throbber
TTAB
`
`TRADEMARK
`DOCKET NO. 24782
`
`Peter M. de Jonge
`Nathan S. Winesett
`
`THORPE NORTH & WESTERN, LLP
`8180 South 700 East, Suite 350
`Sandy, Utah 84070
`Telephone: (801) 566-6633
`Facsimile: (801) 566-0750
`
`Attomeys for Clearbra Franchising, LLC
`Opposed Mark: CLEARBRA
`U.S. Trademark Application Serial No.: 78/578,240
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`Clearbra Franchising, LLC
`
`Opposer,
`
`v.
`
`Opposition No. 91/168,010
`
`Jonathan A. Tolson
`
`Applicant.
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S SUBMISSION OF CIVIL PLEADINGS
`
`Opposer, Clearbra Franchising, LLC (hereinafter “Opposer”), by and through its
`
`counsel, hereby submits a copy of the Complaint filed in Case No. 2:06-CV-00439-TS-
`
`BCW in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, in connection with
`
`Opposer’s Motion to Suspend Proceedings, which was requested by the Board’s ruling of
`
`August 10, 2006 and due by August 30, 2006. Please note that no Answer to the
`
`Complaint has been filed.
`
`U.S. Pu."
`
`oa-25-zoos
`ta TMOfcI‘I'M Mail Flam D1. #72
`
`

`
`DATEDthis 99" dayof Q?“ i
`
`,2006.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`eter M. de Jonge
`Nathan S. Winesett
`
`Attorneys for Opposer
`
`THORPE NORTH & WESTERN LLP
`
`8180 South 700 East, Suite 350
`Sandy, Utah 84070
`Telephone: (801)566-6633
`Facsimile: (801) 566-0750
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
`
`was served upon Applicant by depositing a copy of the same with the United States Post
`
`Office as first class mail, postage prepaid, in an envelope addressed to:
`
`DONNA M.D. THOMAS
`
`ASTRACHAN, GUNST & THOMAS, PC.
`217 E. REDWOOD STREET, 21“ FL.
`BALTIMORE, MD 212202
`
`on this 23 day of/_’%g1§ Vi’
`
`, 2006.
`
`

`
`.59 in UNITED STATES DISTRICT
`CIVIL COVER SHEET
`W4 W ‘"04’
`I ti.
`l
`h
`d in 'iformation contained herein neither re lace nor su plement the filing and senjicc ofplea
`t"h
`J5; 44 ‘ "I
`§)fi$tli$q rgfiitfif
`aw. except as provide:
`wiocal rucli-\slol:'iiii‘L:ri1si Ti1iiirt|'orm'.:tilpproved by the Judicial Conference OIPIIIB United States in September 1974, is required or he use o tie
`cr
`0
`curt or the purpose ofinttiattnt
`lie Civil docket sheet.
`(SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM‘)
`__
`L(fi
`PLAHWHFFS
`" ' : ”“
`DEFENDANTS
`CLEARBRA FRANCHISING, LLC
`CLEARBRA, lNqA lB§E|MflEfipGLfiflKOBERT W.
`CROUCH.
`BY
`PU
`CL-ER
`.
`.
`.
`I I
`
`fiarford
`County ol'Restdencc ofFirst Ltstc
`efendant
`(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
`IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE
`LAND INVOLVED.
`
`salt Lake COW“
`(b) County ofRcsidence of First Listed Plaintiff
`(EXCEPT IN U_S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
`
`NOTE:
`
`_
`
`(C) Attorney's (Firm Name, Address. and Telephone Number)
`See attached
`
`Attorneys (if K"°“11I
`
`ll. BASIS OF J URISDICTION (Place an “X" in One Box Only)
`J l
`U.S. Goveinnient
`E 3 Federal Question
`Plaintiff
`(US. Govemment Not a Party)
`
`J 2
`
`U_S. Gavennnent
`D“°'“"‘”'
`
`C] 4 Diversity
`(indicate Citizenship of Parties in llctn Ill)
`
`I". CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES(Place an "X" in One Box for Plaintif
`(For Diversity Cases Only)
`and One Box for Defendant)
`PTF
`DEF
`A
`FTF
`DEF
`Citizen of This Slate
`I3 I
`Incorporated or Principal Place
`U 4 U 4
`U l
`of Business In This State
`Incorporated crm.t'Principal Place
`°fB”‘i“°“ 1" "”‘°"'" 5””
`
`Citizen ofAnother State
`
`CI 2
`
`D 2
`
`I3 5
`
`CI
`
`5
`
`Citizen or Subject ofa
`Forci
`:1 Country
`
`D 3
`
`Cl
`
`3
`
`Foreign Nation
`
`Cl
`
`6
`
`I3 6
`
`NATURE OF SUIT
` Place an “X" in One Box Onlv
`coxrtmcr
`
`
`
`I-'ORFEl'l‘URE.’PENALTY
`OTHER ST.«\TUTES
`
`
`Cl
`U 400 State Reapponionment
`PERSONAL l.'\'.lL'R\’
`tiI0 Agriculture
`PERSONAL INJURY
`'l
`I I0 lusuraiice
`
`Cl 4l0Antitrust
`362 Personal Injury -
`CI 620 Other Food & Drug
`CI
`CI 3l0 Airplane
`3 i120 Marine
`
`CI 430 Banks and Banking
`Med. Malpractice
`U 625 Drug Related Seizure
`U 315 Airplane Product
`3 I30 Miller Act
`Cl 450 Commerce
`0 365 Personal injury -
`of Property 2l USC 33!
`Liability
`'_l 140 Negotiable lnstruincnt
`0 460 Deportation
`Product Liability
`CI 630 Liquor Laws
`CI
`320 Assault, Libel dc
`3 I50 Recovery ofOverpayment
`U 470 Racketeer Influenced and
`U 363 Asbestos Personal
`Cl 640 RR. Jr Truck
`Slander
`&. Enforcernent ofludgttient
`Corrupt Organizations
`injury Product
`0 650 Airline Regs.
`Cl
`330 Federal Employers‘
`‘J 15! Medicare Act
`D 480 Consumer Credit
`Liability
`U 660 Occupational
`Liability
`3 [52 Recovery ofDefaulted
`D 490 Cablei'Sat TV
`PERSONAL PROPERTY
`Saf'ctyr'Health
`[3 340 Marine
`Student Loans
`CI SID Selective Service
`CI 370 Other Fraud
`0 690 Other
`U 345 Marine Product
`(Excl. Veterans)
`U 850 Secttrt'tiesiCommodities’
`I3 3?] Truth in Lending
`Liability
`3 I53 Recovery ofOverpayment
`Exchange
`El Sol HIA ([3951?)
`D 380 Other Personal
`0 710 Fair Labor Standards
`CI 350 Motor Vehicle
`of Veteran's Bcnefrts
`U 875 Customer Challenge
`U 862 Black Lung (923)
`Property Damage
`Act
`355 Motor Vehicle
`CI
`','l 160 Stockholders‘ Suits
`12 USC 3410
`Cl 863 DIWC/DIWW (-105(3))
`CI 335 Property Damage
`0 720 Labor.’Mgmt. Relations
`Product Liability
`3 I90 Other Contract
`U 890 Other Statutory Actions
`Product Liability
`D 730 LaborI‘Mgmt.Repor1ing U 864 SSED Title XVI
`Cl 360 Other Personal
`3 I95 Contract Prcitluct Liability
`D 39! Agricultural Acts
`CI 865 RSI 405(
`8.: Disclosure Act
`lniu
`3 I96 Franclusc
`CI 592 Economic Stabilization Act
`REAL PROPERH‘ -i Ct 140 Railway Labor Act
`
`Cl 893 Environmental Matters
`I3 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
`3 N0 Land Condemnation
`U 441 Voting
`D 790 Other Labor Litigation
`CI 510 Motions to Vacate
`CI 894 Energy Allocation Act
`3 220 Foreclosure
`Cl 442 Employment
`Sentence
`[3 791 Empl. Rel, Inc.
`or Defendant)
`CI 895 Freedom oflnforrnation
`3 230 Rent Lease Jr Ejectmcnt
`CI 443 Housing]
`Habeus Corpus:
`Security Act
`CI 37] lRS—Thircl Pany
`Act
`'
`'0 Torts to Land
`Accommodations
`CI 530 General
`26 USC 7609
`CI 9OOAppeaI ofFee Detcnninalio
`5 Tort Product Liability
`13
`4-54 Welfare
`D 535 Death Penalty
`Under Equal Access
`3 1'90 All Other Real Property
`D 445 Amer. wlDisal:iilities - U 540 Mandamus & Other
`to Juslicg
`Employment
`CI 550 Civil Rights
`El 950 Constitutionality of
`CI 446 Amer. w.l‘Disabilities - D 555 Prison Condition
`
`State Statutes
`Olhflf
`CI 440 Other Civil Rights
`
`V. ORIGIN '
`(Placean"X"in OneBoxOnly]
`T
`r
`d f
`.J‘\};(iipea:_to District
`9'
`Original
`D 2 Removed from
`D 3 Remanded from
`another district
`06 Multidistrict U 7 Magistrate
`U 4 Reinstatcd or D 5
`u
`e rom
`rans erre
`Procecdtn
`State Court
`s
`cit‘
`Jud merit
`A ellate Court
`Reo ened
`Liti ation
`
`
`
`
`
`C11?
`§3r]elt'£l'gt&)(Do not citejurisdictiunal statutes unless diversity):
`
`
`
`VI. CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`
`‘
`_
`_
`Briefdescriptiort o_f_cause:
`_
`_
`_
`_
`_
`trademark lntrtngement, Untatr Lompetttton, trademark Dilution
`
`CHECK YES only itdemanded in complaint:
`[3 CHECK IF THIS IS A cuss ACTION
`DEMAND 5
`UNDER F.R.C.P. 23
`n o t
`l e s s
`t h a n $500 , 0 O 0 JURY DEMAND:
`Qt Yes
`CINO
`(See instructions):
`
`
`
`BANKRUPTCY
`0 422 Appeal 28 USC 138
`
`
`U 423 Withdrawal
`
`28 USC 157
`
`
`
`
`
`Cl 820 Copyrights
`CI 830 Patent
`E 840 Trademark
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`rom
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VII. REQUESTED IN
`COMPLAINT:
`l/lll. RELATED CASE(S)
`IF ANY
`
`JUDGE
` %
`SIGNATURE or ATT
`or REC
`
`DOCKET NUMBER
`
`
`
`JATE
`O6/0 I/2006
`
`ton OFFICE use o.\'r.i'
`
`
`
`RI-ZCElPT#
`
`
`AMOUNT
`APPLYINGIFP
`
`Jud e Ted Stewart
`DEG? TYPE: civil
`DAIE STAHP: 06l01l2006 e 13:32:51
`cass uuuasn:
`2:o6cvoo439
`TS
`
`

`
`FILED lN UNHED STATES
`couar. DISTRICT or t[ll'illF”CT
`
`JUN"? 1. 2505
`EIIARKUS B. ZIMMER, CLERK
`_-_‘D?W17éE=R"'-
`
`Peter M. de Jonge, Utah Bar No. 7185
`Jed Hansen, Utah Bar No. 10,679
`
`THORPE NORTH & WESTERN, L.L.P.
`8180 South 700 East, Suite 350
`
`Sandy, Utah 84070-0562
`Telephone: (801) 566-6633
`Facsimile: (801) 566-0750
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff, Clearbra Franchising, LLC.
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
`
`
`CLEARBRA FRANCHISING, LLC, a Utah
`Limited Liability Corporation,
`Case No.
`
`COMPLAINT VVITH JURY DEMAND
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`CLEARBRA, INC, a Maryland Corporation;
`JONATHAN A.TOLSON, President of
`Clearbra, Inc.; and ROBERT W. CROUCH,
`Officer of Clearbra, Inc.
`
`
` Defendants.
`
`Plaintiff Clearbra Franchising, LLC (hereinafter “Clearbra Franchising”), by and through
`
`its counsel of record, hereby files this Complaint with Jury Demand against Defendants.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Clearbra Franchising complains and alleges as follows:
`
`

`
`PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`1.
`
`Clearbra Franchising is a Utah limited liability corporation with its principal place
`
`ofbusiness at 452 East 500 South, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111.
`
`2.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Clearbra, Inc. (hereinafter “Clearbra”) is
`
`a Maryland corporation having a principal place of business at 306 Forest Valley Drive,
`
`Forest Hill, Maryland, 21050.
`
`3.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Jonathan Tolson (hereinafter “Tolson”) is
`
`president of Clearbra.
`
`4.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Robert W. Crouch (hereinafter “Crouch”)
`
`is an officer ofC1earbra.
`
`5.
`
`Clearbra Franchising brings this action under the Lanham Trademark Act, Title
`
`15, United States Code §l05I, et seq, and various other Utah State and common law
`
`provisions.
`
`6.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§1331, 1338, and 1367.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Venue is proper in thisjudicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §139l.
`
`Upon information and belief, this Court has specific personaljurisdiction over
`
`Defendants as they have had sufficient minimum contacts with the state of Utah and have
`
`purposefully availed themselves ofthe laws ofUtah.
`
`

`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`9.
`
`In June 1994, Mr. Glenn Rogers (hereinafter “Rogers”) pioneered the trademark
`
`CLEARBRA for use in connection with optically clear plastic protective coatings.
`
`10.
`
`Rogers has made continuous use of the CLEARBRA mark from 1994 until
`
`approximately August, 2005.
`
`l I.
`
`Clearbra Franchising executed an agreement with Rogers whereby Rogers
`
`conveyed any and all trademark rights he had in the mark CLEARBRA to Clearbra
`
`Franchising. A copy of said agreement is attached to this complaint as Exhibit A.
`
`12.
`
`Additionally, Mr. Dan Mahfood (hereinafter “Mahl'ood") began using the
`
`CLEARBRA mark in connection with optically clear plastic protective coatings by way
`
`of an agreement with Rogers in 1999 and has made continuous use of the CLEARBRA
`
`mark from 1999 until the present time.
`
`13.
`
`As part of Mahfood's activities he registered the domain name www.clearbra.net
`
`on September 15, 1999. Additionally, Mahfood has operated a website in connection
`
`with that domain name.
`
`14.
`
`As part ofMahfood’s website, he promoted the CLEARBRA mark using a
`
`stylized image ofthe CLEARBRA mark. An example of said image is attached to this
`
`complaint as Exhibit B.
`
`15.
`
`Mahfood also promoted the CLEARBRA mark through various television, radio,
`
`and printed advertisements.
`
`

`
`16.
`
`Clearbra Franchising executed an agreement with Mr. Dan Mahfood whereby
`
`Mahfood conveyed any and all trademark rights he had in the mark CLEARBRA to
`
`C learbra Franchising. A copy of said agreement is attached to this complaint as
`
`Exhibit C.
`
`17.
`
`Accordingly, Clearbra Franchising is the owner of all right, title, and interest in
`
`the mark CLEARBRA for use in connection with optically clear plastic protective
`
`coatings. Said right dates back to at least as early as June, 1994.
`
`18.
`
`Clearbra Franchising is presently in the business of distributing and selling
`
`optically clear plastic protective coatings, for a wide variety of uses, including protection
`
`of automobile surfaces.
`
`l9.
`
`Clearbra Franchising’s methods of product distribution are accomplished
`
`primarily through a network of distributors and dealers that promote and sell
`
`CLEARBRA brand products directly to the consumer. Clearbra Franchising’s marketing
`
`efforts include traditional print advertising, including magazines, handouts, brochures,
`
`other promotionals, and intemet—based advertising.
`
`20.
`
`On or about the summer of 2004, Mr. Brian Alexander (hereinafter “Alexander”)
`
`approached Mahfood regarding an agreement to license the mark CLEARBRA in
`
`connection with optically clear plastic protective coatings. Alexander traveled to Utah
`
`and visited Mahfood’s facility wherein he was given instruction regarding product
`
`specifications and installation procedures and protocols.
`
`

`
`21.
`
`Thereafter, Alexander agreed to license the mark CLEARBRA from Mahfood.
`
`Alexander gave Mahfood a good faith down payment as evidence of said agreement.
`
`22.
`
`Upon information and belief, Alexander was an authorized representative and/or
`
`agent of Defendants Clearbra, Tolson, and Crouch.
`
`23.
`
`Upon information and belief, Alexander, Clearbra, Tolson, and Crouch thereafter
`
`began preparing to operate as licensees of Mahfood.
`
`24.
`
`As part of those activities, Defendants registered domain names and began
`
`developing websites for use in connection with the CLEARBRA mark and associated
`
`products. Specifically Defendants registered the domain name clearbracaliforniacom on
`
`December 8, 2004 and the domain name clearbraonline.com on March 21, 2005.
`
`25.
`
`Upon information and belief, at least as early as February 28, 2005, Defendant
`
`Crouch began operating the website, www.cIearbracalifomia.com wherein he utilized the
`
`CLEARBRA mark in connection with optically clear plastic protective coatings.
`
`26.
`
`Additionally, Defendant Crouch sent e-mail correspondence to Mahfood on
`
`February 28, 2005 regarding how the website, wwwclearbracalifomia.com would
`
`perform.
`
`In that e-mail correspondence, Crouch represented himself as an account
`
`executive for Clearbra. Crouch utilized an exact copy of Mahfood’s CLEARBRA mark
`
`and accompanying logo as part of that correspondence. See e-mail to Mahfood from
`
`Crouch attached to this complaint as Exhibit D.
`
`27.
`
`Alexander also sent e-mail correspondence to Mahfood on February 28, 2005
`
`regarding proposed cost sheets associated with use of the CLEARBRA mark and resell of
`
`5
`
`

`
`the products used in connection with the mark. See e-mail and proposed cost sheet to
`
`Mahfood from Alexander attached as Exhibit E.
`
`28.
`
`Upon infomiation and belief, Tolson and Crouch thereafter chose to disregard
`
`their license agreement with Mahfood. As a result of Tolson and Crouch’s activities,
`
`Alexander disassociated himself with Defendants.
`
`29.
`
`On March 2, 2005, Defendant Tolson filed an intent-to-use application with the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office for the mark CLEARBRA for use in
`
`connection with automotive paint protective urethane film.
`
`30.
`
`Upon information and belief, on March 18, 2005 Defendant Tolson caused
`
`Defendant Clearbra to be registered as a corporation in Maryland. Thereafter, Defendant
`
`Crouch also registered Defendant Clearbra in the state of California as a Maryland
`
`corporation on June 20, 2005.
`
`31.
`
`Defendants are presently in the business of distributing, and/or selling optically
`
`clear plastic protective coatings. As such, Defendants are in direct competition with
`
`Clearbra Franchising.
`
`32.
`
`Defendants are presently making use of the mark CLEARBRA in connection with
`
`their goods and services. A copy of the home page from Defendants’ website
`
`www.clearbraonline.com is attached to this complaint as Exhibit F.
`
`33.
`
`Defendants’ use ofthe CLEARBRA mark is almost an exact duplication of
`
`Plaintiff’s use ofthe CLEARBRA mark.
`
`

`
`34.
`
`In Plaintiff’s intemet advertisements utilizing the mark CLEARBRA, the word
`
`“clear” is colored blue and the word “bra” is colored black. See Plaintiff's webpage
`
`attached as Exhibit B.
`
`35.
`
`Defendants’ intemet advertisements similarly utilize the mark CLEARBRA,
`
`wherein the word “clear" is colored blue and the word “bra” is colored black. See
`
`advertisement from Defendants’ webpage attached to this complaint as Exhibit F.
`
`36.
`
`Moreover, Defendants use a font for the mark CLEARBRA that is identical to
`
`Plaintiffs font in its use ofthe mark CLEARBRA. See Exhibit B and Exhibit F.
`
`37.
`
`Plainti ff’ s use of the mark is underscored by a line which begins black and
`
`gradually becomes clear. See Exhibit B.
`
`38.
`
`Defendants’ use ofthe CLEARBRA mark is similarly underscored by a line
`
`which begins clear and gradually becomes dark blue. See Exhibit F.
`
`39.
`
`Plaintiffs use of the mark is accompanied by the trademark “Clearly The Best
`
`Protection” located directed below and centered below the underscoring noted above.
`
`See Exhibit B.
`
`40.
`
`Defendants’ use of the mark is accompanied by the trademark “It’s Ultimate Paint
`
`Protection” which is located directed below and centered below the underscoring noted
`
`above. See Exhibit F.
`
`41.
`
`Plaintiffs use ofthe CLEARBRA mark utilizes a rock like object bouncing offof
`
`the letter “C” ofthe mark. See Exhibit B.
`
`

`
`42.
`
`Defendants similarly use the CLEARBRA mark wherein a rock like object is
`
`bouncing off ofthe letter “a" ofthe mark. See Exhibit F.
`
`43.
`
`Upon infonnation and belief, Defendant's Tolson and Crouch authorized and
`
`approved use of the trademarks noted in the preceding paragraphs for use in connection
`
`with Defendants’ goods and services.
`
`44.
`
`Defendants’ use of marks identical to and confusingly similar to Clearbra
`
`Franchising’s trademarks, as described herein, is likely to cause significant confusion in
`
`the marketplace.
`
`45.
`
`Defendants’ use ofa mark identical to and confusingly similar to Clearbra
`
`Franchising’s trademark occurred with full and complete knowledge of Clearbra
`
`Franchising’s trademark rights. Accordingly, their infringements are willful and
`
`intentional.
`
`46.
`
`Defendants’ business operations have centered on parroting Clearbra
`
`Franchising’s intellectual property rights in an effort to misappropriate and unfairly
`
`capitalize on Clearbra Franchising’s goodwill in the marketplace.
`
`47.
`
`So long as Defendants continue their unlawful use of Clearbra Franchising’s
`
`trademark, Plaintiffwill continue to suffer irreparable hann that will not be fully
`
`compensable by money damages.
`
`

`
`FIRST CAUSE OF‘ ACTION
`
`[CLEARBRA Trademark Infringement, 15 U.S.C. §]1l4§1 )1
`
`48.
`
`C learbra Franchising hereby incorporates by this reference each and every
`
`allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 47 as if set forth fully herein.
`
`49.
`
`The goods and services manufactured, offered, and sold by the Defendants are
`
`virtually identical to Clearbra Franchising’s goods and services. The mark used by the
`
`Defendants is identical to or a colorable imitation of Clearbra Franchising’s mark.
`
`In
`
`light of Clearbra Franchising’s CLEARBRA trademark, Defendants’ use of the mark
`
`CLEARBRA in connection with its goods and services is likely to cause confusion, or to
`
`cause mistake, or to deceive consumers.
`
`50.
`
`Through the above-referenced activities, Defendants have infringed Clearbra
`
`Franchising’s CLEARBRA mark under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §l 114(1), and under
`
`the common law.
`
`51.
`
`Clearbra Franchising has suffered actual damages as a result of Defendants’
`
`trademark infringement in an amount to be proven at trial. Additionally, the harm to
`
`Clearbra Franchising arising from the acts of Defendants is not fully compensable by
`
`money damages. Clearbra Franchising has suffered, and continues to suffer, irreparable
`
`harm which has no adequate remedy at law and which will continue unless Defendants’
`
`conduct is preliminarily and permanently enjoined under 15 U.S. C. §I 116. Under 15
`
`U.S.C. §l 1 17, Clearbra Franchising is entitled to Defendants’ profits, any damages
`
`sustained by Clearbra Franchising, and the costs of this action.
`
`

`
`52.
`
`Since Defendants had specific knowledge of Clearbra Franchising’s trademark
`
`rights, their continued unauthorized use of Clearbra Franchising’s trademark is willful
`
`and intentional. As a result, Clearbra Franchising is further entitled to treble damages and
`
`an award of attorneys’ fees.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`[IT’S ULTIMATE VEHICLE PROTECTION Trademark Infringement, 15 U.S.C.
`§l I 1411 [1
`
`53.
`
`Clearbra Franchising hereby incorporates by this reference each and every
`
`allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 52 as if set forth fully herein.
`
`54.
`
`The goods and services manufactured, offered, and sold by the Defendants are
`
`virtually identical to Clearbra Franchising’s goods and services. The mark used by the
`
`Defendants is identical to or a colorable imitation of Clearbra Franchising’s mark.
`
`In
`
`light of Clearbra Franchising’s trademark, IT’S ULTIMATE VEHICLE PROTECTION,
`
`Defendants’ use of the mark IT’S ULTIMATE PAINT PROTECTION in connection with
`
`its goods and services is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive
`
`consumers.
`
`55.
`
`Through the above-referenced activities, Defendants have infringed Clearbra
`
`Franchising’s mark under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §l114(1), and under the common
`
`law.
`
`56.
`
`Clearbra Franchising has suffered actual damages as a result of Defendants’
`
`trademark infringement in an amount to be proven at trial. Additionally, the harm to
`
`10
`
`

`
`Clearbra Franchising arising from the acts of Defendants is not fully compensable by
`
`money damages. Clearbra Franchising has suffered, and continues to suffer, irreparable
`
`harm which has no adequate remedy at law and which will continue unless Defendants’
`
`conduct is preliminarily and permanently enjoined under 15 U.S. C. §l1l6. Under 15
`
`U.S.C. §l117, Clearbra Franchising is entitled to Defendants’ profits, any damages
`
`sustained by Clearbra Franchising, and the costs of this action.
`
`57.
`
`Since Defendants had specific knowledge of C learbra Franchising’s trademark
`
`rights, their continued unauthorized use of Clearbra Franchising’s trademark is willful
`
`and intentional. As a result, Clearbra Franchising is further entitled to treble damages and
`
`an award of attorneys’ fees.
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Unfair Competition, 15 U.S.C. §1 125(a)(1)(A))
`
`58.
`
`Clearbra Franchising hereby incorporates by this reference each and every
`
`allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 52 as if set forth fully herein.
`
`59.
`
`Defendants have used in interstate commerce the word marks CLEARBRA, IT’S
`
`ULTIMATE VEHICLE PROTECTION and other similar terms in connection with
`
`optically clear plastic protective coatings. These uses are likely to cause confusion, to
`
`cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, association, origin,
`
`sponsorship, or approval of their goods, services, and commercial activities in light of
`
`Clearbra Franchising’s trademark.
`
`ll
`
`

`
`60.
`
`By engaging in the activities described in this Complaint, Defendants have
`
`engaged in unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. §l l25(a)(l)(A) and under the common
`
`law.
`
`6].
`
`Clearbra Franchising has suffered actual damages as a result ofDefendants’ unfair
`
`competition in an amount to be proven at trial. Additionally, the harm to Clearbra
`
`Franchising arising from Defendants’ acts is not fully eompensable by money damages.
`
`Clearbra Franchising has suffered, and continues to suffer, irreparable harm which has no
`
`adequate remedy at law and which will continue unless Defendants’ conduct is enjoined.
`
`Under 15 U.S.C. §l 1 16, Clearbra Franchising is entitled to a preliminary and permanent
`
`injunction enjoining Defendants’ use ofthe marks CLEARBRA and IT’S ULTIMATE
`
`VEHICLE PROTECTION and confusingly similar variations thereof. Additionally,
`
`Clearbra Franchising is entitled to an award of its damages, the Defendants’ profits, and
`
`the costs ofthe action under 15 U.S.C. §l l 17.
`
`62.
`
`Since Defendants had specific knowledge of Clearbra Franchising’s trademark
`
`rights, their continued use of Clearbra Franchising’s trademarks is willful and intentional.
`
`As a result, Clearbra Franchising is further entitled to treble damages and attorneys’ fees.
`
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Unfair Competition, Utah Code Ann. §13-5a-103 and/or §13-5-14 and Utah Common Law)
`
`63.
`
`Clearbra Franchising hereby incorporates by this reference each and every
`
`allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 57 as if set forth fully herein.
`
`l2
`
`

`
`64.
`
`Defendants have engaged in unfair methods of competition by intentionally using
`
`C learbra Franchising’s mark, and other terms confusingly similar thereto, in connection
`
`with optically clear plastic protective coatings and related materials and services in a
`
`manner that is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the
`
`affiliation, connection, association, origin, sponsorship, or approval of their goods,
`
`services, and commercial activities in light of Clearbra Franchising’s trademark.
`
`65.
`
`Particularly, Defendants have purposely used Clearbra Franchising’s trademarks
`
`in advertising their goods and services in order to confuse and/or deceive consumers as to
`
`the source of the goods and unfairly benefit from Clearbra Franchising’s goodwill.
`
`Defendants have specifically targeted the goodwill associated with Clearbra Franchising’s
`
`trademark and expressly copied its trademark. Clearbra Franchising has been
`
`significantly damaged by these activities in an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`66.
`
`Through these activities, Defendants have engaged in unfair competition under
`
`Utah Code Ann. §l3-53-103 and/or §l 3-5-14 and under Utah common law. Under §13-
`
`5a-103, Clearbra Franchising is entitled to its actual damages, costs and attorneys fees,
`
`and punitive damages.
`
`67.
`
`Under §l3-5-14, Clearbra Franchising is entitled to injunctive relief and the
`
`greater of $2,000 or three times the amount of actual damages sustained plus court costs.
`
`13
`
`

`
`FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Trademark Dilution, 15 U.S.C. §l ]25(c))
`
`68.
`
`Plaintiff hereby incorporates by this reference each and every allegation contained
`
`in paragraphs 1 through 62 as if set forth fully herein.
`
`69.
`
`Due to its long, extensive, and exclusive use by Plaintiff and its wide recognition
`
`in the industry, the CLEARBRA mark has become famous, as that term is used in the
`
`Lanham Trademark Act.
`
`70.
`
`Through the above referenced activities, Defendants have lessened the capacity
`
`of Plaintiff to distinguish it’s products and services from those of others and has diluted
`
`the distinctive quality ofPlaintiff’s marks under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §l l25(c).
`71.
`
`Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer irreparable harm which will
`
`continue unless Defendants’ trademark dilution is enjoined as provided pursuant to 15
`
`U.S.C. §l 125(c)(1).
`
`72.
`
`Despite the fact that Defendants had specific knowledge of Plaintiff’s trademark
`
`rights, they willfully intended to trade on Plaintiffs reputation and cause dilution of
`
`Plaintiff’s famous trademarks. Therefore, Plaintiff is further entitled to an award of its
`
`damages, the Defendants’ profits, and the costs of the action as provided under 15 U.S.C.
`
`§1125(c)(2) and §l 117. Plaintiff has suffered actual damages as a result of Defendant’s
`
`trademark dilution in an amount to be proven at trial. Plaintiff is also entitled to an award
`
`of enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees due to the exceptional nature of the
`
`infringements.
`
`14
`
`

`
`SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Utah Truth in Advertising, Utah Code Ann. §l3-lla-4)
`
`73.
`
`Plaintiff hereby incorporates by this reference each and every allegation
`
`contained in paragraphs 1 through 67 as ifset fonh fully herein.
`
`74.
`
`In the course of Defendants’ business, Defendants have caused a likelihood of
`
`confusion or of misunderstanding as to affiliation, connection, association with, or
`
`certification by Plaintiffs.
`
`75.
`
`Plaintiff has suffered significant harm as a result of Defendants’ business
`
`practices.
`
`76.
`
`Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to an injunction against Defendants for their
`
`deceptive trade practices.
`
`77.
`
`In addition to injunctive relief, Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendants
`
`the amount of actual damages sustained or $2,000 whichever is greater.
`
`78.
`
`Moreover, Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of its attomey’s fees.
`
`WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the court enterjudgment in favor of
`Clearbra Franchising as follows:
`
`15
`
`

`
`B. That the Court enter judgment that Defendants have infringed Clearbra Franchising’s
`
`CLEARBRA trademark under 15 U.S.C. §1 125(a)(1)(A) and the common law.
`
`C. That the Court enter judgment that Defendants have infringed Clearbra Franchising’s
`
`IT’S ULTHVIATE PAINT PROTECTION trademark under 15 U.S.C. §1125(a)(I)(A) and the
`
`common law.
`
`D. That the Court enterjudgment that Defendants have competed unfairly pursuant to 15
`
`U.S.C. §1125(a) and the common law.
`
`E. That the Court enter judgment that Defendants have competed unfairly under Utah
`
`Code Ann. §13~5a-103 and §l3-5-I4 and Utah common law.
`
`F. That the Court enter judgment that Defendants have diluted Clearbra Frai1chising’s
`
`CLEARBRA trademark under 15 U.S.C. §l l25(c).
`
`G. That the Court enter judgment that Defendants have conducted deceptive trade
`
`practices under Utah Code Ann. §13-I la-3.
`
`H. That the Court preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from using Clearbra
`
`Franchising’s marks identified herein and any other marks, word, term, name, symbol, or device
`
`that is confusingly similar to the mark in connection with its goods and services.
`
`I. That Defendants be ordered to file with this Court and serve on Clearbra Franchising
`
`within thirty (30) days after service on Defendants of the injunction granted herein, or such
`
`extended period as the Court may direct, a report in writing, under oath, setting forth in detail the
`
`manner and form in which Defendants have complied with the injunction and order of the Court.
`
`16
`
`

`
`J. That Defendants jointly and severally be ordered to pay damages to Clearbra
`
`Franchising in an amount to be determined by this Court, but not less than $500,000.
`
`K. That Defendants be ordered to pay their profits to Clearbra Franchising in an amount
`
`to be determined by this Court.
`
`L. That Defendants jointly and severally be ordered to pay the costs of this action
`
`pursuant to the Lanham Act.
`
`M. That Defendants jointly and severally be ordered to pay Clearbra Franchising’s
`
`attomeys’ fees for this action pursuant to the Lanham Act.
`
`N. That Defendants jointly and severally be required to pay prejudgment and post-
`
`judgment interest until such awards are paid.
`
`0. That Clearbra Franchising has such other and further relief as shall seem just and
`
`proper to the Court.
`
`Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Clearbra Franchising
`
`hereby demands a jury trial on all claims and issues so triable.
`
`DATED this
`
`[
`
`day of.Iune, 2006.
`
`eter M. de Jonge
`Jed H. Hansen
`
`THORPE NORTH & WESTERN LLP
`8180 South 700 East, Suite 350
`Sandy, Utah 84070-0562
`Telephone: (801) 566-6633
`Facsimile: (801) 566-0750
`
`17
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`
`ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF TRADEMARK AGREEMENT
`
`THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by and between Glen Rogers, individually and
`
`Ricochet Protective Films,
`
`Inc.
`
`(hereinafier collectively referred to as ASSIGNOR), a
`
`corporation existing under the laws Canada, having a former principal place of business in 109
`
`Fisher Street Okotoks, Alberta, Canada, and Clearbra Franchising, LLC., (hereinafier referred
`
`to as “ASSIGNEE”), a limited liability company duly organized and existing under the laws of
`
`the State of Utah, having a principal business office at 452 East 500 South, Salt Lake City, Utah
`
`WHEREAS, ASSIGNOR acknowledges that it has all domestic and international right,
`title and interest under common law, any state, federal and international law, in and to the mark
`
`CLEARBRA (hereinafter referred to as the “Mark”).
`
`WHEREAS, ASSIGNOR desires to transfer all domestic and international right, title and
`interest under common law, any state,
`federal and international
`law,
`in and to the mark
`
`CLEARBRA to ASSIGNEE.
`
`WHEREAS, ASSIGNEE desires to acquire any right, title and interest in and to the
`
`Mark ASSIGNOR may hold in and to the Mark.
`
`IT IS THEREFORE AGREED as follows:
`
`1. . In consideration of fifleen thousand dollars ($15,000) and other
`
`good and valuable consideration paid to the ASSIGNOR by the ASSIGNEE, the receipt and
`
`sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, THE ASSIGNOR HEREBY ASSIGNS TO THE
`
`ASSIGNEE any and all right, title and interest which it may hold in and to the Mark, including,
`
`but not limited to, any existing or future registrations, any rights acquired through common law,
`
`statutory law,
`
`international
`
`law, and/or treaty together with any goodwill of the business
`
`symbolized by and associated with the Mark.
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. 24783
`
`

`
`2. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and
`
`agreement between the Parties and supersedes all prior agreements,
`
`representations or
`
`understandings between the Parties relating to the ownership of the Mark. All preceding
`
`agreements relating to the ownership of the Mark, whether written or oral, are hereb

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket