. Common Law Trademark
`Infringement;
`
`5. Cyberpiracy (15 U.S.C. §
`1125(d));
`
`6. Violation of the California
`Business and Professions Code
`(CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §
`14245)
`
`7. Common Law Unfair
`Competition
`
`v.
`
`
`ACTION CAPTION ADVERTISING
`LLC, dba LAMPS PLUS MAX,
`EVGENI MIGHTY WILDERNESS,
`LLC, AND DRABOI CLASSIC
`VENTURING, LLC, dba HOME
`LIGHTS US,
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
` JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`LAMPS PLUS, INC.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02230-KJN Document 1 Filed 12/15/22 Page 2 of 19
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Lamps Plus, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Lamps Plus”), by and through its
`counsel, hereby alleges as follows for its Complaint against Defendants Action
`Caption Advertising, LLC, dba Lamps Plus Max, Evgeni Mighty Wilderness, and
`Draboi Classic Venturing, LLC, dba Home Lights US (herein referred to collectively
`as “Defendants” or “Lamps Plus Max Entities”). This is a complaint for trademark
`infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1114), trademark counterfeiting (15 U.S.C. § 1114),
`unfair competition under the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125), common law
`trademark infringement, cyberpiracy under the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)),
`violation of the California Business and Professions Code (CAL. BUS. § PROF. CODE
`§ 14245), and common law unfair competition.
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`In 1976, Dennis Swanson and Manja Swanson began a lamp design,
`manufacture, and retail company in North Hollywood, California called Lamps R
`Us, Inc.
`2.
`Lamps R Us used the brand “Lamps Plus” in connection with its
`specialty lighting retail stores. In 1984, Lamps R Us registered its trademark for the
`Lamps Plus brand (the “Lamps Plus Mark”) with the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office in connection with “electrical lamps and lighting fixtures” (U.S. Registration
`No. 1,359,087, the “’087 Registration”) to protect the brand value that it had created.
`3.
`In 1985, Lamps R Us formally changed its name to Lamps Plus, and
`has consistently and exclusively used, maintained, and invested in its Lamps Plus
`brand since then.
`4.
`The ’087 Registration became incontestable pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§
`1065 and 1115(b) in 1989, and still persists today.
`5.
`Through its substantial investment in and use of its Lamps Plus Mark
`over the last almost 40 years, Lamps Plus has become the largest specialty lighting
`company in the United States and has built considerable brand value and goodwill
`in the Lamps Plus Mark.
`
`
`-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
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02230-KJN Document 1 Filed 12/15/22 Page 3 of 19
`
`
`
`6.
`On or about May 29, 2022, Defendants began selling lamps and other
`lighting goods through a website under the name “Lamps Plus Max.” Defendants’
`website is accessible through the URL www.lampsplusmax.com. The following
`screenshots compare Defendants’ “Lamps Plus Max” website with the Lamp Plus
`website.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7.
`As illustrated above, Defendants’ knock-off Lamps Plus Max mark is
`nearly identical to the Lamps Plus Mark.
`8.
`Furthermore, Defendants are using their knock-off Lamps Plus Max
`mark to sell the same exact goods through the same exact marketing channels and to
`the same consumers as Lamps Plus.
`9.
`The Lamps Plus and Lamps Plus Max marks are so similar that
`consumers will likely be confused as to the source of Defendants’ lighting products.
`Accordingly, Defendants’ use of their knock-off Lamps Plus Max mark to sell
`lighting product infringes the Lamps Plus Mark, and constitutes counterfeiting,
`unfair competition, and cyberpiracy.
`
`
`
`
`
`-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
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02230-KJN Document 1 Filed 12/15/22 Page 4 of 19
`
`
`
`10. On August 9, 2022, upon discovering Defendants’ use of its knock-off
`Lamps Plus Max mark to sell lighting products, Lamps Plus promptly sent
`Defendants a cease and desist letter demanding that Defendants terminate their use
`of their knock-off Lamps Plus Max mark to avoid confusing consumers. Lamps Plus
`requested a response by August 19, 2022.
