`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
`--------------------------------------------------------------x
`CRITICAL RESPONSE GROUP, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`-against-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 22-cv-342
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GEOCOMM, INC.
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`--------------------------------------------------------------x
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Critical Response Group, Inc. (“CRG”), by its attorneys, Alan R.
`
`Ostergren PC and Reitler Kailas & Rosenblatt LLP, alleges as follows:
`
`NATURE OF ACTION
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff is engaged in the business of improving communication and
`
`collaboration between first responders during critical incidents at unfamiliar locations.
`
`Founded in 2013 by decorated Special Operations veterans and public safety experts,
`
`Plaintiff creates visual communication tools that combine a gridded overlay with high-
`
`resolution overhead imagery to enable all first responders and law enforcement participants
`
`at the scene of a critical incident to communicate clearly, accurately and effectively.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff’s tools include graphic works generated for specific locations
`
`(“CRG Graphics”), including without limitation the CRG Graphics registered in the U.S.
`
`Copyright Office under registration number VA0002321013 (the “Registered Graphics“)
`
`(registration certificate attached as Exhibit 1).
`
`
`
`Case 4:22-cv-00342-SHL-SBJ Document 1 Filed 10/10/22 Page 2 of 20
`
`3.
`
`CRG seeks injunctive relief and damages for, inter alia, willful
`
`copyright infringement by the Defendant, GeoComm, Inc., arising from Defendant’s
`
`unauthorized preparation, reproduction, and public distribution of graphic works that are
`
`copied from and substantially and confusingly similar to protectable elements of the CRG
`
`Graphics.
`
`4.
`
`Defendant’s activities as alleged herein have continued after Defendant
`
`was notified of the infringing nature thereof, including without limitation by means of
`
`correspondence from CRG’s counsel dated September 20, 2022 (attached as Exhibit 2), and
`
`follow-up correspondence dated October 7, 2022 (attached as Exhibit 3), all in violation of
`
`the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. (the “Copyright Act”).
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff further seeks injunctive relief and damages for willful
`
`infringement of CRG’s distinctive, non-functional, unregistered trade dress in the overall
`
`appearance of the CRG Graphics (“CRG Trade Dress”), in violation of United States
`
`trademark law as codified in 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. (the “Lanham Act”).
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`further
`
`seeks
`
`injunctive
`
`relief
`
`and damages
`
`for
`
`misappropriation of CRG’s trade secrets as described herein (“CRG Trade Secrets”) and for
`
`breach of two written agreements between CRG and Defendant, i.e., a March 1, 2021 Mutual
`
`Nondisclosure Agreement (the “MNDA”), attached as Exhibit 4, and a March 13, 2021 Joint
`
`Services Licensing Agreement (the “Licensing Agreement”) attached as Exhibit 5.
`
`7.
`
`As stated in greater detail below, Defendant, without any authority
`
`from the Plaintiff, and in direct competition with Plaintiff, has (A) prepared, reproduced, and
`
`distributed one or more graphic works copied from and substantially similar to the CRG
`
`Graphics (“Infringing Graphics”), including without limitation the Infringing Graphics
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 4:22-cv-00342-SHL-SBJ Document 1 Filed 10/10/22 Page 3 of 20
`
`Defendant recently submitted to governmental authorities in connection with a certain
`
`public-safety project in the Southern District of Iowa entitled “Critical Incident Mapping
`
`(RFP1722282008)”; (B) marketed the unauthorized Infringing Graphics under the CRG
`
`Trade Dress, or a confusingly similar imitation of the CRG Trade Dress, thus causing a
`
`likelihood of confusion among members of the relevant public; (C) misappropriated the CRG
`
`Trade Secrets in violation of federal law; and (D) breached both the MNDA and the
`
`Licensing Agreement between CRG and Defendant.
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff is the owner of copyright in all of the CRG Graphics
`
`referenced in this Complaint, including without limitation the Registered Graphics.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff is the owner of all rights in the CRG Trade Dress, having
`
`never conveyed ownership therein to any other party.
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff is the owner of all rights in the CRG Trade Secrets, having
`
`never conveyed ownership therein to any other party.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff seeks legal and equitable relief to remedy and prevent
`
`Defendant’s willful infringement of the Plaintiff’s copyrights, the CRG Trade Dress, the
`
`misappropriation of the CRG Trade Secrets, and the breach of the MNDA and the Licensing
`
`Agreement.
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff therefore requests an order: (1) declaring that Defendant’s
`
`conduct as alleged willfully infringes Plaintiff’s copyrights in violation of the Copyright Act;
`
`(2) declaring that Defendant’s conduct as alleged willfully infringes the CRG Trade Dress in
`
`violation of the Lanham Act; (3) declaring that Defendant’s conduct as alleged constitutes
`
`willful and malicious misappropriation of the CRG Trade Secrets; (4) awarding actual
`
`damages and Defendant’s profits in an amount to be proved at trial; (5) awarding exemplary
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 4:22-cv-00342-SHL-SBJ Document 1 Filed 10/10/22 Page 4 of 20
`
`damages as permitted under applicable law; (6) awarding treble damages as permitted under
`
`applicable law for willful infringement; (7) granting a preliminary injunction requiring the
`
`Defendant to cease and desist from reproducing, distributing, and/or displaying the
`
`Infringing Graphics; (8) granting a permanent injunction requiring the Defendant to cease
`
`and desist from reproducing, distributing, and/or displaying the Infringing Graphics; (9)
`
`awarding the costs of bringing this action, including reasonable attorneys fees, to the extent
`
`permitted by applicable law; and (10) such other and further relief as this Court deems just
`
`and proper.
`
` JURY DEMAND
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff demands trial by jury of all issues so triable.
`
` JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`14.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under the
`
`copyright and trademark laws of the United States, 28 U.S.C. § § 1331 and 1338. This Court
`
`has original jurisdiction over this controversy for misappropriation of trade secret claims
`
`pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1836(c). This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the
`
`controversy for all other claims asserted herein pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
`
`15. Upon information and belief, this Court has personal jurisdiction over
`
`the Defendant because Defendant has distributed the Infringing Graphics in the Southern
`
`District of Iowa, or has authorized others to do so, has misappropriated Plaintiff’s trade
`
`secrets in the Southern District of Iowa, and is otherwise regularly transacting business in
`
`this State and in the Southern District of Iowa.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 4:22-cv-00342-SHL-SBJ Document 1 Filed 10/10/22 Page 5 of 20
`
`16. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1391(c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a) because, among other reasons, Defendant is subject to
`
`personal jurisdiction in the Southern District of Iowa, Defendant has conducted business in
`
`the Southern District of Iowa, and because a substantial part of the events or omissions
`
`giving rise to the claim occurred in the Southern District of Iowa.
`
`PARTIES
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiff CRG is a New Jersey corporation having a principal place of
`
`business at 300 American Metro Blvd., Suite 230, Hamilton, New Jersey 08619.
`
`18.
`
`CRG provides its goods and services nationwide.
`
`19. Upon
`
`information and belief, Defendant GeoComm, Inc.
`
`is a
`
`Minnesota corporation, having a principal place of business at 601 W. St. Germain Street,
`
`Saint Cloud, Minnesota 56301.
`
`20. Upon information and belief, Defendant is a direct competitor of CRG
`
`in the business of improving communication and collaboration between first responders
`
`during critical incidents, and provides its goods and services nationwide.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THE PARTIES’ CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP
`
`21.
`
`In or about June 2020, long prior to the commencement of the
`
`infringing acts of Defendant described herein, Defendant first contacted CRG at the
`
`suggestion of a mutual business contact to discuss certain potential areas of common interest
`
`between CRG and Defendant.
`
`22.
