ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA1369641
`
`Filing date:
`
`07/08/2024
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding no.
`
`91291774
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Defendant
`TLM Global LLC
`
`DEREK FAHEY
`THE PLUS IP FIRM
`101 NE 3RD AVENUE, SUITE 1500
`FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
`UNITED STATES
`Primary email: derek@plusfirm.com
`Secondary email(s): docket@plusfirm.com, austin@plusfirm.com, jac-
`queline@plusfirm.com
`954-332-3584
`
`Motion to Suspend for Civil Action
`
`Matthew S. Nelles
`
`matt.nelles@johnsonmartinlaw.com, josh.martin@johnsonmartinlaw.com,
`kerty.apelt@johnsonmartinlaw.com, moriah.lucas@johnsonmartinlaw.com
`
`/Matthew S. Nelles/
`
`07/08/2024
`
`Attachments
`
`2024-07-08 Motion to Suspend - Final.pdf(868508 bytes )
`
`
`
`ESTTA1369641
`
`Filing date:
`
`07/08/2024
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding no.
`
`91291774
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Defendant
`TLM Global LLC
`
`DEREK FAHEY
`THE PLUS IP FIRM
`101 NE 3RD AVENUE, SUITE 1500
`FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
`UNITED STATES
`Primary email: derek@plusfirm.com
`Secondary email(s): docket@plusfirm.com, austin@plusfirm.com, jac-
`queline@plusfirm.com
`954-332-3584
`
`Motion to Suspend for Civil Action
`
`Matthew S. Nelles
`
`matt.nelles@johnsonmartinlaw.com, josh.martin@johnsonmartinlaw.com,
`kerty.apelt@johnsonmartinlaw.com, moriah.lucas@johnsonmartinlaw.com
`
`/Matthew S. Nelles/
`
`07/08/2024
`
`Attachments
`
`2024-07-08 Motion to Suspend - Final.pdf(868508 bytes )
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FOKISS, INC. d/b/a
`STEW PETERS NETWORK,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Opposer,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TLM GLOBAL, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Applicant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Opposition No. 91291774
`
`Application Serial No. 97699848
`
`Mark: DIED SUDDENLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`NOTICE OF CIVIL ACTION AND REQUEST TO SUSPEND OPPOSITION
`
`Applicant, TLM Global, LLC, through its undersigned attorneys, hereby provides notice
`
`to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board that the parties to the instant opposition proceedings are
`
`involved in a civil action which may have a bearing on the instant opposition proceedings. A
`
`complaint was filed by Opposer, Fokiss, Inc. d/b/a Stew Peters Network, in the United States
`
`District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging, inter alia, trademark infringement by
`
`Applicant and others. The civil action case number is 2:24-cv-14096-KMM. A copy of the
`
`complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit.
`
`Applicant’s deadline to file an answer or otherwise plead is July 8, 2024. In keeping with
`
`TTAB policy, and pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 2.117(a) and TBMP Rule 510.02(a), Applicant hereby
`
`requests suspension of the opposition proceedings until final determination of the civil action.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Dated: July 8, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/Matthew S. Nelles/
`By:
`Matthew S. Nelles
`Florida Bar No. 009245
`Email: matt.nelles@johnsonmartinlaw.com
`Joshua D. Martin
`Florida Bar No. 028100
`Email: josh.martin@johnsonmartinlaw.com
`JOHNSON & MARTIN, P.A
`500 W. Cypress Creek Rd., Suite 430
`Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309
`Telephone: (954) 790-6699
`Eservice: moriah.lucas@johnsonmartinlaw.com
`
`
`Attorneys for Applicant TLM Global LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document, which was
`
`electronically filed, is being sent via email to Opposer’s Counsel and other counsel of record at the
`
`address below on this 8th day of July, 2024.
`
`
`Jenna Harris
`RITHOLZ LEVY FIELDS, LLP
`131 S. 11th Street
`Nashville, TN 37206
`
`Date: July 8, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Matthew S. Nelles/
` Matthew S. Nelles
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT
`EXHIBIT
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-14096-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/03/2024 Page 1 of 58
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`FORT PIERCE DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FOKISS, INC. d/b/a STEW PETERS NETWORK
`PLAINTIFF
`
`
`V.
`
`TLM GLOBAL, LLC; TLM VISION, INC.;
`EDWARD SZALL; LAUREN WITZKE;
`MATTHEW SKOW and
`NICHOLAS STUMPHAUZER
`DEFENDANTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO.: 2:24-cv-14096
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff, FOKISS, INC. D/B/A STEW PETERS NETWORK (“Plaintiff”), by and through
`
`its undersigned counsel, brings this action against Defendants, TLM GLOBAL, LLC; TLM
`
`VISION, INC.; EDWARD SZALL; LAUREN WITZKE; MATTHEW SKOW; and NICHOLAS
`
`STUMPHAUZER, for injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and damages, and in support thereof,
`
`alleges the following:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PARTIES
`
`1. Plaintiff is a Corporation registered in the State of Minnesota with a principal address of
`
`656 Hallstrom Drive, Red Wing, MN 55066. Plaintiff also has a current pending Application
`
`by Foreign Corporation for Authorization to Transact Business in Florida, attached hereto
`
`and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, with the Florida Secretary of State.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-14096-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/03/2024 Page 2 of 58
`
`2. TLM Global, LLC (“TLMG”) is a Florida Limited Liability Company with a principal
`
`address of 2046 Treasure Coast Plaza, Suite A #138, Vero Beach, FL 32960.
`
`3. TLM Vision, Inc. (“TLMV”) is a Florida non-profit Corporation with a principal address of
`
`2046 Treasure Coast Plaza, Suite A #138, Vero Beach, FL 32960.
`
`4. Upon information and belief, Defendant Edward Szall (hereinafter referred to as “Szall”) is
`
`an individual residing at 1356 2nd Road SW, Vero Beach, FL 32962.
`
`5. Upon further information and belief, Szall, at all times pertinent to the facts and allegations
`
`of this Complaint and still to this day, is the managing member and a principal of TLMG
`
`and a Board member of TLMV.
`
`6. Upon information and belief, Defendant Lauren Witzke (hereinafter referred to as “Witzke”)
`
`is an individual residing at 1700 Aynsley Way, Vero Beach, FL 32966.
`
`7. Witzke, for the majority of time pertinent to the facts and allegations of this Complaint, was
`
`a high-level employee of Plaintiff.
`
`8. Upon further information and belief, Witzke, at all times pertinent to the facts and
`
`allegations of this Complaint and still to this day, is a principal of TLMG and a Board
`
`member of TLMV.
`
`9. Upon information and belief, Defendant Skow (hereinafter referred to as “Skow”) is an
`
`individual residing at 5925 Carriage Lake Court, Vero Beach, Florida, 32968.
`
`10. Upon further information and belief, Skow, at all times pertinent to the facts and allegations
`
`of this Complaint and still to this day, is a principal of TLMG and a Board member of
`
`TLMV.
`
`11. Upon information and belief, Defendant Nicholas Stumphauzer (hereinafter referred to as
`
`“Stumphauzer”) is an individual residing at 58 Pleasant Pond Loop, Hattiesburg, MS 39402.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-14096-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/03/2024 Page 3 of 58
`
`12. Upon information and belief, Stimphauzer, at all times pertinent to the facts and allegations
`
`of this Complaint, was a resident of Vero Beach, FL and has moved to Mississippi in and
`
`around the beginning of 2024.
`
`13. Upon further information and belief, Stumphauzer, at all times pertinent to the facts and
`
`allegations of this Complaint, was a principal of TLMG and, as of this date, is a Board
`
`member of TLMV.
`
`14. The allegations within this Complaint are directed toward the Defendants, both individuals
`
`and entities, in various capacities. Due to the Defendants' intricate and interwoven
`
`relationships and roles within TLMG and TLMV, it is presently unclear which Defendant,
`
`in their respective capacity as an individual or as part of an entity, was the acting or non-
`
`acting party with respect to the specific allegations set forth herein.
`
`15. The Plaintiff avers that the individual Defendants and the entity Defendants are so closely
`
`linked in their operations, governance, and activities relevant to this Complaint that
`
`distinguishing between their actions at this preliminary stage is impracticable. Therefore,
`
`for the sake of clarity and without prejudice to the Plaintiff's rights to seek discovery and
`
`further delineate the Defendants' respective roles and liabilities, the terms "TLM" or
`
`“Defendants” are used herein to collectively refer to all named Defendants.
`
`16. The Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this Complaint as discovery progresses to specify
`
`the actions and liabilities of the individual Defendants and the entity Defendants more
`
`precisely. At this juncture, however, Plaintiff alleges that the actions attributable to TLM
`
`reflect the collective conduct and liability of the Defendants as intertwined and inseparable
`
`actors with respect to the claims presented.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-14096-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/03/2024 Page 4 of 58
`
`17. It is the Plaintiff's contention that the complex interrelationship between the individual
`
`Defendants and the entity Defendants, and their collective actions under the umbrella of
`
`TLM have given rise to the claims herein. Such claims are directed against all Defendants,
`
`with the understanding that discovery may further illuminate the specific roles,
`
`responsibilities, and liabilities of each Defendant in relation to the allegations of this
`
`Complaint.
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`18. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1131 and 1338
`
`(a) and (b), because this case arises under the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. §§ 101, et seq.) and
`
`the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1051, et seq.) of the United States.
`
`19. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the federal and state common law claims,
`
`and the state statutory claims herein under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(b), because those claims are
`
`joined with a substantial and related claim under the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. §§ 101, et
`
`seq.) and the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1051, et seq.) over which this Court has original
`
`jurisdiction.
`
`20. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over all of the claims pled under state law herein
`
`under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, because those claims are joined with, and are so related to
`
`Plaintiff’s claims under the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. §§ 101, et seq.) and the Lanham Act
`
`(15 U.S.C. § 1051, et seq.) which this Court has original jurisdiction, such that they form
`
`part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.
`
`21. This Court has in personam jurisdiction over TLMG, TLMV, Szall, Witzke, and Skow in
`
`this action and venue in this judicial district is just and proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-14096-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/03/2024 Page 5 of 58
`
`§1391(b)(1) because each Defendant resides in this judicial district. Further, substantial
`
`parts of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims herein occurred in this district.
`
`22. This Court has in personam jurisdiction over Stumphauzer in this action pursuant to Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A) and by and through Florida’s Long Arm Statute, Fla. Stat. §
`
`48.193(1)(a)(1), (2), and (7), as well as §48.193(2) and venue in this judicial district is just
`
`and proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because Stumphauzer was a resident of this
`
`judicial district at all times pertinent to this claim. Furthermore, this Court has in personam
`
`jurisdiction over Stumphauzer in this Action pursuant to 28 U.S.C §1391(b)(2) because a
`
`substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims against Stumphauzer
`
`occurred in this district.
`
`BACKGROUND AND FACTS PERTINENT TO ALL COUNTS
`
`RELATIONSHIP AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES
`
`23. Plaintiff is a digital media organization providing an array of different digitally-streamed
`
`media content such as online broadcasts/podcasts, documentaries, news and analysis, and
`
`live events (altogether, the “Network”).
`
`24. TLMG is a media production outfit. Its primary service is to assist in the production of
`
`media content for its clients.
`
`25. In and around October 2021, Plaintiff engaged with TLMG to produce its Network.
`
`26. Plaintiff and TLMG did not enter into a formal written agreement or scope of work
`
`regarding their business relationship, however, there was an oral agreement that:
`
`a. TLMG would assist in the production, editing, posting, and monetization of
`
`Plaintiff’s Network and each show on the Network;
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-14096-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/03/2024 Page 6 of 58
`
`b. TLMG would assist with creating, maintaining, and posting content on Plaintiff’s
`
`social media handles and other video-hosting platforms (together, subsections (a)
`
`and (b) of this Paragraph shall hereinafter be referred to as “Network Production”);
`
`and
`
`c. TLMG would assist in the production of the Network’s documentaries (hereinafter,
`
`TLMG’s services allocated to the production of documentaries shall be referred to
`
`as “Documentary Production”).
`
`27. There was an agreed-upon budget for all services/work TLMG provided to Plaintiff.
`
`28. Payments made by Plaintiff to TLMG were allocated separately to either Network
`
`Production services or Documentary Production services.
`
`29. Plaintiff would pay TLMG weekly for services provided toward Network Production (the
`
`“Weekly Payment”).
`
`30. The Weekly Payment contemplated TLMG’s services for all Network content, including all
`
`the Network’s various online broadcasts/podcasts and social media posting, except for
`
`documentaries.
`
`31. Plaintiff would pay TLMG in a lump sum for Documentary Production.
`
`32. Each documentary that was produced by TLMG for Plaintiff had a set pre-determined
`
`budget.
`
`33. From October, 2021 through early April, 2022, Plaintiff and TLMG had a good working
`
`relationship; TLMG provided the weekly Network Services and Plaintiff made timely
`
`Weekly Payments.
`
`34. In and around that same time, Plaintiff directed TLMG to assist in the production of its first
`
`documentary, "Watch the Water."
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-14096-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/03/2024 Page 7 of 58
`
`35. Plaintiff and TLMG agreed on a budget and timeline for the production and release of Watch
`
`the Water.
`
`36. Watch the Water was released on April 11, 2022.
`
`37. Watch the Water was a successful documentary for Plaintiff and has been viewed by
`
`approximately 17 Million people on the Network’s Rumble channels alone, see below:
`
`
`
`
`
`38. Watch the Water significantly grew the Network’s followers and fanbase.
`
`39. Plaintiff currently holds a Copyright Registration for the entire Watch the Water work,
`
`United Stated Copyright Registration No. PA0002460649.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-14096-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/03/2024 Page 8 of 58
`
`40. The production of Watch the Water, and as described more fully below, the majority of the
`
`documentaries that TLM assisted the Network in producing, is a good example and
`
`representation of the parties’ understanding of the material terms relative to Documentary
`
`Production and the agreed-upon ownership and rights in films and content produced
`
`between the parties.
`
`GOLDCO SPONSORSHIP
`
`41. Plaintiff’s primary business model centers around selling advertisement/sponsorship spots
`
`on its Network to third-party advertisers/sponsors.
`
`42. With the release of Watch the Water, the growing fan base, and amount of followers to its
`
`Network, the Network was able to secure more sponsorships.
`
`43. On April 28, 2022, Plaintiff entered into a sponsorship agreement with GoldCo (the
`
`“GoldCo Sponsorship Agreement”), a company that provides services in the precious metals
`
`industry.
`
`44. Pursuant to the GoldCo Sponsorship Agreement, GoldCo and Plaintiff worked out an annual
`
`budget for GoldCo’s sponsorship of the Network.
`
`45. Pursuant to the GoldCo Sponsorship Agreement, Plaintiff had certain requirements it had to
`
`meet such as mentioning GoldCo as a sponsor throughout its Network and also producing
`
`and releasing a certain amount of documentaries during each GoldCo Sponsorship
`
`Agreement contractual term.
`
`46. The initial GoldCo Sponsorship Agreement term commenced on April 28, 2022 and ended
`
`on April 28, 2023 (the “Initial Term”).
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-14096-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/03/2024 Page 9 of 58
`
`47. Since the Initial Term, Plaintiff and GoldCo have renewed the GoldCo Sponsorship
`
`Agreement for a second term (the “Second Term”), which commenced on April 28, 2023
`
`and is set to expire on April 29, 2024.
`
`48. While GoldCo is not a party to this action, the GoldCo Sponsorship Agreement is a vital
`
`piece to the relationship, duties, and responsibilities of the parties hereto because the
`
`GoldCo Sponsorship Agreement, and the requirements therein, provided the majority of the
`
`Network’s annual budgets and production requirements.
`
`49. TLM, at all times relevant hereto, was aware of the production obligations Plaintiff had/has
`
`to GoldCo.
`
`50. Plaintiff was relying on TLM to assist it in fulfilling the GoldCo Sponsorship Agreement
`
`terms and obligations.
`
`51. In fact, TLM and its employees, principals, and agents, were part of the negotiations with
`
`GoldCo for the Initial Term and assisted in finalizing annual budgets and annual obligations.
`
`52. Moreover, Witzke was a top-level employee of Plaintiff and a principal of TLMG at the time
`
`the GoldCo Sponsorship Agreements were negotiated and executed.
`
`53. Both Plaintiff and TLMG understood that their Agreement regarding Network Production
`
`and Documentary Production and the obligations therein were generally tied to the
`
`Plaintiff’s obligations to the GoldCo Sponsorship Agreement because GoldCo provided the
`
`majority of the budget for the production of the Network and also because the GoldCo
`
`Sponsorship Agreement had strict requirements regarding the number of documentaries that
`
`would be released by Plaintiff in each contract term.
`
`THE “DIED SUDDENLY” DOCUMENTARY AND MEDIA FRANCHISE
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-14096-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/03/2024 Page 10 of 58
`
`54. The third documentary, which is the subject of Plaintiff’s intellectual property claims herein,
`
`that Plaintiff hired TLMG to assist in producing, was called "Died Suddenly" (when
`
`referring to the documentary and its content as a motion picture and piece of audiovisual
`
`work, it will be referred to as the “Film”).
`
`55. The Film is a documentary about the apparent health issues and risks associated with
`
`COVID-19 vaccines.
`
`56. Plaintiff is implementing a plan to center a media franchise around the Film and its title
`
`"Died Suddenly" to include a sequel and a series of daily news updates and commentary to
`
`the Died Suddenly viewers and fanbase through Plaintiff’s website, www.StewPeters.com
`
`(the “Genuine Website”) and
`
`its social media X handle
`
`(www.X.com
`
`f/k/a
`
`www.Twitter.com), namely "@DiedSuddenly_" (the “X Handle”) as shown below:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`57. The X Handle was originally set up in and around October, 2022 by TLM and/or its
`
`contractors, at Plaintiff’s direction, to assist in promoting and building awareness of the
`
`Film as well as providing consistent news updates and commentary to the followers of the
`
`X Handle and viewers of the Film and any sequels.
`
`58. Consistent with the Network Production and Documentary Production that TLM was to
`
`provide Plaintiff pursuant to the parties’ agreements, Plaintiff required that TLM and/or its
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-14096-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/03/2024 Page 11 of 58
`
`contractors would post to the X Handle to promote the film, air trailers of the film, and
`
`disseminate the pertinent updates, news, and commentary regarding alleged COVID vaccine
`
`deaths.
`
`DiedSuddenly.Info
`
`59. In and around that same time, the Defendants suggested to Plaintiff that a website domain
`
`should be set up, separate and apart from the Genuine Website, solely for the purpose of
`
`assisting in promoting the Film and also to provide information to the general public
`
`regarding the Film.
`
`60. Plaintiff agreed with Defendants’ suggestion and on or about September 26, 2022, the
`
`Defendants set up www.DiedSuddenly.info (the “Info. Site”) for Plaintiff.
`
`61. Consistent with the Network Production and Documentary Production, the Defendants were
`
`to only post authorized content, information, and trailers regarding the Film to the Info. Site.
`
`62. At the Info. Site’s inception, its function was to inform future viewers of the Film of its
`
`release date and pertinent information. A copy of the Info. Site’s home page from October
`
`21, 2022, taken from The Internet Archive’s Way Back Machine (www.archive.org/web/)
`
`can be found below:
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-14096-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/03/2024 Page 12 of 58
`
`63. The content on the Info. Site as of October 21, 2022 was authorized by Plaintiff.
`
`64. When the X Handle and Info. Site were initially created, Plaintiff and TLM had a good
`
`working relationship built on trust and prior performance and course of dealings.
`
`65. When the X Handle and the Info. Site were initially created, Plaintiff put its trust in TLM to
`
`have its Network’s best interests in mind and as a priority regarding the content that was
`
`posted to both.
`
`66. As Plaintiff now regrets, but because of the relationship between the parties, at all times
`
`material hereto, the Defendants had, and still have to this day, sole ability to post and control
`
`the X Handle and the Info. Site.
`
`67. However, the X Handle and Info. Site, as will be described more fully below, has since been
`
`hijacked by TLM and converted by the Defendants and the Defendants have withheld access
`
`and control over both the X Handle and Info. Site from Plaintiff.
`
`68. With creative input and direction from Plaintiff, TLM and its agents, principals, and/or
`
`contractors assisted in the production of the Film.
`
`69. The agreement between Plaintiff and TLM for the production of the Film was the same as
`
`the production of Watch the Water, pursuant to the parties’ agreement regarding
`
`Documentary Production.
`
`70. The Plaintiff first used the Film’s title, “Died Suddenly” (hereinafter, the title to the Film
`
`and the media franchise in whole will be referred to as “Plaintiff’s Mark”), in interstate
`
`commerce, on October 6, 2022 (the “First Use Date”) when it posted initial sneak peek
`
`trailers of the Film on the Stew Peters Network’s Rumble.com page (@Stew Peters
`
`Network) (hereinafter the “Rumble Page”) and the Network’s Gettr.com page (@Real Stew
`
`Peters) (hereinafter the “Gettr Page”) (the trailers released to the general public on the
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-14096-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/03/2024 Page 13 of 58
`
`Rumble Page and Gettr Page will be hereinafter referred to as the “First Use”). Screenshots
`
`of the Rumble Page and Gettr Page posts are attached hereto and incorporated herein by
`
`reference as Exhibits B and C, respectively.
`
`71. The Network also promoted the Died Suddenly Film by releasing a trailer of the Film on
`
`the First Use Date on the Stew Peters Show, which was broadcast on the following platforms
`
`where the Network has profiles and/or pages:
`
`a. Genuine Website;
`
`b. The Network’s Rumble channels (the “Rumble Channels”);
`
`c. The X Handle;
`
`d. Firestick;
`
`e. AppleTV;
`
`f. ROKU;
`
`g. Apple Podcast;
`
`h. Gettr.com;
`
`i. BEK TV; and
`
`j. Cozy Tv (all together, the mediums and/or platforms named in Paragraphs 72(a)
`
`through 72(j), will be referred to as the “Film’s Distribution Channels”).
`
`72. On the First Use Date, the Stew Peters Show had an estimated audience reach of
`
`approximately two (2) million, taking into account all platforms the Network’s content is
`
`aired on.
`
`73. The full Film was released November 21, 2022 (the “Release Date”) on the Film’s
`
`Distribution Channels.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-14096-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/03/2024 Page 14 of 58
`
`74. From the First Use Date to the Release Date, Plaintiff promoted the Film and Plaintiff’s
`
`Mark approximately 130 times on Plaintiff’s Telegram, Gab, GETTR, Truth Social, and X
`
`Handle accounts alone; this list is not exhaustive.
`
`75. From the First Use Date to the Release Date, Plaintiff also promoted the Film and Plaintiff’s
`
`Mark on the Stew Peters Show, which airs every weekday, amounting to approximately an
`
`additional 32 times the Film and Plaintiff’s Mark was promoted.
`
`76. TLM assisted in the production and promotion of the Film and use of Plaintiff’s Mark in
`
`nearly each of the above-mentioned uses and promotions by either posting a trailer to
`
`Plaintiff’s social media handles, producing new trailers and content to be aired on the Stew
`
`Peters Show or social media profiles, or by coming on the Network as guests/interviewees
`
`to provide the Network’s audience with updates and status on the production of the Film.
`
`77. At all times pertinent hereto, TLM and its agents, principals, employees and/or contractors
`
`knew, or should have known, that Plaintiff owned, held, and retained exclusive rights to the
`
`Film and its title.
`
`78. The Stew Peters Show that aired on November 4, 2022 is just one example of many, clearly
`
`showcasing this understanding of the parties. On November 4, 2022, Witzke sat in for Mr.
`
`Stew Peters on his show as the main anchor to host the show in his absence.
`
`79. On this Stew Peters Show, Witzke interviewed Skow and Stumphauzer to assist in
`
`promoting the Film and providing the Network’s audience an update on its production and
`
`release, see below (pictured in the below screenshot of Skow (left) and Stumphauzer
`
`(right)):
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-14096-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/03/2024 Page 15 of 58
`
`80. At all times relevant hereto, the full Film was to be exclusively on the Film’s Distribution
`
`
`
`Channels.
`
`81. Plaintiff used, and uses, the Film’s Distribution Channels as designated pages for the Film.
`
`82. The Film was aggressively promoted by Plaintiff on the Film’s Distribution Channels.
`
`83. The Film found virality immediately upon its release.
`
`84. In fact, after just a couple of days of the Release Date, the Film had been viewed by millions
`
`across the United States and the World and was steadily gaining more and more traction.
`
`85. Unfortunately, it was this virality that the Defendants sought to take advantage of and
`
`capitalize on.
`
`86. After the Film had been released to the public for just one week, without Plaintiff’s
`
`authority, direction, consent, or knowledge, the Defendants started making material changes
`
`to the Info. Site and the X Handle.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-14096-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/03/2024 Page 16 of 58
`
`87. As of November 30, 2022, the Info. Site started to seek donations from website traffic, see
`
`below:
`
`88. At no time has Plaintiff ever sought, or authorized the Defendants to seek, donations for its
`
`
`
`documentaries.
`
`89. The changes made to the Info. Site as of November 30, 2022 were done without Plaintiff’s
`
`consent, authority, direction, or knowledge.
`
`90. Any monies accepted by the Info. Site as a donation were never provided to Plaintiff and
`
`Plaintiff had no knowledge of any monies received or solicited until recent months.
`
`91. Thereafter, without Plaintiff’s authority, consent, or knowledge, the Info. Site underwent
`
`further changes. As of January 13, 2022, the Defendants continued to solicit donations from
`
`website traffic on the Info. Site but also started representing to donors they would be named
`
`producers a sequel to the Film, Died Suddenly 2.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-14096-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/03/2024 Page 17 of 58
`
`92. As mentioned above, Plaintiff has never authorized or given any consent to Defendants to
`
`seek donations.
`
`93. Plaintiff has also never authorized Defendants to promise any donors that they would be
`
`named producers in any sequel to the Film (the “Sequel”).
`
`94. Furthermore, and more importantly, Plaintiff never entered into any Documentary
`
`Production agreement for the Defendants to produce the Sequel.
`
`95. While Plaintiff does intend to release a Sequel to the Film, Plaintiff will not seek TLM’s
`
`assistance in its production.
`
`96. A copy of the Internet Archive’s Way Back Machine snapshot of the Info. Site as of January
`
`13, 2023 can be found below:
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-14096-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/03/2024 Page 18 of 58
`
`97. As of present date, the Info. Site depicts Skow and Stumphauzer as “Directors” of the Film
`
`and also incorrectly claims that “…they released the global phenomenon “Died Suddenly.”
`
`See Exhibit D attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
`
`98. The use of Skow’s and Stumphauzer’s name and image on the Info. Site, along with the
`
`language that they “released” the Film, coupled with the fact that the Info. Site is currently
`
`void of any indication or connection to the rightful owner of the Film or the Mark, is
`
`inherently confusing and misleading to those who travel to the Info. Site.
`
`99. The Info. Site also continues to solicit donations to “Become a Producer” of the Sequel to
`
`the Film, “Died Suddenly 2.”
`
`100. The Info. Site states:
`
`BECOME A PRODUCER
`
`“Donations to the production of Died Suddenly 2 will be identified as producer
`credit, and your name will be included in the names of producers at the end of
`the film. If you would prefer to immortalize your injured or deceased loved one
`on the film, you are welcome to submit their name instead and let us know of the
`substitution via email.”
`
` A
`
` screenshot of the pertinent section of the Info. Site is attached hereto as
`Exhibit E and incorporated herein by reference.
`
`101. Upon information and belief, any and all donations received from the Info. Site have been
`
`directed toward a bank account owned by TLMG, TLMV, and/or an account or accounts
`
`owned and controlled by one or more of the individually named Defendants.
`
`102. As mentioned, Plaintiff has never provided any of the Defendants with authority or consent
`
`to seek donations to assist in the production of the Film or any of its documentaries, to
`
`promise donors be a named producer, or to promote the production or release of the Sequel.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-14096-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/03/2024 Page 19 of 58
`
`103. Further, and as mentioned, while Plaintiff does intend on releasing the Sequel, there is no
`
`agreement between Plaintiff or any of the Defendants to produce the Sequel and Plaintiff
`
`has no intentions of having any of the Defendants assist in its production.
`
`104. Nevertheless, TLM and/or Skow and Stumphauzer represent on the Info. Site that they are
`
`currently in the production of Died Suddenly 2 and that the Sequel will be released in 2023,
`
`see below:
`
`
`
`105. The language used on the Info. Site stating that “…Directors Matthew Skow and Nicholas
`
`Stumphauzer are in pre-production now on a sequel…” is misleading, a misrepresentation,
`
`and confusing as to the ownership of the Film, the originator of the Mark, and TLM’s current
`
`role with the Network and the production of the Sequel.
`
`106. Further, Died Suddenly 2 was not released in 2023 and is not currently in active pre-
`
`production, thereby tarnishing the goodwill Plaintiff has obtained in the Mark to date.
`
`107. The plaintiff does not seek any payment from viewers for watching any of its
`
`documentaries.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-14096-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/03/2024 Page 20 of 58
`
`108. Plaintiff also does not seek donations from viewers for assistance in the production of any
`
`of its documentaries.
`
`109. Plaintiff believes that the information contained in its documentaries is vital to the general
`
`public and has made a strong stance against putting said vital information behind paywalls.
`
`110. TLM and/or Skow and Stumphauzer, knew, or should have known, that they did not have
`
`the authority to make the above-referenced representations and solicitations on the Info.
`
`Site.
`
`THE X HANDLE
`
`111. As mentioned above, the X Handle was originally set up, at Plaintiff’s direction, to assist
`
`in promoting and building awareness of the Film, releasing trailers of the Film, releasing
`
`the full version of the Film, and importantly, for the purpose of providing consistent updates
`
`and news to the followers of the X Handle and viewers of the Film.
`
`112. Because there was mutual trust between the Parties, coupled with the fact that Witzke was
`
`the Network’s Executive Producer and principal of TLMG, when the X Handle was first
`
`created, Plaintiff did not require that it have administrative access to the X Handle or that
`
`the X Handle be tied to a particular Network ema
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
