Case: 4:11-cv-01065 Doc.

#: 1

Filed: 06/14/11 Page: 1 of 15 PageID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION CHARIS MINERALS, INC., CRISTOL ENTERPRISES, LLC, CHRISTOPHER CRISTEA, and DAVID C. TOLLE, Plaintiffs, v. BETTINA MILNER-SPENCER SANDS, a/k/a BETTI SANDS, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 4:11-CV-01065

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT COME NOW Plaintiffs Charis Minerals, Inc. (Charis), Cristol Enterprises, LLC (Cristol) and Christopher Cristea and David C. Tolle (the Individual Plaintiffs) (collectively, Plaintiffs), and state the following for their Complaint against Defendant Bettina MilnerSpencer Sands, a/k/a Betti Sands (Defendant): Nature of the Lawsuit 1. Plaintiffs file this Complaint to seek redress against Defendant for her fraudulent

and deceptive acts that misappropriated Chariss and Cristols identity and intellectual property in violation of state and federal law. Defendant has engaged in a calculated campaign on the one hand, falsely accusing the principals of Charis and Cristol of criminal and fraudulent conduct while, on the other hand, falsely associating herself with Charis and Cristol by the unauthorized use of the CHARIS and CRISTOL trademarks to deceive potential investors of these companies and to divert business to Defendant and entities she controls.

Case: 4:11-cv-01065 Doc. #: 1

Filed: 06/14/11 Page: 2 of 15 PageID #: 2

2.

By using the CHARIS and CRISTOL trademarks to deceive people about the

source of the message, Defendant engaged in blatant efforts to deceive the public as to her association with Charis and/or Cristol. Defendants acts caused Plaintiffs to incur significant monetary damages to respond to Defendants deception and resulted in reputational harm to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs bring statutory claim claims against Defendant pursuant to the Lanham Act and common law claims for false association, defamation, and tortious interference with business expectancy. Jurisdiction and Venue 3. Charis is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Republic of

Liberia, with its principal place of business in Liberia. Charis maintains an office in St. Charles, Missouri. 4. Cristol is a Nevada limited liability company whose sole members are individual

citizens of Missouri and Utah. Cristol maintains an office in St. Charles, Missouri. 5. 6. 7. Christopher Cristea is a resident and citizen of St. Charles County, Missouri. David C. Tolle is a resident and citizen of St. Charles County, Missouri. Defendant is an individual residing in Ocala, Florida. At times relevant to the

claims herein, Defendant has acted in her own name and in the name of an entity she controls, New World Partnership. 8. This Court has jurisdiction over the Defendant because she is subject to personal

jurisdiction in Missouri pursuant to the Missouri long-arm statute, MO. REV. STAT. 506.500. The claims asserted against Defendant all arise from the commission of intentional torts within this District. The torts alleged herein were expressly directed toward Charis, Cristol and the Individual Plaintiffs, whose residences and/or places of business are located in Missouri, and the
-2-

Case: 4:11-cv-01065 Doc. #: 1

Filed: 06/14/11 Page: 3 of 15 PageID #: 3

injury caused by Defendants intentional conduct is felt in Missouri. Defendant directed a number of her deceptive communications to Missouri residents. Additionally, on information and belief, Defendant has entered into agreements with residents of Missouri and has engaged in the transaction of business in Missouri with Missouri residents, and this lawsuit arises in part from those contacts with Missouri. 9. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Counts I - II of this Complaint

under 15 U.S.C. 1125 and Counts III-V under the doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. 1367. 10. As detailed above, Plaintiffs reside in the Eastern District of Missouri, and

Defendant has been engaged in the wrongful conduct complained of herein which has been directed into the Eastern District of Missouri, making venue proper in this District and Division under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b). Charis and its Business and Trademarks 11. Charis was formed in 2010. Charis is engaged in the exploration and

development of certain minerals and mineral assets in Liberia and elsewhere. The Individual Plaintiffs are shareholders, officers, and directors of Charis, and they manage the day-to-day affairs of the company. 12. Defendant has never been a director, officer, employee, representative, or agent of

Charis, and has never been authorized to use the name and/or trademarks of Charis or to conduct business for or on behalf of Charis. 13. The pertinent Articles of Incorporation of Charis list the Individual Plaintiffs and

one other individual who resides in Liberia as the sole shareholders.

-3-

Case: 4:11-cv-01065 Doc. #: 1

Filed: 06/14/11 Page: 4 of 15 PageID #: 4

14.

Charis is the owner of the trademarks CHARIS and CHARIS MINERALS.

CHARIS and CHARIS MINERALS have been continuously used in connection with Chariss products and services since the company was formed. Consumers have come to associate the CHARIS and CHARIS MINERALS trademarks with Charis. 15. Charis is the owner of the following logo, in which Charis holds valid and

enforceable common law trademark rights:

16.

Chariss marks are known to the trade as indicating Charis as the source or

affiliated source with which the marks are used. Charis invested significant time, money and resources developing its trademarks and its name. The marks and goodwill associated therewith constitute valuable property of Charis. Cristol and its Business and Trademarks 17. Cristol was founded in 2009 and is engaged in the business of exploration,

discovery, and development of domestic and international mineral projects. 18. The Individual Plaintiffs are members and managers of Cristol. Defendant has

never been a member, manager, officer, employee, representative, or agent of Cristol, and has never been authorized to use the name and/or trademarks of Cristol or to conduct business for or on behalf of Cristol. 19. Cristol is the owner of the trademarks CRISTOL and CRISTOL ENTERPRISES.

CRISTOL and CRISTOL ENTERPRISES have been continuously used in connection with

-4-

Case: 4:11-cv-01065 Doc. #: 1

Filed: 06/14/11 Page: 5 of 15 PageID #: 5

Cristols products and services since the company was formed.

Consumers have come to

associate the CRISTOL and CRISTOL ENTERPRISES trademarks with Cristol. 20. Cristol is the owner of the following logo, in which Cristol holds valid and

enforceable common law trademark rights

21.

Critstols marks are favorably known to the trade as indicating Cristol as the

source or affiliated source with which the marks are used. Cristol invested significant time, money and resources developing its trademarks and its name. associated therewith constitute valuable property of Cristol. Plaintiffs Interactions with Defendant 22. In or about October, 2010, Plaintiffs were introduced to Defendant through The marks and goodwill

Defendants association with Leonard Kragness of Sinoe Mining Corporation, which was involved in various mineral development projects in Liberia. Defendant told Plaintiffs that she had over $700,000 invested in Liberia for development of an alluvial gold project under the auspices of Mr. Kragness. Defendant offered to assist Plaintiffs identify potential investors and partners interested in Plaintiffs domestic and international mineral projects. Defendant

represented that she had significant contacts and personal relationships in Liberia and elsewhere that would be valuable to Plaintiffs and that she could deliver potential investors and business partners to Plaintiffs. Defendant also promised that her contacts in Liberia would produce millions of dollars worth of diamond purchasing opportunities.

-5-

Case: 4:11-cv-01065 Doc. #: 1

Filed: 06/14/11 Page: 6 of 15 PageID #: 6

23.

Defendants representations about her investments, contacts, qualifications and

abilities were untrue. Defendant did not have funds invested in Liberia and did not have contacts in Liberia that could assist Plaintiffs and their business enterprises as she had represented. While Defendant provided certain information to Plaintiffs in preparation for a trip to Liberia, it became quickly apparent to Plaintiffs that Defendant was not qualified or capable of providing the assistance that she claimed she could. Defendant did not render any services that were of any value or use to Plaintiffs. 24. At the time she was engaged to assist Plaintiffs, Defendant had been listed as a

prospective shareholder in Charis; however, Defendant never consummated her shareholder interest in Charis and therefore never became an actual shareholder of the company. Defendant is not a shareholder of Charis and holds no position with Charis (and never has). 25. Defendants actions and her false representations to Plaintiffs have damaged

Plaintiffs as detailed herein and have caused Plaintiffs to lose valuable business opportunities and investors. Defendants Identity Theft and False Association with Charis and Cristol 26. In April, 2011, Plaintiffs ceased interactions with Defendant. Unbeknownst to

