`
`
`
`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