Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. https://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA1144905
`
`Filing date:
`
`07/06/2021
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Petition for Cancellation
`
`Notice is hereby given that the following party has filed a petition to cancel the registration indicated below.
`Petitioner Information
`
`Name
`Entity
`Address
`
`Attorney informa-
`tion
`
`Arash Homampour
`Individual
`C/O KIA KAMRAN P.C.
`1900 AVENUE OF THE STARS, 25TH FLOOR
`LOS ANGELES, CA 90067-4301
`UNITED STATES
`
`Citizenship
`
`United States
`
`KIA KAMRAN
`KIA KAMRAN P.C.
`1900 AVENUE OF THE STARS, 25TH FLOOR
`LOS ANGELES, CA 90067-4301
`UNITED STATES
`Primary Email: kia@tunelaw.com
`Secondary Email(s): desiree@tunelaw.com, assistant@tunelaw.com
`310-284-8600
`
`Docket Number
`
`Registrations Subject to Cancellation
`
`Registration No.
`Registrant
`
`6407070
`ARASH KHORSANDI
`Â 2960 WILSHIRE BLVD FL 3
`LOS ANGELES, CA 90010
`UNITED STATES
`
`Registration date
`
`07/06/2021
`
`Goods/Services Subject to Cancellation
`
`Class 045. First Use: 2009/02/09 First Use In Commerce: 2009/02/09
`All goods and services in the class are subject to cancellation, namely: Legal services
`
`Grounds for Cancellation
`
`Priority and likelihood of confusion
`The mark is merely descriptive
`The mark is primarily merely a surname
`No use of mark in commerce before application,
`amendment to allege use, or statement of use
`was filed
`False suggestion of a connection with persons,
`living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national
`symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrep-
`
`Trademark Act Sections 14(1) and 2(d)
`Trademark Act Sections 14(1) and 2(e)(1)
`Trademark Act Sections 14(1) and 2(e)(4)
`Trademark Act Sections 14(1) and 1(a), (c), and
`(d)
`
`Trademark Act Sections 14(3) and 2(a)
`
`

`

`ute
`Consists of or comprises a name, portrait, or sig-
`nature of a living individual without written con-
`sent, or the name, portrait, or signature of a de-
`ceased president without the written consent of
`the surviving spouse
`Fraud on the USPTO
`
`Registration No.
`Registrant
`
`6407071
`ARASH KHORSANDI
`2960 WILSHIRE BLVD. FL. 3
`LOS ANGELES, CA 90010
`UNITED STATES
`
`Trademark Act Sections 14(1) and 2(c)
`
`Trademark Act Section 14(3); In re Bose Corp.,
`580 F.3d 1240, 91 USPQ2d 1938 (Fed. Cir.
`2009)
`Registration date
`
`07/06/2021
`
`Goods/Services Subject to Cancellation
`
`Class 045. First Use: 2009/02/09 First Use In Commerce: 2009/02/09
`All goods and services in the class are subject to cancellation, namely: Legal services
`
`Grounds for Cancellation
`
`Priority and likelihood of confusion
`The mark is merely descriptive
`The mark is primarily merely a surname
`No use of mark in commerce before application,
`amendment to allege use, or statement of use
`was filed
`False suggestion of a connection with persons,
`living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national
`symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrep-
`ute
`Consists of or comprises a name, portrait, or sig-
`nature of a living individual without written con-
`sent, or the name, portrait, or signature of a de-
`ceased president without the written consent of
`the surviving spouse
`Fraud on the USPTO
`
`Trademark Act Sections 14(1) and 2(d)
`Trademark Act Sections 14(1) and 2(e)(1)
`Trademark Act Sections 14(1) and 2(e)(4)
`Trademark Act Sections 14(1) and 1(a), (c), and
`(d)
`
`Trademark Act Sections 14(3) and 2(a)
`
`Trademark Act Sections 14(1) and 2(c)
`
`Trademark Act Section 14(3); In re Bose Corp.,
`580 F.3d 1240, 91 USPQ2d 1938 (Fed. Cir.
`2009)
`
`Marks Cited by Petitioner as Basis for Cancellation
`
`U.S. Application/ Registra-
`tion No.
`Registration Date
`Word Mark
`Goods/Services
`
`NONE
`
`Application Date
`
`NONE
`
`NONE
`ARASH
`Legal Services
`
`U.S. Application/ Registra-
`tion No.
`Registration Date
`
`NONE
`
`NONE
`
`Application Date
`
`NONE
`
`

`

`Word Mark
`Goods/Services
`
`ARASH HOMAMPOUR
`Legal Services
`
`U.S. Application/ Registra-
`tion No.
`Registration Date
`Word Mark
`Goods/Services
`
`NONE
`
`Application Date
`
`NONE
`
`NONE
`ARASH LAW
`Legal Services
`
`Attachments
`
`Cancellation of ARASH LAW and AK ARASH LAW.pdf(4067695 bytes )
`
`Signature
`Name
`Date
`
`/Kia Kamran/
`Kia Kamran, Esq.
`07/06/2021
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ARASH HOMAMPOUR,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`ARASH KHORSANDI,
`
`Registrant/Respondent.
`
`Cancellation No. __________
`
`Registration No. 6/407,070
`Mark: ARASH LAW
`Registration Date: July 6, 2021
`
`
`Registration No. 6/407,071
`
`
`Mark:
`(AK ARASH LAW stylized wording and
`design)
`Registration Date: July 6, 2021
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`PETITION FOR CANCELLATION
`
`Arash Homampour (“Petitioner”), a United States individual believes he is and will
`
`
`
`continue to be damaged by the continued registrations of the marks owned by Arash
`
`Khorsandi’s (“Registrant”), a United States individual, that are the subject of U.S.
`
`Registration Nos. 6/407, 070 for ARASH LAW in standard characters and 6/407,071 for
`
`the design mark AK ARASH LAW (collectively, the “Registrations” or “Registrant’s
`
`Marks”), for “Legal Services” in International Class 045 (“Registrant’s Services”).
`
`Allegations with respect to Petitioner are based on actual knowledge and all other
`
`allegations are based on information and belief. Accordingly, Petitioner, by and through
`
`his attorneys, hereby petitions to cancel the Registrations on the following grounds:
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`PETITIONER
`
`1.
`
`Petitioner, Arash Homampour, is a licensed attorney in the State of California that
`
`was admitted to The State Bar of California and the U.S. District Court Central District of
`
`California in 1993.
`
`2.
`
`The name “Arash” shared by both Petitioner and Registrant is a generally common
`
`first name of Persian (Iranian) origin, used both as a surname and a first name, and
`
`originates from Iranian Mythology. Both Registrant and Petitioner are of Persian origin.
`
`Both Registrant and Petitioner have their practices based in Los Angeles County, which is
`
`also home to the largest Iranian population outside of Iran of approximately 700,000 ex-
`
`patriots and their descendants.
`
`3.
`
`Indeed, the State Bar of California alone currently lists 54 different attorneys
`
`whom are named “Arash”, either as their first, middle, or last name.
`
`4.
`
`Since at least as early as 1993, Petitioner has continuously provided legal services
`
`in the United States under the marks “ARASH HOMAMPOUR” “ARASH”, and “ARASH
`
`LAW”, and, in addition to various other incarnations incorporating the words “ARASH” or
`
`“LAW” (collectively, the “Petitioner’s Marks”), has established an award winning and
`
`highly respected catastrophic injury and wrongful death law firm. See Exhibit A.
`
`5.
`
`Petitioner has established extensive common law rights in the Petitioner’s Marks
`
`for legal services and other related services in United States commerce.
`
`6.
`
`Under the Petitioner’s Marks, Petitioner is nationally recognized year after year as
`
`one of the best trial attorneys in the state of California. For example, every year from
`
`2004 until 2015, Petitioner has received nominations for Trial Attorney of the Year; every
`
`year since 2005, Petitioner has been identified as a Super Lawyer which is a preeminent
`
`2
`
`

`

`national rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have
`
`attained a high-degree of peer recognition, peer nominations, and peer evaluations; in
`
`2007 Petitioner was named as one of the Top 20 Attorneys Under the Age of 40 by the
`
`Los Angeles Daily Journal; since 2010, Petitioner has been recognized as one of the Top
`
`100 Lawyers in Southern California; since 2011, Petitioner has been a member of the
`
`American Association for Justice; in 2015, Petitioner was recognized by the National Law
`
`Journal as “America’s Elite Trial Lawyers 50” in the United States; since 2016, Petitioner
`
`has been a member of the Court Victories Member of the Multimillion-Dollar Verdicts &
`
`Settlement Club and Top Verdict, which recognizes the highest jury verdicts in a particular
`
`state or nationwide; in 2017, Petitioner was named among America’s Top 100 High Stakes
`
`Litigators; in 2018, Petitioner was named as a Top 30 Plaintiff’s Attorney in California by
`
`the Daily Journal; in 2019, Petitioner was named in Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers of
`
`America; in 2020, Petitioner was named in Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Consumer
`
`Lawyers; and most recently, in 2021, Petitioner was ranked fifth out of all attorneys in all
`
`practice areas in the Super Lawyers List, which evaluates lawyers across the country for
`
`its annual list of tops attorneys. See Exhibit B.
`
`7.
`
`Under the Petitioner’s Marks, Petitioner appears in various media nationwide.
`
`Some examples
`
`include televised appearances, videos, podcasts, social media,
`
`advertisements, promotions, personal appearances, published works, and other articles.
`
`See Exhibit C.
`
`8.
`
`For nearly three decades, Petitioner has advertised, promoted, and used the
`
`Petitioner’s Marks in connection with legal services and other related services throughout
`
`3
`
`

`

`the United States such that the terms “Arash” and “Law” uniquely identify Petitioner in
`
`the minds of the consuming public, as well as Petitioner’s and Registrant’s peers.
`
`9.
`
`Petitioner has exposed and promoted the Petitioner’s Marks throughout the
`
`United States and achieved unprecedented success in his legal career to include obtaining
`
`more than half a billion dollars in awards for his clients against highly publicized
`
`defendants, thereby establishing an excellent reputation in the legal community and in
`
`the minds of consumers and built up extensive and valuable goodwill under the
`
`Petitioner’s Marks in connection to legal services and other related services.
`
`10.
`
`Petitioner has invested considerable money, time and effort into the use,
`
`advertising, and promotion of Petitioner’s Marks in connection with legal services since
`
`at least before the first use date of Registrant’s Mark.
`
`11.
`
`Long before the Registrant’s alleged first use date of February 9, 2009, listed in
`
`the Registrations, Petitioner has continuously and extensively used Petitioner’s Marks in
`
`interstate commerce on and in connection with the advertising, promotion, offer and sale
`
`of Petitioner’s legal services.
`
`REGISTRANT
`
`12.
`
`Registrant is Arash Khorsandi with an address of record at 2960 Wilshire Blvd Fl 3,
`
`Los Angeles, CA 90010.
`
`13.
`
`Registrant is also a licensed attorney in the State of California that was admitted
`
`to The State Bar of California on June 5, 2007. See Exhibit D, whose law practice covers
`
`the same areas of law (catastrophic injury and wrongful death) as Petitioner.
`
`4
`
`

`

`14.
`
`On July 1, 2020, Registrant filed U.S. Application Serial Nos. 90/031,579 for the
`
`standard character mark ARASH LAW and 90/031,806 for the design mark AK ARASH LAW
`
`with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
`
`15.
`
`On October 7, 2020, the USPTO entered via Examiner’s Amendment a disclaimer
`
`statement as to the word “LAW” in the Registrant’s Marks.
`
`16.
`
`On July 6, 2021, U.S. Application Serial Nos. 90/031,579 and 90/031,806 matured
`
`into registrations in the USPTO.
`
`FIRST GROUND FOR OPPOSITION:
`
`PRIORITY AND LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(D)
`
`17.
`
`Petitioner repeats and alleges each and every allegation in the preceding
`
`paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`18.
`
`Registrant’s Marks are a derivation of Petitioner’s “ARASH” common law marks.
`
`19.
`
`Registrant’s Marks and Petitioner’s Marks are identical or nearly identical in
`
`appearance, sound, meaning and connotation.
`
`20.
`
`Registrant and Petitioner both incorporate the word “ARASH” as the dominant
`
`portion of their respective marks.
`
`21.
`
`Petitioner’s services under Petitioner’s Marks are identical or highly related to
`
`Registrant’s Services because, inter alia, both are used in connection with legal services.
`
`22.
`
`Registrant’s and Petitioner’s legal services are offered in the same or similar trade
`
`channels to the same class of consumers under Registrant’s Marks and Petitioner’s Marks.
`
`23.
`
`Registrant’s admission to The State Bar of California on June 5, 2007, precludes
`
`Registrant from offering legal services under Registrant’s Marks prior to the date of
`
`admission.
`
`5
`
`

`

`24.
`
`Petitioner’s first use date in interstate commerce predates Registrant’s alleged
`
`first use date of February 9, 2009, in interstate commerce as listed in the Registrations.
`
`25.
`
`Petitioner’s Marks predate any date upon which Registrant can rely, and
`
`accordingly, Petitioner’s rights are senior to Registrant’s.
`
`26.
`
`Registrant’s Marks are confusingly similar to Petitioner’s Marks as applied to
`
`Petitioner’s and Registrant’s respective legal services.
`
`27.
`
`There is actual confusion between the Registrant’s Marks and Petitioner’s Marks
`
`such that prospective clients or other persons have repeatedly mistaken the source of the
`
`Registrant’s and Petitioner’s respective legal services.
`
`28.
`
`Registrant’s Marks, when used in connection with Registrant’s Services, are likely
`
`to cause confusion, to cause mistake, and to deceive the trade and public, who, upon
`
`seeing Registrant’s Mark in connection with Registrant’s Services would believe that such
`
`services originate with, are approved, sponsored or endorsed by, or have some
`
`connection or affiliation with Petitioner pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act,
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1052(d) with consequent damage to Petitioner and the public.
`
`29.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Registrations be cancelled in
`
`their entireties under Section 1052(d) of the Trademark Act.
`
`SECOND GROUND FOR OPPOSITION:
`FALSE ASSOCIATION, 15 U.S.C. §1052(A)
`
`Petitioner repeats and alleges each and every allegation set forth in the preceding
`
`30.
`
`paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`31.
`
`The Registrant’s Marks are the same as or a close approximation of the name or
`
`identity used by Petitioner given that Petitioner himself is named “Arash.”
`
`6
`
`

`

`32.
`
`The Registrant’s Marks identifies Petitioner given Petitioner’s successful legal
`
`career for nearly thirty years, and reputation as a champion of consumer and individual
`
`rights against powerful multinational companies.
`
`33.
`
`Registrant’s use of the Registrant’s Marks in connection to legal services points
`
`uniquely and unmistakably to Petitioner in the minds of relevant consumers, given
`
`Petitioner’s extensive advertising, promotion, media coverage, and widespread and
`
`longstanding use of the term “ARASH” in addition to various other incarnations
`
`incorporating the words “ARASH” or “LAW” since at least as early as 1993, as well as
`
`Petitioner’s public exposure throughout the United States and excellent reputation
`
`demonstrated by various awards, recognition, and successful legal career.
`
`34.
`
`Petitioner is not connected with the activities performed by Registrant under the
`
`Registrant’s Marks.
`
`35.
`
`Petitioner’s reputation is synonymous with excellence such that other attorneys,
`
`and other legal professionals frequently refer Petitioner’s legal services under the
`
`Petitioner’s Marks.
`
`36.
`
`Based on all of Petitioner’s allegations herein, the Petitioner’s fame or reputation
`
`is such that, when Registrant’s Marks are used with Registrant’s Services, consumers of
`
`Registrant’s Services would presume a connection to Petitioner.
`
`37.
`
`Accordingly, Registrant’s use of the Registrant’s Marks in connection with
`
`Registrant’s Services falsely suggests a connection with Petitioner and therefore, the
`
`Registrations should be cancelled in their entireties under Section 2(a) of the Trademark
`
`Act.
`
`7
`
`

`

`THIRD GROUND FOR OPPOSITION:
`LIVING INDIVIDUAL, 15 U.S.C. §1052(C)
`
`38.
`
`Petitioner repeats and alleges each and every allegation set forth in the preceding
`
`paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`39.
`
`The Registrant’s Marks consists of or comprises the name of a particular living
`
`individual, which in this case the Registrant’s Marks consist of and are comprised of the
`
`name “Arash,” which identifies Petitioner Arash Homampour, a particular living
`
`individual, whose given name is “Arash.”
`
`40.
`
`Petitioner does not consent to the use or registration of Registrant’s Marks for
`
`Registrant’s Services and has not provided Registrant with written consent.
`
`41.
`
`Petitioner has cognizable or proprietary rights in the Registrant’s Marks.
`
`42.
`
`As established above, the Registrant’s Mark as used on the Registrant’s Services,
`
`points uniquely to Petitioner as a living individual.
`
`43.
`
`As also established above, Petitioner is generally known that the public would
`
`reasonably assume a connection between the Registrant’s Marks and Petitioner, or that,
`
`because Petitioner is publicly connected with the business or field of Registrant’s
`
`identified legal services, such connection would be assumed and is actually perceived by
`
`the public.
`
`44.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Registrations be cancelled in
`
`their entireties under Section 1052(c) of the Trademark Act.
`
`FOURTH GROUND FOR OPPOSITION:
`NO BONA FIDE USE IN COMMERCE, 15 U.S.C. §1051(A) AND FRAUD ON THE USPTO
`
`45.
`
`Petitioner repeats and alleges each and every allegation set forth in the preceding
`
`paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`8
`
`

`

`46.
`
`In association with the filing of U.S. Application Serial Nos. 90/031,579 and
`
`90/031,806, Registrant, through its counsel of record, declared under penalty of perjury
`
`that (a) he believes that the applicant is the owner of the trademark/service mark sought
`
`to be registered; (b) the mark is in use in commerce on or in connection with the
`
`goods/services in the application; (c) the specimen(s) shows the mark as used on or in
`
`connection with the goods/services in the application; and (d) to the best of the
`
`signatory's knowledge and belief, the facts recited in the application are accurate.
`
`47.
`
`There was no bona fide use of Registrant’s Marks in interstate commerce prior to
`
`filing of the Application because Registrant’s services are solely provided within the state
`
`of California and Registrant’s offices are solely located within the state of California.
`
`48.
`
`Registrant’s Marks were not in use in interstate commerce in connection to
`
`Registrant’s Services as of the filing date of the Registrant’s use-based applications.
`
`49.
`
`Registrant further declared in association with the filing of U.S. Application Serial
`
`Nos. 90/031,579 and 90/031,806 that:
`
`a. To the best of the signatory's knowledge and belief, no other persons, except,
`
`if applicable, concurrent users, have the right to use the mark in commerce,
`
`either in the identical form or in such near resemblance as to be likely, when
`
`used on or in connection with the goods/services of such other persons, to
`
`cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive.
`
`b. To the best of the signatory's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after
`
`an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, the allegations and other
`
`factual contentions made above have evidentiary support.
`
`9
`
`

`

`c. The signatory being warned that willful false statements and the like are
`
`punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, and that
`
`such willful false statements and the like may jeopardize the validity of the
`
`application or submission or any registration resulting therefrom, declares
`
`that all statements made of his/her own knowledge are true and all
`
`statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.
`
`50.
`
`Upon information and belief, Registrant had actual knowledge at the time of filing
`
`U.S. Application Serial Nos. 90/031,579 and 90/031,806 of Petitioner’s superior claim of
`
`ownership and senior rights to Petitioner’s Marks in connection to legal services due to
`
`Petitioner’s long standing use, reputation, and publicity.
`
`51.
`
`On
`
`information and belief, Registrant’s
`
`false statements of material
`
`representation of fact at the time of filing U.S. Application Serial Nos. 90/031,579 and
`
`90/031,806 were made for the purpose of inducing authorized agents of the USPTO to
`
`grant Registrant’s Registrations, and in reasonably relying upon the truth of said false
`
`statements, the USPTO did in fact grant such registrations to Registrant, which he is not
`
`entitled.
`
`52.
`
`As a result of Registrant’s willful and materially false statements with the intent to
`
`deceive the USPTO at the time of filing U.S. Application Serial Nos. 90/031,579 and
`
`90/031,806, Registrant has committed fraud against the USPTO, which invalidates
`
`Registrant’s Marks.
`
`53.
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests that the Registrations be deemed void ab initio
`
`under Section 1051(a) of the Trademark Act.
`
`10
`
`

`

`FIFTH GROUND FOR OPPOSITION:
`MERELY DESCRIPTIVE, 15 U.S.C. §1052(E)
`
`54.
`
`Petitioner repeats and alleges each and every allegation set forth in the preceding
`
`paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`55.
`
`Registrant’s Marks merely describes a quality, characteristic or feature of
`
`Registrant’s Services or in the alternative is primarily merely a surname.
`
`56.
`
`As established above, the name “Arash” is a surname that is not rare.
`
`57.
`
`Registrant disclaims the word “LAW” from the Registrant’s Marks because, inter
`
`alia, it is merely descriptive or generic for Registrant’s services.
`
`58. When the Registrant’s Marks are taken as a whole, they are merely descriptive
`
`because the primary significance of the Registrant’s Marks are that of a surname.
`
`59.
`
`Registrant’s Marks has the structure and pronunciation of a surname.
`
`60.
`
`Registrant has not met its burden of proof nor established secondary meaning of
`
`the Registrant’s Marks.
`
`61.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully requests cancellation of the Registrations
`
`under Section 1052(e) of the Trademark Act.
`
`WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays that this Petition for Cancellation be sustained in
`
`favor of Petitioner, and that the Registrations be cancelled in their entireties.
`
`
`
`Payment in the amount of the required filing fee for cancellation in the amount of
`
`six hundred dollars ($600) per class is submitted herewith. Petitioner appoints Kia
`
`Kamran, Esq., and Desiree V. Torres, Esq., of Kia Kamran, P.C., to transact all business in
`
`connection with this Opposition on Petitioner’s behalf.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: July 6, 2021
`
`
`
`__/Kia Kamran/_____________
`Kia Kamran, Esq.
`Desiree V. Torres, Esq.
`Kia Kamran P.C.
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`1900 Avenue of the Stars, 25th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90067-4301
`(310) 284-8600
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`PROOF OF SERVICE
`
` I
`
` hereby certify that a true and complete copy of the foregoing PETITION TO CANCEL has
`been served on Registrant's counsel via email on July 06, 2021, to:
`
`
`Robert A. Kashfian, Esq.
`robert@kashfianlaw.com
`Kashfian & Kashfian, LLP
`1875 Century Park E Ste 1340
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Kia Kamran/
`
`Kia Kamran, Esq.
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`6 Chrome
`9
`O
`
`File
`
`Edit View History Bookmarks
`
`Profiles
`
`Tab Window Help
`
`@ m l; ’6? 63%[:]' Mon May17 1:21 PM Q Q E
`
`Arash Law
`
`x
`
`+
`
`<-
`
`C'
`
`it httpszllwww.homampour.com/arash-law-home
`
`”—‘\
`a
`L::J Q fir 0 l Update
`:
`l
`
`0
`
`(.ON lAC T
`
`ABOUT US
`
`ATTORNEYS
`
`AREAS OF FOCUS
`
`RESULTS
`
`IN THE NEWS
`
`(877) 827-2748
`
`About US
`Firm Overview
`
`Arash Law
`
`Trial Technology
`
`Attorney
`Testimonials
`
`Anomey ReIerrals
`Awards &
`Recognition
`
`Homampour Attorney
`Email
`
`Instructions for Injury
`Clients
`
`CAALA
`
`Search The Site
`
`Arash Law By Arash Homampour
`
`Iwnw a nmnth we punliSlV Vldt'fuh 8!
`,utlLlus by Arash and hi5 team oi
`gulmneva that tlexivm real Inblght min
`different areas 0" the law We also
`include updates on recent cases and
`
`information on the Homampour firm
`Sign up below
`
`‘wllUMll
`
`Name '
`
`Emaxl -
`
`Arash Law it. an ongomg video series by Homampour Law Firm Attorney Arash Homampoul
`where he shares maxghts Into the law. the practice of law and hlS unique DC‘TSDCCUVC oi the WWII).
`
`ON REFERRING ATTORNEYS & BETTER
`
`OUTCOMES i- u“. m... m.”— ,.. M“. An." .1"...u..‘..... v N A” .._ nun...“ A.-.)-
`
`

`

`
`6 Chrome
`File
`Edit View History Bookmarks
`Profiles
`Tab Window Help
`@ l G ’5? 92% [33. Mon May 17 2:14 PM Q 6 BE
`O
`O
`
`I Arash Law: Referring Attorne
`
`x
`
`+
`
`<-
`
`C“
`
`h https://www.homampour.com/arash-law/referring-attorneys—and—better-outcomes
`
`0
`
`1}
`
`EJ e ( Update
`
`5
`
`)
`
`HLF Arash Law: Referring Attorneys & Better Outcomes | Hom... 0
`Watch later
`
`A
`Share
`
`A
`
`| 1m HOMAMPOUR lAw mm
`
`W8tCh on nYouTube
`
`‘
`
`.
`
`“
`
`4
`
`in the fifth video of this series. Homampour Law Firm Attorney Arash Homampour emphasizes
`
`the importance that referring attorneys understand how much they and their clients can gain by
`
`bringing in another firm when they need assistance with a large or complex case.
`
`Video Transcript
`
`

`

`6 Chrome
`0
`
`File
`
`Edit View History Bookmarks
`
`Profiles
`
`Tab Window Help
`
`Q Q. Q ’2? 736% 9;]- Mon Mag/17 12:32 PM Q 79 SE
`
`
`I Los Angeles Personal Injury l.
`
`x
`
`+
`
`a
`
`(-
`
`C‘
`
`i https://www.homampour.com1-", Q 1’: 6
`
`ABOUT US
`
`ATTORNEYS
`
`AREAS OF FOCUS
`
`RESULTS
`
`IN THE NEWS
`
`ALL ATTORNEYS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
`
`ARASH HOMAMPOUR - RANKED 5TH OUT OF
`
`The Best Of The Best
`
`OVER $500 MILLION
`
`Attained For Our Clients
`
`
`
`The Homampour Law Firm is considered one of the premier law firms in the state of
`California. Our firm only handles a limited number of cases, all on a contingency fee
`hacio unhirh allnum no fn nun/Erin ”an hit-ulnar. lnunl n6 ennflrn
`
`

`

`6 Chrome
`
`File
`
`Edit View History Bookmarks
`
`Profiles
`
`Tab Window Help
`
`Q n [:3
`
`’2? 35% [+3. Mon May 17 12:317PM Q o -
`
`I Los Angeles Personal Injury 1.
`
`x I Case Results Overview I Persi x i +
`
`“
`
`i https://www.homampour.com
`
`e C
`
`i-lfiAl-lF‘OlVlW ii‘.'.
`
`v
`
`‘ “
`
`Meet Arash Homampour
`
`Arash Homampour Has Obtained Over Half A Billion Dollars In
`Settlements. Verdicts And Judgments For His Clients.
`lie is a trial attorney who in the last five years alone has obtained rnanv suctessr’ul trial
`results (ranging lroni '52 F. million to $60 million) against Sunbeam Products. the State ol
`Calilornia. Costco Stores. Farmers Insurance Exchange. Allstate Insurance. and Louiswlle
`Ladder in a wrdc array of cases involvrng dangerous roads. dangerous ladders, dangerous
`DFC'TlISCS. and unlawful employment DFDCUCCS.
`
`in 2021. he has been named one of the Top 10 Southern California Super Lawyers.
`
`in 2020. he recovered sutllEriienlS oi $32 million (single plaintiff settlement premise and
`product liability case). $5.3 million {confidential settlement) and $5 million [disputed
`policy limits settlement).
`
`in 2019. ho was once again named nne ot the Top 30 Plaintiffs ottomcys in the State
`by the Daily Journal
`
`in 2019. he recovered a verdict of $30 million (wrongful death of driver that hit
`improperly parked truck). $12 million (wrongful death) and $5 million (liability and
`damages settlement)
`
`in 2018. he recovered verdicts of $12.25 million (wrongful death of man at swap meet)
`and $10 million liatal vehicle versus motorcycle) and was named in the Top 100
`Southern California Super Lawyers for the 7th year in a row
`
`In 2018. he receiver] the Coi\SI_iin-_-i Attorneys Association of Les Ange-lea (CAALA's) Teal
`Horn Memorial Award presented to the lawyer who has provided outstanding service to
`the Assooation and the legal community
`
`in 2018 he was named OCTLA trial lawyer of the year in product liabilitv
`
`in 2018. he was again name-d one 09 the Top 30 Plaintiff‘s attorneys in the State by the
`Daily Journal.
`
`In 2017. he rerovered siL-tllemeiits Ea vercliiits of $14.5 million (insurance bad faith).
`$14.25 million (wrongful death at a motorcyclist) $45 million (auto v5, truck)
`
`In 2016. 2018 and 2019. he has been named one oi the Top 30 Plaintiff‘s attorneys in
`the State by the Daily Journal.
`
`.
`
`~
`
`.
`
`.
`
`-
`
`.
`
`I
`
`.
`
`.
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT B
`EXHIBIT B
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`_C Clirprpe
`0
`O
`
`File
`
`Edit View History Bookmarks
`
`People
`
`Tab Window Help
`
`E Main Hairan'umir , Top iOiI
`
`X
`
`+
`
`65 ’3? Q 10 MEE- MonAug3 2:21 PM Q 0 SE
`
`I h0mamp0ur.C0m-[73(4’lwiiJ2“'4i"'i'iui‘i'.,\i,rLi’”ml-F"ii:i‘,""ii!ii->Iuki_">ili‘,]r,lYig'-;‘Ui
`C
`<-
`z:: Apes o emiacms.
`-:
`i 0 © 75in 9 T
`43 THE? 0 Temp @ TAHOiiDhiL 0 ESTTA e 'mawg
`
`fi Lem.
`
`‘-
`
`:
`
`.
`
`we
`
`insi‘
`
`CAE-‘IivSearch @ CA Trauma-i :Iiiiig @ USD'CYSDRCas
`
`9
`
`1': e
`
`'1.
`:1 mm Ce
`
`CONTACT
`
`RESULTS
`
`IN THE NEWS
`
`(377) 827-2748
`
`AEOUY US
`
`ATTORNEYS
`
`AREAS OF FOCUS
`
`A
`
`
`,
`
`i
`
`i
`
`‘i
`
`Arash Homamuour i‘-‘i‘-7i
`
`‘1 I“ m MU --'.i‘1‘J\
`
`
`
` ii ‘M' ‘»ii :i ili
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SEND us AN EMAIL
`
`

`

`
`‘ él'nmmo
`Flle
`Edit Vlew History Bookmarks
`People
`Tab Window Help
`«’5 ’13 L2! 100%” Mon Auga 2:24 PM Q 0 SE
`0 I
`
`
`I Arash Homamoour - Top 30 r
`
`x
`
`+
`
`i homampour.com/blog/2016/9/15/arash-homampour-Iop~30.plaintiff-Iawyer-in—california
`C
`(—-
` Anps o QuickBooks Logmm 0 ® TSDR 0 TESS e TMEP e TBMP e TMNG | IDML e ESTTA e TTABVUE 0 Lexis
`
`c » Wesuaw 519mm...
`
`Q International Instr...
`
`|
`
`‘3.
`CA Enmy Search 9 CA Trademark Filing ® USPTO TSDR Cash. 0 Certified Copy Ce“.
`M00705 ATTORNEYS
`AREAS OF FOCUS REE-J“
`IN VHENEWS
`
`fi 9 5
`»
`MEI-27.
`‘h': ~
`Y
`
`Iii: ‘
`
`@ailgglournal
`'Homam
`I sald 2015 was rMy 025! Va! evav'
`m vr-anawv
`-
`m u— harxv 54w!» 3
`
`
`
`In
`% cr m.
`y Tova'a ‘me c
`”mm c :2
`
`m 3 Sun.mum <
`
`m rdht'
`
`4WCNN ‘
`
`Ra r-qNa-‘n (‘H
`mm L. fix
`
`4qu Mom:
`
`anmm nuhlnsred m Supolemenr m the Los
`5.5.5.6915: and San Fvanosca Danv loumlr. we 15
`— John RW
`
`
`
`

`

`8/3/2020
`
`Arash Homampour
`
`
`
`
`HOME WEBINARS
`
`
`
`NEWS
`
`
`
`MEMBERSHIP DIRECTORY
`
`TOP 100
`
`
`
`TOP 40
`
`
`
`SPECIALTY ASSOC
`
`
`
`NOMINATE
`
`
`
`SHOP
`
`MAGAZINE
`
`
`
`EDUCATION AND NETWORKING AGENDA
`
`
`
`HALL OF FAME
`
`Search by Name (First, Last or both)
`
`Arash Homampour
`The Homampour Law Firm
`15303 Ventura Blvd, Ste 1450
`Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
`(323) 658-8077
`www.homampour.com
`
`Arash Homampour Has Obtained Over Half A Billion Dollars In Settlements, Verdicts And Judgments For His
`Clients.
`He is a trial attorney who in the last (cid:127)ve years alone has obtained many successful trial results (ranging
`from $2.5 million to $60 million) against Sunbeam Products, the State of California, Costco Stores, Farmers
`Insurance Exchange, Allstate Insurance, and Louisville Ladder in a wide array of cases involving dangerous
`roads, dangerous ladders, dangerous premises, and unlawful employment practices.
`
`In 2016, 2018 and 2019, he has been named one of the Top 30 Plainti(cid:124)'s attorneys in the State by the Daily
`Journal.
`
`In 2019, he has so far recovered a verdict of $30 million (wrongful death of driver that hit improperly parked
`truck).
`
`In 2018, he recovered verdicts of $12.25 million (wrongful death of man at swap meet) and $10 million (fatal
`vehicle versus motorcycle) and was named in the Top 100 Southern California Super Lawyers for the 7th year
`in a row.
`
`In 2017, he recovered settlements & verdicts of $14.5 million (insurance bad faith), $14.25 million (wrongful
`death of a motorcyclist) $4.5 million (auto vs. truck).
`
`In 2015, he recovered verdicts of $16.2 million (motorcycle rider su(cid:124)ered a head injury), $5.6 million
`(wrongful death of 83 year old), $60 million (wrongful death of mother in (cid:127)re started by a defective space
`heater), $14.2 million (dangerous condition wrongful death case for lack of warning signs against Caltrans)
`and $14 million (bad faith claim against Allstate Insurance Co.).
`
`In 2010, he was named by the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles (CAALA) as its Trial Attorney
`of the Year. CAALA is the largest plainti(cid:124) attorney group in the country.
`
`In 2007, he was named one of the Top 20 Attorneys Under the Age of 40 in the State of California by the Los
`Angeles Daily Journal. Every year since 2004, he has received nominations for Trial Attorney of the Year by
`the Consumer Attorneys of California and/or CAALA.
`
`https://thenationaltriallawyers.org/profile-view/Arash/Homampour/24006/
`
`1/4
`
`

`

`8/3/2020
`
`Arash Homampour
`Since 2005, he has been designated a Super Lawyer by Los Angeles Magazine and Law & Politics.
`
`Since 2010, he has been recognized as one of the Top 100 Southern California Super Lawyers which is based
`on the lawyers who received the highest point totals in the Southern California nomination, research and
`blue ribbon review process.
`
`He has also successfully briefed and argued many appeals, including a recent California Supreme Court
`victory in Cortez v. Abich (2011) 51 Cal. 4th 285.
`
`Arash frequently lec