throbber
Case 3:20-cv-13007-RHC-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.1 Filed 11/09/20 Page 1 of 17
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Civil Action No. ________
`
`Demand for Jury Trial
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HOVERFLY TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HOVERFLY INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF HOVERFLY TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S COMPLAINT
`AGAINST DEFENDANT HOVERFLY, INC.
`
`Plaintiff Hoverfly Technologies, Inc. (“Hoverfly”), for its complaint hereby
`
`alleges as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is an action for trademark infringement and unfair competition,
`
`based on Defendant Hoverfly Inc.’s infringement of Plaintiff’s Hoverfly
`
`trademark.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff is the owner, and senior user, of the Hoverfly trademark,
`
`having used the mark in interstate commerce continuously since 2010.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-13007-RHC-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.2 Filed 11/09/20 Page 2 of 17
`
`
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`3.
`
`Hoverfly Technologies, Inc. (“Hoverfly”) is a Delaware corporation,
`
`with its principal place of business at 12151 Research Parkway, Suite 100,
`
`Orlando, Florida 32826.
`
`4.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Hoverfly Inc. (“Defendant”)
`
`is a Michigan corporation, with its principal place of business at 46866
`
`Sunnybrook Lane, Novi, Michigan, 48374.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`5.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Lanham Act, 15
`
`U.S.C. § 1121, and under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal question) and 1338
`
`(trademarks).
`
`6.
`
`Hoverfly’s federal claims arise under the laws of the United States,
`
`specifically 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq., the Lanham Act.
`
`7.
`
`Subject matter jurisdiction over Hoverfly’s remaining claims is proper
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1338 and 1367 because Hoverfly has asserted a
`
`substantial and related trademark claim, and because the remaining claims are so
`
`related to the Lanham Act claim that they form part of the same case or
`
`controversy.
`
`8.
`
`The Court has jurisdiction over Defendant because, on information
`
`and belief, Defendant: (a) is a Michigan corporation with a principal place of
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-13007-RHC-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.3 Filed 11/09/20 Page 3 of 17
`
`
`
`business in this judicial district; (b) has marketed, distributed, offered for sale,
`
`and/or sold trademark infringing goods and/or services to persons within
`
`Michigan; (c) regularly transacts and conducts business within Michigan; and/or
`
`(d) has otherwise made or established contacts with Michigan sufficient to permit
`
`the exercise of personal jurisdiction.
`
`9.
`
`Venue is proper for this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because
`
`Defendant resides in this judicial district, and a substantial part of the events or
`
`omissions giving rise to Hoverfly’s claims occurred in this judicial district.
`
`FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
`
`Hoverfly’s Business
`
`10.
`
`Hoverfly is a U.S. manufacturer of aerial drones designed for multiple
`
`applications, including for security and public safety, and related accessories
`
`11.
`
`An exemplar Hoverfly drone is shown below:
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-13007-RHC-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.4 Filed 11/09/20 Page 4 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`12.
`
`Hoverfly manufactures drones for use by government, first
`
`responders, and industry leaders in defense, security, automotive, heavy industry,
`
`sports, and the media.
`
`13.
`
`Hoverfly’s drones can be tethered or untethered, carry payload,
`
`capture video, conduct surveillance, and more.
`
`14.
`
`Hoverfly has been in operation since 2010 and is the de facto industry
`
`leader.
`
`Hoverfly’s Rights in the Hoverfly Trademark
`
`15.
`
`Hoverfly has continuously used the Hoverfly mark in interstate
`
`commerce as a source indicator since 2010.
`
`16.
`
`As a result of its use of the Hoverfly mark, Hoverfly applied for, and
`
`was granted a federal trademark registration for the Hoverfly mark.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-13007-RHC-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.5 Filed 11/09/20 Page 5 of 17
`
`
`
`17.
`
`On March 20, 2012, the United States Patent & Trademark Office
`
`(“USPTO”) issued Hoverfly a registration certificate, Registration No. 4114672,
`
`for the Hoverfly mark.
`
`18.
`
`In this Complaint, Hoverfly’s trademark will be referred to as the
`
`“HOVERFLY Trademark.”
`
`19.
`
`The HOVERFLY Trademark was first used in commerce on or about
`
`September 1, 2010.
`
`20.
`
`In 2018, Hoverfly inadvertently did not file a “Section 8” declaration
`
`of continued use with the USPTO.
`
`21.
`
`Nevertheless, Hoverfly continued, and continues, to use the
`
`HOVERFLY Trademark in commerce.
`
`22.
`
`Since 2010, Hoverfly has continuously sold goods and/or services
`
`throughout the United States.
`
`23.
`
`Since its 2010 inception, Hoverfly has made a significant investment
`
`of time, money, and effort in advertising and promoting the HOVERFLY
`
`Trademark.
`
`24.
`
`Hoverfly has maintained the website Hoverflytech.com since 2010
`
`which has continually displayed the HOVERFLY Trademark.
`
`25.
`
`Hoverfly is the national senior user of the HOVERFLY Trademark.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-13007-RHC-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.6 Filed 11/09/20 Page 6 of 17
`
`
`
`26.
`
`By virtue of its longstanding, continuous use of the HOVERFLY
`
`Trademark in interstate commerce, Hoverfly possesses protectible common law
`
`trademark rights in the HOVERFLY Trademark.
`
`27.
`
`As a consequence of Hoverfly’s use of the HOVERFLY Trademark
`
`throughout the United States, and due to the significant investment of time, money,
`
`and effort, widespread sales, and the high quality of Hoverfly’s goods and services,
`
`the HOVERFLY Trademark is strong, has acquired value, and is well-known to
`
`the consuming public and trade as identifying and distinguishing the source of
`
`Hoverfly’s goods and services.
`
`Defendant’s Willful Trademark Infringement
`
`28.
`
`Upon information and belief, in early 2017, Defendant recognized that
`
`Hoverfly’s federal registration for the HOVERFLY Trademark had or may lapse
`
`despite Hoverfly’s continued use of the HOVERFLY Trademark.
`
`29.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant, with full knowledge of
`
`Hoverfly’s HOVERFLY Trademark, filed on April 10, 2017 trademark application
`
`with the USPTO for the same (word) mark – Hoverfly – as Hoverfly’s
`
`HOVERFLY Trademark.
`
`30.
`
`Defendant’s Hoverfly trademark is identical or confusingly similar to
`
`Hoverfly’s HOVERFLY Trademark in appearance, pronunciation, connotation and
`
`overall commercial impression.
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-13007-RHC-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.7 Filed 11/09/20 Page 7 of 17
`
`
`
`31.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant is in the business of drone
`
`photography and video servicing for business, including for real estate, aerial
`
`inspections, and construction. Defendant also hires drone pilots to deliver its
`
`services.
`
`32.
`
`Like Hoverfly, Defendant markets its services in the same or similar
`
`marketing channels, including the Internet.
`
`33.
`
`Defendant’s website is www.hoverflyinc.com; Plaintiff Hoverfly’s
`
`website is hoverflytech.com.
`
`34.
`
`Defendant uses the HOVERFLY Trademark to identify and deliver its
`
`services, including on its website, hoverflyinc.com, as shown below:
`
`35.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant also uses the HOVERFLY
`
`Trademark on its social media accounts, including Instagram, where it uses the
`
`hashtag, #hoverfly:
`
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-13007-RHC-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.8 Filed 11/09/20 Page 8 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`36.
`
`Defendant is not authorized by Hoverfly to advertise, distribute, sell,
`
`offer to sell, or facilitate the sale of any goods or services bearing the HOVERFLY
`
`Trademark.
`
`37.
`
`Despite Defendant’s federal trademark registration, Hoverfly is the
`
`senior user of the HOVERFLY Trademark.
`
`38.
`
`Defendant’s use of the HOVERFLY Trademark in connection with
`
`the advertising, marketing, offering for sale, sale, and distribution of its goods and
`
`services has caused, and in the future is likely to cause, confusion among potential
`
`customers between Hoverfly and Defendant, thus harming the consuming public
`
`and irreparably harming Hoverfly’s valuable reputation and goodwill.
`
`39.
`
`Hoverfly is aware of instances of actual consumer confusion. For
`
`example, Hoverfly receives misdirected calls to its main office number. Further,
`
`prospective customers have demonstrated actual confusion as well.
`
`40.
`
`In clear disregard of Plaintiff’s trademark rights, Defendant has
`
`knowingly continued to use the HOVERFLY Trademark.
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-13007-RHC-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.9 Filed 11/09/20 Page 9 of 17
`
`
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF – LANHAM ACT
`
`41.
`
`Hoverfly adopts and incorporates by reference the allegations
`
`contained in Paragraphs 1 through 40.
`
`42.
`
`As the senior and continuous user, Hoverfly owns the HOVERFLY
`
`Trademark.
`
`43.
`
`Defendant’s use of the HOVERFLY Trademark in commerce, in
`
`connection with its goods and services, has caused and is likely to continue to
`
`cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection,
`
`or association of Defendant with Hoverfly, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or
`
`approval of Defendant’s goods, services, or commercial activities by Hoverfly.
`
`44.
`
`Defendant’s use of HOVERFLY Trademark constitutes false or
`
`misleading representations of fact, false or misleading descriptions of fact, and
`
`false designations of origin of its goods and services.
`
`45.
`
`Defendant’s actions have caused and, unless enjoined by this Court,
`
`will continue to cause irreparable harm to Hoverfly, a likelihood of confusion and
`
`deception of members of the trade and general public, and injury to Hoverfly’s
`
`goodwill and reputation, for which it has no adequate remedy at law.
`
`46.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant’s use of the Hoverfly
`
`Trademark constitutes willful infringement because Defendant was aware of both
`
`Hoverfly’s prior federal registration of the HOVERFLY Trademark, and
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-13007-RHC-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.10 Filed 11/09/20 Page 10 of 17
`
`
`
`Hoverfly’s continuing use of the HOVERFLY Trademark when Defendant filed its
`
`registration application for the identical mark with the USPTO.
`
`47.
`
`Hoverfly is entitled to injunctive relief and to recover Defendant’s
`
`profits, actual damages, enhanced profits and damages, costs, injunctive relief, and
`
`reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to Lanham Act, including 15 U.S.C. §§
`
`1125(a), 1116, and 1117.
`
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`COMMON LAW TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
`
`Hoverfly adopts and incorporates by reference the allegations
`
`
`48.
`
`contained in Paragraphs 1 through 47.
`
`49.
`
`By the actions described above, Defendant has engaged in trademark
`
`infringement in violation of the common law of Michigan because Defendant’s use
`
`of the HOVERFLY Trademark in connection with its goods and services has
`
`caused and is likely to continue to cause consumer confusion.
`
`50.
`
`Defendant’s actions have irreparably harmed Hoverfly, its goodwill
`
`and reputation, and will continue to irreparably harm Hoverfly unless enjoined by
`
`this Court.
`
`51.
`
`52.
`
`Hoverfly is without an adequate remedy at law.
`
`Defendant’s actions have damaged and continue to damage Hoverfly
`
`in an amount to be determined at trial.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-13007-RHC-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.11 Filed 11/09/20 Page 11 of 17
`
`
`
`THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF –
`COMMON LAW UNFAIR COMPETITION
`
`53.
`
`Hoverfly adopts and incorporates by reference the allegations
`
`contained in Paragraphs 1 through 52.
`
`54.
`
`By the actions described above, Defendant has engaged in unfair
`
`competition in violation of the common law of Michigan because Defendant’s use
`
`of the HOVERFLY Trademark in connection with its goods and services is likely
`
`to cause consumer confusion.
`
`55.
`
`Defendant’s actions have irreparably harmed Hoverfly, its goodwill
`
`and reputation, and will continue to irreparably harm Hoverfly unless enjoined by
`
`this Court.
`
`56.
`
`57.
`
`Hoverfly is without an adequate remedy at law.
`
`Defendant’s actions were undertaken in willful disregard of
`
`Hoverfly’s rights.
`
`58.
`
`Defendant’s actions were undertaken for the purpose of deceiving the
`
`public.
`
`59.
`
`Defendant’s actions have damaged and continue to damage Hoverfly
`
`in an amount to be determined at trial.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-13007-RHC-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.12 Filed 11/09/20 Page 12 of 17
`
`
`
`FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF –
`CANCELLATION OF DEFENDANT’S REGISTRATION
`
`Hoverfly adopts and incorporates by reference the allegations
`
`60.
`
`contained in Paragraphs 1 through 59.
`
`61.
`
`Defendant is the owner of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 5460451
`
`for the designation HOVERFLY for the following goods: the provision of aerial
`
`photography services through the use of drone technology.
`
`62.
`
`63.
`
`64.
`
`The ‘451 Registration issued on May 1, 2018.
`
`Defendant claimed a first use in commerce of June 1, 2017.
`
`Plaintiff is the senior user of HOVERFLY and has priority of use for
`
`the HOVERFLY mark in conjunction with various products and services,
`
`including the manufacture and sale of aerial drones and accessories designed for
`
`multiple applications, including for security and public safety.
`
`65.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant began using the HOVERFLY
`
`designation with knowledge of Plaintiff’s use of the HOVERFLY trademark in
`
`order to target and confuse the public and potential consumers.
`
`66.
`
`Defendant’s use of HOVERFLY in connection with drone related
`
`services has caused and is likely to cause confusion or mistake among consumers
`
`as to the source or origin of goods and services offered under these marks.
`
`67.
`
`Defendant’s HOVERFLY designation so resembles Plaintiff’s mark
`
`that continued registration and use of HOVERFLY will cause or is likely to cause
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-13007-RHC-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.13 Filed 11/09/20 Page 13 of 17
`
`
`
`consumer confusion and mislead consumers as to the source of Plaintiff’s goods
`
`and services.
`
`68.
`
`Such confusion will cause damage and injury to Plaintiff and its
`
`goodwill in the HOVERFLY trademark and thereby lessening the value of
`
`HOVERFLY as a unique identifier of Plaintiff’s products and services.
`
`69.
`
`Plaintiff has been damaged as a direct and proximate result of
`
`Defendant’s use of HOVERFLY mark in commerce.
`
`70.
`
`Defendant’s actions have irreparably harmed Hoverfly, its goodwill
`
`and reputation, and will continue to irreparably harm Hoverfly unless enjoined by
`
`this Court.
`
`71.
`
`For at least these reasons, Hoverfly is without an adequate remedy at
`
`law.
`
`72.
`
`Defendant’s actions were undertaken in willful disregard of
`
`Hoverfly’s rights.
`
`73.
`
`For at least these reasons, the ‘451 registration must be cancelled
`
`pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1064.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Hoverfly prays as follows:
`
`A. For judgment that Defendant:
`
`a. Has violated the Lanham Act, including 15 U.S.C. § 1125;
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-13007-RHC-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.14 Filed 11/09/20 Page 14 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`b. Has engaged in trademark infringement under the common law of
`
`Michigan; and,
`
`c. Has engaged in unfair competition in violation of the common law
`
`of Michigan.
