PTO Form 1930 (Rev 9/2007)
`
`OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp. 05/31/2014)
`
`Request for Reconsideration after Final Action
`
`The table below presents the data as entered.
`
`Input Field
`
`Entered
`
`SERIAL NUMBER
`
`79124764
`
`LAW OFFICE
`ASSIGNED
`
`LAW OFFICE 108
`
`MARK SECTION (no change)
`
`ARGUMENT(S)
`
`Applicant requests reconsideration of this application for the purpose of suspending further
`action on the application.(cid:160) As grounds for this request, Applicant states that an action currently
`is pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, case number
`is 1:14-cv-213, between PureData, LLC, the owner of the four marks cited against this
`application, and Applicant arising out of and concerning Applicant’s right to use the IBM
`PUREDATA mark that is the subject of the application(cid:160) More specifically, PureData, relying on
`Reg. No. 3,311,693 (one of the marks cited against this application), alleges that Applicant’s
`use of the IBM PUREDATA mark is likely to cause confusion and constitutes (cid:160)infringement of
`PureData, LLC's rights under Section 32 of the Lanham Act, false designation of origin under
`Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, and related grounds (the "Action").(cid:160) Among other relief,
`PureData, LLC seeks an injunction prohibiting all use of the mark by Applicant.(cid:160) A copy of the
`complaint and civil cover sheet is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`If judgment is entered in favor of PureData, LLC on its trademark infringement or false
`designation of origin claims in the Civil Action, that would necessarily mean that the
`Examiner's citation of Reg. No. 3,311,693 is correct and should be maintained.(cid:160) Furthermore, if
`the Court grants PureData, LLC an injunction barring Applicant’s use of the mark, Applicant
`could be barred from further prosecuting this application and would be prevented from
`maintaining any registration resulting from this application.(cid:160) As stated in Section 716.02(d) of
`the TMEP, "If the examining attorney believes the proceeding may result in a decision that
`supports a refusal of registration of the applicant’s mark," the application should be
`suspended.(cid:160) Therefore this application should be suspended.
`
`In addition, any findings of the Court on the claim of likelihood of confusion will either be
`dispositive of or will have a material effect on whether the citations of the Examiner can be
`overcome.
`
`Thus, since the Action may be dispositive in determining the outcome of Applicant's further
`prosecution of this application, this application should be suspended pending the outcome of
`the Action.
`
`EVIDENCE SECTION
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)EVIDENCE FILE NAME(S)
`
`

`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)ORIGINAL PDF
`FILE
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)CONVERTED PDF
`FILE(S)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(13 pages)
`
`evi_631381729-173648169_._F1413123.PDF
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\247\79124764\xml11\RFR0002.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\247\79124764\xml11\RFR0003.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\247\79124764\xml11\RFR0004.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\247\79124764\xml11\RFR0005.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\247\79124764\xml11\RFR0006.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\247\79124764\xml11\RFR0007.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\247\79124764\xml11\RFR0008.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\247\79124764\xml11\RFR0009.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\247\79124764\xml11\RFR0010.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\247\79124764\xml11\RFR0011.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\247\79124764\xml11\RFR0012.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\247\79124764\xml11\RFR0013.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\247\79124764\xml11\RFR0014.JPG
`
`DESCRIPTION OF
`EVIDENCE FILE
`
`Exhibit A as referenced in the Argument Section.
`
`ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS SECTION
`
`PRIOR
`REGISTRATION(S)
`
`The applicant claims ownership of U.S. Registration Number(s) 2643755,
`4181289, 4266226, and others.
