Case 5:20-cv-05447-NC Document 1 Filed 08/06/20 Page 1 of 24
`
`
`
`RICHARD J. NELSON (State Bar No. 141658)
`rnelson@sideman.com
`E-Mail:
`MICHAEL H. HEWITT (State Bar No. 309691)
`mhewitt@sideman.com
`E-Mail:
`ARTUR A. MINASYAN (State Bar No. 322248)
`aminasyan@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
`HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY,
`HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT LP and
`HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE
`COMPANY, a Delaware corporation;
`HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE
`DEVELOPMENT LP, a Delaware
`corporation; and HEWLETT-PACKARD
`DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P., a Texas
`limited partnership,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`ADVANCED DIGITAL SOLUTIONS
`INTERNATIONAL, INC., a California
`corporation, SHAHID SHEIKH, an individual,
`and FARHAAD SHEIKH, an individual,
`
`
`v.
`
`Defendants.
`
` Case No. 3:20-cv-5447
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`1. TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT, 15
`U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a);
`2. TRADEMARK COUNTERFEITING, 15
`U.S.C. § 1114(1)(b);
`3. FEDERAL UNFAIR
`COMPETITION/FALSE ADVERTISING,
`15 U.S.C. § 1125(a);
`4. FEDERAL TRADEMARK DILUTION,
`15 U.S.C. § 1125(c);
`5. MISLEADING AND DECEPTIVE
`ADVERTISING, CAL. BUS. & PROF.
`CODE § 17500;
`6. UNJUST ENRICHMENT
`7. UNFAIR COMPETITION, CAL. BUS. &
`PROF. CODE § 17200
`8. BREACH OF CONTRACT
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9272-30\4483009
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Case No. 3:20-cv-5447
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-05447-NC Document 1 Filed 08/06/20 Page 2 of 24
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (“HPE”), Hewlett Packard Enterprise
`
`Development LP (“HPED”), and Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. (“HPDC,” and
`
`together with HPE and HPED, “Plaintiffs”) allege against Advanced Digital Solutions
`
`International, Inc. (“ADSI”), Shahid Sheikh, and Farhaad Sheikh, as follows:
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`
`As set forth in detail below, Defendants have engaged in a scheme to market and
`
`distribute counterfeit HPE products, bearing Plaintiff HPDC’s and HPED’s marks (“Infringing
`
`Products”), through transactions on Defendants’ respective online storefronts, and through other
`
`distribution channels, thereby directly harming Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ brands, and Plaintiffs’
`
`established reputation for producing the highest quality networking communications and
`
`information technology products and services.
`2.
`
`Plaintiffs’ customers have come to rely on Plaintiffs’ sophisticated networking
`
`products to run critical and highly secured networks supporting sensitive infrastructure throughout
`
`the world, including throughout the United States. Counterfeit products can cause privacy and
`
`security vulnerabilities, data loss, network downtime and substantial business interruption.
`
`Plaintiffs seek to hold Defendants accountable for the mass infringement and counterfeiting, and
`
`related unfair competition arising from Defendants’ sales of the Infringing Products, and to protect
`
`Plaintiffs’ supply chain and distribution infrastructure, and brand.
`II.
`
`THE PARTIES
`3.
`
`Prior to April 2019, HPE, a Delaware corporation, maintained its principal place of
`
`business at 3000 Hanover Street, Palo Alto, CA 94304. In April 2019, HPE relocated its principal
`
`place of business to 6280 America Center Drive, San Jose, CA 95002. At all times mentioned
`
`herein, HPE had its principal place of business in the Northern District of California.
`4.
`
`HPED is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a Texas limited partnership with
`
`its principal place of business at 11445 Compaq Center Drive West, Houston, Texas 77070.
`
`HPED has an exclusive license to use, sub-license, and enforce trademarks that are the subject of
`
`this action.
`
`9272-30\4483009
`
`
`
`1
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Case No. 3:20-cv-5447
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-05447-NC Document 1 Filed 08/06/20 Page 3 of 24
`
`
`
`5.
`
`HPDC is a Texas limited partnership with its current principal place of business at
`
`10300 Energy Drive, Spring, Texas 77389. Prior to January 2019, HPDC had its principal place of
`
`business at 11445 Compaq Center Drive West, Houston, Texas 77070. HPDC has an exclusive
`
`license to use, sub-license, and enforce trademarks that are the subject of this action.
`6.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Advanced Digital Solutions International,
`
`Inc., is a California corporation with its principal place of business at 4255 Business Center Drive,
`
`Fremont, California.
`7.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Shahid Sheikh is an individual residing at
`
`1365 Lawrence Road, Danville, California 94506. On information and belief, Shahid Sheikh
`
`owns ADSI with his wife, and was the CEO until January 2019. Following January 1, 2019,
`
`Shahid Sheikh remained active with ADSI with the title of President.
`8.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Farhaad Sheikh (also known as “Freddy”) is
`
`an individual residing at 1365 Lawrence Road, Danville, California 94506. On information and
`
`belief, Farhaad Sheikh is the Chief Executive Officer of Defendant ADSI since at least January
`
`2019. Farhaad is Shahid’s son.
`9.
`
`Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that Defendants undertook
`
`obligations or rights arising out of the subject events and happenings herein referred to, engaged in
`
`actions of omissions, either intentional or negligent, regarding the subject events and happenings
`
`herein referred to, and/or benefitted unjustly from the efforts, works, and goods of HPE.
`10.
`
`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
`
`Complaint to reflect the true names and capacities of these DOE Defendants when the same shall
`
`have been fully and finally ascertained.
`11.
`
`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
`
`9272-30\4483009
`
`
`
`2
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Case No. 3:20-cv-5447
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-05447-NC Document 1 Filed 08/06/20 Page 4 of 24
`
`
`
`agency, employment, partnership, venture, or suretyship with the knowledge and consent or
`
`JURISDICTION
`12.
`
`ratification of each of the other Defendants in doing the things alleged in this Complaint.
`III.
`
`This is an Action for violations of the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051
`
`et seq. (the “Lanham Act”), and related causes of action. This Court has original subject matter
`
`jurisdiction over this Action pursuant to the provision of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1121, as
`
`well as under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) and (b).
`13.
`
`This Court has supplemental subject matter jurisdiction over the pendent state law
`
`claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, because these claims are so related to Plaintiffs’ claims under
`
`federal law that they form part of the same case or controversy and derive from a common nucleus
`
`of operative facts.
`14.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants, who each reside in this
`
`district, have engaged in business activities in this district, misled consumers in this district, and
`
`knowingly and purposefully directed business activities at this district.
`15.
`
`Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that ADSI is doing business
`
`in the State of California, and/or participated in or undertook obligations or rights arising out of
`
`the subject events and happenings herein referred to, engaged in actions or omissions, either
`
`intentional or negligent, regarding the subject events and happenings referred to, and/or benefited
`
`unjustly from the efforts, work, and goods of HPE.
`
`IV. VENUE AND INTRA-DISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
`16.
`
`Venue is proper in this district, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, because a substantial
`
`part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated in this district. Venue is also proper
`
`because Defendants are each subject to personal jurisdiction in this district.
`
`A.
`17.
`
`V.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS RELEVANT TO PLAINTIFFS, THEIR
`INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, AND DEFENDANTS’ UNLAWFUL SCHEME
`
`Plaintiffs’ Business and History
`
`Hewlett-Packard Company (“Hewlett-Packard”) was founded in 1939 by engineers
`
`David Packard and Bill Hewlett, who began business by designing and building electronic test
`
`9272-30\4483009
`
`
`
`3
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Case No. 3:20-cv-5447
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-05447-NC Document 1 Filed 08/06/20 Page 5 of 24
`
`
`
`equipment from a garage in Palo Alto, California. Hewlett-Packard became an innovator in its
`
`field, developing technologies and inventing new products, growing to become one of the world’s
`
`largest information technology companies. Hewlett-Packard specialized in developing and
`
`manufacturing personal computers and printers, as well as enterprise hardware products and
`
`services, including support services and enterprise software. In late 2015, Hewlett-Packard split
`
`into HP Inc. (specializing in the manufacture of personal computers, printers and printer
`
`cartridges) and HPE (specializing in the manufacture of enterprise IT hardware, as well as the
`
`creation and distribution of enterprise software and support services).
`18. Much like Hewlett-Packard, HPE is a multinational enterprise company that
`
`delivers industry leading, high-quality information and technology products, consulting, and
`
`support services to its large and diverse customer base, including governments, large enterprises,
`
`and small to medium-sized businesses.
`
` Among other areas, HPE’s business includes
`
`telecommunications networking hardware products and solutions, small to enterprise level data
`
`storage products and solutions, data center configuration and installation products and services, as
`
`well as various enterprise and information and technology management software solutions.
`19.
`
`Hewlett-Packard (and now HP Inc.) invested substantial effort and resources to
`
`develop and promote public recognition of the “HP”-related marks. These trademarks are owned
`
`by HP Hewlett Packard Group LLC (“TM JV”), which has conveyed an exclusive license to use
`
`and enforce the HP and HP Logo trademarks to HPDC. In turn, HPDC granted a temporary
`
`transitional use license to Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP (“HPED”), an HPE
`
`subsidiary which holds title to intellectual property for HPE, so that HPE could use the HP and HP
`
`Logo trademarks during a phase-out period, until full implementation of the new HPE trademarks.
`
`During this phase-out period, the HP Marks on HPE products signify to the public that the
`
`products are high quality, genuine, HPE products. The use of the HP Marks by counterfeiters is
`
`intended to trade on the famous status and wide-spread recognition of the HP Marks on HPE
`
`products, and will likely continue after the phase-out period, to signal falsely that the products are
`
`high-quality, genuine, HPE products, when in reality, they are not. HPE and HP Inc. have used the
`
`9272-30\4483009
`
`
`
`4
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Case No. 3:20-cv-5447
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-05447-NC Document 1 Filed 08/06/20 Page 6 of 24
`
`
`
`HP Marks to identify goods and services as being genuine products, and the HP Marks are well-
`
`recognized signifiers of high quality products and services.
`20.
`
`Hewlett-Packard, HPDC and TM JV have caused several trademarks 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 TM JV
`
`owns all rights, title, and interest in numerous federal trademark registrations (collectively, the
`
`“HP Marks”). The HP Marks include, but are not limited to, the following:
`
`Mark
`HP
`
`Registration Number
`1,840,215
`
`Registration Date
`June 21, 1994
`
`21.
`
`The TM JV also owns several “HPE”-related marks such as the HEWLETT
`
`PACKARD, HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE, and HPE word marks, and the related design
`
`marks, and has granted HPED an exclusive license to use and enforce those certain marks. HPED
`
`also owns several of the marks separate and apart from the TM JV, and, together, with the marks
`
`owned by the TM JV (collectively, “HPE Marks”), continue to build on the legacy of the world-
`
`famous HEWLETT-PACKARD mark, which was used since at least as early as 1941 in close
`
`connection with the internationally well-known HP Marks by predecessor Hewlett-Packard, to
`
`distinguish and signal the “HP” authorized products and services through a wide variety of media
`
`including television, radio, newspapers, magazines, billboards, and web sites. Through their close
`
`connection, the public has come to associate the HPE Marks as having a common legacy with the
`
`HP Marks. HPED and the TM JV have caused several of these HPE Marks to be registered on the
`
`Principal Register of the USPTO in connection with a range of telecommunications, computer
`
`hardware and software products and services. These registered HPE Marks include, but are not
`
`limited to the following:
`
`Mark
`HEWLETT PACKARD
`ENTERPRISE
`HEWLETT PACKARD
`
`Registration Number
`5,209,743
`
`Registration Date
`May 23, 2017
`
`5,209,742
`
`May 23, 2017
`
`
`
`9272-30\4483009
`
`
`
`5
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Case No. 3:20-cv-5447
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-05447-NC Document 1 Filed 08/06/20 Page 7 of 24
`
`
`
`22.
`
`The HP and HPE Marks (collectively, the “TM JV Marks”) are distinctive source
`
`identifiers and have been used in interstate commerce to identify and distinguish Plaintiffs’ high
`
`quality products and services dating back to 1941.
`23.
`
`For over 75 years, the TM JV Marks have served to distinguish and signal
`
`Plaintiffs’ authorized products and services through a wide variety of media including television,
`
`radio, newspapers, magazines, billboards, and web sites.
`24.
`
`Also as a result of Hewlett-Packard and now HP Inc.’s and HPE’s extensive
`
`advertising and promotional efforts and the continuous use of the HP Marks by HP Inc. and/or
`
`HPE for over 75 years, the marks have attained one of the highest levels of brand recognition.
`25.
`
`The HP and HPE Marks are unquestionably famous both commercially and as
`
`defined by 15 U.S.C. Section 1125(c)(1), and became famous long before the infringing and
`
`counterfeit activity alleged herein.
`26.
`
`As a result of the longstanding and widespread use and promotion of the HP Marks,
`
`HP Inc.’s and HPE’s customers worldwide have come to rely upon the HP Marks to identify high-
`
`quality goods and services.
`27. Many of HPE’s products are purchased by the U.S. Government, the military, and
`
`by other industries, in critical and life-essential applications. Counterfeit HPE products jeopardize
`
`the systems into which they are placed because they do not conform to HPE’s design,
`
`specifications, production standards, or quality control, and thus lack reliability. Counterfeit
`
`products that bear markings similar to, or substantially indistinguishable from, the TM JV Marks
`
`provide customers with a false assurance that the products they have purchased are reliable and
`
`conform to HPE’s high standards and that they are eligible for certain warranties. When
`
`counterfeit products fail, the purchasers can suffer critical losses to their business, infrastructure,
`
`and security.
`B.
`28.
`
`Counterfeit And Otherwise Materially Different “HP” and “HPE” Products
`
`Counterfeit products that bear markings similar to the TM JV Marks provide
`
`customers with a false assurance that the products they have purchased (1) are reliable and
`
`conform with HPE’s high standards, (2) come with applicable warranties, and (3) come with all of
`9272-30\4483009
`
`Case No. 3:20-cv-5447
`
`
`
`6
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-05447-NC Document 1 Filed 08/06/20 Page 8 of 24
`
`
`
`the necessary accessories sold with the product that have been selected and approved by HPE for
`
`use with the product.
`29.
`
`In addition to harm to customers, the sale of counterfeit HPE products also harms
`
`Plaintiffs in many ways. Among these, counterfeit HPE products which fail or degrade create the
`
`false impression that HPE products are unreliable, thereby improperly tarnishing HPE’s reputation
`
`and causing HPE to suffer lost sales and future business opportunities. When customers purchase
`
`HP- or HPE-branded parts that are counterfeit and unreliable, their image of HPE is diminished
`
`and HPE’s opportunity to sell genuine, high-quality products to those customers may be lost
`
`forever. As a result, Plaintiffs suffer substantial and irreparable harm to their brand, image,
`
`business, and goodwill with the public. HPE also suffers lost sales when customers purchase
`
`counterfeit products instead of genuine HPE products.
`C.
`30.
`
`HPE’s Sales and Distribution Channels
`
`HPE’s product serial numbers allow HPE to maintain quality control and product
`
`traceability for warranty, service and other business purposes. Specifically, an HPE product serial
`
`number is typically married to or associated with a myriad of product-related components or
`
`attributes, i.e., product SKU, sales order number, package ID number, manufacturer model
`
`number, and most relevant in this Action, warranty entitlement.
`31.
`
`HPE sells the majority of its products through Distributors and “authorized
`
`Partners,” rather than directly to end user consumers. The majority of HPE’s sales flow from HPE
`
`through its “Tier 1 Distributors” to its “Tier 2 Partners,” and then to its end users. HPE also sells a
`
`smaller percentage of its products directly to its largest customers and to certain Tier 2 Partners.
`32.
`
`HPE has four Tier 1 Distributors in the United States: Synnex, Ingram Micro, Tech
`
`Data, and Arrow Electronics. There are also about 35,000 Tier 2 Partners in the country. To
`
`become a Tier 2 Partner, an entity must meet an established set of business criteria, and provide
`
`HPE with detailed information about its business, including documentation confirming the
`
`business’ state registration or incorporation, business partnership or operating agreements, the
`
`names of the officers who are authorized to sign documents for the business, and the business’ tax
`
`identification number.
`9272-30\4483009
`
`
`
`7
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Case No. 3:20-cv-5447
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-05447-NC Document 1 Filed 08/06/20 Page 9 of 24
`
`
`
`D.
`33.
`
`ADSI Becomes An HPE Partner
`
`In 2009, ADSI became an HP Partner. When HP and HPE split in 2015, ADSI
`
`continued as an HPE Partner and agreed to the terms of the Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company
`
`U.S. Partner Agreement. It renewed its partnership status through 2018.
`34.
`
`Among the terms that ADSI agreed to abide by were the following:
`
` ADSI was not authorized to modify HPE products. (Paragraph 7.b.)
`Specifically, the agreement states:
`
`“You are not authorized to modify HPE Products. We are not
`liable
`for any
`issue arising
`from
`such unauthorized
`modifications, or for any commitment(s) you make with respect to
`special interfacing, compatibility or suitability of Product(s) and
`Support for specific applications.”
`
` ADSI agreed to display HPE’s marks only to promote the sale of HPE
`Products (Paragraph 8.b.) and to only display the HPE Marks in good taste,
`and in a manner that preserves the value of the Marks (Paragraph 8.c).
`Specifically, the agreement states that:
`
`“[HPE] may allow you to use HPE Marks only to promote the
`sale of HPE Products and Support under this Agreement,” and
`“[t]he parties agree to display each other’s Marks in good taste,
`in a manner that preserves their value as each other’s Marks,
`and in accordance with any standards provided by the other
`party for display.”
`
` ADSI agreed to abide by HPE’s Partner Code of Conduct, and to conduct
`business with “strict legal compliance and with the highest ethical
`standards.” (Paragraph 16.c.) Specifically, the Code of Conduct provides
`that:
`
`“HPE expects all partners to conduct business in strict legal
`compliance and with the highest ethical standards. By signing
`this Agreement, you agree to comply with HPE’s Partner Code of
`Conduct, as updated from time to time, and located on the HPE
`Partner Portal. Additionally, you acknowledge that there are
`specific legal and ethical requirements for doing business with
`public sector entities and you are solely responsible for your
`compliance with these requirements. Specifically, you agree
`(without limitation):
`
`(1) not to seek or accept any compensation in connection with
`this Agreement which may violate any applicable
`laws,
`regulations, contracts, or conflict of interest policies; (2) not to
`
`9272-30\4483009
`
`
`
`8
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Case No. 3:20-cv-5447
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-05447-NC Document 1 Filed 08/06/20 Page 10 of 24
`
`
`
`use bribes, kickbacks, illegal gratuities, or other corrupt
`practices in connection with this Agreement; and (3) not to
`provide HPE with any proprietary, source selection sensitive, or
`other information that is restricted from disclosure by a third
`party. A breach of HPE's Partner Code of Conduct may be
`deemed a material breach of this Agreement. Without limiting
`HPE's rights under section 15, if you breach HPE's Partner Code
`of Conduct, HPE may exclude you from HPE's channel
`programs, including special pricing and/or promotion programs
`and, if you are eligible to purchase Products directly from HPE,
`HPE may alter the level of discount available for such
`purchases.”
`
`35.
`
`Attached to ADSI’s Partner Agreement is also an HPE U.S. Partner Roles and
`
`Responsibilities Addendum, which required ADSI to purchase all HPE Products “only from
`
`Distributors listed on the U.S. Distributor Summary Matrix on the HPE Partner Portal,” and
`
`required ADSI to not purchase HPE products from other Partners or from any unauthorized
`
`source. Specifically, the HPE U.S. Partner Roles and Responsibilities Addendum states:
`“1. Purchasing
`
`
`a. Sourcing
`
`All Products must be purchased for resale purposes only from
`Distributors listed on the U.S. Distributor Summary Matrix on
`the HPE Partner Portal. You may not purchase Products for
`resale purposes from other Partners and/or any unauthorized
`sources. You may not purchase Products for your internal use.
`
`Direct purchasing relationships with HPE may be established by
`signing additional Addenda or as specified in additional program
`terms and conditions.
`
`You may resell Products over the Internet, via an HPE approved
`URL in the name of your company provided that you implement
`policies supporting Customer satisfaction as a primary concern;
`provide presales Customer support; and do not resell Products
`via an auction.
`
`You may resell Products only via a URL that matches your legal
`name or d/b/a name. New or additional domain names require
`HPE approval prior to the posting of Products.”
`
`
`
`9272-30\4483009
`
`
`
`9
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Case No. 3:20-cv-5447
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-05447-NC Document 1 Filed 08/06/20 Page 11 of 24
`
`
`
`36.
`
`As described in more detail below, ADSI violated the terms of its Partner
`
`Agreement by purchasing products from other HPE Partners and unauthorized sources at cheaper
`
`prices than what it could obtain through HPE, and simultaneously representing itself as an HPE
`
`Partner, giving the false impression to consumers that it was obtaining HPE products through
`
`HPE’s authorized distribution channel.
`E.
`37.
`
`Evidential Purchase from ADSI in 2018
`
`HPE conducted a test purchase through a licensed investigator of several HPE
`
`products from ADSI’s online storefront for delivery at the investigator’s office located in this
`
`district. On June 28, 2018, HPE’s investigator purchased two J4858C transceivers, and one HPE
`
`iLO Advanced 1-server three-year support license (BD505A-63101). The products were
`
`advertised as “New” “HP” products, and listed the manufacturer name as “Hewlett-Packard.”
`38.
`
`On July 6, 2018, HPE’s investigator received two separate packages containing the
`
`products ordered on ADSI’s storefront. The first package contained the two ProCurve
`
`Networking transceivers, bearing the following Serial Numbers: CN949DN227 & CN847DN073,
`
`respectively.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The second package contained a physical license box, bearing the following Serial
`
`On August 8, 2018, an engineer working for HPE analyzed the two transceivers
`
`39.
`Number: PRGKVDTBAL.
`40.
`and determined that they were counterfeit. The engineer determined that the license was genuine.
`41.
`F.
`42.
`and selling counterfeit products.
`9272-30\4483009
`
`In April 2019, HPE terminated ADSI as a channel sales partner.
`
`ADSI’s History of Selling Counterfeit Products in the U.S.
`
`According to public court records, ADSI is alleged to have a history of importing
`
`
`
`10
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Case No. 3:20-cv-5447
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-05447-NC Document 1 Filed 08/06/20 Page 12 of 24
`
`
`
`43.
