Case: 1:22-cv-05788 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/21/22 Page 1 of 17 PageID #:1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 22-cv-5788
`
`Judge
`
`
`
`
`BILL NYE PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`THE INDIVIDUALS, CORPORATIONS,
`LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES,
`PARTNERSHIPS, AND
`UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS
`IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE A HERETO,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff, BILL NYE PRODUCTIONS, INC. (“Plaintiff”), by undersigned counsel,
`
`hereby complains of the Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations identified in Schedule A
`
`attached hereto (collectively, “Defendants”), and hereby alleges as follows:
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`1.
`
`This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over the claims in this action
`
`pursuant to the provisions of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.; 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) - (b)
`
`and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This Court has jurisdiction over the claims in this action that arise under
`
`Illinois common law and the laws of the State of Illinois pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a),
`
`because the state law claims are so related to the federal claims that they form part of the same
`
`case or controversy and derive from a common nucleus of operative facts.
`
`2.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, and this Court may
`
`properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendants since each of the Defendants directly
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-05788 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/21/22 Page 2 of 17 PageID #:2
`
`targets consumers in the United States, including Illinois, through at least the fully interactive
`
`commercial Internet stores operating under the Defendant Domain Names and/or the Online
`
`Marketplace Accounts identified in Schedule A attached hereto (collectively, the “Defendant
`
`Internet Stores”). Specifically, Defendants are reaching out to do business with Illinois residents
`
`by operating one or more commercial, interactive Internet Stores through which Illinois residents
`
`can purchase products bearing counterfeit versions of Plaintiff’s BILL NYE Trademarks. Each
`
`of the Defendants has targeted sales from Illinois residents by operating online stores that offer
`
`shipping to the United States, including Illinois, accept payment in U.S. dollars and, on
`
`information and belief, has sold products bearing counterfeit versions of Plaintiff’s federally
`
`registered trademark to residents of Illinois. Each of the Defendants is committing tortious acts
`
`in Illinois, engaging in interstate commerce, and have wrongfully caused Plaintiff substantial
`
`injury in the State of Illinois.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`3.
`
`This action has been filed by Plaintiff to combat e-commerce store operators who
`
`trade upon Plaintiff’s reputation and goodwill by offering for sale and/or selling unauthorized and
`
`unlicensed products using infringing and counterfeit versions of Plaintiff’s federally registered
`
`trademark and common law trademark rights (the “Counterfeit Products”).
`
`4.
`
`Defendants created numerous Internet Stores and designed them to appear to be
`
`selling genuine Plaintiff’s products, while selling inferior imitations of Plaintiff’s products.
`
`Defendant Internet Stores share unique identifiers, such as design elements and similarities of the
`
`counterfeit products offered for sale, establishing a logical relationship between them and
`
`suggesting that Defendants’ illegal operations arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or
`
`series of transactions or occurrences. Defendants attempt to avoid liability by going to great
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-05788 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/21/22 Page 3 of 17 PageID #:3
`
`lengths to conceal both their identities and the full scope and interworking of their illegal
`
`counterfeiting operation. Plaintiff is forced to file this action to combat Defendants’ counterfeiting
`
`of Plaintiff’s registered trademark as well as to protect unknowing consumers from purchasing
`
`unauthorized products over the Internet. Plaintiff has been and continues to be irreparably
`
`damaged through consumer confusion, dilution, and tarnishment of its valuable trademark as a
`
`result of Defendants’ actions and seek injunctive and monetary relief.
`
`5.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over each Defendant, in that each Defendant
`
`conducts significant business in Illinois and in this Judicial District, and the acts and events
`
`giving rise to this lawsuit of which each Defendant stands accused were undertaken in Illinois
`
`and in this Judicial District. In addition, each Defendant has offered to sell and ship infringing
`
`products into this Judicial District.
`
`THE PLAINTIFF
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff owns and manages the licensing, sale, and marketing of BILL NYE
`
`products and is headquartered at 1600 N. Fairfax Ave, Los Angeles, California 90046. Plaintiff is
`
`a domestic company organized and existing under the laws of California.
`
`7.
`
` Plaintiff is in the business of developing, marketing, selling, distributing, and
`
`licensing BILL NYE branded products including books, T-shirts, sweatshirts and other clothing
`
`items. William Sanford Nye, popularly known as Bill Nye The Science Guy, is an American
`
`mechanical engineer, science communicator, and television presenter. Bill Nye is also the CEO of
`
`the leading non-profit space advocacy organization – The Planetary Society, where the world’s
`
`citizens work to advance space exploration and science. BILL NYE PRODUCTIONS, INC. is the
`
`official source of BILL NYE products.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-05788 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/21/22 Page 4 of 17 PageID #:4
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff is the owner of the U.S. Trademark Registration No. 1,794,982 for “THE
`
`SCIENCE GUY” word mark in classes 16 and 25 and has common law trademark rights in the
`
`BILL NYE name and mark (collectively, the “BILL NYE Trademarks”).
`
`
`
`9.
`
`The above registration for “THE SCIENCE GUY” mark is valid, subsisting, and
`
`in full force and effect. A true and correct copy of the federal trademark registration certificate for
`
`the above-referenced mark is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
`
`10.
`
`The BILL NYE Trademarks are distinctive and identify merchandise as goods
`
`from BILL NYE PRODUCTIONS, INC. or its duly authorized licensees.
`
`11. The BILL NYE Trademarks have been continuously used and never abandoned.
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff’s BILL NYE Trademarks are exclusive to Plaintiff and are displayed
`
`extensively on Plaintiff’s Products and in Plaintiff’s marketing and promotional materials.
`
`Plaintiff’s BILL NYE Trademarks have been the subject of substantial and continuous marketing
`
`and promotion by Plaintiff at great expense. In fact, Plaintiff has expended significant resources
`
`annually in advertising, promoting, and marketing featuring Plaintiff’s BILL NYE Trademarks.
`
`Plaintiff’s promotional efforts include — by way of example, but not limitation — substantial
`
`print media, a website, social media sites, and point of sale materials. Because of these and other
`
`factors, Plaintiff’s BILL NYE Trademarks have become famous worldwide.
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff’s BILL NYE Trademarks are distinctive when applied to Plaintiff’s
`
`Products, signifying to the purchaser that the products come from Plaintiff and are manufactured
`
`to Plaintiff’s quality standards. Whether Plaintiff manufactures the products itself or licenses
`
`others to do so, Plaintiff has ensured that products bearing its trademarks are manufactured to the
`
`highest quality standards. Plaintiff’s BILL NYE Trademarks have achieved fame and
`
`recognition, which has only added to the inherent distinctiveness of the mark. As such, the
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-05788 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/21/22 Page 5 of 17 PageID #:5
`
`goodwill associated with Plaintiff’s BILL NYE Trademarks is incalculable and of inestimable
`
`value to Plaintiff.
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiff’s BILL NYE Trademarks qualify as famous marks, as used in 15 U.S.C.
`
`§1125 (c)(1) and have been continuously used and never abandoned.
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiff has expended substantial time, money, and other resources in developing,
`
`advertising, and otherwise promoting its Trademarks. As a result, products bearing the BILL
`
`NYE Trademarks are widely recognized and exclusively associated by consumers, the public,
`
`and the trade as being products sourced from Plaintiff.
`
`THE DEFENDANTS
`
`16.
`
`Defendants are individuals and business entities who, upon information and
`
`belief, reside in the People’s Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions. Defendants
`
`conduct business throughout the United States, including Illinois and within this Judicial District,
`
`through the operation of the fully interactive commercial websites and online marketplaces
`
`operating under the Defendants’ Internet Stores. Each Defendant targets the United States,
`
`including Illinois, and has offered to sell and, on information and belief, has sold and continues
`
`to sell counterfeit products to consumers within the United States, including Illinois and this
`
`Judicial District.
`
`THE DEFENDANTS’ UNLAWFUL CONDUCT
`
`17.
`
`The success of Plaintiff’s brand has resulted in its counterfeiting. Plaintiff has
`
`identified numerous domain names linked to fully interactive websites and marketplace listings
`
`on platforms such as iOffer and Context Logic, Inc. (“Wish”), including the Defendants’ Internet
`
`Stores, which were offering for sale, selling, and importing counterfeit products to consumers in
`
`this Judicial District and throughout the United States. Defendants have persisted in creating the
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-05788 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/21/22 Page 6 of 17 PageID #:6
`
`Defendants’ Internet Stores. Internet websites like the Defendant Internet Stores are estimated to
`
`receive tens of millions of visits per year and generate over $135 billion in annual online sales.
`
`According to an intellectual property rights seizures statistics report issued by Homeland
`
`Security, the manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP) of goods seized by the U.S.
`
`government in 2013 was over $1.74 billion, up from $1.26 billion in 2012. Internet websites like
`
`the Defendants’ Internet Stores are also estimated to contribute to tens of thousands of lost jobs
`
`for legitimate businesses and broader economic damages such as lost tax revenue.
`
`18.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants facilitate sales by designing the
`
`Defendants’ Internet Stores so that they appear to unknowing consumers to be authorized online
`
`retailers, outlet stores, or wholesalers selling genuine products. Many of the Defendants’
`
`Internet Stores look sophisticated and accept payment in U.S. dollars via credit cards and Wish.
`
`Defendants’ Internet Stores often include images and design elements that make it very difficult
`
`for consumers to distinguish such counterfeit sites from an authorized website. Defendants
`
`further perpetuate the illusion of legitimacy by offering “live 24/7” customer service and using
`
`indicia of authenticity and security that consumers have come to associate with authorized
`
`retailers, including the McAfee® Security, VeriSign®, Visa®, MasterCard®, and PayPal®
`
`logos.
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiff has not licensed nor authorized Defendants to use its Trademarks and
`
`none of the Defendants are authorized retailers of its genuine products.
`
`20.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants deceive unknowing consumers by using
`
`the Plaintiff’s BILL NYE Trademarks without authorization within the content, text, and/or meta
`
`tags of its websites to attract various search engines looking for websites relevant to consumer
`
`searches for Plaintiff’s products. Additionally, upon information and belief, Defendants use other
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-05788 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/21/22 Page 7 of 17 PageID #:7
`
`unauthorized search engine optimization (SEO) tactics and social media spamming so that the
`
`Defendants’ Internet Stores listings show up at or near the top of relevant search results and
`
`misdirect consumers searching for Plaintiff’s genuine products. Further, Defendants utilize
`
`similar illegitimate SEO tactics to propel new domain names to the top of search results after
`
`others are shut down. As such, Plaintiff seeks to disable the Domain Names owned by
`
`Defendants through which their counterfeit products are sold.
`
`21.
`
`Defendants go to great lengths to conceal their identities and often use multiple
`
`fictitious names and addresses to register and operate their massive network of Internet Stores. For
`
`example, many of Defendants’ names and physical addresses used to register their Domain Names
`
`are incomplete, contain randomly typed letters, or fail to include cities or states. Other Defendants’
`
`Domain Names use privacy services that conceal the owners’ identity and contact information.
`
`Upon information and belief, some of the tactics used by the Defendants to conceal their identities
`
`and the scope and interworking of their counterfeit operations to avoid being shut down include
`
`regularly creating new websites and online marketplace accounts on various platforms using the
`
`identities listed in Schedule A to the Complaint, as well as other fictitious names and addresses.
`
`22.
`
`Even though Defendants operate under multiple fictitious names, there are numerous
`
`similarities among the Defendants’ Internet Stores. For example, some of the Defendants’ websites
`
`have identical layouts, even though different aliases were used to register their respective domain
`
`names. In addition, the counterfeit products for sale in the Defendants’ Internet Stores bear
`
`similarities and indicia of being related to one another, suggesting that the counterfeit products were
`
`manufactured by a common source and that Defendants are interrelated. The Defendants’ Internet
`
`Stores also include other notable common features, including use of the same domain name
`
`registration patterns, unique shopping cart platforms, similar payment and check-out methods,
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-05788 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/21/22 Page 8 of 17 PageID #:8
`
`meta data, illegitimate SEO tactics, HTML user-defined variables, domain redirection, lack of
`
`contact information, identically or similarly priced items and volume sales discounts, similar
`
`hosting services, similar name servers, and the use of the same text and images.
`
`23.
`
`In addition to operating under multiple fictitious names, Defendants in this case
`
`and defendants in other similar cases against online counterfeiters use a variety of other common
`
`tactics to evade enforcement efforts. For example, when counterfeiters like Defendants receive
`
`notice of a lawsuit they will often register new domain names or online marketplace accounts
`
`under new aliases and move website hosting to rogue servers located outside the United States
`
`once notice of a lawsuit is received. Rogue servers are notorious for ignoring take down demands
`
`sent by brand owners. Counterfeiters will also ship products in small quantities via international
`
`mail to minimize detection by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. A 2012 U.S. Customs and
`
`Border Protection report on seizure statistics indicated that the Internet has fueled “explosive
`
`growth” in the number of small packages of counterfeit goods shipped through the mail and
`
`express carriers.
`
`24.
`
`Further, counterfeiters such as Defendants typically operate multiple credit card
`
`merchant and Wish accounts behind layers of payment gateways so that they can continue to
`
`operate in spite of Plaintiff’s enforcement efforts. Upon information and belief, Defendants
`
`maintain off-shore bank accounts and regularly move funds from their Wish accounts to off-shore
`
`bank accounts outside the jurisdiction of this Court. Indeed, analysis of Wish transaction logs from
`
`prior similar cases indicate that offshore counterfeiters regularly move funds from U.S.-based Wish
`
`accounts to China-based bank accounts outside the jurisdiction of this Court.
`
`25.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants are in constant communication with each
`
`other and regularly participate in QQ.com chat rooms and through websites such as
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-05788 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/21/22 Page 9 of 17 PageID #:9
`
`sellerdefense.cn, kaidianyo.com and kuajingvs.com regarding tactics for operating multiple
`
`accounts, evading detection, pending litigation and potential new lawsuits.
`
`26.
`
`Defendants, without any authorization or license from Plaintiff, have knowingly
`
`and willfully used and continue to use Plaintiff’s BILL NYE Trademarks in connection with the
`
`advertisement, distribution, offering for sale, and sale of counterfeit products into the United
`
`States and Illinois over the Internet. Each Defendants’ Internet Stores offer shipping to the
`
`United States, including Illinois and, on information and belief, each Defendant has offered to
`
`sell counterfeit products into the United States, including Illinois.
`
`27.
`
`Defendants’ use of Plaintiff’s BILL NYE Trademarks in connection with the
`
`advertising, distribution, offering for sale, and sale of counterfeit products, including the sale of
`
`counterfeit products into Illinois, is likely to cause and has caused confusion, mistake, and
`
`deception by and among consumers and is irreparably harming Plaintiff.
`
`COUNT I
`TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AND COUNTERFEITING (15 U.S.C. § 1114)
`
`Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference herein the allegations contained
`
`28.
`
`in paragraphs 1-27 of this Complaint.
`
`29.
`
`This is a trademark infringement action against Defendants based on their
`
`unauthorized use in commerce of counterfeit imitations of Plaintiff’s Trademarks in connection
`
`with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, and/or advertising of infringing goods. Plaintiff’s
`
`BILL NYE Trademarks are highly distinctive. Consumers have come to expect the highest
`
`quality from Plaintiff’s products provided under its Trademarks.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-05788 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/21/22 Page 10 of 17 PageID #:10
`
`30.
`
`Defendants have sold, offered to sell, marketed, distributed, and advertised, and
`
`are still selling, offering to sell, marketing, distributing, and advertising products in connection
`
`with Plaintiff’s BILL NYE Trademarks without Plaintiff’s permission.
`
`31.
`
`Plaintiff is the owner of the BILL NYE Trademarks (Exhibit 1). The United
`
`States Registration for Plaintiff’s THE SCIENCE GUY Trademark is in full force and effect.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants have knowledge of Plaintiff’s rights in its Trademarks
`
`and are willfully infringing and intentionally using Plaintiff’s BILL NYE Trademarks on
`
`counterfeit products. Defendants’ willful, intentional, and unauthorized use of Plaintiff’s BILL
`
`NYE Trademarks are likely to cause and is causing confusion, mistake, and deception as to the
`
`origin and quality of the counterfeit products among the general public.
`
`32.
`
`Defendants’
`
`activities
`
`constitute willful
`
`trademark
`
`infringement
`
`and
`
`counterfeiting under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1117.
`
`33.
`
`The injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff have been directly and
`
`proximately caused by Defendants’ wrongful reproduction, use, advertisement, promotion,
`
`offering to sell, and sale of counterfeit Plaintiff’s products.
`
`34.
`
`Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law, and, if Defendants’ actions are not
`
`enjoined, Plaintiff will continue to suffer irreparable harm to its reputation and the goodwill of its
`
`well-known trademark.
`
`COUNT II
`FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a))
`
`Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference herein the allegations contained in
`
`35.
`
`paragraphs 1-34 of this Complaint.
`
`36.
`
`Defendants’ promotion, marketing, offering for sale, and sale of counterfeit products
`
`have created and are creating a likelihood of confusion, mistake, and deception among the general
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-05788 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/21/22 Page 11 of 17 PageID #:11
`
`public as to the affiliation, connection, or association with Plaintiff or the origin, sponsorship, or
`
`approval of Defendants’ counterfeit products by Plaintiff.
`
`37.
`
`By using Plaintiff’s BILL NYE Trademarks in connection with the sale of
`
`counterfeit products, Defendants create a false designation of origin and a misleading
`
`representation of fact as to the origin and sponsorship of the counterfeit products.
`
`38.
`
`Defendants’ conduct constitutes willful false designation of origin and
`
`misrepresentation of fact as to the origin and/or sponsorship of the counterfeit products to the
`
`general public under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125.
`
`39.
`
`Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law, and, if Defendants’ actions are not
`
`enjoined, Plaintiff will continue to suffer irreparable harm to its reputation and the goodwill of its
`
`brand.
`
`COUNT III
`VIOLATION OF ILLINOIS UNIFORM DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT
`(815 ILCS § 510/1, et seq.)
`
`Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference herein the allegations contained in
`
`40.
`
`paragraphs 1-39 of this Complaint.
`
`41.
`
`Defendants have engaged in acts violating Illinois law including, but not limited
`
`to, passing off their counterfeit products as those of Plaintiff, causing likelihood of confusion
`
`and/or misunderstanding as to the source of its goods, causing likelihood of confusion and/or
`
`misunderstanding as to an affiliation, connection, or association with genuine products,
`
`representing that their products have Plaintiff’s approval when they do not, and engaging in other
`
`conduct which creates likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding among the public.
`
`42.
`
`The foregoing Defendants’ acts constitute a willful violation of the Illinois
`
`Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 ILCS § 510/1 et seq.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-05788 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/21/22 Page 12 of 17 PageID #:12
`
`43.
`
`Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law, and Defendants’ conduct has caused
`
`Plaintiff to suffer damage to his reputation and goodwill. Unless enjoined by the Court, Plaintiff
`
`will suffer future irreparable harm as a direct result of Defendants’ unlawful activities.
`
`COUNT IV
`COMMON LAW TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference herein the allegations contained in
`
`44.
`
`paragraphs 1-43 of this Complaint.
`
`45.
`
`Defendants’ actions described above constitute willful, intentional and
`
`unauthorized use of the Plaintiff’s BILL NYE Trademarks as protected by common law.
`
`46.
`
`Defendants’ search result pages on Wish infringe Plaintiff’s Trademarks because
`
`the algorithm used suggests and then recognizes the “BILL NYE” mark as a keyword which is
`
`used to display infringing “BILL NYE” products and other competing products for sale.
`
`47.
`
`Defendants’ sponsored link advertisements on third-party search engines, such as
`
`Google and Bing, infringe the Plaintiff’s Trademarks because Defendants pay search engines for
`
`the right to use “BILL NYE, as a keywords which causes Defendants’ advertisements for BILL
`
`NYE to appear in search results on the third-party search engines.
`
`48.
`
`Defendants’ actions generate initial interest confusion by attracting customers
`
`browsing the Internet using Plaintiff’s Trademarks, thereby acquiring goodwill that belongs to
`
`Plaintiff. See, Promatek Industries v. Equitrac Corp, 300 F.3d 808 (7th Cir. 2002).
`
`49.
`
`Defendants’ offerings of BILL NYE Products for sale on their websites infringe
`
`Plaintiff’s BILL NYE Trademarks.
`
`50.
`
`The injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff have been directly and
`
`proximately caused by Defendants’ wrongful use of Plaintiff’s Trademarks in the advertisement,
`
`promotion, offer to sell, and sale of third party products.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-05788 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/21/22 Page 13 of 17 PageID #:13
`
`51.
`
`Defendants’ activities constitute trademark infringement of Plaintiff’s common
`
`law trademark rights. Such infringement has been willful.
`
`52.
`
`Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law, and if Defendants’ actions are not
`
`enjoined, Plaintiff will continue to suffer irreparable harm to its reputation and the goodwill and
`
`acquired secondary meaning of its well known Trademarks.
`
`53.
`
`The injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff have been directly and
`
`proximately caused by Defendants’ wrongful actions. Defendants’ actions have and continue to
`
`cause Plaintiff to suffer damages in an amount to be determined.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants and each of them as follows:
`
`1) That Defendants, their affiliates, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and
`
`all persons acting for, with, by, through, under, or in active concert with them be temporarily,
`
`preliminarily, and permanently enjoined and restrained from:
`
`a. using Plaintiff’s BILL NYE Trademarks or any confusingly similar trademark or
`
`name in any manner in connection with the distribution, marketing, advertising,
`
`offering for sale, or sale of any product that is not a genuine product or is not
`
`authorized by Plaintiff to be sold in connection with Plaintiff’s BILL NYE
`
`Trademarks;
`
`b. passing off, inducing, or enabling others to sell or pass off any product as a genuine
`
`product or any other product produced by Plaintiff that is not Plaintiff’s or is not
`
`produced under the authorization, control, or supervision of Plaintiff and approved by
`
`Plaintiff for sale under its Trademarks;
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-05788 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/21/22 Page 14 of 17 PageID #:14
`
`c. committing any acts calculated to cause consumers to believe that Defendants’
`
`counterfeit products are those sold under the authorization, control, or supervision of
`
`Plaintiff, or are sponsored by, approved by, or otherwise connected with Plaintiff;
`
`d. further infringing Plaintiff’s BILL NYE Trademarks and damaging Plaintiff’s
`
`reputation and goodwill;
`
`e. shipping, delivering, holding for sale, transferring or otherwise moving, storing,
`
`distributing, returning, or otherwise disposing of, in any manner, products or inventory
`
`not manufactured by or for Plaintiff, nor authorized by Plaintiff to be sold or offered
`
`including Plaintiff’s BILL NYE Trademarks, or any reproductions, counterfeit copies,
`
`or colorable imitations thereof;
`
`f. using, linking to, transferring, selling, exercising control over, or otherwise owning the
`
`Online Marketplace Accounts, the Defendant Domain Names, or any other domain
`
`name or online marketplace account that is being used to sell or is the means by which
`
`Defendants could continue to sell counterfeit products; and
`
`g. operating and/or hosting websites at the Defendants’ Domain Names and any other
`
`domain names registered or operated by Defendants that are involved with the
`
`distribution, marketing, advertising, offering for sale, or sale of any product bearing
`
`Plaintiff’s BILL NYE Trademarks or any reproduction, counterfeit copy or colorable
`
`imitation thereof that is not a genuine product or is not authorized by Plaintiff to be sold
`
`in connection with its Trademarks;
`
`2) That Defendants, within fourteen (14) days after service of judgment with notice of entry
`
`thereof upon them, be required to file with the Court and serve upon Plaintiff a written report under
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-05788 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/21/22 Page 15 of 17 PageID #:15
`
`oath setting forth in detail the manner and form in which Defendants have complied with paragraph
`
`1, a through g, above;
`
`3) Entry of an Order that, at Plaintiff’s choosing, the registrant of the Defendants’
`
`Domain Names shall be changed from the current registrant to Plaintiff, and that the domain
`
`name registries for the Defendants’ Domain Names, including, but not limited to, VeriSign, Inc.,
`
`Neustar, Inc., Afilias Limited, CentralNic, Nominet, and the Public Interest Registry, shall
`
`unlock and change the registrar of record for the Defendants’ Domain Names to a registrar of
`
`Plaintiff’s selection, and that the domain name registrars take any steps necessary to transfer the
`
`Defendants’ Domain Names to a registrar of Plaintiff’s selection; or that the same domain name
`
`registries shall disable the Defendants’ Domain Names and make them inactive and
`
`untransferable;
`
`4) Entry of an Order that, upon Plaintiff’s request, those in privity with Defendants and
`
`those with notice of the injunction, including any online marketplaces such as iOffer, and Wish,
`
`social media platforms, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, Twitter, Internet search engines such as
`
`Google, Bing and Yahoo, web hosts for the Defendants’ Domain Names, and domain name
`
`registrars, shall:
`
`a. disable and cease providing services for any accounts through which Defendants
`
`engage in the sale of counterfeit products using Plaintiff’s BILL NYE Trademarks
`
`including any accounts associated with the Defendants listed in Schedule A;
`
`b. disable and cease displaying any advertisements used by or associated with
`
`Defendants in connection with the sale of counterfeit products using Plaintiff’s BILL
`
`NYE Trademarks; and
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-05788 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/21/22 Page 16 of 17 PageID #:16
`
`c. take all steps necessary to prevent links to the Defendants’ Domain Names identified
`
`in Schedule A from displaying in search results, including, but not limited to,
`
`removing links to the Defendants’ Domain Names from any search index;
`
`5) That Defendants account for and pay to Plaintiff all profits realized by Defendants by
`
`reason of Defendants’ unlawful acts herein alleged, and that the amount of damages for
`
`infringement of Plaintiff’s BILL NYE Trademarks are increased by a sum not exceeding three
`
`times the amount thereof as provided by 15 U.S.C. § 1117;
`
`6)
`
`In the alternative, Plaintiff is awarded statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §
`
`1117(c) of not less than $1,000 and not more than $2,000,000 for each and every use of its
`
`trademark;
`
`7) That Plaintiff is awarded its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and
`
`8) Award any and all other relief that this Court deems just and proper.
`
`
`
`
`Dated: October 21, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Michael A. Hierl
`Michael A. Hierl (Bar No. 3128021)
`William B. Kalbac (Bar No. 6301771)
`Robert P. McMurray (Bar No. 6324332)
`Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, Ltd.
`Three First National Plaza
`70 W. Madison Street, Suite 4000
`Chicago, Illinois 60602
`(312) 580-0100 Telephone
`(312) 580-1994 Facsimile
`mhierl@hsplegal.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`BILL NYE PRODUCTIONS, INC.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-05788 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/21/22 Page 17 of 17 PageID #:17
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned attorney hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
`
`
`
`
`Complaint was filed electronically with the Clerk of the Court and served on all counsel of
`
`record and interested parties via the CM/ECF system on October 21, 2022.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/Michael A. Hierl
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`