Case 2:12-cv-00349-TC Document 7-1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 1 of 20

Randall B. Bateman (USB 6482) C. Todd Kinard (USB 12575) Sarah W. Matthews (USB 13295) BATEMAN IP LAW GROUP, P.C. 257 East 200 South, Suite 750 P.O. Box 1319 Salt Lake City, Utah 84110 Tel: (801) 533-0320/Fax: (801) 533-0323 Email: mail@batemanip.com, rbb@batemanip.com, ctk@batemanip.com, sm@batemanip.com Attorneys for Plaintiff, Bateman IP Law Group, P.C. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

BATEMANIP IP LAW GROUP, a Utah professional corporation, Plaintiff, vs. JOHN DOE, d/b/a UNITED STATES TRADEMARK REGISTRATION OFFICE; and DOES 2 through 5, Defendants.

COMPLAINT

Case No. ______________ Judge ____________

COMES NOW, Plaintiff Bateman IP Law Group, P.C., and complains against Defendants and each of them as follows:

Case 2:12-cv-00349-TC Document 7-1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 2 of 20

PARTIES 1. Plaintiff, Bateman IP Law Group, P.C. (hereinafter Bateman IP) is a Utah

professional corporation having a principal place of business in Salt Lake City, Utah. 2. On information and belief, Defendant John Doe, d/b/a United States Trademark

Registration Office (hereinafter USTRO) is an individual having a principle place of business in Los Angeles, California at 633 West Fifth Street, 28th floor Los Angeles California 90071-2005. 3. On information and belief, Does 2 through 5 are owners, directors, officers,

employees, associates, affiliates, customers and/or agents of the named USTRO who have actively participated in the actions alleged herein.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this claim pursuant to the Lanham

Act, 15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq. The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1338 and jurisdiction over the state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367. 5. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b and c), pursuant to the

Lanham Act and because the actions herein alleged took place within this jurisdiction and/or because all Defendants are either found in this District or are otherwise subject to personal jurisdiction in this District.

Case 2:12-cv-00349-TC Document 7-1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 3 of 20

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 6. Defendant USTRO is a company that sends letters to trademark applicants and

trademark holders. On information and belief, USTRO makes all its profits from collecting fees that these letters seek. 7. USTRO offers services monitoring trademarks to determine if potentially

inflicting trademarks have been filed. 8. On information and belief, USTRO uses the name UNITED STATES

TRADEMARK REGISTRATION OFFICE on all of its correspondence in order to mislead trademark applicants and trademark registrants into believing that the correspondence is from an entity of the United States government which handles trademark registrations. 9. 10. USTROs letters indicate that an amount of $375 dollars is NOW DUE.. USTROs letters are misleading and create a false designation of origin and a

false sense of affiliation with the United States government. 11. Plaintiff Bateman IP is a company which specializes in providing intellectual

property law services. Bateman IP also registers and protects its own trademark and intellectual property in the course of its business. Bateman IP also provides monitoring services. 12. Bateman IP is the owner of six U.S. Trademark Registrations for marks including

THE MOST IMPORTANT ASSET IS YOUR CREATIVITY, THE COMPETITIVE INSIGHT, UNLESS ITS PROTECTED ITS NOT AN ASSETT, UTAH GENIUS, WHERE INNOVATION BECOMES ASSETS and I CREATE.

Case 2:12-cv-00349-TC Document 7-1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 4 of 20

13.

On or about February 01, 2012, Defendant USTRO sent a letter to Bateman IP

regarding the mark THE MOST IMPORTANT ASSET IS YOUR CREATIVITY (letter attached hereto as Exhibit A). 14. The letter purports to be an Important Notification Regarding Your Federal

Trademark. The letter solicits a payment, purporting to be a processing fee of $375.00 that is NOW DUE. The letter includes the name of the trademark at issue, its serial and registration number, a reference code, and several references to sections of the United States Code concerning trademark law. 15. The letter makes several attempts to appear as official government

correspondence by use of bar codes, reference numbers, and references to sections of the United States Code and governmental agencies. Even the name of Defendants company (United States Trademark Registration Office) bears a strong resemblance to the name of the official government body (United States Patent and Trademark Office). 16. A small section buried in the text of the letter purports to be a disclaimer. This

section is in small type, in the middle of the page, and is preceded by paragraphs purporting to explain trademark law and warning of trademark registration cancellation. The disclaimer is in much smaller font than the letters demand for a payment of $375, which is in large, bold type. 17. The letter contains a warning statement, threatening cancellation of the

trademark if all documents above are not filed at the appropriate times. This statement is false. The documents above include filing with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which is not required to maintain a valid trademark. On information and belief, this false warning is

Case 2:12-cv-00349-TC Document 7-1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 5 of 20

included in the letter to create fear of losing intellectual property rights and induce the public to pay the processing fee the letter demands. 18. On information and belief, the USTROs only purpose for making the letter

appear to be official government correspondence is to mislead the public into believing that the letter was being sponsored by or was affiliated with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in order to generate revenue for USTRO. 19. On or about February 2, 2012, Plaintiffs received another letter from the USTRO

regarding the trademark application for the mark I CREATE (letter attached hereto as Exhibit B). This letter was nearly identical to the previous letter, and included the correct filing date and serial number of the mark. The letter similarly demanded a fee of $375 that was NOW DUE. The letter also included the same attempts to appear as originating from an official government office. 20. Shortly thereafter an attorney from Bateman IP was discussing a trademark

application with a client. The client expressed his pleasure at one of his trademark application being allowed. 21. When the attorney asked why the client believed the trademark application had

been allowed, the client indicated that he had received a letter from the United States Trademark Registration Office indicating that $375 was now due. 22. The client had already written a check to the Defendant believing that Defendant

was the trademark office of the United States government. A copy of the letter sent to Bateman IPs client is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

Case 2:12-cv-00349-TC Document 7-1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 6 of 20

23.

On information and belief, USTRO has sent misleading advertisements to a

number of Bateman IPs clients and Bateman IP has received numerous inquiries from clients about the need to pay USTRO the fees demanded. 24. On information and belief, one of more of DOES 2 through 5 are owners,

employees, managers, or agents of USTRO who actively participated in the activities alleged herein.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF Unfair Competition under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a) 25. Bateman IP incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 24 of this Complaint,

as though fully set forth herein, and further alleges: 26. Defendants, in connection with their services, used in commerce words, terms,

names, false designations of origin, false or misleading descriptions of fact, and false or misleading representations of fact, which are likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of Defendant USTRO with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of Defendant USTROs services by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. 27. Defendants, in connection with their services, used in commerce words, terms,

names, false designations of origin, false or misleading descriptions of fact, and false or misleading representation of fact, which in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresent the nature, characteristics, and qualities of USTROs services and commercial activities.

Case 2:12-cv-00349-TC Document 7-1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 7 of 20

28.

Bateman IP is likely to be damaged by USTROs false and misleading

commercial solicitations. 29. By reason of the foregoing, Bateman IP asserts a claim against Defendants for

injunctive relief and monetary damages for unfair competition pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1125(a). 30. By reason of the foregoing, Bateman IP asserts that the present case is exceptional

and entitles Bateman IP to treble damages and attorneys fees.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Deceptive Trade Practice under the Utah Truth in Advertising Act, Utah Code Ann. 13-11(a)-101, et seq.) 31. Bateman IP incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 30 of this

Complaint, as though fully set forth herein, and further alleges: 32. 33. Defendants used deceptive, misleading, and false advertising practices. Defendants, in the course of their business, passed off their services as those of

the United States Patent and Trademark Office. 34. Defendants, in the course of their business, caused a likelihood of confusion or

misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval, affiliation, connection, association or certification of their services. 35. Defendants, in the course of their business, caused a likelihood of confusion or

misunderstanding as to affiliation, connection, association with, or certification by the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Case 2:12-cv-00349-TC Document 7-1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 8 of 20

36.

Defendants, in the course of their business, used deceptive representations in

connection with their services. 37. Defendants, in the course of their business, represented that their services have

sponsorship and/or approval from the United States government that Defendants do not have. 38. Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. 13-11(a)-4, Bateman IP is entitled to recover three

times the amount of actual damages sustained, or $2,000, whichever is greater, plus court costs. Bateman IP is also entitled to injunctive relief under Utah Code Ann. 13-11(a)-4, attorneys fees, and an order to cause defendants to promulgate corrective advertising. 39. By reason of the foregoing, Bateman IP asserts a claim against the Defendants for

violation of the Utah Truth in Advertising Act.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Tortious Interference) 40. Bateman IP incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 39 of this Complaint,

as though fully set forth herein, and further alleges: 41. Bateman IP has a business relationship with its clients and Bateman IP has

existing and potential economic relations with its clients. 42. USTRO and/or other defendants are attempting to interfere with the business

relationship between Bateman IP and its clients by improper means, including at least sending misleading letters to Bateman IPs clients in order to mislead them into doing business with USTRO.

Case 2:12-cv-00349-TC Document 7-1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 9 of 20

43. 44.

Defendants actions have caused harm to Bateman IP and its clients. By reason of the foregoing, Bateman IP asserts a claim against the Defendants

for tortious interference.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Civil Conspiracy) 45. Bateman IP incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 44 of this Complaint,

as though fully set forth herein, and further alleges: 46. On information and belief, two or more of the Defendants did combine, and by

concerted action have sought to extort fees from Bateman IPs clients and to mislead Bateman IPs clients into believing USTRO was a governmental entity with an official fee required to secure and maintain trademark rights. 47. Bateman IP is entitled to a judgment against each Defendant found to have

participated in the civil conspiracy alleged above for the entire amount of the damages Bateman IP has sustained as a result thereof. 48. By reason of the forgoing, Bateman IP makes a claim against each Defendant for

Civil Conspiracy.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: (Injunctive Relief) 49. Plaintiff incorporates herein each and every allegation of paragraphs 1 through 48

of this Complaint, as if the same were fully set forth herein. 9

Case 2:12-cv-00349-TC Document 7-1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 10 of 20

50.

As a result of Defendants actions, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to

suffer irreparable harm in an amount difficult to quantify. 51. The threatened injury to the Plaintiff outweighs whatever damage the proposed

order and injunction may cause to Defendants. 52. The order and injunction will not be adverse to the public interest, but will rather

serve to protect the public from Defendants predatory business practices. 53. There is a substantial likelihood that Plaintiff will prevail on the merits of the

underlying claims. 54. Therefore, under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff is

entitled to a preliminary injunction requiring that: a. Defendants shall cease use of their misleading name United States Trademark Registration Office in connection with their services. b. Defendants shall send corrective advertising to each customer to whom the misleading and false statements were sent. c. Defendants shall provide a copy of an Order of this Court to all who received letters with false and misleading representations.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Bateman IP prays for judgment against Defendants as follows: A. Awarding Bateman IP its damages and/or any profits of Defendants and its costs

of the action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117(a);

10

Case 2:12-cv-00349-TC Document 7-1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 11 of 20

B.

Finding that this is an exceptional case and award Bateman IP attorneys fees

pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117(a); C. Awarding Bateman IP three times their damages and an amount not less than

$2,000 for violation of the Utah Truth in Advertising Act, Utah Code Ann. 13-11(a)-3; D. Awarding injunctive relief, court costs, and attorneys fees pursuant to the Utah

Truth in Advertising Act, Utah Code Ann. 13-11(a)-4; E. Finding that defendants have tortuously interfered with Bateman IPs existing and

potential economic relations; F. Finding that all defendants are jointly and severally liable for any judgment

entered herein due to their civil conspiracy; G. That Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys,

and those persons in active concert of participation with them, who receive actual notice of the Courts injunction by personal service or otherwise, be first preliminarily, and thereafter permanently, enjoined as requested above; H. are paid; and I. Awarding such other and further relief as is just and equitable. Awarding Bateman IP pre-judgment and post-judgment interest until such awards

11

Case 2:12-cv-00349-TC Document 7-1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 12 of 20

DATED this 10th day of April, 2012. BATEMAN IP LAW GROUP /s/Randall B. Bateman Randall B. Bateman C. Todd Kinard Sarah W. Matthews Attorneys for Plaintiff Bateman IP Law Group, P.C.

12

Case 2:12-cv-00349-TC Document 7-1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 13 of 20

Case 2:12-cv-00349-TC Document 7-1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 14 of 20

Exhibit A
Letter Regarding the Mark THE MOST IMPORTANT ASSET IS YOUR CREATIVITY

Case 2:12-cv-00349-TC Document 7-1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 15 of 20

Case 2:12-cv-00349-TC Document 7-1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 16 of 20

Case 2:12-cv-00349-TC Document 7-1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 17 of 20

Exhibit B
Letter Regarding the Mark I CREATE

Case 2:12-cv-00349-TC Document 7-1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 18 of 20

Case 2:12-cv-00349-TC Document 7-1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 19 of 20

Exhibit C
Letter Sent To Bateman IPs Client

Case 2:12-cv-00349-TC Document 7-1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 20 of 20