`11. Defendants failed to respond to Lamps Plus’ demand letter and have
`continued to use the Lamps Plus Max mark in connection with their lighting product
`sales.
`12. Defendants’ failure to even respond to Lamps Plus’ letter and continued
`use of the knock-off Lamps Plus Max mark signals a clear bad faith attempt to
`unfairly trade off of Lamps Plus’ established brand and profit off of Lamps Plus’
`valuable reputation and goodwill by, inter alia, attributing an affiliation or
`endorsement of Defendants’ lighting goods with Lamps Plus where no such
`affiliation or endorsement exists.
`13. Even in the short time since Defendants started infringing the Lamps
`Plus Mark, Consumers and industry players have already been confused by
`Defendants’ use of their knock-off Lamps Plus Max mark.
`14. Defendants’ continuing illegal use of their knock-off Lamps Plus mark
`has caused, and unless enjoined, will continue to cause considerable harm to Lamps
`Plus and will erode Lamps Plus’ valuable goodwill in its brand.
`THE PARTIES
`15. Plaintiff Lamps Plus, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under
`the laws of the state of California, with its principal place of business at 20250
`Plummer Street, Chatsworth, California 91311.
`16. Defendant Action Caption Advertising LLC is a limited liability
`company organized and existing under the laws of the state of Alaska, with its
`principal place of business at 721 Depot Drive, Anchorage, Alaska 99501.
`
`
`
`
`
`-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
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02230-KJN Document 1 Filed 12/15/22 Page 5 of 19
`
`
`
`17. Defendant Evgeni Mighty Wilderness LLC is a limited liability
`company organized and existing under the laws of the state of California, with its
`principal place of business at 9106 Blue Grass Drive, Stockton, California 95210.
`18. Defendant Draboi Classic Venturing LLC is a limited liability company
`organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York, with its principal
`place of business at 397 Roger Avenue, North Tonawanda, New York 14120.
`19. Lamps Plus is informed and believes, that Defendant Action Caption
`Advertising LLC operates the Lamps Plus Max website.
`20. The Lamps Plus Max website lists Action Caption Advertising LLC as
`owning the copyright to the Lamps Plus Max website.
`21. Lamps Plus is informed and believes, that Lamps Plus Max is the same
`entity as, or is affiliated with, Home Lights US. The Lamps Plus Max website, under
`the “About Us” heading, describes Home Lights US and makes no reference to
`Lamps Plus Max. Accordingly, Home Lights US also controls, operates, or is
`otherwise responsible for the use of the Lamps Plus Max mark on the Lamps Plus
`Max website to sell lighting goods.
`22. Lamps Plus is informed and believes, that Defendants Evgeni Mighty
`Wilderness LLC and Draboi Classic Venturing LLC are affiliates of Home Lights
`US. The Home Lights US website, homelightsus.com, lists the subheading “Draboi
`Classic Venturing LLC” under the website title “Home Lights US.” The contact
`information for the Home Lights US website is the same as that of Draboi Classic
`Venturing LLC.
` Previous
`iterations of
`the Home Lights US website,
`homelightsus.com, instead list Evgeni Mighty Wilderness LLC in the subheading
`and contact information. For example, on June 28, 2022, Evgeni Mighty Wilderness
`LLC was still listed on the Home Lights US website as shown by the below Internet
`Archive page:
`
`
`
`
`
`-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
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02230-KJN Document 1 Filed 12/15/22 Page 6 of 19
`
`
`
`
`23. On information and belief, and based on the foregoing representations
`by Defendants on their respective websites, Lamps Plus is informed and believes
`
`-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
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02230-KJN Document 1 Filed 12/15/22 Page 7 of 19
`
`
`
`that Defendants have acted in concert to use the Lamps Plus Max mark on the Lamps
`Plus Max website to sell lighting goods.
`24. Lamps Plus is informed and believes, that all Defendants, were at all
`relevant times acting as actual agents, conspirators, ostensible agents, partners
`and/or joint ventures and employees of all other defendants, and all acts alleged
`herein occurred within the course and scope of said agency, employment,
`partnership, joint venture, conspiracy and/or enterprise, and with the express and/or
`implied permission, knowledge, consent, authorization, and ratification of their co-
`defendants.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`25. This action arises under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125(a),
`1125(d), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 14245 and the common law.
`26. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1121
`and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338 and has supplemental jurisdiction over the state
`common law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
`27. Defendant Evgeni Mighty Wilderness is incorporated in the state of
`California and is therefore subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court.
`28. Defendant Draboi Classic Venturing LLC has maintained systematic
`and continuous contacts with the State of California and this District, at least because
`Draboi Classic Venturing LLC’s actions which form the basis for this cause of action
`occurred within the State of California and this District.
`29. Defendant Action Caption Advertising LLC has maintained systematic
`and continuous contacts with the State of California and this District, at least because
`Action Caption Advertising LLC’s actions which form the basis for this cause of
`action occurred within the State of California and this District.
`30. Venue in this District is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(2) and (c)
`because Defendants have done business in this district and/or a substantial part of
`the events giving rise to Lamps Plus’ claims occurred in or were aimed at this judicial
`
`-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
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02230-KJN Document 1 Filed 12/15/22 Page 8 of 19
`
`
`
`district. For example, Defendant Evgeni Mighty Wilderness has engaged in the acts
`alleged in this Complaint in this District and has an office located in Stockton.
`Defendant Evgeni Mighty Wilderness has also solicited and conducted, and
`continues to solicit and conduct business over the Internet and through other means
`in this District. Defendant Draboi Classic Venturing LLC has engaged in the acts
`alleged in this Complaint in this District. Draboi Classic Venturing LLC has also
`solicited and conducted, and continues to solicit and conduct business over the
`Internet and through other means in this District. Defendant Action Caption
`Advertising LLC has engaged in the acts alleged in this Complaint in this District.
`Action Caption Advertising LLC has also solicited and conducted, and continues to
`solicit and conduct business over the Internet and through other means in this
`District.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`Lamps Plus History
`A.
`31.
`In 1976, Dennis Swanson and Manja Swanson began a lamp design,
`manufacture, and retail company in North Hollywood, California called Lamps R
`Us, Inc, which became Lamps Plus.
`32. Lamps Plus maintains a corporate office in Chatsworth, California, 36
`retail stores in 35 cities and 7 states, and an online store that ships over 55,000
`different lighting-related products to all states. Internet Retailer magazine named
`Lamps Plus as a Top 500 Retailer for five years in a row from 2013-2018, and Lamps
`Plus has received multiple awards since then. Lamps Plus has received significant
`recognition nationally for its lighting goods, including having its store and store
`name featured in the movie Wonder Woman 1984.
`33. Through those efforts, and a considerable financial investment, Lamps
`Plus has built its Lamps Plus brand and reputation associated therewith into a
`premiere lighting retailer, distributor, and manufacturer that is capable of addressing
`all facets of the lighting industry with high quality processes and products.
`
`-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
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02230-KJN Document 1 Filed 12/15/22 Page 9 of 19
`
`
`
`34.
` Lamps Plus’ substantial marketing investment and ongoing business
`activities throughout the United States have generated significant goodwill and value
`for its Lamps Plus brand among market participants, industry professionals, civil
`officials, and the general public. For example, Founder and CEO Dennis Swanson
`was elected to the American Lighting Association Hall of Fame in 2006 in
`recognition for the rapid expansion and success of the Lamps Plus brand.
`B.
`The Lamps Plus Mark
`35. Since at least as early as 1994, Lamps Plus has continuously,
`exclusively, and extensively used the words “LAMPS PLUS” as a trademark in
`connection with its marketing and sales of electrical lamps and lighting fixtures.
`36. On October 4, 1984, Lamps Plus applied to register the Lamps Plus
`Mark in connection with “electrical lamps and lighting fixtures” in International
`Class 11 with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (U.S. Application
`No. 73/502,700 or the “’700 Application”).
