Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA365089
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`08/25/2010
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91195680
`Plaintiff
`Reinsurance Group of America, Inc.
`William D. O'Neill
`Senniger Powers LLP
`100 N. Broadway, 17th Floor
`St. Louis, MO 63102
`UNITED STATES
`woneill@senniger.com
`Motion to Suspend for Civil Action
`William D. O'Neill
`woneill@senniger.com
`/wdo/
`08/25/2010
`01296488.PDF ( 2 pages )(1263748 bytes )
`01224393.PDF ( 10 pages )(573292 bytes )
`
`Proceeding
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`Filer's Name
`Filer's e-mail
`Signature
`Date
`Attachments
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`In the Matter of Application Serial No. 77808129
`Mark: RGA
`
`International Class: 36
`
`Application Filing Date: August 19, 2009
`
`Reinsurance Group of America, Inc.
`
`Opposition No. 91195680
`Mark: RGA
`
`\./\/k/\./§/¥/k/§/L
`Applicant
`
`Opposer,
`
`V
`
`R G A Insurance Services, Inc.
`
`CERTIFICATE or ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION
`
`I hereby certify that this Motion to Suspend is being
`submitted electronically through the Electronic System for
`Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA) on this 25th day of
`August 2010
`
`w 0"
`William D. O
`Ill
`
`MOTION TO SUSPEND
`
`In accordance with 37 CFR §2.117(a), the Opposer hereby requests that the Board
`
`suspend the pending Opposition until the termination of a pending civil lawsuit filed in the
`
`United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, styled Reinsurance Group of
`
`America, Inc. v. R GA Insurance Services, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-02079—MPM-DGB (filed on March
`
`31, 2010 ("the Litigation").
`
`The Litigation involves issues that are in common with the Opposition before the TTAB.
`
`Critical to this Opposition, the District Court matter involves counts of trademark infringement,
`
`unfair competition, cybersquatting, and dilution involving the trademark RGA that is the focus of
`
`this Opposition, and that will require the Court to determine Applicant's rights in the RGA mark.
`
`Under 37 CFR §2.117(a), the TTAB may suspend an Opposition where, as here, there are
`
`issues in common, and those issues would have a direct bearing on the matter before the TTAB.
`
`This Regulation applies squarely here. To continue the Opposition proceeding in this forum
`
`

`
`would surely duplicate the parties’ efforts in the U.S. District Court case, and could potentially
`
`result in conflicting outcomes.
`
`Thus, the Opposer respectfully requests that the TTAB grant its Motion to Suspend,
`
`which will allow the parties to focus on the trademark infringement, unfair competition,
`
`cybersquatting, and dilution allegations in the Litigation. This request to suspend is made in
`
`good faith for the purpose of pursuing the Litigation.
`
`In View of the foregoing, it is respectfully requested that the Board grant the Motion to
`
`Suspend.
`
`Dated this 25th day of August, 2010.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By aw,/in-E
`
`William D. O'Neill
`
`Senniger Powers LLP
`Attorneys for Opposer
`100 N. Broadway, 17th Floor
`St. Louis, Missouri 63102
`314-345-7009
`
`314-231-4342 (facsimile)
`woneill@senniger.com
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that the foregoing document is being deposited with the United States Postal
`Service as First Class mail, postage prepaid, this 25th day of August, 2010, for service upon the
`following:
`
`Mollie Nolan Werwas
`
`Kopon Airdo, LLC
`233 S. Wacker Drive
`Suite 4450
`
`Chicago, Illinois 60606 a “/Z’°"
`
`C
`
`‘
`
`

`
`2:'lO~CV~02079—MF’l\/l—DGB # 1
`
`Page 1 of ‘E0
`
`Wednesday, 31 March, 2010 03:58:04 PM
`Cterk, US. District Court, {LCD
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`URBANA DIVISION
`
`Case No. 10-
`
`IURY TRIAL DEMA DED
`
`N
`
`) ) ) ) )
`
`) ) ) ) )
`
`REINSURANCE GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.
`
`a Missouri corporation,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`R G A INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.,
`
`.
`
`an Illinois coiporation
`
`Defendant.
`
`COMPLAINT SEEKING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
`
`Plaintiff Reinsurance Group of America, Incorporated, ("Plaintiff" or "RGA"), for its
`
`Complaint against Defendant R G A Insurance Services, Inc. ("Defendant") states as follows:
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff is a leader in the global reinsurance industry. It is a Missouri
`
`corporation, and has a principal place of business at 1370 Timberlake Manor Parkway,
`
`Chesterfield, Missouri, 63017. RGA offers a wide range of products and services, including
`
`various reinsurance product services, insurance underwriting, health insurance products and
`
`services, long-term care programs, and underwriting software solutions.
`
`2.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant is an insurance service company, an
`
`Illinois corporation, and has its principal place of business at 800 W. Roosevelt Road, Building
`
`1
`
`E, Suite 408, Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137, and operates locations inseveral other offices, including
`
`907 W. Marketview Drive, Suite 10-324, Champaign, Illinois 61822.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`This is an action for trademark infringement, unfair competition,
`
`trademark
`
`dilution, and cybersquating under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125(a), 1125(0), and
`
`

`
`2:10-cv~O2079~MPM—DGB # 1
`
`Page 2 of 10
`
`1l25(d), and common law unfair competition and trademark infringement under the laws of the
`
`State of Illinois.
`
`Jurisdiction is predicated upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a) and (b), and
`
`1367(a). , Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
`
`PLAINTIFF'S RIGHTS
`
`Plaintiffs Long and Extensive Use and Promotion of its Marks.
`4.
`Plaintiff has used its RGA mark throughout the entire U.S., including the states of
`
`Illinois and Wisconsin, and the Chicago marketing area, since at least as early as December 9,
`
`1 993.
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff uses its RGA mark in connection with its various insurance, reinsurance,
`
`and insurance-related products and services.
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff uses its RGA mark on stationery, advertising, merchandising materials,
`
`consumer and trade promotional materials, public relations materials, collateral materials, its web
`
`site, and other marketing communications materials.
`
`Plaintiffs Trademark Registrations.
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff owns U.S. Trademark Registration No. 2,307,446 for RGA for life
`
`reinsurance underwriting and accident and health reinsurance underwriting, reinsurance service,
`
`namely reviewing insurance companies in connection with life, accident, and health insurance
`
`issued by such insurance companies. This registration is incontestable, and a copy of it is
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff owns U.S. Trademark Registration No. 1,889,439 for RGA and design,
`
`for life insurance underwriting and accident and health reinsurance underwriting. This
`
`registration is incontestable, and a copy of it is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`

`
`2:10~cv—02079—MPM—DGE’> # 3
`
`Page 3 of 10
`
`9.
`
`Because of Plaintiffs substantial marketing communications efforts over a long
`
`period of time, the public associates Plaintiffs marks with Plaintiffs business, and the public
`
`associates substantial goodwill with Plaintiffs marks.
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff l1as consistently, continuously, and extensively advertised and promoted
`
`its RGA mark throughout the entire U.S. since at least as early as December 1993. During this
`
`long period of promoting the RGA mark, Plaintiff has experienced a period of substantial
`
`growth.
`
`1 1.
`
`Plaintiff began using and promoting, and continued to consistently use and
`
`promote, its RGA mark long before Defendant began use of RGA in any form, anywhere.
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiffs RGA mark is distinctive, and is recognized by the public as an indicator
`
`of the Plaintiffs services.
`
`Instances of Actual Confusion and Likelihood of Confusion.
`
`13 .
`
`‘Upon information and belief, despite Plaintiffs rights in Plaintiffs RGA mark,
`
`Defendant began using its RGA mark in connection with its insurance services on February 1,
`
`1997.
`
`14.
`
`At least one instance of actual confusion has occurred in an office building in
`
`Glen Ellyn, Illinois.
`
`15.
`
`On August 19, 2009, Defendant applied for a federal registration of a mark using
`
`RGA for “independent insurance adjusters.”
`
`16.
`
`On November 11, 2009, Defendant’s application was rejected as, among other
`
`reasons, being confusingly similar to Plaintiffs Trademark Registration Nos. 2,307,446 and
`
`1,889,439.
`
`

`
`2i’lO-CV—02079'~l\/ll:’M-DGB # 1
`
`Page 4 of ‘l0
`
`COUNT I
`
`1114
`TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT UNDER THE LANHAM ACT - 15 U.S.C.
`
`
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`18.
`
`Defendant’s use in commerce of a mark confusingly similar to Plaintiff’s
`
`registered RGA trademark for Defendant’s insurance sewices constitutes a reproduction,
`
`copying, counterfeiting, and/or colorable imitation of Plaintiff’ s trademark in a manner that is
`
`likely to cause confusion or mistake, and is likely to deceive consumers.
`
`19.
`
`Defendant’s use of Plaintiff’s mark and/or a mark confusingly similar to
`
`Plaintiffs mark has been with knowledge of Plaintiff‘ s prior rights to the RGA mark and
`
`therefore constitutes willful infringement.
`
`20.
`
`Unless Defendant is immediately enjoined and prohibited from using the RGA
`
`"mark to market its products, Defendant, upon information and belief, will continue to infringe
`
`upon Plaintiff’ s RGA mark.
`
`21.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s infringement, Plaintiff has
`
`suffered, and will continue to suffer, monetary loss and irreparable injury to its business,
`
`reputation, and goodwill.
`
`COUNT II
`
`FEDERAL UNFAIR COMPETITION UNDER THE LANHAM ACT
`
`22.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`23.
`
`Defendant has used in interstate commerce the RGA mark in connection with
`
`insurance services, which has caused and is likely to continue to cause confusion, mistake,
`
`

`
`2:’l0~Cv~O2079~MPM-DG-B #1
`
`Page 5 of 10
`
`and/or deception as to the affiliation, connection, association, origin, sponsorship, or approval of
`
`Defendant’s services.
`
`24.
`
`By virtue of its activities, Defendant has engaged in unfair competition in
`
`violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § ll25(a).
`
`25.
`
`Defendant’s use of Plaintiffs mark and/or a mark confusingly similar to
`
`Plaintiffs trademark has been with knowledge of Plaintiffs prior rights to the RGA mark and,
`
`therefore, constitutes willful infringement.
`
`26.
`
`Plaintiff has suffered actual damages as a result of Defendant’s unfair competition
`
`in an amount to be proven at trial. The harm to Plaintiff arising from Defendanfs acts, however,
`
`is not fully compensable by money damages. Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer,
`
`irreparable harm which has no adequate remedy at law and which will, upon information and
`
`belief, continue unless Defendant is enjoined. This constitutes an exceptional case.
`
`COUNT III
`
`COMMON LAW UNFAIR COMPETITION AND
`TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
`
`27.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`28.
`
`By virtue of having used and continuing to use its RGA trademark, Plaintiff has
`
`acquired common law rights in the mark.
`
`29.
`
`Defendanfs use of a mark identical or confusingly similar to Plaintiffs RGA
`
`trademark infringes Plaintiffs common law rights in such trademark, and constitutes unfair
`
`competition under the common law. This use is likely to cause confusion, mistake, and/or
`
`deception among consumers who will believe that Defendant’s services are affiliated with or
`
`endorsed by Plaintiff, when they are not.
`
`

`
`2:i0»cv—~O2079~MPM~DGB # 1
`
`Page 6 ot10
`
`30.
`
`Defendant’s use of Plaintiffs mark and/or a mark confusingly similar to
`
`Plaintiffs trademark has been with knowledge of Plaintiffs prior rights to the RGA mark and,
`
`therefore, constitutes willful infringement.
`
`31.
`
`Unless Defendant is enjoined and prohibited from continuing to engage in its
`
`infringement of Plaintiffs RGA mark, Defendant, upon information and belief, will continue to
`
`i
`
`infringe upon Plaintiff’ s mark.
`
`32.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s common law unfair competition
`
`and trademark infringement, Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, monetary loss and
`
`irreparable injury to its business, reputation, and goodwill.
`
`COUNT IV:
`
`FEDERAL TRADEMARK DILUTION
`
`33.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`' 34.
`
`Plaintiffs mark is distinctive, famous, and well known to all segments of the
`
`consuming public.
`
`35.
`
`Defendant’s use of RGA dilutes and is likely to dilute the distinctive quality of
`
`Plaintiffs marks, in Violation of 35 U.S.C. § 1125(0).
`
`36.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant willfully intended to cause dilution of
`
`Plaintiffs RGA mark.
`
`COUNT V
`
`CYBERQUATTING
`
`37.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`

`
`2:’l0—Cv~O2079~MPl\/l—DGB # 1
`
`Page 7 of ‘IO
`
`38.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant wrongfully and intentionally registered
`
`and uses the internet domain name www.rgainsurance.com (“the Domain Name”), which
`
`incorporates plaintiff’ s RGA Mark, in connection with offering services for insurance.
`
`Defendant intentionally advertised and promoted the Domain Name as being owned by
`
`Defendant—all of which are in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 125(d).
`
`39.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant registered the Domain Name in bad faith
`
`with the intent to profit from use of Plaintiff’ s RGA mark.
`
`40.
`
`At the time Defendant registered the Domain Name, Plaintiff’ s RGA mark was
`
`distinctive, famous, and well known to all segments of the consuming public.
`
`41.
`
`The Domain Name registered by Defendant is confusingly similar to, and dilutive
`
`ofl Plaintiffs RGA mark.
`
`42.
`
`Plaintiff has suffered damage and irreparable harm due to Defendant’s wrongful
`
`conduct.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff RGA prays for the following relief:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Judgment in its behalf and against Defendant on each of Counts I through V;
`
`An injunction preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendant, as well as its
`
`officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys and those persons in active concert or
`
`participation with them who receive actual notice of the order, from using any designati0n(s)
`
`containing RGA, or any designation substantially likely to cause confusion, mistake, or
`
`deception with or related to Plaintiffs RGA mark, and from engaging in any conduct that is
`
`likely to confuse, mislead, or deceive the public into believing that Defendant’s services are
`
`

`
`2:10~cv—02079—MPl\/LDGB # 1
`
`Page 8 ot1O
`
`sponsored by, approved by, or in any way affiliated or connected with Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s
`
`services;
`
`c.
`
`An award of actual damages in an amount adequate to compensate Plaintiff for
`
`Defendant’s wrongful acts, as well as all Defendant’s profits derived from its use of marks that
`
`are confusingly similar to Plaintiff’ s RGA mark, with such damages trebled because the willful
`
`nature of the acts described herein;
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`An award of punitive damages;
`
`An order for the destruction of all materials, including, but not limited to, all
`
`marketing communications materials, signage, stationery, printed forms, advertising materials,
`
`merchandising materials, consumer and trade promotional materials, public relations materials,
`
`collateral materials, and materials used in creating and maintaining Defendant’s Websites, that
`
`are in Defendant’s possession or under its control that contain the designations using the RGA
`
`mark that are confusingly similar to Plaintiffs RGA mark;
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`An award of the costs of this action;
`
`A declaration that this is an exceptional case, and that Plaintiff be awarded its
`
`reasonable attorney fees;
`
`An award of prejudgment andpost-judgment interest;
`
`An award of such other relief as the Court may deem just and equitable under the
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`circumstances.
`
`

`
`2:10-CV-02079-MPM-DGB # 1
`
`Page 9 of 10
`
`Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues so triable.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`l
`
`1
`
`s\Joseph D. Murphy
`
`Joseph D. Murphy - Bar No. 6192246
`Attorney for Plaintiff,
`Reinsurance Group of America, Inc.
`MEYER CAPEL, A Professional Corporation
`306 West Church Street, P.O. Box 6750
`Champaign, Illinois 61826-6750
`‘
`Telephone (217) 352-1800
`Facsimile (217) 352-1083
`jmu.1'pliy@111ey’e1‘capeLoom
`
`and
`
`Keith A. Rabenberg
`SENNIGER POWERS LLP
`
`100 North Broadway, 17th Floor
`St. Louis, Missouri 63102
`(314) 345-7000 (phone)
`(314) 345-7600 (facsimile)
`krabenber
`c’ senni<Ier.com
`
`
`
`

`
`QJS 44 (Rev. 12/07)
`
`2110-CV—O2O79~MPM~D%%Vfi:l
`
`The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the infonriation contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service ofpleadings or other Eapers as required by law, except as provided
`by local rules ofcourt. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use oft e Clerk ofCourt for the purpose ofinitiating
`the civil docket sheet.
`(SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE on THE FORM.)
`
`I. (a) PLAINTIFFS
`
`DEFENDANTS
`
`Reinsurance Group of America, Inc,
`
`R G A Insurance Services, Inc.
`
`SI. LOUIS COU|'lly, MO
`(I)) County ofResidence ofFirst Listed Plaintiff
`(EXCEPT IN US. PLAINTIFF CASES)
`
`Dupage County: ll-
`County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
`(IN US. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
`IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE
`LAND INVOLVED.
`
`NOTE:
`
`SC) Attome ‘s (Fimi Nmne, Address, and Teleplioiie Number)
`oseph D.
`urphy, Meyer Capel, P.C.,
`306 W. Church Street, Champaign, IL 61820
`217 352-1800
`
`II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
`
`CI
`
`1 US. Government
`Plaintiff
`
`El 3 Federal Question
`(U.S. Goveninient Not a Party)
`
`U 2. US. Goveniineiit
`Defendant
`
`D 4 Diversity
`(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in lteni III)
`
`Attorneys (If Known)
`
`III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES(Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
`(For Diversity Cases Only)
`and One Box for Defendant)
`PTF
`PTF
`DEF
`U l
`E]
`E 4
`
`DEF
`D l
`
`Incorporated or Principal Place
`of Business In This State
`
`4
`
`Citizen of This State
`
`Citizen of Another State
`
`['1 2
`
`D 2
`
`Citizen or Subject of a
`Forei; i Conn u
`
`Cl 3
`
`D 3
`
`Incorporated mill Principal Place
`Oflgusiness 1" Another Sm:
`Foreign Nation
`
`E 5
`
`D 5
`
`Cl
`
`6
`
`Cl 6
`
`
`
`
`
`Cl
`13
`
`El
`
`E]
`Cl
`
`CI
`
`
`
`.
`..
`.
`." é’"*r’.SE fr
`
`861 HIA (1395
`862 Black Lung (923)
`863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
`864 SSID Title XVI
`
`
`
`3 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations
`3 730 Labor/Mgmt.Reporting
`
`& Disclosure Act
`Cl 740 Railway Labor Act
`Cl 790 Other Labor Litigation
`3 791 Enipl. Ret. I11c.
`Security Act
`
`870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
`or Defendant)
`871 IRS—Third Party
`26 USC 7609
`
` u'uaabuuD
`
`NATURE OF SUIT Place an “X" in One Box Onl
`r:Tflllllé
`
`"‘“ CONEFRA ,
`
`PERSONAL INJURY
`PERSONAL INJURY
`Cl 610 Agriculture
`U 422 Appeal 28 USC 158
`3 400 State Reapportionment
`I3 I 10 Insurance
`
`
`Cl
`362 Personal Injury —
`D 620 Other Food & Drug
`D 423 Withdrawal
`3 410 Antitrust
`CI 120 Marine
`310 Airplane
`
`
`D 430 Banks and Banking
`28 USC 157
`D 130 Miller Act
`315 Airplane Product
`Med. Malpractice
`El 625 Drug Related Seizure
`
`
`
`CI 140 Negotiable Instrument
`Liability
`Cl 365 Personal Injury —
`of Property Zl USC 881
`CI 450 Commerce
`D 630 Liquor Laws
`CI 150 Recovery of Overpayment El
`320 Assault, Libel &
`Product Liability
`(3 460 Deportation
`D 640 R.R. & Truck
`&Euforcemcntofludgnient
`Slander
`368 Asbestos Personal
`Cl 470 Racketeer Influenced and
`
`D 650 Airline Regs.
`D 830 Patent
`Cl 151 Medicare Act
`330 Federal Employers’
`Injury Product
`Comipt Organizations
`
`D 660 Occupational
`IS! 840 Trademark
`CI 152 Recovery of Defaulted
`Liability
`Liability
`D 480 Consumer Credit
`Student Loans
`340 Marine
`PERSONAL PROPERTY
`El 490 Cable/Sat TV
`(Excl. Veterans)
`345 Marine Product
`3 370 Other Fraud
`El 810 Selective Service
`Cl 153 Recovery of Overpayment
`Liability
`3 371 Tnith in Lending
`850 Securities/Con1rnodities/
`ofVeneran’s Benefits
`350 Motor Vehicle
`3 380 Other Personal
`Exchange
`Cl 160 Stockholders’ Suits
`355 Motor Vehicle
`Property Damage
`875 Customer Challenge
`
`
`3 190 Other Contract
`Product Liability
`II 385 Property Damage
`I2 USC 34“)
`
`II 195 Contract Product Liability CI
`360 Other Personal
`Product Liability
`890 Other Statutory Actions
`
`
`3 96 Franchise
`In "u
`891 Agricultural Acts
`
`aI?I?E[S0NER':§‘5}?r7I5I3§IT(i)Wi
`V
`392 Economic Stabilization Act
`
`
`otin
`D 210 Land Condemnation
`D 510 Motions to Vacate
`441 V
`CI
`893 Environmental Matters
`Sentence
`:1 220 Foreclosure
`3 442 Employment
`894 Energy Allocation Act
`Habcas Corpus:
`3 230 Rent Lease & Ejectmeut
`Cl
`443 Housing/
`895 Freedom of Information
`530 General
`El
`Cl 240 Torts to Land
`Accoinnioclations
`Act
`535 Death Penalty
`Cl
`D 245 Toit Product Liability
`444 Welfare
`900Appeal of Fee Detemiination
`Cl
`540 Mandamus & Other
`D 290 All Other Real Property
`3 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - C]
`Under Equal Access
`Employment
`D 550 Civil Rights
`to Justice
`446 Amer. w/Disabilities -
`555 Prison Condition
`D 950 Constitutionality of
`Other
`State Statutes
`3 440 Other Civil Rights
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`g
`
`3 462 Naturalization Application
`II 463 Habeas Corpus -
`Alien Detainee
`Cl 465 Other Immigration .
`Actions
`
`
`
`V. ORIGIN
`8 1 Original
`Proceeding
`
`VI. CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`, ,
`‘
`(Place an “X” in One Box Only)
`lra't1§'fer£‘.3cl frcim l'_'| 6 Multidistrict
`C] 4 Reinstated or
`E] 2 Removed from
`Q 3 Remanded from
`agciefr
`15 no
`Litigation
`Reopened
`State Court
`Appellate Couit
`Cite the US. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
`15 U.S.C.~~11141125 a 1125 C and 1125 d
`Brief description of cause:
`Action for trademark infrinement unfair cometition trademark dilution and c bersuatin
`VII. REQUESTED IN
`El CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
`DEMAND $
`CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
`
`COMPLAINT:
`UNDER F-R-C~P- 23
`JURY DEMAND:
`521' Yes
`CI No
`
`[:1
`
`5
`
`E] 7
`
`Alzfeal ‘:0 District
`fl 55.6 gotm
`Juggls cite
`
`VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
`S
`,
`,
`‘
`IF ANY
`( °° "““'“°“°“‘)‘
`JUDGE
`DOCKET NUMBER
`
`DATE
`SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
`
`03/31/2010
`FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
`
`RECEIPT #
`
`AMOUNT
`
`APPLYING IFP
`
`JUDGE
`
`MAG. JUDGE
`
`El
`13
`
`13
`
`
`
`IV