`
`B. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendant, each of its officers,
`
`agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and all those in active concert
`
`or participation with it from:
`
`a. using any Hoverfly trademarks, including, but not limited to the
`
`HOVERFLY Trademark, or any simulation, reproduction, copy,
`
`colorable imitation, or confusingly similar variation thereof in
`
`connection with any goods or services or in connection with the
`
`promotion, advertisement, sale, offering for sale, manufacture,
`
`production, dissemination, or distribution of its goods and services;
`
`b. using any false designation of origin or false description
`
`(including, without limitation, any letters or symbols), or
`
`performing any act which can, or is likely to, lead members of the
`
`consuming public or trade to believe that Defendant is associated
`
`with Hoverfly or that any product imported, manufactured,
`
`distributed, or sold by Defendant and/or any services provided by
`
`Defendant is, in any manner associated or connected with
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-13007-RHC-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.15 Filed 11/09/20 Page 15 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`Hoverfly, or is authorized, licensed, sponsored, or otherwise
`
`approved by Hoverfly;
`
`c. making any statements or representations, or using any false
`
`designation of origin or false description, or performing any act,
`
`which can or is likely to lead the trade or public, or individual
`
`members thereof, to believe that any products manufactured,
`
`distributed, or sold by Defendant, or any services provided by
`
`Defendant, are in any manner associated with or connected with
`
`Hoverfly, or are sold, manufactured, licensed, sponsored,
`
`approved, or authorized by Hoverfly;
`
`d. Destroying, altering, removing or otherwise dealing with the
`
`unauthorized goods, or any books or records which contain any
`
`information relating to the manufacture, production, distribution,
`
`circulation, sale, marketing, offering for sale, advertising,
`
`promotion, rental or display of all unauthorized goods and/or the
`
`services which infringe the HOVERFLY Trademark;
`
`e. Effecting any assignment or transfers, forming new entities or
`
`associations, or utilizing any other device for the purpose of
`
`circumventing or otherwise avoiding the prohibitions identified in
`
`subparagraphs (a) though (d) above; and,
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-13007-RHC-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.16 Filed 11/09/20 Page 16 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`f. Assisting, aiding, or abetting any person or business entity in
`
`engaging in or performing any of the activities, or taking any
`
`action that contributes to, any of the activities referred to in
`
`subparagraphs (a) through (e) above.
`
`C. Award Hoverfly damages resulting from Defendant’s infringement of
`
`Hoverfly’s protectable trademark rights;
`
`D. Order Defendant to deliver up for destruction all goods, advertising,
`
`literature and other forms of promotional material bearing or showing the
`
`HOVERFLY Trademark, any other Hoverfly trademark, or a confusingly
`
`similar mark pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1118;
`
`E. Find the case to be exceptional and award appropriate relief thereunder;
`
`F. Award Hoverfly its reasonable attorneys’ fees;
`
`G. Award Hoverfly interest and costs;
`
`H. Order an accounting for all gains, profits, and advantages derived from
`
`Defendant’ acts of infringement of Hoverfly’s trademarks, including the
`
`HOVERFLY Trademark, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117;
`
`I. Require Defendant to report to this Court of its compliance with the
`
`foregoing within thirty (30) days of judgment; and
`
`J. Entry of judgment that Trademark Registration No. 5460451 infringes
`
`Plaintiffs mark and is therefore cancelled.
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-13007-RHC-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.17 Filed 11/09/20 Page 17 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`K. For such other and just relief as the Court sees fit under the
`
`circumstances.
`
`Date: November 9, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`BEWERSDORF PLC
`
`/s/ Ryan Bewersdorf
`Ryan Bewersdorf (P66411)
`390 Park Street, Suite 222
`Birmingham, MI 48009
`(248) 633-2882
`ryan@bewersdorfplc.om
`
`Of Counsel:
`THOMPSON COBURN LLP
`(admission forthcoming)
`
`David B. Jinkins
`Matthew A. Braunel
`Robyn Ast-Gmoser
`One US Bank Plaza
`St. Louis, MO 63101
`(314) 552-6000
`(314) 552-7000 (fax)
`djinkins@thompsoncoburn.com
`mbraunel@thompsoncoburn.com
`rastgmoser@thompsoncoburn.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Hoverfly
`Technologies, Inc.
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`

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