Case 3:20-cv-08153-JSC Document 1 Filed 11/19/20 Page 1 of 17
`
`
`
`HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
`Ann Marie Mortimer (State Bar No. 169077)
`amortimer@HuntonAK.com
`Jason J. Kim (State Bar No. 221476)
`kimj@HuntonAK.com
`Jeff R. R. Nelson (State Bar No. 301546)
`jnelson@HuntonAK.com
`550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2627
`Telephone: (213) 532-2000
`Facsimile: (213) 532-2020
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`FACEBOOK, INC. and INSTAGRAM, LLC
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware
`corporation, and INSTAGRAM, LLC, a
`Delaware limited liability company,
`
`
`
` CASE NO.: 3:20-cv-08153
`
`COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY
`TRIAL
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`ENSAR SAHINTURK,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2627
`550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
`Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`3:20-cv-08153
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08153-JSC Document 1 Filed 11/19/20 Page 2 of 17
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) and Instagram, LLC (“Instagram”) allege
`
`the following:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Since at least August 2017, Defendant Ensar Sahinturk created and
`
`maintained a network of “clone” Instagram websites and web viewers (the “clone
`
`sites”), which displayed Instagram users’ public profiles without their knowledge or
`
`consent. Defendant “scraped” or improperly collected the Instagram users’ publicly
`
`viewable profiles, including photos, videos, and profile information, using unauthorized
`
`automation software. Defendant’s automation software evaded Instagram’s technical
`
`restrictions by falsely identifying itself as a legitimate Instagram user’s Android device
`
`connected to the official Instagram mobile application (“Official IG App”). Through
`
`this fraudulent connection, Defendant scraped publicly available data from over
`
`100,000 Instagram users and republished it to the clone sites.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant’s conduct was not authorized by Facebook or Instagram. Since
`
`May 2019, Facebook and Instagram have taken technical and legal enforcement actions
`
`against Defendant, including disabling accounts and sending cease and desist letters.
`
`Facebook and Instagram bring this action to stop Defendant’s continued and future
`
`misuse of their platform in violation of Instagram’s Terms of Use (“TOU”). Facebook
`
`and Instagram also bring this action to obtain compensatory and punitive damages
`
`pursuant to the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (c) and (d).
`
`PARTIES
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff Facebook, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
`
`of business in Menlo Park, California.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff Instagram is a Delaware limited liability company with its
`
`principal place of business in Menlo Park, California. Instagram is a subsidiary of
`
`Facebook.
`
`5.
`
`Defendant Ensar Sahinturk is a resident of Istanbul, Turkey. According to
`
`LinkedIn, Defendant is a software developer and operates various Turkish companies,
`
`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
`
`
`
`1
`COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`3:20-cv-08153
`
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2627
`550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
`Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08153-JSC Document 1 Filed 11/19/20 Page 3 of 17
`
`
`
`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
`
`which purport to provide services related to “corporate intelligence” and “software
`
`solutions.” Ex. 1. Since at least March 2020, Defendant controlled at least twenty clone
`
`websites displaying data from Instagram, including jolygram.com, pikdo.net, and
`
`finalgram.com.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`6.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the federal causes of action
`
`alleged in this Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
`
`7.
`
`This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law causes of action
`
`alleged in this Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because these claims arise out
`
`of the same nucleus of operative facts as Facebook and Instagram’s federal claims.
`
`8.
`
`In addition, the Court has jurisdiction over all the causes of action alleged
`
`in this Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because complete diversity exists
`
`between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and because the amount in controversy exceeds
`
`$75,000.
`
`9.
`
`The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant has
`
`created multiple Instagram accounts and thereby agreed to Instagram’s TOU.
`
`Instagram’s TOU require Defendant to submit to the personal jurisdiction of this Court
`
`for litigating any claim, cause of action, or dispute with Instagram.
`
`10.
