Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. https://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA1210349
`05/19/2022
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`Filing date:
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding No.
`
`91276071
`
`Filing Party
`
`Other Party
`
`Defendant
`Lineate LLC
`
`Plaintiff
`INTEROPERABILITY BIDCO, INC.
`
`Pending Motion
`
`There is no motion currently pending and no other motion is being filed concur-
`rent with this consent motion.
`
`Attachments
`
`Lineate v Interoperability Complaint.pdf(1165663 bytes )
`
`Consent Motion for Suspension in View of Civil Proceeding
`
`The parties are engaged in a civil action which may have a bearing on this proceeding. Accordingly, Lineate
`LLC hereby requests suspension of this proceeding pending a final determination of the civil action. Trade-
`mark Rule 2.117.
`Lineate LLC has secured the express consent of all other parties to this proceeding for the suspension re-
`quested herein.
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of this submission has been served upon all parties, at their ad-
`dress of record by Email on this date.
`Respectfully submitted,
`/Thomas J. Gohn/
`Thomas J. Gohn
`LWheatley@mcguirewoods.com, tgohn@mcguirewoods.com, adeford@mcguirewoods.com, jpow-
`ell@mcguirewoods.com
`05/19/2022
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-11332 Document 1 Filed 08/17/21 Page 1 of 20
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`LINEATE LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`INTEROPERABILITY BIDCO, INC. d/b/a
`LYNIATE,
`
`Defendant.
`
`(cid:20)(cid:29)(cid:21)(cid:20)(cid:16)(cid:70)(cid:89)(cid:16)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:22)(cid:22)(cid:21)
`Case No. ____________________
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff Lineate LLC (“Lineate”), by counsel, hereby alleges as follows against Defendant
`
`Interoperability Bidco, Inc. d/b/a Lyniate (“Defendant Lyniate”):
`
`Introduction
`
`1.
`
`Lineate is a world-class software solutions provider that prides itself on helping
`
`customers and potential customers address a wide variety of business needs, including, among
`
`other things, “big data” challenges they face in day-to-day operations.
`
`2.
`
`Originally founded in 2005 as Thumbtack Technology, Lineate adopted the unique,
`
`distinctive LINEATE mark in or around 2017 as its corporate name and flagship brand.
`
`3.
`
`Ever since, Lineate has heavily promoted the LINEATE brand nationwide in
`
`tandem with the high-quality software design, development, and implementation services it offers
`
`customers.
`
`4.
`
`Due to Lineate’s dedication of extensive time and resources in providing top-tier
`
`software solutions, the LINEATE brand has quickly gained attention across the country.
`
`5.
`
`Lineate’s customer base includes companies from many different industries.
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-11332 Document 1 Filed 08/17/21 Page 2 of 20
`
`6.
`
`In fact, Lineate shines amongst its competitors at least in part due to its versatility:
`
`Lineate is able to tackle whatever software need a customer has with ease and efficiency.
`
`7.
`
`The LINEATE brand has therefore quickly become synonymous with excellence
`
`and it embodies significant goodwill as one of the most cutting-edge software solutions brands in
`
`the United States.
`
`8.
`
`Defendant Interoperability Bidco, Inc., on the other hand, is a new software
`
`company incorporated in 2018 after a merger between two pre-existing companies.
`
`9.
`
`Although it adopted the name Interoperability Bidco, Inc. as its name for purposes
`
`of incorporation, Defendant later began offering, selling, marketing, and promoting its business
`
`under the d/b/a Lyniate, and it adopted and began using a LYNIATE mark in connection with its
`
`software-related goods and services, including a mark that copied the several stylistic features
`
`contained in Lineate’s senior LINEATE marks as shown below:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` (Lineate’s design mark)
`
` (Defendant’s Infringing LYNIATE mark)
`
`10.
`
`Upon discovering Defendant Lyniate’s adoption of a virtually identical mark,
`
`Lineate sent Defendant Lyniate a cease and desist letter, requesting that Defendant Lyniate
`
`abandon the LYNIATE brand in light of the fact that use of that brand in the United States with
`
`goods and services identical and/or closely related to Lyniate’s goods and services would create a
`
`substantial likelihood of confusion with Lineate’s senior LINEATE marks.
`
`11.
