throbber
Case 3:19-cv-07516 Document 1 Filed 11/14/19 Page 1 of 20
`
`
`
`RICHARD J. NELSON (State Bar No. 141658)
`rnelson@sideman.com
`E-Mail:
`ZACHARY J. ALINDER (State Bar No. 209009)
`zalinder@sideman.com
`E-Mail:
`NICHOLAS A. SHEN (State Bar No. 324712)
`nshen@sideman.com
`E-Mail:
`SIDEMAN & BANCROFT LLP
`One Embarcadero Center, Twenty-Second Floor
`San Francisco, California 94111-3711
`Telephone:
`(415) 392-1960
`Facsimile:
`(415) 392-0827
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`Cisco Systems, Inc. and Cisco Technology, Inc.
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., a California
`corporation, and CISCO TECHNOLOGY,
`INC., a California corporation,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
` Case No. 3:19-cv-7516
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR:
`
`1. FEDERAL TRADEMARK
`INFRINGEMENT AND
`COUNTERFEITING, 15 U.S.C. § 1114;
`2. FEDERAL UNFAIR COMPETITION,
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1125;
`3. FEDERAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT
`COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, 17
`U.S.C. §§ 501 et seq.; and,
`4. TRAFFICKING IN COUNTERFEIT
`AND/OR ILLICIT LABELS AND
`DOCUMENTATION IN VIOLATION OF
`18 U.S.C. § 2318.
`
`
`
`
`Demand for Jury Trial
`
`
`
`SHOC NETWORKS, LLC, formerly known
`as DALDAN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC and DT
`NETWORKS, a Washington limited liability
`company; RONALD REED, an individual,
`and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive.
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111-3711
`ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, 22ND FLOOR
`
`SIDEMAN & BANCROFT LLP
`
`LAW OFFICES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Case No. 3:19-cv-7516
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-07516 Document 1 Filed 11/14/19 Page 2 of 20
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`Plaintiffs CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. (“CSI”) and CISCO TECHNOLOGY, INC. (“CTI”
`
`and together with CSI, “Cisco” or “Plaintiffs”), hereby complain and allege against Defendants
`
`SHOC NETWORKS, LLC, RONALD REED, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive (collectively
`
`“Defendants”) as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Defendants have been caught reselling stolen and/or pirated Cisco software licenses
`
`1.
`
`to other resellers and end customers who they have duped into buying unlicensed copies of
`
`software at cut-rate prices, rather than buying genuine Cisco software licenses through authorized
`
`distribution channels.
`
`2.
`
`To further create the false impression that these software licenses are genuine and
`
`authorized by Cisco, Defendants distributed the unlicensed copies of Cisco software along with
`
`copies of counterfeit and/or illicit software license claim certificates that had been mocked up to
`
`look like genuine Cisco software license claim certificates.
`
`3.
`
`Defendants’ unlawful scheme, as alleged in more detail below, has not only caused
`
`Cisco significant monetary damages, but also has undermined Cisco’s brand, goodwill, and
`
`reputation with customers and its authorized partners. When Cisco requested that Defendants
`
`cease and desist their sales of these unlawful and infringing software licenses, Defendants refused,
`
`confirming that they intend to continue their unlawful and infringing conduct unabated.
`
`4.
`
`Accordingly, Cisco brings this Action to put a stop to Defendants’ unlawful and
`
`
`
`20
`
`infringing conduct, to enjoin further unlawful and infringing conduct, and to recover full damages
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111-3711
`ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, 22ND FLOOR
`
`SIDEMAN & BANCROFT LLP
`
`LAW OFFICES
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`for the significant harm they have caused.
`
`PARTIES
`CSI is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a California corporation, with its
`
`5.
`
`principal place of business at 170 W. Tasman Dr., San Jose, California 95134. CTI is, and at all
`
`times mentioned herein was, a California corporation with its principal place of business at 170 W.