`
`SIGNATURE SECTION
`
`RESPONSE
`SIGNATURE
`
`/RAB/
`
`SIGNATORY'S NAME
`
`Robert A. Becker
`
`SIGNATORY'S
`POSITION
`
`Attorney for Applicant, Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, P.C., New York State
`Bar Member
`
`SIGNATORY'S PHONE
`NUMBER
`
`212-813-5900
`
`DATE SIGNED
`
`AUTHORIZED
`SIGNATORY
`
`CONCURRENT
`APPEAL NOTICE
`FILED
`
`03/14/2014
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`
`FILING INFORMATION SECTION
`
`SUBMIT DATE
`
`Fri Mar 14 18:10:44 EDT 2014
`
`TEAS STAMP
`
`USPTO/RFR-63.138.172.9-20
`140314181044612497-791247
`64-5002fa85a8dbea635417c7
`4b28ff29ac475a431e565c88c
`63fc2f245e9663b4cd83-N/A-
`N/A-20140314180937805739
`
`PTO Form 1930 (Rev 9/2007)
`
`OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp. 05/31/2014)
`
`Request for Reconsideration after Final Action
`To the Commissioner for Trademarks:
`
`Application serial no. 79124764 has been amended as follows:
`
`ARGUMENT(S)
`In response to the substantive refusal(s), please note the following:
`
`Applicant requests reconsideration of this application for the purpose of suspending further
`action on the application.(cid:160) As grounds for this request, Applicant states that an action currently is
`pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, case number is
`1:14-cv-213, between PureData, LLC, the owner of the four marks cited against this application,
`and Applicant arising out of and concerning Applicant’s right to use the IBM PUREDATA mark
`that is the subject of the application(cid:160) More specifically, PureData, relying on Reg. No. 3,311,693
`(one of the marks cited against this application), alleges that Applicant’s use of the IBM
`PUREDATA mark is likely to cause confusion and constitutes (cid:160)infringement of PureData, LLC's
`rights under Section 32 of the Lanham Act, false designation of origin under Section 43(a) of the
`Lanham Act, and related grounds (the "Action").(cid:160) Among other relief, PureData, LLC seeks an
`injunction prohibiting all use of the mark by Applicant.(cid:160) A copy of the complaint and civil cover
`sheet is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`If judgment is entered in favor of PureData, LLC on its trademark infringement or false
`designation of origin claims in the Civil Action, that would necessarily mean that the Examiner's
`citation of Reg. No. 3,311,693 is correct and should be maintained.(cid:160) Furthermore, if the Court
`grants PureData, LLC an injunction barring Applicant’s use of the mark, Applicant could be
`barred from further prosecuting this application and would be prevented from maintaining any
`registration resulting from this application.(cid:160) As stated in Section 716.02(d) of the TMEP, "If the
`examining attorney believes the proceeding may result in a decision that supports a refusal of
`registration of the applicant’s mark," the application should be suspended.(cid:160) Therefore this
`application should be suspended.
`
`In addition, any findings of the Court on the claim of likelihood of confusion will either be
`
`

`
`dispositive of or will have a material effect on whether the citations of the Examiner can be
`overcome.
`
`Thus, since the Action may be dispositive in determining the outcome of Applicant's further
`prosecution of this application, this application should be suspended pending the outcome of the
`Action.
`
`EVIDENCE
`Evidence in the nature of Exhibit A as referenced in the Argument Section. has been attached.
`Original PDF file:
`evi_631381729-173648169_._F1413123.PDF
`Converted PDF file(s) (13 pages)
`Evidence-1
`Evidence-2
`Evidence-3
`Evidence-4
`Evidence-5
`Evidence-6
`Evidence-7
`Evidence-8
`Evidence-9
`Evidence-10
`Evidence-11
`Evidence-12
`Evidence-13
`
`ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
`Claim of Prior Registration(s)
`The applicant claims ownership of U.S. Registration Number(s) 2643755, 4181289, 4266226, and others.
`
`SIGNATURE(S)
`Request for Reconsideration Signature
`Signature: /RAB/(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)Date: 03/14/2014
`Signatory's Name: Robert A. Becker
`Signatory's Position: Attorney for Applicant, Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, P.C., New York State Bar
`Member
`
`Signatory's Phone Number: 212-813-5900
`
`The signatory has confirmed that he/she is an attorney who is a member in good standing of the bar of the
`highest court of a U.S. state, which includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and other federal
`territories and possessions; and he/she is currently the applicant's attorney or an associate thereof; and to
`the best of his/her knowledge, if prior to his/her appointment another U.S. attorney or a Canadian
`attorney/agent not currently associated with his/her company/firm previously represented the applicant in
`this matter: (1) the applicant has filed or is concurrently filing a signed revocation of or substitute power
`of attorney with the USPTO; (2) the USPTO has granted the request of the prior representative to
`withdraw; (3) the applicant has filed a power of attorney appointing him/her in this matter; or (4) the
`
`

`
`applicant's appointed U.S. attorney or Canadian attorney/agent has filed a power of attorney appointing
`him/her as an associate attorney in this matter.
`
`The applicant is filing a Notice of Appeal in conjunction with this Request for Reconsideration.
`
`Serial Number: 79124764
`Internet Transmission Date: Fri Mar 14 18:10:44 EDT 2014
`TEAS Stamp: USPTO/RFR-63.138.172.9-20140314181044612
`497-79124764-5002fa85a8dbea635417c74b28f
`f29ac475a431e565c88c63fc2f245e9663b4cd83
`-N/A-N/A-20140314180937805739
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-00213-“RHB Doc #1 Filed 03105114 Page 1 of 91% |pé1R
`/
`9:30AM
`“Gama” GSTRICTooufif
`DISTRICT
`MITCHELL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, PLLC
`”M"m
`BY.
`‘--——~_.
`
`JAMES A. MITCHELL
`
`BY;_lnll:I
`
`T-—"-'—-—_._
`
`\
`
`*
`
`BRUCE KANUCH (of Counsel)
`1595 Galbraith Avenue SE
`PO Box 68330
`
`Grand Rapids, Michigan 49516
`616/965-2430
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`1 :14-cv-213
`Robert Holme 3 ;
`u.s. District J:dgee'
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`
`PUREDATA, LLC
`
`Case No.:
`
`COMPLAINT AND
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
`CORPORATION
`
`Defendant.
`
`.g\_Igr\_/g/gm-I~.tgI\_r\_/sag/\.I»r\g
`
`NOW COMES Plaintiff, PureData, LLC (hereinafter “PlaintifP’), as and for its Complaint
`
`against the Defendant, International Business Machines Corporation, alleges as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff is a limited liability company of the state of Michigan having a principal
`
`place ofbusiness in Vicksburg, Michigan.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff is in the business of designing and developing computer hardware and
`
`software. For many years, Plaintiffhas enjoyed the reputation of excellence.
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`I2
`
`13
`
`l4
`
`l5
`
`l6
`
`I7
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`I0{II
`
`COMPLAINT - I
`
`

`
`Case 1:14—cv-00213-RHB Doc #1 Filed 03/05/14 Page 2 of 9 Page ID#2
`
`3.
`
`Defendant, IBM is a computer hardware and software supplier doing business
`
`throughout the United States and internationally, and has a place of business in Armonk, New
`
`York.
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`4.
`
`This is a civil action for trade name and trademark infringement and for false
`
`designation of origin arising under the trademark laws of the United States and jurisdiction is
`
`conferred upon this Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1121, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 133801) and (b),
`
`and by the principles of pendant jurisdiction.
`
`VENUE
`
`I2
`
`l3
`
`l4
`
`15
`
`I6
`
`17
`
`I8
`
`19
`
`I06
`
`ha?I\JhihiIi.)U0-59-5IO-
`
`Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 139l(b).
`
`PLAINTII‘-‘F’S TRADEMARK
`
`6.
`
`On or about February 2004, Plaintiff began using PUREDATA as its name and
`
`trademark in the design and development of computer hardware and software.
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff has obtained federal
`
`registration for
`
`its PUREDATA trademark,
`
`Registration No. 3,311,693. (Ex. A attached hereto).
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiffs U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3,311,693 has become incontestable.
`
`ACTS or INFRINGEMENT BY DEFENDANT
`
`9.
`
`Defendant has begun using the n-ademark “PUREDATA" on an integrated
`
`computer hardware and software product. An example of Defendant’s “PUREDATA”
`
`promotional materials is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`10.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant has been and continue to use the term
`
`“PUREDATA” in connection with the promotion and sale of its products.
`
`COMPLAINT - 2
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv—O0213-RHB Doc #1 Filed 03/05/14 Page 3 of 9 Page lD#3
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff believes Defendant must have known of Plaintiffs prior use of the
`
`“PUREDATA” trademark, and accordingly believes Plaintifi’s infringement to be willful.
`
`LIKELIIIOOD or Comrusron mo ACTUAL CONFUSION
`
`12.
`
`There has been actual confusion in this case of the reverse confusion type which
`
`was the subject of Big 0 Tire Dealers in Big 0 Tire v. Gooafvear, 561 F. 2d 1365 00"‘ Cir 1977).
`
`13.
`
`A customer of Plaintiff thought Plaintiff was a part of IBM, based on seeing
`
`IBM’s use of Plaintiff’ s “PUREDATA" trademark.
`
`14.
`
`There is a likelihood of confusion between IBM's use of the “PUREDATA”
`
`trademark, and Plaintiffs prior use of the “PUREDATA" trademark.
`
`15.
`
`Customers dissatisfied with Defendant’s “PUREDATA” products are likely to
`
`associate that dissatisfaction with Plaintiff.
