ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA1310820
`
`Filing date:
`
`09/19/2023
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding no.
`
`92079978
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Attachments
`
`Plaintiff
`Jaime Moreno
`
`JAIME MORENO
`333 WASHINGTON BLVD, #505
`MARINA DEL RAY, CA 90292
`UNITED STATES
`Primary email: ceomoreno@gmail.com
`213-361-8148
`
`Response to Board Order/Inquiry
`
`JAIME MORENO
`
`CEOMORENO@GMAIL.COM
`
`/JAIME MORENO/
`
`09/19/2023
`
`Pt 1 Response to uspto Board Order aug 31 2023.pdf(166639 bytes )
`part 2 ex 1 w pleading copy.pdf(5939195 bytes )
`part 3 forward uspto rep to order copy.pdf(676067 bytes )
`
`

`

`
`
`In the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`Before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
`
`Cancellation No. 92079978
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE
`
`TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`JAIME MORENO,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`vs.
`
`HUGO MORENO OLVERA,
`
`Respondent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CANCELLATION NO. 92079978
`
`MARK: VENICE KUSH
`
`RESPONSE TO BOARD ORDER
`FROM AUGUST 31, 2023
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner, Jaime Moreno responds to the Board Order dated August 31, 2023. The Board allowed until
`
`twenty days from the date of the order dated August 31, 2023 …”to file herein a copy of the operative
`
`pleadings which were filed in the civil action referenced in the petition to cancel. 1 TTABVUE 2.”.
`
`
`
`Here I have included a copy of the operative pleadings which were filed in the civil action referenced
`
`in the petition to cancel with case number 21STCV32310 as directed by the Boards order. See Exhibit 1
`
`
`
`Respondent in his supplemental brief dated May 15, 2023 on page 8 of 11 makes the statement that:
`
`
`
`“It’s worth noting that the charge of fraud on the USPTO is a common thread in both the
`
`opposition and the petition to cancel. However, the evidence shows that I, as the Respondent, have always
`
`RESPONSE TO BOARD ORDER FROM AUGUST 31, 2023 - 1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`
`
`conducted myself with transparency and honesty, contrary to the Petitioner’s claims and actions.” (My
`
`Emphasis) See Exhibit 2.
`
`The Respondent like to play the victim as if he is not the fraud, but in reality, he is a conniving fraud
`
`that plays the victim to distract from his intentional dishonest scheme he perpetuates to live off of my
`
`goodwill I have created for my business VENICE KUSH that operates on Venice Beach in California.
`
`
`
`This link at www.venicekush.com/beachwear is a website Respondent operates and controls that
`
`defines him undeniably as a fraud per the TMEP § 906.04. Improper us of the federal registration symbol
`
`that is deliberate and intended to deceive or mislead the public is a FRAUD. See TMEP § 906.04, See also
`
`Exhibit 3 – website Respondent perpetuates his fraud on the public with named www.venicekush.com
`
`selling hemp salve products with the federal registration symbol next to the product to deceive the public.
`
`
`
`The truth of the matter is that is actually worth noting for the USPTO is the integrity of this
`
`Respondent in these proceedings. The following evidence based facts irrefutably proves that the
`
`Respondent is not only dishonest but is intentionally misrepresenting facts to the public to deceive the
`
`public to thinking that the Respondent has a federal trademark registration for hemp salve lotion products
`
`in order to swindle and con the public out of money as he solicits for investors and is publicly asking for
`
`“investment” money from the public using the credibility and goodwill of my business VENICE KUSH
`
`( See Exhibit 4) located at a premium and high traffic location in the city of los angeles on the venice beach
`
`boardwalk that the Petitioner Jaime Moreno has built over the years with his skill that the Respondent
`
`aspires to have. Respondent is currently seeking $300,000.00 in investment money on the same site he runs
`
`where he is using the federal registration symbol on a hemp salve lotion product with the trademark
`
`VENICE KUSH, when the Respondent is well aware he does not hold the federal registration for hemp
`
`salve lotion products under the trademark VENICE KUSH and is also clearly aware that the Petitioner
`
`holds the State Trademark Registration for the trademark VENICE KUSH on hemp salve lotion products.
`
`
`
`RESPONSE TO BOARD ORDER FROM AUGUST 31, 2023 - 2
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`
`
`The Respondent is so used to committing perjury on the state and federal level in court proceedings
`
`that he has become a world-class intentional FRAUD as defined in TMEP section § 906.04 that states as
`
`follows:
`
`Improper use of the federal registration symbol that is deliberate and intended to deceive or mislead
`
`the publc is a fraud. See TMEP § 906.04
`
`
`
`And make no mistake that the Respondent is not making a mistake in using the R in a circle symbol
`
`that legally symbolizes that the person has a federally registered trademark. The Respondent is known in
`
`the local venice community as a known dishonest fraud as his character shows by using that symbol in
`
`public on the counterfeiting website named www.venicekush.com that the Respondent operates to deceive
`
`the public and trick investors out of their money with his fraudulent claim to the public through his website
`
`that he holds an actual federal registration for VENICE KUSH trademarked hemp salve lotion products as
`
`he fraudulently and intentionally portrays on the site he controls www.venicekush.com.
`
`
`
`The Respondent in the matter is actively perpetuating a fraud on the public at large just like he is used
`
`to perpetuating a fraud upon the USPTO with all his intentional perjury that I will be addressing in coming
`
`filings.
`
`
`
`The Respondent now uses the federal registration symbol on hemp products such as hemp salve lotion
`
`with the trademark VENICE KUSH on the counterfeiting website he operates while blatantly using the R
`
`symbol in a circle signifying possessing a federally registered trademark on such hemp product. When the
`
`truth of the matter is that the Respondent does not possess a federal registration on any hemp products. On
`
`the contrary, not only is the Respondent aware that he does not have a federal registration, but he also
`
`blatantly uses the federal registration symbol on a product that the Respondent is clearly aware that he does
`
`not have the registration issued to him for that product.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`27
`
`28
`
`I would invite the USPTO Board to investigate such a fraud being perpetuated by the Respondent on
`
`the public at large by intentionally using a federal trademark registration symbol on products that he is
`
`RESPONSE TO BOARD ORDER FROM AUGUST 31, 2023 - 3
`
`

`

`
`
`clearly aware he does not have the federal registration for. The evidence is irrefutable that the Respondent
`
`is committing a fraud upon the public. See attached Exhibit 3– Picture of Respondents website
`
`www.venicekush.com where he intentionally misleads the public by using the federal trademark
`
`registration symbol when he does not possess it.
`
`The Respondent commits so much perjury that I must address the perjury committed by the
`
`Respondent upon the USPTO as the entire case is riddled with perjury from Respondent that it must be
`
`addressed to maintain the integrity of the proceedings in the USPTO.
`
`September 19, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ /JAIME MORENO/
`
`JAIME MORENO, IN PRO PER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`RESPONSE TO BOARD ORDER FROM AUGUST 31, 2023 - 4
`
`

`

`
`
`I hereby certify that a true and complete copy of the foregoing:
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`RESPONSE TO BOARD ORDER
`FROM AUGUST 31, 2023
`
`
`
`has been served on Respondent HUGO MORENO OLVERA by forwarding said copy on
`September 19, 2023, via email to:
`
`HUGO MORENO OLVERA
`2554 Lincoln blvd. #412 Venice, California 90291
`
`Email: Venicekush@yahoo.com
`
`Signature__/JAIME MORENO/____________________________ Date: September 19, 2023____________
`
`
`
`RESPONSE TO BOARD ORDER FROM AUGUST 31, 2023 - 5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT 1
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`

`

`Karen Albence, CA SBN 241719
`karen@cultivalaw.com
`Kristin Westphal, CA SBN 202046
`kristin@cultivalaw.com
`CULTIVA LAW,PLLC
`700 S. Flower Street, Suite 1000
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: 213-306-6800
`Facsimile: 206-428-7190
`
`FILED
`Superior Court of California
`sauSe eeae
`03/29/2022
`Sheri R. Carte, Exscutve Ofte! Cer ofCaen!
`By:
`P. Carlex
`Deputy
`
`\
`
`Attorneysfor Plaintiffs
`JAIME MORENO, LA CBD, LLC, LA CBD, LLC dba American
`Cannabis Company and VENICE KUSH
`
`‘
`
`oeSo4SBDHAFFBYHY=
`
`BeNMBwNBBRNDONDRONmeetaonNBOTASFWYNHNS&§COOoOoNNHNAHBRWYNYKSCS
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE
`
`COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES- CENTRAL DISTRICT
`
`JAIME MORENO,an individual; LA CBD,
`LLC,a California Limited Liability Company;
`LA CBD, LLC dba American Cannabis
`Company, a California Corporation; VENICE
`KUSH,a California Corporation.
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`
`.
`HUGO MORENO,anindividual; HUGO
`MORENOdba Venicekush Collective;
`VENICE GANJA,a California Corporation,
`andDOES 1-10;
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 21STCV32310
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR:
`
`3.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE
`WITH CONTRACTUAL
`RELATIONS;
`INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE
`WITH PROSPECTIVE
`ECONOMIC RELATIONS;
`INTENTIONAL
`MISREPRESENTATION;
`4, NEGLIGENT
`MISREPRESENATION;
`5. UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES,
`CALIFORNIA BUSINESS &
`PROFESSIONS CODE §17200,et
`seq.;
`6. DECLARATORY RELIEF AND
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.
`
`1
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`ElectronicallyReceived03/29/202204:34PM
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`COMESNOW Plaintiffs JAIME MORENO,an individual, LA CBD, LLC, a California
`
`Limited Liability Company, LA CBD, LLC dba American Cannabis Company, a California
`
`Corporation, and VENICE KUSH,a California Corporation, for causes ofactions against
`
`Defendant HUGO MORENO,an individual, HUGO MORENOdba Venicekush Collective,
`
`VENICE GANJA,a California Corporation, and DOES1-10,and each of them, respectfully
`
`alleges the following:
`
`I.
`PARTIES
`PlaintiffJAIME MORENOis an individual residing in Los Angeles County,
`
`1.
`
`Californiaatall times relevant to this Complaint.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff LA CBD, LLC, is a California Limited Liability Company,andatall
`
`times relevant to this Complaint is located in and/or conducting business in Los Angeles County,
`
`Ww
`
`oOf&SNDHAfF
`
`10
`
`11
`
`[2
`
`California.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff LA CBD, LLC dba American Cannabis Company,is a California
`
`Corporation, andat all times relevant to this Complaint is located in and/or conducting business
`
`in Los Angeles County, California.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff VENICE KUSHis a California Corporation, andat all times relevant to
`
`this Complaint located in and/or conducting business in Los Angeles County, California.
`
`a
`
`Defendant HUGO MORENOisan individual residing in Los Angeles County,
`
`Californiaatall times relevant to this Complaint.
`
`6.
`
`Defendant HUGO MORENOdba Venicekush Collective was andstill is at all
`
`times relevant to this Complaint residing in and conducting business in Los Angeles County,
`
`22
`
`California.
`
`7.
`
`Defendant VENICE GANJAis a California Corporation, and atall times relevant
`
`to this Complaint located in and/or conducting business in Los Angeles County, California.
`
`8.
`
`The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or
`
`otherwise, of Defendants are sued herein as DOES1 through 10, inclusive, are currently
`
`unknown to Plaintiffs, who therefore sue said Defendants bytheir fictitious names. Plaintiffs are
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`2
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`informed and believe, and basedthereonallege, that each of the Defendants designated therein as
`
`DOEislegally responsible in some mannerfor the events and happeningsreferred to herein and
`
`caused injury and damages proximately thereby to Plaintiffs as hereinafter alleged. Plaintiffs will
`
`seek leave of court to amend this Complaintto reflect the true namesand capacities of the
`
`Defendants designated hereinafter as DOES when the samehave beenfinally determined.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiffs are informed and believe and allege that at all times mentioned,all
`
`Defendants, and each of them, were the agent, employee and/orjoint venturerofits co-
`
`defendant, and as such wasacting within the course and scope ofsaid agency, employment
`
`and/or joint venture.
`
`Il.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`10.
`
`Venue andjurisdiction are proper in Los Angeles County because Defendants
`
`Hugo Moreno, Hugo Moreno dba Venicekush Collective, Venice Ganja, and DOES 1-10’s
`
`wrongful acts occurred in Los Angeles County. Defendant Hugo Moreno, Defendant Hugo
`
`Moreno dba Venicekush Collective, and DOES 1-10 currently reside, and atall times relevantto
`
`this Complaint did reside and conduct business in Los Angeles County, State of California.
`
`I.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiffs Jaime Moreno, LA CBD, LLC, LA CBD, LLC dba American Cannabis
`
`Corporation (hereinafter “American Cannabis Corporation”), and Venice Kush (herein referred
`
`to as collectively as “Moreno Plaintiffs”) designed, created, and used a trademark called Venice
`
`Kushand have been using the Venice Kush trademark since 2009 which was later filed with the
`
`State of California. The Moreno Plaintiffs also designed, created, and used a trademark called
`
`Venicekush and have been using that Venicekush trademark since 2009. Since November of
`
`2009, the MorenoPlaintiffs widely used both trademarks, Venice Kush and Venicekush, (herein
`
`referred to collectively as ‘“Trademark”), within the State of California with digital media
`
`products, printed reading materials and then expandedto skin products and lotions, and clothing
`
`and apparel.
`
`No
`
`oOoSoSNHRASSWw
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`Zl
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`3
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`12.
`
`In 2010, the Plaintiffs Moreno granted a limited license to Defendant Hugo
`
`Moreno(herein referred to as “Hugo Moreno”or “Defendant Hugo”) and DOES 1-10 for
`
`Defendant Hugo and DOES1-10 to begin marketing on behalf of MorenoPlaintiffs, inclusive of
`
`a website under Plaintiff Venice Kush’s nameto sell Moreno Plaintiffs’ Trademarkeddigital
`
`media products.
`
`13.
`
`The MorenoPlaintiffs hired Defendant Hugo and DOES1-10, whois also his
`
`brother, as his assistant from 2010 to 2015 which included Defendant Hugoassisting Moreno
`
`Plaintiffs with his marketing of his business and brand with use of MorenoPlaintiffs’ Trademark
`
`at industry special events. Defendant Hugo was andstill is Plaintiff Jaime Moreno’s brother and
`
`when Defendant Hugo neededfinancial assistance from Plaintiff Jaime Moreno, the Moreno
`
`Plaintiffs hired Defendant Hugo.
`
`14.
`
`Defendant Hugo and DOES1-10 attended and assisted Moreno Plaintiffs for
`
`special events, such as the industry special event called the HighFi, which occurred on May 25,
`
`2015, where Defendant Hugonotonly attendedit, he also assisted the Moreno Plaintiffs in
`
`setting up the booth at the event and ordering products that were specific to marketing of the
`
`MorenoPlaintiffs’ business including a banner at MorenoPlaintiffs’ booth with Moreno
`
`Plaintiffs’ Trademark that read “Venicekush.” At the HighFi event, Defendant Hugo also wore
`
`MorenoPlaintiffs’ apparel bearing the Moreno Plaintiffs’ Trademark that read “Venicekush.”
`
`15.
`
`By July of 2015, the MorenoPlaintiffs learned of Trademark violations by
`
`Defendant Hugo and DOES 1-10 who wasselling one of the MorenoPlaintiffs’ Trademark
`
`products on a site that exceeded the scope of Defendant Hugo’s limited uselicense for the
`
`Moreno Plaintiffs’ Trademarks. Upon learning of Defendant Hugo’s violations, the Moreno
`
`Plaintiffs contacted Defendant Hugo aboutthese violations, and he agreed to remove the
`
`impermissible use of MorenoPlaintiffs’ products.
`
`16.
`
`By 2016, the Moreno Plaintiffs had ended their business relationship with
`
`Defendant Hugo and DOES1-10 and revoked Defendant Hugo’limited use license for the
`
`MorenoPlaintiffs’ Trademark, in large part because Defendant Hugo and DOES1-10 continued
`
`qaDHAFeSS
`
`10
`
`1 1
`
`2
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`4
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`to fraudulently misuse Defendant Hugo’s limited use license for Plaintiffs’ Trademark, including
`
`other misconduct involving conversion of personal property, slander, andlibel of the Moreno
`
`Plaintiffs’ name and reputation.
`
`17.
`
`Following termination of Defendant Hugo and DOES1-10’s limited uselicense
`
`and business relationship with the MorenoPlaintiffs, Defendant Hugo and DOES1-10 engaged
`
`in further misconductby filing a false application with the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office for the MorenoPlaintiffs’ ‘Trademark Venicekush knowing that MorenoPlaintiffs were
`
`the true owners of the Trademark which had been used since 2009 by the Moreno Plaintiffs.
`
`18.
`
`Atthe time Defendant Hugo submitted the false application to the United State
`
`Patent and Trademark Office for the Moreno Plaintiffs’ Trademark, he had substantial and long-
`
`term knowledge of MorenoPlaintiffs’ prior use of the Trademark Venicekush on apparel and
`
`hats. Defendant Hugo’s application to the United States Patent and Trademark Office for the
`
`Venicekush trademark was thus made with actual knowledgeofthefalsity of his claims, his
`
`application, his declarations, and was made with intent to deceive the United States Patent and
`
`OoOoSYSDHA
`
`10
`
`UW
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`Trademark Office.
`
`19,
`
`The MorenoPlaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that
`
`Defendant Hugo made the false United States Patent and Trademark Office application for the
`
`Venicekush trademark solely to harm the Moreno Plaintiffs and in retaliation for the Moreno
`
`Plaintiffs terminating his limited use license for the Venicekush trademark.
`
`20.
`
`In addition, following termination of Defendant Hugo and DOES1-10’slicensing
`
`rights and businessrelationship with Moreno Plaintiffs, Defendants Hugo Moreno, Hugo
`
`Moreno dba Venicekush Collective, Venice Ganja, and DOES 1-10 engagedin slander andlibel
`
`of MorenoPlaintiffs’ name and reputation from 2016 to today’s date via online with slander of
`
`Moreno Plaintiffs and their businesses names and products.
`
`21.
`
`The Moreno Plaintiffs are well known in the local cannabis industry and had a
`
`strong presence with not just the local community but with buyers, vendors and investors who
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`5
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`seek MorenoPlaintiffs’ products and services in person through physical store locations and also
`
`online throughreview sites and online sales of the Moreno Plaintiffs’ products andservices.
`
`eofoSHANOf
`
`22,
`
`In 2020 and 2021, Defendants Hugo Moreno, Hugo Moreno dba Venicekush
`
`Collective, Venice Ganja, and DOES 1-10 also engaged in written threats of legal action to
`
`individuals with whom MorenoPlaintiffs have legal contracts, and with whom the Moreno
`
`Plaintiffs have business relating to MorenoPlaintiffs’ stores and business operations.
`
`Throughout 2020 and 2021, Defendants Defendants Hugo Moreno, Hugo Moreno dba
`
`Venicekush Collective, Venice Ganja, and DOES 1-10, have made libelous statements online
`
`about MorenoPlaintiffs attacking the Moreno Plaintiffs’ namesand reputations.
`
`23.
`
`Since 2019, Moreno Plaintiffs have been renting a storefront business located at
`
`1313 Oceanfront Walk in Venice, California from Larry Gutin. Larry Gutin is a resident of Los
`
`Angeles County, California, and as the lessor, has a lease agreement with Plaintiff LA CBD,
`
`LLC dba American Cannabis Company, the lessee. Through this lease agreement, the Moreno
`
`Plaintiffs were able to operate at a storefront location for Moreno Plaintiffs’ business.
`
`24.
`
`The MorenoPlaintiffs had a business partner, Randolph Orozco, who operated
`
`MorenoPlaintiffs’ businesses and stores with the Moreno Plaintiffs. Randolph Orozcois a
`
`resident of Los Angeles County, California, and while currently not a business partnerof the
`
`Moreno Plaintiffs, he is still a business associate and contact of Moreno Plaintiffs and is a source
`
`of future contracts and incomefor the MorenoPlaintiffs within their industry in the specific area
`
`of cannabis.
`
`25.
`
`In 2020, the Moreno Plaintiffs entered into additional agreements with a new
`
`business partner, Alfredo Maximiliano, whois also a resident ofLos Angeles County, California
`
`which included licensing agreements and management agreementsfor control of Plaintiff Venice
`
`Kushand use of the Moreno Plaintiffs’ Trademark in addition to management of a number of
`
`stores for Moreno Plaintiffs that included extensive operations and managementofthestores,
`
`staffing at the stores and acquisition of products for the stores.
`
`
`
`6
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`26.
`
`Defendants Hugo Moreno, Hugo Moreno dba VenicekushCollective, Venice
`
`Ganja, and DOES1-10, are aware ofthe current and future business relationships, legal
`
`relationships, and contacts that exist between the MorenoPlaintiffs and Larry Gutin, Randolph
`
`Orozco, and Alfredo Maximiliano because Defendant Hugo and DOES1-10 have been presentat
`
`the same storefront with the lessor, have met and known MorenoPlaintiffs’ past business
`
`partners, and have met and know the MorenoPlaintiffs’ new business partner, Alfredo
`
`Maximiliano. Despite the knowledge of MorenoPlaintiffs’ current and future business
`
`relationships and contracts, Defendants Hugo Moreno, Hugo Moreno dba Venicekush
`
`Collective, Venice Ganja, and DOES 1-10, have not only madeslanderouslibelous statements
`
`about MorenoPlaintiffs and MorenoPlaintiffs’ reputation online for the public at large and
`
`customers’ viewing in addition to falsifying information about closures of the Moreno Plaintiffs
`
`online but also sent written messages with similar libelous statement with threats of legal actions
`
`if such recipients did not cease their business relationship with Moreno Plaintiffs. The recipients
`
`include Larry Gutin with email correspondences dated April 11, 2021, April 14, 2021, and April
`
`18, 2021; Randoph Orozcowith written letter correspondences dated January 27, 2020 and May
`
`28, 2020; and; Alfredo Maximiliano with written letter correspondences dated April 21, 2021
`
`and June 7, 2021.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`IV.
`(Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations against All Defendants)
`
`26. Plaintiffs Jaime Moreno, LA CBD, LLC, LA CBD, LLC dba American Cannabis
`
`Corporation, and Venice Kush hereby incorporate by reference the allegations contained aboveas
`
`thoughset forth fully herein.
`
`au
`
`The true names andcapacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise
`
`of Defendants, DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs, who therefore sue said
`
`Defendants by suchfictitious names. Plaintiffs are informed andbelieve and thereonallege that
`
`each ofthe Defendants herein designated as a DOEis responsible in some mannerforthe alleged
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`7
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`events and happeningsthat caused injuries and damagesto the Plaintiffs.
`
`28.
`
`Lease contracts exist between Plaintiffs Jaime Moreno and LA CBD, LLC dba
`
`American Cannabis Corporation with their landlord and lessor, Larry Gutin, for tenting the
`
`location of MorenoPlaintiffs’ storefront business, and between the Moreno Plaintiffs and his
`
`businesspartner, Alfredo Maximiliano, for licensing rights and management agreements, for
`
`control of Venice Kush and use of Moreno Plaintiffs’ Trademark and management of a number
`
`of stores for the Moreno Plaintiffs, inclusive of extensive operations and managementofthe
`
`businesses with staffing for the businesses and acquisition of products for the businesses.
`
`29.
`
`Defendants Hugo Moreno, Hugo Moreno dba Venicekush Collective, Venice
`
`Ganja, and DOES 1-10, who have previously been inside the storefront business location at 1313
`
`Oceanfront Walk and were previously involved in the operation ofMoreno Plaintiffs’ business as
`
`MorenoPlaintiffs’ assistant and knewofthe existence of these business relations and contracts
`
`between MorenoPlaintiffs and Larry Gutin and Alfredo Maximiliano. Defendants Hugo Moreno,
`
`Hugo Moreno dba Venicekush Collective, Venice Ganja, and DOES 1-10 also had knowledge
`
`about future leases and business contracts that will exist between MorenoPlaintiffs and the lessors
`
`of business locations, current owners ofbusinesses and business partners, and prospective business
`
`partners and opportunities.
`
`30.
`
`The MorenoPlaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that Defendants
`
`Hugo Moreno, Hugo Moreno dba Venicekush Collective, Venice Ganja, and DOES 1-10
`
`intentionally engaged in acts or conduct inclusive ofunfair busmess practices which prevented the
`
`MorenoPlaintiffs from performance oftheir contracts and/or breaches of terms ofsaid contracts
`
`and/orresulted in MorenoPlaintiffs’ performance of contracts more costly and burdensome with
`
`Larry Gutin and Alfredo Maximiliano and other business owners. Defendants Hugo Moreno and
`
`No
`
`OoSoNYDBAffWW
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`8
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Hugo Moreno dba Venicekush Collective, and DOES 1-10’s conduct of sending written emails and
`
`correspondences with legal threats caused continuous disruption ofMorenoPlaintiffs’ business
`
`relationships and contract relationships as the business owners, business contacts, customers and the
`
`lessor, had to stop their day-to-day operations to communicate to Defendant Hugo Moreno,
`
`Defendant Hugo Moreno dba Venicekush Collective, and DOES 1-10, about his written threats
`
`which caused morethreats to follow. These recipients, business owners, business contacts,
`
`customers andthe lessor then had to disrupt their day-to-day operations to contact the Moreno
`
`Plaintiffs for advice and legal procedures on responding to Defendants Hugo Moreno, Hugo
`
`Moreno dba Venicekush Collective, Venice Ganja, and DOES 1-10. These business and contract
`
`relationships cannotcontinue with a yearly lease or day-to-day operations ofbusinesses with such
`
`continuous disruptions which has resulted and will result in the termination of suchrelationships
`
`and contracts which has caused and will continue to cause costs relating to legal representation for
`
`breachesofthe contracts.
`
`31.
`
`Defendants Hugo Moreno, Hugo Moreno dba Venicekush Collective, Venice
`
`Ganja, and DOES1-10 intended to prevent MorenoPlaintiffs’ performance of those contracts with
`
`Larry Gutin, Alfredo Maximiliano, and other business owners, and/or cause termination and/or
`
`breach ofthe terms said contracts and/or cause MorenoPlaintiffs’ performanceofthe contracts to
`
`be more costly and burdensome.
`
`32.
`
`Asadirect and proximateresult ofthe aforesaid acts and conduct by Defendants
`
`Hugo Moreno, Hugo Moreno dba Venicekush Collective, Venice Ganja, and DOES 1-10, and
`
`each of them, the Moreno Plaintiffs did incur and will continue to incur consequential damages,
`
`attorney’s fees, and incidental expenses in order to not violate their own existing contracts with thei
`
`lessor, businesses owners, and business partners.
`
`4DRwrS&SWWWW
`
`co
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`9
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`33.
`
`Defendants Hugo Moreno, Hugo Moreno dba Venicekush Collective, Venice Ganja,
`
`and DOES1-10, committed the acts maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively with the wrongful
`
`intention ofinjuring the MorenoPlaintiffs, from and improperand evil motive amounting to malice
`
`and in conscious disregard of MorenoPlaintiffs’ rights. The MorenoPlaintiffs are therefore entitled
`
`to exemplary damagesunder California Civil Code §3426.3(c) against Defendants Hugo Moreno,
`
`Hugo Moreno dba Venicekush Collective, Venice Ganja, and DOES 1-10 in an amount according]
`
`to proofattrial.
`
`V.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage
`
`against All Defendants)
`
`34.
`
`Plaintiffs Jaime Moreno, LA CBD, LLC, LA CBD, LLC dba American Cannabis
`
`Corporation, and Venice Kush hereby incorporate by reference the allegations aboveas thoughset
`
`forth fully herein.
`
`35.
`
`Thetrue namesand capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise
`
`of Defendant, DOES | through 10, inclusive, are unknownto Plaintiffs, who therefore sue said
`
`Defendantby suchfictitious names. Plaintiffs are informed andbelieve and thereonallege that each
`
`of the Defendants herein designated as a DOEis responsible in some mannerforthe alleged events
`
`and happeningsthat caused injuries and damagesto the Plaintiffs.
`
`36.
`
`The MorenoPlaintiffs have invested substantial capital and effort to develop and
`
`maintain their contracts and businessrelations with lessors, business partners, business owners, and
`
`other third parties, and substantial capital and effort were expended to develop and maintain its
`
`business contracts with customers, clients, and/or business partners and/or investorrelationships
`
`both present and future.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`10
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`37,
`
`Thoserelationships represented the probability of future economic rewardsto the
`
`MorenoPlaintiffs upon which Plaintiffs Jaime Moreno, LA CBD, LLC, LA CBD, LLC dba
`
`American Cannabis Corporation, and Venice Kushrelied upon to obtain Moreno Plaintiffs’
`
`financial goals.
`
`38.
`
`Defendants Hugo Moreno, Hugo Moreno dba Venicekush Collective, Venice
`
`Ganja, and DOES1-10 were aware of these prospective relationships. Defendants Defendants
`
`Hugo Moreno, Hugo Moreno dba Venicekush Collective, Venice Ganja, and DOES1-10’s
`
`wrongful conduct in preventing Moreno Plaintiffs from performanceoftheir contracts and/or
`
`intentionally making Moreno Plaintiffs’ performanceoftheir contracts more costly and burdensome
`
`wasintended to and haveactually disrupted or destroyed those future business relationships with
`
`other lessors, storeowners, business partners, business owners and/or opportunities, including the
`
`current and future, lessors, storeowners, business partners, business owners, who do not wantto
`
`enter into businessrelationships and contracts with the Moreno Plaintiffs with the pending
`
`continuous disruption ofbusinesses and threats of legal action for maintaining a business
`
`relationship with Moreno Plaintiffs, Defendants Hugo Moreno, Hugo Moreno dba Venicekush
`
`Collective, Venice Ganja, and DOES 1-10’s wrongful conduct damaged MorenoPlaintiffs’
`
`expected business proximately resulting in substantial lost revenues and other damagesto the
`
`MorenoPlaintiffs in an amount to be determined according to proofattrial.
`
`VI.
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(intentional Misrepresentation against All Defendants)
`
`39.
`
`Plaintiffs Jaime Moreno, LA CBD, LLC, LA CBD, LLC dba American Cannabis
`
`Corporation, and Venice Kush hereby incorporate by reference the allegations above as though
`
`set forth fully herein.
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`i?
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`11
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`40.|Defendants Hugo Moreno, Hugo Moreno dba Venicekush Collective, and DOES
`
`1-10 made several statements, in person, to the MorenoPlaintiffs, on or about September18,
`
`2020, at Abbot Kinney Blvd., in Venice, California stating that Defendants Hugo Moreno, Hugo
`
`Moreno dba Venicekush Collective, and DOES 1-10, were “just playing around” when
`
`Defendants and DOES 1-10 made defamatory statements about the MorenoPlaintiffs online and
`
`in written correspondence to MorenoPlaintiffs’ business contacts. When MorenoPlaintiffs asked
`
`Defendant Hugo and DOES 1-10 why the Defendant were also making such claimsat the
`
`Trademark Office, Defendant Hugo and DOES1-10 stated again Defendants Hugo Moreno,
`
`Hugo Moreno dba Venicekush Collective, and DOES 1-10, were “just playing around.” Then
`
`Defendants Hugo Moreno, Hugo Moreno dba Venicekush Collective, and DOES 1-10 stated “I
`
`will stop, I will stop” to the Moreno Plaintiffs but Defendants Hugo Moreno, Hugo Moreno dba
`
`Venicekush Collective, and DOES 1-10 knew the statementsto befalse at the time the statements
`
`were made.
`
`41. Defendants Hugo Moreno, Hugo Morenodba Venicekush Collective, and DOES 1-
`
`10 repeatedly assured MorenoPlaintiffs that Defendants Hugo Moreno, Hugo Moreno dba
`
`Venicekush Collective, and DOES 1-10 was “just playing around” and when Defendants Hugo
`
`Moreno, Hugo Moreno dba Venicekush Collective, and DOES 1-10 made such statements “I will
`
`stop, I will stop” to Moreno Plaintiffs, Defendant