`
`In February 2021, a client of CRG’s (“Client”) introduced principals of
`
`CRG to an executive of Defendant and asked that CRG and Defendant work together to
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 4:22-cv-00342-SHL-SBJ Document 1 Filed 10/10/22 Page 6 of 20
`
`prepare a non-disclosure agreement for a mapping project for which the Client had engaged
`
`both CRG and Defendant to perform different services.
`
`23. On March 1, 2021, CRG provided the MNDA to Defendant for
`
`signature. Defendant signed and returned the document that day, after which a principal of
`
`CRG emailed Defendant as follows: “Thank you for the executed MNDA. I am looking
`
`forward to the discussion. Primary topic that we need to discuss is on the topic of CRG
`
`sharing our mapping content with GeoComm and what measures we need to put in place to
`
`protect the CRG intellectual property.”
`
`24.
`
`Shortly thereafter, on or about March 21, 2021, CRG and Defendant
`
`executed the Licensing Agreement.
`
`25.
`
`The Licensing Agreement provides inter alia that CRG would provide
`
`Defendant with access to CRG’s intellectual property, including the CRG Graphics, “solely
`
`for the purpose of enhancing services to benefit clients who contract with CRG to perform
`
`mapping services” (emphasis added), and for purposes of establishing a “common operating
`
`picture” in connection with their mutual Client, “and for no other purpose whatsoever.”
`
`26. Moreover, Defendant agreed in Section 5 of the Licensing Agreement that
`
`“the imaging, mapping, nomenclature and labeling conventions on CRG’s maps comprise
`
`protectable trade secrets under applicable law.” The License Agreement therefore expressly
`
`indicates, and Defendant expressly agreed, that such attributes of the CRG products are trade
`
`secrets.
`
`27.
`
`Under Section 5 of the Licensing Agreement, Defendant further agreed
`
`not to “modify, reuse, disassemble, decompile, reverse engineer the CRG Platform or maps or
`
`images obtained therefrom” (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 4:22-cv-00342-SHL-SBJ Document 1 Filed 10/10/22 Page 7 of 20
`
`28.
`
`In the MNDA, Section 6 provides that “[n]either party shall make, have
`
`made, use or sell for any purpose any product or other item using, incorporating, or derived from
`
`any Confidential Information of the other party” (emphasis added). “Confidential Information”
`
`under the MNDA includes CRG’s “iconography,” “content,” “gridding techniques,” and
`
`“nomenclature.”
`
`29.
`
`For more than one year after the parties executed the MNDA and the
`
`Licensing Agreement, CRG provided Confidential Information to Defendant as requested by
`
`their mutual Client.
`
`30. During this period, Defendant frequently pressed CRG for additional
`
`data and graphics beyond those initially provided by CRG.
`
`31.
`
` CRG often complied with Defendant’s requests in the interest of
`
`serving the parties’ mutual Client.
`
`32. During a video call with Defendant in or about September 2021, CRG
`
`began to suspect that Defendant was not being truthful with CRG about the uses Defendant
`
`was making of CRG’s Confidential Information.
`
`
`
`
`
` THE IOWA PROJECT
`
`33. On or about June 20, 2022 the Iowa Department of Administrative
`
`Services, acting on behalf of the Iowa Department of Education, posted a request for
`
`proposals (“RFP”) to provide critical incident mapping for the State of Iowa entitled “Critical
`
`Incident Mapping (RFP1722282008)” (the “Iowa Project”).
`
`34.
`
`CRG participated in a competitive bidding process regarding the Iowa
`
`Project.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 4:22-cv-00342-SHL-SBJ Document 1 Filed 10/10/22 Page 8 of 20
`
`35. Defendant also participated in the competitive bidding process
`
`regarding the Iowa Project.
`
`36. On or about August 11, 2022, Defendant’s proposal was selected as the
`
`winning bid for the Iowa Project, because it purported to provide a lower-cost solution than
`
`CRG’s.
`
`37. Using proper channels, CRG obtained a copy of Defendant’s proposal
`
`on or about August 15, 2022.
`
`38.
`
`CRG observed that one or more graphics included with the Defendant’s
`
`proposal, including without limitation Figure 8 of that proposal (attached as Exhibit 6
`
`hereto), which purported to show that Defendant met a mandatory requirement of the RFP,
`
`bore numerous striking and substantial similarities to the copyrightable authorship included
`
`in the Registered Graphics and the other CRG Graphics that CRG had previously provided to
`
`Defendant under the MNDA and the Licensing Agreement.
`
`39. On or about August 15, 2022, CRG initiated an appeal of the outcome
`
`of the bidding process for the Iowa Project.
`
`40.
`
`That appeal has not been resolved as of the commencement of this
`
`action.
`
`
`
`
`
`expression.
`
`
`
`41.
`
`42.
`
` THE REGISTERED GRAPHICS
`
`The Registered Graphics are original works of authorship.
`
`The Registered Graphics have been fixed in a tangible medium of
`
`43.
`
`The Registered Graphics contain substantial amounts of material
`
`created by the Plaintiff’s own artistic judgment and creativity.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 4:22-cv-00342-SHL-SBJ Document 1 Filed 10/10/22 Page 9 of 20
`
`44.
`
`The Registered Graphics are copyrightable subject matter under the
`
`laws of the United States.
`
`45.
`
`The registration of the Registered Graphics with the U.S. Copyright
`
`Office within five years of the initial publication of such works gives rise to a statutory
`
`presumption of the validity of the copyrights in such works and of all facts stated in the
`
`registration certificate.
`
`46.
`
`The use of the Registered Graphics by Defendant as alleged herein has
`
`never been authorized by Plaintiff.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
`
`47. Upon information and belief, Defendant had a reasonable opportunity
`
`to view the Registered Graphics prior to the making of the Infringing Graphics, because
`
`Plaintiff provided the Registered Graphics to Defendant in early 2021, in connection with
`
`and subject to the terms of the MNDA and the Licensing Agreement.
`
`48. Upon information and belief, not later than July 15, 2022, the
`
`Infringing Graphics were prepared by Defendant and distributed by Defendant to one or
`
`more persons in connection with Defendant’s submission of a proposal in the Iowa Project.
`
`49.
`
`The Infringing Graphics are copied from and substantially similar to
`
`the protectable authorship of the Registered Graphics.
`
`50. Upon information and belief, the Infringing Graphics are very different
`
`in appearance from any prior graphics created by Defendant.
`
`51.
`
`Promptly after becoming aware of Defendant’s unauthorized use of the
`
`Registered Graphics in the Infringing Graphics, CRG and its counsel contacted Defendant,
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 4:22-cv-00342-SHL-SBJ Document 1 Filed 10/10/22 Page 10 of 20
`
`see Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3 hereto, and advised Defendant that the use of any original,
`
`protected elements of the CRG Graphics in the Infringing Graphics was unauthorized.
`
`52.
`
`Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, from the infringing
`
`activities of Defendant.
`
`DEFENDANT’S UNFAIR COMPETITION AND TRADE DRESS INFRINGEMENT
`
`53.
`
`Since 2016, CRG has sold the CRG Graphics, including without
`
`limitation the Registered Graphics, which are of a distinctive, nonfunctional overall
`
`appearance that encompasses, inter alia, imaging, mapping, nomenclature and labeling
`
`conventions created by CRG (collectively, “Trade Dress”).
`
`54.
`
`Long prior to the acts of Defendant complained of herein, and
`
`continuing to the present, the CRG Graphics have featured a consistent Trade Dress as
`
`identified herein.
`
`55.
`
`The Trade Dress encompasses the total overall appearance the CRG
`
`Graphics, comprising a combination of imaging, mapping, nomenclature and labeling
`
`conventions.
`
`56.
`
`The Trade Dress, viewed in its entirety, creates a distinctive overall
`
`visual impression that is uniquely associated with CRG and serves as a source identifier for
`
`the CRG Graphics.
`
`57.
`
`The Trade Dress is distinctive, because it is unlike the appearance of
`
`numerous other competing graphics, including the graphics produced by Defendant prior to
`
`the Iowa Project.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 4:22-cv-00342-SHL-SBJ Document 1 Filed 10/10/22 Page 11 of 20
`
`58.
`
`The Trade Dress of the CRG Graphics is non-functional, because the
`
`specific appearance of the CRG Graphics does not confer a significant, non-reputational
`
`advantage over alternative designs for competing graphics.
`
`59.
`
` CRG has developed and promoted the Trade Dress at considerable
`
`expense, making a significant investment in developing and promoting an overall look for
`
`the CRG Graphics that is distinctive and immediately recognized by members of the relevant
`
`public as an indicator that CRG is the source of the CRG Graphics.
`
`60.
`
`To date, CRG’s sales of the CRG Graphics have been highly
`
`successful, and the CRG Graphics have been promoted nationwide, including without
`
`limitation in the Southern District of Iowa.
`
`61.
`
`The Trade Dress has become widely known in the relevant market for
`
`critical incident response planning by reason of CRG’s years of extensive sales and
`
`promotion of the CRG Graphics and the recognition the CRG Graphics have received in
`
`multiple states.
`
`62. As a result of CRG’s efforts in developing and promoting the Trade
`
`Dress and the CRG Graphics, relevant consumers have come to associate and identify the
`
`Graphics as products of high quality that originate from a single source with a reputation for
`
`quality, namely CRG.
`
`63. Upon information and belief, beginning in approximately June 2022,
`
`after the CRG Graphics had become widely recognized in the relevant marketplace and after
`
`CRG had provided Defendant with access to the CRG Graphics and other Confidential
`
`Information under the MNDA the Licensing Agreement, Defendant developed the Infringing
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 4:22-cv-00342-SHL-SBJ Document 1 Filed 10/10/22 Page 12 of 20
`
`Graphics that are inconsistent with the appearance of Defendant’s prior graphics but instead
`
`closely mimic the CRG Trade Dress.
`
`64.
`
`Since beginning to create the Infringing Graphics, Defendant has
`
`submitted them in its competitive bid against CRG for the Iowa Project.
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S INFRINGEMENTS WILL CAUSE HARM TO PLAINTIFF
`
`65.
`
`The confusingly similar appearance of the Defendant’s Infringing
`
`Graphics have caused and will cause an irreparable loss of reputation and goodwill to CRG
`
`because customers will falsely ascribe the poor quality of the Infringing Graphics to CRG, or
`
`cease to distinguish between CRG’s genuine CRG Graphics and the confusingly similar
`
`series of Infringing Graphics marketed by Defendant.
`
`66. Upon information and belief, Defendant copied the distinctive Trade
`
`Dress of CRG’s Graphics in order to create a likelihood of confusion between the Infringing
`
`Graphics and CRG’s superior graphics.
`
`67.
`
` Upon information and belief, prior to the significant success of the
`
`CRG Graphics, Defendant had never previously marketed any critical incident response
`
`graphics that were substantially or confusingly similar to the CRG Graphics.
`
`68. Upon information and belief, prior to the significant success of the
`
`CRG Graphics, no other person or entity had ever previously marketed any graphics that
`
`were substantially or confusingly similar to the CRG Graphics.
`
`69.
`
`Since Defendant has been put on notice of Plaintiff’s objections to the
`
`Infringing Graphics, Defendant has continued to market the Infringing Graphics.
`
`70. Defendant’s use of CRG’s Trade Dress was undertaken, and has
`
`continued, without the consent of CRG.
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 4:22-cv-00342-SHL-SBJ Document 1 Filed 10/10/22 Page 13 of 20
`
`71. Defendant has copied and continues to copy CRG’s Trade Dress in
`
`association with a directly competing product, namely critical incident mapping graphics,
`
`and it has specifically targeted the same channels of trade and customer base as does CRG.
`
`
`
`72. Defendant and CRG are direct competitors.
`
`73. Defendant’s use of CRG’s Trade Dress in its Infringing Graphics, or in
`
`advertising or promotion for
`
`the Infringing Graphics, misrepresents
`
`the nature,
`
`characteristics, and quality of the Infringing Graphics, because said misrepresentation creates
`
`a likelihood that the public would associate Infringing Graphics with the CRG Graphics.
`
`
`
`74. Upon information and belief, Defendant’s infringement of CRG’s
`
`Trade Dress is and has been done in bad faith, knowingly and willfully and with the intent to
`
`confuse the relevant purchasing public, to trade upon CRG’s goodwill, and to dilute the
`
`distinctiveness of the Trade Dress.
`
`75.
`
` Upon information and belief, Defendant’s Infringing Graphics will
`
`tarnish CRG’s Trade Dress in the minds of relevant purchasers because they are of inferior
`
`quality relative to the CRG Graphics.
`
`76. Defendant’s use of CRG’s Trade Dress constitutes passing off, namely,
`
`false representations and false advertising in violation of §43(a) of the Lanham Act.
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRETS
`
`77.
`
`CRG has spent nearly 7 years and invested significant resources to
`
`develop its CRG Graphics, including by developing and employing proprietary, confidential,
`
`and trade secret technology, techniques and designs not generally known to CRG’s
`
`competitors or the public (“Trade Secrets”).
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 4:22-cv-00342-SHL-SBJ Document 1 Filed 10/10/22 Page 14 of 20
`
`78.
`
`CRG has taken extensive measures to protect the Trade Secrets it
`
`disclosed to Defendant under the strict protections of the MNDA and the Licensing
`
`Agreement.
`
`79.
`
`For example, CRG requires its employees, contractors, and consultants
`
`to agree in writing to protect any Trade Secrets of CRG, and for employees to assign all
`
`ownership rights to technologies they work on or develop during their employment with
`
`CRG, pursuant to a Proprietary Information and Competitive Activities Agreement.
`
`80.
`
`CRG also protects its Trade Secrets by, inter alia, limiting disclosure
`
`thereof to employees having a need to know such Trade Secrets, and by employing security
`
`measures to prevent unauthorized access to the physical facilities and digital platforms in
`
`which the Trade Secrets are stored.
`
`81. With respect to Defendant, as set forth above, in early 2021 CRG and
`
`Defendant executed the MNDA, which provided at Section 6 that “[n]either party shall make,
`
`have made, use or sell for any purpose any product or other item using, incorporating, or derived
`
`from any Confidential Information of the other party” (emphasis added). “Confidential
`
`Information” under
`
`the MNDA
`
`includes CRG’s “iconography,” “content,” “gridding
`
`techniques,” and “nomenclature.”
`
`82. Defendant further acknowledged in Section 5 of the Licensing
`
`Agreement that “the imaging, mapping, nomenclature and labeling conventions on CRG’s maps
`
`comprise protectable trade secrets under applicable law.”
`
`83.
`
`CRG has spent thousands of hours to develop the CRG Trade Secrets.
`
`The unique knowledge and the conclusions drawn from the data gathered by CRG’s
`
`principals in their years of collective military and public safety experience with critical
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 4:22-cv-00342-SHL-SBJ Document 1 Filed 10/10/22 Page 15 of 20
`
`incident response mapping offers valuable competitive advantages in the field in which CRG
`
`and Defendant compete directly.
`
`84.
`
`Pursuant to the MNDA and the Licensing Agreement, Defendant
`
`agreed to maintain the confidentiality of CRG’s Confidential Information; it has willfully and
`
`maliciously failed to do so.
`
`85.
`
`CRG has expended significant amounts of time, effort, and money to
`
`ensure that CRG’s proprietary information was not, and is not, disclosed or otherwise made
`
`publicly available, and to preserve and maintain the confidentiality of its trade secret
`
`information.
`
`86.
`
`CRG’s confidential and trade secret information derives significant
`
`independent economic value, whether actual and/or potential, from not being generally
`
`known to the public or competitors, or to other persons who can obtain economic value from
`
`their use or disclosure. CRG also derives substantial business advantage and significant
`
`economic benefit from maintaining the ownership and confidentiality of confidential and
`
`trade secret information.
`
`87.
`
`If this information, which CRG has maintained as confidential or trade
`
`secrets, were disclosed to competitors and/or to the public, such disclosure would cause
`
`severe economic harm and competitive disadvantage to CRG, as exemplified by Defendant’s
`
`misappropriation of the CRG Trade Secrets in connection with its bid in the Iowa Project, to
`
`the direct competitive disadvantage of CRG.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 4:22-cv-00342-SHL-SBJ Document 1 Filed 10/10/22 Page 16 of 20
`
`(COPYRIGHT
`
`
`88.
`
`COUNT I
`INFRINGEMENT Pursuant
`to 17 U.S.C. § 101 et
`
`seq.)
`
`Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1
`
`through 87 as if set forth fully herein.
`
`89. Defendant’s unauthorized copying of Plaintiff’s Registered Graphics in
`
`the Infringing Graphics, and Defendant’s preparation of unauthorized derivative works and
`
`subsequent reproduction and public distribution of the Infringing Graphics, are infringements
`
`of Plaintiff’s copyright in the Registered Graphics in violation of the Copyright Act, 17
`
`U.S.C. § 106.
`
`90. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing acts of the Defendant,
`
`the Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be proved at trial.
`
`91.
`
`CRG hereby alleges that Defendant’s aforesaid conduct has infringed
`
`and will continue to infringe CRG’s valuable rights in the Registered Graphics unless
`
`enjoined by this Court.
`
`92.
`
`CRG has no adequate remedy at law.
`
`
`COUNT II
`
`
`
`
`(TRADE DRESS INFRINGEMENT, Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.)
`
`93.
`
`Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1
`
`through 92 as if set forth fully herein.
`
`94.
`
`CRG hereby alleges that Defendant’s aforesaid conduct has infringed
`
`and will continue to infringe CRG’s valuable rights in the Trade Dress unless enjoined by
`
`this Court.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 4:22-cv-00342-SHL-SBJ Document 1 Filed 10/10/22 Page 17 of 20
`
`95. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing acts of the Defendant,
`
`the Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be proved at trial.
`
`96.
`
`CRG has no adequate remedy at law.
`
`COUNT III
`
`
`
`
`(Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b))
`
`97.
`
`Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1
`
`through 96 as if set forth fully herein.
`
`98.
`
`CRG’s Confidential Information includes trade secrets and/or other
`
`proprietary information that derives independent economic value from not being known to,
`
`and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by, another person who can obtain
`
`economic value from the disclosure or use of the information.
`
`99.
`
`CRG’s confidential and trade secret information has been and continues
`
`to be the subject of CRG’s reasonable measures to keep such information secret.
`
`100. Defendant misappropriated such confidential and
`
`trade secret
`
`information of CRG in connection with its submission to a competitive bid for the Iowa
`
`Project.
`
`101. As a result of Defendant’s misappropriation, CRG has been and
`
`continues to be damaged and irreparably injured, including without limitation, by the loss of
`
`sales and profits it would have earned but for Defendant’s actions, and damage to CRG’s
`
`reputation among potential and existing customers, business partners, investors, and in the
`
`industry in general.
`
`102. Defendant’s misappropriation is willful and malicious and thereby
`
`entitles CRG to an award of exemplary damages.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case 4:22-cv-00342-SHL-SBJ Document 1 Filed 10/10/22 Page 18 of 20
`
`103. Defendant’s misappropriation of CRG’s confidential and trade secret
`
`information has caused and will continue to cause CRG irreparable and substantial injury and
`
`therefore cannot be fully redressed through damages alone. An injunction prohibiting
`
`Defendant from further use or disclosure of CRG’s confidential and trade secret information
`
`is necessary to provide CRG with complete relief.
`
`
`
`
`COUNT IV
`
`
`(Breach of Written Agreement – MDNA)
`
`
`
`
`104. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1
`
`through 103 as if set forth fully herein. CRG repeats, realleges, and incorporates by
`
`reference, as if fully set forth herein, the allegations of the preceding paragraphs.
`
`105. CRG has performed all of its contractual obligations under the MNDA
`
`to the extent not excused.
`
`106. Defendant has breached its contractual obligations to CRG under the
`
`MNDA by, inter alia, failing to adhere to the express confidentiality provisions it contained.
`
`107. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breaches of contract,
`
`CRG has been and continues to be damaged and irreparably injured, including without
`
`limitation, by the loss of sales and profits it would have earned but for Defendant’s actions,
`
`and damage to CRG’s reputation among potential and existing customers, business partners,
`
`investors, and in the industry in general.
`
`108. As specified in the MNDA, at paragraph 8, and agreed to and
`
`acknowledged by the parties, any actual or threatened breach of such agreement “will cause”
`
`CRG to suffer “irreparable damage” and therefore CRG “shall be entitled to seek injunctive
`
`relief under this [MNDA].”
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case 4:22-cv-00342-SHL-SBJ Document 1 Filed 10/10/22 Page 19 of 20
`
`COUNT V
`
`
`
`
` (Breach of Written Agreement – Licensing Agreement)
`
`109. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1
`
`through 108 as if set forth fully herein.
`
`110. CRG has performed all of its contractual obligations under the
`
`Licensing Agreement to the extent not excused.
`
`111. Defendant has breached its contractual obligations to CRG under the
`
`Licensing Agreement by, inter alia, failing to adhere to the express confidentiality provisions
`
`it contained.
`
`112. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breaches of contract,
`
`CRG has been and continues to be damaged and irreparably injured, including without
`
`limitation, by the loss of sales and profits it would have earned but for Defendant’s actions,
`
`and damage to CRG’s reputation among potential and existing customers, business partners,
`
`investors, and in the industry in general.
`
`113. As specified in the Licensing Agreement, at paragraph 5, and agreed to
`
`and acknowledged by the parties, any actual or threatened breach of such agreement will
`
`cause CRG to suffer irreparable harm and loss of business, and therefore CRG “shall be
`
`entitled to obtain the issuance of an injunction to prohibit any such actual or threatened
`
`breach by [Defendant] or its agents.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, CRG requests the following relief:
`
`A.
`
`Actual damages and Defendant’s profits in an amount to be proved at
`
`trial;
`
`B.
`
`Exemplary damages as permitted under applicable law;
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case 4:22-cv-00342-SHL-SBJ Document 1 Filed 10/10/22 Page 20 of 20
`
`C.
`
`Treble damages as permitted under applicable law for willful
`
`infringement;
`
`D.
`
` A preliminary injunction requiring the Defendant to cease and desist
`
`from reproducing, distributing, and/or displaying the Infringing Graphics;
`
`E.
`
`A permanent injunction requiring the Defendant to cease and desist
`
`from reproducing, distributing, and/or displaying the Infringing Graphics;
`
`F.
`
` An award of the costs of bringing this action, including reasonable
`
`attorneys fees, to the extent permitted by applicable law.
`
`G.
`
`Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
`
`
`Dated: Des Moines, Iowa
`
`October 10, 2022
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`s/ Alan R. Ostergren
`Alan R. Ostergren
`Alan R. Ostergren PC
`500 Locust St., Suite 199
`Des Moines, IA 50309
`(515) 207-0314
`alan.ost