`
`In addition, the Court has personal jurisdiction because Defendant
`
`knowingly directed and targeted his actions at Facebook, which has its principal place
`
`of business in California. Defendant’s business depends on accessing and scraping
`
`Instagram. Defendant has transacted business and engaged in commerce in California
`
`by, among other things, using a hosting provider and servers in San Francisco to host at
`
`least five of his clone sites. Facebook’s claims arise directly from these California
`
`contacts. Defendant generated revenue from his clone sites by running ads using an ad
`
`publishing service hosted by Google.
`
`11. Venue is proper in this Judicial District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b),
`
`as the threatened and actual harm to Facebook occurred in this District. Venue is also
`
`
`
`2
`COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`3:20-cv-08153
`
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2627
`550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
`Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08153-JSC Document 1 Filed 11/19/20 Page 4 of 17
`
`
`
`proper with respect to Defendant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(c)(3) because he does
`
`not reside in the United States.
`
`12. Pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-2(c), this case may be assigned to either the San
`
`Francisco or Oakland division because Facebook is located in San Mateo County.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`A. Background on Facebook and Instagram
`
`13. Facebook offers a social networking website and mobile application that
`
`enables its users to create their own personal profiles and connect with each other on
`
`their personal computers and mobile devices.
`
`14.
`
`Instagram is a photo and video sharing service, mobile application, and
`
`social network. Instagram users can post photos and videos to their profile. They can
`
`also view, comment on, and like posts shared by others on Instagram. The Instagram
`
`service is a Facebook product.
`
`15. When an Instagram user posts a photo, other Instagram users can view the
`
`photo and choose to “like” or “comment” on it. For private accounts, approved
`
`followers of the account can see the post. For public accounts, anyone can see the post.
`
`When a photo is liked, that like can be seen by anyone who can see the post.
`
`16.
`
`Instagram users can also tag their photos with hashtags—words or phrases
`
`preceded by a number or hash sign (#)—that indicate that the post is about a specific
`
`topic. Other users can then search for hashtags to find content related to various topics.
`
`17.
`
`Instagram also enables users to post Stories—photos or videos that can
`
`include audio and augmented reality affects. Stories are only visible to other users for
`
`24 hours after they are posted, unless the user specifically makes them available for
`
`longer by adding them as a Story Highlight. The user who posts a Story can see a list
`
`of every user who has viewed their Story.
`
`18.
`
`Instagram users can gain followers, views, and likes, but only from other
`
`registered Instagram users. If a visitor to Instagram does not have an Instagram account
`
`and tries to like a post, the visitor is redirected to the Instagram login page to enter their
`
`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
`
`
`
`3
`COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`3:20-cv-08153
`
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2627
`550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
`Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08153-JSC Document 1 Filed 11/19/20 Page 5 of 17
`
`
`
`Instagram credentials or to create a new Instagram account. In addition, if a visitor to
`
`Instagram has not logged in, they will be able to see only a limited number of posts
`
`before being redirected to an Instagram login page. Only users who have logged in can
`
`view Stories.
`
`19.
`
`Instagram can be viewed using the Official IG App or at its website,
`
`www.instagram.com. The Official IG App is a mobile application designed by
`
`Facebook that users can download onto their mobile phone. Communications made by
`
`authenticated Instagram users, using the Official IG App, are sent to Facebook
`
`computers, which will then return information to allow a user to experience the
`
`Instagram service on the Official IG App.
`
`B.
`
`Instagram’s Terms of Use
`
`20. Everyone who creates an Instagram account agrees to Instagram’s TOU1
`
`and other rules that govern access to and use of Instagram, including Instagram’s
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`Community Guidelines.2 Instagram’s TOU state that because Instagram is a Facebook
`
`15
`
`product, the TOU constitute an agreement between the Instagram users and Facebook.3
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`21. Since at least April 2018, Instagram’s TOU prohibit users from (a)
`
`“do[ing] anything unlawful, misleading, or fraudulent or for an illegal or unauthorized
`
`purpose;” (b) “[I]nterfering or impairing the intended operation of [Instagram];” and (c)
`
`“creating accounts or collecting information in an automated way.”
`
`22.
`
`In addition, Instagram’s TOU require users to “use [Instagram’s]
`
`intellectual property and trademarks or similar marks,” only “as expressly permitted by
`
`[Instagram’s] Brand Guidelines[ ] or with [] prior written permission.” The Brand
`
`Guidelines prohibit using the marks in a way that “[m]akes the Instagram brand the
`
`
`1 Instagram’s TOU can be found at https://help.instagram.com/581066165581870.
`2 Instagram Community Guidelines can be found at
`https://help.instagram.com/477434105621119.
`3 See https://help.instagram.com/581066165581870.
`
`
`
`
`4
`COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`3:20-cv-08153
`
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2627
`550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
`Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08153-JSC Document 1 Filed 11/19/20 Page 6 of 17
`
`
`
`most distinctive or prominent feature,” “[i]mplies partnership, sponsorship or
`
`endorsement,” or “combine[s] ‘Insta’ or ‘gram’ with [the user’s] own brand.”
`
`C. Defendant Diluted Instagram’s Registered Trademarks
`
`23.
`
`Instagram owns
`
`the exclusive
`
`rights
`
`to
`
`the highly distinctive
`
`INSTAGRAM word mark, having used the mark in connection with its goods and
`
`services as early as 2010.
`
`24.
`
`In addition to its extensive common law rights, Instagram owns numerous
`
`United States registrations for the INSTAGRAM word mark, including, but not limited
`
`to:
`
`a) United States Registration Number 4,822,600;
`
`b) United States Registration Number 4,146,057;
`
`c) United States Registration Number 4,756,754;
`
`d) United States Registration Number 4,863,595;
`
`e) United States Registration Number 4,863,594;
`
`f) United States Registration Number 5,566,030;
`
`g) United States Registration Number 4,170,675; and
`
`h) United States Registration Number 4,827,509.
`
`25. Copies of these registration certificates are attached to this complaint as
`
`Exhibit. 2. Instagram’s common law and registered trademark rights are collectively
`
`referred to as the “Instagram Trademarks.”
`
`26. Beginning in or around November 2019, Plaintiffs learned that Defendant
`
`controlled a network of domains with names similar to Instagram. Specifically,
`
`jolygram.com,
`
`imggram.com,
`
`imggram.net,
`
`finalgram.com,
`
`and
`
`ingram.ws
`
`(collectively, the “Domain Names”). Ex. 3. On August 18, 2017, Defendant registered
`
`jolygram.com in his name, which has been in use since at least August 2017. On August
`
`11, 2017, Defendant registered imggram.com in his name, which has been in use since
`
`at least August 2017. On September 20, 2018, Defendant registered imggram.net in his
`
`name, which has been in used since at least October 2018. On October 5, 2019, the
`
`
`
`5
`COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`3:20-cv-08153
`
`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
`
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2627
`550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
`Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08153-JSC Document 1 Filed 11/19/20 Page 7 of 17
`
`
`
`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
`
`domain name finalgram.com was registered through a domain registration service that
`
`provides anonymity. On information and belief, Defendant registered finalgram.com,
`
`which has been in use since at least October 2019. On July 17, 2019, the domain name
`
`ingram.ws was registered through a service that provides anonymity. On information
`
`and belief, Defendant registered ingram.ws, which has been in use since at least
`
`September 2019. The use of these domain names dilutes the Instagram Trademarks.
`
`27.
`
`Instagram’s use of the Instagram Trademarks in interstate commerce has
`
`been extensive, continuous, and substantially exclusive. Instagram has made, and
`
`continues to make, a substantial investment of time and effort in the promotion of
`
`Instagram and the Instagram Trademarks. Through Instagram’s widespread use of the
`
`Instagram Trademarks, extensive and continuous media coverage, the high degree of
`
`consumer recognition of the Instagram Trademarks, Instagram’s enormous and loyal
`
`user base, its multiple trademark registrations and pending applications, and other
`
`factors, the Instagram Trademarks are highly distinctive and enjoy widespread
`
`recognition among consumers pre-dating Defendant’s use of the dilutive “Jolygram,”
`
`“Imggram,” “Finalgram,” and “Ingram.”
`
`28. As a result of Instagram’s efforts and use, the Instagram Trademarks are
`
`famous within the meaning of Section 43 (a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c),
`
`as they are recognized within the United States and around the world as signifying high
`
`quality, authentic goods and services provided by Instagram.
`
`29. Since at least August 2017, Defendant has diluted the Instagram
`
`Trademarks by referring to his services as “Jolygram,” “Imggram,” “Finalgram,” and
`
`“Ingram” and listing copyrights for these names on his websites. Ex. 4.
`
`D. Background on Scraping
`
`30.
`
` Scraping is a form of data collection that relies on unauthorized
`
`automation for the purpose of extracting data from a website or app. “Mobile scraping”
`
`is a type of data scraping in which the scraper uses specialized software in order to
`
`pretend to be a human, instead of a bot, using an authorized Android or iPhone device
`
`
`
`6
`COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`3:20-cv-08153
`
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2627
`550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
`Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08153-JSC Document 1 Filed 11/19/20 Page 8 of 17
`
`
`
`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
`
`connecting to computers through an official app. Through this fraudulent mobile
`
`connection, mobile scrapers deliver automated requests for data.
`
`31. Automation tools and software are necessary for mobile scraping.
`
`Instagram employs a number of measures to detect and disrupt unauthorized automated
`
`requests on its systems. These include the technical restrictions designed to identify
`
`whether communications originate from the Official IG App. Instagram also uses
`
`automated monitoring of use patterns to determine whether they are consistent with a
`
`human user, CAPTCHAs, and disabling of accounts determined to be engaged in
`
`automated activity.
`
`E. Defendant’s Scraping and Creation of Instagram Clone Sites
`
`32.
`
`In order to display Instagram user profiles on his clone sites, Defendant
`
`used automation software (the “Scraping Software”) and thousands of Instagram
`
`accounts to improperly obtain data from publicly available Instagram accounts.
`
`33. Defendant evaded Instagram security measures to access the Restricted
`
`Endpoints which were authorized for access only by the Official IG App. Specifically,
`
`Defendant used the Scraping Software to: 1) falsely identify requests to Facebook’s
`
`servers as coming from a mobile phone and 2) digitally sign requests in a manner that
`
`falsely identified them to Facebook’s servers as originating from a human using the
`
`Official IG App.
`
`34. Defendant programmed the Scraping Software to use thousands of
`
`Instagram accounts to mimic legitimate users of the Official IG App so they could make
`
`automated requests for Instagram user data. After the Scraping Software made these
`
`automated requests to Facebook servers, it was programmed to republish Instagram user
`
`data on Defendant’s clone sites.
`
`35. Since at least August 2017, Defendant displayed this Instagram user data
`
`on a network of at least twenty clone sites, including jolygram.com, imggram.com,
`
`imggram.net, finalgram.com, ingram.ws, and pikdo.net, Exs. 4-5. These websites
`
`allowed their users to view and search Instagram profiles without agreeing to
`
`
`
`7
`COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`3:20-cv-08153
`
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2627
`550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
`Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08153-JSC Document 1 Filed 11/19/20 Page 9 of 17
`
`
`
`Instagram’s TOU or any user authentication on Instagram. On Defendant’s clone sites,
`
`anyone could enter an Instagram username to view an Instagram users’ public profiles,
`
`pictures, videos, Stories, hashtags, and location. The clone site users could also
`
`download pictures and videos posted on Instagram—a function not available in the
`
`Official IG App or Instagram website—using a “save” button on the sites. In addition,
`
`the clone site allows users to anonymously view Instagram Stories with no notification
`
`to the Instagram user who posted them. Defendant generated revenue by displaying ads
`
`to the users of the clone sites.
`
`36. Defendant’s Scraping Software used thousands of accounts to scrape. For
`
`example, on April 14, 2020 alone, Defendant used over 7,700 accounts to make
`
`automated requests to Facebook servers. On April 22, 2020, Defendant used over 9,000
`
`accounts to make automated requests. The purpose of these automated requests was to
`
`gather data to populate content on the clone sites.
