'.l
`
`SECOND REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AN
`OPPOSITION FOR LESS THAN 120 DAYS
`
`Apphcam
`Serial No.
`
`Shiseido - IBC JV Company, LLC
`76249309
`'
`
`:
`
`May 1, 2001
`June 25, 2002
`Aura Science
`
`:
`Filed
`:
`Published
`I
`Mark
`------------------------------------X
`BOX TTAB- NO FEE
`
`Commissioner for Trademarks
`
`2900 Crystal Drive
`Arlington, VA 22202-3513
`
`US. Patent & TMOfcITM Mail ficpi. Dt. #57
`HllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllIlllllllllllllllll
`08-14-2002
`
`SECOND REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION CD
`(J-3
`Aura Research, Ltd., the opposer, is a New Jersey Corporation doing business in tli§5State‘;.5
`xx:
`‘—_. I
`..
`1
`
`of California with a business address of 3431 Mount Ariane Dr., San Diego, CA 921 1 l.
`
`ff.
`
`President for Aura Research, Ltd., Theodore A. Kalli, by its undersigned attorney requests
`:-
`1.,____
`5-"'
`extension oftime of an additional 90 days within which to oppose the above-identified applicfition. C’
`
`A first extension of time to oppose for 30 days was granted until August 24, 2002. The
`
`reason for this request is that there is a Federal Lanham Act Violation/Trademark Infringement
`
`Action pending between Aura Research, Ltd. and Shiseido-IBC JV Company, LLC concerning the
`
`use of the above identified mark. The Federal Action is pending before the United States District
`
`Court Southern District of California Case No. 02 CV 899 B. Attached as Exhibit “A” is a copy of
`
`the Complaint in this action. Additional time is needed to reach a resolution of the above identified
`
`Action and enter into a co—existence agreement.
`
`

`
`Please direct all correspondence regarding this request to:
`
`Lisel M. Ferguson, Esq.
`Perkins & Miltner, LLP
`
`750 B Street, Suite 2800
`
`San Diego, CA 92101
`Telephone: (619) 615-5333
`Facsimile: (619) 615-5334
`Email: lferguson@perkmilt.com‘
`
`This request is being submitted in triplicate.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`fla///7
`, Lisel M. Ferguson, Esq.
`Attorney for Aura Research, Ltd.
`
`Enclosures
`
`Our Refiz 1384.002
`ExpressMailLabelNumber:
`
`
`ET ?UqBll=”:l US gv
`
`/
`
`A
`
`G:\WP5 l \l 384\002\Motions\ExtOppo2.wpd
`
`

`
`F‘
`
`7
`
`a
`
`..~!I .
`
`(Rev.07/39)
`. ‘ @544
`2
`
`3
`
`.
`
`,
`
`'
`
`I
`
`,,
`
`V
`
`
`
`’
`
`I
`
`The JS~44 civil cover sheet and the information contained‘he.r'.ein neither replace nor supplement th filing and service ofpleiidings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local
`rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference‘ of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket
`sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE SECOND PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
`'
`
`_
`I (a) PLAINTIFFS
`AURA RESEARCH, LTD., :1 New Jersey Corporation
`
`lb) counrrv or RESIDENCE or FIRST usrro
`(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
`PLAINTIFF
`
`,
`
`,
`
`.
`
`9 ' -
`
`.
`
`DEFENDANTS SHISEIDO—lBC JV COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware Corporation;
`SHISEIDO COSMETICS (AMERICA) LTD., a New York Corporation; SI-]ISE]]3
`AMERICA, INC., 21 New York Corporation THE LIMITED STORES, INC., a
`’ Delaware Corporation; THE LIMITED, ]NC., a Delaware Corporation, INTIMA‘
`BEAUTY CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation
`0 -
`3
`Hfiffitsreo DEFENDANT
` ____
`(IN u.s. PLAINTIFF CASE owm
`E»
`I OONDEMNATIO:\I CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND
`
`g
`2
`6
`
`Q gr;
`I
`
`8
`
`"
`
`.
`
`.;\“=i_
`3’ I
`
`‘
`
`(PLACE AN X INONE BOX
`. I 7 °
`FOR PLAINTIFF AND ONE BOX FOR DEFENDANT
`PT DEF
`.
`_
`V
`in This Slate
`Incorporated or Principal Place ofBusiness D4 D4
`
`CI 2U.S. Government Defendant
`
`D-'IDiversity (Indicate Citizenship ofParties in
`Item XII
`
`Chile" ofAnomer State
`Citizen or Subject of a Foreign
`D3 D3
`cmmy
`IV. CAUSE OF ACTION (CITE THE US CIVIL STATUTE UNDER WHICH YOU ARE FILING AND WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE DO NOT CITE
`JURISDICTIONAL STATUTES UNLESS DIVERSITY).
`'
`
`I32 I32 ggcxfisggcggl: Principal Place ofBusiness D5 D5
`Foreign Nation
`
`D5 D6
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1125 Ia), Et Seg. Trademark Infringement
`V. NATURE OF SUIT (PLACE AN X IN ONE BOX ONLY)
`CONTRACT
`
`FORFETTUREIPENALTY
`
`I
`
`BANKRUPTCY
`
`OTHER STATUTB
`
`TORTS
`
`
`. we we mpwimmm
`PERSONAL INJURY
`PERSONAL INJURY
`D "0 mm
`I 4)DA.nli'Lrust
`I 310 Airplane
`I:I362Persom1lrijuiy4
`I 620 OtherFood&Dnig
`CI i2oMorino
`I 430 Bank: and Banking
`I 315 Airplane Pmtkiet Liability
`M°“‘°”‘ M‘*‘1"““°°
`I 625 Drug Related Seizure
`D 130 Miller Act
`I 450 Commentellcc Rrriosloio.
`I no Assault. Libel so sirrrroer
`CI 365 poroorroi injury -
`°”"°P""' 7’ "Sm"
`I szo Copyrights
`D [40 Negotiable irsmrrrrom
`
`I 460 ooporroziorr
`I 530 Liquor Law:
`I 330 Federal Employers’
`"‘°""“ ““’i"'Y
`Cl iso Recovery of overpoymern
`
`I 470 mum: Irifluenccd and
`I 640 an & Truck
`'
`: -
`-
`"“"’”“V
`[3 sea Asbestos Personal Injury
`“"""“‘°°""“"“‘ °"“‘5"“’“‘
`mm“ ofgmimmns
`I 340 Marine
`P'°‘i““ ““"I“‘V
`CI isi Medicare Act
`. PERSONAL PROPERTY
`I 310 Selective Service
`
`I3 i52 Recovery ofD:fnuIi.ed Studerit I 345 Marine Product
`
`"“”’““V
`CI 370 OI.herl-‘rand
`‘-°‘'’“ (‘‘7’‘‘‘* ‘’°‘”‘“‘‘’')
`_
`I 350 Motor Vehicle
`CI l53Recovery oroverpayrrrem
`CI 371 Tmth in Lending
`
`
`
`I 375 Customer Challenge I2 use
`I 355 Motor Vehicle Product
`CI 330 Other Personal
`°“’“"""’ 3""‘fi"’
`
`I 391 Agficultmul Am
`“M”
`P‘“"°'"" D‘‘'“‘‘*‘-’'*’
`13 mo Stockholders Suits
`
`I m Ecciioriiic srairiiizariarr Act
`I 350 Other Personai injury
`D 335 Property Damage
`I no I.aborIMgim.Repox1ing &
`I3 I90 other corru-on
` Product Liability
`Disclosure Act
`-r
`CI
`-
`.4...» -.r-..
`I 2193 Env‘n'omienta1 Mailers
`REAL PROPERTY
`I 894 Energy Allocation Act
`I 895 Freedom ofInfoanazimi Act
`I 900 Appeal orroo Detemiiiiation
`UndorEqual Access to Justice
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I m App”, 28 use 158
`
`I -
`mu:
`.:
`.
`
`
`
`I aso Scc1inti'‘esICoi11modi’ti'es
`Exchange
`
`
`
`Cl 210 Land Condernnatian
` I 791EmpI.Ret.lnc.
`D 220 Forccloaire
`Secuiity Act D 230 Rem Lease & Eiectmant
`I 443 Hoiia'ng/Aocanunodztions
`CI 240 Tort to Lomi
`I 950 Ooiistitiitioriality or State
`CI 245 Tort Product Liability
`I 440 ouror Civil Rights
`I 390 Other Statutory Actions
`D 290 All oiirerizooi Property
`
`VI. ORIGIN (PLACE AN X IN ONE BOX ONLY)
`
`
`
`
`26 USC 7609
`
`U7 Appeal to District Judge from
`NI Original Proceeding D2 Removal from U 3 Remanded from Appelate U4 Reinstated or B5 Transferred from
`Magistrate Judgment
`State Conn
`Court
`Reopened
`another district (specify)
`- k YES nly if demanded in complaint:
`DEMAND $
`.
`VII. REQUESTED IN
`D CHECK IF THIS is A CLASS ACTION
`COMPLAINT:
`Amount acpordlng tqproqf
`.
`D
`at timl Prhmm In unction J” Y DEMA '33
`IX YES
`NO
`UNDER I-I’-C-I1 23
`.
`vm.REL A o CASE 5 IF A v ees ructlons ; N/A
`JUDGE
`no
`_1,
`o
`I
`1
`DATE
`SIGNATURE or ATTORNEY OF RECORD
`
`[36 Multidistrict
`
`ligation
`
`‘.
`
`::ODMA\PCDOCS\WORDPERFEC'I\228l6\1 January24,
`
`B IT A w
`
`
`
`
`(C) ATTORNEYS (FIRM NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE N I
`William L Miltner, Esq. / SBN 139097
`Lise] M Ferguson, Esq. ISBN 207637
`Perkins & Miltner; LLP
`Sym bony Towers
`750 Street, Suite 2800
`San Diego, CA92101
`II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (PLACE AN X IN ONE BOX ONLY)
`I:IIU.S. Government Plaintiff
`m3Federal Question
`(U_S_ Govmment Nam Pam,
`
`
`
`
`-
`
`«
`=
`
`ATTORNEYS (IF KNO NI
`'1
`
`. M —- 8 2902
`
`_
`.
`.imic'roun'r
`_.
`. 5 Q -‘L ‘
`3'-7 II’
`I’ 5" ‘ I CIALEI,’
`For Diversity Cases 053%)’
`. ororwwm>r«WW’””"”'
`"
`_
`.
`_
`Citizen of This State
`
`‘.
`
`I
`I
`
`I II
`
`II
`II
`
`I
`;
`.
`I
`
`E,
`
`'”
`
`_
`
`’
`
`

`
`
` i
`.
`_
`Gum
`\‘
`
`William L. Miltner, Esq. / SBN 139097
`Lisel M. Ferguson, Esq./ SBN 207637
`PERKINS & MILTNER, LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`Symphony Towers
`750 B Street, Suite 2800
`V San Diego, California 92101
`Telephone (619) 615-5333
`Telefax (619) 615-5334
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff AURA RESEARCH, LTD
`
`cL.em<.u.s.msrmcTc Foam
`ssoumaam oxsrmcr o5 CALI EU-f\4?'%
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`_, 8 9 5.9;’
`
`(Swift)
`
`Case
`
`) %
`
`)
`
`AURA RESEARCH, LTD., a New Jersey
`Corporation,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V
`
`COMPLAINT FOR:
`(1) UNFAIR COMPETITION UNDER LANHAM
`ACT 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), Et Seq.;
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF;
`(2)
`(3) UNFAIR COMPETITION AND
`TRADENAME INFRINGEMENT
`CALIFORNIA Bvslmgss Am)
`PROFESSIONS CODE § 17790
`(4) FALSE LIGHT;
`(5)
`INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH
`ECONOMIC RELATIONS;
`(5) NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE WITH
`ECONOMIC RELATIONS?
`(7)
`INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH
`CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS; and
`(3) NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE WITH
`
`CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS
`
`[JURY TRIAL REQUESTED PER F.R.C.P. 38]
`
`3 )
`
`\/\./\/\/M
`
`Defendants.
`
`-
`SHISEIDO-IBC JV COMPANY, LLC, 21)
`Delaware Corporation; SHISEIDO)
`COSMETICS (AMERICA) LTD., a New)
`York Corporation; SHISEIDO AMERICA, )
`INC.,
`a New York Corporation; THE)
`LIMITED STORES INC.,
`a Delaware)
`Corporation; THE LIMITED,
`INC., a)
`Delaware Corporation,
`INTIMATE)
`]é§r§){£2{OngORPORATION’ 3 Delaware)
`
`V.
`
`PlaintiffAURA RESEARCH (hereinafler referred to as "Plaintiff" or "AURA") alleges as
`
`follows:
`
`‘,_,_
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`1.
`
`This action arises under the Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), Et Seq., and related
`
`claims. Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction of this civil action under and by virtue of 28
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a) and l338(b), and pursuant to the doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction.
`
`\\\
`
`I
`
`.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`.
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`VENUE
`
`2.
`
`Venue in this action properly lies in the Southern District of California under 28
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1391 and l400(a) as Defendants’ have places of business, and offices located in the
`
`Southern District of California. Further, Defendants’ will derive significant income from
`
`advertisement and sales to the public within this judicial district which relate to the infringement
`
`claims at issue herein.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`3.
`
`PlaintiffAURA is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a New Jersey corporation
`
`duly authorized to conduct business in the State of California with its principal place of business
`
`in the City of San Diego, Countyiof San Diego, State of California.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendant
`
`SHISEIDO—IBC IV COMPANY, LLC, and at times herein mentioned was, a corporation duly
`
`organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware.
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendant
`
`SHISEIDO COSMETICS (AMERICA) LTD. is a corporation duly organized and existing under
`
`and by virtue of the laws of the State ofNew York and duly authorized to conduct business in the
`
`State of California.
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendant
`
`SHISEIDO COSMETICS, LTD. is a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue
`
`of the laws of the State of New York and duly authorized to conduct business in the State of
`
`California.
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendant THE
`
`LIMITED STORES INC. is a corporation duly organized andexisting under and by virtue of the.
`
`laws of the State of Delaware and duly authorized to conduct business in the State of California.
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendant THE
`
`LIMITED INC. is a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue ofthe laws ofthe
`
`State of Delaware
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendant
`
`KO00\lO\U!-I}/L»)I0
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`2
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`
`
`
`INTIMATE BEAUTY CQRPORATION is a corporation duly organized and existing under and
`
`by virtue of the laws ofthe State ofDelaware and duly authorized to conduct business in the State
`
`of California.
`
`BACKGROUND FACTS
`
`10.
`
`Since 1992, AURA has produced and sold personal skin care products under the
`
`name of Aura Research.
`
`‘
`
`1 1.
`
`The skin care products marketed by AURA under the name Aura Research include
`
`among other items cleanser for the face, cream for the body, cream for the eyes, cream for the face,
`
`cream for the hands, exfoliators for the skin, facial masks, massage oil, sun bock, skin toners and
`
`emulsion formulas for the skin.
`
`12.
`
`AURA produces these high-end skin care products for sale to beauty salons, skin
`
`care clinics, and medical doctors these products are in turn sold to the general public through these
`
`businesses.
`
`13.
`
`AURA sells its skin care products under the name “Aura Research” throughout the
`
`United States and in many Countries abroad, including Asia, Europe, and the Middle East.
`
`AURA’s customers associate the name Aura Research with AURA’s skin care products.
`
`14.
`
`AURA’s products are thought to be superior to the skin care products sold directly
`
`through retail stores and are sought out by the consumer.
`
`i
`
`15.
`
`AURA’s products are marketed and sold throughout the world. Further, AURA
`
`markets its products on the Internet at its web site “auraresearch.com”, -giving Defendants access
`
`to AURA’s work.
`
`16.
`
`Defendants are launching ajoint venture to promote a new line ofproducts marketed
`
`under the name Aura Science.
`A
`M»:
`17.
`Defendants have applied to the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`(“USPTO”) for the registration ofthe marks “Aura Science” and “Aura Science Laboratories”. A
`
`printout showing the status ofthese registrations is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, and made a part
`
`hereof by this reference.
`
`18.
`
`AURA is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants
`
`3
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`
`
`
`knowingly and willfully are_ using AURA’s common law trade name to market the exact same type
`
`of skin care products sold by AURA.
`
`\OOO\lO\UI-|>l»->l\)
`
`19.
`AURA is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants are
`attempting to pass their products off as if they are AURA’s in a manner calculated to deceive
`
`AURA’s customers and members of the general public, in that Defendants have copied AURA’s
`
`trade name in an effort to make Defendant’s infiinging products confusingly similar to AURA’s.
`
`20.
`
`The natural, probable and foreseeable result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct will
`
`be to deprive, and it will continue to deprive, AURA of the benefits of selling AURA’s products,
`
`to deprive AURA of good will, and to injure AURA’s relations with present and prospective
`
`10
`
`customers.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`13
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`21.
`AURA is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that it will lose
`substantial revenues from Defendants’ use ofthe name “Aura Science” to market and sell skin care
`products. The sale of skin care products under the name “Aura Science” will damage AURA’s
`
`reputation and sales. Defendant’s wrongful conduct will also deprived AURA of opportunities for
`
`expanding its goodwill.
`
`22.
`
`AURA has made demand on Defendants to cease and desist using the name “Aura
`
`Science”, but Defendants have refused and continue to use this trade name in spite of AURA’s
`
`demands and will continue to use the name unless enjoined by this court. A copy ofsaid demand
`
`is attached hereto as Exhibit “B”, and made a part hereof by this reference.
`
`23.
`
`AURA is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that unless enjoined by
`
`this Court, Defendant intends to continue its course of conduct and to wrongfully use, infiringe
`
`upon, sell and otherwise profit from AURA’s trade name.
`
`24.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of the actsalleged above, AURA will suffer.
`
`irreparable damage and lost profits. AURA has no adequate remedy at law to redress all ofthese
`
`injuries that Defendants have caused and intends to cause with its conduct. AURA will continue
`
`to suffer irreparable damage and sustain loss ofprofits until Defendant’s actions alleged above are
`
`enjoined by this Court.
`
`25.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of the acts alleged above, AURA seeks ‘damages
`
`.
`
`A
`
`.
`
`V
`
`I 4
`COMPLAINT
`
`~
`
`

`
`
`
`to compensate it for the loss of profits that Defendants have caused.
`
`.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Unfair Competition Under Lanham Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 1114 and 1125(a)])
`
`26.
`AURA incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 25 herein above as though
`the same were set forth in full herein.
`
`27.
`
`AURA develops and markets high quality skin care products under the name “Aura
`
`Research”. These products are marketed world wide.
`
`28.
`
`Defendants are launching a new line of skin care products entitled Aura Science.
`
`Defendants are filrther attempting to register the trademarks “Aura Science” and “Aura Science
`
`Laboratories”. The products which will be sold by Defendants will confiise and deceive the public
`into thinking that the products sold by Defendants are Plaintiffs products.
`
`29.
`
`Defendants have placed the Infringing Products in interstate commerce. Defendants
`
`have published advertisements for the Infringing Products throughout the world.
`
`30.
`
`As a result of Defendants’s acts, AURA will suffer harm as it did not and will not
`
`benefit from the sale ofDefendants products. The potential poor quality ofthe products produced
`
`and advertisements designed for these products may be far below AURA’s standards which could
`
`reflect negatively on AURA’s products, thus harming AURA’s business reputation.
`
`31.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’s unlawful conduct AURA will be
`
`damaged, and is thus entitled to relief in an amount to be determined according to proof at the time
`
`\D00\lO\U1-I>~b.>I\>
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`oftrial.
`
`1
`
`tr
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Injunctive Relief Under Laham Act [15 U.S.C. § 1 116])
`
`32.
`
`Plaintiffincorporates by reference paragraphs Lthrough 31 herein above as though_
`
`the same were set forth in full herein.
`
`1
`
`33.
`
`AURA is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges,
`
`that Defendants
`
`knowingly and willfully copied and are using AURA’s trade name. AURA is further informed and
`
`believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants copied the trade name for the specific purposes
`
`of infringing upon AURA’s trade name and falsely designating AURA’s products as its own.
`
`5
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`
`
`
`p-1
`
`3xo'oo\Ioxuu.s>.wt\>
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`‘14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`217
`
`18
`
`19
`
`S20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`34.
`
`AURA has see advertisements and articles published by Defendants’ which
`
`advertise and discuss Defendants’ launching a new product line entitled “Aura Science”.
`
`3 5.
`
`Defendants are attempting to register trademarks for the names “Aura Science” and
`
`“Aura Science Laboratories” with the USPTO.
`
`36.
`
`Unless enjoined by this Court, Defendants intends to and will continue its course
`
`ofconduct and to wrongfiilly advertise, use, infiinge upon, sell and otherwise profit from AURA’s
`
`trade name. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of Defendants, AURA will suffer
`irreparable damage and will sustain lost profits. AURA will lose.the benefit ofthe advertisinglandi
`
`good will for which Plaintiffhas spent large sums ofmoney for the last ten years, and Plaintiffwill
`
`also lose large sums of money in diverted business.
`
`37.
`
`AURA has no adequate remedy at law to address all of the injuries Defendants has
`
`caused, and intends to cause by its conduct. AURA will suffer irreparable damage and sustain loss
`
`of profits until Defendants’s actions alleged herein are enjoined by this Court.
`
`THRID CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Unfair Competition and Tradename Infringement
`California Business and Professions Code § 17790)
`
`«
`
`38.
`
`AURA incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 37 herein above as
`
`though the same were set forth in full herein.
`
`39.
`
`This is a cause of action under California state law pursuant to the Business and
`
`Professions Code § 17790.-
`
`40. While continuously using the tradename Aura Research in the United States for
`
`ten years since 1992, Plaintiff has built up valuable good will in this tradename and it has come
`
`to be associated exclusively with Plaintiff's business by the public generally throughout the
`
`United States and internationally.
`
`41.
`
`At all times herein mentioned, Defendant had actual knowledge of the existence
`
`of AURA as a domestic corporation existing under the laws of New Jersey and registered to do
`
`business in the state of Califomia. Further, AURA has had its product line Aura Research
`
`publically on the internet since 1999 on a web site with the address of “auraresearch.com”.
`
`6
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`
`
`
`y-I
`
`E->‘\DOO\)O\Ln.J>Lnl\)
`
`7.4 ,-L
`
`iv-—t IQ
`
`)-I U)
`
`—I -P
`
`r-I Eh
`
`H-| ON
`
`r-— ‘J
`
`r-a 00
`
`:--I KO
`
`[0 O
`
`E) v-A
`
`(Q{Q
`
`[QU.)
`
`[Q4?-
`
`(0 Us
`
`[0O\
`
`[Q \l
`
`l\JO0
`
`42.
`
`Defendant’s product line “Aura Science” is deceptively similar to AURA’s
`
`product line Aura Research. The use of this deceptively similar name of “Aura Science”, by
`
`Defendant’s, tends, has tended and will continue to tend to cause the public, perspective
`customers, creditors suppliers and others to confuse AURA with Defendant and vice versa.
`
`AURA has made demand on Defendants’ to cease and desist using the name “Aura Science”,
`
`but Defendant’shave continued to use the despite AURA’s demand and will continue to use the
`
`name unless enjoined by this court.
`
`‘A copy of said demand is attached hereto as Exhibit “B”,
`
`and made a part hereof by this reference.
`
`43.
`
`Plaintiff is the original user and owner of the tradename “Aura Research” for
`
`skin care products and the name has definitely acquired, in the minds of the public, a secondary
`
`meaning apart from its primary and generic significance, and has become a distinctive
`
`tradename denoting to the eye and mind. of the public, care, skill, industry, reliability, and
`individuality resulting in a reputation for excellence and high quality throughout the United
`State and internationally. Due to such reputation and public awareness, AURA has established
`
`considerable goodwill in connection with the tradename Aura Research.
`
`44.
`
`Defendants’ are engaged in the skin care and beauty business. Defendants’
`
`tradename for their new product line is substantially similar to. that of AURA, and Defendants’
`
`use of that name create a likelihood that AURA’s current customers, potential customers, and
`
`the public generally will be confused or mislead as to the source of goods or service _in it they
`are likely to believe that Defendants’ business is identical to or affiliated with that ofPlaintiff.
`
`Defendants’ conduct amounts to unfair competition prohibited by the Califomia Business and
`
`Professions Code.
`
`45.
`
`Defendants threaten to, and unless restrained will, continue to use the tradename.
`
`“Aura Science”, as a result of which the public generally will be mislead and deceived into
`
`believing that Defendants’ business is identical or affiliated with that of Plaintiff, all to the
`
`irreparable injury of AURA’s business and goodwill and to the unjust enrichment of Defendant.
`
`Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law in that it is extremely difficu-lt to ascertain the amount
`
`of damages proximately cause to AURA’s business and goodwill.
`
`
`7
`.
`
`COMPLAIN
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`(False Light)
`
`46.
`
`AURA incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 45 herein above as
`
`though the same were set forth in full herein.
`
`47.
`
`AURA is dedicated to preparing high—end skin care products for sale to its
`
`customers.
`
`48.
`
`The Defendants’ product line entitled “Aura Science”will deceive the public into
`
`thinking the product they are purchasing is actually sold by AURA. Through their use of
`
`AURA’s trade name, Defendants have offended AURA’s business reputation, effectively
`limiting its business opportunities with potential clients.
`
`49.
`
`A reasonable business person or potential client would identify Defendants’
`
`products with AURA’s long established and developed line of products. The potentially
`unprofessional and low quality products sold by Defendants will make it appear as though
`AURA is inattentive to high duality standards and thus produced a poor quality product.
`Persons using these products would think little of AURA’s ability to produce a quality product.
`
`Such a result is highly offensive to a reasonable business person and, as a result, both AURA’s
`
`professional reputation and business opportunities were and will be diminished.
`50.
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’s unlawful conduct AURA will
`
`be damaged, and is thus entitled to relief in an amount to be determined according to proof at
`
`;_A
`
`S\OOO\lO’\UI-l>U)l\~J
`
`;.a pa
`
`r-— I\3
`
`)-3‘ U.)
`
`)-d -¥>
`
`1--\ LI’!
`
`r—- O'\
`
`r--4 \)
`
`v--- 00
`
`u-d \D
`
`I\.)C)
`
`the time of trial.
`
`l\J v—a
`
`K9K9
`
`l\) (.0
`
`N-P
`
`l\J£11
`
`K\)O‘\
`
`(Q\I
`
`51.
`
`Defendants’s conduct described herein was done with a conscious disregard of
`
`AURA’s rights and with an intent to vex, injure, or annoy AURA, such as to constitute
`
`oppression, fiaud, and malice under California Civil Code § 21294, entitling AURA to punitive
`
`damages in an amount appropriate to punish or set an example of Defendants.
`
`FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage)
`
`52.
`
`AURA incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 51 herein above as though
`
`I0 00
`
`\\\
`
`8
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`
`
`
`the same were set forth in full herein.
`
`53.
`
`AURA produces high-end skin care products which it markets to beauty salons, skin
`
`care clinics, and medical doctors. AURA’s products are well developed and researched and come
`highly recommended. AURA has agreements with its clients to sell its products to consumers.
`54.
`AURA is informed and believes that from the time that AURA began doing
`business, and through the present, Defendants have known that AURA was engaged in the business
`
`of selling skin care products world wide. Defendants also had knowledge of the terms and
`
`conditions of the contracts between AURA and its clients.
`
`5 5 .
`
`Despite said knowledge, Defendants has maliciously and wrongfully obstructed and _
`
`interfered with AURA’ s business relationships with its customers by convincing them to take their
`
`business to Defendants, while using AURA’s trade name thereby limiting the opportunities AURA
`
`has with its clients in the past, present and future.
`
`56.
`
`AURA derives much of its income from repeat business from its clients. Once a
`
`customer starts to use AURA’s product line they generally continue to use AURA’s products for
`
`A all oftheir skin care needs. AURA reasonably relies on this return business for much ofits income.
`
`AURA’s ability to earn the overhead and profit generated by these relationships was and will be
`
`directly affected by Defendants’s interference with AURA’s clients.
`
`57.
`
`As a direct and proximate result ofDefendants’s unlawfiil conduct, AURA will be
`
`damaged, and is thus entitled to reliefin an amount to be determined according to proofat the time
`
`of trial.
`
`58.
`
`Defendants’s conduct described herein was done with a conscious disregard of
`
`AURA’s right and with an intent to vex, injure, or annoy AURA, such as to constitute oppression,
`
`fraud, and malice under ‘California Civil Code § 3294 entit1ing»_AURA to punitive damages in an.
`
`amount appropriate to punish or set an example of Defendants.
`
`SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage)
`
`AURA incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 58 herein above as though
`59.
`the same were set forth in full herein.
`
`9
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`60.
`
`AURA produces high-end skin care products which it markets to beauty salons, skin
`
`care clinics, and medical doctors. AURA’s products are well developed and researched and come
`
`highly recommended. AURA has contracts with its clients to sell its products to consumers.
`61.
`AURA derives much of its income from repeat business from its clients. Once a
`
`consumer starts to use AURA’s products they generally continue to buy these skin care products
`
`in the future. AURA reasonably relies on this return business for much of its income. AURA’s
`
`ability to earn the overhead and profit generated by these relationships will be directly affected by
`Defendants’s interference with AURA’s clients.
`A
`
`62.
`
`From the time that AURA began doing business, and through the -present,
`
`Defendants has known that AURA was engaged in the business ofselling skin care products world
`
`wide, to a varied clientele. Defendants also had knowledge of the terms and conditions of the
`
`contracts between AURA and its clients.
`
`63.
`
`Despite said knowledge, Defendants negligently obstructed and interfered with
`
`AURA’s right to conduct business, and the overhead and profit generated thereby, thus affecting
`
`AURA’s ability to successfully operate its business.
`
`64.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’s unlawfiil conduct AURA will be
`
`damaged, and is thus entitled to reliefin an amount to be determined according to proofat the time
`
`of trial.
`
`SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Intentional Interference With Contractual Relations)
`
`AURA incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 64 herein above as though
`65.
`the same were set forth in full herein.
`I
`
`began doing business, and through the present,.
`From the time that
`66.
`Defendants has known that AURA was engaged in the business ofselling skin care products world
`
`wide, to a varied clientele.
`
`67.
`
`Defendants also had knowledge ofthe tenns and conditions ofthe contracts between
`
`AURA and its clients. Despite said knowledge, Defendants has obstructed and interfered with
`
`AURA’s right to perform and enforce the terms ofthe contracts, and earn the overhead and profit
`
`10
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`
`
`
`generated thereby, thus affecting AURA’s ability to successfully operate its business.
`
`68.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’s unlawful conduct AURA will be
`
`damaged, and is thus entitled to relief in an amount to be determined according to proof at the time
`
`of trial.
`
`69.
`
`Defendants’s conduct described herein was done with a conscious disregard of
`
`AURA’s right and with an intent to vex, injure, or annoy AURA, such as to constitute oppression,
`
`fraud, and malice under California Civil Code § 3294, entitling AURA to punitive damages in an
`
`amount appropriate to punish or set an example of Defendants.
`
`EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Negligent Interference With Contractual Relations)
`
`70.
`
`AURA incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 69 herein above as though
`
`the same were set forth in full herein.
`
`71 .
`
`AURA produces high—end skin care products which it markets to beauty salons, skin
`
`care clinics, and medical doctors. AURA’s products are well developed and researched and come
`
`highly recommended. AURA innovatively derives new skin care products, to develop unique and
`
`distinct products.
`
`72.
`
`AURA derives much of its income from repeat business from its clients. Once a
`
`consumer starts using AURA’s products they generally continue to use these products for years.
`
`AURA reasonably relies on this return business for much of its income. AURA’s ability to earn
`
`the overhead and profit generated by these relationships was directly affected by Defendants’s
`interference with AURA’s clients.
`
`73.
`
`Defendants have knowledge of the means by which AURA’s conducts business.
`
`Defendants is aware that AURA has a client base for whom it sells and develops skin care_
`
`products. Defendants’ sale of skin care products with a confusingly similar name to AURA’s
`
`negligently obstructs and interferes with AURA’s right to conduct its business, and the overhead
`
`and profit generated thereby, thus affecting AURA’s ability to successfully operate its business.
`
`74.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’s unlawful conduct, AURA will be
`
`damaged, and is thus entitled to reliefin an amount to be determined according to proof at the time
`
`11
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`©\DOOQO\UI4§~UJl\)
`
`v-A
`
`p.—¢
`
`p.—A
`
`:--t B)
`
`r—l DJ
`
`>—I 4:-
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`20
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, AURA prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as
`
`follows:
`
`ON THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`For actual damages according to proof at trial;
`
`For damages for lost profits and good will in a sum according to proof at trial
`
`pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1125;
`
`3.
`
`For attorney’s fees for wrongful willful and deliberate action under 217 U.S.C. §
`
`1051, et seq.;
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`For costs of suit incurred herein; and
`
`For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
`
`ON THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION:
`
`1.
`
`That Defendants, its agents, servants, officers, directors, employees,
`
`representatives and each of them, be enjoined during the pendency of this action and
`
`permanently thereafter from using the trade name “Aura Science” in any manner, and from the
`
`following activities:
`
`a)
`
`Soliciting and/or selling skin care products by the name of Aura or Aura
`
`Science; and
`
`i
`
`b)
`
`Publishing or distributing advertisements or articles using the term Aura
`
`or Aura Science.
`
`ON THE THIRD THROUGH EIGHTH CAUSES OF ACTION:
`
`For general and special damages in a sum according to proof at trial;
`
`For an award of damages equal to the profit realized from Defendants’s conduct,
`
`For prejudgment interest thereon according to law;
`
`For punitive damages pursuant to Civil Code § 3294;
`
`For costs of suit incurred herein; and
`
`12
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`
`
`
`6.
`
`For suc