Case 9:21-cv-80762-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021 Page 1 of 32
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION
`
`
`
`ADT LLC and THE ADT SECURITY
`CORPORATION,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`RING LLC,
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 9:21-cv-80762
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs ADT LLC and The ADT Security Corporation (together “ADT”) bring this action
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`against Defendant Ring LLC (“Ring”), and in support allege as follows:
`
`ADT’S LONG HISTORY OF INNOVATION
`
`1.
`
`ADT is the largest and best-known provider of home security and automation
`
`technology and services in the United States. For decades, ADT’s Famous Blue Octagon—an
`
`iconic trademark recognizable virtually anywhere in the United States—has been a symbol of
`
`ADT’s dedication to its customers. ADT’s more than 6 million customers proudly display ADT’s
`
`Famous Blue Octagon to let others know that ADT is always there to help protect and connect
`
`what matters most to them. Visible on a lawn sign or a sticker in a street-facing window, ADT’s
`
`Famous Blue Octagon makes customers feel safer, communicating to all who pass ADT’s
`
`reputation for trust, vigilance, and reliability.
`
`2.
`
`From ADT’s creation of the first security monitoring and response service in 1874,
`
`to its pioneering of automated burglar alarm systems in the mid-twentieth century, to becoming a
`
`
`
`
` 1
`
`

`

`Case 9:21-cv-80762-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021 Page 2 of 32
`
`leading provider of security and smart home solutions today, ADT has been a leader in innovation
`
`for over 145 years—patenting hundreds of security industry firsts during that span.
`
`3.
`
`As part of ADT’s commitment to innovation, ADT often works with industry
`
`startups, such as Ring. Founded in 2013 as “Doorbot,” Ring was discovered through the TV show
`
`Shark Tank, and was later acquired by Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”). Ring manufactures various
`
`smart home products, such as the Ring Video Doorbell. The startup is known less for security
`
`services than for smart home convenience and connectivity features that its parent company
`
`Amazon helped to popularize.
`
`4.
`
`Unfortunately, while ADT has had a storied history of partnering to innovate on
`
`behalf of its customers, Ring has had a history of misappropriating ADT’s intellectual property.
`
`RING’S PRIOR MISAPPROPRIATION OF ADT’S TECHNOLOGY
`
`5.
`
`In early 2017, only a few years into its existence, Ring sought to accelerate its
`
`nascent security capabilities by misappropriating a software platform that ADT had spent several
`
`years developing.
`
`6.
`
`ADT first began working with Ring in 2015—showcasing use of the Ring Video
`
`Doorbell with ADT’s home security and automation platform at the 2016 Consumer Electronics
`
`Show, along with other new smart home products. In July of 2016, ADT began to offer the Ring
`
`Video Doorbell to ADT customers for use with their ADT system.
`
`7.
`
`By early 2017, however, Ring had decided to launch its own home security and
`
`automation platform in competition with ADT. Without ADT’s knowledge, Ring misappropriated
`
`an unauthorized copy of the source code and documentation for a new home security and
`
`automation platform that ADT was developing with another young company, Zonoff, so that Ring
`
`could significantly shorten the time and cost for bringing its own competing security system to
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`

`

`Case 9:21-cv-80762-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021 Page 3 of 32
`
`market.
`
`8.
`
`ADT discovered the misappropriation and immediately reached out to Ring to
`
`resolve the matter. However, Ring refused to cease use of ADT’s intellectual property, and ADT
`
`was forced to file suit for misappropriation of ADT trade secrets in the Court of Chancery of the
`
`State of Delaware. ADT successfully obtained a preliminary injunction that enjoined Ring from
`
`using all of the software, source code, specifications, and related trade secrets for the platform that
`
`it had taken, and Ring settled with ADT. ADT Holdings, Inc. and ADT LLC v. Michael Harris and
`
`Bot Home Automation, Inc., d/b/a Ring.com, Case No. 2017-0328 (Del. Ch.).
`
`9.
`
`In April of 2018, Ring was sold to Amazon.
`
`
`
`ADT’S RELATIONSHIP WITH AMAZON
`
`10.
`
`As part of ADT’s commitment to innovate on behalf of its customers, ADT also
`
`has a separate relationship with Amazon.
`
`11.
`
`ADT had spent substantial time and resources developing the technology that
`
`would allow functional pairing of devices to its home security platforms, to further enhance the
`
`customer experience in using its products.
`
`12.
`
`In January of 2017, ADT first showcased the integration of its home security and
`
`automation system with Amazon’s Echo and Echo Dot products to its ecosystem at the 2017
`
`Consumer Electronics Show.
`
`13.
`
`In September of 2018, Amazon announced ADT as its Professional Installation and
`
`Monitoring Solution for Alexa Guard.
`
`14.
`
`Not surprisingly, ADT no longer actively promotes the Ring Video Doorbell.
`
`However, ADT still purchases the Ring Video Doorbell to support ADT’s customers who desire
`
`to use them with their ADT systems.
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`

`

`Case 9:21-cv-80762-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021 Page 4 of 32
`
`RING’S MISAPPROPRIATION OF ADT’S FAMOUS BLUE OCTAGON
`
`Even before its rebuke for misappropriating ADT’s software, Ring was attempting
`
`15.
`
`another open theft—the theft of ADT’s Famous Blue Octagon—seeking to tout a reputation for
`
`trust to potential customers that it has not earned.
`
`16.
`
`Because of potential for confusion between ADT and Ring’s respective offerings,
`
`the Master Sales Agreement dated February 1, 2016 for the Ring Video Doorbell (“ADT-Ring
`
`MSA”) provides that Ring shall “(i) not use or acquiesce in the use of any trademarks or trade
`
`names which are likely to be confusingly similar to the trademarks or trade names encompassed
`
`by ADT Intellectual Property; (ii) not knowingly unite, join or combine ADT Intellectual Property
`
`with any other symbols, names, or trademarks, except for marketing activities as contemplated by
`
`this Agreement . . . .”
`
`17.
`
`Notwithstanding this express obligation, only a few months later Ring began
`
`offering a lighted yard sign that was confusingly similar to ADT’s Famous Blue Octagon:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18.
`
`ADT is not aware of Ring using any octagon logo, much less a blue octagon, prior
`
`to the launch of its lighted yard sign.
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`

`

`Case 9:21-cv-80762-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021 Page 5 of 32
`
`19.
`
`Concerned by Ring’s actions, ADT reached out to Ring in August 2016 for Ring to
`
`take appropriate steps to avoid infringing ADT’s Famous Blue Octagon and minimize the risk of
`
`confusion by the public.
`
`20.
`
`Ring changed the coloring of its yard sign to remove the majority of the color blue:
`
`
`
`
`
`21. With the understanding that Ring would also take affirmative steps to avoid
`
`confusion as part of the relationship between the parties, ADT took no further action at that time.
`
`ADT did not waive any of its rights to take subsequent action against Ring.
`
`22.
`
`In November of 2020, Amazon notified ADT of its intent to terminate the ADT-
`
`Ring MSA, and ADT agreed to add purchases of the Ring Video Doorbell to the Authorized
`
`Amazon Reseller Sales Agreement between ADT and Amazon dated April 11, 2017 (“ADT-
`
`Amazon RSA”).
`
`23.
`
`In February of 2021, the ADT-Ring MSA was terminated, with ADT now
`
`purchasing the Ring Video Doorbell under the ADT-Amazon RSA, under which Amazon, for
`
`itself and its designated Affiliate, Ring, also agreed not to misappropriate ADT’s trademarks,
`
`including ADT’s Famous Blue Octagon, and not to use language or pictures which could
`
`reasonably imply any endorsement by or agency relationship with ADT.
`
`24.
`
`In late March 2021, ADT was surprised to learn that Ring had adopted a blue
`
`octagon mark (“the Infringing Mark”) that is virtually indistinguishable from ADT’s Famous Blue
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`

`

`Case 9:21-cv-80762-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021 Page 6 of 32
`
`Octagon for use in connection with Ring’s own security offerings, including the Ring Alarm
`
`Outdoor Siren. While Ring changed the color of its yard sign in 2016 to remove a majority of the
`
`blue color to minimize the risk of confusing the public, Ring now outright copies ADT’s Famous
`
`Blue Octagon as the Ring Alarm Outdoor Siren is solid blue:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`25.
`
`Upon information and belief, Ring adopted the Infringing Mark because Ring
`
`believes that when the public sees a solid blue octagon on a home, they will think of ADT. Indeed,
`
`even though the blue octagon mark that Ring is using includes the Ring name, it also appears that
`
`Ring had deployed the Infringing Mark under the assumption that people will believe that Ring is
`
`providing a security service on par with ADT—or, worse, that Ring is providing its security service
`
`in partnership with ADT.
`
`26.
`
`The striking similarity of Ring’s Infringing Mark to ADT’s Famous Blue Octagon
`
`strongly indicates Ring’s intentions to associate its security offerings with ADT to reap the benefit
`
`of the goodwill associated with ADT’s brand and reputation.
`
`27.
`
`Ring’s unauthorized use of ADT’s Famous Blue Octagon will cause confusion with
`
`ADT’s customers, potential customers and the public at large, and will cause them to mistakenly
`
`believe that there is an affiliation or association between Ring and ADT.
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`

`

`Case 9:21-cv-80762-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021 Page 7 of 32
`
`28.
`
`Ring’s use of ADT’s Famous Blue Octagon will mislead consumers to believe that
`
`Ring is endorsed by and/or partnering with ADT, or will cause consumers to believe that Ring’s
`
`products are genuine ADT products when, in fact, they are not. This type of confusion seriously
`
`undermines the goodwill that ADT has cultivated in its Famous Blue Octagon and irreparably
`
`harms ADT.
`
`29.
`
`As a result, ADT has brought this action at law and equity against Ring for willful
`
`trademark infringement, unfair competition, and false designation of origin under the Lanham Act,
`
`15 U.S.C. §§ 1114 and 1125(a); common law trademark infringement; unfair competition under
`
`Florida law; and Trademark Dilution under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c) and under Fla.
`
`Stat. § 495.151. Among other relief, ADT asks this Court to: (a) preliminarily enjoin Ring from
`
`using ADT’s Famous Blue Octagon and all colorably similar marks; (b) permanently enjoin Ring
`
`from using ADT’s Famous Blue Octagon and all colorably similar marks; (c) award ADT
`
`monetary damages and to treble that award; (d) require Ring to disgorge all profits from sales of
`
`the Ring Alarm Outdoor Siren or as otherwise associated with Ring’s use of the Infringing Mark
`
`for its security products and services; and (e) award ADT punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and
`
`costs.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`30.
`
`Plaintiff, The ADT Security Corporation, is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`principal place of business at 1501 Yamato Road, Boca Raton, Florida 33431. The ADT Security
`
`Corporation is a holding company that owns, inter alia, all ADT trademarks, including without
`
`limitation twelve (12) federal trademark registrations on ADT’s octagon design marks, including
`
`ADT’s Famous Blue Octagon, and bearing U.S. federal trademark Registration Nos. 2,399,377;
`
`2,857,796; 2,927,154; 3,324,938; 3,329,547; 3,335,240; 3,421,798; 3,511,262; 3,511,264;
`
`3,902,451; 3,906,116; and 5,672,406. ADT’s federally registered and common law Blue Octagon
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`

`

`Case 9:21-cv-80762-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021 Page 8 of 32
`
`Marks are referred to collectively throughout this Complaint as “ADT’s Famous Blue Octagon”
`
`or “ADT’s Blue Octagon Mark.” The ADT Security Corporation is ultimately wholly owned by
`
`ADT Inc., a Delaware corporation whose common stock is traded on the New York Stock
`
`Exchange.
`
`31.
`
`Plaintiff ADT LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place
`
`of business at 1501 Yamato Road, Boca Raton, Florida 33431. ADT LLC is an operating company
`
`that runs the ADT alarm services business in the United States. ADT LLC uses the ADT
`
`trademarks, including ADT’s Famous Blue Octagon, under license from The ADT Security
`
`Corporation. ADT LLC is owned by The ADT Security Corporation.
`
`32.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Ring LLC is a Delaware limited liability
`
`company with its principal place of business at 410 Terry Avenue North, Seattle, Washington
`
`98109.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`33.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under at least 15 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1121, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338 and supplemental jurisdiction over ADT’s related state and
`
`common law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
`
`34.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Ring at least pursuant to §§
`
`48.193(1)(a)(2) and 48.193(1)(a)(6) of the Florida long-arm statute because Ring has committed
`
`violations of the Lanham Act in Florida by virtue of the accessibility of Ring’s website in Florida,
`
`which has been viewed by persons located in Florida, and which prominently displays the
`
`Infringing Mark, and because ADT, a Florida resident, has suffered injury in Florida as a result of
`
`Ring’s violations of the Lanham Act.
`
`35.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because events giving
`
`rise to this action occurred, and are continuing to occur, in this District and because Ring is subject
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`

`

`Case 9:21-cv-80762-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021 Page 9 of 32
`
`to the Court’s personal jurisdiction in this District for committing tortious conduct in this District
`
`and because ADT has suffered harm in this District as described in this Complaint.
`
`
`
`ADT AND ITS FAMOUS BLUE OCTAGON MARK
`
`36.
`
`ADT has a long-standing record of providing high quality and reliable monitored
`
`security and automation services, expertise in system sales and installation, superior customer care,
`
`and industry-leading experience and knowledge.
`
`37.
`
`ADT is the owner of twelve (12) federal trademark registrations listed on the
`
`Principal Register for octagon marks, including the Blue Octagon Mark, for a variety of security
`
`offerings, true and correct copies of which are attached to this Complaint:
`
`a.
`
`U.S. Reg. No. 5,672,406, for the mark:
`
`
`
`(Exhibit A) (filed November 9, 2017, registered February 12, 2019, with a first use in commerce
`
`date of May 29, 2017) for certain goods and/or services, including fire and burglar alarm systems,
`
`installation, maintenance and repair services for building management, telecommunication
`
`services, technical supervision and inspection in the field of security, home health monitoring;
`
`b.
`
`US. Reg. No. 3,906,116, for the mark:
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`

`

`Case 9:21-cv-80762-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021 Page 10 of 32
`
`
`
`(Exhibit B) (filed January 4, 2008, registered January 18, 2011, on the basis of a European
`
`Community trademark registration) for certain goods and/or services, including fire and burglar
`
`alarm systems, telecommunication services, technical consultation services, alarm response and
`
`verification services, supervision and inspection in the field of security;
`
`c. Incontestable U.S. Reg. No. 3,902,451, for the mark:
`
`(Exhibit C) (filed January 4, 2008, registered January 11, 2011, on the basis of a European
`
`Community trademark registration) for certain goods and/or services, including fire and burglar
`
`alarm systems, telecommunication services, technical supervision, alarm response and verification
`
`
`
`services;
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 9:21-cv-80762-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021 Page 11 of 32
`
`d. Incontestable U.S. Reg. No. 3,511,264, for the mark:
`
`
`
`(Exhibit D) (filed December 11, 2007, registered October 7, 2008, with a first use in commerce
`
`date of May 15, 2006) for certain goods and/or services, including emergency roadside assistance
`
`services, telecommunication services, electronic monitoring for security purposes;
`
`e. Incontestable U.S. Reg. No. 3,511,262, for the mark:
`
`
`
`(Exhibit E) (filed December 11, 2007, registered October 7, 2008, with a first use in commerce
`
`date of May 15, 2006) for certain goods and/or services, including emergency roadside assistance
`
`services, telecommunication services, electronic monitoring for security purposes;
`
`f. Incontestable U.S. Reg. No. 3,421,798, for the mark:
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 9:21-cv-80762-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021 Page 12 of 32
`
`(Exhibit F) (filed January 22, 2007, registered May 06, 2008, with a first use in commerce date of
`
`April 17, 2007) for certain goods and/or services, including computer consultation services;
`
`g. Incontestable U.S. Reg. No. 3,335,240, for the mark:
`
`
`
`(Exhibit G) (filed August 24, 2006, registered November 13, 2007, with a first use in commerce
`
`date of December 12, 2005) for certain goods and/or services, including home health monitoring;
`
`h. Incontestable U.S. Reg. No. 3,329,547, for the mark:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 9:21-cv-80762-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021 Page 13 of 32
`
`(Exhibit H) (filed August 24, 2006, registered November 6, 2007, with a first use in commerce
`
`date of December 12, 2005) for certain goods and/or services, including home health monitoring;
`
`i.
`
`Incontestable U.S. Reg. No. 3,324,938, for the mark:
`
`
`
`
`
`(Exhibit I) (filed October 10, 2006, registered October 30, 2007, on the basis of an International
`
`Registration) for certain goods and/or services, including computerized tracking and tracing of
`
`packages in transit, advertising and business management consultancy;
`
`j.
`
`Incontestable U.S. Reg. No. 2,927,154, for the mark:
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 9:21-cv-80762-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021 Page 14 of 32
`
`(Exhibit J) (filed May 10, 2002, registered February 22, 2005, with a first use in commerce date
`
`of June 1997) for certain goods and/or services, including installation and maintenance of security
`
`systems, fire and burglar alarms, technical supervision and inspection, central station electric
`
`
`
`protection services;
`
`k. Incontestable U.S. Reg. No. 2,857,796, for the mark:
`
`(Exhibit K) (filed June 25, 2002, registered June 29, 2004, with a first use in commerce date of
`
`1991) for certain goods and/or services, including installation and maintenance services for
`
`building management and electric signaling, fire and burglar alarms, central station electric
`
`
`
`protection services; and
`
`l.
`
`Incontestable U.S. Reg. No. 2,399,377, for the mark:
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 9:21-cv-80762-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021 Page 15 of 32
`
`
`
`(Exhibit L) (filed April 19, 1999, registered October 31, 2000, with a first use in commerce date
`
`of June 1997) (the horizontal lines in the mark drawing above were the prescribed manner at the
`
`time of filing the application to indicate the color blue) for certain goods and/or services, including
`
`security system monitoring services, fire and burglar alarms.
`
`38.
`
`ADT has invested substantial resources in advertising and promoting its security
`
`offerings under the Blue Octagon Mark.
`
`39.
`
`ADT has received substantial revenues from the sale of security offerings under the
`
`Blue Octagon Mark. As of December 31, 2020, ADT served approximately 6.5 million recurring
`
`revenue customers through more than 300 locations, nine monitoring centers, and the largest
`
`network of security and home automation professionals in the U.S.
`
`40.
`
`Through ADT’s use of the Blue Octagon Mark, this mark has become widely
`
`recognized by the general consuming public as a designation indicating a single source of high
`
`quality goods and services, namely ADT. Purchasers rely upon ADT’s Blue Octagon Mark for an
`
`assurance of high-quality, reliable products and services and trust their safety and personal
`
`property to security products and services provided under that mark.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 9:21-cv-80762-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021 Page 16 of 32
`
`RING AND ITS UNAUTHORIZED USE OF
`ADT’S FAMOUS BLUE OCTAGON MARK
`
`Ring is a direct competitor of ADT in the home security services and equipment
`
`41.
`
`market. ADT and Ring market and sell substantially similar goods and services to the same
`
`consuming public.
`
`42.
`
`Ring manufactures numerous security products that are offered for sale and sold at
`
`physical retail outlets, such as Home Depot and Lowe’s, in the State of Florida, including in this
`
`District, and are used within the State of Florida, including in this District, in the ordinary course
`
`of commerce, trade, or use.
`
`43.
`
`In a brazen move, Ring recently adopted a mark virtually indistinguishable from
`
`ADT’s Blue Octagon Mark to advertise, promote, and sell its security offerings, including the Ring
`
`Alarm Outdoor Siren, which is illustrated in the following side-by-side comparison between an
`
`image displayed in a recent Ring commercial for the Ring Alarm Outdoor Siren on the left and an
`
`image of ADT’s Blue Octagon Mark on the right:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`44.
`
`The Ring Alarm Outdoor Siren, illustrated below, clearly incorporates ADT’s Blue
`
`Octagon Mark, and is currently available for purchase on the Ring website and at retail outlets,
`
`such as Amazon and Home Depot:
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 9:21-cv-80762-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021 Page 17 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`45.
`
`Ring’s website, which is accessible in Florida, prominently displays Ring’s
`
`infringing and unauthorized use of ADT’s Blue Octagon Mark, which has been viewed by
`
`residents in this district:
`
`46.
`
`ADT sent a letter to Ring on April 21, 2021, demanding that Ring stop all use of
`
`ADT’s Blue Octagon Mark and all confusingly similar marks thereto. ADT’s demand letter is
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit M.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 9:21-cv-80762-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021 Page 18 of 32
`
`47.
`
`Ring, nevertheless, has continued to use ADT’s Blue Octagon Mark to advertise
`
`and sell its security offerings.
`
`48.
`
`Ring’s adoption and use of ADT’s inherently distinctive and well-known Blue
`
`Octagon Mark is an attempt to trade off of ADT’s goodwill and reputation and to deceive the
`
`public into believing that Ring’s goods and services are connected with ADT and/or that Ring is
`
`providing goods and services in partnership with ADT.
`
`COUNT I
`TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. FEDERAL REGISTRATION NO. 2,399,377
`UNDER THE LANHAM ACT, 15 U.S.C. § 1114 ET SEQ.
`
`
`
`49.
`
`50.
`
`ADT incorporates paragraphs 1-48 of the Complaint as if set forth fully herein.
`
`ADT owns the entire right, title, and interest in and to U.S. federal trademark
`
`Registration No. 2,399,377 (“the ’377 Mark”).
`
`51.
`
`Ring has reproduced, copied, and imitated the ’377 Mark in connection with
`
`advertising, promoting, and selling security offerings, including the Ring Alarm Outdoor Siren, in
`
`competition with ADT and without ADT’s consent.
`
`52.
`
`Ring’s unauthorized use of the ’377 Mark is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or
`
`to deceive consumers because the public is likely to believe that Ring’s security offerings,
`
`including the Ring Alarm Outdoor Siren, are approved by, associated with, sponsored by, or
`
`connected with ADT.
`
`53.
`
`Ring’s acts are willful, intentional, and deliberate. For example, and without
`
`limitation, Ring was well aware of how famous the ’377 Mark is and selected a virtually
`
`indistinguishable mark due to its similarity to the ’377 Mark in an effort to exploit ADT’s goodwill.
`
`54.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Ring’s unlawful acts, ADT has suffered and will
`
`continue to suffer monetary damages and irreparable harm.
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 9:21-cv-80762-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021 Page 19 of 32
`
`COUNT II
`TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. FEDERAL REGISTRATION NO. 2,857,796
`UNDER THE LANHAM ACT, 15 U.S.C. § 1114 ET SEQ.
`
`
`
`55.
`
`56.
`
`ADT incorporates paragraphs 1-48 of the Complaint as if set forth fully herein.
`
`ADT owns the entire right, title, and interest in and to U.S. federal trademark
`
`Registration No. 2,857,796 (“the ’796 Mark”).
`
`57.
`
`Ring has reproduced, copied, and imitated the ’796 Mark in connection with
`
`advertising, promoting, and selling security offerings, including the Ring Alarm Outdoor Siren, in
`
`competition with ADT and without ADT’s consent.
`
`58.
`
`Ring’s unauthorized use of the ’796 Mark is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or
`
`to deceive consumers because the public is likely to believe that Ring’s security offerings,
`
`including the Ring Alarm Outdoor Siren, are approved by, associated with, sponsored by, or
`
`connected with ADT.
`
`59.
`
`Ring’s acts are willful, intentional, and deliberate. For example, and without
`
`limitation, Ring was well aware of how famous the ’796 Mark is and selected a virtually
`
`indistinguishable mark due to its similarity to the ’796 Mark in an effort to exploit ADT’s goodwill.
`
`60.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Ring’s unlawful acts, ADT has suffered and will
`
`continue to suffer monetary damages and irreparable harm.
`
`COUNT III
`TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. FEDERAL REGISTRATION NO. 2,927,154
`UNDER THE LANHAM ACT, 15 U.S.C. § 1114 ET SEQ.
`
`
`
`61.
`
`62.
`
`ADT incorporates paragraphs 1-48 of the Complaint as if set forth fully herein.
`
`ADT owns the entire right, title, and interest in and to U.S. federal trademark
`
`Registration No. 2,927,154 (“the ’154 Mark”).
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case 9:21-cv-80762-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021 Page 20 of 32
`
`63.
`
`Ring has reproduced, copied and imitated the ’154 Mark in connection with
`
`advertising, promoting, and selling security offerings, including the Ring Alarm Outdoor Siren, in
`
`competition with ADT and without ADT’s consent.
`
`64.
`
`Ring’s unauthorized use of the ’154 Mark is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or
`
`to deceive consumers because the public is likely to believe that Ring’s security offerings,
`
`including the Ring Alarm Outdoor Siren, are approved by, associated with, sponsored by, or
`
`connected with ADT.
`
`65.
`
`Ring’s acts are willful, intentional, and deliberate. For example, and without
`
`limitation, Ring was well aware of how famous the ’154 Mark is and selected a virtually
`
`indistinguishable mark due to its similarity to the ’154 Mark in an effort to exploit ADT’s goodwill.
`
`66.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Ring’s unlawful acts, ADT has suffered and will
`
`continue to suffer monetary damages and irreparable harm.
`
`COUNT IV
`TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. FEDERAL REGISTRATION NO. 3,324,938
`UNDER THE LANHAM ACT, 15 U.S.C. § 1114 ET SEQ.
`
`
`
`67.
`
`68.
`
`ADT incorporates paragraphs 1-48 of the Complaint as if set forth fully herein.
`
`ADT owns the entire right, title, and interest in and to U.S. federal trademark
`
`Registration No. 3,324,938 (“the ’938 Mark”).
`
`69.
`
`Ring has reproduced, copied, and imitated the ’938 Mark in connection with
`
`advertising, promoting, and selling security offerings, including the Ring Alarm Outdoor Siren, in
`
`competition with ADT and without ADT’s consent.
`
`70.
`
`Ring’s unauthorized use of the ’938 Mark is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or
`
`to deceive consumers because the public is likely to believe that Ring’s security offerings,
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`Case 9:21-cv-80762-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021 Page 21 of 32
`
`including the Ring Alarm Outdoor Siren, are approved by, associated with, sponsored by, or
`
`connected with ADT.
`
`71.
`
`Ring’s acts are willful, intentional, and deliberate. For example, and without
`
`limitation, Ring was well aware of how famous the ’938 Mark is and selected a virtually
`
`indistinguishable mark due to its similarity to the ’938 Mark in an effort to exploit ADT’s goodwill.
`
`72.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Ring’s unlawful acts, ADT has suffered and will
`
`continue to suffer monetary damages and irreparable harm.
`
`COUNT V
`TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. FEDERAL REGISTRATION NO. 3,329,547
`UNDER THE LANHAM ACT, 15 U.S.C. § 1114 ET SEQ.
`
`
`
`73.
`
`74.
`
`ADT incorporates paragraphs 1-48 of the Complaint as if set forth fully herein.
`
`ADT owns the entire right, title, and interest in and to U.S. federal trademark
`
`Registration No. 3,329,547 (“the ’547 Mark”).
`
`75.
`
`Ring has reproduced, copied and imitated the ’547 Mark in connection with
`
`advertising, promoting, and selling security offerings, including the Ring Alarm Outdoor Siren, in
`
`competition with ADT and without ADT’s consent.
`
`76.
`
`Ring’s unauthorized use of the ’547 Mark is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or
`
`to deceive consumers because the public is likely to believe that Ring’s security offerings,
`
`including the Ring Alarm Outdoor Siren, are approved by, associated with, sponsored by, or
`
`connected with ADT.
`
`77.
`
`Ring’s acts are willful, intentional, and deliberate. For example, and without
`
`limitation, Ring was well aware of how famous the ’547 Mark is and selected a virtually
`
`indistinguishable mark due to its similarity to the ’547 Mark in an effort to exploit ADT’s goodwill.
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`Case 9:21-cv-80762-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021 Page 22 of 32
`
`78.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Ring’s unlawful acts, ADT has suffered and will
`
`continue to suffer monetary damages and irreparable harm.
`
`COUNT VI
`TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. FEDERAL REGISTRATION NO. 3,335,240
`UNDER THE LANHAM ACT, 15 U.S.C. § 1114 ET SEQ.
`
`
`
`79.
`
`80.
`
`ADT incorporates paragraphs 1-48 of the Complaint as if set forth fully herein.
`
`ADT owns the entire right, title, and interest in and to U.S. federal trademark
`
`Registration No. 3,335,240 (“the ’240 Registration”).
`
`81.
`
`Ring has reproduced, copied, and imitated the ’240 Registration in connection with
`
`advertising, promoting, and selling security offerings, including the Ring Alarm Outdoor Siren, in
`
`competition with ADT and without ADT’s consent.
`
`82.
`
`Ring’s unauthorized use of the ’240 Registration is likely to cause confusion,
`
`mistake, or to deceive consumers because the public is likely to believe that Ring’s security
`
`offerings, including the Ring Alarm Outdoor Siren, are approved by, associated with, sponsored
`
`by, or connected with ADT.
`
`83.
`
`Ring’s acts are willful, intentional, and deliberate. For example, and without
`
`limitation, Ring was well aware of how famous the ’240 Registration is and selected a virtually
`
`indistinguishable mark due to its similarity to the ’240 Registration in an effort to exploit ADT’s
`
`goodwill.
`
`84.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Ring’s unlawful acts, ADT has suffered and will
`
`continue to suffer monetary damages and irreparable harm.
`
`COUNT VII
`TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. FEDERAL REGISTRATION NO. 3,421,798
`UNDER THE LANHAM ACT, 15 U.S.C. § 1114 ET SEQ.
`
`85.
`
`ADT incorporates paragraphs 1-48 of the Complaint as if set forth fully herein.
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 9:21-cv-80762-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021 Page 23 of 32
`
`86.
`
`ADT owns the entire right, title, and interest in and to U.S. federal trademark
`
`Registration No. 3,421,798 (“the ’798 Mark”).
`
`87.
`
`Ring has reproduced, copied, and imitated the ’798 Mark in connection with
`
`advertising, promoting, and selling security offerings, including the Ring Alarm Outdoor Siren, in
`
`competition with ADT and without ADT’s consent.
`
`88.
`
`Ring’s unauthorized use of the ’798 Mark is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or
`
`to deceive consumers because the public is likely to believe that Ring’s security offerings,
`
`including the Ring Alarm Outdoor Siren, are approved by, associated with, sponsored by, or
`
`connected with ADT.
`
`89.
`
`Ring’s acts are willful, intentional, and deliberate. For example, and without
`
`limitation, Ring was well aware of how famous the ’798 Mark is and selected a virtually
`
`indistinguishable mark due to its similarity to the ’798 Mark in an effort to exploit ADT’s goodwill.
`
`90.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Ring’s unlawful acts, ADT has suffered and will
`
`continue to suffer monetary damages and irreparable harm.
`
`COUNT VIII
`TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. FEDERAL REGISTRATION NO. 3,511,262
`UNDER THE LANHAM ACT, 15 U.S.C. § 1114 ET SEQ.
`
`
`
`91.
`
`92.
`
`ADT incorporates paragraphs 1-48 of the Complaint as if set forth fully herein.
`
`ADT owns the entire right, title, and interest in and to U.S. federal trademark
`
`Registration No. 3,5