`37. On September 10, 1985, the ’700 Application matured into U.S.
`Trademark Registration No. 1,359,087 (the “’087 Registration”).
`38.
`In 1989, because Lamps Plus had continuously and exclusively used
`the Lamps Plus Mark under the ’087 Registration for more than five years, the ’087
`Registration became incontestable in 1989.
`39.
` Lamps Plus has used, and currently uses, the Lamps Plus Mark on its
`website, https://lampsplus.com/, and marketing materials including but not limited
`to brochures and social media, advertisements for its various stores, and in signage
`and marketing content for its many retail locations.
`40. Furthermore, Lamps Plus has exclusively used, and continues to
`exclusively use the distinct word and design mark for “Lamps Plus,” with its unique
`appearance and font style, as illustrated below, in connection with its lighting goods
`and services throughout the United States (the “Lamps Plus Common Law Mark,”
`and together with the ’087 Registration, the “Lamps Plus Marks”), and considers the
`
`-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
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02230-KJN Document 1 Filed 12/15/22 Page 10 of 19
`
`
`
`common law mark to be protectable trademarks under the Lanham Act and the law
`of this state.
`
`
`
`41. Through its extensive, exclusive, and continuous use in connection with
`Lamps Plus lighting goods and services, the Lamps Plus Common Law Mark has
`become a distinctive source identifier of Lamps Plus lighting goods and services in
`all states of the United States. In particular, Lamps Plus has used the Lamps Plus
`Marks in each of its 37 locations across the United States, on its website, where
`products are shipped to every state, in television and print ads, and through its other
`marketing collateral.
`42. Lamps Plus has invested extensive marketing, political, financial, and
`other resources in building its Lamps Plus brand, inclusive of the Lamps Plus Marks,
`through advertising, signage, press, direct sales, word of mouth and relationships.
`Through this investment, Lamps Plus has acquired substantial goodwill in the Lamps
`Plus Marks, and considers them to be part of the distinctive Lamps Plus brand.
`Consumers have come to associate the distinctive Lamps Plus brand, inclusive of
`each of the Lamps Plus Marks, with Lamps Plus and the source of Lamps Plus’
`lighting goods and services.
`C. Defendants’ Use of the Lamps Plus Marks
`43. Defendants hold themselves out as retailer for lighting goods through
`the Lamps Plus Max website.
`44. Prior to 2022, Lamps Plus is unaware of any use by Defendants of the
`name “Lamps Plus Max” in connection with lighting goods and services in the
`United States.
`45. On or about May 29, 2022, Defendants began using a website titled
`“Lamps Plus Max”, an online retail store selling various types of lighting goods
`
`-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
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02230-KJN Document 1 Filed 12/15/22 Page 11 of 19
`
`
`
`under the brand “Lamps Plus Max”. Defendants’ website is accessible through the
`URL www.lampsplusmax.com.
`46. Defendants use of the Lamp Plus Max name has already caused actual
`confusion in the marketplace. For example, several Lamps Plus Max customers
`called Lamps Plus’ customer service team to dispute charges, thinking Lamps Plus
`and Lamps Plus Max are the same. Lamps Plus has never been affiliated with Lamps
`Plus Max.
`47. On August 9, 2022, after Lamps Plus learned of Defendants’ use of the
`knock-off Lamps Plus Max mark, Lamps Plus sent a letter to Defendants demanding
`that they stop using Defendants’ knock-off Lamps Plus Max mark in connection
`with Defendants’ lighting goods and services.
`48. Defendants never responded to Lamps Plus’ demand letter. Instead,
`Defendants continued to use their knock-off “Lamps Plus Max” mark on their
`website to sell lighting goods.
`49. Defendants’ intentional use of the words “Lamps Plus” market lighting
`goods and services without authorization from Lamps Plus is shown in the screen
`capture from Defendants’ website reproduced above. Notably, the only difference
`between the Defendants’ Lamps Plus Max mark and the Lamps Plus Marks is the
`word “Max,” which is a merely laudatory term that does not differentiate the terms.
`
`
`
`
`
`-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
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02230-KJN Document 1 Filed 12/15/22 Page 12 of 19
`
`
`
`Furthermore, Defendants’ knock-off Lamps Plus Max Mark uses the same black
`capital letters in a substantially similar font on its website to sell the same lighting
`products that Lamps Plus offers through its own website.
`50. Defendants’ website also looks very similar in layout and color as the
`authentic Lamps Plus website. Based on these similarities, there is little doubt that
`Defendants are intentionally attempting to trade off of Lamps Plus valuable brand,
`reputation, and good will, to the detriment of Lamps Plus.
`51. Defendants’
`and
`infringement
`actions
`constitute
`trademark
`counterfeiting under the Lanham Act. Defendants’ unauthorized use has already
`caused actual consumer confusion and is likely to continue to cause confusion,
`causing Lamps Plus irreparable harm.
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
`(15 U.S.C. § 1114)
`52. The allegations of the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by
`reference.
`53. The Lamps Plus Mark is duly registered and owned by Lamps Plus as
`evidenced by the ’087 Registration, which is now incontestable. Lamps Plus’ rights
`in the Lamps Plus Mark are protected under Section 32 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.
`§ 1114.
`54. Defendants’ unauthorized use in commerce of the terms “Lamps Plus”
`and “Lamps Plus Max” (the “Infringing Mark”) in connection with their sales of
`lighting goods and services in the United States is so similar to Lamps Plus’ use of
`the Lamps Plus Mark as to cause confusion, deception, and/or mistake by creating
`the false and misleading impression that Defendants are associated or connected
`with Lamps Plus, or has the sponsorship, endorsement, or approval of Lamps Plus
`in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114.
`55. Defendants’ use of the Infringing Mark has caused and, unless enjoined
`by this Court, will continue to cause a likelihood of confusion and deception of
`
`-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
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02230-KJN Document 1 Filed 12/15/22 Page 13 of 19
`
`
`
`members of the trade and public, and, additionally, injury to Lamps Plus’ goodwill
`and reputation as symbolized by Lamps Plus’ brand name for which Lamps Plus has
`no adequate remedy at law.
`56. Defendants’ actions demonstrate an intentional, willful, and malicious
`intent to trade on the goodwill associated with Lamps Plus’ trademarks and brand
`name to Lamps Plus’ great and irreparable harm. Because Defendants knowingly
`and intentionally used the Lamps Plus Mark in connection with their goods and
`services, this is an exceptional case within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a).
`57. Lamps Plus has been damaged by Defendants’ use of the Infringing
`Mark and will suffer irreparable harm unless Defendants are preliminarily and
`permanently restrained.
`58. Lamps Plus is entitled to a preliminary and permanent injunction
`restraining Defendants, their officers, directors, agents, employees, representatives
`and all persons acting in concert with them from engaging in further such acts of
`infringement.
`59. As a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Lamps Plus has suffered,
`and will continue to suffer, substantial damages. Lamps Plus is entitled to recover
`actual damages, Defendants’ profits, enhanced profits and damages, costs, and
`reasonable attorneys’ fees under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1116, and 1117 in an amount
`to be proven at trial.
`
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`TRADEMARK COUNTERFEITING
`(15 U.S.C. § 1114)
`60. The allegations of the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by
`reference.
`61. Despite Defendants’ knowledge of Lamps Plus’ prior rights in the
`Lamps Plus Mark, Defendants have used and continue to use in commerce without
`the consent of Lamps Plus, the Lamps Plus Mark, or counterfeits, copies,
`
`
`
`
`
`-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
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02230-KJN Document 1 Filed 12/15/22 Page 14 of 19
`
`
`
`reproductions or colorable imitations thereof in connect with the sale, offering for
`sale, and/or advertising of Defendants’ goods and services.
`62. Defendants’ unauthorized use of a confusingly similar Infringing Mark
`is likely to cause confusion, deception, and mistake by creating the false and
`misleading impression that Defendants and their goods/services are associated or
`connected with Lamps Plus, or have the sponsorship, endorsement, or approval of
`Lamps Plus.
`63. Defendants’ acts have caused, and will continue to cause, irreparable
`injury to Plaintiff, which has no adequate remedy at law. Lamps Plus is entitled to a
`preliminary and permanent injunction restraining Defendants, their officers,
`directors, agents, employees, representatives and all persons acting in concert with
`them from engaging further in such acts of infringement.
`64. As a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Lamps Plus has suffered,
`and will continue to suffer, substantial damages. Lamps Plus is entitled to recover
`actual damages, Defendants’ profits, enhanced profits and damages, costs, and
`reasonable attorneys’ fees under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1116, and 1117 in an amount
`to be proven at trial.
`
`THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`UNFAIR COMPETITION, FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN and
`FALSE DESCRIPTIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS
`(15 U.S.C. § 1125(a))
`
`65. The allegations of the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by
`reference.
`66. Lamps Plus’ use of the Lamps Plus Common Law Mark is entitled to
`protection under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
`67. Lamps Plus first used the Lamps Plus Common Law Mark in California
`and in interstate commerce long before Defendants’ first use of their Infringing
`Mark. As a result, the rights of Lamps Plus in the Lamps Plus Common Law Mark
`are superior to those of Defendants in the Infringing Mark.
`
`-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
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02230-KJN Document 1 Filed 12/15/22 Page 15 of 19
`
`
`
`68. Defendants’ use of the Infringing Mark constitutes a false designation
`of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading
`representation pursuant to Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125 and
`should be permanently enjoined.
`69. As a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Lamps Plus has suffered,
`and will continue to suffer, substantial damages. Lamps Plus is entitled to recover
`actual damages, Defendants’ profits, enhanced profits and damages, costs, and
`reasonable attorneys’ fees under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1125(a), and 1117 in an amount to be
`proven at trial.
`
`FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`COMMON LAW TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
`
`70. The allegations of the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by
`reference.
`71. By the acts described above, Defendants have engaged in trademark
`infringement in violation of the common law of the State of California and common
`law.
`
`72. Defendants’ actions demonstrate an intentional, willful, and malicious
`intent to trade on the goodwill associated with the Lamps Plus Common Law Mark
`and have caused, and unless enjoined, will continue to cause Lamps Plus great and
`irreparable harm.
`73. Defendants’ actions were oppressive, fraudulent and/or malicious
`and/or in reckless disregard of Lamps Plus’ rights, entitling Lamps Plus to an award
`of punitive damages under state common law.
`FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`CYBERPIRACY
`(15 U.S.C. § 1125(d))
`74. The allegations of the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by
`reference.
`
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02230-KJN Document 1 Filed 12/15/22 Page 16 of 19
`
`
`
`75. Defendants have trafficked in, and/or used their lampsplusmax.com
`domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to and/or dilutive of Lamps Plus
`federally registered Lamps Plus trademark, which was distinctive and/or famous at
`the time of registration and/or use of the domain names.
`76. Defendants have a bad faith intent to profit from the domain name in
`the United States and this District.
`77. As a direct and proximate result of such conduct, Lamps Plus has
`suffered and will continue to suffer, monetary loss and irreparable injury to its
`business, reputation, and goodwill.
`78. This Court should order Defendants to forfeit or cancel their domain
`name, or transfer the domain name to Lamps Plus.
`SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS
`CODE
`(CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 14245)
`
`79. The allegations of the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by
`reference.
`80. The Infringing Mark is a reproduction, counterfeit, copy, and/or
`colorable imitation of the Lamps Plus Mark.
`81. The unauthorized use by Defendants of the Infringing Mark is
`confusingly similar to the Lamps Plus Mark and Lamps Plus Common Law Mark,
`and constitutes unfair trade practices in violation of the California Business and
`Professions Code, CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 14245 et seq.
`82. Defendants’ willful misconduct has caused confusion amongst
`consumers and is likely to continue to cause confusion, directly or indirectly
`affecting the people of the state of California. In particular, Defendants’ use of the
`brand name “Lamps Plus Max” in connection with their lighting goods and services
`in this District indicates an intent to cause consumer confusion as to the source of
`
`
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02230-KJN Document 1 Filed 12/15/22 Page 17 of 19
`
`
`
`Defendants’ lighting goods and services and create a false association with Lamps
`Plus.
`83. Lamps Plus seeks to recover a permanent injunction against use of the
`Infringing Mark, the actual damages sustained, together with the costs of the suit,
`including a reasonable attorney’s fee and punitive damages for Defendants’ willful
`infringement and counterfeiting of Lamps Plus’ marks.
`SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`COMMON LAW UNFAIR COMPETITION
`TRADE NAME INFRINGEMENT
`84. The allegations of the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by
`reference.
`85. Lamps Plus has the right to use the “Lamps Plus” trade name, which
`has become a distinctive feature of the Lamps Plus brand. Lamps Plus has used the
`“Lamps Plus” name in connection with its services continuously and extensively,
`since it began operating in the United States, and before Defendants began infringing
`on the “Lamps Plus” name. Lamps Plus has acquired the superior right to the Lamps
`Plus name in connection with its services.
`86. Defendants’ use of the “Lamps Plus” name in connection with identical
`and similar goods and services is likely to confuse, in the public mind, Lamps Plus’
`business with Defendants’ business.
`87. Defendants have used and continues to use the “Lamps Plus” name with
`an intent to deceive the consuming public.
`88. Lamps Plus seeks injunctive relief against Defendants for using the
`“Lamps Plus” name unfairly.
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully demands judgment as follows:
`1.
`That the Court enter judgment in Lamps Plus’ favor on all claims
`brought against Defendants;
`
`
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02230-KJN Document 1 Filed 12/15/22 Page 18 of 19
`
`
`
`2.
`For an injunction prohibiting Defendants from using the Infringing
`Mark in the United States, or any other mark that is confusingly similar to the Lamps
`Plus Mark and Lamps Plus Common Law Mark;
`3.
`For an injunction prohibiting Defendants from using the “Lamps Plus”
`trade name, or any confusingly similar name;
`
`
`4.
`That the Court order Defendants to provide an accounting for their
`profits and all infringements of Lamps Plus’ Mark and Lamps Plus’ Common Law
`Mark;
`5.
`That the Court find this case to be exceptional due to Defendants’
`willful infringement and counterfeiting of the Lamps Plus Mark;
`6.
` That Defendants be required to pay all general, special, and actual
`damages, that Lamps Plus has sustained, or will sustain as a consequence of
`Defendants’ unlawful acts;
`7.
`That Defendants be required to pay all statutory damages, and that such
`damages be enhanced, doubled, or trebled as provided for by 15 U.S.C. § 1117(b),
`or otherwise allowed by law;
`8.
`That Defendants be required to pay the costs of this action and Lamps
`Plus’ reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in prosecuting this action, as provided for
`by 15 U.S.C. § 1117, CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 14240, or otherwise allowed by
`law;
`
`9.
`That the Court order Defendants to cancel the registration for or assign
`their lampsplusmax.com domain name to Lamps Plus; and
`10. That Lamps Plus has such other and further relief as this Court may
`deem just and proper.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02230-KJN Document 1 Filed 12/15/22 Page 19 of 19
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`Plaintiff Lamps Plus demands a trial by jury as to all issues so triable.
`
`
`SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: December 15, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Jesse A. Salen
` Jesse A. Salen, CA Bar No.292043
`Daniel N. Yannuzzi, CA Bar No. 196612
`12275 El Camino Real, STE 100
`San Diego, CA 92130
`858.720.8900
`jsalen@sheppardmullin.com
`dyannuzzi@sheppardmullin.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`LAMPS PLUS, INC.
`
`-19-
`
`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
`
`