`
`Counr I
`
`FALSE DESIGNATION or ORIGIN
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1-15 above by reference into
`
`this Count as if fully repeated herein.
`
`17.
`
`Defendant's aforesaid acts are likely to cause confi1sion or mistake or to deceive
`
`as to the affiliation, connection, or association of Defendant or their PUREDATA products with
`
`Plaintiff or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of the PUREDATA product by Plaintiff in
`
`that purchasers or others are likely to believe that the PUREDATA product is Plaintiffs product
`
`or the product of a company legitimately connected with, approved by, or related to Plaintiff.
`
`18.
`
`Defendant’s aforesaid use of the term “PUREDATA” constitutes a false
`
`designation of origin and/or a false or misleading description of fact or representation in
`
`25
`
`violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act of the United States, 15 U.S.C. § ll25(a).
`
`COMPLAINT - 3
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-00213-RHB Doc #1 Filed 03/05/14 Page 4 of 9 Page |D#4
`
`19.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s aforesaid activities, Plaintiff has and continues to
`
`suffer both damages and irreparable harm.
`
`COUNTH
`
`INFRINGEMENT on U.S. TRADEMARK
`
`REGISTRATION No. 3,31 1,693
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`I5
`
`[6
`
`17
`
`I8
`
`19
`
`20.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1-15 above by reference into
`
`this Count as if fully repeated herein.
`
`21.
`
`Defendanfs use of the term “PUREDATA” in connection with the advertising,
`
`promotion, and sale of its products is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, and/or to
`
`deceive as to the actual source or origin of such products.
`
`22.
`
`Such acts comprise infringement of Plaintiffs trademark rights in violation of 15
`
`U.S.C. § 1114.
`
`23.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s aforesaid activities, Plaintiff has and continues to
`
`suffer damages and irreparable harm.
`
`COUNTIII
`
`COMMON LAW TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
`
`24.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1-15 above by reference into
`
`this Count as if fiilly repeated herein.
`
`25.
`
`Defendant has
`
`infiinged upon the trademark rights of Plaintiff through
`
`Defendant’s use of the term “PUREDATA” as a trademark in connection with its products.
`
`26.
`
`Such acts by Defendant are likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive as
`
`to the affiliation, connection, or association of Defendant or its PUREDATA product with
`
`P1aintifl' or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of the PUREDATA product by Plaintiff, in
`
`COMPLAINT - 4
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-00213-RHB Doc #1 Filed 03/05/14 Page 5 of 9 Page ID#5
`
`I
`
`that purchasers or others are likely to believe that the PUREDATA product is Plaintiffs product
`
`or the product of a company legitimately connected with, approved by, or related to Plaintiff.
`
`27.
`
`Such acts comprise a violation under the common law of the State of Michigan
`
`and under the laws of various other states.
`
`28.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s aforesaid activities, Plaintiff has and continues to
`
`suffer monetary damages and irreparable harm and has no adequate remedy at law.
`
`COUNT IV
`
`(Michigan Consumer Protection Act)
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-15.
`
`Defendant, without authorization from Plaintiff, has used and are continuing to
`
`use spurious designations that are identical to, or substantially indistinguishable fi'om,
`
`the
`
`Plaintiffs Mark.
`
`31.
`
`The foregoing acts of Defendant is likely to continue to cause confusion, mistake,
`
`and deception among consumers, the public, and the trade as to whether Defendant’s Infringing
`
`Products originate fi'om, or are affiliated with, sponsored by, or endorsed by Plaintiff.
`
`32.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants have acted with knowledge of Plaintiffs
`
`ownership of the “PUR.EDATA" trademark with deliberate intention or Willfill blindness as to
`
`Plaintiffs prior rights.
`
`33.
`
`Defendant’s activities violate Michigan’s Consumer Protection Act, which
`
`prohibits counterfeiting, trademark and trade dress infringement, and similar activities which
`
`deceive consumers as to the source, quality, or origin of goods. Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.903(1)
`
`(a-c, e).
`
`34.
`
`Defendants’ acts have damaged and will continue to damage Plaintiff.
`
`COMPLAINT - 5
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-CV-00213-RHB DOC #1 Filed 03/05/14 Page 6 of 9 Page |D#6
`
`COUNT V
`
`COMMON LAW UNFAIR COMPETITION AND MISAPPROPRIATION
`
`35.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1-15 above by reference into
`
`this Count as if fiilly repeated herein.
`
`36.
`
`The aforesaid acts of Defendant constitute unfair competition and misappropri-
`
`ation under the common law of the state of Michigan and under the laws of various other states.
`
`37.
`
`As a result Defendant’s activities, Plaintiff has and continues to suffer monetary
`
`damages and irreparable harm.
`
`COUNT VI
`
`UNJUST ENRICI-IMENT
`
`38.
`
`Plaintiff‘ incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1-15 above by reference into
`
`this Count as if fully repeated herein.
`
`39.
`
`Defendant’s aforesaid acts have caused Defendant to be unjustly enriched at the
`
`expense of Plaintiff in violation of the common laws of the state of Michigan and various other
`
`states.
`
`40.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s aforementioned activities, Defendant should be
`
`required to make restitution to Plaintiff of or for the benefits unjustly received, retained, or
`
`appreciated by Defendant.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WI-IEREFORE, Plaintiff prays and demands judgment as follows:
`
`A.
`
`That Defendant and its agents, employees, previous successors, and assigns and
`
`all persons in active concert or participation with them who received actual notice or knowledge
`
`COMPLAINT - 6
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-CV-00213-RHB DOC #1 Filed 03/05l14 Page 7 of 9 Page |D#7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`of this injunction by personal service or otherwise be enjoined and restrained preliminarily and
`
`permanently:
`
`from further exploiting, manufacturing, advertising, distributing,
`selling, offering for sale, moving, shipping, sampling, or pro-
`moting any product using “PUREDATA” or any business name
`which infringes on Plaintiffs trade name and trademark rights in
`“PUREDATA" or any name that is a simulation, reproduction,
`counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of Plaintiffs distinctive
`trade name;
`
`from further exploiting, manufacturing, advertising, distributing,
`selling, offering for sale, moving, shipping, sampling, or pro-
`moting any product using “PUREDA'I‘A" as a trademark or any
`other trademark which infringes on Plaintiffs trademark rights in
`“PUREDATA,” or any term that is a simulation, reproduction,
`counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of Plaintiffs distinctive
`trademarks;
`
`from further unlawfully trading upon and misappropriating the
`goodwill and reputation of Plaintiff and competing unfairly with
`Plaintiff; and
`
`from adducing, encouraging, aiding, abetting, or contributing to
`any ofthe aforesaid acts;
`
`B.
`
`That Defendant file with the Court and serve on Plaintiff in accordance with 15
`
`U.S.C. § 1116 within thirty (30) days after service of such injunction (or such extended period as
`
`the Court may direct) a report in writing and under oath setting forth in detail the manner and
`
`form in which Defendant have complied with the injunction;
`
`C.
`
`That, in accordance with 15 U.S.C. § 1118, Defendant deliver up to Plaintiff, at
`
`Defendant’s expense, for destruction or other disposition, all products, including without limita-
`
`tion, all of its products, and other materials bearing or displaying a trademark confusingly similar
`
`to the trademarks of Plaintiff or which otherwise violate Section 43 of the Lanham Act (15
`
`U.S.C. § 1125(a)) in the possession, custody, or control of Defendant, as well as any
`
`COMPLAINT - 7
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-00213-RHB Doc #1 Filed 03/05/14 Page 8 of 9 Page ID#8
`
`reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation thereof and all plates, molds, matrices,
`
`masters, or other materials or means of making the same;
`
`D.
`
`That Defendant be required to account and pay over to Plaintiff all gains, profits,
`
`and advantages derived from its violation of Section 43 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1114
`
`and 1l25(a)), and by reason of its acts of unfair competition and its unjust enrichment, and, in
`
`addition, pay to Plaintiff the damages which Plaintiff has sustained by reason thereof, together
`
`with legal interest from the date of accrual thereof;
`
`E.
`
`That Defendant be required to account and pay over to Plaintiff an amount of
`
`money equal to twenty-five percent (25%) of all monies spent by Defendant in promoting,
`
`advertising and marketing the “PUREDATA” trademark.
`
`F.
`
`That because of the willful nature of said violations and pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1117, the Court enter judgment for Plaintiff for three times the amount of said damages;
`
`G.
`
`That because of the willful and deliberate nature of Defendant’s acts and the
`
`willfiil disregard for the rights of Plaintiii
`
`the Court assess exemplary damages against
`
`Defendant in an amount to be determined;
`
`H.
`
`That Plaintiff be awarded its reasonable attorney fees under 15 U.S.C. § 1117 and
`
`the costs and disbursements of its action; and
`
`I.
`
`That Plaintiff be awarded such other and further relief as this Court deems just
`
`and proper.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`COMPLAINT - 8
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-00213-RHB Doc #1 Filed 03/05/14 Page 9 of 9 Page |D#9
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues in this action.
`
`Respectfially submitted,
`
`MITCHELL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, PLLC
`
`S A. MITCHEL
`1595 Galbraith Avenue .SE
`PO Box 68330
`
`Grand Rapids, Michigan 49516
`616/965-2430
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`Attorneysjbr Plaintzfi‘
`
`Of counsel:
`BRUCE KANUCH
`
`Mitchell Intellectual Property Law, PLLC
`1404 Harwood Court
`
`Midland, Michigan 48640
`616/965-2436
`
`COMPLAINT - 9
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-00213-RHB Doc #1-1 Filed 03/05/14 Page 1 of 1 Page |D#10
`
`Int. CL: 42
`
`Prior U.S. CIs.: 100 and 101
`United State Patent and Trademark Office
`
`Reg. No. 3,311,693
`Registend Oct. 15, 2007
`
`SERVICE MARK
`PRINCIPAL REGISTER
`
`crucm LIMIT LlABI-
`puruamm, LLC
`LHY CORPORA ON)
`10645 S 27111 STREET
`vmcsnuna, MI 49097
`
`FOR: cusmm DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT
`or COMPUTER HARDWAREAND sonwanmm
`cuss 42 (us. cm. 100 AND I01).
`
`-n-ua MARK oousrsrs or STANDARD cam-
`AC1'ERSWlTHOUT CLAIM T0 ANYPARTICIJIAR
`FONT. snruz, sma, on COLOR.
`
`_
`5ER'N°' 7°'“"”3' "LED1'7 ms‘
`
`fingf USE 20,2004: [N Cohmmnca 2,o_;m¢_
`
`EDWARD NELSON, EXAMINING ATTORNEY
`
`

`
`'3“ P"*=°**3¥*'*"' "i""‘*”'t'5‘<itSl="1'="_‘i_=.'1l$“l‘,°\I-00213-RHB Doc #1-2 Filed 03/05/14 Page 1 of 1 Page lD#11
`
`PureDal
`if|
`..t'iilfi
`
`i;i‘.riv;.tié iiji L.);:raii.-.-‘
`
`As today's big data challenges increase. the demands on data systems have
`never been greater. PureDate"' System. the newest member of the
`Puresystems family, is optimized exclusively for delivering data services to
`today's demanding applications with simplicity. speed 8: lower cost.
`
`The PureData System Virtual Briefing Center provides detailed information
`about each model -- optimized for transaotloni and analytics workloads. View
`deep diva webcasts for each model. download the latest white papers. analyst
`reports and datasheets. and watch recent customer testimonial: to help further
`your understanding of the value of the PureData System.
`
`Featured Webcastar
`
`Welcome to Pnrenata System
`Virtual Briefing center.
`
`click on Register Now to
`View all weheeet and content
`rotated to Puredele.
`
`
`Accelerate Big Beta Analytics
`with Pureliata System
`BeslItar_l:louL
`optimize Data services with IBM
`Pureliata system for
`Transactions
`Blfllltarfiniill
`
`ii E
`
`"NEW" - Advancing the Business case for letter Real-
`tlme Operational Analytics in Your Organization:
`Speaker: Anthony Dasari, Program Diredor. Product Management.
`IBM Puresystems
`Accelerate Big Beta Analytics with IBM Purenate System
`for Analytics:
`Speaker: Phil Francisco. Vice President. PureData System Product
`Management 8. Product Marketing
`Accelerate Big Beta Analytics with IBM Purielieta system
`lor operational Analytics:
`speaker: Dr. Jon Lind. lniosphere Warehouse Product Manager
`Optimize Data. Services with IIM Purellata System for
`Transactions:
`Speakemnthony Dasari. Program Director. Product Management, IBM
`Puresystems
`
`Event Registration
`
`”'T5"eTii'rt‘r’7e‘g’lstrad’"371?plFa7s3'énTe_r‘yBtir 'déT:TI§ i:IeI‘u“w"a?nTi GT3? Qfifftié.
`
`FAG |contsctUI |0heclt Compatibility [Support | IBM
`.
`;
`
`.» .%....,.. Cornunlty W Medlammregetor
`
`httpe:/Iengsge.veventoomlindex.jsp?eid-556&seid=4'l432[l2f12f20i3 I0: l3:26 AM]
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-00213-RHB Doc #1-3 Filed 03/05/14 Page 1 of 1 fa e ID#12
`CIVIL COVER SHEET
`M mm. mm
`' 4‘°V-21 3
`Thcisflcivilwverslueeluldfllahfumafioneuluiudheleinneilherre
`not
`cululllhl:
`'
`provllind
`I_ol:aIn.llcsoI'_coIn1.11liIt'nnIl.
`ed
`lhahldiuill
`llofih: nilnllslnlnsin
`purpose
`uulinlinn lira czvil dncleel sheet.
`mm
`0NN£fl‘PAGEOFflIBMMM
`I. (ll) PLAINTIFFS
`DEFENDANTS
`
`-———__
`
`PUREDATA. LLC
`
`(Ii) Counly ofRmidenne ofFirsl. Listgd Plaintiff
`(EXCEPTIN U3. PDIINTIFF CASES)
`
`(C) Mi9m¢!I5(F1fllhhIl.Ad‘hur.nIn'I'nfipbanNrmb¢a)
`James A. Mitchell. Milehell Intellectual Property Law, PLLC
`1595 Gaihrailh Avenue SE, Gland Rapids. MI 49546
`616/965-2430
`ll. BASIS OF JURISDICTION(Wacuur "X"1nOneBaxonly)
`D 1 us. Gwunmcnl
`U 3 Fcdail Qllcslion
`P||l'fl||'fl'
`(US. Gown-nmenr Na: :1 Parry)
`
`“‘———._
`INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES coRPo§'K1T6T~l’ ”‘
`
`County of Residence of First Lislzd Dcftrldlml W§tg]]§§jg[
`(IN US. FLIINTIFF CASH ONLY)
`NOTE:
`IN’ LAND CONDEMNATIDN CASES. USE THE LOCATION OF
`THE 'I'R.M.'I' OF LAND INVOLVED.
`
`vi
`
`(IIK
`Alta
`Leononlizlcyli-iloiclizw
`North Castle Drive
`Armonk, NY 10504-1785
`III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Plan:an "X"InOneBarjélrPia.-mgr
`(Fur Diversity case: only
`undone flarfilr Defendant)
`rrr
`DEF
`l"['I'
`nar
`I I
`O I
`El 4
`
`Ciliull ofThis Slate
`
`lncnrpnmad an-I>n'm:ipnI Plan:
`ofBlninun In This Sluts
`
`0 2
`
`lI.S. Gflvefllment
`Defaldnnt
`
`D 4 Divcruily
`fllldloare Cilizenrhqp a_/‘Parties in mm JIJ9
`
`Ciliun ui'A|mdl:rSInle
`
`D 2
`
`I 2
`
`Cilizenorsubjactnfl
`F .
`
`DJ
`
`U 3
`
`Innnrplrrulni andPriIII:'pnI ‘Plus:
`nffluaines In Anolhcr Sm:
`FoI'ciylNu1iml
`
`D 5
`
`D S
`
`U 6 U6
`
`I I0 insurlnnc
`III
`cl lzll Marin:
`D I30 Millsr Act
`D 140 Nllgofilblc lnslrul-nun
`
`PERSONAL INJURY
`cl 3lOAir|l|lm=
`Cl JIS Airplnne Pruducl
`Liability
`Slnndcr
`D an Fuderal Enlplq-:11‘
`Lilbilily
`0 I51 Recovery oibelilrllad
`D 340 Marin:
`Slullent Louis
`U 345 Marin: Product
`(fitcllnks VEIHIIII)
`Linbilily
`0 I51 Recovery nfOv:rpIy1'nuII
`D 350 Mou:lrVeIlic|:
`nI'Vna-an‘: Bcncfils
`U 355 MountVehicle
`U I60 SlncIii1.n|fl€I' SIIILI
`Pfodulll Lilllilily
`U 190 OIIIE Conn-In
`0 I95 Cdninln Pruchlfi Lilbility U 350 Olhar Pfllonll
`In :95 Franchise
`Injury
`‘
`Mediulhial nice
`
`5 Lu ' -1;: '_
`0 III} Lind Culldamltilln
`El 220 I-‘uruclosllm
`U 130 Remlslu &Ej:cIm:nl.
`El :40 Ton: la Luna!
`El 245 Ton. Prudlwl Liability
`U 290 Ml UIIIHKGIJ Plupcny
`
`Hllleu Cllrplll:
`CI 440 Other Civil
`D 463 Alizn Detainee
`CI HI Vlllillfl
`D 5|Il Molina: In Vial:
`U 442 Emplnymult
`Sullwlca
`0 443 Housing!
`D 53!! Gzmrll
`Amnmrnodnlious
`U ‘H5 Amllr. w'/Di.IAiIiIill'l'.l- D 535 Dell: I':n1IIy
`Enlployman
`Other:
`D 446 Alllcf. wIDiubi|I'|is- D 140 Mnndunus & Other
`D 550 Civil
`U 555 Prison Condilion
`U 560 Civil Delinea-
`Candilinna nI'
`Confinanuul
`
`PERSONAL INJURY
`cl 365 Pa-Ionnl Irgilu-y .
`PrulInctI.iIbi|il.y
`El 367 Hullh Card
`Plnrmunlllical
`Persnnlll Injury
`Frodllcl Liahilily
`El 366 Asllcstns Psrsonni
`Iqiury Pmriullt
`Liability
`PERSONAL l'IlOl'I:Il‘fl’ [I no Fnir I..ubur Sundnrlla
`D 370 Olllcr Fr|.I.IlI
`Ac!
`D 31] Tmlh in Lending
`El 710 L|borIM|nqguIl
`D 330 C||Il:r Panlmnl
`Rcinlinnl
`Pmpnny Danny:
`U 740Rllilwly Llbnr Act
`El 355 Plupctly Damian
`D 75: Family -ml Medical
`Product Linbilily
`" '
`'
`
`El 625 Drug Relupd Saizun:
`
`'
`
`inlilm Appliuliulll
`El 465 Olhcr Imnaigrilinn
`Aclinnl
`
`D 315 Fluke Clninu An
`El 40!! Sum Rumoniunmml
`D H0 Anlilruu
`13 USC I57
`D 430 Bank: and Banking
`lT:IiT¢'!Tl'I'f:" L'I‘-IT"! 8- Cl 450 Colmnuue
`Cl 460 Dapnn-lion
`cl 470 nxelmu I-flu:-cad and
`Co-ruin Ora-nu‘:-fin-=
`O 480 Cunnallln Credit
`-.‘.'ITIi NW‘?-.TiJ_:Tfi'— D 490 cmusu TV
`El asn S-=curiIicxICom|nod.itiaI
`cl sol I-IIA (1395fi)
`0 362 Bllck Lung (91!)
`Erdnng:
`D 863 DIWCJDIWW (40513))
`D I90 OIIIH-Sumlnly Anion:
`D 864 SBID Till: XVI
`D I91 AyI'zII||uI'a| mm
`U 865 RSI (4|I5(g))
`U 393 Ellvilolllllflilll Miller:
`CI 595 F-eeclum oflnrmmnliun
`56!-
`U 596A.r|:li|lll:iIln
`;I;_*_';;!Z .. I Z! I; 1 I it El 899 Adminimmw Pmuudure
`0 I70 Tun (U5. PIIirI\ifl'
`Alnlksviclv or Appell clf
`orDefuld.I.ul.)
`Ansley Duiiinll
`CI I7] IRS—TIIirdPuny
`D 950 Cnulinminnnlily of
`26 use 7609
`Sluts Shmtcs
`
`V. ORIGIN (Plan: an "X" in On: Bar Onbd
`fl 1 Original
`El 2 Removed fiom
`El 3 Remanded fi'0|II
`Pmuceding
`Stale Courl
`Appellate Court
`IIIGU.5.CiViIS
`Ci
`IIIIBIWIIIEII
`lifuscsac. “"1
`VI. CAUSE OI-‘ACTION am .
`.
`
`D 4 Reinslaled or
`Cl 5 Trllllfelrell Rom
`Reopencd
`Anadlar Dislrict
`fir
`-‘N3
`$'n't°sl:é'i§$E"o3":imuon’'"'law'”"
`"M"
`
`El 6 M_ll_ltid_istri:i
`Litigation
`
`l£'l'l'|U'JI
`
`VH. REQUESTED IN
`COMPLAINT:
`VIIL RELATED CASE(S)
`
`0 CHECK IF THIS Is A cuss ACTION
`UNDER RULE 23, I-'.R.Cv.P.
`
`DEMAND s
`
`CHECK was only ifdemunlled in complaint:
`Junv DEMAND:
`21 ‘Ins
`E] No
`
`'5"”"'""""""""'
`
`Docla-:r NUMBER
`
`APPLYING IFP