`
`F. Defendant Agreed to Instagram’s Terms
`
`37. At all times relevant to this case, Defendant was bound by Instagram’s
`
`TOU.
`
`38. Between December 2012 and June 2019, Defendant created and used at
`
`least ten Instagram accounts. These include accounts created on December 25, 2012
`
`and June 5, 2019.
`
`39.
`
`In addition to his personal Instagram accounts, Defendant used
`
`approximately 30,000 Instagram accounts in order to scrape data from Instagram.
`
`G.
`
`Facebook’s Past Enforcement Actions against Defendant
`
`40. Since 2019, to protect Instagram users and the Instagram service,
`
`Facebook has taken multiple enforcement actions against Defendant for violating
`
`Instagram’s TOU and Policies, including sending multiple cease and desist letters to
`
`Defendant and disabling approximately 30,000 Instagram accounts associated with
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`8
`COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`3:20-cv-08153
`
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2627
`550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
`Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08153-JSC Document 1 Filed 11/19/20 Page 10 of 17
`
`
`
`1. May 29, 2019 Cease and Desist
`
`41. On May 29, 2019, Facebook sent Defendant a cease and desist letter in
`
`connection with his unauthorized clone site, jolygram.com. Ex. 6. At that time,
`
`Facebook disabled one Facebook account, two Instagram accounts, and one Facebook
`
`page belonging to Defendant.
`
`42. The May 2019 cease and desist letter informed Defendant that Facebook
`
`revoked his access to use and access Facebook and Instagram services. Id.
`
`43.
`
`In response to the May 2019 cease and desist letter, Defendant indicated
`
`that he did not operate jolygram.com, but that the domain was registered under his
`
`name. Defendant also indicated that he had “shut down the domain.”
`
`44. Approximately two months later, the website
`
`jolygram.com was
`
`operational again. On July 12, 2019, Facebook sent follow up correspondence to
`
`Defendant, reminding him that his access to the Facebook service and Instagram had
`
`been revoked and that the unauthorized clone site was in violation of Instagram’s TOU.
`
`2.
`
`September 19, 2019 Cease and Desist
`
`45. Despite having his access revoked, Defendant continued to access
`
`Instagram by creating additional user accounts.
`
`46. On September 19, 2019, Facebook sent a second cease and desist letter
`
`relating to pikdo.net. In the same letter, Facebook noted that jolygram.com was back in
`
`operation and demanded that Defendant cease operating jolygram.com. Facebook again
`
`demanded that Defendant stop abusing Instagram and stop violating Instagram’s TOU.
`
`Facebook disabled Defendant’s five remaining Facebook accounts. Defendant did not
`
`respond.
`
`47. Between Facebook April 9 and May 17, 2020, Facebook identified and
`
`disabled over 30,000 Instagram accounts associated with finalgram.com, jolygram.com,
`
`and pikdo.net.
`
`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
`
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2627
`550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
`Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`3:20-cv-08153
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 3:20-cv-08153-JSC Document 1 Filed 11/19/20 Page 11 of 17
`
`
`
`H. Defendant Unjustly Enriched Himself and Harmed Facebook
`
`48. Defendant’s violations of Facebook and Instagram’s TOU and Policies
`
`have harmed Facebook. Defendant interfered and continued to interfere with Facebook
`
`and Instagram’s platforms.
`
`49. Facebook suffered damages attributable to the efforts and resources it used
`
`to investigate and remediate Defendant’s conduct in an amount to be determined at trial,
`
`and in excess of $25,000.
`
`50. Since at least May 2019, Defendant has unjustly enriched themselves at
`
`Facebook’s expense in an amount to be determined at trial. Facebook is entitled to an
`
`accounting by Defendant and a disgorgement of all unlawful profits gained from his
`
`conduct.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Breach of Contract)
`
`51. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate all preceding paragraphs here.
`
`52. Since December 2012, Defendant created multiple Instagram accounts and
`
`agreed to Instagram’s TOU. He agreed to Instagram’s TOU for the first time on January
`
`19, 2013, and has explicitly consented to the TOU again most recently on June 5, 2019.
`
`In addition, since at least 2019, Defendant has used thousands of Instagram accounts to
`
`provide his services.
`
`53. Plaintiffs have performed all conditions, covenants, and promises required
`
`of them in accordance with Instagram’s TOU.
`
`54. Defendant’s actions interfered and caused others to interfere with
`
`Instagram, and engaged with Instagram in unauthorized ways.
`
`55. Defendant has breached and continues to breach Instagram’s TOU.
`
`Instagram’s TOU prohibited users from (a) “do[ing] anything unlawful, misleading, or
`
`fraudulent or for an illegal or unauthorized purpose;” (b) “[I]nterfering or impairing the
`
`intended operation of [Instagram];” and (c) “creating accounts or collecting information
`
`in an automated way without [Instagram’s] express permission.”
`
`
`
`10
`COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`3:20-cv-08153
`
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2627
`550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
`Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08153-JSC Document 1 Filed 11/19/20 Page 12 of 17
`
`
`
`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
`
`56. Defendant has caused Plaintiffs to incur damages in excess of $75,000.
`
`Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`57. Plaintiffs likewise seeks injunctive relief. As a direct result of Defendant’s
`
`unlawful actions, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer irreparable harm for
`
`which there is no adequate remedy at law, and which will continue unless Defendant’s
`
`actions are enjoined.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Cybersquatting on the Instagram Trademarks Under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d))
`
`58. Plaintiffs incorporate all preceding paragraphs here.
`
`59. The Instagram Trademarks were highly distinctive and federally registered
`
`at the United States Patent and Trademark Office at the time Defendant registered the
`
`Domain Names.
`
`60. The Instagram Trademarks are and were famous within the meaning of
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1125(c) at the time of the registration of the Domain Names.
`
`61. The Domain Names are dilutive of the Instagram Trademarks.
`
`62. Defendant registered, trafficked in, and used the Domain Names with a
`
`bad-faith intent to profit from the Instagram Trademarks.
`
`63. The Domain Names do not consist of the legal name of Defendant, nor do
`
`they consist of a name that is otherwise commonly used to identify Defendant.
`
`64. Defendant has not made any prior use of the Domain Names in connection
`
`with the bona fide offering of any goods or services.
`
`65. Defendant has not made any bona fide noncommercial or fair use of the
`
`Instagram Trademarks on a website accessible at the Domain Names.
`
`66. Defendant registered and used the Domain Names to capitalize on the
`
`Instagram Trademarks and to offer illicit services specifically aimed at Instagram.com
`
`for Defendant’s commercial gain. Such registration and use dilutes the distinctive
`
`quality of the Instagram Trademarks by tarnishing or lessening the distinctiveness of
`
`the Instagram Trademarks.
`
`
`
`11
`COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`3:20-cv-08153
`
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2627
`550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
`Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08153-JSC Document 1 Filed 11/19/20 Page 13 of 17
`
`
`
`67. Defendant’s registration, trafficking, and use of the Domain Names
`
`constitutes cybersquatting in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d), entitling Facebook and
`
`Instagram to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116.
`
`68. Facebook and Instagram are entitled to recover their costs as well as
`
`Defendant’s profits, Plaintiffs’ actual damages, or statutory damages under 15 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1117(d), on election by Facebook and Instagram, in an amount of $100,000 per
`
`domain name.
`
`69. This is an exceptional case making Plaintiffs eligible for an award of
`
`attorneys’ fees under 15 U.S.C. § 1117.
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Dilution of the Instagram Trademarks Under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c))
`
`70. Plaintiffs incorporate all preceding paragraphs here.
`
`71. The Instagram Trademarks are famous, as that term is used in 15 U.S.C. §
`
`1125(c), and they were famous before Defendant’s use of “Jolygram,” “Imggram,”
`
`“Finalgram,” and “Ingram,” and variations of the Instagram Trademarks in commerce.
`
`This fame is based on, among other things, the inherent distinctiveness and federal
`
`registration of each of the Instagram Trademarks, as well as the extensive and exclusive
`
`worldwide use, advertising, promotion, and recognition of them.
`
`72. Defendant’s use of “Jolygram,” “Imggram,” “Finalgram,” and “Ingram,”
`
`and variations thereof, in commerce is likely to cause dilution by blurring, or dilution
`
`by tarnishment, of these trademarks.
`
`73. Defendant’s acts constitute dilution by blurring and dilution by
`
`tarnishment in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c), entitling Plaintiffs to relief.
`
`74. Defendant has unfairly profited from their conduct.
`
`75. Defendant damaged
`
`the goodwill associated with
`
`the Instagram
`
`Trademarks and will continue to cause irreparable harm.
`
`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
`
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2627
`550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
`Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`3:20-cv-08153
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08153-JSC Document 1 Filed 11/19/20 Page 14 of 17
`
`
`
`76. Plaintiffs’ remedy at law is not adequate to compensate them for the
`
`injuries inflicted by Defendant. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to permanent
`
`injunctive relief pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116.
`
`77. Because Defendant acted willfully, Plaintiffs are entitled to damages, and
`
`those damages should be trebled pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a).
`
`78. This is an exceptional case, making Plaintiffs eligible for an award of
`
`reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a).
`
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Unjust Enrichment)
`
`79. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate all preceding paragraphs here.
`
`80. Defendant’s acts as alleged herein constitute unjust enrichment of
`
`Defendant at Facebook and Instagram’s expense.
`
`81. Defendant accessed and used, without authorization or permission,
`
`Facebook’s computers, computer system, and computer network, all of which belong
`
`to Facebook.
`
`82. Defendant used Facebook’s service, platform, and computer network to,
`
`among other things, scrape data from Instagram and Facebook.
`
`83. Defendant received a benefit by profiting off of his unauthorized use of
`
`Facebook’s and Instagram’s computers, computer system, and computer network. But
`
`for Defendant’s wrongful, unauthorized, and intentional use of Facebook and
`
`Instagram, he would not have obtained such profits.
`
`84. Defendant’s retention of the profits derived from his unauthorized use of
`
`Facebook and Instagram’s computers, computer system, and computer network would
`
`be unjust.
`
`85. Facebook and Instagram seek an accounting and disgorgement of
`
`Defendant’s ill-gotten profits in an amount to be determined at 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
`
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2627
`550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
`Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`3:20-cv-08153
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08153-JSC Document 1 Filed 11/19/20 Page 15 of 17
`
`
`
`REQUEST FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Facebook and Instagram request judgment against
`
`Defendant as follows:
`
`1.
`
`That the Court enter judgment against Defendant that Defendant has:
`
`a.
`
`Breached his contracts with Facebook and Instagram in violation of
`
`California law;
`
`b.
`
`Cybersquatted on the Instagram Trademarks in violation of 15
`
`U.S.C. § 1125(d);
`
`c.
`
`Diluted the Instagram Trademarks in violation of 15 U.S.C. §
`
`1125(c); and
`
`d.
`
`Been unjustly enriched at the expense of Facebook and Instagram in
`
`violation of California law.
`
`2.
`
`That the Court enter a permanent injunction enjoining and restraining
`
`Defendant and his agents, servants, employees, successors, and assigns, and all other
`
`persons acting in concert with or conspiracy with him or who are affiliated with him
`
`from:
`
`a.
`
`Accessing or attempting to access Facebook and Instagram’s
`
`service, platform, and computer systems;
`
`b.
`
`Creating or maintaining any Facebook or Instagram accounts in
`
`violation of Instagram’s TOU;
`
`c.
`
`Engaging in any activity that disrupts, diminishes the quality of,
`
`interferes with the performance of, or impairs the functionality of
`
`Facebook’s computers, computer system, and computer network or
`
`the Instagram service; and
`
`d.
`
`Engaging in any activity, or facilitating others to do the same, that
`
`violates Instagram’s TOU.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`