Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA821053
`05/15/2017
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`Filing date:
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding
`
`92065261
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's e-mail
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Attachments
`
`Defendant
`Crown Industrial Services, Inc.
`
`BRADLEY L SMITH
`ENDURANCE LAW GROUP PLC
`180 W MICHIGAN AVE, SUITE 801
`JACKSON, MI 49201
`UNITED STATES
`bsmith@endurancelaw.com
`
`Motion to Suspend for Civil Action
`
`Bradley L. Smith
`
`bsmith@endurancelaw.com
`
`/Bradley L. Smith/
`
`05/15/2017
`
`20170515Crown_motion_to_suspend_small.pdf(80272 bytes )
`ExAremovalandstatecomplaint2.pdf(662321 bytes )
`Ex.BPetitionerAnswerCounterclaim.pdf(148277 bytes )
`ExCSchedulingorder.pdf(29578 bytes )
`ExDMidbrookCancellationpetition.pdf(337182 bytes )
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`MIDBROOK, LLC,
`
`
`
`Petitioner,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CROWN INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC.
`
`
`Registrant.
`
`Cancellation No.:
`Registration No.:
`Mark:
`
`Registration Date:
`
`92065261
`4,439,794
`MIDBROOK
`November 26, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ANGELA L. JACKSON (P53930)
`CHRISTOPHER M. TAYLOR (P63780)
`HOOPER HATHAWAY, P.C.
`Attorneys for Midbrook
`126 South Main Street
`Ann Arbor, MI 48104
`734-662-4426
`
`BRADLEY L. SMITH (P48138)
`ENDURANCE LAW GROUP PLC
`Attorneys for Registrant
`180 West Michigan Avenue, Suite 801
`Jackson, MI 49201
`517-879-0253
`bsmith@endurancelaw.com
`
`REGISTRANT CROWN’S MOTION TO SUSPEND
`
`
`
`
`
`Registrant Crown Industrial Services, Inc. (Crown) moves to suspend these proceedings
`
`pursuant to 37 CRF §2.117 because the parties are actively engaged in a civil action pending in
`
`U.S. District Court which will effectively resolve the instant petition. In support, Crown relies
`
`on the following brief and its attachments.
`
`BRIEF IN SUPPORT
`
`FACTS
`
`1.
`
`In late 2015, Crown purchased most of the business assets of Midbrook Industrial
`
`Washers, Inc. out of judicial receivership, paying over $400,000 for the intangible assets
`
`owned by Midbrook Industrial Washers, Inc. Crown continues to do business as
`
`“Midbrook Industrial Washers, Inc.” as well as “MIWI” (U.S. Reg. No. 4,447,088).
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`2.
`
`In August 2016, Registrant Crown commenced an action against Petitioner Midbrook,
`
`LLC in the Washtenaw County (Michigan) Circuit Court, case no. 16-752-CB. Crown’s
`
`suit alleged that Midbrook LLC was infringing Crown’s registered trademark
`
`MIDBROOK under section 32 of the Lanham Act, as well as common law trademark
`
`infringement of the MIDBROOK mark, misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious
`
`interference, and unfair competition.
`
`3.
`
`In September 2016, Petitioner Midbrook LLC removed the Washtenaw County action to
`
`U.S. Federal Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, case no. 16-cv-13200 (the
`
`“MIED case”). The Washtenaw County case and notice of removal are attached as
`
`Exhibit A.
`
`4.
`
`On September 27, 2016, Midbrook LLC filed its answer and counterclaims against
`
`Crown. (Exhibit B). In its counterclaims, Midbrook LLC accused Crown of common
`
`law trademark infringement, false designation of origin under section 43 of the Lanham
`
`Act, and unfair competition arising, inter alia, from Crown’s use of the MIDBROOK
`
`mark.
`
`5.
`
`At the crux of this dispute, both Registrant Crown and Midbrook LLC assert ownership
`
`of the MIDBROOK mark. See Crown Complaint ¶ 24 (Ex. A, asserting ownership);
`
`Midbrook LLC Counterclaim ¶ 30, page ID 159 (Ex. B, asserting ownership).
`
`6.
`
`On November 21, 2016, the U.S. District Judge entered a scheduling order (Ex. C).
`
`Among other deadlines, the court ordered that discovery be completed by May 22, 2017.
`
`Id. ¶1.
`
`7.
`
`On January 16, 2017, Midbrook LLC petitioned the TTAB to cancel Crown’s registration
`
`of the MIDBROOK mark, asserting that it owned the mark. Petition ¶ 10 (Ex. D).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`8.
`
`On May 2, 2016, Petitioner moved in the MIED case to adjourn all dates until the TTAB
`
`issued its decision in this cancellation proceeding. The Court has not yet heard or
`
`decided that motion.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`This case should be resolved in federal court in Michigan. This motion is governed by 37
`
`CFR § 2.117:
`
`Suspension of proceedings:
`
`(a) Whenever it shall come to the attention of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
`that a party or parties to a pending case are engaged in a civil action or another
`Board proceeding which may have a bearing on the case, proceedings before the
`Board may be suspended until termination of the civil action or the other Board
`proceeding.
`
`The Board should suspend this proceeding for at least six reasons.
`
`First, the issue at the center of the federal case pending in Michigan is exactly the same as
`
`the issue requiring resolution in this venue: which party owns the MIDBROOK mark?
`
`Second, the MIED case is much further advanced than this case. Discovery is well
`
`underway, for example, on the ownership issue in the EDMI case (indeed, the discovery cutoff is
`
`currently May 22, 2016). Trial in the MIED case is set for December 2017. Scheduling Order ¶
`
`7, Ex. C. In contrast, in this case the Board has entered a scheduling order that briefing will not
`
`be completed until late July 2018. See 24 January 2016 TTAB Notice of Institution and
`
`Scheduling Order. In other words, the MIED case will in all likelihood be resolved many
`
`months before this proceeding.
`
`Second, Registrant Crown believes it is very unlikely the MIED court will ignore the
`
`many persuasive authorities against staying federal district cases in deference to parallel
`
`proceedings at the TTAB. In its opposition to Midbrook LLC’s motion to stay proceedings, for
`
`example, Crown intends to cite American Bakeries Co. v. Pan-O-Gold Baking Co., 650 F. Supp.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`563 (D. Minn. 1986), in which the court held that TTAB jurisdiction should not be invoked
`
`where, inter alia, a stay of the district court action is more likely to prolong the dispute than lead
`
`to its economical disposition, and where the district court action includes claims which cannot be
`
`raised before the Board.
`
`Third, the TTAB cannot adjudicate other important issues between the parties, including
`
`competing claims of misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition, and common law
`
`trademark infringement. Nor can the TTAB issue preliminary injunctive relief on any of the
`
`parties’ claims. Judicial economy dictates that these related issues be resolved in the same
`
`venue.
`
`Fourth, if the MIED court does not stay its proceedings and the TTAB does not suspend,
`
`there is a chance of conflicting resolutions, necessarily leading to further litigation and
`
`complications.
`
`Finally, and perhaps most compelling, there is no reason for the Board to depart from its
`
`usual policy of suspending in these circumstances.
`
`Most commonly, a request to suspend pending the outcome of another proceeding
`seeks suspension because of a civil action pending between the parties in a federal
`district court. Although the Supreme Court held that issue preclusion can be
`based on a decision by the Board in a case in which the ordinary elements of issue
`preclusion are met, the Board’s policy to suspend in favor of a civil action has not
`changed. A civil action may involve other matters outside Board jurisdiction and
`may consider broader issues beyond right to registration and, therefore, judicial
`economy is usually served by suspension.
`
`. . .
`
`Unless there are unusual circumstances, the Board will suspend proceedings in
`the case before it if the final determination of the other proceeding may have a
`bearing on the issues before the Board.
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Manual of Procedure (TBMP) §510.02(a) (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`CONCLUSION
`
`Crown commenced the litigation pending in the Eastern District of Michigan in August,
`
`2016 – long before Petitioner initiated this action. Ownership of the MIDBROOK mark is
`
`central to that case, but other causes of action and grounds for relief are implicated as well.
`
`There is no reason for the Board to depart from its longstanding policy of suspending its
`
`proceedings pending resolution by the judiciary.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Bradley L. Smith/
`Bradley L. Smith
`Endurance Law Group PLC
`180 W Michigan Ave, Ste 801
`Jackson, MI 49201
`517-879-0253
`bsmith@endurancelaw.com
`Attorney for Respondent
`
`Dated: May 15, 2017
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing Motion to Suspend Proceedings was
`served this 15th day of May, 2017 pursuant to Trademark Rule 2.119(b), by emailing a copy
`addressed to Petitioner’s Counsel as follows:
`
`CHRISTOPHER M TAYLOR
`HOOPER HATHAWAY PC
`126 SOUTH MAIN STREET
`ANN ARBOR, MI 48104
`ctaylor@hooperhathaway.com
`Phone: 734-662-4426
`
`Dated: May 15, 2017
`
`
`
`/Bradley L. Smith/
`Bradley L. Smith
`Endurance Law Group PLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

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

`

`. ｾ＠
`
`2:16-cv-13200-JCO-MKM Doc# 1 Filed 09/06/16 Pg 1of4 Pg ID 1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`CROWN ｉｎｄｕｓｔ(cid:21363)ａｌ ｓｅｒｖｉｃｅｓ (cid:65292)(cid:30340)(cid:20161)(cid:65292)
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case No. 16-cv-13200
`
`vs.
`
`(cid:23380)(cid:20301)ｄｂｒｏｏｋＬ LLC, and
`(cid:23380)(cid:20301)ｌｔｏｎｌｕｔｚＬ
`
`Defendants.
`
`James A. Fink (P40386)
`Andrew F. Fink III (P74182)
`FINK & FINK, LLC
`320 N. Main ｓｴ(cid:21486) ｓｵｩｴ･ 300
`Ann Arbor, Ｑ(cid:20301) ＴＸＱＰＴ
`(734) 994-1077
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`Philip J. Curtis (P12412)
`Brad Andrew Brelinski (P68587)
`CURTIS CUR TIS & ｂｒｅｌｩｬ(cid:21515)ｓｋｉＬ P.C.
`PO Box 766
`Jackson, Ｑ(cid:20301) ＴＹＲＰＴＭＰＷＶＶ
`(517) 787-9481
`Attorneys for Defendants
`
`Bradley L. Smith (P48138)
`ENDURANCE LAW GROUP PLC
`180 W. Michigan Ave., Suite 801
`ｊ｡｣ｫｳｯｮ(cid:65292)(cid:23380)(cid:20301) ＴＹＲＰＱ
`(517) 879-0253
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`
`Angela L. Jackson (P53930)
`HOOPER HATHAWAY, P.C.
`126 South Main Street
`Ann ａｲ｢ｯｲ(cid:65292)(cid:24050)(cid:20301) ＴＸＱＰＴ
`(734) 662-4426
`Attorney for Defendants
`
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`
`TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT:
`
`

`

`‘
`
`A
`
`2:16” cv-13200-JCO-MKM Doc# 1 Filed 09/06/16 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 2
`
`Defendants Midbrook, LLC and Milton Lutz hereby petition for removal of
`
`this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446, and state as follows:
`
`1.
`
`On or about August 9, 2016, an action was commenced against
`
`Defendants in the Circuit Court for the County of Washtenaw, entitled Crown
`
`Industrial Services, Inc., v. Midbrook, LLC, et al., Case No. 16-752-CB, (the
`
`“Washtenaw County Case”). A copy of the Complaint, along with all of the other
`
`papers served on Defendants in the County Case, is attached hereto. (Exhibit A).
`
`2.
`
`On or about August 16, 2016 and August 17, 2016, each of the
`
`Defendants was served with the Summons and Complaint in the Washtenaw
`
`County Case.
`
`3.
`
`The Washtenaw County Case is one in which this Court has original
`
`jurisdiction and is one which may be removed to this Court from the Washtenaw
`
`County Circuit Court by Defendants pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1441 (a) in ｴｨ(cid:21078) ｩｴ is a civil action wherein the Plaintiff has alleged ｴｨ(cid:21078) ｄ･ｦ･ｮ､｡ｮｴｳ
`
`have violated the Lanham ａ｣ｴ(cid:65292)(cid:30340) ｕＮｓＮｃＮ § 1501 et seq. (See Exhibit A Complaint
`
`Counts I and II).
`
`6.
`
`No previous application has been made for relief in this case.
`
`ｒ(cid:24339)ｉｂｒｅｆｏｒｅＬ pursuant to this notice and the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1446, the action now pending in the Circuit Court for the County of Washtenaw is
`
`removed to this Honorable Court.
`
`

`

`(cid:30452)
`
`2:16-cv-13200-JCO-MKM Doc# 1 Filed 09/06/16 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 3
`
`Dated: September 6, 2016
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`BY: ＯｳＯａｮ(cid:24107)ｬ｡ L. Jackson
`Angela L. Jackson (P53930)
`HOOPERHATHAWAY,P.C.
`126 South Main Street
`Ann ａｲ｢ｯｲ(cid:65292)(cid:23798)(cid:20301) ＴＸＱＰＴ
`(734) 662-4426
`aiackson@hoooerhathawav.com
`ａ(cid:31038)ｯｭ･ｹ for Defendants
`
`PROOF OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned states that she mailed a copy of the foregoing document in
`the above captioned ｭ｡(cid:20181)･ｲ by placing same in an envelope with sufficient first
`class postage prepaid thereon and depositing in a United States mailbox located in
`the City of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, Michigan addressed as follows:
`
`DATE:
`
`September 6, 2016
`
`DOCUMENTS:
`
`1. Notice of Removal; and
`2. this Proof of Service
`
`ｨ(cid:22312)ａｉｌｅｄ TO:
`
`Clerk of the Court
`Washtenaw County Circuit Court
`101 E. Huron Street
`P.O. Box 8645
`Ann Arbor, ｬ｜(cid:22312)ｉ 48107
`
`Philip J. Curtis
`Brad Andrew Brelinski
`CURTIS CURTIS & BRELINSKl, P.C.
`
`

`

`"
`
`2:16-cv-13200-JCO-MKM Doc# 1 Filed 09/06/16 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 4
`
`PO Box 766
`ｊ｡｣ｫｳｯｮ(cid:65292)ｾ(cid:20301) ＴＹＲＰＴＭＰＷＶＶ
`
`James A. Fink
`Andrew F. Fink III
`FINK & FINK, LLC
`320 N. Main St., Suite 300
`Ann ａｲ｢ｯｲ(cid:65292)(cid:23798)(cid:20301) ＴＸＱＰＴ
`
`Bradley L. Smith
`ENDURANCE LAW GROUP PLC
`180 W. Michigan Ave., Suite 801
`ｊ｡｣ｫｳｯｮ(cid:65292)(cid:23380)(cid:20301) ＴＹＲＰＱ
`
`that being the last known address.
`
`I declare that the above statements are true to the best of my knowledge,
`information and belief.
`
`Dated: September 6, 2016
`
`BY:
`
`ls/Angela L. Jackson
`Angela L. Jackson (P53930)
`HOOPER HATHAWAY, P.C.
`126 ｓｯｵｴｨ (cid:23380)Ｑ｡ｩｮ Street
`Ann ａｲ｢ｯｲ(cid:65292)(cid:23798)(cid:20301) ＴＸＱＰＴ
`(734) 662-4426
`aiackson@hooperhathawav.com
`Attorney for Defendants
`
`

`

`,I.
`
`ＲＺＱＶＭ｣ｶＭＱＳＲＰＰＭｊｃ(cid:12290)(cid:8221) ｍｋｍ Doc# 1-1 Filed 09/06/16 Pg 1of121 Pg ID 5
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`2:16-cv-13200-JCO-MKM Doc# 1-1 Flied 09/06/16 Pg 2 of 121 Pg ID 6
`
`(cid:20027)
`
`(cid:26352)(cid:65292)(cid:65294)
`
`(cid:20877)(cid:19968).
`. ‘. ｾ＠ Ｎ(cid:65293)(cid:23544)
`
`STATE OF MICHIGAN
`IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR ｗａｓｉＭ(cid:25171)ＧｅｎａW COUNTY
`
`CROWN INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, ｉｬ(cid:24515)｣ＮＬ
`a Michigan ｣ｯ(cid:20013)ｯｲ｡(cid:35342)ｯｮ
`
`ｐｬ｡ｩｮｴｩ(cid:27665)
`
`v
`
`ｃ(cid:33276)･ｎｯＮ ｉ (cid:24623)(cid:65292) ＱＵｾ CB
`Hon.
`Archie C Brown
`
`MID BROOK, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company, and
`ｨ(cid:20301)ｌｔｏｎｌｕｔｚＬ
`
`Defendants.
`
`COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
`
`There is no other pending or resolved civil action arising out of the transactions or occurrences
`alleged in the complaint.
`
`/
`
`ｄ (cid:21485)(cid:30340)(cid:65293)
`
`､ｎｗｈｨ
`､ｍｑ
`
`(cid:21516)ｊｈＱｵ
`
`WNWW
`BMJF
`
`ｳ
`
`(cid:31146)､
`
`(cid:32178)(cid:8221)
`
`(cid:65293)ｳ (cid:12296)
`
`James A. Fink (P40386)
`ａｮ､ｲ･ｷｆＮｆ(cid:27850)ｫ III (P74182)
`Fink & Fink. PLLC
`320 N. Main St., Ste. 300
`Ann ａｲ｢ｯｲＮ(cid:65292)(cid:24050)(cid:21632) ＴＸＱＰＴ
`(734) 994-1077
`
`Bradley L. Smith (P48138)
`Endurance Law Group PLC
`180 W. Michigan Ave., Ste. 801
`Jackson, Ml 4920 I
`(517) 879-0253
`
`ａｴｴｯｲｮ(cid:21654)ｦｯｲ Plaintiff
`
`/
`DESIGNATION AS A BUSINESS COURT CASE
`
`Pursuant to MCR ＲＮＱＱ (cid:26376)ＰＩＬ I verify that
`this case ｭ･･ｴｳ (cid:20063)･ statutory requirements
`(Iv!CL 600.8031 et seq.) to be assigned lo
`the Washtenaw County Business Court.
`､(cid:25945)(cid:35496)(cid:30707)(cid:27875)(cid:31435)
`Andrew F. Fink ｉｬｬ(cid:963)ＷＴＱＸＲＩ＠
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`
`

`

`2:16-cv-13200-JCO-MKM Doc# 1-1 Filed 09/06/16 Pg 3 of 121 Pg ID 7
`
`...
`
`(cid:21621)(cid:65292)(cid:65293) &p
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`ｐ(cid:22992)(cid:22992)ｴｩｦｦｴ Crown ｉｮ､ｵｳ(cid:32920)｡ｬ ｓ･ｲｶｩ(cid:65292)(cid:24101)(cid:65292) ｉｮ｣Ｎ(cid:65292)(cid:30001)ｲｯｵｧｨ co\Ulsel and for ｢ (cid:33276)ｩｭｰｬ｡ｩｮｴＬ (cid:39449)(cid:33258)･ｳＺ
`
`ｊｕｒｉｓｄｉｃ(cid:21486)ｏｎ AND VENUE
`
`1. ｐｬ｡ｩ(cid:21103)ｦｦ is a ､(cid:23035)(cid:33258)(cid:30001)(cid:8734)(cid:20013)ｯｲ｡ｴｩｯｮ (cid:28149)(cid:12290)(cid:32893) ｰｲｩｮ｣ｩｰ｡ｬ place of ｢Ｑ(cid:32745)(cid:32745) ｡ｮ､ ｲ･ｧｩｳ(cid:20491)(cid:21483)
`
`(cid:8220)(cid:20063)(cid:38568)(cid:37610) ｡ｲ･ in Ypsilanti ｔｯｷｮｳｨ(cid:26092)(cid:65292) ｗ｡ｳｨ(cid:33021)ｮ｡ｷｃｯｵｮ(cid:26092)(cid:65292) ｍｩ｣ｨｩｧ｡ｮＮ
`
`2. Defendant Midbrook, LLC is a ｍｩ(cid:20063)ｩｧ｡ｮ limited ｉｩ(cid:27833)ｭｴｹ company whose principal place
`
`(cid:12290)ｦ ｢ｵｳｩｮＱ(cid:33276)ｳ and ｲ･ｧ(cid:21253)(cid:20285)･､ ｡､､ｲ(cid:30000)ｳ is 1300 ｐ｡ｬ(cid:26354)･･ ｒｯ(cid:29980)(cid:65292) ｌ･ｯｮｩ ｔｯｷｮ(cid:34880)(cid:26092)(cid:65292) ｊ(cid:33256)ｫｳｯｮ
`
`ｃｯｵｮﾷ(cid:26092)(cid:65292) ｍｩ｣ｨｩｧ｡ｮＬ where ｐ(cid:36286)Ｑ ｗｩｬｬｩｳ (cid:25197)(cid:26354)･ｲ･ｳｩ､･ｮｴ (cid:21888)(cid:21063)(cid:65294)
`
`3. The ｩ(cid:21515)ｵｲｩ(cid:39635) ｷｨｩ｣ｨ give ｲｩｳ･ (cid:22914)(cid:33256)(cid:20498)(cid:21917)(cid:33276) ｯｦ action alleged ｨ･(cid:21483)(cid:32990)(cid:30340) ｴｯ ｐｬ(cid:20063)(cid:37397)(cid:65292)ｳ
`
`･｣ｯｮｯｭｩ｣ (cid:33256)(cid:26178)(cid:21606)(cid:65292) ｭ(cid:20063)(cid:26093)ｧ ｗ(cid:21483)(cid:20285)｡ｷ (cid:33276)ｵｮｴｹ the ｬｯ(cid:21617)(cid:21617) ｯｦ (cid:20063)Ｎ･ original ｩ(cid:21654)ｹ for
`
`ｰｵｲｰｯＮ(cid:29980)ｳ ofMCL600.1629.
`
`4. On ｩｮｦｯｲｭ｡ｴｩｯｮ (cid:21483) ｢･ｬｩｾ Defendant Midbrook, (cid:26085)(cid:65292)ｃ does business in ｗ｡ｳｨ(cid:20491)ｮ｡ｷ
`
`ｃｯｵｮ(cid:26092)(cid:65292) ｩｮ｣ｬｵ､ｩｮｧ by ､･ｬｩｶ･ｲｩ(cid:26178) ｢ ｧｯｯ(cid:32568)(cid:8221) ｡ｮ､ ｰ･ｲｦｯｲｭ(cid:21368)ｧ ｳ･ｲｶｩ(cid:33276)ｓ ｦｯｲ (cid:21738)(cid:20491)ｭ･ｲｳ
`
`located ｷｩ(cid:20063)(cid:26093) ｗ｡ｳｨｴ･ｮ｡ｷ ｣(cid:12290)ｵｮｴｹＮ
`
`5. ｄ･ｾ(cid:25197)(cid:26354)(cid:26354) ｍｩｬｴｯｮ Lutz is an individual who is ･ｭｰｬｯｹ･､ (cid:33026) ｭ｡ｮ｡ｧｩｮｧ director . by
`
`Defendant ｍｩ､｢ｲｯ(cid:24676)(cid:65292) ｌｌｃＮ
`
`6. Venue is ｰｲ(cid:21621)(cid:38291) ｩｮ ｗ｡ｳｨ(cid:24676)｡ｷ County ｡ｳ (cid:20491) ｄ･ｦ･ｮ(cid:65292)(cid:26354)ｩｴ ｍｩ､｢ｲｯｯｫ(cid:12301)(cid:26085)(cid:65292)｣ under MCL
`
`600.1629(1 )( a)(i).
`
`7. Venue
`
`is proper
`
`in ｗ｡ｳｨＧ(cid:32068)ｮ｡ｷ ｃｯｵｮｴｹ (cid:33256) ｴｯ Defendant Lutz under MCL
`
`600.1629(1 )(b )(ii).
`
`8. The amount claimed by ｐｬ｡ｩ(cid:29980)ｅ exceeds $25,000.00 and Plaintiff is also seeking
`
`(cid:21621)ｵｩｴ｡｢ｬ･ relief.
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`2:16-cv-13200-JCO-MKM Doc# 1-1 Filed 09-/06/16 Pg 4 of 121 Pg ID 8
`
`..
`
`(cid:21621)(cid:65292)(cid:65293)(cid:8216)(cid:65308)(cid:65309)(cid:65282)(cid:65310)
`
`9. Venue and ｪｭｩ(cid:21515)ｩ｣ｴｩｯｮ are both ｰｲｯｰ(cid:21069)(cid:25197)(cid:26354)･ 22nd Judicial Circuit/Washtenaw County
`
`ｔｲｩ(cid:21040) ｃｯｵｲｴｂｵｳｩｮ(cid:38816) ｃｯｵｲｴＮ
`
`GENERAL ａｬ(cid:19988)Ｑｅｇａｔｉｏｎｓ
`
`10. ｐｬ(cid:34880)(cid:19992)ｦｦｩｮ｣ｯＮ(cid:20013)ｯｲ｡(cid:23849)(cid:25291)(cid:30938)ｲ｡ｰｨｳ ＱＭＹ (cid:23622) ｩｦfully restated herein.
`
`11. On ｩｮｦｯｭ(cid:21483)ｯｮ and belief, Midbrook ｉｮ､ｵｳ(cid:35342)｡ｬ ｗ｡ｳｨ(cid:39378)(cid:65292) ｉｮ｣Ｎ (MIWI) ｷ(cid:25558)(cid:20511)(cid:21161)ｩｬｩｳｨ･､
`
`and purchased ｣(cid:21069)ｴ｡ｩｮ divisions of Midbrook, Inc. during ｯｲ (cid:27833)ｯｵｴ November of2012.
`
`12. ｆｯｬｬｯｷ(cid:25197)ｧ its creation and purchase of divisions from Midbrook, (cid:23596)(cid:65292) ｍｉｗｩ｣ｯｮ(cid:34880)Ｎｵ･､ to
`
`ｯ｣｣ｵｰｹ (cid:20063)･ same building at 2070 and 2080 Brooklyn Road in Summit Township ｴｨ｡ｴ (cid:26354)･
`
`Midbrook, Inc. divisions had previously occupied.
`
`13. In ｡､､ｩ(cid:19990)ｯｮ (cid:32974)(cid:12290)(cid:8734)(cid:21481)Ｑｹｩｮｧ adjacent office and ｩｮ､(cid:24817)(cid:35498)(cid:8220)(cid:26089)｡｣･Ｌ Midbrook, Inc. and MIWI
`
`(cid:20063)｡ｲ･､ certain ｯ(cid:26354)･ｲ assets, including ｣ｯｭｰｵ(cid:25935) ｳ･ｲｶ･ｲｳ(cid:25142)(cid:25197)(cid:25197)､ networks, and shared a
`
`phone ｮｵｭ｢(cid:21069)(cid:65294)
`
`14. ｐｬ｡ｩｮｴ(cid:21069) ｰｭ｣ｨ｡ｳ･､ (cid:24677)(cid:26230)(cid:25558)ｴｳ ｯｦ (cid:34880)･ precision cleaning, ｬ｡｢Ｌ (cid:22982)(cid:8221)ｩ｣･ ｢ｵｳｩｮＱ(cid:25003)(cid:65292) ｡ｮ､
`
`machine ｳｹ(cid:34584)ｭ divisions of Midbrook ｉｮ､Ｑ(cid:20982)(cid:21515)｡ｬ Washers, ｉｮ｣Ｎ (cid:21046)ｉｗｉＩ (cid:20063)ｲｯｵｧｨ a
`
`Jackson County Circuit Court ｲ･｣･ｩｶ･ｲｳｨｩｰ (cid:20491)(cid:25136) ｃ｡ｳ･ No. ＱＴＭＲＷＰＶｾｐｄ＠during late 2014
`
`(cid:31062)､ ･ｭ(cid:21477) ＲＰＱＵＮ Exhibit A - Order ａｰｰｲｯ(cid:21515)(cid:21999) ｒ･｣･ｩｶ･ｲＧｳ Sale (Precision Cleaning and
`
`Lab Divisions and ａｳ(cid:29980)ｴ (cid:36276)ｊｲｃｨ｡ｳ･ ａｧｲ(cid:38283)ｭ･ｮｴＩＬ and Exhibit B - Order Approving
`
`Receiver's Sale ｏ(cid:21486)ｶｩ(cid:20491) ｂｵｳｩｮ(cid:33276)ｳ and Machine Systems Divisions and Asset ｐｵｲ･(cid:24676)ｭ
`
`Agreement). Plaintiff ｣ｯ(cid:29980)ｮｵ(cid:33258)(cid:24458)(cid:12290)ｷｮ (cid:26354)･ (cid:33258)(cid:25558)(cid:23596)(cid:65292) ｷｨｩ｣ｨ include MIWI's intellectual
`
`ｰｲｯ(cid:25142)(cid:26092)(cid:65292)(cid:21487)･｣ｩｦｩ(cid:20491)ｕｹ including MIWrs trademarks.
`
`15. On information and belief, ｄ･(cid:32048)(cid:32048)ｴ ｍｩ､｢ｲｯ(cid:24676)(cid:65292) ｌｌｃｰｵｲ｣ｨ｡(cid:25581)､ ｴｨ･ (cid:39208)(cid:39208)ｴｳ of Midbrook,
`
`Inc. through a ｊ(cid:33256)ｫｳｯｮ County Circuit Court ｲ･｣･ｩｶ･ｲ(cid:20063)ｩｰ (cid:20491)ｳ･Ｌ Case No. ＱＴＭＱＶＵＶ(cid:38518)ｐｄ in
`
`late 2014.
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`2:16-CV-l3200-JCO-MKM DOC # 1-1 Filed 09/06/16 Pg 5 Of 121
`
`Pg ID 9
`
`il'
`
`16. Defendant Lutz had been CEO of Midbrook, Inc.
`
`1?. Defendant Lutz negotiated the sale of the assets of Midbrook,
`
`Inc.
`
`through the
`
`receivership case. Exhibit C -Excerpt of Transcript of April 15, 2016 Bench Trial, 12‘“
`
`District Court for Jackson County, Michigan, Case No. 150338CiCM, MDBRK, LLC v.
`
`Madeira Network LLC, at 75.
`
`18. The negotiation violated paragraph 15 of the court’s order appointing the receiver, which
`
`prohibited Defendant Lutz from negotiating the sale of the assets of Midbrook, Inc.
`
`Exhibit D - Order Appointing Receiver dated July 10, 2014.
`
`19. On information and belief, Defendant Lutz is now employed by Defendant Midbrook,
`
`LLC and manages some, if not all, of Defendant Midbrook, LLC’s business. Exhibit C,
`
`at 39.
`
`20. Plaintifi‘ and Defendant Midbrook, LLC are both industrial service providers, whose
`
`businesses include fabrication of industrial washing machines, fabrication of parts for
`
`industrial machines, servicing industrial washing machines, warehousing and other
`
`factory-for-hire services, precision cleaning and industrial washing, supply of chemicals
`
`used for industrial cleaning, and laboratory services, among other products and services.
`
`21. Plaintifi‘ and Defendant Midbrook. LLC both provide and market
`their services
`intemafionally, but are primarily in business in the Midwest in general, and in Southeast
`
`Michigan in particular.
`
`22. Since purchasing the assets of Midbrook, lnc., Defendant Midbrook, LLC has wrongfully
`
`held itself out to the world as if it were the same entity as Midbrook, Inc. Defendant
`
`Midbrook, LLC's wrongful activity includes:
`
`

`

`2:16-CV-13200-JCO-MKM DOC # 1-1 Filed 09/06/16 Pg 6 Of 121
`
`Pg ID 10
`
`l‘.-
`
`a. Sending an email to an unknown number of recipients claiming “Our Demise is
`
`untrue MIDBROOK IS STILL HE
`
`” and asserting therein “WE ARE AT A
`
`NEW LOCATION” and “We are still here and going strong after 40 years.
`
`Exhibit E - Email fi'om Midbrook, Inc.
`
`b. Maintaining a website claiming “For nearly forty years, Midbrook, Inc. has been
`
`the world-leader for automated industrial cleaning and decontamination systems.”
`
`Exhibit F — Midbrook, LLC Website Capture dated August 8, 2016.
`
`c. Securing an ad in Jackson Magazine claiming to be a “Manufactm’er providing
`
`sheet metal fabrication services in 1976.
`
`In addition, Midbrook has a 2"“
`
`Industrial Washer Equipment division...” Exhibit G — Excerpt from July 2016
`
`Jackson Magazine.
`
`COUNT I - TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT, LANHAM ACT SECTION 32 (Defendant
`Midbrook, LLC)
`
`23. Plaintifi' incomorates Paragraphs 1-72 as iffully restated herein.
`
`24. Plaintifi‘ is the owner of the registered trademark MIDBROOK U.S. Registration No.
`
`4,439,794, registered in accordance with the Lanham Act, 15 US. Code §1051 et seq.
`
`Exhibit H — Certificate of Trademark Registration for MIDBROOK. The MIDBROOK
`
`trademark is registered for use in connection with washing machines for industrial parts;
`
`centrifugal separators; cyclone separators; and oil separators.
`
`25. Plaintiff is the owner of the registered trademark HURRICLEAN, U.S. Registration No.
`
`4,402,848, registered in accordance with the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §lOSl et seq.
`
`Exhibit
`
`I - Certificate of Trademark Registration for HURRICLEAN.
`
`The
`
`HURRICLEAN trademark is registered for use in connection with cleaning solutions for
`
`use in cleaning metal articles.
`
`

`

`2:16-CV-13200-JCO-MKM DOC # 1-1 Filed 09/06/16 Pg 7 of 121
`
`Pg ID 11
`
`a.
`
`26. Plaintifi‘ is the owner of the registered design trademark MIWI, U.S. Registration No.
`
`4,447,088, registered in accordance with the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §105l e! seq.
`
`Exhibit J —- Certificate of Trademark Registration for MIWI. The MIWI trademark is
`
`registered for use in connection with washing machines for industrial parts; centrifugal
`
`separators; cyclone separators; and oil separators.
`
`.
`
`27. Defenth Midbrook, LLC is doing business as “Midbrook” in the same industry as
`
`Plaintifl'.
`
`28. Defendant Midbrook, LLC has reproduced and copied Plaintiff’s MIDBROOK mark, and
`
`applied the MIDBROOK mark to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles, or
`
`advertisements intended to be used in commerce in connection with the sale of goods and
`
`services, in a manner likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive the
`
`relevant market for industrial parts washers and related machines. Exhibits E, F, and G.
`
`29. Defendant Midbrook, LLC’s adoption of Plaintifi’s MIDBROOK mark as its name
`
`infringes Plaintifi’s registered trademark in violation of Lanham Act section 32 (15
`
`U.S.C. § 1114).
`
`30. Defendant Midbrook, LLC’s use of Plaintiff’s MIDBROOK marks on labels, signs,
`
`packages, website, email, and advertising infi'inges Plaintiff’s registered trademark in
`
`violation of Lanham Act section 32 (15 U.S.C. § 1114).
`
`31.Defendants knowingly infringed Plaintifl’s registered marks intending that such use
`
`cause confusion or mistake, or deceive the relevant market as to the source of the goods
`
`and services supplied.
`
`32. Plaintiff has suffered damages as a result ofDefendants’ infringement.
`
`

`

`2:16-CV-13200-JCO-MKM DOC # 1-1 Filed 09/06/16 Pg 8 of 121
`
`Pg ID 12
`
`l‘'
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests a judgment in an amount greater than $25,000.00, together
`
`with any interest from the date the infringement began, costs and attorney fees as allowable by
`
`law, and an injunction preventing Defendant Midbrook, LLC from continued infi'ingement
`
`including an order that it change its corporate name from Midbrook, LLC, and any further relief
`
`the court deems appropriate.
`
`COUNT II - TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT, LANBAM ACT SECTION 43
`(Defendant Midbrook, LLC)
`
`33. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 — 32 as if fully restated herein.
`
`34. Plaintifi' is the owner of the tademark MIDBROOK INDUSTRIAL WASHERS through
`
`acquisition of that mark via receivership sale in December 2014, and a period of
`
`continuous we ofmany years before and alter that sale.
`
`35. Defendant Midbrook, LLC has used in commerce the names MIDBROOK,
`
`HURRICLEAN, and/or MIDBROOK INDUSTRIAL WASHERS in a false or
`
`misleading manner likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to dweive as to the
`
`afiliation, connection or association of Defendant Midbrook, LLC with Plaintiff, or
`
`imply Plaintiff’s sponsorship or approval ofDefendant’s commercial activities.
`
`36. Defendant Midbrook, LLC has used in commerce the names MIDBROOK and/or
`
`MIDBROOK INDUSTRIAL WASHERS in commercial advertising or promotion in a
`
`false or misleading manner that misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or
`
`geographic origin of Defendant Midbtook, LLC’s goods, services or commercial
`
`activities.
`
`37. Defendant Midbrook, LLC is advertising on its website that “Midbrook Industrial
`
`Washers” are “coming soon.” Exhibit F.
`
`

`

`2:16-CV-13200-JCO-MKM DOC # 1-1 Filed 09/06/16 Pg 9 of 121
`
`Pg ID 13
`
`38. Defendant Midbrook, LLC has accepted purchase orders using the name “Midbrook
`
`Industrial Washers, Inc.” Exhibit K— Purchase Order from Spartan Light Metal Products
`
`to Midka Industrial Washers, Inc.
`
`39. Defendant Midbrook, LLC infringed Plaintiff’s registered marks with knowledge and
`
`intending that such use cause confusion, mistake, or deceive the relevant market as to the
`
`source ofthe goods and services supplied.
`
`40. Defendant Midbrook, LLC infringed Plaintiff’s registered marks willfully intending to
`
`trade on Plaintifl‘s reputation or to cause dilution of Plaintiff’s owned marks.
`
`4!. Defendant Midbrook, LLC has accepted at least one purchase order for a chemical
`
`cleaning product known as “Hurriclean 8835" from Essilor MFG. Exhibit L — Email
`
`fiom Essilor MFG detailing a purchase order made to Midbrook, LLC.
`
`42. Hurriclean 8835 is available only from Plaintiff.
`
`43. Defendant Midbrook, LLC’s acceptance of a purchase order for “Hun‘iclean 8835”
`
`created a likelihood of confusion between products available from Plaintifi' and those
`
`available from Defendant.
`
`44. Defendant Midbrook, LLC’s unauthorized use of Plaintiff's marks in commerce in a false
`
`or misleading manner violates Lanham Act section 43 (15 Use. § 1125).
`
`45. Plaintiff has been and continues to be damaged by Defendant Midbrook, LLC’s
`
`infringement as some of its customers, including Essilor MPG and Spartan Light Metal
`
`Products, Inc., have sought to make purchases from Defendant Midbrook, LLC for
`
`products normally obtained from Plaintifi‘ due to the confusion between the entities, and
`
`Plaintiff has been forced to devote substantial time and resources toward eliminating the
`
`confusion in order to retain or regain customers.
`
`

`

`2:16-CV-13200-JCO-MKM DOC # 1-1 Filed 09/06/16 Pg 10 of 121
`
`Pg ID 14
`
`WHEREFORE, Plainn‘fi‘ requests a judgment in an amount greater than $25,000.00, together
`
`with any interest from the date the infringement began, costs and attorney fees as allowable by
`
`law, and an injimetion preventing Defendant Midbrook, LLC from continued infringement
`
`including an order that it change its corporate name from Midbrook, LLC, and any further relief
`
`the court deems appropriate.
`
`COUNT III — COMMON LAW TRADEMARK manual-mum (Defendant Midhrook,
`LLC)
`
`46. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 - 45 as iffully restated herein.
`
`47. Plaintiff owns the marks MIDBROOK, HURRCLEAN, and MIDBROOK INDUSTRIAL
`
`WASHERS.
`
`48. Defendants have infringed Plaintiffs owned marks.
`
`49. Some of Plaintifi’s customers, including Essilor MFG and Spartan Light Metal Products,
`
`inc., have been confused over origin or affiliation between Plaintiff and Defendant.
`
`Specifically, Essilor and Spartan Light Metal Products have sought to make purchases
`
`from Defendant Midbrook, LLC for products they ordinarily purchase from Plaintiff
`
`because of actual confusion.
`
`50. Plaintiff has been forced to devote substantial time and resources toward eliminating the
`
`confusion in order to retain or regain customers.
`
`51. On information and belief, Plaintiff has sufi‘ered other damages as a result of Defendants’
`
`infringement including lost or misdirected sales,
`
`lost profits, and reputational harm
`
`arising from Defendant’s provision of inferior products and/or customer service.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plainfifi‘ requests a judgment in an amount greater than $25,000.00, together
`
`with any interest from the date the infringement began, costs and attorney fees as allowable by
`
`law, and an injunction preventing Defendant Midbrook, LLC from continued infringement
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`2:16-CV—13200-JCO—MKM DOC # 1-1 Filed 09/06/16 Pg 11 of 121
`
`Pg ID 15
`
`including an order that it change its corporate name from Midbrook, LLC, and any finther relief
`
`the court deems appropriate.
`
`COUNT IV - ILLEGAL INTERFERENCE WITH A BUSINESS EXPECTANCY (all
`Defendants)
`
`52. Plaintifi‘ incorporates Paragraphs l-Sl as if fully restated herein.
`
`53. Plaintiff had a business relationship or expectancy with American Axle when it
`
`purchased the assets, including customer lists and active accounts, of MIWI, due to
`
`MIWI’s established relationship with American Axle.
`
`54. Plaintifi‘ had a business relationship or expectancy with Machine Tool 8:. Gear when it
`
`purchased the assets, including customer lists and active accounts, of MIWI, due to
`
`MIWI’s established relationship with Machine Tool & Gear.
`
`55. Plaintiff had a business relationship or expectancy with Bssilor MFG when it purchased
`
`the assets, including customer lists and active accounts, of MIWI, due to MIWI’s
`
`established relationship with Essilor MFG.
`
`56. Plaintifi'had a business relationship or expectancy with Delta Faucet Company.
`
`57. Plaintiffhad a business relationship or expectancy with Steel Parts Manufacturing, Inc.
`
`58. Plaintiff had a business relationship or expectancy with Spartan Light Metal Products,
`
`Inc.
`
`59.Plaintifi' also had business relationships or expectancies with an unknown number
`
`recipients of a misleading advertisement Defendant Midbrook, LLC sent to other entities
`
`known to be customers of Plaintiff. Exhibit E.
`
`60. The business relationships or expectancies had a reasonable likelihood of future
`
`economic benefit for Plaintiff.
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`2:16-CV-13200-JCO-MKM DOC # 1-1 Filed 09/06/16 Pg 12 of 121
`
`Pg ID 16
`
`61. Defendants knew of the business relationships or expectancies at the time of the
`
`interference through their prior knowledge of MIWI’s customers and their possession o