Rubenstein v. Friedman Law - FL-Legal trademark complaint.pdf

8/19/2019 Rubenstein v. Friedman Law - FL-Legal trademark complaint.pdf

1/23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: ____________________

RUBENSTEIN LAW, P.A.

Plaintiff,

v.

FRIEDMAN LAW ASSOCIATES, P.L.,and PHILIP A. FRIEDMAN, an individual

Defendants

________________________________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Rubenstein Law, P.A. (“Rubenstein Law”), for its Complaint against Friedman

Law Associates, P.L (“Friedman Law”) and Philip A. Friedman (“Mr. Friedman”) (collectively,

“Defendants”), alleges as follows and demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable:

Jurisdiction and Venue

1.

This action is for injunctive relief, damages and attorneys’ fees for trademark

infringement, false association, false designation of origin, unfair competition and cybersquatting

under Section 43 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1125, and for violations of Florida’s

Registration and Protection of Trademarks Act, Fla. Stat. §495.001, et seq., and Florida’s

Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”), Fla. Stat. §501.201, et seq.

2. This action arises out of Defendants’ unlawful adoption and use of trademarks

and domain names in connection with their advertising and sale of legal services, which are

confusingly similar (and, in fact, nearly identical) to Plaintiff’s 1-800-FL-LEGAL mark, with

full knowledge of Plaintiff ’s prior use and Florida registration of 1-800-FL-LEGAL as an

exclusive source indicator for Plaintiff ’s for high quality legal services.

Case 1:16-cv-20792-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/03/2016 Page 1 of 23


2/23

2

3. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to

15 U.S.C. §§ 1116, 1121, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338, 1367.

4.

This Court has general personal jurisdiction over the Defendants because they are

citizens of Florida, and have conducted substantial and not isolated activity within Florida.

5. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c)(2) because a substantial part

of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this district, and Defendants are

subject to personal jurisdiction in this District and, thus, are deemed to reside in this District.

The Parties

6. Plaintiff Rubenstein Law is a Florida corporation with its principal place of

business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

7. Defendant Friedman Law is a professional limited liability company that has its

principal place of business in Tampa, Florida.

8. Defendant Philip A. Friedman, is an individual and a Florida resident.

Mr. Friedman is the managing member of Friedman Law, and directed and/or materially

participated in the wrongful activities of Friedman Law. Accordingly, Mr. Friedman and

Friedman Law are each jointly and severally liable for all wrongful acts alleged herein (either as

direct or contributory wrongdoers).

Plaintiff’s Registered, Distinctive 1-800-FL-LEGAL Trademark

9. Plaintiff owns all rights, title and interest in and to the trademark

1-800-FL-LEGAL (also referred to as “Plaintiff’s Mark”) in connection with: attorney services,

legal services and litigation services (hereinafter, collectively referred to as, “legal services”).

10.

Plaintiff ’s 1-800-FL-LEGAL Mark is valid and subsisting under common law,

and is also registered with the State of Florida, as reflected by certificate of registration

no. P96000100099 (hereinafter, “Plaintiff’s Registration”). A true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s

Registration is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.



3/23

3

11. Plaintiff’s Mark is comprised of standard characters without any claim to a

particular font, style, size, or color.

12.

Plaintiff first used its 1-800-FL-LEGAL Mark in commerce at least as early as

October 2006.

13. Plaintiff’s Mark is a distinctive and exclusive indicator of source for Plaintiff ’s

high quality attorney, legal and litigation services.

14. As a Florida registered trademark, Plaintiff’s Mark is presumed distinctive, and

Plaintiff is presumed to have the exclusive right to use that mark in Florida. Nevertheless,

Plaintiff’s Mark is either inherently distinctive, or has acquired distinctiveness among

consumers, in connection with Plaintiff ’s high quality attorney, legal and litigation services.

15. Since at least as early as October 2006, Plaintiff has continuously used its

1-800-FL-LEGAL Mark in connection with the advertising, sale and performance of its high

quality legal services. Plaintiff ’s use and promotion of the 1-800-FL-LEGAL Mark predates

Defendants’ unauthorized use of their confusingly similar marks in commerce, by several years.

16. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s adoption, use, and promotion of the 1-800-FL-LEGAL

Mark predates the very existence of Friedman Law, which did not commence its existence until

January 1, 2010, according to its articles of organization on file with the State of Florida.

