throbber
Case 6:22-cv-02407-RBD-DAB Document 1 Filed 12/27/22 Page 1 of 26 PageID 1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`ORLANDO DIVISION
`CASE NO. ____________
`
`
`
`
`THREATLOCKER, INC.
`a Delaware corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`THREATBLOCKR, INC.,
`a Delaware corporation; and
`DOES 1-10,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff ThreatLocker, Inc. (“ThreatLocker”) brings this complaint against
`
`Defendant ThreatBlockr, Inc. f/k/a Bandura Cyber, Inc. (“ThreatBlockr”) and Does
`
`1-10 for (i) federal trademark infringement and false designation of origin, and unfair
`
`competition in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051, et seq.; (ii) trademark
`
`infringement and unfair competition under Florida common law; and (iii) violation
`
`of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. ThreatLocker alleges as
`
`follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`ThreatLocker is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
`
`business at 1950 Summit Park Dr, 4th Floor, Orlando, FL 32810.
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-02407-RBD-DAB Document 1 Filed 12/27/22 Page 2 of 26 PageID 2
`
`2.
`
`Defendant ThreatBlockr is a Delaware corporation with its principal
`
`place of business at 7950 Jones Branch Dr., 8th Floor N, Tysons, VA 22102.
`
`3.
`
`Does 1-10 are persons or entities responsible in whole or in part for the
`
`wrongdoing alleged herein (“Doe Defendants”). Each of the Doe Defendants
`
`participated in, ratified, endorsed, and/or was otherwise involved in the acts
`
`complained of, and they have liability for such acts. ThreatLocker will further
`
`amend this Complaint if and when the identities of such persons or entities and/or
`
`the scope of their actions become known.
`
`4.
`
`At all relevant times, ThreatBlockr and Doe Defendants (collectively,
`
`“Defendants”) acted as the principal, agent, and/or representatives of each of the
`
`other Defendants. Any action by one of the Defendants was within the course and
`
`scope of the agency relationship between the Defendants and was with the
`
`permission, ratification, and/or authorization of each of the other Defendants.
`
`5.
`
`Defendants conduct business throughout the United States, including
`
`Florida and within this District, using the THREATBLOCKR mark.
`
`6.
`
`As fully detailed below, Defendants use the THREATBLOCKR mark
`
`in a manner that violates ThreatLocker’s longstanding and strong rights in its
`
`THREATLOCKER® trademark.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`7.
`
`Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1121(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a), this Court has
`
`subject matter jurisdiction over ThreatLocker’s claims for relief for violation of the
`
`Lanham Act. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1338(b), this Court has supplemental
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-02407-RBD-DAB Document 1 Filed 12/27/22 Page 3 of 26 PageID 3
`
`jurisdiction over ThreatLocker’s state law claims because they are joined with
`
`substantial and related claims under the Lanham Act. This Court also has
`
`supplemental jurisdiction over ThreatLocker’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1367(a) because all of ThreatLocker’s claims arise out of a common nucleus of
`
`operative facts.
`
`8.
`
`This Court has personal
`
`jurisdiction over Defendants because
`
`Defendants have: (a) conducted substantial business in the State of Florida and this
`
`District by advertising, targeting, offering, selling, and providing their goods/services
`
`to residents of this District; (b) derived financial benefits from residents of the State
`
`of Florida by doing so; (c) purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of
`
`conducting business within the State of Florida; and (d) sought the protection and
`
`benefits of the laws of the State of Florida. In addition, the claims arise from
`
`Defendants’ activities within and actions targeted at the State of Florida.
`
`9.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants have attended trade shows in
`
`the State of Florida, including in this District, where Defendants have promoted their
`
`goods and services offered under the THREATBLOCKR mark.
`
`10. Upon information and belief, Defendants have contracted with various
`
`third party managed service providers and other resellers in the State of Florida,
`
`including in this District, to sell the goods and services offered under the
`
`THREATBLOCKR mark in the State of Florida and within this District.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-02407-RBD-DAB Document 1 Filed 12/27/22 Page 4 of 26 PageID 4
`
`11. Venue in this Court exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), inasmuch as a
`
`substantial part of the events giving rise to ThreatLocker’s claims occurred within
`
`this District.
`
`FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
`
`ThreatLocker and Its Successful Brand
`
`12. Founded in 2015 in Florida, ThreatLocker is a software company that
`
`offers Zero Trust security solutions to protect users, devices, and networks against
`
`vulnerabilities.
`
`13. ThreatLocker’s security platform incorporates cutting edge technology
`
`such as Application Whitelisting, Ringfencing™, Data Storage Control, and
`
`Network Access Control to create a true Zero Trust security architecture for its
`
`customers.
`
`14.
`
`Since at least as early as January 2017, ThreatLocker has offered and
`
`promoted
`
`its security platform and
`
`related software services under
`
`the
`
`THREATLOCKER® mark.
`
`15. Over the last five years, ThreatLocker has proven the value of its
`
`platform and has become a leader in enterprise security software solutions.
`
`Customers and potential customers have come to recognize the THREATLOCKER®
`
`brand as a guarantee of an innovative, Zero Trust security platform accompanied by
`
`highly competent and attentive customer support.
`
`16.
`
`Indeed, ThreatLocker has won a number of high profile awards
`
`including The ChannelPro & IoT Playbook’s Most Innovative Solution for 2021. In
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-02407-RBD-DAB Document 1 Filed 12/27/22 Page 5 of 26 PageID 5
`
`2022, business software reviewer G2 awarded ThreatLocker numerous awards
`
`including Best Support, Users Most Likely to Recommend, and Best ROI.
`
`ThreatLocker’s Intellectual Property Rights
`
`17. ThreatLocker owns a United States federal trademark registration for
`
`the THREATLOCKER® mark, summarized below.
`
`TRADEMARK
`
`CLASS: GOODS/SERVICES
`
`THREATLOCKE
`R
`
`42: Software as a service (SAAS) services
`featuring cloud based software for cyber
`security, namely, software that detects,
`disables and reports unauthorized software
`and uses a complex set of rules to determine
`what can be executed on a computer
`network, and stops anything that has not
`been approved before it can execute.
`
`REG. NO.
`REG. DATE
`5,589,062
`
`October 23,
`2018
`
`18. The THREATLOCKER registration constitutes prima facie evidence
`
`that the THREATLOCKER® mark is valid, and that ThreatLocker is entitled to
`
`exclusive use of the THREATLOCKER® mark in commerce and throughout the
`
`United States on the goods and services listed in the registration.
`
`19. ThreatLocker has been and is now engaged in the business of
`
`developing, creating, distributing, marketing, advertising, and selling a variety of
`
`goods and services under the THREATLOCKER® mark. Through ThreatLocker’s
`
`widespread and continuous use of its THREATLOCKER® mark throughout the
`
`United States, the THREATLOCKER® mark has acquired extensive goodwill,
`
`developed a high degree of distinctiveness, and become well-known and recognized
`
`as identifying goods and services that originate from ThreatLocker.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-02407-RBD-DAB Document 1 Filed 12/27/22 Page 6 of 26 PageID 6
`
`Defendants’ Unauthorized Use of ThreatLocker’s Mark
`
`20. Upon information and belief, Defendant ThreatBlockr was founded in
`
`or around 2012. Up until recently, ThreatBlockr operated under the name Bandura
`
`Cyber.
`
`21. Upon information and belief, ThreatBlockr offers a software security
`
`platform designed to neutralize risk and protect computer networks.
`
`22.
`
`In an attempt to capitalize on ThreatLocker’s success, ThreatBlockr has
`
`begun copying nearly every aspect of ThreatLocker’s business.
`
`23. First, it began offering its competing software platform and services
`
`under the mark THREATBLOCKR.
`
`24. Then, the company abandoned its corporate name (Bandura Cyber) and
`
`began operating under the corporate name ThreatBlockr.
`
`25. ThreatBlockr also registered the domain name threatblockr.com and
`
`began using the domain name to host its primary website.
`
`26. ThreatBlockr’s website is very similar in look and feel to ThreatLocker’s
`
`website. For example, both home pages display a dark blue banner with the
`
`company name at the top left-hand corner that scrolls along a blue and white home
`
`page. Both home pages include a menu in the top banner that includes links to pages
`
`titled “Platform,” “Resources,” and “Company,” as well as a button to request a
`
`product demo.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-02407-RBD-DAB Document 1 Filed 12/27/22 Page 7 of 26 PageID 7
`
`(www.threatblockr.com)
`
`
`
`
`
`(www.threatlocker.com)
`
`27. ThreatBlockr also created various social media pages to promote its
`
`company and services, including a Twitter page (www.twitter.com/threatblockr) and a
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-02407-RBD-DAB Document 1 Filed 12/27/22 Page 8 of 26 PageID 8
`
`LinkedIn page
`
`(www.linkedin.com/company/threatblockr/)
`
`(the “Social Media
`
`Accounts”).
`
` The Social Media Accounts prominently display
`
`the
`
`THREATBLOCKR mark and promote the services offered under the mark.
`
`28. ThreatBlockr even filed to register its THREATBLOCKR mark (Serial
`
`No. 90/293595) with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). The
`
`THREATBLOCKR mark was registered on the Supplemental Register on June 24,
`
`2021.
`
`29. The THREATBLOCKR mark
`
`is nearly
`
`identical
`
`to
`
`the
`
`THREATLOCKER® mark in appearance, sound, and meaning. Furthermore, the
`
`goods and services offered under the THREATBLOCKR mark are highly similar
`
`and/or closely related to the goods and services ThreatLocker offers under its
`
`THREATLOCKER® mark.
`
`30. Moreover, ThreatBlockr’s adoption of a nearly identical branding
`
`scheme (as shown by the comparison of the companies’ websites) creates a
`
`significant risk that consumers will be confused between ThreatLocker and
`
`ThreatBlockr.
`
`31. Defendants’ sudden pivot to using the THREATBLOCKR mark and
`
`company name was not a coincidence. Upon information and belief, Defendants
`
`intended to capitalize on ThreatLocker’s name and strong reputation in the industry.
`
`32.
`
`In or around June 2018, ThreatLocker reached out to Mr. Ron Gula
`
`and his investment firm, Gula Tech Adventures. ThreatLocker expressed interest in
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-02407-RBD-DAB Document 1 Filed 12/27/22 Page 9 of 26 PageID 9
`
`having Mr. Gula invest in ThreatLocker. After asking a number of questions, Mr.
`
`Gula declined to invest in ThreatLocker.
`
`33. However, unbeknownst to ThreatLocker, Mr. Gula was simultaneously
`
`exploring an investment deal with ThreatBlockr (then called Bandura Cyber).
`
`Within months of rejecting ThreatLocker’s proposal, Mr. Gula invested in Bandura
`
`Cyber.
`
`34. Upon information and belief, Mr. Gula and his firm remain one of
`
`ThreatBlockr’s largest investors to this day. Indeed, Mr. Gula and Gula Tech
`
`Adventures have led multiple investment rounds in ThreatBlockr. Mr. Gula also
`
`serves on the board of ThreatBlockr. At all relevant times, Mr. Gula has known of
`
`ThreatLocker and its superior rights in the THREATLOCKER® mark.
`
`35. ThreatLocker has scaled tremendously since Mr. Gula declined to
`
`invest in 2018. By 2020, ThreatLocker was a well-known name in the industry.
`
`Indeed, ThreatLocker was winning industry awards and expanding its market
`
`footprint.
`
`36. Upon information and belief, hoping to ride ThreatLocker’s coattails,
`
`Defendants began using the highly similar THREATBLOCKR mark.
`
`37. Upon information and belief, in March 2022, after obtaining another
`
`round of financing from Mr. Gula, Defendants renamed the company from Bandura
`
`Cyber to ThreatBlockr.
`
`38.
`
`In light of ThreatLocker’s clearly senior and superior rights in the
`
`THREATLOCKER® mark, ThreatLocker is very concerned that consumers will
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-02407-RBD-DAB Document 1 Filed 12/27/22 Page 10 of 26 PageID 10
`
`likely be confused and mistakenly believe that ThreatBlockr and its goods and/or
`
`services are endorsed, approved, or sponsored by, or affiliated, connected, or
`
`associated with, ThreatLocker. In fact, consumer confusion has already occurred
`
`and will continue to occur unless Defendants are stopped.
`
`39. Defendants will thus reap the benefits of ThreatLocker’s reputation and
`
`goodwill based on this consumer confusion, to ThreatLocker’s detriment.
`
`40. ThreatLocker has attempted to reconcile its concerns with Defendants,
`
`but Defendants have refused to cease use of the THREATBLOCKR mark.
`
`41. Given Defendants’ failure to respond to ThreatLocker’s concerns, and
`
`Defendants’ continuing use of the THREATBLOCKR mark, ThreatLocker has
`
`brought this suit to fully litigate and resolve the trademark issues between the parties.
`
`ThreatLocker Is Harmed By Defendants’
`
`Continuing Infringement & Unlawful Conduct
`
`42. Defendants’
`
`continued
`
`use
`
`of
`
`the
`
`confusingly
`
`similar
`
`THREATBLOCKR mark in commerce violates ThreatLocker’s valuable intellectual
`
`property rights in the THREATLOCKER® mark and registration, and Defendants’
`
`knowing, intentional, willful, and malicious use of this mark is damaging to
`
`ThreatLocker and ThreatLocker’s property.
`
`43. Defendants have used the THREATBLOCKR mark to unfairly usurp
`
`and capitalize on the value and goodwill of the THREATLOCKER® mark and
`
`registration. Defendants are aware of ThreatLocker’s strong trademark rights and
`
`reputation in the marketplace, but nevertheless use their THREATBLOCKR mark to
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-02407-RBD-DAB Document 1 Filed 12/27/22 Page 11 of 26 PageID 11
`
`profit from the goodwill associated with the THREATLOCKER® mark and
`
`registration.
`
`44. Defendants have intentionally and knowingly capitalized off of
`
`confusion between the THREATLOCKER® mark and the THREATBLOCKR
`
`mark, including by adopting a nearly identical branding scheme as ThreatLocker.
`
`45.
`
`Indeed,
`
`and
`
`not
`
`surprisingly, Defendants’
`
`use
`
`of
`
`the
`
`THREATBLOCKR mark in commerce has already caused consumer confusion. As
`
`just one example, at a recent industry tradeshow, ThreatLocker employees were
`
`approached by attendees to “talk shop.” After some investigation, it was determined
`
`that the attendees were actually customers of ThreatBlockr, not ThreatLocker.
`
`46. As another example, ThreatLocker recently hosted a sales call with a
`
`prospective customer. Ten minutes into the call, the prospective customer realized
`
`that it had contacted the wrong the company. The prospective customer had
`
`intended to contact ThreatBlockr. The sales call was canceled, but ThreatLocker had
`
`already expended significant time and energy preparing for the call.
`
`47. Upon information and belief, Defendants have also received customer
`
`and prospective customer inquiries that were intended for ThreatLocker.
`
`48. ThreatLocker is particularly concerned about consumer confusion, as
`
`ThreatLocker has been made aware of allegations that ThreatBlockr’s software
`
`platform is of poor quality. Indeed, ThreatBlockr was even sued by a former
`
`customer who alleged that ThreatBlockr’s software did not function properly and
`
`that ThreatBlockr was engaged in fraud. ThreatLocker cannot allow its carefully
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-02407-RBD-DAB Document 1 Filed 12/27/22 Page 12 of 26 PageID 12
`
`cultivated reputation as a provider of high-quality software solutions and services to
`
`be tarnished by the acts of Defendants.
`
`49. Due to Defendants’ continuing willful infringement and unlawful
`
`conduct, ThreatLocker is now forced to bring this Complaint to protect its valuable
`
`and longstanding intellectual property rights. ThreatLocker had to retain counsel
`
`and incur substantial fees and costs (and it continues to incur those fees and costs) to
`
`prosecute this suit and pursue its claims.
`
`50. ThreatLocker’s interest in protecting its intellectual property rights and its
`
`products and services from consumer confusion outweigh any harm to Defendants.
`
`The public interest is best served by granting ThreatLocker’s requested relief against
`
`Defendants.
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`Federal Trademark Infringement – 15 U.S.C. § 1114
`
`51. ThreatLocker incorporates by reference the factual allegations set forth
`
`in paragraphs 1-50.
`
`52. ThreatLocker owns the THREATLOCKER® mark and registration.
`
`The trademark reflected in the THREATLOCKER® registration is strong and
`
`distinctive and designates ThreatLocker as the source of all products and services
`
`advertised, marketed, sold, or used in connection with the THREATLOCKER®
`
`mark. In particular, the THREATLOCKER® mark has been used continuously for
`
`over five years and developed significant consumer goodwill.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-02407-RBD-DAB Document 1 Filed 12/27/22 Page 13 of 26 PageID 13
`
`53. ThreatLocker is the senior user of the THREATLOCKER® mark as it
`
`began use of the mark in interstate commerce prior to Defendants’ first use of the
`
`confusingly similar THREATBLOCKR mark.
`
`54. Defendants do not have authorization, license, or permission from
`
`ThreatLocker
`
`to market and sell
`
`their products and services under
`
`the
`
`THREATBLOCKR mark, which is confusingly similar to the THREATLOCKER®
`
`mark, and which is used by Defendants with products and services that are identical
`
`and/or closely related
`
`to
`
`the products and services associated with
`
`the
`
`THREATLOCKER® mark.
`
`55. Defendants were aware of
`
`the THREATLOCKER® mark, as
`
`Defendants were on constructive notice based on ThreatLocker’s longstanding
`
`federal registration, as well as on actual notice based on ThreatLocker’s numerous
`
`communications with Defendants about this matter, including ThreatLocker’s
`
`communications with Mr. Gula in or around June 2018. Yet, Defendants continued
`
`to use their THREATBLOCKR mark. Thus, Defendants’ unauthorized use of the
`
`confusingly similar THREATBLOCKR mark was and is knowing, intentional, and
`
`willful.
`
`56. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct,
`
`ThreatLocker has been and will continue to be damaged.
`
`57. Defendants’ actions therefore constitute trademark infringement.
`
`58. Unless an injunction is issued enjoining any continuing or future use of
`
`the confusingly similar THREATBLOCKR mark by Defendants, such continuing or
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-02407-RBD-DAB Document 1 Filed 12/27/22 Page 14 of 26 PageID 14
`
`future use is likely to continue to cause confusion, mistake, or deception as to source,
`
`origin, affiliation, or sponsorship, and will thereby irreparably harm ThreatLocker.
`
`59. Defendants’ activities have caused and will continue to cause
`
`irreparable harm to ThreatLocker, for which it has no adequate remedy at law,
`
`because: (i) the THREATLOCKER® mark comprises unique and valuable property
`
`rights that have no readily determinable market value; (ii) Defendants’ infringement
`
`constitutes interference with ThreatLocker’s goodwill and customer relationships and
`
`will continue to substantially harm ThreatLocker’s reputation as a source of high-
`
`quality goods and services; and (iii) Defendants’ wrongful conduct, and the damages
`
`resulting to ThreatLocker, are continuing. Accordingly, ThreatLocker is entitled to
`
`injunctive relief pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a).
`
`60. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1117(a), ThreatLocker is entitled to an order:
`
`(i) requiring Defendants to account to ThreatLocker for any and all profits derived
`
`from their infringing actions, to be increased in accordance with the applicable
`
`provisions of law; and (ii) awarding all damages sustained by ThreatLocker that were
`
`caused by Defendants’ conduct.
`
`61. Defendants’ conduct was and is intentional and without foundation in
`
`law, and, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), ThreatLocker is therefore entitled to an
`
`award of treble damages against Defendants.
`
`62. Defendants’
`
`acts make
`
`this
`
`an
`
`exceptional
`
`case
`
`under
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1117(a); thus ThreatLocker is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and
`
`costs.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-02407-RBD-DAB Document 1 Filed 12/27/22 Page 15 of 26 PageID 15
`
`
`
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`Federal Unfair Competition/False Designation of Origin – 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
`
`63. ThreatLocker incorporates by reference the factual allegations set forth
`
`in paragraphs 1-50.
`
`64. The THREATLOCKER® mark is strong and distinctive and designates
`
`ThreatLocker as the source of all goods and services advertised, marketed, sold, or
`
`used in connection with the mark. In addition, by virtue of ThreatLocker’s years of
`
`use of the mark in connection with its products and services, and its extensive
`
`marketing, advertising, promotion, and sale of its products and services under the
`
`mark, the THREATLOCKER® mark has acquired secondary meaning, whereby the
`
`consuming public of this District, the State of Florida, and the United States
`
`associate the THREATLOCKER® mark with a single source of products and
`
`services.
`
`65. ThreatLocker is the senior user of the THREATLOCKER® mark as it
`
`began use of the mark in interstate commerce prior to Defendants’ first use of the
`
`confusingly similar THREATBLOCKR mark.
`
`66. Defendants were aware of the THREATLOCKER® mark, because
`
`Defendants were on constructive notice based on ThreatLocker’s longstanding
`
`federal registration, as well as on actual notice based on ThreatLocker’s numerous
`
`communications with Defendants about this matter, including ThreatLocker’s
`
`communications with Mr. Gula in or around June 2018. Yet, Defendants continued
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-02407-RBD-DAB Document 1 Filed 12/27/22 Page 16 of 26 PageID 16
`
`to use their THREATBLOCKR mark. Thus, Defendants’ unauthorized use of the
`
`confusingly similar THREATBLOCKR mark was and is knowing, intentional, and
`
`willful.
`
`67. Through their use of the confusingly similar THREATBLOCKR mark,
`
`Defendants intended to, and did in fact, confuse and mislead consumers into
`
`believing, and misrepresented and created the false impression, that ThreatLocker
`
`somehow authorized, originated, sponsored, approved, licensed, or participated in
`
`Defendants’ use of the confusingly similar THREATBLOCKR mark.
`
`68.
`
`In fact, there is no connection, association, or licensing relationship
`
`between ThreatLocker and Defendants, nor has ThreatLocker ever authorized,
`
`licensed, or given permission to Defendants to use the confusingly similar
`
`THREATBLOCKR mark in any manner.
`
`69. Defendants’ use of the confusingly similar THREATBLOCKR mark
`
`will likely cause confusion as to the origin and authenticity of Defendants’ website,
`
`and related goods and services, and will likely cause others to believe that there is a
`
`relationship between Defendants and ThreatLocker when there is, in fact, not.
`
`70. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct,
`
`ThreatLocker has been and will continue to be damaged.
`
`71. Defendants’ actions thus constitute false designation of origin and
`
`unfair competition.
`
`72. Defendants’ activities have caused, and will continue to cause,
`
`irreparable harm to ThreatLocker, for which it has no adequate remedy at law, in
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-02407-RBD-DAB Document 1 Filed 12/27/22 Page 17 of 26 PageID 17
`
`that: (i) the THREATLOCKER® mark comprises unique and valuable property
`
`rights that have no readily determinable market value; (ii) Defendants’ infringement
`
`constitutes interference with ThreatLocker’s goodwill and customer relationships and
`
`will substantially harm ThreatLocker’s reputation as a source of high-quality goods
`
`and services; and (iii) Defendants’ wrongful conduct, and the damages resulting to
`
`ThreatLocker, are continuing. Accordingly, ThreatLocker is entitled to injunctive
`
`relief pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a).
`
`73. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1117(a), ThreatLocker is entitled to an order:
`
`(i) requiring Defendants to account to ThreatLocker for any and all profits derived
`
`from their actions, to be increased in accordance with the applicable provisions of
`
`law; and (ii) awarding all damages sustained by ThreatLocker that were caused by
`
`Defendants’ conduct.
`
`74. Defendants’ conduct was and is intentional and without foundation in
`
`law, and pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), ThreatLocker is therefore entitled to an
`
`award of treble damages against Defendants.
`
`75. Defendants’ acts make this an exceptional case under 15 U.S.C.
`
` § 1117(a); thus ThreatLocker is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
`
`THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq.)
`
`76. ThreatLocker incorporates by reference the factual allegations set forth
`
`in paragraphs 1-50.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-02407-RBD-DAB Document 1 Filed 12/27/22 Page 18 of 26 PageID 18
`
`77. Defendants have engaged in the conduct of trade and commerce in the
`
`State of Florida.
`
`78. As described above, Defendants have violated the Florida Deceptive
`
`and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”) by engaging in unfair methods of
`
`competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and/or unfair or deceptive acts or
`
`practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.
`
`79. Defendants’ use of the confusingly similar THREATBLOCKR mark on
`
`unauthorized goods and services is likely to cause confusion as to the origin of
`
`Defendants’ goods and services and is likely to cause others to believe that there is a
`
`relationship between Defendants and ThreatLocker.
`
`80. Defendants’ wrongful acts have permitted and will permit them to
`
`receive substantial profits based upon the strength of ThreatLocker’s reputation and
`
`the substantial goodwill it has built up in the THREATLOCKER® mark.
`
`81. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct,
`
`ThreatLocker and consumers have been and will continue to be damaged because
`
`consumers have been and will continue to be misled to purchase ThreatBlockr’s
`
`inferior goods or services instead of ThreatLocker’s goods and services. By using the
`
`THREATBLOCKR mark to divert consumers to its own goods and services,
`
`Defendants have caused ThreatLocker to lose sales.
`
`82. Unless an injunction is issued enjoining any continuing or future use of
`
`the THREATBLOCKR mark by Defendants, such continuing or future use is likely
`
`to continue to cause confusion and thereby irreparably damage ThreatLocker.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-02407-RBD-DAB Document 1 Filed 12/27/22 Page 19 of 26 PageID 19
`
`ThreatLocker has no adequate remedy at law. Accordingly, ThreatLocker is entitled
`
`to an injunction.
`
`83. ThreatLocker is entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees and
`
`costs pursuant to Fla. Stats. § 501.211 and § 501.2105.
`
`FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`Florida Common Law Unfair Competition and Trademark Infringement
`
`84. ThreatLocker incorporates by reference the factual allegations set forth
`
`in paragraphs 1-50.
`
`85. ThreatLocker has valid and protectable common law rights in the
`
`THREATLOCKER® mark.
`
`86. ThreatLocker is the senior user of the THREATLOCKER® mark.
`
`87. ThreatLocker has expended significant time and expense in developing
`
`the THREATLOCKER® mark and the high-quality products and services it markets
`
`and sells under the mark. The THREATLOCKER® mark has been very successful
`
`and has developed a substantial reputation and goodwill in the marketplace.
`
`88. Defendants’ use of the confusingly similar THREATBLOCKR mark on
`
`unauthorized goods and services are likely to cause confusion as to the origin of
`
`Defendants’ goods and services and is likely to cause others to believe that there is a
`
`relationship between Defendants and ThreatLocker.
`
`89. Defendants’ wrongful acts have permitted and will permit them to
`
`receive substantial profits based upon the strength of ThreatLocker’s reputation and
`
`the substantial goodwill it has built up in the THREATLOCKER® mark.
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-02407-RBD-DAB Document 1 Filed 12/27/22 Page 20 of 26 PageID 20
`
`90. Through their wrongful conduct, Defendants have misappropriated
`
`ThreatLocker’s efforts and are exploiting the THREATLOCKER® mark and
`
`ThreatLocker’s
`
`reputation
`
`to market and
`
`sell
`
`their
`
`services under
`
`the
`
`THREATBLOCKR mark. These actions constitute unfair competition.
`
`91. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct,
`
`ThreatLocker has been and will continue to be damaged. Defendants have misled
`
`and will continue to mislead customers into falsely believing that Defendants goods
`
`and services are connected or related to ThreatLocker’s goods and services. By using
`
`the THREATBLOCKR mark to divert consumers to its own goods and services,
`
`Defendants have caused ThreatLocker to lose sales.
`
`92. Unless an injunction is issued enjoining any continuing or future use of
`
`the THREATBLOCKR mark by Defendants, such continuing or future use is likely
`
`to continue to cause confusion and thereby irreparably damage ThreatLocker.
`
`ThreatLocker has no adequate remedy at law. Accordingly, ThreatLocker is entitled
`
`to an injunction.
`
`93. Defendants have acted willfully, intentionally and maliciously, such
`
`that ThreatLocker is entitled to punitive damages.
`
`PRAYER
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, ThreatLocker prays for the following relief:
`
`A. An injunction ordering Defendants, and their officers, directors,
`
`members, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and all other persons acting in
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-02407-RBD-DAB Document 1 Filed 12/27/22 Page 21 of 26 PageID 21
`
`concert or participating with them (collectively, the “Enjoined Parties”), who receive
`
`actual notice of the injunction order by personal or other service, to:
`
`i.
`
`cease all use and never use the THREATBLOCKR mark, the
`
`THREATLOCKER® mark, or any other mark likely to cause
`
`confusion with the THREATLOCKER® mark, including any
`
`misspelling or variation of the mark, in, on, or with any products
`
`or services, or in connection with the advertising, marketing, or
`
`other promotion, distribution, offering for sale, or sale, of any
`
`products or services, including on the Social Media Accounts;
`
`ii.
`
`never use any false designation of origin, false representation, or
`
`any false or misleading description of fact, that can, or is likely
`
`to, lead the consuming public or individual members thereof, to
`
`believe
`
`that any products or services produced, offered,
`
`promoted, marketed, advertised, provided, sold or otherwise
`
`distributed by the Enjoined Parties is in any manner associated or
`
`connected with ThreatLocker, or are licensed, approved, or
`
`authorized in any way by ThreatLocker;
`
`iii.
`
`never represent, suggest in any fashion to any third party, or
`
`perform any act that may give rise to the belief, that the Enjoined
`
`Parties, or any of their products or services, are related to, or
`
`authorized or sponsored by, ThreatLocker;
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-02407-RBD-DAB Document 1 Filed 12/27/22 Page 22 of 26 PageID 22
`
`iv.
`
`never
`
`register
`
`any domain name
`
`that
`
`contains
`
`the
`
`THREATLOCKER® mark or any misspelling or variation of the
`
`mark, or any domain name confusingly similar
`
`to
`
`the
`
`THREATLOCKER® mark;
`
`v.
`
`transfer to ThreatLocker all domain names in the Enjoined
`
`Parties’ possession, custody, or control that include the word
`
`“threat” or any misspelling or variation thereof, are otherwise
`
`confusingly similar to or contain the THREATLOCKER® mark,
`
`or were used in connection with the THREATBLOCKR mark,
`
`including but not limited to www.threablockr.com;
`
`vi.
`
`cease all use of the Social Media Accounts and any similar
`
`accounts or social media websites, and never register or attempt
`
`to register any social media account
`
`that contains
`
`the
`
`THREATBLOCKR mark, the THREATLOCKER® mark, or
`
`any misspelling or variation of the mark, or any other social
`
`media account confusingly similar to the THREATLOCKER®
`
`mark;
`
`vii.
`
`transfer to ThreatLocker, disable, or delete the Social Media
`
`Accounts that were used to promote the THREATBLOCKR
`
`mark, including all such accounts in Defendants’ possession,
`
`custody, or control that include the word “threat” or any
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-02407-RBD-DAB Document 1 Filed 12/27/22 Page

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


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

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

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

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

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

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

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

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

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

Your account does not support viewing this document.

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

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

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

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

Become a Member

One Moment Please

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

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

Your document is on its way!

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

Sealed Document

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

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


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket