Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA962162
`
`Filing date:
`
`03/22/2019
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding
`
`91246285
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Defendant
`Arlon Graphics, LLC
`
`KEITH R DENNY
`SOLLERTIS
`PO BOX 5005, PMB #1076, 105 PASEO DELICIAS, SUITE 7
`RANCHO SANTA FE, CA 92067
`UNITED STATES
`kdenny@sollertis.com, dlizerbram@sollertis.com, gcorrea@sollertis.com
`858-771-0081
`
`Motion to Suspend for Civil Action
`
`Giovanni A. Correa
`
`gcorrea@sollertis.com, kdenny@sollertis.com, dlizerbram@sollertis.com
`
`/Giovanni A. Correa/
`
`03/22/2019
`
`Attachments
`
`2019-03-22 Arlon Motion to Suspend.pdf(2030609 bytes )
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
` A.P.A. SPA,
`
`
`
`
`
` ARLON GRAPHICS LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Opposer,
`
`Applicant.
`
`
` Opposition No.: 91246285
` Opposition Filed: February 6, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Mark:
`
`Serial No.: 87390467
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ARLON GRAPHICS LLC’S MOTION TO SUSPEND PROCEEDINGS PENDING
`
`DISPOSITION OF DISTRICT COURT ACTION
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 2.117(a) and TBMP § 510.02(a), Applicant, Arlon Graphics LLC
`
`(“Applicant”), through its undersigned counsel, hereby moves the Board to suspend the above-
`
`referenced proceedings (the “TTAB Proceedings”) pending final disposition of federal district
`
`court case, Arlon Graphics LLC v. A.P.A. S.p.A., Civil Action No. 8:19-cv-00524, filed March
`
`15, 2019, in federal district court for the Central District of California (the “Civil Action”).
`
`Copies of the complaint and civil cover sheet are attached as Exhibit 1.
`
`In the Civil Action Applicant seeks Declaratory Judgement that its use of its mark does
`
`not violate Section 32 or Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, or constitute unfair competition or
`
`trademark infringement under the laws of the United States or under the common law of any
`
`state in the United States. Applicant alleged in the Civil Action that A.P.A. S.p.A. (“Opposer”)
`
`has claimed that Applicant’s use of its mark is likely to cause confusion, and has threatened and
`
`repeatedly implied the threat of legal action against Applicant. Applicant has also alleged that
`
`use of its mark is not likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the
`
`

`

`Opposition No. 91246285
`Serial No. 87390467
`
`
`
`affiliation, connection, or association of Applicant with Opposer or any other person, or as to the
`
`origin, sponsorship, or approval of Applicant’s goods by Opposer or any other person.
`
`When the parties are involved in court proceedings concerning the same marks and
`
`issues, the “standard procedure” of the Board is to suspend its administrative proceedings
`
`pending outcome of the civil litigation. New Orleans Louisiana Saints LLC v. Who Dat? Inc., 99
`
`USPQ2d 1550, 1552 (TTAB 2011) (quoting 6 McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition
`
`§32:47 (5th ed. updated September 2017).) The Civil Action need not even be dispositive of the
`
`Board proceeding to warrant suspension. Rather, it is sufficient that the Civil Action have
`
`bearing on the issues before the Board to justify a suspension. Id.
`
`Here, the Civil Action involves the same parties, the same marks, and the same services
`
`and activities as those at issue in the TTAB Proceedings. Accordingly, the parties and marks in
`
`the TTAB Proceedings and the Civil Action are the same or sufficiently related, such that the
`
`Civil Action will be dispositive of, or at least have a meaningful bearing upon, the issues before
`
`the Board.
`
`Moreover, judicial economy is served by immediately suspending all activity in the
`
`TTAB Proceedings. See Other Telephone Co. v. Connecticut National Telephone Co., 181
`
`USPQ 125 (1974). The parties will soon be engaged in discovery, including a discovery
`
`conference and initial disclosure in the TTAB Proceedings. The deadline for the Discovery
`
`Conference is April 17, 2019 and Initial Disclosure are due on May 17, 2019, The discovery
`
`period is scheduled to open on April 17, 2019. Because the Civil Action involves the issues
`
`currently before the Board, discovery in the Civil Action will involve documents, depositions,
`
`and other information that will also be gathered or produced in the TTAB Proceedings. Thus,
`
`suspending the TTAB Proceedings would avoid wasted time and expenses for both parties and
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Opposition No. 91246285
`Serial No. 87390467
`
`
`
`the Board. See, e.g, Softbelly’s Inc v. Ty, Inc., 2002 WL 1844210, *3 (citing Other Telephone,
`
`181 USPQ 126-27) (“It would be a waste of the Board’s and the parties’ time and resources to
`
`proceed to litigate this case at the Board when the same issues” are pending in court.) Given the
`
`foregoing, an immediate suspension of the proceedings, including discovery related deadlines, is
`
`appropriate.
`
`For these reasons, Applicant respectfully requests that an order from the Board
`
`immediately issue suspending all activity related to the TTAB Proceedings, including all
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`SOLLERTIS
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Keith R. Denny/
` Keith R. Denny, Esq.
` David Lizerbram, Esq.
` Giovanni A. Correa, Esq.
` SOLLERTIS
` Mail to: PO Box 5005 PMB 107
`
`
`6105 Paseo Delicias Ste. 7
`
`
`Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
` Emails: kdenny@sollertis.com
`
`
`dlizerbram@sollertis.com
`
`
`gcorrea@sollertis.com
` Tel.:
`(858) 771-0081
`
` Attorneys for Applicant
`
`
`
`discovery deadlines.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: March 22, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Opposition No. 91246285
`Serial No. 87390467
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the document(s) titled: ARLON
`
`
`
`GRAPHICS LLC’S MOTION TO SUSPEND PROCEEDINGS PENDING DISPOSITION
`
`OF DISTRICT COURT ACTION, has been served on Jess M. Collen, Esq. and Michael
`
`Nesheiwat, Esq., counsel for A.P.A. SPA, by forwarding said copy on March 22, 2019, via email
`
`to: jcollen@collenip.com; mnesheiwat@collenip.com; docket@collenip.com; and
`
`pmulhern@collenip.com
`
`
`
`Date: March 22, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Giovanni A. Correa/
`Attorney for Applicant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Opposition No. 91246285
`Serial No. 87390467
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 03/15/19 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #:1
`
`
`
`
`(SBN 157893)
`Keith R. Denny, Esq.
`Giovanni A. Correa, Esq. (SBN 309948)
`SOLLERTIS
`6105 Paseo Delicias, Ste. 7
`Mail To:
`PO Box 5005 PMB 107
`Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
`Telephone: (858) 771-0081
`Email:
`kdenny@sollertis.com
`
`
`gcorrea@sollertis.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff,
`ARLON GRAPHICS LLC
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`ARLON GRAPHICS LLC,
`
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`
`JUDGMENT
`
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A.P.A. S.P.A., and DOES 1-100, inclusive,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`For its Complaint, by and through its attorneys, Sollertis, Arlon Graphics LLC
`
`(“Arlon”) avers the following:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1. Arlon is a Delaware Limited Liability Company, located, doing business in,
`
`and with its principal place of business in, Placentia, California, which is within the
`
`Central District of California. Arlon is, and was at all times herein mentioned, qualified
`
`to do business in California. Arlon produces and sells vinyl adhesive products and vinyl
`
`self-adhesive products to numerous purchasers, including without limitation, numerous
`
`purchasers within the jurisdiction of this Court.
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`- 1 -
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 03/15/19 Page 2 of 8 Page ID #:2
`
`
`
`
`
`2. Defendant A.P.A., S.p.A, (“APA”) is a business entity organized under the
`
`laws of Italy, on information and belief a “Società per Azioni” or joint stock company.
`
`APA is engaged, on information and belief, in the business of selling adhesive vinyl and
`
`self-adhesive products, and advertises and sells such products through the internet to
`
`purchasers within the jurisdiction of this Court.
`
`VENUE AND JURISDICTION
`
`3.
`
`Jurisdiction is proper in this court because this litigation arises under federal
`
`law, namely 17 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. (Lanham Act). The Court has jurisdiction over this
`
`action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) (trademarks), and
`
`28 U.S.C. § 2201 (Declaratory Judgment Act).
`
`4.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over APA because APA, on information
`
`and belief, conducts business in the United States and within State of California and
`
`within this district, including contracts with California persons and entities and the
`
`advertising and sale of its products through the Internet to California residents.
`
`5. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1391(c).
`
`6. An actual case or controversy has arisen between the parties. APA has
`
`threatened Arlon in a cease-and-desist letter, has used circumspect language threatening
`
`litigation in other letters to Arlon, and has opposed the Application of Arlon’s trademark;
`
`APA has further asserted that Arlon’s trademark is confusingly similar to APA’s
`
`trademark, that use of Arlon’s trademark would deceive potential purchasers of vinyl
`
`adhesive products and vinyl self-adhesive products, that APA’s trademark enjoys first
`
`use, both of which Arlon disputes. These statements threaten injury to Arlon.
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`
`
`7. Arlon is a manufacturer of pressure sensitive cast and calendared vinyl films
`
`for a variety of applications, including but not limited to, print media, cut graphics, and
`
`flexible substrates, General, POP/Promotional, Backlit/Electrical, and Architectural signs
`
`and signage, Light Management and Wallwrap films, Vehicle, Fleet and Window
`
`graphics, as well as a holder of ISO 9001 Quality Certification. Arlon, and its
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 03/15/19 Page 3 of 8 Page ID #:3
`
`
`
`predecessors, has been engaged in the manufacture of these vinyl products since 1978. It
`
`regularly attends and displays, markets and sells, its products at sign trade shows in the
`
`United States and around the world.
`
`
`
`8.
`
`In late 2013, Arlon rebranded, changing its logo to the “Circle A” shown in
`
`Attachment No. 1. After developing the Circle A logo, Arlon set about preparing the
`
`launch of its mark. Arlon used the Circle A mark with vendors for product wrapping and
`
`boxing, technical services, and promotional items in late 2013 and early 2014. The Circle
`
`A mark was launched at a trade show in April 2014. Arlon has spent not less than
`
`$32,000,000 to promote its Circle “A” Mark, including at least $630,000 to advertise,
`
`$1,400,000 to display the Mark at Trade Shows, approximately $30,000,000 on
`
`packaging and liner, and more than $1,000,000 on literature and promotional items.
`
`Arlon has, through at least in part, the expenditures set forth above, earned tens of
`
`millions of dollars through the sale of goods in connection with its Mark.
`
`
`
`9.
`
`In June of 2014, at a subsequent trade show in the United States, Arlon first
`
`encountered APA’s “A APA” Mark (APA’s A APA Mark is at Attachment No. 2). A
`
`person representing himself to be the husband of the owner of APA expressed alarm at
`
`his perception of the similarity between Arlon and APA’s marks to Arlon’s then-Director
`
`of Marketing Communications.
`
`
`
`10. Arlon’s Director of Marketing Communications immediately realized the
`
`danger and the probability that APA would sue Arlon for trademark infringement if the
`
`issue could not amicably be settled between the parties.
`
`
`
`11. Upon hearing about the encounter, Arlon’s then-Vice-President of Sales &
`
`Marketing also immediately understood the danger and the probability that APA would
`
`sue Arlon for trademark infringement if the issue could not amicably be settled between
`
`the parties. Similarly, Arlon’s Vice-President of finance, once apprised of the situation,
`
`understood the danger and probability that APA would sue Arlon for trademark
`
`infringement.
`
`
`
`12. Arlon and APA communicated on the matter. A Co-existence Agreement
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 03/15/19 Page 4 of 8 Page ID #:4
`
`
`
`was proposed, and Arlon eagerly pursued the proposed Co-Existence Agreement in good-
`
`faith, fearing as it did that the issue could lead to a lawsuit for trademark infringement.
`
`Several communications were had between the parties during 2014 and 2015. While
`
`Arlon was willing to negotiate, and responded promptly to APA’s communications, APA
`
`however, took increasingly longer to respond, and seemed to be evasive during this phase
`
`of the process. Those gaps in communication and that evasiveness heightened Arlon’s
`
`apprehension that APA might be considering a trademark infringement lawsuit. Then, in
`
`February of 2015, APA’s counsel sent a cease-and-desist letter to Arlon. The APA Cease
`
`and Desist Letter asked that Arlon remove its mark “even from the internet” and said that
`
`APA would take legal action if Arlon did not accede to APA’s terms. The APA Cease
`
`and Desist Letter is attached hereto as Attachment 3.
`
`
`
`13. Arlon continued to pursue the possibility of a Co-Existence Agreement with
`
`APA despite the threat of the APA Cease and Desist Letter. In or around November of
`
`2015, APA sent a draft of a Co-Existence Agreement which it had prepared. Arlon agreed
`
`to the terms in that draft, but APA once again evaded response and failed to respond for
`
`long periods of time. More than four months went by at one point without any
`
`communication from APA. Arlon later found out, that despite seemingly pursuing the
`
`Co-Existence Agreement, APA in fact had filed an Application to register it’s A APA
`
`Trademark on October 29, 2015 with the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board (“TTAB”)
`
`(Application No. 79183653). This—failing to communicate the Trademark Application
`
`while apparently pursuing a Co-Existence Agreement—heightened Arlon’s concern that
`
`APA’s intent was to sue Arlon for trademark infringement. In March of 2017, Arlon filed
`
`an Application to register its Circle “A” trademark with the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office (Application No. 87390467).
`
`
`
`14. Arlon continued to ask APA if it wanted to execute the draft Co-Existence
`
`Agreement. APA continued to make no substantive response, continued to delay
`
`communication while the period during which its Trademark Application could be
`
`opposed passed, and continued to fail to execute the Co-Existence Agreement it had
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 03/15/19 Page 5 of 8 Page ID #:5
`
`
`
`proposed. Then, in the middle of 2017, Arlon received two letters from APA’s attorney.
`
`Although a year and a half had gone by without APA executing the Co-Existence
`
`Agreement it had drafted, one of them opined that “a peaceful co-existence could still be
`
`in the interest of my client”. This circumspect language seemed to Arlon to very clearly
`
`contain the implied threat of litigation, and reinforced Arlon’s apprehension that APA’s
`
`end game was to position itself for maximum advantage in a trademark litigation.
`
`
`
`15. The final date on which Arlon could oppose APA’s Application was January
`
`3, 2018. Arlon filed an Opposition to APA’s Trademark Application on that date. Arlon
`
`in good faith believed, and in its Opposition pled, the likelihood of confusion between the
`
`marks. When Arlon engaged an experienced trademark expert in the course of preparing
`
`its case, it was informed that a likelihood of confusion did not exist due to the narrow
`
`nature of the class of purchasers—buyers of bulk vinyl familiar with the brands and
`
`manufacturers in the field. Once Arlon understood that a likelihood of confusion did not
`
`in fact exist, despite its earlier good-faith belief, it withdrew its Opposition. That
`
`withdrawal was filed on September 7, 2018. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, per
`
`rule, ordered Arlon’s Opposition dismissed with prejudice on September 25, 2018. At
`
`that point in the proceeding, no discovery responses had been made by either side, and
`
`the only event of note was the Initial Disclosures. The issues which the TTAB ruled
`
`subject to prejudice had not been litigated. Although Arlon had no choice but to withdraw
`
`the Opposition when it learned that a likelihood of confusion did not in fact exist despite
`
`its good-faith belief, it did so realizing that it was now even more exposed to a trademark
`
`infringement lawsuit by APA. In fact, APA could now attempt to use the prejudice rule
`
`of the TTAB to secure a ruling of likelihood of confusion in an Opposition to Arlon’s
`
`pending Application, then turn around, and attack Arlon in District Court. Subsequent
`
`events have proven that concern was well-grounded.
`
`
`
`16. Arlon continued to pursue the possibility of a Co-Existence Agreement.
`
`APA’s A APA mark proceeded to registration on October 30, 2018 (Registration No.
`
`5592317). APA made oblique references to the threat of litigation in a December 2018
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 03/15/19 Page 6 of 8 Page ID #:6
`
`
`
`letter, and escalated its demands for a Co-Existence Agreement. Then, on February 6,
`
`2019, APA filed an Opposition to Arlon’s Application. APA, in short, through years of
`
`delay, and repeatedly offering the carrot of a Co-Existence Agreement which, on
`
`information and belief, it had no intention of ever executing, has in the reasonable—
`
`indeed almost inescapable—apprehension of Arlon, managed to position itself to attack
`
`Arlon in District Court. APA has managed to position itself this way despite the fact that
`
`the narrow, sophisticated class of buyers—merchants purchasing bulk vinyl—would not
`
`in fact be confused by Arlon’s Mark, because they know the industry and the field well
`
`enough to know the manufacturers and distributors, as well as because of the inherent
`
`differences in color, shape, lettering, design, composition and overall impression of the
`
`two Marks.
`
`
`
`17. Arlon would sustain significant harm and damage if required to cease use of
`
`its Circle A Mark. Such harm and/or damage includes, without limitation, the loss of
`
`goodwill associated with the Circle A Mark and the expenditure of significant time,
`
`money, and resources to develop, implement, and acquire goodwill and secondary
`
`meaning associated with the mark. This dispute between the parties has always been
`
`headed to this Court. In Arlon’s perception and apprehension, on information and belief,
`
`that has always been the goal of APA. The Opposition of APA will result in a ruling
`
`reviewable in Federal Court. Judicial economy will be served by this matter being
`
`decided now by this Court. Arlon has a reasonable apprehension APA will commence a
`
`suit against Arlon for, without limitation, alleged trademark infringement, and/or unfair
`
`competition. The dispute between Arlon and APA is definite and concrete, real and
`
`substantial, and touches upon the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests.
`
`This substantial controversy is of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance
`
`of a declaratory judgment. Accordingly, a case or controversy under 28 U.S.C. § 2201
`
`exists.
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 03/15/19 Page 7 of 8 Page ID #:7
`
`
`
`CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
`
`CLAIM ONE
`
`(Declaratory Judgment of Arlon’s Circle A Mark Neither Violates the Lanham Act nor
`
`Constitutes Trademark Infringement)
`
`
`
`18. Arlon incorporates the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-17 as though set
`
`forth herein.
`
`
`
`19. APA has claimed that Arlon’s use of its Circle “A” mark is likely to cause
`
`confusion, and has threatened and repeatedly implied the threat of legal action against
`
`Arlon
`
`
`
`20. Arlon’s use of its Circle “A” mark is not likely to cause confusion, or to
`
`cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of Arlon with
`
`APA or any other person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of Arlon’s goods
`
`by APA or any other person.
`
`
`
`21. An actual, present and justiciable controversy has arisen between Arlon and
`
`APA as set forth above.
`
`
`
`22. Arlon seeks Declaratory Judgement from this Court that its use of the Circle
`
`“A” mark does not violate Section 32 or Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, or constitute
`
`unfair competition or trademark infringement under the common law of any state in the
`
`United States.
`
`WHEREFORE, Arlon respectfully requests that the Court:
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`23. Enter judgment according to the declaratory relief sought;
`
`24. Award Arlon its costs in this action;
`
`25. Enter such other further relief to which Arlon may be entitled as a matter of
`
`law or equity, or which the Court determines to be just and proper.
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 03/15/19 Page 8 of 8 Page ID #:8
`
`
`
`
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38 and Civil Local Rule 38-1, Arlon
`
`hereby demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.
`
`SOLLERTIS
`
`
`
`
`
`Keith R. Denny, Esq.
`Giovanni A. Correa, Esq.
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff, Arlon Graphics LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: March 15, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-00524 Document 1-1 Filed 03/15/19 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:9
`Case 8:19—cv-00524 Document 1-1 Filed 03/15/19 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:9
`
`ATTACHMENT 1
`
`ATTACHMENT 1
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-00524 Document 1-1 Filed 03/15/19 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:10
`
`ATTACHMENT 1 - Page 1 of 1
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-00524 Document 1-2 Filed 03/15/19 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:11
`Case 8:19—cv-00524 Document 1-2 Filed 03/15/19 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:11
`
`ATTACHMENT 2
`
`ATTACHMENT 2
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-00524 Document 1-2 Filed 03/15/19 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:12
`
`ATTACHMENT 2 - Page 1 of 1
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-00524 Document 1-3 Filed 03/15/19 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:13
`Case 8:19—cv-00524 Document 1-3 Filed 03/15/19 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #: 13
`
`ATTACHMENT 3
`
`ATTACHMENT 3
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-00524 Document 1-3 Filed 03/15/19 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:14
`
`ATTACHMENT 3 - Page 1 of 4
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-00524 Document 1-3 Filed 03/15/19 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:15
`
`ATTACHMENT 3 - Page 2 of 4
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-00524 Document 1-3 Filed 03/15/19 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:16
`
`ATTACHMENT 3 - Page 3 of 4
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-00524 Document 1-3 Filed 03/15/19 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:17
`
`ATTACHMENT 3 - Page 4 of 4
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-00524 Document 2 Filed 03/15/19 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:18
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`CIVIL COVER SHEET
`
`I. (a) PLAINTIFFS ( Check box if you are representing yourself
`
`)
`
`DEFENDANTS (
`
`Check box if you are representing yourself
`
`)
`
`ARLON GRAPHICS LLC
`
`A.P.A. S.p.A.
`
`(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff
`
`Orange County
`
`County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
`
`Italy
`
`(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
`
`(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
`
`Attorneys (Firm Name, Address and Telephone Number) If you are
`representing yourself, provide the same information.
`
`III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES-For Diversity Cases Only
`(Place an X in one box for plaintiff and one for defendant)
`PTF
`DEF
`
`PTF
`
`(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address and Telephone Number) If you are
`representing yourself, provide the same information.
`Keith R. Denny, Esq. (SBN 157893); Giovanni A. Correa, Esq. (SBN 309948)
`SOLLERTIS; 6105 Paseo Delicias, Ste. 7, Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
`Mail to: PO Box 5005 PMB 107, Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
`858-771-0081
`
`II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in one box only.)
`
`1. U.S. Government
`Plaintiff
`
`3. Federal Question (U.S.
`Government Not a Party)
`
`4
`
`5 6
`
`DEF
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`Incorporated or Principal Place
`of Business in this State
`
`Incorporated and Principal Place
`of Business in Another State
`
`Foreign Nation
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`Citizen of This State
`
`Citizen of Another State
`
`2. U.S. Government
`Defendant
`
`4. Diversity (Indicate Citizenship
`of Parties in Item III)
`
`Citizen or Subject of a
`Foreign Country
`
`IV. ORIGIN (Place an X in one box only.)
` 1. Original
`2. Removed from
`3. Remanded from
`State Court
`Appellate Court
`Proceeding
`
`4. Reinstated or
`Reopened
`
` 5. Transferred from Another
`District (Specify)
`
`6. Multidistrict
`Litigation -
`Transfer
`
`8. Multidistrict
`Litigation -
`Direct File
`
`V. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT: JURY DEMAND:
`
`Yes
`
`No
`
`(Check "Yes" only if demanded in complaint.)
`
`CLASS ACTION under F.R.Cv.P. 23:
`
`Yes
`
`No
`
`$
`MONEY DEMANDED IN COMPLAINT:
`
`VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and write a brief statement of cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity.)
`Declaratory Judgment
`
`VII. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in one box only).
`
`OTHER STATUTES
`
`CONTRACT
`
`REAL PROPERTY CONT.
`
`IMMIGRATION
`
`PRISONER PETITIONS
`
`PROPERTY RIGHTS
`
`375 False Claims Act
`
`110 Insurance
`
`240 Torts to Land
`
`Habeas Corpus:
`
`820 Copyrights
`
`462 Naturalization
`Application
`
`465 Other
`Immigration Actions
`TORTS
`PERSONAL PROPERTY
`
`370 Other Fraud
`
`463 Alien Detainee
`510 Motions to Vacate
`Sentence
`530 General
`535 Death Penalty
`
` Other:
`
`371 Truth in Lending
`
`540 Mandamus/Other
`
`550 Civil Rights
`
`830 Patent
`
`835 Patent - Abbreviated
`New Drug Application
`
`840 Trademark
`
`SOCIAL SECURITY
`861 HIA (1395ff)
`
`862 Black Lung (923)
`
`376 Qui Tam
`(31 USC 3729(a))
`
`400 State
`Reapportionment
`
`410 Antitrust
`
`430 Banks and Banking
`
`450 Commerce/ICC
`Rates/Etc.
`460 Deportation
`
`470 Racketeer Influ-
`enced & Corrupt Org.
`480 Consumer Credit
`490 Cable/Sat TV
`
`850 Securities/Com-
`modities/Exchange
`
`890 Other Statutory
`Actions
`891 Agricultural Acts
`
`893 Environmental
`Matters
`895 Freedom of Info.
`Act
`
`896 Arbitration
`
`899 Admin. Procedures
`Act/Review of Appeal of
`Agency Decision
`950 Constitutionality of
`State Statutes
`
`120 Marine
`
`130 Miller Act
`
`140 Negotiable
`Instrument
`150 Recovery of
`Overpayment &
`Enforcement of
`Judgment
`
`151 Medicare Act
`
`152 Recovery of
`Defaulted Student
`Loan (Excl. Vet.)
`
`153 Recovery of
`Overpayment of
`Vet. Benefits
`
`160 Stockholders'
` Suits
`
`190 Other
`Contract
`
`195 Contract
`Product Liability
`
`196 Franchise
`
`REAL PROPERTY
`
`210 Land
`Condemnation
`220 Foreclosure
`
`230 Rent Lease &
`Ejectment
`
`245 Tort Product
`Liability
`290 All Other Real
`Property
`TORTS
`PERSONAL INJURY
`
`310 Airplane
`315 Airplane
`Product Liability
`320 Assault, Libel &
`Slander
`330 Fed. Employers'
`Liability
`
`340 Marine
`345 Marine Product
`Liability
`
`350 Motor Vehicle
`355 Motor Vehicle
`Product Liability
`360 Other Personal
`Injury
`362 Personal Injury-
`Med Malpratice
`365 Personal Injury-
`Product Liability
`367 Health Care/
`Pharmaceutical
`Personal Injury
`Product Liability
`368 Asbestos
`Personal Injury
`Product Liability
`
`380 Other Personal
`Property Damage
`
`385 Property Damage
`Product Liability
`BANKRUPTCY
`
`422 Appeal 28
`USC 158
`
`423 Withdrawal 28
`USC 157
`CIVIL RIGHTS
`
`440 Other Civil Rights
`
`441 Voting
`
`442 Employment
`443 Housing/
`Accommodations
`
`445 American with
`Disabilities-
`Employment
`446 American with
`Disabilities-Other
`
`448 Education
`
`555 Prison Condition
`
`863 DIWC/DIWW (405 (g))
`
`560 Civil Detainee
`Conditions of
`Confinement
`
`FORFEITURE/PENALTY
`
`625 Drug Related
`Seizure of Property 21
`USC 881
`690 Other
`
`864 SSID Title XVI
`
`865 RSI (405 (g))
`
`FEDERAL TAX SUITS
`
`870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff or
`Defendant)
`871 IRS-Third Party 26 USC
`7609
`
`LABOR
`710 Fair Labor Standards
`Act
`720 Labor/Mgmt.
`Relations
`
`740 Railway Labor Act
`
`751 Family and Medical
`Leave Act
`790 Other Labor
`Litigation
`791 Employee Ret. Inc.
`Security Act
`
`FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:
`
`Case Number:
`
`CV-71 (05/17)
`
`CIVIL COVER SHEET
`
`Page 1 of 3
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-00524 Document 2 Filed 03/15/19 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:19
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`CIVIL COVER SHEET
`
`VIII. VENUE: Your answers to the questions below will determine the division of the Court to which this case will be initially assigned. This initial assignment is subject
`to change, in accordance with the Court's General Orders, upon review by the Court of your Complaint or Notice of Removal.
`
`QUESTION A: Was this case removed
`from state court?
`Yes
`
`
`If "no, " skip to Question B. If "yes," check the
`box to the right that applies, enter the
`corresponding division in response to
`Question E, below, and continue from there.
`
`No
`
`STATE CASE WAS PENDING IN THE COUNTY OF:
`
`INITIAL DIVISION IN CACD IS:
`
`Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, or San Luis Obispo
`
`Orange
`
`Riverside or San Bernardino
`
`Western
`
`Southern
`
`Eastern
`
`QUESTION B: Is the United States, or
`one of its agencies or employees, a
`PLAINTIFF in this action?
`
`
`
`
`If "no, " skip to Question C. If "yes," answer
`Question B.1, at right.
`
`Yes
`
`No
`
`QUESTION C: Is the United States, or
`one of its agencies or employees, a
`DEFENDANT in this action?
`
`
`
`
`If "no, " skip to Question D. If "yes," answer
`Question C.1, at right.
`
`Yes
`
`No
`
`B.1. Do 50% or more of the defendants who reside in
`the district reside in Orange Co.?
`
`
`check one of the boxes to the right
`
`YES. Your case will initially be assigned to the Southern Division.
`Enter "Southern" in response to Question E, below, and continue
`from there.
`
`B.2. Do 50% or more of the defendants who reside in
`the district reside in Riverside and/or San Bernardino
`Counties? (Consider the two counties together.)
`
`
`check one of the boxes to the right
`
`NO. Continue to Question B.2.
`
`YES. Your case will initially be assigned to the Eastern Division.
`Enter "Eastern" in response to Question E, below, and continue
`from there.
`
`NO. Your case will initially be assigned to the Western Division.
`Enter "Western" in response to Question E, below, and continue
`from there.
`
`C.1. Do 50% or more of the plaintiffs who reside in the
`district reside in Orange Co.?
`
`
`check one of the boxes to the right
`
`YES. Your case will initially be assigned to the Southern Division.
`Enter "Southern" in response to Question E, below, and continue
`from there.
`
`C.2. Do 50% or more of the plaintiffs who reside in the
`district reside in Riverside and/or San Bernardino
`Counties? (Consider the two counties together.)
`
`
`check one of the boxes to the right
`
`NO. Continue to Question C.2.
`
`YES. Your case will initially be assigned to the Eastern Division.
`Enter "Eastern" in response to Question E, below, and continue
`from there.
`
`NO. Your case will initially be assigned to the Western Division.
`Enter "Western" in response to Question E, below, and continue
`from there.
`
`QUESTION D: Location of