throbber
Case 1:22-cv-00396-TWP-TAB Document 1 Filed 02/25/22 Page 1 of 20 PageID #: 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
`INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a Washington
`corporation,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SOLUTION HAT, LLC, an Indiana limited liability
`company, dba Think Global; and Saurabh Seth, an
`individual,
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`22-396
`Case No. ______________
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Each year, hundreds of thousands of unwitting Americans fall victim to phony tech
`
`support schemes in which bad actors lure them into purchasing unnecessary “security services”
`
`for their computers by falsely claiming that the computers are infected with spyware or malware.
`
`The FBI’s 2020 Internet Crime Report lists tech support fraud among its top cybercrime trends,
`
`and the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center IC3 reportedly received 15,421 complaints about
`
`tech support scams that cost victims more than $146 million in 2020 alone.
`
`2.
`
`To combat this fraud, Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) employs sophisticated
`
`artificial intelligence and dedicated teams to identify individuals and companies engaged in
`
`fraudulent Microsoft-related tech support schemes. Microsoft then conducts test calls to further
`
`investigate companies believed to be offering phony tech support services.
`
`3.
`
`Through these investigations, Microsoft discovered that Defendants have engaged
`
`in a pervasive and widespread tech support fraud scheme. To facilitate their scheme, Defendants
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00396-TWP-TAB Document 1 Filed 02/25/22 Page 2 of 20 PageID #: 2
`
`use pop up advertisements (“pop-ups”) and full-page advertisements warning computer users of
`
`dire consequences to their computer systems and directing them to “call Microsoft" at the
`
`Defendants’ toll-free number. The pop ups and advertisements prominently feature Microsoft’s
`
`well-known Windows flag logo, among other Microsoft trademarks, lending credibility to the
`
`alarming but false statements they contain. When people, who are naturally confused and
`
`concerned by the advertisements, call the number purported to be associated with Microsoft
`
`technical support, Defendants convince them to pay for computer “support services” by falsely
`
`claiming that the victims’ computers have serious security issues.
`
`4.
`
`Microsoft brings this action to hold Defendants accountable for their actions and
`
`protect the public from the ongoing threat posed by Defendants’ fraudulent scheme.
`
`5.
`
`Microsoft has suffered actual damages in excess of $75,000 as a result of its
`
`investments in the investigation of this matter and bringing of this action, as well as damages to
`
`its brands and reputation.
`
`6.
`
`This is an action for (i) deceptive telemarketing in violation of the Telemarketing
`
`and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 6102(a)(2), 6104(a); Telemarketing
`
`Sales Rule, 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(a)(2)(iii) & (vii), and 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(a)(4); (ii) false advertising
`
`in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (iii) trademark infringement
`
`in violation of Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114; (iv) false designation of origin
`
`and unfair competition in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (v)
`
`trademark dilution in violation of Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c); and (vi)
`
`cybersquatting in violation of Section 43(d) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00396-TWP-TAB Document 1 Filed 02/25/22 Page 3 of 20 PageID #: 3
`
`PARTIES
`
`7.
`
`Microsoft is a Washington corporation with its principal place of business in
`
`Redmond, Washington. Microsoft develops, markets, distributes, and licenses computer software,
`
`among other products and services, and it provides technical support for that software.
`
`8.
`
`Defendant Solution Hat, LLC (“Solution Hat”) is an Indiana limited liability
`
`company with its principal place of business in Indianapolis, Indiana. Solution Hat does business
`
`under the name Think Global. On information and belief, Solution Hat’s sole member is
`
`Defendant Saurabh Seth.
`
`9.
`
`Defendant Saurabh Seth is an individual who, on information and belief, resides in
`
`Mount Laurel, New Jersey.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`10.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over Microsoft’s
`
`federal law claims brought under multiple sections of Title 15 of the United States Code, as set
`
`forth in the Causes of Action below. This Court also has subject matter jurisdiction under 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1332 because this action is between citizens of different states and the matter in
`
`controversy exceeds $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs.
`
`FACTS
`
`The Global Reach of Technical Support Scams
`
`According to a 2021 global survey, nearly seven out of ten Americans have
`
`A.
`
`11.
`
`encountered a technical support scam in the previous twelve months. Approximately ten percent
`
`of those respondents lost money from such scams.
`
`12.
`
`In these scams, companies representing themselves to be technical service
`
`providers (hereinafter “the fake technicians”) deceive computer users into believing their personal
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00396-TWP-TAB Document 1 Filed 02/25/22 Page 4 of 20 PageID #: 4
`
`computers and software are infected with dangerous viruses and sell unnecessary services to
`
`purportedly “clean” the systems and software. Typically, victims of this type of scam permit the
`
`fake technicians to remotely access to their computers, and the fake technicians identify various
`
`computer files they tell victims contain dangerous malware when the files are, in fact, benign. The
`
`fake technicians’ misrepresentations that the victims’ computers have been infected with viruses
`
`mislead the victims about the quality and security of Microsoft’s computer software to convince
`
`them that they require support services.
`
`13.
`
`One primary reason the perpetrators of technical support scams enjoy such success
`
`is that they create an impression that they represent or have an association with a well-known
`
`technology company such as Microsoft.
`
`14.
`
`The techniques used by these companies include, but are not limited to, (a) making
`
`false representations that they are “from Microsoft” or “Windows”; (b) using Microsoft trademarks
`
`on their websites; and (c) using Microsoft’s trade name in their advertising. These
`
`misrepresentations are designed to, and in fact do, cause customers to believe that the fake
`
`technicians’ services are legitimate and offered by or affiliated with Microsoft.
`
`15.
`
`In addition to the harm to Microsoft trademarks and Microsoft’s reputation, victims
`
`of the scheme are deceived into obtaining services they do not require and may even unwittingly
`
`expose themselves to security risks associated with the installation of malware by the fake
`
`technicians.
`
`B. Microsoft’s Intellectual Property
`
`16. Microsoft has duly and properly registered a number of trademarks and service
`
`marks in the United States Patent and Trademark Office on the Principal Register, including
`
`without limitation:
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00396-TWP-TAB Document 1 Filed 02/25/22 Page 5 of 20 PageID #: 5
`
`(a)
`
`“MICROSOFT,” Service Mark Registration No. 1,689,468 for, inter alia,
`
`consulting and technical support services in the field of the design and use
`
`of computer programs, computers, computer hardware, and computers
`
`systems;
`
`(b)
`
`“WINDOWS,” Service Mark Registration No. 2,463,510 for, inter alia,
`
`computer services, namely providing technical support, information and
`
`consultation services in the fields of computer hardware, computer
`
`software and computer operating systems, all offered via computer
`
`networks and global communications networks;
`
`(d)
`
`“MICROSOFT CORPORATE LOGO,” Trademark and Service Mark
`
`Registration No. 4,560,827, for inter alia, providing technical support,
`
`consultation and resources in the fields of computer security, privacy and
`
`online safety.
`
`(collectively, the “Microsoft Marks”).
`
`17.
`
`True and correct copies of the Registration Certificates for the Microsoft Marks are
`
`attached hereto as Exhibits 1-3.
`
`C.
`
`18.
`
`Defendants’ Technical Support Scams
`
`Since its founding in the mid-1970s, Microsoft has made substantial investments in
`
`building goodwill with its billions of customers across the planet and established itself as a trusted
`
`provider of technology products and services, including software.
`
`19.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants are engaged in a systematic and widespread
`
`technical support scam perpetrated on unwitting victims across the United States. Specifically,
`
`Defendants falsely represent themselves as Microsoft to mislead computer users into believing
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00396-TWP-TAB Document 1 Filed 02/25/22 Page 6 of 20 PageID #: 6
`
`their Microsoft software is infected with dangerous viruses or other malware. As a part of their
`
`scheme, Defendants use the Microsoft Marks, without Microsoft’s consent, to falsely signify that
`
`they represent or are affiliated with Microsoft. By utilizing the goodwill that Microsoft has built
`
`with its customers, Defendants are more easily able to deceive people into believing that they
`
`require unnecessary technical support services to rectify nonexistent software issues.
`
`20.
`
`Defendants attract victims through pop-ups and other advertisements that appear
`
`on users’ computer screens while they are browsing webpages via the internet. These
`
`advertisements do not look like typical pop-up advertisements; instead, they look like warning
`
`messages generated by the users’ operating systems that signify serious security problems. The
`
`pop-ups inform users that they can fix the issue only by calling a phone number belonging to
`
`Defendants, and that further harm may result should users ignore the messages.
`
`21.
`
`Defendants do not know whether a computer has a security issue when they send
`
`the pop-up warning messages to computer users.
`
`22.
`
`In the advertisements, which can lock the browser and prevent users from
`
`navigating away from the page, Defendants hold themselves out as Microsoft itself, providing the
`
`phone number 855-330-6038 by which the customer can purportedly contact “Microsoft,” as
`
`shown in the partial screen capture featuring a pop-up below:
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00396-TWP-TAB Document 1 Filed 02/25/22 Page 7 of 20 PageID #: 7
`
`23.
`
`The pop-up in the screenshot above loaded in conjunction with an underlying
`
`website at the domain windowsclean.xyz. Like the pop-up, the webpage also featured Microsoft
`
`Marks and the phone number 855-330-6038; a screenshot of one portion of the website appears
`
`
`
`below:
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00396-TWP-TAB Document 1 Filed 02/25/22 Page 8 of 20 PageID #: 8
`
`A full screenshot of both advertisements as they appeared together is attached as Exhibit
`
`4.
`
`24. Microsoft did not authorize Defendants to use the Microsoft Marks in any manner,
`
`much less to use them in the Defendants’ fraudulent and misleading advertisements.
`
`25.
`
`Defendants’ purpose in disseminating these advertisements is to induce customers
`
`to initiate telephone calls to Defendants so that Defendants can upsell purported computer security
`
`services to cure non-existent virus, malware, spyware, and other concocted computer security
`
`issues.
`
`26.
`
`To investigate Defendants’ fraudulent scheme, on March 4, 2020, Microsoft called
`
`the phone number presented in Defendants’ pop-up advertisement: 855-330-6038. A person
`
`answered the call by stating, “Hello, this is Windows Support.”
`
`27.
`
`The agent first requested to remotely access the investigator’s computer. The
`
`investigator followed the agent’s instructions, giving the agent control of the investigator’s
`
`computer. The investigator’s computer was free of malware, viruses, or any other security issues
`
`at the time of the test call.
`
`28.
`
`After gaining control of the investigator’s computer, the investigator opened a
`
`command prompt and typed the dir command, which the agent stated performed a “scan.” This
`
`command displays a list of a directory’s files and subdirectories and does not test for viruses or
`
`malware. After running this command only, the agent pasted the following text into the command
`
`prompt: “Cssrss exe trojan found, network compromised, ip address unsecure.”
`
`29.
`
`The agent then opened the MSinfo tool, which gathers information about the
`
`computer and displays a comprehensive view of its hardware, system components, and software
`
`environment. The agent pointed at the “Kernal DMA Protection” status, and indicated that because
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00396-TWP-TAB Document 1 Filed 02/25/22 Page 9 of 20 PageID #: 9
`
`it was switched off, the investigator’s computer “had no security protection.” The Kernal DMA
`
`Protection feature protects computers against Direct Memory Access (DMA) attacks but does not
`
`generally protect computers against viruses or malware.
`
`30.
`
`Next, the agent opened the Event Viewer tool, which displays the event logs for the
`
`machine. The event log for the investigator’s computer had 546 event messages. The agent stated
`
`that all 546 event messages represented malware infections, which was false.
`
`31.
`
`The agent then opened the command prompt and ran the netstat command, which
`
`displays the computer’s active network connections. The agent stated that all foreign connections
`
`represented hackers that were connected to the investigator’s computer and were attempting to
`
`steal the investigator’s personal information. This statement, like the other statements made by
`
`the agent described above, were false and misrepresented the status of the investigator’s computer
`
`as the computer had no security issues. Further, the command run by the agent could not determine
`
`whether “foreign connections” had interfered with the investigator’s computer.
`
`32.
`
`The agent then stated that to “fix” the computer would cost the investigator a one-
`
`time fee of $199, but that the investigator’s computer would also need firewall security to prevent
`
`future issues. The agent then transferred the investigator to a technician.
`
`33.
`
`The technician repeated the agent’s statement about the investigator’s need for
`
`firewall security. The technician reviewed several security “plans,” and the investigator selected
`
`a “lifetime plan” that would cost $999. The technician stated that they would waive the $199 one-
`
`time fee and charge the investigator only $999.
`
`34.
`
`The technician transferred the investigator back to the agent. The agent asked the
`
`investigator to enter payment information into a Notepad file. The agent then opened the webpage
`
`at mythinkglobal.com, where the agent logged into a payment client called “Universal Pay.”
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00396-TWP-TAB Document 1 Filed 02/25/22 Page 10 of 20 PageID #: 10
`
`35.
`
`The agent stated that the transaction would be processed in two parts, with the first
`
`amounting to $499 and the second to $495. The agent stated that the merchant account would be
`
`named “Think Global.”
`
`36.
`
`The payment webpage stated that the gateway was powered by Universal Pay LLC
`
`but listed the merchant company name as “Solution Hat DBA Think Global.”
`
`37.
`
`Neither the agent nor the technician had authorization from Microsoft to represent
`
`any association with “Windows” or “Windows Support,” an affiliation Defendants falsely
`
`represented in an attempt to mislead the customer into believing they represented Microsoft.
`
`38.
`
`Over 100 customers have complained about this company through Microsoft’s
`
`technical support scam reporting tool.
`
`39.
`
`For example, a customer reported the following information regarding Think
`
`Global: “After receiving a pop up alerting there was suspicious activity[,] I called the number and
`
`was told they were from Microsoft. Gave them remote access while they ran a scan to detect
`
`suspicious activity. They told me my computer and internet were not adequately protected and I
`
`had 27 instances of hackers trying to gain access to my information. At this point they sold me a
`
`spyware package.” This customer reported paying Think Global a total of $964.58 for this
`
`purported security package.
`
`40.
`
`Another customer, who reported paying $200 to Solution Hat LLC, described their
`
`experience as follows: “First contact was a freeze on my computer. They said they were with
`
`Microsoft, and someone was trying to steal my cards and bank info. I believed them and they took
`
`over my computer and found viruses, wanted $500.00 and I said I couldn't afford it! So they
`
`charged me 200.00, now the[y] call every week and want more.”
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00396-TWP-TAB Document 1 Filed 02/25/22 Page 11 of 20 PageID #: 11
`
`41.
`
`A third customer, who reportedly paid Think Global $249 for phony security
`
`services, wrote, “I asked if they were Microsoft provider and they said yes. I let them into my
`
`computer through TeamViewer. They said they were cleaning out and updating security. Four
`
`days later when I called both of the numbers there was an answer but asked me to stay on hold.
`
`After about 3 minutes they hung up. I tried it several times then realized it had to be a scam.”
`
`42.
`
`Defendants misrepresent themselves as Microsoft and use the Microsoft Marks,
`
`without license or permission, to add credibility to their fraudulent statements.
`
`43.
`
`Defendants’ fraudulent technical support scheme irreparably harms Microsoft, the
`
`Microsoft Marks, and the public, and if their illegal and infringing conduct is not enjoined,
`
`Defendants will continue to cause irreparable harm.
`
`44.
`
`On information and belief, more than one of the telephone calls to Defendants in
`
`response to their fraudulent advertising described above were interstate telephone calls.
`
`CAUSES OF ACTION
`
`FIRST CLAIM
`Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act
`– 15 U.S.C. §§ 6102(a)(2) and 6104(a); Telemarketing Sales Rule, 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(a)(2)(iii)
`& (vii) and 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(a)(4)
`
`45. Microsoft specifically realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set
`
`forth above.
`
`46.
`
`The Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of deceptive telemarketing by (i)
`
`misrepresenting to customers that the computer security services Defendants offer for sale are
`
`necessary or effective to ameliorate customers’ fictitious computer security issues, (ii)
`
`misrepresenting to customers Defendants’ affiliation with or sponsorship by Microsoft, and (iii)
`
`making false or misleading statements to induce customers to pay for goods or services.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00396-TWP-TAB Document 1 Filed 02/25/22 Page 12 of 20 PageID #: 12
`
`47.
`
`As a result of these acts, Defendants have violated the Telemarketing and Consumer
`
`Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 6102(a)(2) and 6104(a); and Telemarketing Sales
`
`Rule, 16 C.F.R. § 310.3 (a)(2)(iii) & (vii) and 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(a)(4).
`
`48.
`
`As a result of these acts by Defendants, Microsoft has been severely injured in its
`
`business and property and suffered actual damages in an amount exceeding $50,000. The injury
`
`to Microsoft is and continues to be immediate and irreparable.
`
`49.
`
`Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 6104(b), Microsoft will serve the Federal Trade
`
`Commission with written notice of this action together with a copy of this Complaint immediately
`
`upon instituting the action.
`
`SECOND CLAIM
`Trademark Infringement – 15 U.S.C. § 1114
`
`50. Microsoft specifically realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set
`
`forth above.
`
`51.
`
`52.
`
`Defendants’ activities constitute infringement of the Microsoft Marks.
`
`Defendants’ unauthorized use of the Microsoft Marks to sell services unaffiliated
`
`and unassociated with Microsoft is likely to cause confusion, mistake, and/or deception as to the
`
`origin or source of the goods and services associated with the Microsoft Marks, to cause initial
`
`interest confusion and mislead the public into believing such goods and services originate from,
`
`are affiliated with, and/or are sponsored, authorized, approved, or sanctioned by Microsoft.
`
`53.
`
`Defendants’ unauthorized use of the Microsoft Marks, as alleged above, constitutes
`
`infringement of those Marks.
`
`54.
`
`Defendants’ practice of telling customers it represents Microsoft, even though it is
`
`unaffiliated and unassociated with Microsoft, in order to sell goods or services constitutes
`
`infringement of the Microsoft Marks.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00396-TWP-TAB Document 1 Filed 02/25/22 Page 13 of 20 PageID #: 13
`
`55.
`
`At a minimum, Defendants acted with willful blindness to, or in reckless disregard
`
`of, the Microsoft Marks.
`
`56.
`
`As a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Microsoft is entitled to recover its
`
`actual damages, Defendants’ profits attributable to the infringement, and treble damages and
`
`attorney fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117 (a) and (b). Alternatively, Microsoft is entitled to
`
`statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c).
`
`57. Microsoft is further entitled to injunctive relief. Microsoft has no adequate remedy
`
`at law for Defendants’ wrongful conduct because, among other things: (a) Microsoft’s trademarks
`
`and service marks are unique and valuable property that have no readily determinable market
`
`value; (b) Defendants’ infringement constitutes harm to Microsoft’s reputation and goodwill such
`
`that Microsoft could not be made whole by any monetary award; (c) if Defendants’ wrongful
`
`conduct is allowed to continue, the public is likely to become further confused, mistaken, or
`
`deceived as to the source, origin, or authenticity of the infringing materials; and (d) Defendants’
`
`wrongful conduct, and the resulting harm to Microsoft, is continuing.
`
`THIRD CLAIM
`False Advertising – 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
`
`58. Microsoft specifically realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set
`
`forth above.
`
`59.
`
`Defendants have a general sales practice in which they state that a customer’s
`
`Microsoft software has viruses, malware, or file corruption, with no basis for making these
`
`statements.
`
`60.
`
`Defendants make these statements in interstate commerce, including, as alleged
`
`above, via the internet to locations around the United States.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00396-TWP-TAB Document 1 Filed 02/25/22 Page 14 of 20 PageID #: 14
`
`61.
`
`Defendants’ statements are false or misleading statements of fact that disparage the
`
`quality and security of Microsoft’s software.
`
`62.
`
`Defendants’ statements either have deceived or have the capacity to deceive a
`
`substantial segment of the public.
`
`63.
`
`Defendants’ statements are material in that they are likely to influence the
`
`customer’s purchasing decision. The Defendants deprive Microsoft customers of important
`
`information when deciding whether to purchase technical repair services for their software,
`
`including whether they are who they represent themselves to be—namely, Microsoft—and
`
`whether the Microsoft customer’s computer is infected such that it requires the purported services
`
`offered by Defendants at all.
`
`64.
`
`These statements disparage the quality and security of Microsoft’s software, and
`
`Microsoft has been and will be damaged by Defendants’ wrongful conduct.
`
`65.
`
`As a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Microsoft is entitled to recover its
`
`actual damages, Defendants’ profits, and treble damages and attorney fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1117.
`
`66.
`
`Further, Microsoft is entitled to injunctive relief. Microsoft has no adequate
`
`remedy at law for Defendants’ wrongful conduct because, among other things: (a) Defendants’
`
`advertising, marketing, installation, or distribution of imitation visual designs constitutes harm to
`
`Microsoft such that Microsoft could not be made whole by any monetary award; and
`
`(b) Defendants’ wrongful conduct, and the resulting damage to Microsoft, is continuing.
`
`FOURTH CLAIM
`False Designation of Origin and Unfair Competition – 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
`
`67. Microsoft specifically realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set
`
`forth above.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00396-TWP-TAB Document 1 Filed 02/25/22 Page 15 of 20 PageID #: 15
`
`68. Microsoft advertises, markets, distributes, and licenses its software and services
`
`under the Microsoft Marks, and uses these trademarks and service marks to distinguish Microsoft’s
`
`software and related components and services from the products or services of others in the same
`
`field or related fields.
`
`69.
`
`Because of Microsoft’s long, continuous, and exclusive use of the Microsoft Marks,
`
`they have come to mean, and are understood by customers, end users and the public to signify
`
`products and services of Microsoft.
`
`70.
`
`Defendants’ wrongful conduct includes the use of Microsoft’s Marks in connection
`
`with their goods and services.
`
`71.
`
`Defendants engaged in such wrongful conduct with the purpose of misleading or
`
`confusing customers and the public as to the origin, authenticity, or association of the goods and
`
`services advertised, marketed, installed, provided, offered, or distributed in connection with
`
`Microsoft’s Marks, name, and imitation visual designs, and of trading on Microsoft’s goodwill
`
`and business reputation. Defendants’ conduct constitutes (a) false designation of origin, (b) false
`
`or misleading description, (c) false association, and (d) false or misleading representation that the
`
`imitation visual images originate from or are authorized by Microsoft, all in violation of Section
`
`43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
`
`72.
`
`73.
`
`Defendants’ wrongful conduct is likely to continue unless restrained and enjoined.
`
`As a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Microsoft is entitled to recover its
`
`actual damages, Defendants’ profits, and treble damages and attorney fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1117.
`
`74.
`
`Further, Microsoft is entitled to injunctive relief. Microsoft has no adequate
`
`remedy at law for Defendants’ wrongful conduct because, among other things: (a) Microsoft’s
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00396-TWP-TAB Document 1 Filed 02/25/22 Page 16 of 20 PageID #: 16
`
`Marks are unique and valuable property which have no readily determinable market value; (b) if
`
`Defendants’ wrongful conduct is allowed to continue, the public is likely to become further
`
`confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the source, origin, or authenticity of the infringing materials;
`
`and (c) Defendants’ wrongful conduct, and the resulting damage to Microsoft, is continuing.
`
`FIFTH CLAIM
`Federal Trademark Dilution – 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)
`
`75. Microsoft specifically realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set
`
`forth above.
`
`76.
`
`Since at least 1992, Microsoft has exclusively and continuously promoted and used
`
`the Microsoft service mark. As one of the world’s most well-known technology companies, the
`
`Microsoft mark has become a famous and well-known symbol of Microsoft—well before any of
`
`the Defendants began using the mark in association with their goods or services unaffiliated with
`
`Microsoft through the Defendants’ illegal use and infringement of the mark.
`
`77.
`
`Since at least 2001, Microsoft has exclusively and continuously promoted and used
`
`the Windows service mark. As one of the most popular operating systems used by billions of
`
`customers around the world, the Windows mark has become a famous and well-known symbol of
`
`Microsoft—well before any of the Defendants began using the mark in association with their goods
`
`or services unaffiliated with Microsoft through the Defendants’ illegal use and infringement of the
`
`mark.
`
`78.
`
`Since 2012, Microsoft has exclusively and continuously promoted and used the
`
`Windows corporate logo (four square color version). As one of the most well-known companies
`
`in the world, the Windows corporate logo (four square color version) has become a famous and
`
`well-known symbol of Microsoft—well before any of the Defendants began using the mark in
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00396-TWP-TAB Document 1 Filed 02/25/22 Page 17 of 20 PageID #: 17
`
`association with their goods or services unaffiliated with Microsoft through the Defendants’ illegal
`
`use and infringement of the mark.
`
`79.
`
`The actions of the Defendants including, but not limited to, their unauthorized use
`
`of the Microsoft Marks in commerce to advertise, market, and sell fraudulent technical support
`
`services throughout the United States are likely to cause dilution of those marks by blurring and
`
`tarnishment in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1125(c).
`
`80.
`
`As a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Microsoft is entitled to recover its
`
`actual damages, Defendants’ profits, and treble damages and attorney fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1117.
`
`81.
`
`Further, Microsoft is entitled to injunctive relief. Microsoft has no adequate
`
`remedy at law for Defendants’ wrongful conduct because, among other things: (a) Microsoft’s
`
`Marks, name, and visual designs are unique and valuable property which have no readily
`
`determinable market value; (b) Defendants’ advertising, marketing, installation, or distribution of
`
`imitation visual designs constitutes harm to Microsoft such that Microsoft could not be made
`
`whole by any monetary award; and (c) Defendants’ wrongful conduct, and the resulting damage
`
`to Microsoft, is continuing.
`
`SIXTH CLAIM
`
`Cybersquatting – 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)
`
`82. Microsoft specifically realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set
`
`forth above.
`
`83.
`
`Since 1985, Microsoft has exclusively and continuously promoted and used the
`
`Windows trademark. As one of the most popular operating systems used by billions of customers
`
`around the world, the Windows mark has become a famous and well-known symbol of
`
`Microsoft—well before any of the Defendants began using the mark in association with their goods
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00396-TWP-TAB Document 1 Filed 02/25/22 Page 18 of 20 PageID #: 18
`
`or services unaffiliated with Microsoft through the Defendants’ illegal use and infringement of the
`
`mark.
`
`84.
`
`Defendants used the domain windowsclean.xyz with a bad faith intent to profit from
`
`the Microsoft Marks based on a number of factors, including the fact that the domain was used in
`
`furtherance of a scheme to defraud customers by deceiving them into believing Defendants are
`
`affiliated with Microsoft.
`
`85.
`
`The domain windowsclean.xyz is confusingly similar to or dilutive of the Microsoft
`
`Marks.
`
`86. Microsoft is entitled to actual damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), or in the
`
`alternative, minimum statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1).
`
`87. Microsoft is entitled to have ownership of the domain windowsclean.xyz
`
`transferred to it, or in the alternative at a minimum to have this domain forfeited or cancelled.
`
`88. Microsoft is further entitled to injunctive relief. In addition to the significant harm
`
`that Defendants have caused innocent victims, Defendants’ acts have caused irreparable injury to
`
`Microsoft. An award of monetary damages cannot fully compensate Microsoft for its injuries, and
`
`Microsoft lacks an adequate remedy at law.
`
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Microsoft respectfully asks this Court to enter judgment against
`
`Defendants and against each of their directors, principals, officers, agents, representatives,
`
`employees, attorneys, subsidiaries, parents, affiliates, successors and assigns, and all persons in
`
`active concert or participation with them, granting the following relief:
`
`A.
`
`The entry of judgment in Microsoft’s favor on all claims.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00396-TWP-TAB Document 1 Filed 02/25/22 Page 19 of 20 PageID #: 19
`
`B.
`
`A permanent injunction restraining and enjoining Defendants, their directors,
`
`principals, officers, agents, representatives, employees, attorneys, subsidiaries, parents, affiliates,
`
`successors and assigns, and all others in active concert or participation with it, from:
`
`(i)
`
`Any infringing use of Microsoft’s registered trademarks, including the
`
`trademarks identified above, in connection with the marketing, promotion,
`
`advertising, or sale of any goods or service;
`
`(ii)
`
`Directly or indirectly engaging in false advertising or promotions regarding
`
`the quality or secu

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


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

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

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

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

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

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

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

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

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

Your account does not support viewing this document.

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

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

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

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

Become a Member

One Moment Please

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

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

Your document is on its way!

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

Sealed Document

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

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


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket