Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Complaint - Moderno v. Knoll

Complaint - Moderno v. Knoll

Ratings: (0)|Views: 137 |Likes:
Published by slburstein
Complaint - Moderno v. Knoll
Complaint - Moderno v. Knoll

More info:

Published by: slburstein on Jan 09, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/09/2013

pdf

text

original

 
l
I
'
I
ll
I
I
I
l
1
'
t
l
1
-I
1
Randall P. Stoddard, SBN: 284079RstoddarO 1@yahoo.com
2
1432 Boulevard Way
3
Walnut Creek,
CA
94595
4
925-360-3526925-954-1633Attorney for the
Plaintiff
MODERNO, Inc
JAN-
8
2013
UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT
8
~~9
V1o
14
CENTRAL DISTRICT
OF
CALIFORNIA
MODERNO, INC, a CaliforniaCorporation.Plaintiff,v
COMPLAINTJURY
TRIAL
DEMANDED
15
KNOLL, INC,
16
1718
19
20
21
22
Defendant,
COMPLAINT
NATURE
OF THE CASE
44.Plaintiffs bring these claims for a declaratory
judgment
under 28 USC §2201 and §2202 and Lanham Act §37,
15
USC§
1119, that Defendant Knoll
Inc.'s
23
24
(Knoll) trademarks, numbers 2,893,025 (Barcelona Chair), 2,894,977 (Barcelona Stool),
25
2,894,980 (Barcelona Couch), 2,894,979 (Barcelona Table), 2,894,978 (Flat Brno
26
27
Chair), and 772,313
(BARCELONA
word mark), are invalid and should be canceled
,,
'•
'
..
,,..
28
under the Lanham Act § 14(3 ),
15
USC § 1064(3) and Article
1,
Section 8
of
the United
-1 -
PLEADING
 
12345678
9
10111213
14
15
16
17
1
18
I
19
20
~
I
21
l
22
1
23
1
24
I
25
'
I
I
26
27
i
28
1
i
l
States Constitution; and for damages under Lanham Act §38,
15
USC § 1120.
45.
Defendant, aided and abetted by the lawyers, Gottlieb, Rackman
&
Reisman, have made fraudulent representations and fraudulent omissions to the UnitedStates Patent and Trademark Office(USPTO) in order to acquire trademarks in thedesigns
of
public domain Barcelona Collection
1
furniture. Defendant fraudulently filedfor these trademarks in the Barcelona Collection, and then used these trademarks as abasis upon which to file a multitude
of
lawsuits against small businesses that werelegitimately producing the public domain Barcelona furniture. Defendant has monetaryreserves which these small businesses do not possess. Defendants use its economicreserves to force the small businesses to settle before the merits
of
the case can be heard.Essentially, using the legal acumen
of
lawyers
of
lawyers
of
Gottlieb, Rackman
&
Reisman PC, Defendant stole Barcelona furniture designs from the public domain viadefendant's fraudulently acquired trademarks. Defendants and its lawyers have a decadelong history
of
intimidating small public domain furniture manufacturers' via civil suitsin which they force the small manufacturers to unjust settlement owing to defendantsvast economic prowess. Defendant's actions demonstrate a common pattern and schemeto defraud the judicial process and the USPTO.
THE
PARTIES
The Barcelona furniture
or
Barcelona Collection comprises the Barcelona Chair, Barcelona Stool, BarcelonaCouch, Barcelona Table, and the Flat Brno Chair. Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs use these terms not as
an
indication
of
source or trademark, but rather to describe the aforementioned furniture as products, and to describe the designs
of
saidfurniture.
-2 -
PLEADING
 
!
I
'
I
I
1
i
'
~~
 
l
I
~
i
~
l
l
:
;
1
46.Plaintiffs are a small business and small business owner, located at 1625
2
W. 144th Street, Unit 2, Gardena, California 90247. Defendants sell
modem
furniture
3
4
on the websites Regencyshop.com and Elegancecode.com.
5
4
7.
Defendant is a large furniture company that also sells
modem
furniture.
6
7
Defendant is a corporation organized and existing under the laws
of
the State
of
8
Delaware with its headquarters in Pennsylvania.
9
JURISDICTION
AND
VENUE
10
11
5)This claims presents a Federal Question under the Lanham Act,
15
U.S.C.
12
Sec. 1051 et. seq. and diversity
of
citizenship under 28 U.S.C. 1332. This Court has
13
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC § 1331 over the declaratory judgment claim, and 28
14
15
USC§
1338 over the trademark claims.
16
17
1819
20212223
24
25262728
6) Venue is proper pursuant to 28 USC §
13
91
because Modemo, Inc, Plaintifis a resident
of
California. Since inception to date Plaintiff has maintained a primaryplace
of
business in Los Angeles County. Additionally, Plaintiff is a CaliforniaCorporation incorporated under the laws
of
the State
of
California since 2008. Plaintiffhas no physical presence outside the state
of
California. Plaintiff maintains nodealerships or showrooms outside the state
of
California.7) Defendant, Knoll, Inc is Delaware Corporation registered with the CaliforniaSecretary
of
State doing business in California as
NORTH
AMERICA
KNOLL, INC.Knoll also maintains several dealerships and showrooms in California. (Please See
-3 -PLEADING

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->