`
`For example, in a case filed in this Court by Cisco Systems, Inc. (Cisco Systems,
`
`Inc. et al. v. Zahid “Donny” Hassan Sheikh, et al., USDC N.D. Cal., Case No. 4:18-cv-07602-
`
`YGR), Cisco alleged that U.S Customs and Border Patrol (“CBP”) seized at least 31 separate
`
`shipments of counterfeit Cisco products going to ADSI or an affiliated entity between May 2013
`
`and November 2018. The seized shipments included hundreds of counterfeit transceivers (the
`
`same type of product that ADSI sold to the HPE investigator), along with counterfeit labels. The
`
`complaint also alleges that ADSI arranged for UPS boxes in far-away locations—Reno, Nevada
`
`and Portland, Oregon—with the knowledge and under the direction of Shahid Sheikh and Farhaad
`
`Sheikh, to receive counterfeit products from China, and that employees of ADSI put counterfeit
`
`labels on transceivers in the ADSI business office in Fremont, so that ADSI could sell those
`
`counterfeit products to federal customers on the GSA platform and to other customers.
`G. Misleading and False Advertising
`44.
`ADSI operates a website at www.adsii.com/shop/home. On ADSI’s main
`
`webpage, ADSI advertises that it is “featured Partners” with Hewlett Packard Enterprise, among
`
`other companies, including Samsung, Bluebeam, and Wasp. Contrary to this, ADSI is no longer a
`
`member of HPE’s channel of sales organizations, and is not an HPE “partner” or Authorized
`
`Reseller. Nonetheless, ADSI continues to represent that HPE is a “featured partner” on the main
`
`splashpage of its storefront.
`
`9272-30\4483009
`
`
`
`11
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Case No. 3:20-cv-5447
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-05447-NC Document 1 Filed 08/06/20 Page 13 of 24
`
`
`
`45.
`
`In
`
`addition, ADSI maintains
`
`an Amazon
`
`storefront
`
`available
`
`at
`
`www.amazon.com/sp?seller=A3GQGK8PJ4P79P. On its main seller page, ADSI continues to
`
`represent that it is a “Channel Partner[]” with “hardware manufacturers such as IBM, Hewlett-
`
`Packard, Toshiba, Lenovo, ViewSonic, Cisco, … and others.” The claims on ADSI’s webpage
`
`and on the ADSI page on the Amazon website are false. ADSI ceased being an HPE channel sales
`
`partner in April 2019. By holding themselves out as an authorized partner, Plaintiffs assert on
`
`information and belief that ADSI is attempting to deceive customers such as the US federal
`
`government and other sensitive customers of HPE products that it is safe to purchase HPE
`
`products from ADSI and that the HPE products sold by ADSI are sourced from HPE or HPE’s
`
`authorized distributors.
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`Federal Trademark Infringement
`
`(15 U.S.C. § 1114)
`
`Against All Defendants
`
`46.
`
`Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each of the allegations in the preceding
`
`paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
`47.
`
`The TM JV Marks are valid, protectable trademarks that have been registered as
`
`marks on the principal register in the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Plaintiffs are the
`
`owners and registrants of the TM JV Marks.
`9272-30\4483009
`
`
`
`12
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Case No. 3:20-cv-5447
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-05447-NC Document 1 Filed 08/06/20 Page 14 of 24
`
`
`
`48.
`
`As described in more detail above, Defendants have used and counterfeited the TM
`
`JV Marks in connection with the marketing, promotion, and sale of their goods and services
`
`without Plaintiffs’ consent, in a manner that is likely to cause, and has actually caused, confusion
`
`and/or mistake, or that has deceived members of the consuming public and/or the trade. Indeed,
`
`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 products, counterfeit
`
`packaging, inferior warranty, and other related commercial activities. As of the filing of this
`
`Complaint, Defendants are continuing to infringe the TM JV Marks unabated as alleged further
`
`above.
`
`49.
`
`The TM JV Marks and the goodwill of the business associated with them are
`
`tremendously valuable in the United States and worldwide because they are distinctive and
`
`universally associated
`
`in
`
`the public perception with
`
`the highest quality