• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA-----------------------------------------------------LOS ANGELES DODGERS LLC,Plaintiff,-vs-STERLING METS L.P. f/k/aSTERLING DOUBLEDAY ENTERPRISES L.P.;THE CITY OF NEW YORK;CITIGROUP LLC;HOK GROUP, INC.;and “JOHN DOE,” “JANE DOE,” “DOE CORPORATION”and “CHICO ESCUELA,” the last 4 names being fictitiousand unknown to the Plaintiff, the person or parties intendedbeing the persons or parties, if any, having or claiming aninterest in the premises described in the complaint,Defendants--------------------------------------------------------------------------XThe Plaintiff, by its attorneys, HUNGADUNGA, HUNGADUNGA,HUNGADUNGA AND MCCORMACK LLP, complaining of the Defendants, respectfully allegesthat:I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE1. This is a complaint for Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, and False Descriptionarising under §§ 32 and 43 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114(1) (Trademark Infringement) and1125(a) (Unfair Competition and False Description), for Unfair Business Practice arising underCalifornia Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq., and for injury to business reputation.2. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1338(a) and 15 U.S.C. § 1121. This Court has related claim jurisdiction over the state law claimpursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1338(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1367.3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant STERLING METS LP because suchdefendant regularly transacts business within this District at 1000 Elysian Park Avenue in the Cityand County of Los Angeles, State of California.4. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) and (c) because a substantial part of theevents or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this district, a substantial part of theproperty that is the subject of the action is situated in this district, and the plaintiff maintains itsprincipal place of business in this district.
 
II. PARTIES5. Plaintiff is a California limited liability company. Defendant STERLING METS LP is aDelaware limited partnership. Defendant CITY OF NEW YORK is a municipality within the Stateof New York. Defendant HOK GROUP, INC. is a Missouri corporation. All other defendants arefictitious pending their identification as “fans” during the course of these proceedings.III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND6. Plaintiff is the successor in interest to an entity formerly existing within the State of New York known as BROOKLYN DODGERS, INC., which among other things operated a facility within theCounty of Kings, State of New York commonly known as “Ebbets Field.”7. Said facility was uniquely identifiable with plaintiff’s business operations in its architecture,design, atmosphere and incorporation by reference of plaintiff’s long-tenured membership in theNational League of Professional Base Ball Clubs.8. The Plaintiff is the owner and holder of all patents, trademarks, copyrights and other intellectualproperty formerly owned by BROOKLYN DODGERS, INC., including, without limitation, thelogos, uniform labels and colors, retired numbers of former players and in and to the design,architecture and trade dress of the facility operated within the County of Kings, State of New York commonly known as “Ebbets Field.”9. The Defendant STERLING METS LP is the successor in interest to an entity formerly existingwithin the State of New York known as METROPOLITAN BASEBALL CLUB, INC., which wasgranted its own membership in the National League of Professional Base Ball Clubs in 1961 for thecommencement of activity during the 1962 baseball season.10. At various times, such defendant used various items of plaintiff’s intellectual property withplaintiff’s knowledge and consent, including the color blue incorporated into its trade dress, andcertain numbers associated with plaintiff including, without limitation, 14, 37 and 42. Plaintiff acknowledged and permitted such limited usages, primarily, because such defendant, together withdefendant CITY OF NEW YORK, established and operated a facility within the County of Queens,State of New York known as “William A. Shea Municipal Stadium” which presented a unique anddistinguishable identity separate from that of the plaintiffs, with a resulting minimal amount of confusion or trademark dilution over the ensuing forty-four years.11. In the year 2008, defendants STERLING METS LP, CITY OF NEW YORK and HOKGROUP, INC. commenced external construction of a new facility neighboring such stadium,constructed with the intention of replacing such stadium by the commencement of the 2009championship season within the National League of Professional Base Ball Clubs, such replacementnow being evidenced by the complete and utter destruction of such stadium during the winter of 2008-09.12. While the defendants’ prior facility had created minimal confusion with plaintiff’s intellectualproperty, the newly opened facility can be described in no other terms than as a complete and totalinfringement upon plaintiff’s rights in such property. Such infringements include, but are not limitedto, (a) the continued presence of plaintiff retired numbers 14 and 37 on conspicuous display in the
 
defendant outfield; (b) the continued and aggravated usage of plaintiff’s distinct blue coloring onuniforms and logos, such usage no longer distinguished except on rare special occasions by the useof “pinstripes” that had produced a distinguishable identity; (c) use of a variety of components of plaintiff’s history within the City of New York in the identification of sections of defendants’ newfacility such as the “Ebbets Club” and the “Jackie Robinson Rotunda;” and (d) the blatant use of thetrade dress of the Ebbets Field facility throughout, and indeed as the defining feature of, the newfacility, leading numerous fans and casual observers to wonder whether they are at a sports facilityoperated by a team known as “Mets” or, rather, plaintiff’s former incarnation known as the“Brooklyn Dodgers.”13. Upon information and belief, the defendants knowingly, consciously and intentionallyincorporated these names and features into their new facility for the purpose of diluting plaintiff’scontinuing financial interests in its fan base, both nationwide and particularly in the greater NewYork metropolitan area where it still maintains a significant number of followers.IV. FIRST CLAIM: TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT UNDER LANHAM ACT § 323114. Plaintiff repeats and hereby incorporates herein by reference, as though specifically pleadedherein, the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 13.15. Defendants’ use of plaintiff’s trade names, trade dress and other intellectual property comprisesan infringement of its registered trademarks is likely to cause confusion, mistake and deception of the public as to the identity and origin of defendant’s products in interstate commerce, causingirreparable harm to plaintiff for which there is no adequate remedy at law.16. By reason of the foregoing acts, defendants are liable for trademark infringement under 15U.S.C. § 1114.V. SECOND CLAIM: UNFAIR COMPETITION UNDER LANHAM ACT § 4334.17. Plaintiff repeats and hereby incorporates herein by reference, as though specifically pleadedherein, the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 16.18. Defendants’ use of plaintiff’s intellectual property to promote, market, or sell sports products orservices in direct competition with plaintiff’s products and services constitutes Unfair Competitionpursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). Their use of plaintiff’s marks is likely to cause confusion, mistake,and deception among consumers. Such unfair competition has caused and will continue to causedamage to plaintiff, and is causing irreparable harm to plaintiff for which there is no adequateremedy at law.VI. THIRD CLAIM: UNFAIR COMPETITION UNDER CALIFORNIA BUSINESSANDPROFESSIONS CODE § 17200 et seq.19. Plaintiff repeats and hereby incorporates herein by reference, as though specifically pleadedherein, the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 18.20. Defendants’ actions discussed herein constitute unfair competition within the meaning of California Business and Professions Code § 17200.
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...