`
`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