Trafficking v. Madmann Trademark Holding - Maverick Music Festival v. Maverick

Click here to load reader

  • date post

    18-Jul-2016
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    18
  • download

    1

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of Trafficking v. Madmann Trademark Holding - Maverick Music Festival v. Maverick

  • 1

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

    SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

    TRAFFICKING, LLC Plaintiff v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-cv-1002 MADMANN TRADEMARK HOLDING COMPANY, LTD. Defendant

    FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

    Plaintiff Trafficking, LLC, First Amended Complaint seeking a judgment and injunctive

    relief and declaratory judgment against Madmann Trademark Holding Company, Ltd., regarding

    claimed trademark infringement, trademark counterfeiting, false designation of origin, palming

    off, unfair competition, cybersquatting in violation of the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C.

    1051 et seq. and under the statutes and common law of Texas.

    PARTIES

    1. Plaintiff Trafficking, LLC, is a Texas limited liability company with an address at

    PO Box 571493, Houston, Texas 77257.

    2. Plaintiffs primary business is an annual music festival under the trademark

    MAVERICK MUSIC FESTIVAL conducted in San Antonio, Texas.

    3. Defendant, Madmann Trademark Holding Company Ltd., a California

    corporation having its principal place of business at 2850 Ocean Park Blvd, Suite 300, Santa

    Monica, California 90405

    4. The Registered Agent on file for Defendant is Bill Vuylsteke and is located at

    2850 Ocean Park Blvd #300, Santa Monica, CA 90405.

    Case 5:14-cv-01002-FB Document 6 Filed 11/25/14 Page 1 of 31

  • 2

    5. Defendant claims it is doing business in the San Antonio Division of the Western

    District of Texas.

    JURISDICTION AND VENUE

    6. Jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1332, 1338, 1367, 2201 and

    2202 and 15 U.S.C. 1116 and 1121.

    7. The suit is based on a Federal question and statute, namely 15 U.S.C. 1051 et

    seq. and Texas laws on unfair competition and on 28 U.S.C. 1338 and 2201 and 2202.

    8. Jurisdiction of this suit is based on the Federal Trademark Act, a/k/a Lanham Act,

    as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq., and Texas statutes and laws on trademarks, trade names,

    unfair competition, deceptive trade practices and dilution and on 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1338, 2201,

    and 2202.

    9. The suit is based on a Federal question and statute, namely 15 U.S.C. 1051 et

    seq.

    10. Plaintiffs principal business is conducted in Western District of Texas.

    11. Plaintiff resides in Western District of Texas.

    12. Defendants goods and services are claimed to have been marketed and sold in

    Texas.

    13. An actual case or controversy exists between Plaintiff and Defendant.

    14. A ruling by this Court will settle all disputes between Plaintiff and Defendant.

    15. The amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.00.

    16. Venue is proper in the Western District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

    1391(b).

    Case 5:14-cv-01002-FB Document 6 Filed 11/25/14 Page 2 of 31

  • 3

    17. Since 2013, Plaintiff has produced its annual MAVERICK MUSIC FESTIVAL in

    the Western District of Texas.

    18. Defendant claims it is doing business in Texas, including the Western District of

    Texas, and is actively pursuing business in Texas, including the Western District of Texas.

    19. Furthermore, a substantial portion of the events giving rise to the causes of action

    described herein occurred in Texas, including Bexar County, San Antonio, Texas, in the Western

    District of Texas, and the acts complained of are occurring in Texas, including in Bexar County,

    San Antonio, Texas, in the Western District of Texas.

    20. Defendant has threatened Plaintiff with an injunction and has demanded that

    Plaintiff cease all use of Plaintiffs MAVERICK MUSIC FESTIVAL mark.

    21. Plaintiff has repeatedly offered to coexist with Defendant and Defendant has

    repeatedly refused to allow Plaintiff to continue use of its MAVERICK MUSIC FESTIVAL

    mark.

    22. The music business has changed substantially in the last twenty years with many

    companies like Defendant seeing their business obsoleted and abandoned by technology and the

    internet.

    23. In 2006 SFX Entertainment, Inc. filed an application serial No. 7872540 in the

    United States Patent and Trademark Office to register LIVENATION for, inter alia., promoting a

    variety of live entertainment events for others and merchandise related thereto; business and

    event management of musical, theatrical and family/variety tours and presentations but

    abandoned this intent to use application after it was allowed by not filing a statement of use by

    July 2, 2007.

    Case 5:14-cv-01002-FB Document 6 Filed 11/25/14 Page 3 of 31

  • 4

    24. After many years of dormancy, Defendant in late 2013 began taking steps to

    resurrect its dead Maverick name and go into competition with Plaintiff with new services and

    announced in November of 2013 that Paul McGuinness would merge his Principle Management

    business for U2 with Guy Osearys company. See more at:

    http://www.completemusicupdate.com/article/u2-and-madonna-managers-to-ally-via-new-deal-

    with-live-nation/#sthash.xiMLNiG2.dpuf.

    25. On December 16, 2013 U2 confirmed that long-time Madonna manager Guy

    Oseary had taken over day-to-day management duties for the band via a new LiveNation-backed

    venture, with their long-term manager Paul McGuinness now having an advisory role. See

    http://www.completemusicupdate.com/article/u2-confirm-osearylive-nation-deal-thank-

    mcguinness.

    26. On July 25, 2014, it was reported that LiveNation was going to restructure its

    artist management business, with Madonna and U2 manager Guy Oseary set to head up a more

    cohesive new division after Oseary merged his management firm with that of long-term U2

    manager Paul McGuinness, See http://www.completemusicupdate.com/article/live-nation-

    reportedly-considering-overhaul-of-management-assets.

    27. On October 30, 2014, LiveNation announced it was shaking up its artist

    management assets resulting in a new division led by Guy Oseary with the new division taking

    the name of Osearys defunct joint venture business with Madonna, namely Maverick. See

    http://www.completemusicupdate.com/article/live-nation-reshuffles-management-assets-

    launches-the-new-maverick.

    28. Defendant has opposed the registration of Plaintiffs MAVERICK MUSIC

    FESTIVAL mark in the United States Patent and Trademark Office in Opposition No. 91214535.

    Case 5:14-cv-01002-FB Document 6 Filed 11/25/14 Page 4 of 31

  • 5

    29. In the oppositions, Defendant asserts that Opposer owns the exclusive right to

    use and license the MAVERICK trademark for use with live musical performances by musical

    bands, motion pictures and other audio/visual works and merchandise relating thereto.

    30. In the opposition, Defendant asserts that Opposer owns and/or has the exclusive

    right to use and license a family of MAVERICK Marks for use with live musical performances

    by musical bands, motion pictures and other audio/visual works and merchandise relating thereto

    and promote the family of marks together.

    31. In the opposition, Defendant asserts that Applicant's mark is likely to cause

    confusion, mistake, or deception as to the source, origin, affiliation, association, connection, or

    sponsorship of Applicant's goods and services offered under the MAVERICK MUSIC

    FESTIVAL mark with the MAVERICK Marks and/or with Opposer or Opposer's activities.

    32. In the opposition, Defendant asserts that MAVERICK Marks are inherently

    distinctive and have acquired secondary meaning and are associated with Opposer and the goods

    and services offered under the MAVERICK Marks. The MAVERICK Marks are famous within

    the meaning of the Federal Trademark Dilution Act. Applicant filed the Application after the

    MAVERICK Marks had become famous, and Applicant seeks to commercially use the applied-

    for mark MAVERICK MUSIC FESTIVAL.

    33. In the opposition, Defendant asserts that there is a likelihood of confusion,

    likelihood of dilution and damage to Defendant if Plaintiff is allowed to use and register its

    MAVERICK MUSIC FESTIVAL mark.

    34. In the opposition Defendant asserts that the maturation of the Application into a

    registration would cause a likelihood of confusion, mistake, or deception with Opposer and the

    MAVERICK Marks, a likelihood of association, connection or affiliation with Opposer, the

    Case 5:14-cv-01002-FB Document 6 Filed 11/25/14 Page 5 of 31

  • 6

    goods and services offered by Opposer under the MAVERICK Marks or as to the origin,

    sponsorship or approval by Opposer of Applicant's goods or commercial activities, and a

    likelihood of dilution of the MAVERICK Marks.

    35. In the opposition Defendant asserts that Opposer would be damaged by the

    registration of the mark shown in the Application, in that such registration would give Applicant

    a prima facie exclusive right to the use of MAVERICK MUSIC FESTIVAL, despite the

    likelihood of confusion, mistake, or deception with Opposer and the MAVERICK mark, or as to

    the origin, sponsorship or approval by Opposer of Applicant's goods or commercial activities,

    and likelihood of dilution described above, and will allow Applicant to trade on Opposer's

    existing goodwill and exclusive rights in the MAVERICK Marks for use with live musical

    performances by musical bands, motion pictures and audio/visual works and merchandise

    relating there