Case 3:21-cv-04272-RS Document 1 Filed 06/03/21 Page 1 of 18
`Case 3:21-cv-04272-RS Document 1 Filed 06/03/2L Page 1 of 18
`
`SCANNED
`
`Ix.)
`
`PATRICK M. RYAN (SBN 203215)
`pryan@bzbm.com
`STEPHEN C. STEINBERG (SBN 230656)
`3.5'teI'nbeI'g@bzbm.com
`GABRIELLA A. WILKINS (SBN 306l73)
`gwilkins@bzbm. com
`BARTKO ZANKEL BUNZEL & MILLER
`A Professional Law Corporation
`One Embarcadero Center, Suite 800
`
`San Francisco, California 94111
`Telephone: (415) 956-1900
`Facsimile:
`(415) 956-1 1512
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.
`and CISCO TECHNOLOGY, INC.
`
`RECF:
`KILJE
`JUN
`D
`03 20
`NORfiSVE‘AESE-JEAN k n
`2]
`tflivoggfmsffigve
`84.1?ngOE 29011,?
`55 Wow,
`FILED
`
`JUN 03 2021
`SUSAN .SOONG
`CLERK. U.S. DISTRICTCOURT
`NORTH ESTERSFSEWM
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND V:
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. and CISCO
`TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`'9, 21 0427
`
`Ca
`
`,
`
`.
`
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR:
`
`1 FEDERAL TRADEMARK
`INFRINGEMENT AND
`
`WUHAN WOLON COMMUNICATION
`TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. and WUHAN
`WOLON CLOUD NETWORK
`COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY CO.,
`LTD.
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`COUNTERFEITING, 15 U.S.C. § 1114;
`2. FEDERAL UNFAIR COMPETITION,
`15 U.S.C. § 1125;
`3. FEDERAL DILUTION OF MARK, 15
`U.S.C.§ 1125(c);
`4. CALIFORNIA FALSE ADVERTISING,
`CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17500;
`5. CALIFORNIA UNFAIR
`
`COMPETITION, CAL. BUS. & PROF.
`CODE § 17200.
`
`[JURY TRIAL DEMANDED]
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF
`DOCUIVIENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`2790.000l1626306.l
`
`I
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Case No. 21-mC-80135-LHK
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-04272-RS Document 1 Filed 06/03/21 Page 2 of 18
`Case 3:21-cv-O/42\72-RS Document 1 Filed 06/03ij Page 2 of 18
`
`KDOO-xlO‘Ul-BUJNt—I
`ON'Jl-PUJN—‘O
`
`D—bh—lh—lI—lh—‘I—‘D—fi
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Plaintiffs Cisco Systems, Inc. and Cisco Technology, Inc. (together, “Cisco” or
`
`“Plaintiffs”), by and through their attorneys, Bartko Zankel Bunzeli& Miller, PC, bring this action
`for damages and injunctive relief against Defendants Wuhan Woloii Communication Technology
`
`Co., Ltd. and Wuhan Wolon Cloud Network Communication Techiiology Co., Ltd. (together,
`
`“Wolon” or “Defendants”), allege as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Counterfeiters are increasingly exploiting consumers? needs for certain products
`
`during a time when there are significant halts and delays in production of authentic products,
`resulting in severe shortages in the marketplace. The substitution of inauthentic products using
`counterfeit marks in place of genuine products can be catastrophicdand notjust to the interests of
`
`businesses that manufacture and sell genuine products using the trademarks they have spent years
`
`developing. Counterfeit products have the potential to be very dangerous. Specifically, at issue in
`this case are inauthentic products that could be mistaken as real by Plaintiffs’ hospital, military,
`
`government, telecommunications, utility, or other critical infrastructure customers. Not only does
`
`this result in innocent customers receiving something fake that they believe to be genuine, but it
`
`also exposes sensitive patient, military, and government information to potential breaches,
`
`jeopardizes the reliability and performance of critical networks, or worse, puts people in physical
`
`danger. Now more than ever, consumers, companies, and governments need the Courts to
`
`intervene to cease this destructive and dangerous behavior.
