Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA855512
`10/31/2017
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`Filing date:
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding
`
`92066746
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Defendant
`Facility Pro, Inc.
`
`FACILITY PRO INC
`6451 NORTH FEDERAL HIGHWAY, SUITE 408
`FT LAUDERDALE, FL 33308
`UNITED STATES
`
`Other Motions/Papers
`
`Ryan T. Santurri
`
`rsanturri@allendyer.com, mleavy@allendyer.com
`
`/Ryan T. Santurri/
`
`10/31/2017
`
`Attachments
`
`Memo Op MDefaut Judgment and Request for Stay.pdf(5671685 bytes )
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`In the Matter of Service Mark Registrations:
`
`4,903,047
`Reg. No.:
`Registrant: Facility Pro, Inc.
`Filed:
`February 27, 2015
`Issued:
`February 16, 2016
`FACILITY PRO
`Mark:
`
`4,949,195
`Reg. No.:
`Registrant: Facility Pro, Inc.
`Filed:
`February 27, 2015
`Issued:
`May 3, 2016
`FACILITY PRO THE MAINTENANCE
`Mark:
`PROFESSIONALS (and design)
`
`
`_______________________________________________
`
`FACILITIES PRO-SWEEP, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`FACILITY PRO, INC.,
`
`Registrant
`
`_______________________________________________/
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner,
`
`
`
`Cancellation No. 92066746
`
`Registration Nos. 4,903,047 and
`
`
` 4,949,195
`
`REGISTRANT’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO
`MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT FOR FAILURE TO ANSWER
`AND REQUEST TO SUSPEND PROCEEDINGS
`
`Registrant, Facility Pro, Inc. (“FPI”), through the undersigned counsel, hereby submits
`
`this memorandum in opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for Default Judgment for Failure to
`
`Answer, and states as follows:
`
`The reason for FPI’s failure to respond is simple. FPI never received notice of the
`
`proceeding. Counsel for FPI is the same as in Opposition No. 91235411 and in litigation between
`
`the parties captioned Facilities Pro-Sweep, Inc. v. Facility Pro, Inc., Case No. 17-60675-CIV-
`
`

`

`DIMITROULEAS, currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District
`
`of Florida. Counsel for petitioner is, likewise, counsel in each of these other matters between the
`
`parties. The petition for cancellation lists an outdated physical address for FPI and an email
`
`address of a lawyer in the undersigned firm (David Sigalow-dsigalow@allendyer.com), and
`
`Petitioner contends it served a copy of the petition on both. (Paper No. 4, ¶6.) Given the incorrect
`
`physical address, Registrant has no record of receiving the petition. Additionally, the
`
`undersigned law firm has no record of receiving the ESTTA notification of this action. (Ex A-
`
`Decl. of David Sigalow, ¶3.) Had FPI or David Sigalow received the cancellation petition, an
`
`answer would have been timely filed. The undersigned firm received a copy of the motion for
`
`default, which was the first time it became aware of this proceeding. (Sigalow Decl., ¶3.) Having
`
`never received notice, Registrant requests the motion for default be denied and new dates issued.
`
`Additionally, Registrant requests a week extension of time to file an answer to the petition.
`
`As an alternative to new dates and a request to file an answer, Registrant requests that the
`
`TTAB suspend this cancellation proceeding pending the outcome of a civil action involving the
`
`parties. (A true and correct copy of the Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit B). Specifically,
`
`the civil action was filed four months prior to this proceeding, and the claims bear on the issues
`
`presented to the Board in the Petition. Facilities Pro-Sweep, the Plaintiff in the civil action,
`
`alleges claims of infringement of its marks by the use of the FPI marks in this cancellation
`
`action.
`
`It is the policy of the Board to suspend cancellation proceedings when the parties are
`
`involved in a civil action which may be dispositive of or have a bearing on the Board’s
`
`proceedings. TBMP §510.02, citing 37 C.F.R. § 2.117(a); see also New Orleans Louisiana Saints
`
`LLC and NFL Properties LLC v. Who Dat?, Inc., 99 USPQ2d 1550 (TTAB 2011) (civil action
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`need not be dispositive of Board proceeding, but only needs to have bearing on issues before the
`
`Board); General Motors Corp. v. Cadillac Club Fashions Inc., 22 USPQ2d 1933 (TTAB 1992);
`
`Toro Co. v. Hardigg Industries, Inc., 187 USPQ 689 (TTAB 1975); Tokaido v. Honda
`
`Associates, Inc., 179 USPQ 861 (TTAB 1973). This policy makes perfect sense. When a civil
`
`action in a federal district court involves issues in common with those in a proceeding before the
`
`Board, the decision of the district court is often binding on the Board. See TBMP § 510.02(a);
`
`Goya Foods Inc. v. Tropicana Products Inc., 846 F.2d 848 (2d Cir. 1988) (PTO registration
`
`would not affect the legal standard applied in infringement claim or the scope of the required
`
`fact-finding; the district court will still independently have to determine the validity of the mark).
`
`While the Supreme Court recently found that TTAB decisions can be binding on a federal court
`
`(B&B Hardware Inc. v. Hargis Industries, 135 S.Ct. 1293, 1310 (2015)), under no circumstances
`
`could this Board’s decision resolve all issues in the pending federal litigation, which encompass
`
`Petitioner’s rights, which are not involved in this proceeding. As such, there is no reason for the
`
`parties or the Board to spend time and resources on this dispute when the resolution at the Board
`
`will not resolve the first-filed federal litigation between the same parties.
`
`Equitable considerations favor suspension of the cancellation proceeding because
`
`conducting two trials involving the same parties and the same issues will undoubtedly result in
`
`duplication of effort and expense. There is also the potential that simultaneous proceedings on
`
`these issues could result in inconsistent results. Accordingly, Registrant respectfully requests that
`
`the Board suspend these cancellation proceedings until final disposition of the civil action noted
`
`above.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Respectfully submitted October 31, 2017.
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/Ryan T. Santurri
`Ryan T. Santurri, Florida Bar No. 015698
`rsanturri@allendyer.com
`Allen, Dyer, Doppelt & Gilchrist P.A.
`255 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1401
`Orlando, FL 32801
`Telephone: (407) 841-2330
`Facsimile: (407) 841-2343
`Attorneys for Registrant, Facility Pro, Inc.
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and complete copy of the foregoing has been served by
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`email on October 31, 2017 to:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`John F. Bradley, Esq.
`jb@bradlegal.com
`Bradley Legal Group, P.A.
`15 Northeast 13th Avenue
`Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Ryan T. Santurri
`Ryan T. Santurri
`
`4
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`In the Matter of Service Mark Registrations:
`
`Reg. No.:
`Registrant:
`Filed:
`Issued:
`Mark:
`
`Reg. No.:
`Registrant:
`Filed:
`Issued:
`Mark:
`
`4,903,047
`Facility Pro, Inc.
`February 27, 2015
`February 16, 2016
`FACILITY PRO
`
`4,949,195
`Facility Pro, Inc.
`February 27, 2015
`May 3, 2016
`FACILITY PRO THE MAINTENANCE
`
`PROFESSIONALS (and design)
`
`FACILITIES PRO-SWEEP, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`Cancellation No. 92066746
`
`V.
`
`FACILITY PRO, INC.,
`
`Registrant
`
`Registration Nos. 4,903,047 and
`4,949,195
`
`/
`
`DECLARATION OF DAVID SIGALOW
`
`The undersigned, being duly sworn, depose and say:
`
`1.
`
`I, David L. Sigalow, am the over the age of majority and legally competent to
`
`testify to the true facts stated herein.
`
`2.
`
`I am a shareholder in the law firm of Allen, Dyer, Doppelt and Gilchrist, P.A.,
`
`filed and prosecuted the applications which matured into US Registration Nos.
`
`4,903,047 and 4,949,195. My email address (dsigalow@addmg.com) remains
`
`

`

`listed in the “Correspondent” section of the records of the U.S.P.T.O. for both
`
`Registration Nos. 4,903,047 and 4,949,195.
`
`3.
`
`My staff and I have reviewed our electronic records and cannot find that I
`
`received ESTTA notifications pertaining to this dispute, nor did we receive copies
`
`by mail.