Plaintiffs, and without any authority or permission, Defendant began using the names and marks of Charis and Cristol in a blatant effort to try to steal the identity of these companies and divert opportunities for herself and her own interests. At the same time, Defendant began a campaign to spread false statements about the Individual Plaintiffs all in an attempt to divert business to herself in the guise that she was principal or associate of Charis and Cristol. 27. Specifically, beginning in February, 2011, Defendant entered into an agreement

with a Missouri resident, Donna Andres (Andres), wherein Defendant and Andres developed a
-6-

Case: 4:11-cv-01065 Doc. #: 1

Filed: 06/14/11 Page: 7 of 15 PageID #: 7

purported business plan and investment offering in the name of Charis. The plan, called the Charis Gold Summary, used the name and marks of Charis and purported to be sent on behalf of Charis. With this fake business plan, Defendant and Andres simultaneously distributed a solicitation for humanitarian assistance for Africa. Defendant and Andres indicated that this humanitarian assistance was going to be conducted through a 501(c)(3) entity, New World Partners. 28. The representations in the Charis Gold Summary and the humanitarian

solicitation were false. New World Partners is not a tax-exempt entity, and Defendant and Andres did not have an actual gold project. Neither Charis nor any of the Plaintiffs authorized the development or dissemination of the business plan; nor did they have any knowledge of Defendants actions. 29. Defendants fake business plan listed herself as a principal of Charis and her

phone number as the means of contacting Charis. 30. Using information they had gained from working with Plaintiffs, Defendant and

Andres disseminated the Charis Gold Summary business plan and the solicitation for humanitarian assistance to actual business partners and prospective investors of Charis. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and accurate copy of the email and its attachments sent to actual Charis prospective business partners in March, 2011. Defendant continues to this day in her efforts to solicit business in the name of Charis. 31. At or about the same time Defendant was representing herself to be a

representative and principal of Charis, she was also attempting to conduct business in the name of Cristol. Defendant gained access to an actual, confidential business plan of Cristol and began disseminating that business plan to potential investors of Cristol.
-7-

Defendant used the

Case: 4:11-cv-01065 Doc. #: 1

Filed: 06/14/11 Page: 8 of 15 PageID #: 8

confidential information, name and marks of Cristol in an attempt to divert business opportunities to herself. Neither Cristol nor any of the Plaintiffs authorized the dissemination of the confidential business plan by Defendant; nor did they have any knowledge of Defendants actions. 32. On information and belief, Defendant has been engaged in other communications

and solicitations in the names of Charis and Cristol, and her efforts to try to cloak herself in the names of these entities continues. Defendants Attempted Extortion of Plaintiffs 33. Beginning on or about April 22, 2011, Defendant began an effort to extort funds

from Plaintiffs by threatening to issue a press release that contained defamatory, false and deceptive statements at a time when Defendant knew potential investors were in Liberia meeting with Charis personnel. 34. Defendant had an individual named Jerry Anderson pose as a reporter or

disinterested third party. Plaintiffs are unsure whether Mr. Anderson exists or whether this was simply a pseudonym used by Defendant. Mr. Anderson sent a communication via e-mail to the Individual Plaintiffs indicating that information in an attachment entitled Charis Minerals Inc. Diamond Project: Please be aware would be released to the press in Liberia. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and accurate copy of the email communication chain with Jerry Anderson and the attachment. 35. The attachment from Mr. Anderson claims that Charis Minerals Inc. has a

partner who is filing a fraud and theft suit in Liberia and the United States against the Plaintiffs for concealing financial materials and mismanaging corporate records. Defendant further

accused Plaintiffs of false pretenses, fraud, larceny and unspecified crime.

-8-

Case: 4:11-cv-01065 Doc. #: 1

Filed: 06/14/11 Page: 9 of 15 PageID #: 9

36.

Defendant and Mr. Anderson threatened publicly disclosing the allegations of

criminal conduct in an effort to extort monies from Plaintiffs: You have Investors arriving, they will have our information. Our full data will go to the key newspapers in Liberia. I urge you to settle with Bettina immediately, or face the full press. communication. Jerry. 37. Defendant demonstrated her intimate involvement this effort to extort Plaintiffs We have no need for further

using the false and fraudulent information in the attachment sent by Mr. Anderson. Defendant stated to Plaintiffs: Good luck with the Investors. I will make sure Jerrys paper is on hold, it would be a shame if this came out in the papers while the Investors are in town. The Diamond project needs their support. B. See Exhibit C, email from Defendant dated April 22, 2011. 38. Plaintiffs did not accede to Defendants extortionate demands, so Defendant then

pursued another course of conduct to try to publicly humiliate and defame Plaintiffs. Defendants Further Defamatory Statements about Plaintiffs 39. Beginning on or about May 20, 2011, Defendant began disseminating an email

entitled Financial dissolution Legal Actions pending Cristea to dozens of government officials, investors, prospective investors and others. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and accurate copy of the email and the attachment entitled Recital. 40. In the Recital and the email, Defendant accused the Individual Plaintiffs of

fraud and illegal event[s]. The information contained in these communications was false and was designed again to try to extort funds from Plaintiffs. Defendant sought payment from Plaintiffs for an invoice, which itself contained false information and was not an actual invoice for any services that Defendant provided to Plaintiffs.

-9-

Case: 4:11-cv-01065 Doc. #: 1

Filed: 06/14/11 Page: 10 of 15 PageID #: 10

41.

Defendant continues to claim that she is responsible for the development of

Charis Minerals and that she is an associate or representative of Charis Minerals. Defendant continues to send communications to investors and prospective investors (in Missouri and elsewhere) for Charis and Cristol and to make misrepresentations to them. Defendants false representations have caused damage to Plaintiffs reputation and to their goodwill and have caused confusion in the marketplace. 42. On or about June 13, 2011, Defendant contacted an investor in Cristol and falsely

informed him that she was gathering information for the FBI relating to embezzlement and fraud charges pertaining to the Individual Plaintiffs and their business operations. COUNT I FALSE ASSOCIATION UNDER 15 U.S.C. 1125 43. Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference their allegations contained in

paragraphs 1-42 of this Complaint. 44. The representations made by Defendant that she is an associate or

representative of Charis and Cristol are false and misleading. 45. Defendants representations that she has a business association with Charis and

Cristol are false and misleading. 46. Defendants false and misleading misrepresentations were made in interstate

commerce in connection with the offering of alleged investment opportunities. 47. Charis, Cristol and the other Plaintiffs do not desire to be associated with

Defendant. Her continuing representations that she has a leadership role and/or is in any way affiliated with Charis and Cristol are false. 48. Defendants false statements are a violation of 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15

U.S.C. 1125(a), in that they were and are likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to
- 10 -

Case: 4:11-cv-01065 Doc. #: 1

Filed: 06/14/11 Page: 11 of 15 PageID #: 11

deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of Defendant with Plaintiffs, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by Plaintiffs. 49. Defendants false statements further are a violation of 43(a) of the Lanham Act,

15 U.S.C. 1125(a), in that they are being used in commercial advertising or promotion, and misrepresent the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of Plaintiffs goods, services or commercial activities. 50. Defendants false representations have caused and, unless restrained by this

Court, will continue to cause irreparable injury and damage to Charis and Cristol. 51. 52. Defendant has willfully and intentionally made these false representations. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. COUNT II TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT UNDER 15 U.S.C. 1125 53. Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference their allegations contained in

Paragraphs 1-52 of this Complaint. 54. Charis and Cristol have established common law rights in their marks through

long and continuous use of the marks in connection with mineral exploration, development, and services related thereto. 55. Defendant has and continues to use CHARIS and CRISTOL in interstate

commerce in connection with Defendants offering of certain services. 56. Through the use of CHARIS and CRISTOL, Defendant has created a likelihood

of confusion regarding the origin or source of the services being provided. 57. The use by Defendant of CHARIS and CRISTOL, infringes on Plaintiffs

common law rights in these marks, in violation of 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.
- 11 -

Case: 4:11-cv-01065 Doc. #: 1

Filed: 06/14/11 Page: 12 of 15 PageID #: 12

1125(a), in that such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection or association as to the Defendants sponsorship or approval by Charis and Cristol. 58. Defendant has caused and, unless restrained by this Court, will continue to cause,

irreparable injury and damage to Charis and Cristol. 59. 60. Defendants injury to Plaintiffs has been willful and intentional. Plaintiffs have has no adequate remedy at law. COUNT III COMMON LAW VIOLATIONS 61. Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference their allegations contained in

Paragraphs 1-60 of this Complaint. 62. Defendants use of CHARIS and CRISTOL trademarks violates their common

law rights in these marks. 63. Defendants use of CHARIS and CRISTOL trademarks has caused and, unless

restrained by this Court, will continue to cause serious and irreparable injury and damage to Charis and Cristol. 64. Defendants use of CHARIS and CRISTOL trademarks has been and is willful

and intentional. 65. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. COUNT IV DEFAMATION 66. Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference their allegations contained in

Paragraphs 1-65 of this Complaint.

- 12 -

Case: 4:11-cv-01065 Doc. #: 1

Filed: 06/14/11 Page: 13 of 15 PageID #: 13

67.

Defendants statements regarding the Individual Plaintiffs are defamatory, in that

they state or reasonably imply that the Individual Plaintiffs are or have been (a) engaged in financial fraud and deception, (b) engaged in larceny and other criminal conduct, (c) accused by third parties and authorities of financial fraud and other misconduct, and/or (d) incompetent and unethical in their business dealings. 68. 69. Defendants statements are false. Defendant lacked reasonable grounds for these statements or alternatively

Defendant published these statements with knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard for their truth or falsity. 70. These statements damaged the Individual Plaintiffs reputation and caused

Plaintiffs to lose business opportunities. COUNT V TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS EXPECTANCY 71. Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference their allegations contained in

Paragraphs 1-70 of this Complaint. 72. Defendant was aware of a business expectancy for Plaintiffs specifically

acquiring additional investors and capital for Charis and Cristol. 73. Without justification, Defendant sent false and defamatory statements to potential

investors of Charis and Cristol and thereby unreasonably interfered with Plaintiffs business expectancy. 74. Defendant threatened and has continued to threaten publicity of false and

defamatory statements about Plaintiffs to investors or prospective investors in an effort to extort funds from Plaintiffs. 75. As a direct result of Defendants conduct, Plaintiffs have been damaged.
- 13 -

Case: 4:11-cv-01065 Doc. #: 1

Filed: 06/14/11 Page: 14 of 15 PageID #: 14

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter judgment against Defendant as follows: A) That this Court declare that the representations made by Defendant described

herein are false and in violation of Section 43 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a). B) That this Court declare that Defendant has without permission made use in

commerce of CHARIS and CRISTOL trademarks in violation of Section 43 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a). C) That this Court declare that Defendant has without permission made use in

commerce of CHARIS and CRISTOL trademarks in violation of their common law rights in these marks. D) That this Court preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendant, her officers,

agents, servants, affiliates, employees, attorneys and representatives and all those in privity or acting in concert with her from directly or indirectly representing that she is an associate or representative of Charis or Cristol or that she has any other business affiliation with Charis or Cristol. E) That this Court preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendant, her officers,

agents, servants, affiliates, employees, attorneys and representatives and all those in privity or acting in concert with her from any unauthorized use of CHARIS or CRISTOL trademarks. F) That this Court preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendant from engaging in

any advertising or publicity that purports to be on behalf of Charis or Cristol. G) That this Court require Defendant to pay Charis and Cristol all of their litigation

expenses, including reasonable attorneys fees, as required by 15 U.S.C. 1117(a).

- 14 -

Case: 4:11-cv-01065 Doc. #: 1

Filed: 06/14/11 Page: 15 of 15 PageID #: 15

H) I)

That this Court award Plaintiffs their actual damages. That this Court provide for such other and further relief as the Court may deem

just and proper. Respectfully submitted, THOMPSON COBURN LLP

By: /s/ Christopher M. Hohn Christopher M. Hohn, #44124MO Matthew A. Braunel, #50711MO One US Bank Plaza, Suite 2600 St. Louis, Missouri 63101 314-552-6000 FAX 314-552-7000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

- 15 -