17. Plaintiff has expended a tremendous amount of time, effort and money to promote

its 1-800-FL-LEGAL Mark and the legal services associated therewith, including but not limited

to by continuously and widely advertising and promoting the 1-800-FL-LEGAL Mark in

connection with legal services through, inter alia, television, billboards, radio, print media, and

Internet media (e.g ., Plaintiff’s website, social networking sites, and online video channels).18. Among other locations, Plaintiff’s advertising and promotion of its

1-800-FL-LEGAL Mark has appeared on billboards and television channels in and/or serving the

Tampa, Florida market where Plaintiff maintains an additional office.



4/23

4

19. Plaintiff has expended at least eight (8) million dollars on widely advertising and

promoting its 1-800-FL-LEGAL Mark in connection with legal services across various forms of

media.

20. The following images are examples of Plaintiff’s advertising, promotion and use

of the 1-800-FL-LEGAL Mark in commerce:

(a)

(b)



5/23

5

(c) You Tube video channel:

(d) Twitter social networking site:

(e) LinkedIn social networking site:



6/23

6

(f) Google+

(g) Facebook social networking site:

(h) Bus advertising:



7/23

7

21. Plaintiff’s 1-800-FL-LEGAL brand of legal services have achieved substantial

success in the legal services industry and, thus, the 1-800-FL-LEGAL Mark is widely recognized

as referring to Plaintiff’s high quality legal services.

22. Plaintiff has established substantial goodwill associated with the

1-800-FL-LEGAL Mark, and that goodwill continues to grow with the success and demand for

Plaintiff’s 1-800-FL-LEGAL brand of legal services among consumers.

23. Defendants have no right or interest in Plaintiff’s 1-800-FL-LEGAL Mark and are

not now, nor have they ever been, authorized to use the 1-800-FL-LEGAL Mark or otherwise

hold themselves out as the source of the 1-800-FL-LEGAL brand of legal services.

Plaintiff ’s Domain Name, Website, and Social Networking Presence

24. In addition to the 1-800-FL-LEGAL Mark, Plaintiff is also the owner of the

following eight domain name registrations:

Domain Name Date of Creation / Registration

1 Fllegal.com July 9, 1997

2 1800fllegal.com Nov. 1, 2006

3 1-800-fl-legal.com Nov. 1, 2006

4 800fllegal.com Feb 29, 2012

5 800-fl-legal.com April 18, 2013

6 800-fllegal.com April 18, 2013

7 1800-fllegal.com April 18, 2013

8 1-800-fllegal.com April 18, 2013

(the “800-FL-LEGAL Domains”).



8/23

8

25. Plaintiff has owned the 800-FL-LEGAL Domains since at least as early as the

dates shown in the table set forth above in Paragraph 24.

26.

Plaintiff directs all consumers’ Internet traffic for the 800-FL-LEGAL Domains to

its Internet website, which is accessible to consumers not only within Florida, but throughout the

United States and worldwide.

27. Plaintiff’s website prominently displays and advertises the 1-800-FL-LEGAL

Mark and the services offered in connection therewith, as shown in the following image:

Defendants’ Confusingly Similar Mark , Unfair Competition, and False Association

28. Long after Plaintiff ’s first use in commerce of, and acquisition of rights in, the

1-800-FL-LEGAL Mark, the Defendants adopted and began using the confusingly similar (and

nearly identical) “888-FL-LEGAL” mark in connection with their sale of legal services in

commerce.

29. In addition to adopting the confusingly similar 888-FL-LEGAL mark, the

Defendants advertise and promote the 888-FL-LEGAL mark and legal services to consumers

through the same channels of trade and/or media used by Plaintiff, including but not limited to

Internet websites, Internet social networking sites (e.g ., Google+ and Twitter), and billboards.

The following are examples of such advertising uses:



9/23

9

(a) Billboards:

(b) Defendant’s Internet website:

and

(c) Social media on the Internet:

(i) Twitter:



10/23

10

(ii) Google+

30.

Additionally, Defendants are displaying the infringing 888-FL-LEGAL mark on

an automobile along Florida roadways. That automobile displays the infringing 888-FL-LEGAL

mark as follows:

31. Defendants undertook their use and promotion of the 888-FL-LEGAL mark in

connection with their legal services with knowledge of Plaintiff ’s prior use of the

1-800-FL-LEGAL Mark.

32. Upon information and belief, Defendants undertook their use and promotion of

the 888-FL-LEGAL mark on their legal services with the intent to exploit the substantial

goodwill associated with Plaintiff ’s 1-800-FL-LEGAL Mark — especially in light of the extensive

success and recognition achieved by Plaintiff ’s 1-800-FL-LEGAL brand of legal services, and

with the intent to create and financially exploit an association with Plaintiff ’s and its legal

services.

33. In or about the end of June 2015, Mr. Friedman admitted to Plaintiff’s principal,

Robert Rubenstein, during a telephone conversation that after seeing Rubenstein Law’s

advertisements of the 1-800-FL-LEGAL Mark, he went out and bought the 888-FL-LEGAL

telephone number.



11/23

11

34. During that same conversation, Mr. Friedman asked Mr. Rubenstein if

Rubenstein Law would like to buy the 888-FL-LEGAL telephone number from him, but stating

that he would not let it go “for chump change.” Mr. Friedman stated that “chump change” for

his recently purchased competing 888-FL-LEGAL telephone number would be $ 250,000.

Alternatively, Defendants offered to sell their entire legal practice to Rubenstein Law.

35. Plaintiff refused to pay the $250,000 Mr. Friedman demanded in exchange for the

888-FL-LEGAL telephone number, and refused to purchase Defendants’ legal practice.

36. Thereafter, on or about September 26, 2015, as shown below, the homepage of

Friedman Law’s Internet website did not display the infringing 888-FL-LEGAL mark.

Moreover, the phone number displayed in the upper right-hand corner of that homepage was 1-

800-984-9951, which does not equate to the infringing mark when the numbers are converted to

the corresponding letters using a telephone’s keypad.

37.

At some time between September 26, 2015 and January 12, 2016, Defendantsaltered the homepage of Friedman Law’s website to prominently feature the infringing

888-FL-LEGAL mark, as can be seen from the following image:



12/23

12

38. The alteration to Friedman Law’s Internet website referred to in Paragraph 37 was

made after Plaintiff had opened an office in Tampa.

39. Defendants use of “888-FL-LEGAL” in commerce in connection with legal

services has caused actual confusion and mistake, and is likely to continue to cause confusion or

mistake, among consumers as to the affiliation, connection or association of Defendants with

Plaintiff and/or as to the origin, sponsorship or approval Defendants’ legal services.

40. Upon information and belief, Defendants knew that their use of the “888-FL-

LEGAL” mark would directly injure Plaintiff by, among other things: (a) damaging the value of

Plaintiff ’s 1-800-FL-LEGAL Mark; (b) passing Defendants off as the source of Plaintiff ’s legal

services; (c) unfairly diverting sales of Plaintiff ’s legal services to Defendants’ legal services;

and/or (d) unfairly selling services to customers interested in Plaintiff’s legal services.

[Balance of Page Intentionally Left Blank]



13/23

13

Defendants’ Cybersquatting through Bad Faith Domain Name Registration and Use

41. In addition to adopting and using the confusingly similar 888-FL-LEGAL mark,

Mr. Friedman also recently registered the following nine domain names in bad faith:

Domain Name Registrant Date of Creation /

Registration

1 800fllegalgroup.com Philip Friedman

(no registrant organization)

Admin info: same

May 21, 2015

2 888fllegal.com Philip Friedman


Admin info: same

May 21, 2015

3 1800fllegalgroup.com Philip Friedman(no registrant organization)

Admin info: same

June 15, 2015

4 888-FL-Legal.com Philip Friedman


Admin info: same

June 15, 2015



Admin info: same

June 15, 2015



Admin info: same

June 15, 2015



Admin info: same

June 15, 2015



Admin info: same

June 15, 2015


(no registrant organization) Admin info: same

June 15, 2015

42. Previously, on April 22, 2008, Mr. Friedman had registered the domain name

fllegalgroup.com in bad faith.



14/23

14

43. Hereinafter, Mr. Friedman’s ten domain names listed in Paragraphs 41 and 42

shall be referred to, collectively, as the “Infringing Domains.”

44.

The Infringing Domains are identical or confusingly similar to Plaintiff’s


45. After Mr. Friedman registered the Infringing Domains, the Defendants

began using the Infringing Domains in bad faith to direct all consumer s’ Internet traffic for

the Infringing Domains to Friedman Law’s Internet website: http://fllegalgroup.com, which is

designed to advertise and promote Defendants’ legal services (the “Infringing Website”), and is

accessible to consumers both within Florida and throughout the United States and worldwide.

An image of the homepage of Defendants’ website is shown in Paragraph 29.

46. Defendants’ use of the Infringing Domains is neither a bona fide noncommercial,

nor a fair use. Instead, Defendants’ use of the Infringing Domains is entirely commercial in

nature, as shown by the Infringing Website connected therewith.

47. Plaintiff’s 1-800-FL-LEGAL Mark was distinctive before Mr. Friedman

registered the Infringing Domains and before Friedman Law began using the Infringing

Domains.

48. In registering and using the Infringing Domains, Defendants had a bad faith intent

to profit from Plaintiff’s 1-800-FL-LEGAL Mark.

49. Defendants continue to have a bad faith intent to profit from Plaintiff’s


50. Through registration and use of the Infringing Domains, and the Infringing

Website, the Defendants’ intend to divert consumers seeking Plaintiff ’s 1-800-FL-LEGAL brandof legal services to Defendants’ Infringing Website, which is harmful to the goodwill represented

by Plaintiff’s 1-800-FL-LEGAL Mark.


http://fllegalgroup.com/http://fllegalgroup.com/http://fllegalgroup.com/


15/23

15

51. Defendants registered and have used the Infringing Domains either for

commercial gain or with the intent to tarnish or disparage Plaintiff ’s 1-800-FL-LEGAL Mark, by

creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the

Defendants’ Infringing Website.

Actual Consumer Confusion Caused by Defendants’ Conduct

and Defendants’ Knowing Failure to Cease and Desist

52. Defendants’ use and advertising of the confusingly similar 888-FL-LEGAL mark,

Infringing Domains, and Infringing Website associated therewith, have caused actual confusion

among consumers as to Friedman Law’s association with Plaintiff.

53. The actual confusion that has occurred indicates both forward confusion

(consumers mistakenly believing Defendants’ services are those of the Plaintiff) and reverse

confusion (consumers mistakenly believing Plaintiff ’s services are those of the Defendant).

54. Mr. Friedman has stated that: “the calls I have gotten were from my existing

clients who thought you were I. I have only received one call on the 888 line that I felt was

intended for you.”

55.

Plaintiff has informed the Defendants of its rights in the 1-800-FL-LEGAL Mark,

and has demanded that the Defendants cease and desist their infringing conduct.

56. However, despite Defendants’ knowledge of Plaintiff’s registered rights in the

1-800-FL-LEGAL Mark, Defendants have not ceased their infringing activities.

57. In light of Defendants’ willful misconduct and efforts to exploit Plaintiff’s

1-800-FL-LEGAL Mark and consumers’ association of 1-800-FL-LEGAL with Plaintiff ’s legal

services, this is an exceptional case and warrants an award of attorneys’ fees as well as statutoryand exemplary/treble damages under, inter alia, 15 U.S.C. §1117(a) and Fla. Stat. §495.141.

58. Unless restrained, Defendants’ unauthorized, unlawful use of Plaintiff ’s

1-800-FL-LEGAL Mark and the Infringing Domains will continue to cause the Plaintiff harm,



16/23

16

including irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law; therefore, Defendants’

conduct should be enjoined.

59.

Plaintiff has performed all conditions necessary for the filing of this action that

have not been waived or excused.

60. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned law firm to pursue the claims stated herein

against the defendant and, accordingly, is obligated to pay the undersigned law firm a reasonable

fee for its services.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Trademark Infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) against all Defendants

61.

Plaintiff restates and realleges all allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 60 as

though fully set forth in this Paragraph.

62. Plaintiff’s 1-800-FL-LEGAL Mark is a protectable, distinctive mark, which

serves as an exclusive source indicator for Plaintiff’s high quality legal services.

63. Defendants are not licensees or otherwise authorized to use Plaintiff’s

1-800-FL-LEGAL Mark and have no right to hold themselves out as the source of Plaintiff’s

1-800-FL-LEGAL brand of legal services through the use of the confusingly similar

888-FL-LEGAL mark, or any other confusingly similar mark.

64. Defendants’ unauthorized use of Plaintiff’s 1-800-FL-LEGAL Mark and/or of the

confusingly similar 888-FL-LEGAL mark in commerce in connection with the promotion and

sale of legal services is likely to cause confusion among consumers — and, in fact, has caused

consumer confusion — as to the source, sponsorship and/or authorization of the legal services

offered by Defendants.

65. Defendants are engaging in the aforementioned conduct willfully and with full

knowledge and awareness of Plaintiff ’s prior and continuing trademark rights, and with the

purpose and intent of trading off the goodwill in Plaintiff ’s 1-800-FL-LEGAL Mark and



17/23

17

confusing the relevant consuming public into mistakenly believing that Defendants are the

source of Plaintiff’s 1-800-FL-LEGAL brand of legal services or that Defendants’ legal services

are otherwise sponsored by, authorized by, or associated with Plaintiff.

66. Defendants’ actions constitute trademark infringement in violation of Section 43

of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125(a), and have caused the Plaintiff injury, including without

limitation irreparable injury to the goodwill associated with Plaintiff ’s 1-800-FL-LEGAL Mark,

which will continue unless enjoined.

67. Plaintiff is entitled to all the remedies available under the Lanham Act (e.g.,

15 U.S.C. §1117), including but not limited to: injunctive relief; compensatory damages to be

proven at trial; an accounting of Defendants’ profits from use of the confusingly similar

888-FL-LEGAL mark and disgorgement of same; reasonable attorneys’ fees; and exemplary,

treble damages due to the exceptional nature of this case.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Cybersquatting under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d) against all Defendants

68. Plaintiff restates and realleges all allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 60 as


69. Plaintiff’s 1-800-FL-LEGAL Mark was distinctive before and at the time

Mr. Friedman registered the Infringing Domains

70. Plaintiff’s 1-800-FL-LEGAL Mark was also distinctive before and at the time

Defendants began using the Infringing Domains to direct consumers’ Internet traffic to the

Infringing Website in order to advertise and promote Defendants’ legal services.

71. At the time of registering and commencing use of the Infringing Domains, the

Defendants knew that such domain names are comprised of or include Plaintiff’s


72. Mr. Friedman adopted and registered the Infringing Domains with the bad faith

intent to profit from Plaintiff’s 1-800-FL-LEGAL Mark and to take commercial advantage of the



18/23


19/23

19

affiliation, connection, or association of Defendants with Plaintiff; (2) the origin, sponsorship, or

approval of the services or products Plaintiff sells under its 1-800-FL-LEGAL Mark; and/or

(3) the origin, sponsorship or approval of services or products Defendants sell under the

888-FL-LEGAL mark.

78. By using the confusingly similar 888-FL-LEGAL mark to redirect or divert

consumers to Defendants’ 888-FL-LEGAL brand of legal services, consumers are likely to

believe (and, in fact, some have mistakenly believed ) that Plaintiff’s legal services originate with

Defendants and/or that Defendants or Defendants’ legal services are affiliated with Plaintiff, thus

causing confusion in the marketplace.

79. By using the confusingly similar 888-FL-LEGAL mark in commerce in

connection with legal services, the Defendants are falsely conveying to consumers — and are

likely to deceive consumers or potential consumers into believing — that Defendants are the

source of legal services, or that Defendants have granted Plaintiff the authority to represent itself

as 1-800-FL-LEGAL, or that Plaintiff has granted Defendants the authority to represent

Friedman Law as 888-FL-LEGAL, or that Defendants are otherwise associated with the Plaintiff.

80.

Defendants’ actions constitute unfair competition, false association, and false

designation of origin in violation of Section 43 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125, and have

caused Plaintiff injury, including without limitation irreparable injury to the goodwill associated

with Plaintiff ’s 1-800-FL-LEGAL Mark, which will continue unless enjoined.

81. Plaintiff is entitled to all the remedies available under the Lanham Act

(e.g., 15 U.S.C. §1117), including but not limited to: injunctive relief; compensatory damages to

be proven at trial; an accounting of Defendants’ profits and disgorgement of same; reasonableattorneys’ fees; and exemplary, treble damages due to the exceptional nature of this case.



20/23

20

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Florida Trademark Infringement against all Defendants

under Fla. Stat. §495.001, et seq.

82.

Plaintiff restates and realleges all allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 60 as


83. Plaintiff’s 1-800-FL-LEGAL Mark is a registered, distinctive mark, which serves

as an exclusive source indicator for Plaintiff’s high quality legal services.

84. Defendants are not licensees or otherwise authorized to use Plaintiff’s registered

1-800-FL-LEGAL Mark and have no right to hold themselves out as the source of Plaintiff’s

1-800-FL-LEGAL brand of legal services through the use of the confusingly similar

888-FL-LEGAL mark, or any other confusingly similar mark.

85. Defendants’ unauthorized use of Plaintiff’s 1-800-FL-LEGAL Mark and/or of the

confusingly similar 888-FL-LEGAL mark in commerce in connection with the promotion and

sale of legal services is likely to cause confusion among consumers — and, in fact, has caused

consumer confusion — as to the source, sponsorship and/or authorization of the legal services

offered by Defendants.

86.

Defendants are engaging in the aforementioned conduct willfully and with full

knowledge and awareness of Plaintiff ’s prior and continuing trademark rights, and with the

purpose and intent of trading off the goodwill in Plaintiff ’s 1-800-FL-LEGAL Mark and

confusing the relevant consuming public into mistakenly believing that Defendants are the

source of Plaintiff’s 1-800-FL-LEGAL brand of legal services or that Defendants’ legal services

are otherwise sponsored by, authorized by, or associated with Plaintiff.

87.

Defendants’ actions constitute trademark infringement in violation of

Fla. Stat. §495.001, et seq., and have caused the Plaintiff injury, including without limitation

irreparable injury to the goodwill associated with Plaintiff ’s 1-800-FL-LEGAL Mark, which will

continue unless enjoined.



21/23

21

88. Plaintiff is entitled to all the remedies available under Florida’s Registration and

Protection of Trademarks Act, including but not limited to: injunctive relief; compensatory

damages to be proven at trial; an accounting of Defendants’ profits from use of the confusingly

similar 888-FL-LEGAL mark and disgorgement of same; reasonable attorneys’ fees; and

exemplary, treble damages due to the exceptional nature of this case.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act against all Defendants

Under Fla. Stat. §501.201, et seq.

89. Plaintiff restates and realleges all allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 60 as


90. Defendants’ acts, as described above, were performed by the Defendants in the

course of trade or commerce.

91. Defendants’ acts, as described above, constitute unfair methods of competition,

unconscionable acts or practices, and/or unfair or deceptive acts or practices.

92. Defendants’ acts, as described above, are likely to deceive consumers into

thinking that there is an affiliation between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, and/or that Plaintiff

endorses Defendants’ legal services and/or business practices.

93. Defendants’ acts of unfair competition have caused, and will continue to cause,

Plaintiff irreparable harm for which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. Therefore, Plaintiff

is entitled to injunctive relief.

94. Defendants’ acts of unfair competition have caused Plaintiff to suffer losses in an

amount to be determined at trial. Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages, plus attorney’s fees and

costs, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §501.2105 and §501.211.



22/23

22

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for an Order and Judgment as follows:

A. That the Court issue preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against

Defendants, and that Defendants, their agents, representatives, servants, employees, attorneys,

successors and assigns, and all others in active concert or participation with Defendants, be

(individually and collectively) preliminarily and permanently enjoined and restrained from

making any further infringing use of Plaintiff ’s 1-800-FL-LEGAL Mark and Defendants’

confusingly similar 888-FL-LEGAL mark, and any colorable imitation thereof on or in

connection with legal services;

B.

That the Court issue preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against

Defendants, and that Defendants, their agents, representatives, servants, employees, attorneys,

successors and assigns, and all others in active concert or participation with Defendants, be

(individually and collectively) preliminarily and permanently enjoined and restrained from

registering, maintaining and/or making any use of the Infringing Domains and any other domain

name that incorporates Plaintiff ’s 1-800-FL-LEGAL Mark or a colorable imitation of thereof;

C. That the Court order, in accordance with 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d), any domain name

registrar having control over registration of the Infringing Domains to cancel and/or transfer such

registrations to Plaintiff;

D. That the Court order Defendants to pay Plaintiff ’s damages and disgorge

Defendants’ profits;

E. That the Court order Defendants to pay Plaintiff exemplary damages pursuant to

15 U.S.C. §1117 and/or Fla. Stat. §495.141;

F.

That, in accordance with 15 U.S.C. § 1117(d), Defendants be ordered to pay to

Plaintiff statutory damages between $1,000 and $100,000.00 per domain name;

G. That the Court order Defendants to pay Plaintiff all reasonable attorney’s fees

incurred as a result of Defendants’ infringement and unfair competition;



23/23

23

H. That the Court order Defendants to reimburse Plaintiff the costs of this action;

I. That the Court grant Plaintiff such other and further relief as is just and proper.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues and claims so triable.

Dated: March 3, 2016 Respectfully submitted,

FELDMAN GALE, P.A.

One Biscayne Tower, 30th Floor2 South Biscayne BoulevardMiami, Florida 33131

Telephone: (305) 358-5001Facsimile: (305) 358-3309

By: /s _ Susan J. Latham__________ James A. Gale / Fla. Bar no. 371726 [email protected] Susan J. Latham / Fla. Bar no. [email protected] Attorneys for Plain tif f

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

Rubenstein v. Friedman Law - FL-Legal trademark complaint.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Rubenstein v. Friedman Law - FL-Legal trademark complaint.pdf