Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. https://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA1138420
`06/06/2021
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`Filing date:
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Notice of Opposition
`
`Notice is hereby given that the following party opposes registration of the indicated application.
`
`Opposer Information
`
`Name
`
`Granted to Date
`of previous ex-
`tension
`
`Address
`
`Correspondence
`information
`
`iGov Inc
`
`06/06/2021
`
`7686 RICHMOND HIGHWAY
`SUITE 101-B
`ALEXANDRIA, VA 22306
`UNITED STATES
`
`JOHN MARK SUHY JR
`IGOV INC
`7686 RICHMOND HIGHWAY
`SUITE 101-B
`ALEXANDRIA, VA 22306
`UNITED STATES
`Primary Email: jmsuhy@igovsol.com
`703-862-7780
`
`Applicant Information
`
`Application No.
`
`90056224
`
`Publication date
`
`12/08/2020
`
`Opposition Filing
`Date
`
`Applicant
`
`06/06/2021
`
`Opposition Peri-
`od Ends
`
`06/06/2021
`
`NEO4J, INC.
`111 EAST 5TH AVENUE
`SAN MATEO, CA 94401
`UNITED STATES
`
`Goods/Services Affected by Opposition
`
`Class 009. First Use: 2014/00/00 First Use In Commerce: 2014/00/00
`All goods and services in the class are opposed, namely: Downloadable computer software for data-
`base management; Downloadable computer software for management, replication, backup, and stor-
`age of databases; Downloadable computer software for graph databasemanagement; Downloadable
`computer software for administration, configuration, development, deployment, hosting, management
`and monitoring of cloud databases; Downloadable computer software for graph database develop-
`ment; Downloadable computer software for querying graph databases; Downloadable computer soft-
`ware for sharing and scaling database computing capacity; Downloadable computer software that
`provides real-time, integrated business management intelligence by combining information from vari-
`ous databases and presenting it in an easy-to-understand user interface; Downloadable computer
`software for creating searchable databases of information and data; Downloadable computer soft-
`ware for authorizing access todatabases; Downloadable computer software for use in analyzing and
`providing visualization of large data sets to uncover patterns, correlations and trends in the data;
`
`

`

`Downloadable computer software for visualization in the nature of graphical representation and ana-
`lysis of business processes and data; Downloadable computer software for data visualization, and
`aggregating and contextualizing databases; Downloadable computer software for compressing, stor-
`ing and retrieving graph data; Downloadable computer softwarefor graph data processing and analyt-
`ics; Downloadable computer software for enterprise integration and governance; Downloadable en-
`terprise software in the nature of a database for non-transactional data and a search engine for data-
`base content
`
`Grounds for Opposition
`
`Applicant not rightful owner of mark for identified
`goods or services
`
`Trademark Act Section 1
`
`Fraud on the USPTO
`
`Other
`
`In re Bose Corp., 580 F.3d 1240, 91 USPQ2d
`1938 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
`
`abandonment; abandoned under the doctrine of
`Naked License; 15 U.S.C. §1111; generic-
`ness; and abandonment through naked licens-
`ing. See all grounds attached.
`
`Attachments
`
`igov-neo4j-trademark-opposition.pdf(140813 bytes )
`exhibit-a.pdf(1831665 bytes )
`exhibit-b.pdf(3919650 bytes )
`exhibit-c.pdf(1393255 bytes )
`exhibit-d.pdf(195561 bytes )
`exhibit-e.pdf(1481782 bytes )
`exhibit-f.pdf(173708 bytes )
`exhibit-g.pdf(2643663 bytes )
`
`Signature
`
`//JOHNMARKSUHYJR//
`
`Name
`
`Date
`
`JOHN MARK SUHY JR
`
`06/06/2021
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`IGOV INC a Virginia corporation,
`Opposer,
`
`v.
`
`NEO4J, INC., a Delaware corporation,
`Applicant.
`
`
`
`Opposition NO.
`Appln. Serial No. 90056224
`Mark: NEO4J
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`
`
`12
`
`13
`
`
`iGov INC (“Opposer”), a corporation duly organized and existing under the
`
`NOTICE OF OPPOSITION
`
`14
`
`laws of Virginia, located and doing business at 7686 Richmond Highway
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`Suite 101-B Alexandria, VA 22306, United States, believing that they will be
`
`damaged by registration, hereby oppose Application Serial No. 90056224,
`
`filed Jul. 16, 2020, under the Trademark Act of 1946, in the name of NEO4J,
`
`19
`
`INC. ("Applicant"), published for opposition in the Official Gazette of
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`December 8, 2020 at page NEO4J. TM 3430, for the mark ("Applicant's
`
`Mark").
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`1. Applicant has relied on its ownership of its application or registration
`
`for the Neo4j mark in civil proceeding between applicant (Neo4j Inc
`
`USA) and opposer ( iGov Inc). (See: Exhibit A)
`
`2. Opposer asserts fraud and abandonment as some of the grounds for its
`
`opposition. Opposer is in a position to use the Neo4J mark in its own
`
`right and offers similar goods and services to that of the applicant
`
`(Neo4j Inc.).
`
`3. Opposer offers software consulting services extremely similar to that of
`
`applicant, and develops a graph database product called GraphStack
`
`GDB which is similar to that of Neo4j Inc’s open source graph database
`
`called Neo4j. Opposer’s database is in use in commerce.
`
`4. Prior to Applicant’s filing date, opposer engaged in offering products
`
`and services in interstate commerce using the Neo4j open source
`
`database software and thus references the mark to indicate the fact
`
`that opposer’s products and services revolve around Neo4j.
`
`5. Opposer, upon information and belief, allege that applicant, Neo4j Inc
`
`(USA), plans on using its registration status to continue to target iGov
`
`and others who have adopted the Neo4j open source software, with civil
`
`trademark litigation.
`
`
`
`The grounds of opposition are as follows:
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1. The applicant Neo4j Inc, is not (and was not, at the time of the filing of
`
`its application for registration) the rightful owner of the Neo4j mark;
`
`Neo4j Sweden AB is the owner of the trademark. (See Exhibit G)
`
`
`
`2. Neo4j Sweden AB set up Neo Technology, Inc. which changed its name
`
`to Neo4J, Inc. and licensed its software and trademarks on a non-
`
`exclusive basis to applicant. (Neo4j Inc). (See Exhibit G)
`
`
`
`3. Neo4j Sweden AB, not the applicant, is listed as the applicant and
`
`owner for trademark registrations outside of the USA. The following
`
`NEO4J mark registrations outside the USA show Neo4j Sweden AB,
`
`not applicant as being the owner of the mark. (See Exhibit E)
`
`- EUIPO (European Union) EUTM application received Dec 01, 2017
`
` Applicant: Neo4j Sweden AB
`
`- Canadian Trademark filed in EUIPO – Dec 01, 2017
`
`Applicant: Neo4j Sweden AB
`
`- Israel Trademark - Dec 01, 2017
`
`Applicant: Neo4j Sweden AB
`
`- Swedish Trademark: Dec 01, 2017
`
`Applicant: Neo4j Sweden AB
`
`3
`
`

`

`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- International Trademark – 05/31/2018
`
`Applicant: Neo4j Sweden AB
`
`4. Applicant has provided false first use dates including first use in
`
`commerce dates. Another application by the applicant (Serial #
`
`86267006) has the first use date anywhere as: “At least as early as
`
`06/04/2006”, and the first use in commerce date as “At least as early as
`
`05/28/2007”. The current application being opposed has the first use
`
`date anywhere as “At least as early as 00/00/2014” and the first use in
`
`commerce date as “At least as early as 00/00/2014”. These dates are
`
`over 6 years apart. The application should be considered void.
`
`5. The current application being opposed was started after a civil case was
`
`filed by applicant against opposer accusing opposer of trademark
`
`infringement related to the Neo4j Mark.
`
`6. The applicant’s COO, Lars Nordwall, asked a past partner, PureThink,
`
`to sign false documents intended to deceive investors by making
`
`consulting revenue look as if it was software license revenue.
`
`7. Applicant provided false information to a US government agency
`
`(Internal Revenue Service), when asked about applicant’s open source
`
`usage rights. This information was given to attempt to get the Internal
`
`Revenue service to purchase a license instead of using Neo4j database
`
`software for free under the open source license.
`
`4
`
`

`

`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8. Opposer, upon information and belief, allege that applicant filed the
`
`application being opposed, representing that it was the owner of the
`
`mark, in order to avoid having the dismissal of ongoing civil litigation
`
`claims involving trademark infringement for the mark between opposer
`
`and applicant (Neo4j Inc). Application was submitted after applicant
`
`filed trademark infringement claims against opposer. Opposer alleges
`
`that as a result, the applicant committed fraud in the procurement /
`
`submission of the application, as applicant knowingly made a false,
`
`material representation with the intent to deceive the USPTO of its
`
`registration or during the prosecution of its application for registration.
`
`9. A graph database called Neo4J was released as an open source project
`
`by Neo4J Sweden AB in 2006. Neo4J Sweden AB allowed the
`
`unfettered and uncontrolled use of the Neo4J trademarks to
`
`successfully launch the Neo4J software and gain a large user and
`
`development base. In 2006, Applicant (Neo4J Inc). did not exist. Neo4J
`
`Inc, under a different name, incorporated on 7-7-2011. When Neo4J Inc
`
`obtained some rights to the Neo4J trademark years later, the Neo4J
`
`trademark was already abandoned by Neo4J Sweden AB’s lack of
`
`contractual and actual or adequate quality control for third party’s
`
`extensive use of the Neo4J trademark. As a result the trademark
`
`should be deemed abandoned under the doctrine of naked licensing.
`
`5
`
`

`

`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10.
`
`Neo4J Sweden AB allowed the unfettered use of the Neo4J
`
`trademarks to successfully launch their open source product and gain a
`
`user and development base. But Neo4J Sweden AB and, years later,
`
`applicant (Neo4J Inc) did not actually or adequately exercise control of
`
`the quality for the modified versions of the Neo4J software to maintain
`
`the trademark. The unprotected mark has become generic or lost
`
`significance as a mark.
`
`11.
`
`While applicant, Neo4J Inc., may presently be the parent of
`
`Neo4J Sweden AB, the corporate structure is reverse as the parent was
`
`born after the subsidiary. Neo4J Sweden AB was created first and
`
`operated for years before applicant was created and Neo4J Inc’s
`
`corporate relationship could not establish a trademark control as Neo4J
`
`Inc did not exist. As a result the trademark should be deemed
`
`abandoned under the doctrine of naked licensing.
`
`12.
`
`For a period of 5 years before the applicant (Neo4j Inc) existed
`
`and thereafter, Neo4J Sweden AB licensed the Neo4J software as open
`
`source software under GPL and AGPL licenses. Neo4J Sweden AB used
`
`the GPL and AGPL licenses to proliferate the free use, development
`
`and modification of Neo4J software. Neo4J Sweden AB has not exercise
`
`contractual control over GPL and AGPL licensee’s use of the Neo4J
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`trademark. The GPL and AGPL provide that a licensee must carry
`
`prominent notices stating that you modified it and giving a relevant
`
`date. ¶5 GPL. This copyright notice requirement for licensees who
`
`modify the source code and convey new versions of Neo4J software and
`
`does not control quality to maintain the Neo4J trademark. Likewise,
`
`under the GPL and AGPL, trademark rights may be limited by a
`
`licensee when the licensee conveys a modified version of Neo4J. ¶7GPL
`
`This restriction applies to the licensee’s trademarks and does not
`
`exercise any contractual control over Neo4J Sweden AB or applicant’s
`
`(Neo4J Inc) trademarks in Neo4J. As a result the trademark should be
`
`deemed abandoned under the doctrine of naked licensing.
`
`13.
`
`Neo4J Sweden AB was the only entity to license the Neo4J
`
`software under the GPL and AGPL licenses. Applicant (Neo4j Inc) is
`
`not the licensor of Neo4J under the GPL or the AGPL. As applicant has
`
`no privity of contract and no special relationship with GPL and AGPL
`
`licensees, Applicant (Neo4J Inc) cannot rely on contract terms to show
`
`any quality control to maintain the trademark.
`
`14.
`
`PureThink LLC , a past partner of Neo4j Inc, modified the Neo4J
`
`open source software for a special government use and called it “Neo4J
`
`Government Edition.” Neo4J Government Edition was distributed to
`
`U.S. government agencies. Yet Applicant (Neo4J Inc) did no quality
`
`7
`
`

`

`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`assurance or verification of the source code or applications distributed
`
`as “Neo4J Government Edition.” Neo4J Inc knew PureThink LLC
`
`modified Neo4J and allowed it to call the product Neo4J Government
`
`Edition yet Neo4J Inc did no quality assurance on the modified version.
`
`As a result the trademark should be deemed abandoned under the
`
`doctrine of naked licensing.
`
`15.
`
`Because Neo4J Sweden and Neo4J USA had no contractual
`
`controls and did not exercise actual and adequate controls over the
`
`prolific use of the Neo4J trademark by third parties who modified and
`
`conveyed modified versions of Neo4J software, the trademark should be
`
`deemed abandoned under the doctrine of naked licensing.
`
`16.
`
`Neo4J Sweden AB and, years later, Neo4J Inc did not actually or
`
`adequately exercise control of the quality for the third party modified
`
`versions of Neo4J software to maintain the trademark. As a result the
`
`trademark should be deemed abandoned under the doctrine of naked
`
`licensing.
`
`17.
`
`There is confusion whether Neo4j is a company name trademark
`
`or a product name trademark. This confusion is exacerbated by Neo4J
`
`Sweden AB’s open source license for the Neo4J software. Neo4J
`
`Sweden AB’s license states: “The software (“Software”) is developed and
`
`owned by Neo4J Sweden AB (referred to in this notice as “Neo4J”).
`
`8
`
`

`

`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Neo4J Sweden AB asserts they own the software called Neo4j - and not
`
`applicant (Neo4J Inc) - and yet both companies use Neo4J name as part
`
`of the company name and call the open source software product Neo4J
`
`as well. Furthermore another related company NEO4J UK LIMITED
`
`also uses the Neo4j mark in its name.
`
`18.
`
`As the Neo4J software is licensed as open source software, there
`
`is no ability to maintain quality control of how licensees modify, use or
`
`distributed or conveyed. No trademark guidance, or instructions were
`
`provided in the public git repositories for years, and only recently has
`
`the repository been updated with trademark guidance. As a result, the
`
`Neo4J trademark should be deemed abandoned under the doctrine of
`
`naked licensing.
`
`19.
`
`Many of third party versions of Neo4J freely use Neo4J
`
`trademarks. However, opposer is informed and believe, Neo4J Sweden
`
`AB and Neo4J Inc have not actually exercised any or adequate control
`
`over the quality of the software on the third party repositories and
`
`projects that use the Neo4J trademark. Applicant has no actual control
`
`of distribution of modified versions of Neo4J.
`
`There are significant downloads and use of applications using the neo4j
`
`name and modified versions of Neo4j.
`
`9
`
`

`

`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20.
`
`Opposer is informed and believe, Neo4J Sweden and Neo4J Inc
`
`have not actually exercised any or adequate control over the quality of
`
`software on the third party repositories and projects that still currently
`
`use the Neo4J trademark.
`
`There are significant downloads and use of applications using the neo4j
`
`trademark name that have had no policing action. The following
`
`companies use the Neo4j trademark for their products.
`
`10M+ Downloads: https://hub.docker.com/r/bitnami/neo4j
`
`4.4k Downloads : https://hub.docker.com/u/neo4jchina
`
`5M+ Downloads: https://hub.docker.com/r/discsports/neo4j-apoc
`
`500k+ Downloads: https://hub.docker.com/r/phenompeople/neo4j
`
`100k+ Downloads: https://hub.docker.com/r/frodenas/neo4j
`
`100k+ Downloads: https://hub.docker.com/r/amd64/neo4j
`
`50k+ Downloads: https://hub.docker.com/r/tpires/neo4j
`
`10k+ Downloads: https://hub.docker.com/r/primedio/neo4j-cluster-ecs
`
`100k+ Downloads: https://hub.docker.com/r/ryguyrg/neo4j-importer
`
`100k+ Downloads: https://hub.docker.com/r/c12e/neo4j
`
`100k+ Downloads: https://hub.docker.com/r/trollin/neo4j
`
`100k+ Downloads: https://hub.docker.com/r/mmorga/neo4j-3.2.5
`
`100k+ Downloads https://hub.docker.com/r/centular/neo4j-enterprise
`
`3.8k+ Downloads https://hub.docker.com/r/builddoctor/neo4j
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 600+ Downloads https://hub.docker.com/r/picnicsoftware/neo4j
`
`1K+ Downloads https://hub.docker.com/r/digitalcloudsa/neo4j
`
`There are millions of copies of modified versions of Neo4J downloaded
`
`where the modified version of the software uses the Neo4J trademark
`
`while Neo4J Sweden and Neo4J USA exercise no actual or adequate
`
`quality control of these modified versions of software using the Neo4J
`
`trademark.
`
`21.
`
` Applicant (Neo4j Inc) allowed then partner , PureThink LLC, to
`
`create a product using the mark called “Neo4J Government Edition”.
`
`This product was distributed to U.S. government agencies, Applicant
`
`(Neo4J Inc) or Neo4j Sweden AB did no quality assurance or
`
`verification of the source code or applications distributed as Neo4J
`
`Government Edition.
`
`As a result, Neo4J Sweden and Neo4j Inc has abandoned the Neo4J
`
`trademark under the doctrine of Naked License.
`
`22.
`
`Neo4j is the name of an open source graph database which has
`
`many forks and distributions because of its open source nature.
`
`Applicant is not the licensor of Neo4J under the GPL and AGPL
`
`licenses. Neo4j Sweden AB is the licensor. As Applicant has no privity
`
`of contract to control GPL and AGPL licensees use of the Neo4J
`
`trademark, they cannot rely on contract terms to show any control.
`
`11
`
`

`

`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Furthermore, until recently – no trademark guidelines or usage rights
`
`were provided with the open source software.
`
`23.
`
`The neo4j team told people not to use the Bitnami docker
`
`application called “Neo4j by Bitnami”, which has over 10+ Million
`
`downloads as of this opposition’s filing date. One of applicant’s
`
`employees stated: “ We don’t recommend using Neo4j by Bitnami – it is
`
`not produced through Neo4j nor supported.” Applicant failed to police
`
`this misuse which is still ongoing. Neo4J Sweden and USA has
`
`abandoned the Neo4J trademark under the doctrine of Naked License.
`
`(See Exhibit F).
`
`24.
`
`The Neo4j Mark previous registration, Serial Number: 86267006
`
`Filing Date: 04/30/2014, states a first use date FIRST USE
`
`ANYWHERE DATE At least as early as 06/04/2006, FIRST USE IN
`
`COMMERCE DATE At least as early as 05/28/2007. The current
`
`application being apposed states FIRST USE ANYWHERE DATE
`
`
`
`At least as early as 00/00/2014, FIRST USE IN COMMERCE
`
`DATE
`
`At least as early as 00/00/2014. During this 6 year period
`
`in time – the Neo4j mark was allowed to be used unfettered and was
`
`not policed by Neo4j Inc or Neo4j Sweden AB. Mark was used by
`
`companies forking, or offering neo4j software or services using the
`
`neo4j mark.
`
`12
`
`

`

`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
`
`
`
`25.
`
`Neo4j allows users to take a free online tests and receive an
`
`official certification bearing the trademark. Any user passing the
`
`unsupervised test could then call themselves a “Neo4j Certified
`
`Professional”. The tests have none or limited functionality to prevent
`
`cheating or otherwise allowing someone without the knowledge
`
`necessary to be considered a competent Neo4j professional to receive
`
`the certification. Neo4j Inc then allows the recipients to use the Neo4j
`
`trademark name when advertising to potential employers. There are
`
`no guidelines on how these newely certified professionals can use the
`
`neo4j mark.
`
`26.
`
`NEO4J SWEDEN AB, allowed the Neo4j mark to be used in a
`
`manner that lead to abandonment through naked licensing far before
`
`applicant (Neo4j Inc) existed.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Opposer, IGOV INC., believe and allege
`
`that it is being and will continue to be damaged by registration of Applicant's
`
`NEO4J mark as
`
`aforesaid, and request that said application Serial No. 90056224 be rejected,
`
`that no registration be issued thereon to Applicant, and that the Opposition
`
`be sustained in favor of Opposer.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Respectfully submitted
`iGOV INC
`Dated: June 06, 2021
`
`By: _____/s/ John Mark Suhy Jr.
`CTO and President for
`IGOV INC., a Virginia
`corporation
`
`7686 Richmond Highway
`Suite 101-B
`Alexandria, VA 22306
`
`Tel: (703) 862-7780
` Email: jmsuhy@igovsol.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit A
`Exhibit A
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-07182-EJD Document 1 Filed 11/28/18 Page 1 of 53
`
`John V. Picone III (State Bar No. 187226)
`jpicone@hopkinscarley.com
`Jeffrey M. Ratinoff (State Bar No. 197241)
`jratinoff@hopkinscarley.com
`HOPKINS & CARLEY
`A Law Corporation
`The Letitia Building
`70 South First Street
`San Jose, CA 95113-2406
`mailing address:
`P.O. Box 1469
`San Jose, CA 95109-1469
`Telephone:
`(408) 286-9800
`Facsimile:
`(408) 998-4790
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`NEO4J, INC.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`NEO4J, INC., a Delaware corporation,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`PURETHINK LLC, a Delaware limited
`liability company, IGOV INC., a Virginia
`corporation, and JOHN MARK SUHY, an
`individual,
`
`CASE NO. 5:18-cv-7182
`COMPLAINT FOR: (1) TRADEMARK
`INFRINGEMENT; (2) FALSE
`DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN; (3) FALSE
`ADVERTISING; (4) FEDERAL AND
`STATE UNFAIR COMPETITION; (5)
`BREACH OF CONTRACT; AND (6)
`INVASION OF PRIVACY
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Defendants.
`
`Plaintiff Neo4j, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Neo4j”) hereby brings the present action against
`Defendants PureThink LLC, iGov Inc., and John Mark Suhy (collectively “Defendants”) and
`alleges as follows:
`
`NATURE OF ACTION
`This is an action for damages and injunctive relief arising out of Defendants’
`1.
`infringement of Plaintiff’s registered trademarks, acts amounting to unfair competition, breaches
`of contract, and invasion of privacy.
`/ / /
`842\3151570.6
`COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT, UNFAIR COMPETITION, FALSE ADVERTISING,
`FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN, AND INVASION OF PRIVACY
`
`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
`
`HOP KIN S & CA R L EY
`A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`
`S A N J O S E
`
`

`

`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
`
`HOP KIN S & CA R L EY
`A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`
`S A N J O S E
`
`Case 5:18-cv-07182-EJD Document 1 Filed 11/28/18 Page 2 of 53
`
`
`
`THE PARTIES
`Plaintiff is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware with its
`2.
`principal place of business in San Mateo, California. Plaintiff originally incorporated as Neo
`Technology, Inc. and then changed its name to Neo4j, Inc. in or about July 2017. Plaintiff is the
`graph company behind the number one platform for connected data, marketed and sold under the
`name Neo4j®. The Neo4j® graph platform helps organizations make sense of their data by
`revealing how people, processes and digital systems are interrelated. This connections-first
`approach powers intelligent applications tackling challenges such as artificial intelligence, fraud
`detection, real-time recommendations and master data.
`Plaintiff boasts the world’s largest dedicated investment in native graph
`3.
`technology. It has more than 300 commercial customers, including global enterprises like
`Walmart, Comcast, Cisco, eBay, and UBS use Neo4j® to create a competitive advantage from
`connections in their data. Plaintiff also does substantial business with government agencies,
`including a number of agencies within the United States Government.
`Defendant PureThink LLC (“PureThink”) is a limited liability company organized
`4.
`under the laws of the State of Delaware with a principal place of business in Reston, Virginia.
`PureThink purports to be a software development company and was previously an authorized
`Neo4j® Solution Partner. PureThink is no longer an authorized Neo4j® Solution Partner and
`Plaintiff is informed and believes that PureThink is currently a shell entity maintained by the
`other defendants and is not currently conducting or engaged in any meaningful business activities.
`Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant iGov Inc.
`5.
`(“iGov”) is a corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia with a
`principal place of business in Reston, Virginia. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon
`alleges, that iGov is software development and consulting company that focuses on large-scale
`graph and AI solutions, which competes with Neo4j® and its authorized Solution Partners.
`Plaintiff is further informed and believes that iGov is the assignee and successor-in-interest to
`PureThink, or otherwise acquired substantially all of PureThink’s assets sometime in mid-2017.
`/ / /
`
`- 2 -
`842\3151570.6
`COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT, UNFAIR COMPETITION, FALSE ADVERTISING,
`FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN, AND INVASION OF PRIVACY
`
`
`
`

`

`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
`
`HOP KIN S & CA R L EY
`A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`
`S A N J O S E
`
`Case 5:18-cv-07182-EJD Document 1 Filed 11/28/18 Page 3 of 53
`
`
`
`Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendant John
`6.
`Mark Suhy (“Suhy”) is an individual residing in Reston, Virginia. Plaintiff is further informed
`and believes that Suhy is the sole member and manager of PureThink. Plaintiff is also informed
`and believes that Suhy is the sole shareholder of iGov, as well as an officer and director of iGov.
`ALTER EGO ALLEGATIONS
`Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that at all times herein
`7.
`mentioned there existed a unity of interest and ownership between iGov and PureThink. Any
`individuality and separateness between iGov and PureThink ceased and/or never existed, and
`iGov is the alter ego of PureThink, in that, among other reasons, and that iGov was conceived,
`intended, and used by Suhy and PureThink as a device to avoid liability and that PureThink is so
`inadequately capitalized that, compared with the business done by iGov and the risk of loss
`attendant thereon, such capitalization was illusory and/or trifling.
`Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon allege, that at all times herein
`8.
`mentioned that PureThink is a mere shell instrumentality maintained to protect iGov. It now
`carries on its business in the company name exactly as PureThink and Suhy had conducted it
`previous to iGov’s formation and/or previous to them acquiring a controlling interest in iGov
`and/or previous to becoming promoters thereof, exercised complete control and dominance of the
`business done by PureThink and now iGov to such an extent that any individuality or
`separateness of PureThink and iGov at all times herein mentioned did and do not exist.
`For example, PureThink and iGov originally shared the same principal place of
`9.
`business at 1902 Campus Commons Drive, Suite 101, Reston, VA 20191. Likewise, PureThink
`and iGov still share the same customer support number, 1-855-979-7771.
`PureThink and iGov’s websites are also virtually identical and contain much of the
`10.
`same verbiage, such as their core philosophies and results:
`To help you succeed, we believe in working closely and cooperatively
`with our clients. Our goal is to ensure everyone on the same page
`regarding project status, methods and tasks. Our approach is to develop
`software according to an Agile methodology which means we emphasize
`people and interaction rather than complicated processes and endless
`documentation.
`
`- 3 -
`842\3151570.6
`COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT, UNFAIR COMPETITION, FALSE ADVERTISING,
`FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN, AND INVASION OF PRIVACY
`
`
`
`

`

`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
`
`HOP KIN S & CA R L EY
`A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`
`S A N J O S E
`
`Case 5:18-cv-07182-EJD Document 1 Filed 11/28/18 Page 4 of 53
`
`
`
`* * *
`Our mission is to bring the greatest value to our clients by leveraging our
`considerable depth of resources and experience. We align our approach to
`the specific business drivers of each business we work with whom we
`tailor solutions to best suit different cultural environments, industries, and
`market conditions. We focus on business strategy implementation, not
`business strategy development.
`
`Compare https://purethink.com/about.html and https://igovsol.com/about.html.
`Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon allege, that other components
`11.
`from PureThink’s website were ported over to iGov’s website.
`Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon allege, that adherence to the
`12.
`fiction of the separate existence of iGov as an entity distinct from PureThink would permit an
`abuse of the privilege of formation and would sanction fraud and/or promote injustice, and that
`among other circumstances, Suhy and PureThink caused monetary and other assets to be
`withdrawn and/or transferred from PureThink without any consideration, or with insufficient
`consideration, to iGov, all for the purposes of avoiding liability and preventing attachment and
`execution by creditors, including Plaintiff, thereby rendering PureThink insolvent and unable to
`fully perform its obligations; and at all times herein mentioned, was not so capitalized, solvent
`and unable to fully perform any obligations undertaken by as set further herein.
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`The jurisdiction of this Court over the subject matter of this action is predicated,
`13.
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, on the fact that Plaintiff presents a civil action arising under the
`Federal Trademark Act (the “Lanham Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. The remainder of
`Plaintiff’s claims are subject to the jurisdiction of this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1338(b)
`and 1367, because the claims are joined with one or more substantial and related claims under the
`Lanham Act.
`This action arises out of wrongful acts committed by Defendants in California and
`14.
`this District, which acts subject Defendants to the personal jurisdiction of this Court. Plaintiff is
`informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that Defendants specifically target consumers
`and derive substantial revenue within California and this District, and expect their actions to have
`- 4 -
`
`842\3151570.6
`COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT, UNFAIR COMPETITION, FALSE ADVERTISING,
`FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN, AND INVASION OF PRIVACY
`
`
`
`

`

`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
`
`HOP KIN S & CA R L EY
`A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`
`S A N J O S E
`
`Case 5:18-cv-07182-EJD Document 1 Filed 11/28/18 Page 5 of 53
`
`
`
`consequences within California and this District. For all of these reasons, personal jurisdictio