`
`4.
`
`Instead, the first time I learned of this action was upon receipt of the current
`
`motion for default judgment, which I received via the email address associated
`
`with the ‘047 and ‘ 195 Registrations on or about October 11, 2017.
`
`I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that
`
`the facts set forth in this Declaration that are made herein of my own knowledge are true; and
`
`that all statements made on knowledge are true, and that all statements made on information and
`
`belief are believed to be true.
`
`Date:\ 0‘ 34‘ PT
`
` David L. Sigalo
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT B
`EXHIBIT B
`
`

`

`Case 0:17-cv-60675-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/06/2017 Page 1 of 17
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`
`FACILITIES PRO-SWEEP, INC.,
`a Florida corporation,
`
`CASE NO._________________________
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`FACILITY PRO, INC., a Florida corporation,
`
`Defendant.
`_____________________________________/
`
`VERIFIED COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff, FACILITIES PRO-SWEEP, INC. (“Plaintiff”), sues Defendant, FACILITY
`
`PRO, INC. (“Defendant”), and alleges:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This is an action for infringement of Plaintiff’s valuable service marks, for false
`
`designation of origin, and for unfair competition under federal and Florida statutory and common
`
`law, involving Defendant’s willful acts by virtue of Defendant’s use of its service marks,
`
`including
`
`FACILITY PRO and
`
`FACILITY PRO THE MAINTENANCE
`
`PROFESSIONALS (and design) (“Defendant’s Marks”), which are nearly identical, highly
`
`similar, and/or confusingly similar to Plaintiff’s service marks, including FACILITIES,
`
`FACILITIES PRO-SWEEP, and FACILITIES PRO-SWEEP (and design) (“Plaintiff’s
`
`Marks”).
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff is in the business of property maintenance, including, without limitation,
`
`cleaning, upkeep, and maintenance of commercial and industrial facilities and their surroundings
`
`and parking lots, as well as roads, streets, sidewalks, curbs, dumpsters, etc. (“Plaintiff’s
`
`Services”).
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 0:17-cv-60675-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/06/2017 Page 2 of 17
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Defendant is in an identical business (“Defendant’s Services”).
`
`Defendant conducts and/or solicits business in Florida, and set up its principal
`
`place of business only approximately four (4) miles away from Plaintiff’s principal place of
`
`business.
`
`5.
`
`Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s demand to cease and desist by denying its
`
`infringement and refusing to comply with Plaintiff’s demand.
`
`6.
`
`Therefore, Defendant’s willful infringement was intentional.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`7.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1331 and 1338(a)-(b), in that this action arises under the federal Lanham Act/Trademark Act,
`
`15 U.S.C. §1051 et seq., federal common law, and other federal law.
`
`8.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant, and venue is proper in the
`
`Southern District of Florida (“District”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 (b) and (c) because
`
`Defendant resides and/or maintains its principal place of business in the District, Defendant is
`
`doing business in the District, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the
`
`claims occurred in the District.
`
`9.
`
`Supplemental jurisdiction is proper for the state law claims under 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1367(a) as the claims are so related to the federal claims that they form part of the same general
`
`nucleus of facts, case, or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.
`
`PARTIES
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State
`
`of Florida, with a principal place of business at 1471 SW 30th Avenue, Suite 12, Deerfield Beach,
`
`FL 33442.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 0:17-cv-60675-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/06/2017 Page 3 of 17
`
`11.
`
`Defendant is a Florida corporation with a principal place of business at 1300 East
`
`Hillsboro Beach Blvd., Suite 200, Deerfield Beach, FL 33441.
`
`FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
`
`a. Plaintiff’s Marks
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff’s Services consist of power sweeping, maintenance, cleaning, and
`
`upkeep of commercial and industrial facilities such as parking lots and garages, retail centers,
`
`offices and industrial lots, construction sites, as well as home owner associations, apartment
`
`building, and condos. See a printout of Plaintiff’s website, attached as Exhibit “A” hereto.
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff has been continuously using the mark FACILITIES PRO-SWEEP
`
`since as early as February 15, 2002, within the State of Florida and in U.S. Commerce since as
`
`early as June 1, 2002, in connection with Plaintiff’s Services.
`
`14.
`
`On November 17, 2016, Plaintiff applied for a federal registration of the mark
`
`FACILITIES PRO-SWEEP with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO")
`
`in connection with the following services:
`
`Building maintenance and repair; Cleaning of commercial premises; Cleaning of
`industrial premises; Cleaning of roads, streets, parking lots, garages, sidewalks,
`curbs, hedges, dumpster areas, vacant suites, spills, buildings, premises,
`surrounding grounds outside buildings; Handyman service, namely, building
`repair and maintenance; Maintenance of roads, streets, parking lots, garages,
`sidewalks, curbs, hedges, dumpster areas, vacant suites, spills, buildings, premises,
`surrounding grounds outside buildings; Trash clean-up; Repair, maintenance and
`modification of roads, streets, parking lots, garages, sidewalks, curbs, hedges,
`dumpster areas, vacant suites, spills, buildings, premises, surrounding grounds
`outside buildings; Street cleaning; Street sweeping services
`
`in International Class 37. See USPTO’s TESS printout of Plaintiff’s U.S. Service Mark
`
`Application Serial No. 87/240,404 (“App. No. ‘404”) attached as Exhibit “B” hereto.
`
`15.
`
`On March 7, 2017, Plaintiff’s App. No. ‘404 was published for opposition on the
`
`Principal Register without a disclaimer and reflecting and evidencing the distinctiveness of
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 0:17-cv-60675-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/06/2017 Page 4 of 17
`
`Plaintiff’s FACILITIES PRO-SWEEP service mark in connection with the services listed in App.
`
`No. ‘404.
`
`16.
`
`Although Defendant has no meritorious basis for opposing Plaintiff’s App. No.
`
`‘404, on March 31, 2017, Defendant requested with the USPTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal
`
`Board (“TTAB”), and was granted, a ninety-day extension of time to oppose same, through and
`
`including July 5, 2017, purposely and wrongfully delaying and attempting to prevent registration
`
`of App. No. ‘404. See Exhibit “C” hereto.
`
`17.
`
`Though Defendant has currently filed its extension against App. No. ‘404, despite
`
`not having any superior rights for challenging registration of the App. No. ‘404, once registered
`
`in due course, Plaintiff’s App. No. ‘404 will confer prima facie evidence of Plaintiff’s
`
`nationwide right of exclusive use of FACILITIES PRO-SWEEP and any mark likely to cause
`
`confusion with this mark in connection with the services specified in the resulting registration,
`
`pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1057(b).
`
`18.
`
`On November 14, 2002, Plaintiff applied for a federal registration of the mark
`
`FACILITIES PRO-SWEEP (and design) with the USPTO in connection with parking lot
`
`power sweeping and maintenance in International Class 37. The mark appears as follows:
`
`19.
`
`Said application matured into U.S. Registration No. 3,037,482 for the mark
`
`FACILITIES PRO-SWEEP (and design) (“Reg. No. ‘482”) issued on January 3, 2006. See
`
`Exhibit “D” hereto.
`
`20.
`
`Plaintiff’s Reg. No. ‘482 is valid, subsisting, and in full force and effect, and
`
`therefore confers prima facie evidence of a nationwide right of exclusive use of FACILITIES
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 0:17-cv-60675-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/06/2017 Page 5 of 17
`
`PRO-SWEEP (and design) and any mark likely to cause confusion with this mark in
`
`connection with the services specified in the registration, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1057(b).
`
`21.
`
`Plaintiff’s Reg. No. ‘482 is incontestable, and constitutes conclusive evidence of
`
`the validity and registration of the mark, Plaintiff’s ownership, and Plaintiff’s exclusive right to
`
`use the mark in commerce. 15 U.S.C. 1115(b). See Exhibit “E” hereto.
`
`22.
`
`Although initially Reg. No. ‘482 dated January 3, 2006, claimed no exclusive
`
`right to use “FACILITIES PRO-SWEEP” apart from the mark as shown, the disclaimed matter
`
`has become distinctive of the Plaintiff’s services in accordance with 15 U.S.C. § 1056(b)1, and
`
`has not prejudiced or affected Plaintiff’s rights then existing or thereafter arising in the
`
`disclaimed matter. Hence, Plaintiff’s App. No. ‘404 was published for opposition on the
`
`Principal Register without a disclaimer, reflecting and evidencing the distinctiveness of
`
`Plaintiff’s FACILITIES PRO-SWEEP service mark in connection with Plaintiff’s Services.
`
`23.
`
`Plaintiff also owns Florida Service Mark Registration Document No.
`
`T17000000315 for the mark FACILITIES for building/premises repair/maintenance; parking lot,
`
`garage, street power sweeping; repair/maintenance of parking lots & surrounding grounds
`
`outside buildings, which issued on or about March 22, 2017. A true and correct copy of the
`
`Florida Department of State (“FDS”)’s record of Plaintiff’s Registration No. T17000000315 is
`
`attached as Exhibit “F” hereto.
`
`24.
`
`Plaintiff also owns Florida Service Mark Registration Document No.
`
`T17000000017
`
`for
`
`the mark FACILITIES PRO-SWEEP for
`
`building/premises
`
`repair/maintenance; parking lot, garage, street power sweeping; repair/maintenance of parking
`
`(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)
`
`1 "No disclaimer. . . shall prejudice or affect the applicant’s or registrant’s rights then existing or
`thereafter arising in the disclaimed matter, or his right of registration on another application if the
`disclaimed matter be or shall have become distinctive of his goods or services." 15 U.S.C. §
`1056(b).
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 0:17-cv-60675-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/06/2017 Page 6 of 17
`
`lots & surrounding grounds outside buildings, which issued on or about January 3, 2017. A true
`
`and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Certificate of Registration No. T17000000017 from the FDS is
`
`attached as Exhibit “G” hereto.
`
`25.
`
`Plaintiff also owns Florida Service Mark Registration No. T16000000383 for the
`
`mark FACILITIES PRO-SWEEP & DESIGN OF WORD "FACILITIES" RED, WORD
`
`"PRO-SWEEP" AND TRUCK ARE BLUE, RED HORIZONTAL LINES PRECEDE
`
`"PRO-SWEEP" for building/premises repair/maintenance, parking lot power sweeping,
`
`repair/maintenance of parking lots & surrounding grounds outside buildings, which issued on
`
`April 18, 2016. The word FACILITIES is not disclaimed in the ‘383 Registration. A true and
`
`correct copy of Plaintiff’s Certificate of Registration No. T16000000383 from the FDS is
`
`attached as Exhibit “H” hereto.
`
`26.
`
`Plaintiff also owns Florida Service Mark Registration Document No.
`
`T17000000048 for
`
`the mark FACILITIES PRO-SWEEP & DESIGN OF WORD
`
`“FACILITIES” FOLLOWED BY A TRUCK ABOVE HORIZONAL LINES
`
`PRECEDING “PRO-SWEEP” for building/premises repair/maintenance; parking lot, garage,
`
`street power sweeping; repair/maintenance of parking lots & surrounding grounds outside
`
`buildings, which issued on or about January 9, 2017. The wording FACILITIES PRO-SWEEP is
`
`not disclaimed in the ‘048 Registration. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Certificate of
`
`Registration No. T17000000048 from the FDS is attached as Exhibit “I” hereto.
`
`27.
`
`Plaintiff has also acquired strong common law service mark rights in Plaintiff’s
`
`Marks used in Florida and interstate commerce in connection with Plaintiff’s Services. Plaintiff’s
`
`enforceable common law service mark rights were established and vested long before
`
`Defendant’s began using its infringing FACILITY PRO mark in May 2014.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 0:17-cv-60675-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/06/2017 Page 7 of 17
`
`28.
`
`Plaintiff’s Marks have been continuously used in Florida and interstate commerce
`
`to identify and distinguish Plaintiff’s high quality services for an extended period of time, are a
`
`symbol of enormous quality, reputation, and goodwill, and have never been abandoned.
`
`29.
`
`As a result of Plaintiff’s marketing, advertising, and promoting Plaintiff’s
`
`Services in commerce throughout Florida and the United States, Plaintiff’s Marks have achieved
`
`favorable third party publicity and recognition. The significant provision of Plaintiff’s Services
`
`in connection with Plaintiff’s Marks in Florida and the United States have been combined with
`
`individual consumer and industry recognition of Plaintiff’s Marks.
`
`30.
`
`Plaintiff’s Marks are inherently distinctive, but have also become a distinctive
`
`indication of the origin and high level of quality of Plaintiff's Services as a result of Plaintiff’s
`
`extensive use, marketing, and advertising. Plaintiff’s Marks therefore act as an indication of the
`
`source of these services and assures consumers of a high level of quality, appeal, and satisfaction
`
`with which Plaintiff’s Services have become synonymous.
`
`31.
`
`Based on Plaintiff’s long, significant and continuous use of its marks, Plaintiff’s
`
`FACILITIES and FACILITIES PRO-SWEEP marks have also become distinctive and
`
`enforceable in connection with Plaintiff’s services long before Defendant began using its
`
`infringing FACILITY PRO mark in May 2014.
`
`32.
`
`By continuously using Plaintiff’s Marks for approximately fifteen (15) years in
`
`the industry in Florida and interstate commerce, Plaintiff has developed significant and valuable
`
`goodwill in Plaintiff’s Marks within the industry and the public, and Plaintiff’s Marks serve as a
`
`source identifier for Plaintiff’s high quality services.
`
`//
`
`//
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 0:17-cv-60675-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/06/2017 Page 8 of 17
`
`b. Defendant’s Marks
`
`33.
`
`Defendant is and has been familiar with Plaintiff’s Services offered under
`
`Plaintiff’s Marks.
`
`34.
`
`Defendant has been in direct competition with Plaintiff within their industry.
`
`35.
`
`Defendant originally formed its corporation under the name Sweepmasters
`
`Sweeping Service, Inc. on approximately April 30, 1999. A true and correct copy of the initial
`
`filing with the FDS for the Defendant entity Doc. No. P99000039313 is attached as Exhibit “J”
`
`hereto.
`
`36.
`
`After operating as Sweepmasters Sweeping Service, Inc. for 15 years, on May 9,
`
`2014, Defendant amended its name with the FDS to Facility Pro, Inc. A true and correct copy of
`
`the amendment filed with the FDS for the Defendant entity Doc. No. P99000039313 is attached
`
`as Exhibit “K” hereto.
`
`37.
`
`The amendment of Defendant’s corporate name was preceded eight days earlier,
`
`on May 1, 2014, by the filing of an amended annual report adding new officers. A true and
`
`correct copy of the amended annual report filed with the FDS for the Defendant entity Doc. No.
`
`P99000039313 is attached as Exhibit “L” hereto.
`
`38. Without Plaintiff’s authorization, Defendant has adopted and is using Defendant’s
`
`Marks, which are and/or appear nearly identical, highly similar, and/or confusingly similar to
`
`Plaintiff’s Marks when seen by consumers, and are offered and provided in connection with
`
`identical services through identical trade channels and to identical purchasers.
`
`39.
`
`On or about February 27, 2015, Defendant applied for a federal registration of the
`
`mark FACILITY PRO with the USPTO in connection with “cleaning, upkeep and maintenance
`
`of commercial and industrial facilities, namely, providing janitorial, street sweeping, pressure
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 0:17-cv-60675-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/06/2017 Page 9 of 17
`
`washing, snow removal, parking lot repair, concrete polishing and striping and waxing of floors”
`
`in International Class 37, which was registered on the Supplemental Register on February 16,
`
`2016 as U.S. Reg. No. 4,903,047 (“Reg. ‘047”). See Exhibit “M” hereto.
`
`40.
`
`On or about February 27, 2015, Defendant applied for a federal registration of the
`
`mark FACILITY PRO THE MAINTENANCE PROFESSIONALS (and design) with the
`
`USPTO in connection with “cleaning, upkeep and maintenance of commercial and industrial
`
`facilities, namely, providing janitorial, street sweeping, pressure washing, snow removal, parking
`
`lot repair, concrete polishing and striping and waxing of floors” in International Class 37, which
`
`was registered on the Principal Register on May 3, 2016 as U.S. Reg. No. 4,949,195 (“Reg.
`
`‘195”). See Exhibit “N” hereto. Reg. ‘195 includes a disclaimer of “FACILITY PRO” and ‘THE
`
`MAINTENANCE PROFESSIONALS,” and appears as follows:
`
`41.
`
`Defendant
`
`is promoting, advertising, offering, and providing Defendant’s
`
`Services under Defendant’s Marks.
`
`42.
`
`Pursuant to Reg. ‘047 and Reg. ‘195, Defendant began the use of Defendant’s
`
`Marks no earlier than May 2014.
`
`43.
`
`As referenced above, on or about May 8, 2014, Defendant, a Florida corporation
`
`formed in 1999, changed its name from “Sweepmasters Sweeping Service, Inc.” to “Facility Pro,
`
`Inc.”
`
`44.
`
`Defendant adopted and commenced its use of Defendant’s Marks long after
`
`Plaintiff first used Plaintiff’s Marks in commerce, and after Plaintiff obtained Reg. No. ‘482.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 0:17-cv-60675-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/06/2017 Page 10 of 17
`
`45.
`
`By virtue of Plaintiff’s Reg. No. ‘482 and its application therefor dated November
`
`14, 2002, and commercial availability of Plaintiff’s services, Defendant had actual knowledge of
`
`Plaintiff’s Marks since long before it commenced its use of Defendant’s Marks.
`
`46.
`
`On or about July 10, 2015, Plaintiff sent Defendant a demand to cease and desist,
`
`notifying Defendant of Plaintiff’s rights in Plaintiff’s Marks, and demanding that Defendant
`
`cease all use of marks confusingly similar to Plaintiff’s Marks. See Exhibit “O” hereto.
`
`47.
`
`Defendant failed to comply with the demand, continuing its use of Defendant’s
`
`Marks, and, instead, denying its infringement, and refusing compliance. See Exhibit “P” hereto.
`
`48.
`
`On or about May 12, 2016, Plaintiff sent Defendant an additional demand to cease
`
`and desist. See Exhibit “Q” hereto.
`
`49.
`
`Defendant failed to comply with the demand, continued its use of Defendant’s
`
`Marks, and, instead, denied its infringement, and refused compliance.
`
`50.
`
`Defendant’s acts are willful, done with actual notice of Plaintiff’s exclusive rights
`
`to Plaintiff’s Mark, with the willful intent to imitate Plaintiff, to misappropriate, misuse, and
`
`palm off of the goodwill, distinctiveness, reputation, and recognition Plaintiff enjoys in the
`
`industry by associating Defendant’s Marks with Plaintiff’s Marks, and/or to dilute the distinctive
`
`quality of Plaintiff’s Marks.
`
`51.
`
`Actual confusion as to the source of Defendant’s Services has already occurred
`
`and/or is likely to occur in the near future.
`
`52.
`
`Because of the similarity between the marks used by Plaintiff and Defendant,
`
`Defendant’s use of Defendant’s Marks is likely to confuse consumers into believing Defendant’s
`
`Services originate from Plaintiff, and/or into assuming that Defendant’s Services are affiliated
`
`with, endorsed, or sponsored by Plaintiff.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 0:17-cv-60675-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/06/2017 Page 11 of 17
`
`53.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s prior acts complained of
`
`herein, Plaintiff has suffered great and irreparable harm and damage which escalates each day
`
`Defendant’s acts are permitted to continue.
`
`54.
`
`Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law relative to the continued and future harm
`
`expected to be suffered for Defendant’s continued conduct.
`
`55.
`
`All prerequisites to filing suit have been satisfied, have occurred or have been
`
`waived.
`
`56.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s acts complained of herein,
`
`Plaintiff has been forced to retain the undersigned firm, and has agreed to pay it a reasonable fee
`
`for its services.
`
`COUNT I
`FEDERAL UNFAIR COMPETITION/FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN
`UNDER 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
`
`57.
`
`Plaintiff adopts and incorporates Paragraphs 1-56 as if fully alleged herein.
`
`58.
`
`Plaintiff has been using Plaintiff’s Marks in conjunction with Plaintiff’s Services
`
`in Interstate Commerce long before Defendant commenced its use of Defendant’s Marks, and
`
`has developed substantial goodwill therein prior to Defendant’s adoption and use of Defendant’s
`
`Marks in commerce.
`
`59.
`
`Plaintiff’s Marks are distinctive in connection with Plaintiff’s Services and were
`
`distinctive long before Defendant began using its infringing Defendant’s Marks.
`
`60.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant’s Services, offered and provided using
`
`Defendant’s Marks, have been widely advertised, offered for sale, and distributed throughout
`
`Florida and the United States.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 0:17-cv-60675-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/06/2017 Page 12 of 17
`
`61.
`
`Defendant’s use of the infringing Defendant’s Marks in interstate commerce in
`
`competition with Plaintiff is likely to cause, and/or has already caused, mistake, and/or to
`
`deceive consumers as to an affiliation, connection, or association of Defendant with Plaintiff,
`
`and/or as to the origin, sponsorship, and/or approval of Defendant’s Services or commercial
`
`activities by Plaintiff.
`
`62.
`
`Defendant is therefore engaged in unfair competition and false designation of
`
`origin in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and have caused damage to Plaintiff in an amount to
`
`be determined at trial. Plaintiff is being irreparably harmed by the infringement and has no
`
`adequate remedy at law.
`
`63.
`
`Absent an entry of an injunction by this Court, Plaintiff will continue to suffer
`
`irreparable injury to its goodwill and business reputation, as well as monetary damages.
`
`COUNT II
`FLORIDA STATE SERVICE MARK INFRINGMENT UNDER FLA. STAT. § 495.131
`
`64.
`
`Plaintiff adopts and incorporates Paragraphs 1-56 as if fully alleged herein.
`
`65.
`
`This is an action for service mark infringement under Fla. Stat. § 495.131 et seq.
`
`66.
`
`Defendant has intentionally, and without Plaintiff’s consent, used, copied, or
`
`imitated Plaintiff’s Marks in connection with the advertising of Defendant’s Services or in
`
`connection with such use that is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.
`
`67.
`
`The activities of Defendant described herein infringe upon Plaintiff’s Marks
`
`which are the subject of Florida State Service Mark Registrations:
`
`a. Florida Reg. Doc. No. T17000000315 for FACILITIES;
`
`b. Florida Reg. Doc. No. T17000000017 for FACILITIES PRO-SWEEP;
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 0:17-cv-60675-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/06/2017 Page 13 of 17
`
`c. Florida Reg. Doc. No. T17000000048 for FACILITIES PRO-SWEEP &
`
`DESIGN OF WORD “FACILITIES” FOLLOWED BY A TRUCK
`
`ABOVE HORIZONAL LINES PRECEDING “PRO-SWEEP”; and/or
`
`d. Florida Reg. Doc. No. T16000000383 for FACILITIES PRO-SWEEP &
`
`DESIGN OF WORD "FACILITIES" RED, WORD "PRO-SWEEP"
`
`AND TRUCK ARE BLUE, RED HORIZONTAL LINES PRECEDE
`
`"PRO-SWEEP");
`
`in violation of Fla. Stat. § 495.131 et seq.
`
`68.
`
`Defendant’s acts have been committed with knowledge that Defendant’s Marks
`
`are intended to be used to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive.
`
`69.
`
`Plaintiff’s Marks are distinctive in connection with Plaintiff’s Services and were
`
`distinctive long before Defendant began using its infringing Defendant’s Marks.
`
`70.
`
`Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law and is suffering damages and irreparable
`
`injury as a result of Defendant’s actions.
`
`COUNT III
`FLORIDA COMMON LAW SERVICE MARK INFRINGEMENT
`
`71.
`
`Plaintiff adopts and incorporates Paragraphs 1-56 as if fully alleged herein.
`
`72.
`
`This is an action for common law service mark infringement against Defendant
`
`based on its promotion, advertisement, offering, and providing of Defendant’s Services bearing
`
`Defendant’s Marks, which are nearly identical, highly similar, and/or confusingly similar to
`
`Plaintiff’s Marks.
`
`73.
`
`Plaintiff is the owner of all common law rights in and to Plaintif