`
`Tasman Dr., San Jose, California 95134. CTI owns the trademarks that are used by CSI in
`
`marketing Cisco-branded products and the copyrights in the software unlawfully distributed by
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Case No. 3:19-cv-7516
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-07516 Document 1 Filed 11/14/19 Page 3 of 20
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`6.
`
`Cisco is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant Shoc
`
`Networks, LLC, doing business as www.shocnetworks.com, (“Shoc Networks”) was at all
`
`relevant times a Washington limited liability company, which lists its principal office street
`
`address as 3250 Airport Way S, Suite #713, Seattle, WA 98134. Shoc Networks directly and
`
`purposefully engaged in commercial transactions in the state of California specifically related to
`
`the alleged unlawful conduct in this Complaint. For example, Shoc Networks marketed and
`
`distributed the infringing Cisco software to at least one well-known California-based third party
`
`reseller. Further, Cisco is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Shoc Networks was
`
`formerly known as Daldan Technologies, LLC and/or DT Networks (together “DT Networks”).
`
`Cisco is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that, Defendant Shoc Networks was formed by
`
`Mr. Reed, after DT Networks was caught selling infringing Cisco software licenses and then
`
`purported to shut down operations. Further, both DT Networks and Shoc Networks have been
`
`represented by the same counsel, Arthur Freierman.
`
`7.
`
`Cisco is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant Ronald Reed is
`
`an individual, residing in the state of Washington. Cisco is informed and believes, and thereon
`
`alleges, that Mr. Reed founded and controlled both DT Networks and Shoc Networks. Cisco is
`
`further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Mr. Reed did business through one or
`
`more Amazon or eBay seller accounts associated with DT Networks and/or Shoc Networks,
`
`including Amazon seller account “dtnetworks.” Cisco is further informed and believes, and
`
`
`
`20
`
`thereon alleges, that Defendant Reed, who also goes by the shortened name “Ron Reed,” is the
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`current president of Shoc Networks. Cisco is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges,
`
`that Mr. Reed is listed as the Registered Agent for Shoc Networks at an apartment address listed in
`
`Mercer Island, WA. Cisco is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Mr. Reed
`
`was, and is, the moving, active, and conscious force behind the unlawful and infringing conduct of
`
`Shoc Networks, as alleged in more detail below.
`
`8.
`
`The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or
`
`otherwise, of the Defendants named herein as DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, are unknown to
`
`Plaintiffs who, therefore, sue said Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Case No. 3:19-cv-7516
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111-3711
`ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, 22ND FLOOR
`
`SIDEMAN & BANCROFT LLP
`
`LAW OFFICES
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-07516 Document 1 Filed 11/14/19 Page 4 of 20
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`Complaint to reflect the true names and capacities of these DOE Defendants when the same shall
`
`have been fully and finally ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege,
`
`that each of the Defendants designated herein as a DOE is legally responsible, in some manner, for
`
`the events and happenings herein referred to, and legally caused damages to Plaintiffs as herein
`
`alleged.
`
`9.
`
`At all times relevant to this action, each Defendant, including those fictitiously
`
`named Defendants, was the agent, servant, employee, partner, joint venturer, accomplice,
`
`conspirator, alter ego or surety of the other Defendants and was acting within the scope of that
`
`agency, employment, partnership, venture, conspiracy, or suretyship with the knowledge and
`
`consent or ratification of each of the other Defendants in doing the things alleged in this
`
`Complaint.
`
`JURISDICTION
`This is an Action founded upon violations of Federal trademark and copyright laws,
`
`10.
`
`pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051, et seq., 17 U.S.C. §§ 501, et seq., as well as violations of 18 U.S.C.
`
`§ 2318. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over this Action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1331 and 1338(a)-(b), and 15 U.S.C. § 1121. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over
`
`Cisco’s state law claims for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1338(b) and 1367 because the claims
`
`are so related to Cisco’s claims under Federal law that they form part of the same case or
`
`controversy and derive from a common nucleus of operative facts.
`
`
`
`20
`
`11.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because each Defendant, in
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`participating in the scheme to distribute the stolen and/or pirated software licenses and counterfeit
`
`and/or illicit software license claim certificates, has willfully infringed intellectual property rights
`
`of Cisco, a known forum resident, including by trafficking in infringing Cisco software licenses
`
`and otherwise causing tortious injury to Cisco, including to its trademarks and copyrights, within
`
`California, and within this District in particular. Defendants did so with knowledge that Cisco was
`
`located in California, and within this District in particular, and indeed, continued to do so after
`
`receiving cease and desist demands from Cisco. Further, Defendants have performed intentional
`
`acts expressly aimed at Cisco in this forum and thereby caused damage that they knew would be
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Case No. 3:19-cv-7516
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111-3711
`ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, 22ND FLOOR
`
`SIDEMAN & BANCROFT LLP
`
`LAW OFFICES
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-07516 Document 1 Filed 11/14/19 Page 5 of 20
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`suffered by Cisco in this forum. This includes, but is not limited to the fact, that Defendants have
`
`marketed, advertised, offered for sale, and actually distributed the infringing Cisco software
`
`licenses at issue here into California and transacted business within California specifically related
`
`to the infringing distribution scheme alleged in this Complaint. Defendants have also
`
`misrepresented the authentic nature of the counterfeit and/or otherwise infringing “Cisco”
`
`software to residents of California.
`
`VENUE
`Venue for this action properly lies in the Northern District of California pursuant to
`
`12.
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because Defendants committed acts here in furtherance of their unlawful
`
`business operations, a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in this
`
`District, and a substantial part of the property that is the subject of this action is located within this
`
`District. Further, Defendants’ acts of infringement are likely to have caused, and are likely to
`
`continue to cause, consumer confusion within this District. Further, venue is also proper in this
`
`District under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a) because Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction here
`
`due to having performed intentional acts expressly aimed at the forum and thereby caused damage
`
`that they knew would be suffered by Cisco in this District.
`
`INTRA-DISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
`In accordance with LR 3-2(c), this action is properly assigned on a District-wide
`
`13.
`
`basis because it relates to Intellectual Property.
`
`
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO TRADEMARK REGISTRATIONS
`14.
`Founded in 1984, Cisco is a global leader in technology, with a large and diverse
`
`customer base spanning governments and large enterprises, small to medium sized businesses, and
`
`individual consumers. Among other areas, Cisco’s business includes high quality networking and
`
`communications technology, including telecommunications networking hardware and software,
`
`advanced telecommunications network design, implementation services, high-end
`
`videoconferencing technology, and data center technology.
`
`15.
`
`Cisco has developed a strong name and reputation within the trade and among
`
`members of the consuming public as a leading manufacturer of mission-critical networking and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Case No. 3:19-cv-7516
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111-3711
`ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, 22ND FLOOR
`
`SIDEMAN & BANCROFT LLP
`
`LAW OFFICES
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-07516 Document 1 Filed 11/14/19 Page 6 of 20
`
`
`
`telecommunications systems, and it sells these products worldwide. Cisco has invested substantial
`
`effort and resources to develop and promote public recognition of the Cisco trade name and of the
`
`family of Cisco-related marks. Cisco has used the family of Cisco trademarks to identify goods
`
`and services as being genuine Cisco products, and the Cisco marks and name are well-recognized
`
`signifiers of Cisco’s high-quality products and services (the Cisco marks and name are hereinafter
`
`referred to as “Cisco Marks”).
`
`16.
`
`CTI has caused numerous Cisco Marks to be registered on the Principal Register of
`
`the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in connection with a range of telecommunications,
`
`computer hardware, and software products and services, and CTI owns all rights, title, and interest
`
`in numerous federal trademark registrations, including but not limited to:
`
`Mark
`CISCO SYSTEMS
`CISCO
`
`CISCO
`
`Registration Number
`1,996,957
`2,498,746
`
`Registration Date
`August 27, 1996
`October 16, 2001
`
`3,709,076
`
`November 10, 2009
`
`
`
`3,759,451
`
`3,978,294
`
`CISCO
`
`March 9, 2010
`
`June 14, 2011
`
`17.
`
`Cisco has also expended significant resources and effort to develop and promote
`
`public recognition of the Cisco trade name and the family of Cisco-related marks throughout the
`
`world, in part by placing Cisco Products and Cisco Marks in its advertising and promotional
`
`materials, which reach global consumers through a variety of media, including television, radio,
`
`newspapers, magazines, billboards, direct mail, websites, and in telephone directories.
`
`18.
`
`Cisco has taken substantial steps and expended significant resources to research
`
`and develop strict quality-control standards for all of its products to ensure that products and
`
`services bearing Cisco Marks continue to be of the highest quality.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Case No. 3:19-cv-7516
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111-3711
`ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, 22ND FLOOR
`
`SIDEMAN & BANCROFT LLP
`
`LAW OFFICES
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-07516 Document 1 Filed 11/14/19 Page 7 of 20
`
`
`
`19.
`
`As a result of Cisco’s extensive advertising and promotional efforts and its
`
`continuous use of its core Cisco Marks for more than 30 years, Cisco has attained one of the
`
`highest levels of brand recognition. Cisco’s customers worldwide have come to rely upon Cisco
`
`Marks to identify Cisco’s high-quality goods and services, including software. Many of Cisco’s
`
`products are purchased by the U.S. Government, including branches of the military, and by other
`
`industries such as healthcare and banking, and are used in critical and life-essential applications.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO COPYRIGHT REGISTRATIONS
`20.
`Cisco has also expended significant resources and effort to research and develop
`
`world-class software products that enable, enhance, and interoperate with its high-quality
`
`hardware. CTI has caused numerous Cisco software copyrights to be registered with the U.S.
`
`Copyright Office in connection with a range of telecommunications, computer hardware and
`
`software products and services, and CTI owns all rights, title, and interest in these Cisco federal
`
`copyrights. The software copyright registrations relevant here include, but are not limited to:
`
`Title
`
`Registration Number
`
`
`
`Cisco IOS 15.0
`Cisco IOS 15.1
`Cisco IOS 15.2
`Cisco IOS 15.4
`Cisco IOS XE 2.1
`Cisco IOS XE 3.5
`Cisco NX-OS 4.0
`Cisco NX-OS 5.0
`Cisco NX-OS 5.2
`Cisco NX-OS 6.2
`
`TX 7-938-524
`
`TX 7-938-525
`TX 7-937-159
`TX 7-938-341
`TX 7-937-240
`TX 7-937-234
`TX 7-940-713
`TX 7-940-718
`TX 7-940-727
`TX 7-940-722
`
`Effective Date of
`Registration
`November 28, 2014
`
`November 28, 2014
`November 24, 2014
`November 26, 2014
`November 24, 2014
`November 24, 2014
`November 13, 2014
`November 13, 2014
`November 13, 2014
`November 13, 2014
`
`21.
`
`The above software copyright registrations include the software versions for the
`
`stolen and/or pirated Cisco software licenses that Defendants have unlawfully distributed and
`
`otherwise infringed.
`
`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
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111-3711
`ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, 22ND FLOOR
`
`SIDEMAN & BANCROFT LLP
`
`LAW OFFICES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Case No. 3:19-cv-7516
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-07516 Document 1 Filed 11/14/19 Page 8 of 20
`
`
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`In September of 2016, an Amazon storefront, operated by www.amazon.com seller
`
`22.
`
`“dtnetworks” was advertising and selling what it claimed to be Cisco-branded software licenses,
`
`including a listing for “Cisco OnDemand Port Activation License.” Cisco’s software, however, is
`
`licensed by Cisco to a specific end user, where that license is not generally transferable and cannot
`
`be resold. Cisco’s current End User License Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A. As such,
`
`any such software license distribution by this reseller was, and is, infringing.
`
`23.
`
`Accordingly, on September 8, 2016, Cisco sent DT Networks a cease and desist
`
`letter. On October 18, 2016, DT Networks responded stating in essence that DT Networks was
`
`being permanently shut down. The official records from the state of Washington supported the
`
`claim that Daldan Technologies, LLC, doing business as DT Networks went inactive on October
`
`26, 2016, about a week after DT Networks’ response. This public record also shows the principals
`
`of DT Networks included Defendant Ronald Reed:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`24.
`
`Given the above and their representations to Cisco, Cisco at that time reasonably
`
`believed that DT Networks, including its principal Mr. Reed, had agreed to shut down and to stop
`
`infringing Cisco’s IP rights. As such, Cisco reasonably forbore from filing any legal action
`
`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
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111-3711
`ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, 22ND FLOOR
`
`SIDEMAN & BANCROFT LLP
`
`LAW OFFICES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Case No. 3:19-cv-7516
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-07516 Document 1 Filed 11/14/19 Page 9 of 20
`
`
`
`against DT Networks and Mr. Reed in reliance on the representations their counsel made at the
`
`time. Unfortunately, Mr. Reed appears not to have taken very long to get back to distributing
`
`infringing and/or stolen Cisco software licenses.
`
`25.
`
`In 2018, Cisco discovered that another company operating out of Washington –
`
`Shoc Networks – had begun unlawfully distributing Cisco software. Namely, Cisco learned that
`
`Shoc Networks had purported to distribute numerous “Cisco” software licenses to a large
`
`California-based IT and networking products and services reseller and to a Canadian-based
`
`communications product reseller with offices around the U.S.
`
`26.
`
`Although Cisco was unaware of this at the time, apparently just before shutting
`
`down DT Networks, Mr. Reed decided to transfer his unlawful and infringing Cisco software sales
`
`to a new company, called Shoc Networks. As the public record from Washington State sets forth,
`
`Mr. Reed is the only principal of Shoc Networks and started the company the week before DT
`
`Networks informed Cisco that DT Networks was ceasing to do business:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`27. Mr. Reed’s Linkedin profile also confirms that he is the President of Shoc
`
`Networks, and further states that he has been in that position from April 2011 to the present,
`
`further confirming that Shoc Networks was just a continuation of the DT Networks business:
`
`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
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111-3711
`ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, 22ND FLOOR
`
`SIDEMAN & BANCROFT LLP
`
`LAW OFFICES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Case No. 3:19-cv-7516
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-07516 Document 1 Filed 11/14/19 Page 10 of 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`28.
`
`Cisco does not authorize third parties, like Defendants, to distribute its software
`
`online. Instead, Cisco only offers its software to be licensed through authorized channels. As
`
`such, it appeared that both DT Networks and Shoc Networks, acting through Mr. Reed, were
`
`distributing “Cisco” branded software in competition with genuine and licensed Cisco software
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111-3711
`ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, 22ND FLOOR
`
`SIDEMAN & BANCROFT LLP
`
`LAW OFFICES
`
`
`
`20
`
`and trading off of Cisco’s trademarks to do so, by misrepresenting the source of the software as
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`being “new” software from Cisco.
`
`29.
`
`In addition, Cisco has further analyzed the infringing software licenses being
`
`distributed by Shoc Networks, including the “Cisco” branded software licenses distributed by
`
`Shoc Networks to the identified California-based reseller. Cisco has determined that all of those
`
`“Cisco” branded software licenses distributed by Shoc Networks were pirated and/or stolen.
`
`Further, Cisco was able to determine that the software license claim certificates that accompanied
`
`these “Cisco” branded software licenses were counterfeit copies. These “Cisco” branded
`
`counterfeit license claim certificates were mocked up to look very similar to genuine Cisco
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Case No. 3:19-cv-7516
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-07516 Document 1 Filed 11/14/19 Page 11 of 20
`
`
`
`software license claim certificates. But there were a number of small differences between the
`
`counterfeit version distributed by Shoc Networks and the software license claim certificate
`
`originally issued by Cisco. For example, here is a copy of one of the counterfeit certificates that
`
`accompanied one of the software sales by Defendants, cropped so as not to further reveal the illicit
`
`license key information:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`30.
`
`As shown above, the counterfeit license claim certificates distributed by
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111-3711
`ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, 22ND FLOOR
`
`SIDEMAN & BANCROFT LLP
`
`LAW OFFICES
`
`
`
`20
`
`Defendants, like the one above, bore spurious versions of the Cisco Marks, and also had a number
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`of small but key errors and other differences to otherwise distinguish them from a genuine Cisco
`
`license claim certificate. It also references the Cisco End User License Agreement, sets forth
`
`Cisco’s location in San Jose, California, as well as instructions to the “Customer” to purportedly
`
`obtain the license authorization from Cisco by registering the stolen and/or pirated software
`
`license with Cisco. Of course, Defendants’ customers did not receive any valid license rights
`
`through their purchases of pirated and/or stolen software licenses from Defendants.
`
`31.
`
`On August 7, 2018, Cisco sent Shoc Networks a cease and desist letter referencing
`
`Shoc Networks’ fulfilled orders of infringing Cisco software licenses to the California-based
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Case No. 3:19-cv-7516
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-07516 Document 1 Filed 11/14/19 Page 12 of 20
`
`
`
`reseller and the other resellers. The letter also incorporated a demand to preserve all evidence
`
`related to the purchase and/or sale of the referenced licenses. Shoc Networks responded but would
`
`not agree to cease and desist from further sales of infringing “Cisco” branded software licenses.
`
`32.
`
`Defendants’ unlawful and infringing conduct is even more appalling given the prior
`
`misleading representations about DT Networks closing down, while it simply rebranded and
`
`continued infringing Cisco’s IP. The prior cease and desist efforts with DT Networks therefore
`
`further confirm that Defendants’ conduct alleged herein was willful, intentional, and committed
`
`with malice and bad faith.
`
`CISCO’S CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`Federal Trademark Infringement and Counterfeiting
`15 U.S.C. § 1114
`(Against All Defendants)
`
`33.
`
`Cisco incorporates the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`34.
`
`The Cisco Marks are valid, protectable trademarks that have been registered as
`
`marks on the principal register in the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
`
`35.
`
`36.
`
`Cisco is the owner and registrant of the Cisco Marks.
`
`As described in more detail above, each Defendant has used the Cisco Marks in
`
`connection with the marketing, promotion, and sale of goods without Cisco’s consent, in a manner
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111-3711
`ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, 22ND FLOOR
`
`SIDEMAN & BANCROFT LLP
`
`LAW OFFICES
`
`
`
`20
`
`that is likely to cause, and has actually caused, confusion and/or mistake, or that has deceived
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`members of the consuming public and/or the trade. Further, each Defendant has, at a minimum,
`
`created or distributed stolen/pirated “Cisco” branded software licenses (which are “Cisco”
`
`products) without Cisco’s authorization, and such goods are not considered “genuine” within the
`
`definition of the Lanham Act. Defendants’ further counterfeited Cisco’s marks in the materials
`
`accompanying the sale of these software licenses.
`
`37.
`
`Defendants counterfeiting and infringing activities are likely to cause and are
`
`actually causing confusion, mistake, and deception among members of the trade and the general
`
`consuming public as to the origin, sponsorship, and quality of Defendants’ infringing and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Case No. 3:19-cv-7516
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-07516 Document 1 Filed 11/14/19 Page 13 of 20
`
`
`
`counterfeit products. As of the filing of this Complaint, Cisco is informed and believes, and
`
`thereon alleges, that Defendants are continuing to infringe the Cisco Marks unabated as alleged
`
`further above. As such, each Defendant has engaged in both trademark infringement and
`
`counterfeiting under 15 U.S.C. § 1114.
`
`38.
`
`Defendants’ infringement of the Cisco Marks is willful and their conduct, as
`
`alleged herein, constitutes an exceptional case under 15 U.S.C. § 1117.
`
`39.
`
`Cisco has been, and continues to be, damaged by Defendants’ infringement,
`
`including by suffering irreparable harm through the diminution of trust and goodwill among Cisco
`
`consumers and members of the general consuming public and the trade. Cisco has no adequate
`
`remedy at law. As a result of Defendants’ infringement of the Cisco Marks, Cisco is entitled to an
`
`injunction, and an order of destruction of all of Defendants’ infringing materials.
`
`40.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of their infringements, Defendants have realized
`
`unjust profits, gains, and advantages at the expense of Cisco, including as set forth above. In
`
`addition, Cisco has suffered substantial loss and damages to its property and business, including
`
`significant monetary damages as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ infringements,
`
`including as set forth above. The harm caused by Defendants’ unlawful conduct entitles Cisco to
`
`recovery of all available remedies under the law, including but not limited to actual damages,
`
`infringers’ profits, treble damages, statutory damages (if elected), reasonable attorney fees, costs,
`
`and prejudgment interest.
`
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`Federal Unfair Competition
`15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
`(Against All Defendants)
`
`41.
`
`Cisco incorporates each of the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`42.
`
`Each Defendant did, without authorization, use in commerce the Cisco Marks, and
`
`also make false designations of origin, false or misleading descriptions of fact, and/or false or
`
`misleading representations of fact, which were and are likely to cause confusion, or to cause
`
`mistake, or to deceive customers as to the affiliation, connection, or association of Defendants
`
`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
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111-3711
`ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, 22ND FLOOR
`
`SIDEMAN & BANCROFT LLP
`
`LAW OFFICES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Case No. 3:19-cv-7516
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-07516 Document 1 Filed 11/14/19 Page 14 of 20
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`with Cisco, and/or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of the Defendants’ goods, services, or
`
`commercial activities.
`
`43.
`
`Defendants’ acts have been committed with knowledge of Cisco’s exclusive rights
`
`and goodwill in Cisco Marks, as well as with willfulness, bad faith, and the intent to cause
`
`confusion, mistake and/or to deceive. Defendants’ conduct, as alleged herein, constitutes an
`
`exceptional case under 15 U.S.C. § 1117.
`
`44.
`
`Defendants’ unauthorized use of counterfeit copies of Cisco’s Marks falsely
`
`represents Defendants’ counterfeit “Cisco” products as emanating from, or being authorized by,
`
`Cisco and places beyond Cisco’s control the quality of products bearing Cisco Marks.
`
`45.
`
`Cisco has been, and continues to be, damaged by Defendants’ infringement,
`
`including by suffering irreparable harm through the diminution of trust and goodwill among Cisco
`
`consumers and members of the general consuming public and the trade. Cisco has no adequate
`
`remedy at law. As a result of Defendants’ infringement of the Cisco Marks, Cisco is entitled to an
`
`injunction, and an order of destruction of all of Defendants’ infringing materials.
`
`46.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of their infringements, Defendants have realized
`
`unjust profits, gains and advantages at the expense of Cisco, including as set forth above. In
`
`addition, Cisco has suffered substantial loss and damages to its property and business, including
`
`significant monetary damages as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ infringements,
`
`including as set forth above. The harm caused by Defendants’ unlawful conduct entitles Cisco to
`
`
`
`20
`
`recovery of all available remedies under the law, including but not limited to actual damages,
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111-3711
`ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, 22ND FLOOR
`
`SIDEMAN & BANCROFT LLP
`
`LAW OFFICES
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`infringers’ profits, treble damages, statutory damages (if elected), reasonable attorney fees, costs,
`
`and prejudgment interest.
`
`THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`Federal Direct and Indirect Copyright Infringement
`17 U.S.C. §§ 501, et seq.
`(Against All Defendants)
`
`47.
`
`Cisco incorporates each of the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`48.
`
`Cisco’s copyrighted software contains a substantial amount of original material
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Case No. 3:19-cv-7516
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-07516 Document 1 Filed 11/14/19 Page 15 of 20
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`(including without limitation code, specifications, documentation and other materials) that is
`
`copyrightable subject matter under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, et seq. Cisco owns valid
`
`c

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket