`
`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