`
`Defendant Lyniate, however, refused that request.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-11332 Document 1 Filed 08/17/21 Page 3 of 20
`
`12.
`
`Lineate renewed its requests, providing additional explanations for its concerns, but
`
`Defendant Lyniate again responded in a cursory fashion, confirming its intent to continue
`
`infringing upon Lineate’s senior rights in the LINEATE mark.
`
`13.
`
`Lineate therefore had no choice but to file this lawsuit in order to stop Defendant
`
`Lyniate’s willful trademark infringement, unfair competition, and false designation of origin in
`
`violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051, et seq., and Massachusetts common law; as well
`
`as Defendant Lyniate’s unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws
`
`Chapter 93A.
`
`The Parties
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiff Lineate LLC is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of
`
`Delaware. Lineate’s headquarters is located at 26 Broadway, Fl. 24, New York, NY 10004.
`
`15.
`
`Upon information and belief, Interoperability Bidco, Inc. d/b/a Lyniate is a
`
`corporation organized under the laws of Delaware. Interoperability Bidco, Inc. d/b/a Lyniate
`
`maintains a place of business at 100 High Street, Suite 1560, Boston, MA 02110.
`
`Jurisdiction and Venue
`
`16.
`
`This Court has original
`
`jurisdiction over
`
`this Complaint for
`
`trademark
`
`infringement, unfair competition, and false designation of origin, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1121(a),
`
`as well as 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (Federal Question Jurisdiction); 28 U.S.C. § 1337(a) (Commerce
`
`Regulations); and 28 U.S.C. § 1338(b) (Trademark and Unfair Competition).
`
`17.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over all pendant state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1367(a) (Supplemental Jurisdiction) because all such claims are based upon the same or
`
`substantially the same conduct by Defendant.
`
`18.
`
`Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction of this Court as Defendant has
`
`sufficient minimum contacts with the state of Massachusetts through its operations in the state.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-11332 Document 1 Filed 08/17/21 Page 4 of 20
`
`For example, as outlined above and more fully below, Defendant maintains a place of business
`
`within Massachusetts and this judicial forum, and it is engaged in the promotion and sale of its
`
`infringing
`
`services
`
`in
`
`and
`
`around Boston, Massachusetts.
`
`See Our Offices,
`
`https://www.lyniate.com/about-us/contact-us/our-offices/ (last visited August 4, 2021).
`
`19.
`
`For the same reasons, the District of Massachusetts is the proper venue for this
`
`action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
`
`Lineate and the Lineate Brand and Family of Marks
`
`20.
`
`Lineate and its LINEATE brand are well-known across the United States for
`
`providing a broad spectrum of high-quality software related goods and services that meet the needs
`
`of customers across industries.
`
`21.
`
`Lineate has used its LINEATE brand to serve the needs of companies that provide
`
`a wide array of products and services.
`
`22.
`
`In other words, Lineate is—and has been for many years—a national, full-service
`
`software company that works with clients across industries to design, develop, and implement
`
`software applications under its LINEATE brand.
`
`23.
`
`For example, Lineate’s nationwide customer-base includes companies such as (a)
`
`PlaceIQ—a leading data and technology company that helps businesses harness location-based
`
`data—for whom Lineate worked to, among other things, build end-user facing tools, such as
`
`advanced taxonomy mapping that allows PlaceIQ’s customers to create relationships between their
`
`own data and the information gleaned from the PlaceIQ platform; (b) Telenav—a market leader in
`
`cloud-based navigation and location-based services for automobiles—for whom Lineate worked
`
`to develop real-time dashboards, navigation solutions, and data exchange for connected cars; and
`
`(c) LinearFT—a financial services company that simplifies the borrowing and account opening
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-11332 Document 1 Filed 08/17/21 Page 5 of 20
`
`experience for customers and streamlines loan and deposit origination workflows—for whom
`
`Lineate worked to, among other things, build rules engines and assistive tooling to originate loans
`
`and quickly make risk assessments and approval decisions.
`
`24.
`
`Lineate has also worked with a number of companies within the healthcare
`
`industry.
`
`25.
`
`By way of example only, Lineate for years has developed and implemented
`
`software solutions and applications for entities such as NYU Langone (a hospital) and Pharma
`
`Intelligence (a division of Informa), that allow these entities to aggregate, search, and share data
`
`internally and externally to increase efficiency and to allow them to better serve patients and
`
`customers.
`
`26.
`
`Lineate also routinely advertises and markets its goods and services to other entities
`
`in the healthcare industry using its LINEATE brand and is regularly asked to submit software
`
`solution proposals to companies operating within the healthcare industry.
`
`27.
`
`All of Lineate’s goods and services are provided by Lineate under the LINEATE
`
`marks.
`
`28.
`
`Accordingly, thanks to Lineate’s dedication to excellence, advertising, and hard
`
`work, the LINEATE brand is instantly recognizable to clientele looking for software solutions
`
`across an array of industries in the United States, and Lineate and its LINEATE brand are known
`
`for versatile software solutions capable of meeting any customer’s needs.
`
`29.
`
`To better protect the valuable LINEATE brand, Lineate has registered, and is in the
`
`process of registering, its LINEATE marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`(“USPTO”), including the following two word marks:
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-11332 Document 1 Filed 08/17/21 Page 6 of 20
`
`
`
`
`
`Mark
`
`Reg. or Serial
`No.
`5,438,023
`
`
`
`
`
`90,782,893
`
`First Use
`Date
`March 2017
`
`Reg. Date
`
`April 3,
`2018
`
`March 2017
`
`N/A
`
`Goods and
`Services
`Design,
`development, and
`implementation of
`software for others
`to perform targeted
`marketing and
`advertising
`activities.
`Design,
`development and
`implementation of
`software; Software
`design and
`development;
`Technical support
`services, namely,
`remote and on-site
`infrastructure
`management
`services for
`monitoring,
`administration and
`management of
`public and private
`cloud computing
`IT and application
`systems.
`
`
`(collectively with the Lineate design mark pictured in Paragraph 9 and Lineate’s common law
`
`rights in LINEATE, the “LINEATE Marks”). True and correct copies of the certificate of
`
`registration and TESS/TSDR pages for the registered LINEATE mark, as well as the TESS/TSDR
`
`pages for the LINEATE application, are attached as Exhibit 1 to the Complaint.
`
`30.
`
`Lineate’s existing registration for the LINEATE Marks is valid and subsisting on
`
`the Principal Register and has been since its registration date. It is therefore prima facie evidence
`
`of the validity of the mark, Lineate’s ownership of the mark, and Lineate’s exclusive right to use
`
`LINEATE in the United States in connection with software related goods and services.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-11332 Document 1 Filed 08/17/21 Page 7 of 20
`
`31.
`
`Lineate’s extensive, nationwide common law use of its other LINEATE Marks,
`
`including but not limited to the word mark that is the subject of Lineate’s pending use-based
`
`USPTO application, likewise gives Lineate significant rights in the LINEATE Marks for software
`
`related goods and services.
`
`Defendant’s Willful Infringement of Lineate’s LINEATE Marks
`
`32.
`
`As noted above, Defendant Interoperability Bidco, Inc. was incorporated on May
`
`29, 2018, as a company that would provide software solutions in the healthcare field including
`
`interoperability solutions for hospitals, public health clients, payers, vendors, radiology,
`
`laboratory, and clinic use cases. See Markets We Serve, https://www.lyniate.com/ (last accessed
`
`August 4, 2021).
`
`33.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Interoperability Bidco, Inc. conducted
`
`business under that name and branding not at issue in this lawsuit from its date of incorporation
`
`until approximately 2020.
`
`34.
`
`Then, in or around 2020, Defendant decided to change its consumer-facing identity,
`
`and in doing so, took several actions to infringe upon Lineate’s senior LINEATE Marks, and
`
`unfairly compete with Lineate’s LINEATE-branded goods and services.
`
`35.
`
`First, on January 16, 2020, Defendant Lyniate filed two intent-to-use applications
`
`with the USPTO seeking to register the word mark LYNIATE and a LYNIATE & Design mark,
`
`as shown in the table below:
`
`Mark
`
`Serial No.
`
`Goods and Services
`
`88,762,496
`
`
`
`(cid:120) downloadable software in the fields of medicine and healthcare for
`integration and exchange of data.
`(cid:120) printed materials, namely, written articles in the field of healthcare
`information technology and interoperability; printed newsletters in
`the field of healthcare information technology and interoperability;
`printed publications, namely, brochures in the field of healthcare
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-11332 Document 1 Filed 08/17/21 Page 8 of 20
`
`Mark
`
`Serial No.
`
`Goods and Services
`
`information technology and interoperability; printed publications,
`namely, handouts in the field of healthcare technology and
`interoperability; printed educational materials, namely, manuals in
`the field of healthcare technology and interoperability.
`(cid:120) Educational and training services in the field of computer
`software, namely, conducting classes on using healthcare industry
`messaging standards and using Interoperability Bidco, Inc.
`interoperability software products in the field of healthcare
`information technology and interoperability; providing online and
`non-downloadable directory publications in the field of healthcare
`information technology and interoperability; on-line journals,
`namely, blogs featuring customer use cases, regulatory analysis,
`and impacts of technological innovation in the fields of medicine
`and healthcare.
`(cid:120) Technical support services for computer software, namely,
`troubleshooting of computer software problems in the fields of
`medicine and healthcare; installation, maintenance, and upgrading
`of computer software in the fields of medicine and healthcare;
`design and development of computer software in the fields of
`medicine and healthcare; computer software consulting services in
`the fields of medicine and healthcare; providing a website
`featuring information in the field of computer software consulting,
`namely, healthcare information technology software consulting;
`software as a service (SAAS) services featuring hosting software
`for hosting websites for use by others for healthcare information
`technology and interoperability solutions.
`(cid:120) downloadable software in the fields of medicine and healthcare for
`integration and exchange of data.
`(cid:120) printed materials, namely, written articles in the field of healthcare
`information technology and interoperability; printed newsletters in
`the field of healthcare information technology and interoperability;
`printed publications, namely, brochures in the field of healthcare
`information technology and interoperability; printed publications,
`namely, handouts in the field of healthcare technology and
`interoperability; printed educational materials, namely, manuals in
`the field of healthcare technology and interoperability.
`(cid:120) Educational and training services in the field of computer
`software, namely, conducting classes on using healthcare industry
`messaging standards and using Interoperability Bidco, Inc.
`interoperability software products in the field of healthcare
`information technology and interoperability; providing online and
`non-downloadable directory publications in the field of healthcare
`information technology and interoperability; on-line journals,
`namely, blogs featuring customer use cases, regulatory analysis,
`
`8
`
`88,762,493
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-11332 Document 1 Filed 08/17/21 Page 9 of 20
`
`Mark
`
`Serial No.
`
`Goods and Services
`
`and impacts of technological innovation in the fields of medicine
`and healthcare.
`(cid:120) Technical support services for computer software, namely,
`troubleshooting of computer software problems in the fields of
`medicine and healthcare; installation, maintenance, and upgrading
`of computer software in the fields of medicine and healthcare;
`design and development of computer software in the fields of
`medicine and healthcare; computer software consulting services in
`the fields of medicine and healthcare; providing a website
`featuring information in the field of computer software consulting,
`namely, healthcare information technology software consulting;
`software as a service (SAAS) services featuring hosting software
`for hosting websites for use by others for healthcare information
`technology and interoperability solutions.
`
`
`(collectively, the “LYNIATE Marks”).
`
`36.
`
`Second, Defendant Lyniate began filing registrations in multiple states inexplicably
`
`indicating that it would, moving forward, do business under the assumed name Lyniate. See, e.g.,
`
`Exhibit 2, Certificate of Assumed Name for Commonwealth of Kentucky; Exhibit 3, Fictitious
`
`Name Registration for the State of Ohio; Exhibit 4, Application for Registration of Assumed
`
`Business Name for the State of Oregon.
`
`37.
`
`Third, on or around April 6, 2020, Defendant Lyniate began using a domain name
`
`it registered and owns—<lyniate.com> (the “Domain”)—that is virtually indistinguishable from
`
`Lineate’s domain name—<lineate.com>—to host webpages that advertise, market, sell, and offer
`
`to sell its software related goods and services under the LYNIATE Marks.
`
`38.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Lyniate’s entire purpose in rebranding to
`
`adopt the LYNIATE Marks was to create confusion with, and therefore capitalize and profit from,
`
`the goodwill embodied in Lineate’s senior, established LINEATE Marks.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-11332 Document 1 Filed 08/17/21 Page 10 of 20
`
`39.
`
`For example, Defendant Lyniate proceeded with the adoption, creation, and use of
`
`the LYNIATE Marks despite knowing that those marks are virtually identical to Lineate’s prior
`
`LINEATE Marks, in which Lineate has built significant goodwill.
`
`40.
`
`In fact, the marks so resemble each other in sight, sound, commercial impression,
`
`and connotation that a search of the USPTO’s records for ‘lineate’ actually produces results
`
`containing both the LINEATE and LYNIATE marks.
`
`41.
`
`As shown above, Defendant’s LYNIATE & Design Mark also copies and mimics
`
`several prominent design elements found in Lineate’s senior LINEATE & Design Mark.
`
`42.
`
`Defendant Lyniate also chose to move forward with adopting the LYNIATE Marks
`
`despite the fact Defendant Lyniate and Lineate not only both market and sell software related
`
`goods and services under their respective marks, but also market those services to the same
`
`healthcare companies.
`
`43.
`
`Lineate’s prior use of its LINEATE Marks was, and continues to be, widespread,
`
`prominent, and publicly available to everyone, including Defendant Lyniate, at all times prior to
`
`and after Defendant Lyniate’s creation and adoption of the LYNIATE Marks.
`
`44.
`
`Defendant Lyniate has also explicitly been put on notice of the confusing similarity
`
`between its LYNIATE Marks and Lineate’s senior LINEATE Marks.
`
`45.
`
`For example, the USPTO Examining Attorney assigned to review Defendant
`
`Lyniate’s applications to register the LYNIATE Marks twice correctly refused to register them on
`
`the grounds that those marks created a substantial likelihood of confusion with Lineate’s senior
`
`LINEATE Marks.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-11332 Document 1 Filed 08/17/21 Page 11 of 20
`
`46.
`
`Although the USPTO Examining Attorney did eventually allow Defendant
`
`Lyniate’s applications to proceed, this was done only after Defendant Lyniate submitted arguments
`
`that improperly and incorrectly defined Lineate’s goods and services too narrowly.
`
`47.
`
`Accordingly, on July 14, 2021, Lineate sent Defendant Lyniate a cease and desist
`
`letter in order to correct Defendant Lyniate’s misunderstanding as to the scope of Lineate’s goods
`
`and services that Lineate has marketed and sold across the United States for many years prior to
`
`Defendant Lyniate’s attempt to adopt the LYNIATE Marks.
`
`48. Defendant Lyniate, however, chose to ignore these clarifications and twice abruptly
`
`brushed aside Lineate’s concerns regarding the likelihood of confusion and other violations of
`
`Lineate’s established, senior rights in the LINEATE Marks, thereby confirming that Defendant
`
`Lyniate is not acting, and has never acted, in good faith but instead was and continues to be a
`
`willful infringer and unfair competitor.
`
`Harm to Lineate and the LINEATE Marks
`
`49.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Lyniate’s intentional and willful
`
`infringement, unfair competition, and false designation of origin, Lineate has suffered, and will
`
`continue to suffer, reputational harm as a result of Defendant Lyniate’s conduct. As noted above,
`
`consumers immediately associate the LINEATE Marks with Lineate and therefore will
`
`immediately ascribe to Lineate any faults, defects, or other issues and disappointments with
`
`Defendant Lyniate’s goods and services offered and sold in connection with the LYNIATE Marks.
`
`50. Moreover, Lineate has no control over the quality of Defendant Lyniate’s goods or
`
`services offered and sold in connection with the LYNIATE Marks. This lack of control opens
`
`Lineate up to further injury and harm should Defendant Lyniate produce products or provide
`
`services that are of poor quality or otherwise unappealing to consumers.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-11332 Document 1 Filed 08/17/21 Page 12 of 20
`
`51. Moreover, upon information and belief, Defendant’s unlawful conduct has likely
`
`caused, and will likely cause, Lineate to lose potential customers and sales of its Lineate branded
`
`products and/or it is likely that sales have been diverted and will continued to be diverted to
`
`Defendant Lyniate that Lineate likely would have otherwise made, for at least the reasons that
`
`consumers encountering Defendant Lyniate’s products or services branded with the LYNIATE
`
`Marks will believe they are buying Lineate products or services and will do so in lieu of purchasing
`
`Lineate software products and services.
`
`52.
`
`Lineate is and will continue to be irreparably harmed by Defendant Lyniate’s
`
`misconduct as set forth above unless Defendant Lyniate is enjoined by the Court.
`
`COUNT I
`Federal Trademark Infringement
`Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1114)
`
`
`
`53.
`
`Lineate hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1-52 as though expressly
`
`stated herein.
`
`54.
`
`Lineate has priority in the LINEATE Marks over Defendant Lyniate’s LYNIATE
`
`Marks in the United States in connection with software goods and services, including but not
`
`limited to those offered and used in the healthcare industry.
`
`55.
`
`The LYNIATE Marks, alone or in combination with other elements, are identical,
`
`or substantially indistinguishable from, the LINEATE Marks.
`
`56.
`
`Defendant Lyniate’s use of the LYNIATE Marks, alone or in combination with
`
`other elements, in commerce in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, and/or
`
`advertising of goods and services, including but not limited to healthcare software products and
`
`services, that do not originate with and are not sponsored by or affiliated with Lineate, is likely to
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-11332 Document 1 Filed 08/17/21 Page 13 of 20
`
`cause confusion, mistake, or deception among consumers, including among current and
`
`prospective customers of Lineate.
`
`57.
`
`Defendant Lyniate’s use of the LYNIATE Marks, alone or in combination with
`
`other elements, in advertisements intended to be used in commerce upon or in connection with the
`
`sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of goods and services, including but not limited
`
`to healthcare software products and services, that do not originate with and are not sponsored by
`
`or affiliated with Lineate, is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception among consumers,
`
`including current and prospective customers of Lineate.
`
`58.
`
`Defendant Lyniate’s actions, including without limitation by selling goods and
`
`services in trademark classes registered by Lineate or that are closely related to and/or within the
`
`natural zone of expansion of those classes and the goods and services within, are likely to cause
`
`confusion or mistake as to the source of origin of the goods offered by Defendant Lyniate in
`
`connection with the LYNIATE Marks, in that customers and potential customers are likely to
`
`believe that those goods offered by Defendant LYNIATE in connection with the LYNIATE Marks
`
`that are identical, or substantially indistinguishable, from Lineate’s registered LINEATE Mark are
`
`provided by, sponsored by, approved by, licensed by, affiliated or associated with, or in some other
`
`way legitimately connected to Lineate.
`
`59.
`
`Defendant Lyniate’s actions are likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception, in
`
`that customers and potential customers are likely to believe there is sponsorship, approval,
`
`licensing, affiliation, association, or some legitimate connection between the goods provided by
`
`Defendant in connection with the LYNIATE Marks and Lineate, when there is no such
`
`relationship.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-11332 Document 1 Filed 08/17/21 Page 14 of 20
`
`60.
`
`The likely confusion, mistake, or deception caused by Defendant Lyniate is willful
`
`and is in violation of section 32 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114.
`
`61.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of the likely confusion, mistake, or deception,
`
`Lineate has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm if Defendant Lyniate’s conduct
`
`is not enjoined.
`
`COUNT II
`Federal Unfair Competition and False Designation of Origin
`Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125)
`
`
`
`62.
`
`Lineate hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-61 as though expressly
`
`stated herein.
`
`63.
`
`Lineate has priority in the LINEATE Marks over Defendant Lyniate’s LYNIATE
`
`Marks in the United States in connection with software goods and services, including but not
`
`limited to those offered and used in the healthcare industry.
`
`64.
`
`Defendant Lyniate’s actions constitute use of terms, names, symbols, and devices,
`
`and use of false designations of origin, all of which are likely to cause confusion, mistake, or
`
`deception as to the source of origin of the goods provided by Defendant Lyniate, in that customers
`
`and potential customers are likely to believe that such goods are provided by, sponsored by,
`
`approved by, licensed by, affiliated or associated with, or in some other way legitimately connected
`
`to Lineate and its LINEATE Marks.
`
`65.
`
`Defendant Lyniate’s actions are likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception, in
`
`that customers and potential customers are likely to believe there is sponsorship, approval,
`
`licensing, affiliation, association, or some legitimate connection between the goods provided by
`
`Defendant Lyniate in connection with the LYNIATE Marks and Lineate and its LINEATE Marks,
`
`when there is no such relationship.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-11332 Document 1 Filed 08/17/21 Page 15 of 20
`
`66.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Lyniate has engaged in this conduct for
`
`the purpose of misleading consumers into believing that Defendant’s products are sponsored by,
`
`affiliated with, or otherwise connected to the LINEATE brand.
`
`67.
`
`The likely confusion, mistake, or deception caused by Defendant Lyniate is willful
`
`and is in violation of section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
`
`68.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of the likely confusion, mistake, or deception,
`
`Lineate has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm if Defendant Lyniate’s conduct
`
`is not enjoined.
`
`COUNT III
`Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices
`Massachusetts Consumer Protection Law (Mass. Gen. Laws Chapter 93A)
`
`Lineate hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-68 as though expressly
`
`69.
`
`stated herein.
`
`70.
`
`Defendant Lyniate engaged in trade or commerce within the Commonwealth of
`
`Massachusetts as that term is defined by Chapter 93A.
`
`71.
`
`Upon information and belief, a substantial part of Defendant Lyniate’s conduct set
`
`forth herein occurred within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and violates Mass. Gen. Laws
`
`Chapter 93A, §§ 2, 11.
`
`72.
`
`Defendant Lyniate has engaged, and is engaging, in unfair and deceptive trade
`
`practices in the course of their businesses by using and/or attempting to register the LYNIATE
`
`Marks in connection with their goods and services and in a manner that causes a likelihood that
`
`consumers in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will be confused about and/or misunderstand
`
`the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of Defendant Lyniate’s goods and services; the
`
`affiliation, connection, or association with or certification by Lineate of Defendant Lyniate and/or
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-11332 Document 1 Filed 08/17/21 Page 16 of 20
`
`Defendant Lyniate’s goods or services; and/or that Defendant Lyniate’s goods or services have
`
`sponsorship or approval by Lineate, when they do not.
`
`73.
`
`Defendant Lyniate has also engaged, and is engaging, in unfair and deceptive trade
`
`practices in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in falsely suggesting to consumers that
`
`Defendant and its goods and services are connected to, affiliated with, or otherwise related to
`
`Lineate and the LINEATE Marks, when they are not.
`
`74.
`
`By its actions, Defendant Lyniate is “palming off” its goods and services as those
`
`of Lineate’s.
`
`75.
`
`The LINEATE Marks have acquired secondary meaning such that confusion as to
`
`the source of goods and services provided by Defendant Lyniate is likely to arise due to use of the
`
`confusingly similar LYNIATE Marks.
`
`76.
`
`Defendant Lyniate willfully, deliberately, and/or intentionally engaged, and is
`
`engaging, in deceptive and unfair trade practices in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts by
`
`engaging in the conduct described above with full knowledge of Lineate’s superior rights and prior
`
`and continued use of the LINEATE Marks.
`
`77.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Lyniate’s actions have caused consumer
`
`confusion as to the source and sponsorship of Defendant Lyniate’s goods.
`
`78.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Lyniate’s willful, deliberate, and/or
`
`intentional deceptive and unfair trade practices, Lineate has suffered, and will continue to suffer,
`
`irreparable harm if Defendant Lyniate’s conduct is not enjoined.
`
`79.
`
`Defendant Lyniate’s intentional, willful, and/or deliberate deceptive and unfair
`
`trade practices violate the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Law.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-11332 Document 1 Filed 08/17/21 Page 17 of 20
`
`COUNT IV
`Common Law Unfair Competition
`
`Lineate hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-79 as though expressly
`
`80.
`
`stated herein.
`
`81.
`
`The LINEATE Marks are distinctive marks that are eligible for protection under
`
`Massachusetts common law.
`
`82.
`
`Lineate has used the LINEATE Marks in commerce in Massachusetts before
`
`Defendant Lyniate began using the LYNIATE Marks in commerce in Massachusetts.
`
`83.
`
`Defendant Lyniate’s use of the LYINATE Marks has caused, and is likely to
`
`continue to cause, confusion with the LINEATE Marks, and it constitutes unfair competition and
`
`false designation of origin in violation of Lineate’s rights.
`
`84.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Lyniate’s acts of common law unfair
`
`competition have been done willfully and deliberately, and Defendant Lyniate has profited and
`
`been unjustly enriched by sales that Defendant Lyniate would not otherwise have made if not for
`
`its unlawful conduct.
`
`85.
`
`Defendant Lyniate’s willful and deliberate acts described above have caused injury
`
`