`
`Plaintiffs bring this urgent action not only to protectltheir brands, but more
`2.
`importantly to protect their customers, the customers’ employees, and the general public from the
`
`imminent risk of danger posed by the sale of certain counterfeit products.
`3.
`Plaintiffs have robust brand protection programs that take multilayered approaches
`
`to the problem of counterfeiting, which is global in scope and affects the entirety of the network
`
`industry. Plaintiffs’ strategies include collaborating with law enforcement in various countries
`
`where counterfeits are made or sold, including both the US. and C . ina, to try to shut down larger
`
`manufacturers and sellers. Plaintiffs also employ third-party privat
`
`investigators or consultants to
`
`2790.000/1626806J
`
`i
`2
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Case No. 21-mc-80135-LHK
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-0/42\72-RS Document 1 Filed 06/03/21“ Page 3 of 18
`Case 3:21-cv-04272-RS Document 1 Filed 06/03/21 Page 3 of 18
`
`identify and purchase suspected inauthentic Cisco products, onlinei And Plaintiffs sometimes
`
`1
`
`resort to litigation like the present case in order to protect their rights.
`
`4.
`
`This is an action against Defendants for willful and ignificant infringement of
`
`Plaintiffs’ trademark rights relatedto CISCO® branded pluggable {ransceivers (“Cisco
`
`Transceivers”). Put simply, Defendants are marketing and advertising transceivers not
`
`manufactured by or associated with Plaintiffs and using Plaintiffs’ branding to pass them off
`
`and/or to enable Defendants’ buyers to pass them off to unsuspecting consumers as Cisco
`products.
`1
`
`5.
`
`Transceivers are electronic devices that transmit and receive communications and
`
`data by using fiber optic technology. Transceivers encode and decode data by converting
`
`electrical signals to light pulses and sending data through a fiber optic cable. The transmitted data
`is then obtained by the receiving end and converted back into an electrical signal. Various public
`
`and private entities use Cisco Transceivers for their computer network systems, such as healthcare
`
`systems and hospitals, the US. government and military and other government entities, public
`
`transit systems and utilities, Internet Service Providers, wireless phone carriers,
`
`telecommunications companies, research and education institutions like universities and colleges,
`
`and other large corporations. The sale of counterfeit transceivers in the marketplace puts
`
`Plaintiffs’ customers, the customers’ employees, and the people thery serve, at risk of significant
`business disruption, privacy and security breaches, data loss, and unpredictable and unsafe
`
`technological malfunctions.
`
`6.
`
`Defendants are advertising and offering for sale, using, and/or labeling or otherwise
`
`marking and/or enabling their buyers to label transceivers (by providing counterfeit labels bearing
`Plaintiffs’ trademarks on separate sheets) with unauthorized representations of Plaintiffs’ well-
`known and federally registered trademarks, and then selling and di ‘tributing, or aiding and
`
`abetting others in the sale and distribution of, these counterfeit pro ucts for ultimate sale to
`
`consumers who are unaware that the products are not genuine and may be dangerous. The
`
`customers purchasing these products for end use are duped into believing that the transceivers they
`receive or that are installed into their networks are genuine Plaintif 3’ products when, in fact, they
`Case No. 21-mc-80135-LHK
`2790.000/[6268061 3
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVIF RELIEF
`
`
`
`1
`
`0000\10‘1
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-O/42\72-RS Document 1 Filed 0603/ng Page 4 of 18
`Case 3:21-cv-04272-RS Document 1 Filed 06/03/21 Page 4 of 18
`
`are not. A thorough inspection reveals that these products are not 1:11ade with genuine approved
`parts, and their functionality is unknown and unpredictable; thus, dangerous.
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive and monetary relic?to protect their customers, their
`
`customers’ employees, various governments and their employees, and the general public, from the
`
`sale of these inauthentic and potentially dangerous goods, to enjoin Defendants from further
`
`unlawful and infringing conduct, and to recover full damages for D‘efendants’ harmful behavior.
`
`II.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`3
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff Cisco Systems, Inc. (“CSI”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal
`
`place of business at 170 West Tasman Drive, San Jose, California 95134. Plaintiff Cisco
`Technology, Inc. (“CTI”) is a California corporation with its princiEpal place of business at 170 W.
`Tasman Drive, San Jose, California 95134. CTI owns the trademarks used by CS1 in marketing
`Cisco-branded products.
`‘
`
`9.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants Wuhan Wolon Communication Technology
`
`Co., Ltd. and Wuhan Wolon Cloud Network Communication Technology Co., Ltd. are Chinese
`
`limited companies with the same principal place of business at 19F, Chuangxing Hui Free Trade
`Finance Building, No. 777 GuangGu 3rd Road, Donghu New & High Technology Development
`Zone, Wuhan City, Hubei Province, China. Wolon conducts business in the United States,
`
`including within the State of California, by offering, selling, and exporting goods to customers in
`
`the Northern District of California and elsewhere in the United States.
`III.
`JURISDICTION AND VENiJE
`
`10.
`
`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 subject matter
`
`jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1121(a), and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a)
`
`and (b).
`
`11.
`
`This Court has supplemental subject matterjurisdiction over the pendent state law
`
`g
`
`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.
`
`Case No. 21-mc—80135-LHK
`
`2790.000/1 626806. 1
`
`4
`
`COIVIPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIGE’ RELIEF
`
`
`
`\DOONONUI-hWNfl
`ONUI-PDJNh-‘O
`
`i—Ii—Ii—II—tn—Ii—Ii—I
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`2]
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-O/A.2\72-RS Document 1 Filed 06/03ng Page 5 of 18
`Case 3:21-cv-04272-RS Document 1 Filed 06/03/21 Page 5 of 18
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over each of the Defendants, each of whom has
`12.
`engaged in business activities in this District and the State of California, offered for sale their
`
`inauthentic products in this District and the State ofCalifornia, knjwingly and purposefully
`directed business activities to this District and the State of California, and availed themselves of
`
`the benefits afforded by California laws, and committed tortious acts, knowing that Plaintiffs
`
`would suffer injuries in this District and the State of California.
`
`13.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.Q. § 1391(b-c) in that a
`
`substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims pccurred here and Defendants
`
`‘
`are subject to personal jurisdiction in this District.
`IV.
`INTRA-DISTRICT ASSIGNNiENT
`
`14.
`
`In accordance with Civil L.R. 3-2(c), this action is properly assigned on a District-
`
`wide basis because it relates to intellectual property rights.
`
`l
`
`V.
`
`A.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`Cisco ’3 History andBackgrourid
`
`15.
`
`Founded in 1984, Cisco is a worldwide leader in developing, implementing, and
`
`providing the technologies behind networking communications, and information technology
`
`products and services. Cisco develops and provides a broad range of networking products and
`
`services that enable seamless communication among individuals, private businesses—including
`
`healthcare systems, Internet Service Providers, and wireless carriers—and public institutions,
`
`
`
`including government agencies and the military. The thousands of engineers who work at Cisco
`
`develop and create networking and communications hardware, sofMare, and services that utilize
`
`cutting-edge technologies to transport data, voice, and video within buildings, across cities and
`
`campuses, and around the world.
`
`16.
`
`Cisco has sold networking equipment, including transceiver modules, since 1992.
`
`The transceivers that Cisco markets and sells are central to these systems. Cisco Transceivers are
`
`known in the market as reliable, high-quality products. Cisco ships over 10 million transceivers
`
`per year.
`
`2790.000/1626806J
`
`5
`
`Case No. 21-mc-80135-LHK
`
`COMPLAINT FORDAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVT. RELIEF
`
`
`
`\DOOQONUIAUJN—
`
`NNNNNNNNNt—‘v—n—u—n—y—ni—n—_Hmumm-th—oxoooqmm-tht—o
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-O/AQ72-RS Document 1 Filed 06/03ng Page 6 of 18
`Case 3:21-cv-04272-RS Document 1 Filed 06/03/21 Page 6 of 18
`
`l
`Cisco has established goodwill and a lauded reputation among the general public
`17.
`and its customers for its high-quality and reliable products by using its well-known Cisco trade
`
`name and trademarks.
`
`B.
`
`Cisco ’s Trademarks
`
`[8.
`
`Cisco is the owner of the following relevant trademarks, all of which Cisco has
`
`registered with the Principal Register of the US. Patent and Trademark Office in connection with
`its various products (collectively, “Cisco Marks” or “Plaintiffs’ Marks”):
`
`0
`
`.
`
`“CISCO” (U.S. Trademark Reg. Nos. 1,542,339; 2,498,746; 3,709,076; 3,978,294;
`3,985,844; 3,990,147; 4,005,670)
`1
`
`5'5“
`
`(U .S. Trademark Reg. No. 3,759,451)
`
`l
`
`19.
`
`For over 30 years, Cisco has continuously used one or more of the Cisco Marks on
`
`its products in commerce. To this day, all Cisco products, including Cisco Transceivers, bear one
`or more of the Cisco Marks.
`1
`
`The Cisco Marks are distinctive and serve solely to identify and promote Cisco’s
`20.
`genuine products and well-known brand. Cisco invests significant lresources in extensive research,
`
`advertisement, and promotional efforts for the Cisco Marks. For decades, the Cisco Marks have
`been advertised and sold around the globe, resulting in widespread brand recognition.
`C.
`Cisco is Quality Control Measuries
`Cisco manufactures and sells various types oftransceivers. Each is designed to
`21.
`exceed industry standards for safety, quality, reliability, and performance.
`
`22.
`
`Cisco Transceivers are manufactured by one of three authorized third-party original
`
`equipment manufacturers (“OEMS”).
`23.
`Cisco’s OEMs are required to follow strict quality- rid-control standards, which
`
`govern the design of the product, the selection of components, the conditions of the production
`
`facility, and ongoing reliability testing, audits, and recordkeeping.
`
`L
`
`24.
`
`Cisco requires all OEMs to adhere to high-quality manufacturing and distribution
`
`standards. These standards ensure that the product meets feature sgecifications. Throughout the
`
`
`
`2790.000/1626806. l
`
`6
`
`COMPLAINT FORDAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVT RELIEF
`
`Case No. 21-mc-80135-LHK
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-04272—RS Document 1 Filed 06/03/21. Page 7 of 18
`Case 3:21-cv-04272-RS Document 1 Filed 06/03/21 Page 7 of 18
`
`product’s lifecyele, Cisco monitors each OEM“s compliance with its quality—and—eontrol
`
`standards.
`
`25.
`
`Each ofthe OEM facilities is regularly audited. The OEMs maintain detailed
`
`production records for each serialized product and keep logs ofeach product’s supply chain. This
`
`gives Cisco the ability to trace products using their serial number. Each quarter- the GEMS
`
`participate in business reviews that thoroughly examine the manufacturer‘s practices and
`
`procedures and identify areas for improvement.
`
`26.
`
`Before its products are approved for shipment, Cisco conducts reliability testing to
`
`uncover any undetected defects caused by the manufacturing process.
`
`
`
`
`
` l lH l
`
`"ll
`
`D.
`
`(.‘azmieij‘eiting Harm PlaintUj‘s, Consumers, Their Employees, and the Public
`
`29.
`
`Defendants are advertising and offering to sell. using, and/or have sold and
`
`distributed products that bear confusingly similar imitations of the Cisco Marks. Through these
`
`sales, Defendants are intentionally deceiving customers into believing that they are purchasing and
`
`receiving products that are deveioped, manufactured. and screened by Plaintiffs or another party
`
`legitimately associated with or affiliated with, or authorized: licensed, or approved by Plaintiffs.
`Case No. 21—mc-80135—LHK
`
`1700.00011626806. l
`
`7
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`ls)
`
`L)
`
`10
`
`il
`
`12
`
`14
`
`15
`
`17
`
`18
`
`I9
`
`20
`
`to[QIs.)Li.)[\J—-
`
`[O.p.
`
`

`

`testing.
`
`32.
`
`Customers are likely to associate the negative qualities of inauthentic products with
`
`u
`
`Case 3:21-cv-OAQ72-RS Document 1 Filed 06/03/;J.\ Page 8 of 18
`Case 3:21-cv-04272-RS Document 1 Filed 06/03/21 Page 8 of 18
`
`Beyond being inauthentic, the functionality, performance, and safety of these
`30.
`products is unknown and less reliable. These products have a highbr probability offailing,
`
`degrading, malfunctioning,jeopardizing data security, and/or perfqrming in an unsafe manner.
`
`31.
`
`Plaintiffs have no control over these products and have no way of testing the safety
`
`of these products. These products are not subjected to Plaintiffs’ quality-control standards and
`
`Plaintiffs’ products. This does irreparable harm to Plaintiffs by tarnishing the good names and
`
`reputations they have worked so hard to build and sustain. Further the sale of these counterfeit
`
`goods deprives Plaintiffs of legitimate sales and revenue.
`
`Customers are also irreparably harmed by Defendan‘ts’ conduct because they
`33.
`receive inauthentic products, which are at risk of being lower qualitly, less reliable, and less safe
`than the high-quality and genuine Cisco products they expect and deserve.
`
`34.
`
`Six important industries comprise the majority of Cisco’s customers: healthcare
`
`and hospitals, the US. government, utility companies, financial services, transportation
`
`companies, and communications providers. All of these entities rely on Cisco Transceivers to
`
`transfer data and communications and for data storage and security} They also count on Cisco
`
`Transceivers to perform critical functions for their employees, custpmers, and the general public.
`35.
`By way of example, the criticality of Cisco’s produdts is exemplified by the US.
`
`military’s use of these products, including depending on these prodpcts to protect lives. For
`example, in United States v. Ehab Ashoor, No. H-09CR-307 (SD. Tex), a criminal action brought
`l
`by the US. government against a counterfeiter of Cisco products, US Marines Staff Sergeant Lee
`l
`Chieffalo testified that “[t]he Marine Corps’ network infrastructure is solely Cisco equipment.”
`
`Mr. Chieffalo explained that since Cisco equipment only operates properly in conjunction with
`
`other authentic Cisco products, the danger of acquiring and using a counterfeit Cisco product
`
`could be detrimental to the entire Cisco-based classified network th Marine Corps utilizes. The
`
`potential catastrophic risk was described as, “[m]arines could die.”
`
`2790.000/1626806. l
`8
`COMPLATNT FOR DAMAGES AND INIUNCTIV RELIEF
`
`Case No. 21-mc-80135-LHK
`
`\DOONJO‘xLIl-IAUJN—
`
`NNNNNNNNNHHt—r—t—t—HI—I—II—mflQM-kWN—OKDOONJQM-BWNHO
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-0A2\72-RS Document 1 Filed 06/03ij Page 9 of 18
`Case 3:21-cv-04272-RS Document 1 Filed 06/03/21 Page 9 of 18
`
`36.
`The danger of counterfeit products has long been recognized as a national-security
`concern. From 2005 until 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice, together with the Federal Bureau
`
`l
`
`of Investigation (“FBI”), Department of Homeland Security, various Office of Inspector General
`
`offices and other governmental departments, conducted a widescale investigation into counterfeit
`Cisco products, known as “Operation Network Raider.” This was a domestic and international
`
`initiative “targeting the illegal distribution of counterfeit network hardware manufactured in
`
`China,” according to a March 2010 Department of Justice press release.
`
`37.
`
`By March 2010, Operation Network Raider had resulted in 30 felony convictions
`
`and more than 700 seizures of counterfeit Cisco network hardware and labels with an estimated
`
`retail value of more than $143 million. As stated by Assistant Attorney General Breuer,
`
`“[t]rafficking in counterfeit computer components is a problem that spans the globe and impacts
`
`most, if not all, major network equipment manufacturers.”
`
`38.
`
`Investigations like this demonstrate the grave danger to employees of Plaintiffs”
`
`customers that is posed by counterfeiters of Plaintiffs’ products. Assistant Security of Homeland
`
`Security John Morton highlighted this point by stating, “[t]hese cases involve greedy businessmen
`
`hocking counterfeit and substandard hardware to any buyer—whether it could affect the health
`
`and safety of others in a hospital setting or the security of our troops on the battlefield” and “[t]hey
`
`pose a triple threat to our nation by stealing from our economy, threatening U.S. jobs and
`potentially putting the safety of our citizens at risk.”
`‘
`
`Cisco ’3 Discovery ofDefendants ’ Counterfeit Products
`E.
`Because the counterfeit problem is so vast and serious, Cisco also conducts its own
`39.
`internal processes to combat counterfeiters by investigating and policing suspect counterfeit
`
`
`
`
`products. As part of these efforts, Cisco employs third-party privatp investigators or consultants to
`
`identify and purchase suspected inauthentic Cisco products.
`
`40.
`
`And so it is here. Cisco’s consultants found Defendants advertising and offering
`
`for sale purported Cisco Transceivers online, and purchased samples of such products from
`
`Defendants, who then sent these products to an address in the Northern District of California.
`
`
`
`Case No. 21-mc-80135-LHK
`
`2790.000/1626806. 1
`
`9
`
`COMPLATNTFORDAMAGES AND INJUNCTIGfRELIEF
`
`lll
`
`\OOONONUI-b-UJNH
`
`NNNNNNNNNn—I—h—t—u—n—n—n—HHOONQM-PWN-OKOOOQQM-hmk’h‘o
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-04222-RS Document 1 Filed 06/03/2/J.\Page 10 of 18
`Case 3:21-cv-04272-RS Document 1 Filed 06/03/21 Page 10 of 18
`
`41.
`
`To investigate potentially counterfeit goods, Cisco titilizes three lab facilities
`
`located in The Netherlands, Hong Kong, and San Jose, California, and during the COVID-l9
`
`crisis, select Cisco investigators have home labs for use in these investigations. Only select
`
`members of the Cisco Brand Protection team are allowed access to the products under
`
`investigation to ensure the proper chain-of-custody and to prohibit any tampering with the
`
`
`
`
`products during the investigation process.
`
`42.
`
`Once the products were received from Defendants, the consultants sent the
`
`purported Cisco Transceivers to Cisco’s engineering investigator for testing. A strict chain-of-
`
`custody was followed throughout the entire transfer process. Ciscd’s engineering investigator then
`
`used specialized tools to assess each product’s authenticity. The products at issue here were
`
`determined to be inauthentic. The engineering investigator’s findings for these products are
`
`detailed in an Executive Summary Report (“ESR”).
`
`43.
`
`After conducting its testing, Cisco shared the pertinent data for each product,
`
`including photographs, with the OEM identified by the counterfeit |label, if any. An internal test
`engineer for the OEM then separately evaluated whether the produTt was authentic. The OEM’s
`findings for these products are also detailed in an ESR. The ESR d‘emonstrates that the OEM
`agreed with Cisco’s assessment that the products are inauthentic.
`
`F.
`
`Defendants’ Unlawful Conduct
`
`44.
`
`Wolon advertises numerous transceivers as being made by Cisco, “compatible with
`
`Cisco” and/or “Cisco compatible,” and/or using well-known Cisco part numbers, with images of
`
`Cisco-marked transceivers, including the GLC-LH-SMD, another ofthe best-known and best-
`selling Cisco Transceivers. A consultant in the Northern District of California purchased 200
`
`units of the GLC-LH-SMD, after corresponding through Wolon’s
`
`libaba storefront and also by
`
`email through the domain salesOl@wolonte.com.
`
`45.
`
`This product was advertised and offered for sale as eing “Cisco compatible” and
`
`using a well-known Cisco part number, and in response to the initi
`
`l inquiry, Wolon immediately
`
`said it would “print cisco label[s]” that “you can stick [on] yoursel ” thereby ensuring that the
`
`
`
`2790.000/1626806.l
`
`
`10
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIV RELIEF
`
`
`
`Case No. 21-mc-80135-LHK
`
`KOOOHON
`
`1o
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-04212—RS Document 1 Filed 06/03/2}R Page 11 of 18
`Case 3:21-cv-04272-RS Document 1 Filed 06/03/21 Page 11 of 18
`
`1
`
`2
`
`products could be resold to end customers as genuine Cisco Transceivers. The invoice for the
`
`transceivers included an image of the product with the Cisco-brand label applied as follows:
`
`'-J(CTN
`(3:)
`
`uiilhllluUS“!
`
`Ki)
`
`10
`
`46.
`
`When the transceivers arrived, they were unlabeled but included sheets of labels
`
`1 l with counterfeit Cisco Marks, including enough to label each of the transceivers, a sample of
`
`l 2 which is shown below:
`
`a'. c:
`. , ,T-'—,.
`I6 3:
`
`47.
`
`ll'w‘: 35mm
`
`28
`
`48.
`
`Each product was determined by Cisco’s engineer to be inauthentic.
`Case No. 21~mc-80 i35-LHK
`
`2?90.ooo.r1626806.1
`
`1 1
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-04272-RS Document 1 Filed 06/03/21 Page 12 of 18
`Case 3:21-cv-04272—RS Document 1 Filed 06/03/2;l_ Page 12 of 18
`
`49.
`
`Cisco’s engineer determined that the purported Cisco Transceivers sold by Wolon
`
`differ from authentic Cisco products in at least the following ways:
`
`l 9
`
`fil
`
`fil
`
`
`
`d.
`
`The transceivers and labels were separate from each other, whereas genuine
`
`Cisco Transceivers are only shipped with labels already affixed to the
`
`products at the factory to ensure every product bears the Cisco logo prior to
`
`shipment.
`
`W
`
`Federal Trademark Infringement and Counterfeiting
`
`(15 U.S.C. § 1114 [Lanllam Act § 32] Against All Defendants)
`
`50.
`
`Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each of the allegations in the preceding
`
`paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`5 l.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Marks are all valid marks entitled to protection under the Lanham Act
`
`and registered on the principal register in the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
`
`Plaintiffs are the exclusive owners and registrants oftheir individual marks.
`
`52.
`
`Without Plaintiffs’ consent or authorization, Defendants are using, and will
`
`continue to use, in commerce, reproductions, counterfeits, copies, or coiorable imitations of
`
`Plaintiffs1 Marks in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of
`
`counterfeit and/or inauthentic Cisco Transceivers.
`
`53. Without Plaintiffs” consent or authorization, Defendants are reproducing,
`
`counterfeiting, copying, or colorably imitating Plaintiffs” Marks and applying them to labels
`Case No. 21—mc-80135-LHK
`
`2790.000HéloSOol
`
`i 2
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-ngz2-RS Document 1 Filed 06/03/2’J‘Page 13 of 18
`Case 3:21-cv-04272-RS Document 1 Filed 06/03/21 Page 13 of 18
`
`and/or advertisements intended to be used in commerce upon or in connection with the sale,
`offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of counterfeit and/or inauthentic Cisco Transceivers.
`
`54.
`
`Defendants’ counterfeiting and infringing activities have caused, are causing, or are
`
`likely to cause, confusion, mistake, and deception among the consuming public as to the origin,
`
`sponsorship, and quality of Defendants’ counterfeit products.
`
`55.
`
`On information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants” conduct was
`
`committed willfully, in bad faith, and with knowledge of Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights to their marks,
`
`
`
`or with willful blindness to the same, and with the intent to cause cpnfusion, mistake, and/or to
`
`deceive.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ couilterfeiting and infringing
`56.
`activities, Plaintiffs have suffered irreparable harm and damage to their valuable marks—and
`damage to their reputation and goodwill—to which there is no adeduate remedy at law. This
`
`irreparable harm will continue unless Defendants’ conduct is stopped.
`
`57.
`
`Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief against Defendants pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
`
`§ 11 16(a), an order for the destruction of all infringing goods, as well as all monetary relief and
`
`other remedies available under the Lanham Act, including, but not limited to, treble damages
`
`and/or profits, statutory damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest under
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1117(a).
`
`.
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEFi
`
`
`
`
`
`Federal Unfair Competition
`
`(False Designation of Origin and False Advertising, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(3),
`
`[Lanham Act § 43(a)] Against All Defendants)
`
`58.
`
`Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each of the allegations in the preceding
`
`paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`59.
`
`Defendants, in the connection with the sale of inautl—1entic Cisco Transceivers,
`
`falsely describe the origin of and/or use misleading descriptions and representations of fact in
`
`commerce.
`
`2790.000/1626806.l
`
`1 3
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Case No. 21-mc-80135-LHK
`
`\DOOHONUI-RUJN—
`
`NNNNNNNNNH—t—t——n—ai—a.—_Hooqam-Awww—oxooouotux-nwmwo
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-Ofl212-RS Document 1 Filed 06/03/2’l‘lfage 14 of 18
`Case 3:21-cv-04272-RS Document 1 Filed 06/03/21 Page 14 of 18
`
`60.
`
`Defendants’ unauthorized conduct has caused, is likely to cause, and will continue
`
`to cause, confusion or mistake, or has deceived, is likely to deceive, and will continue to deceive,
`l
`consumers as to Defendants’ products’ affiliation, connection, sponsorship, approval, origin, or
`association with Plaintiffs, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A).
`
`61.
`
`Defendants misrepresent the nature, characteristics, Qualities, and/or geographic
`
`origin of their inauthentic products in commercial advertising or promotion, in violation of 15
`U.S.C. § 1125(a)(l)(B).
`‘
`62.
`Plaintiffs are entitled to recover Defendants’ unlawfjul profits and Plaintiffs’
`damages, including attorneys’ fees under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a).
`I
`
`63.
`
`Defendants’ willful and intentional conduct is in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1),
`
`and Plaintiffs are entitled to treble damages and/or enhanced statutory damages under 15 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1117(b) and (c).
`
`64.
`
`Defendants’ conduct will continue to cause substantial and irreparable injury to
`
`Plaintiffs and their businesses and goodwill. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and are
`
`thus entitled to injunctive relief pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1 116(a).
`
`THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`Federal Dilution ofMark
`
`‘
`
`(15 U.S.C. § 1125(c) [Lanham Act § 43(c)] Against All Defendants)
`
`65.
`
`Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each of the allegations in the preceding
`
`paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`66.
`Plaintiffs’ Marks are famous, distinctive, and widely recognized by the consuming
`
`public, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1125(0).
`67.
`Defendants’ use of marks or trade names in commetice is likely to cause dilution of
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs’ Marks in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c).
`
`68.
`
`Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief to stop the dilution of their marks,
`
`pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1116(a) and l 125(c).
`
`2790.000/1626806J
`
`14
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INIUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Case No. 21-mc-80135-LHK
`
`
`
`ONUIALHN
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-OflZZ-RS Document 1 Filed O6/O3/2klfage 15 of 18
`Case 3:21-cv-04272-RS Document 1 Filed 06/03/21 Page 15 of 18
`
`l
`
`FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEE
`
`California False Advertising
`
`(Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 Against All Defendants)
`
`69.
`
`Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each of the allegations in the preceding
`
`paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`70.
`
`Defendants have knowingly or willfully made false or misleading statements in
`
`connection with the sale of their inauthentic products.
`
`
`
`
`
`In advertising and promoting their products, Defendants knew or, with the exercise
`71.
`of reasonable care, should have known, that their statements were false and misleading.
`72.
`As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Defendants making these false and
`
`misleading statements, Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer, irreparable harm to its
`
`individual brands, reputations, and goodwill. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law to
`
`compensate for these substantial injuries and is thus entitled to injunctive relief.
`
`73.
`
`As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Defendants making these false and
`
`misleading statements, Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer, money damages in an
`
`amount to be proven at trial.
`
`FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 1
`
`California Unfair Competition 1
`(Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 Against All Defendants)
`Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each of the allegations in the preceding
`
`74.
`
`paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`75.
`
`Defendants have knowingly and willfully participated in unlawful, unfair, and
`
`fraudulent business practices and unfair, deceptive, untrue, and mis eading advertising prohibited
`
`by Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, by advertising and selling inau hentic products using
`
`counterfeit Plaintiffs’ Marks, in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 UsS.C. § 1114, as well as the
`
`other acts alleged herein.
`