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
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Lithocrete v. Single Eagle et. al.

Lithocrete v. Single Eagle et. al.

Ratings: (0)|Views: 16|Likes:
Published by PriorSmart
Official Complaint for False Marking in Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-00685-MMA-DHB: Lithocrete, Inc. v. Single Eagle, Inc. et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, the Hon. Michael M. Anello presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-la9q for more info.
Official Complaint for False Marking in Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-00685-MMA-DHB: Lithocrete, Inc. v. Single Eagle, Inc. et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, the Hon. Michael M. Anello presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-la9q for more info.

More info:

Published by: PriorSmart on Mar 27, 2014
Copyright:Public Domain

Availability:

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

03/27/2014

pdf

text

original

 
12345910111213141516 17 18 1920212223242526 27 28 
 
Case No.
 
1
 
COMPLAINT
   S
   T   E   T   I   N   A 
   B
   R   U   N   D   A 
   G
   A   R   R   E   D 
   &
 
   B
   R   U   C   K   E   R
 
                                                                                                                                            
                                                                                    
Kit M. Stetina (SBN 82,977) Stephen Z. Vegh (SBN 174,713) STETINA BRUNDA GARRED & BRUCKER 75 Enterprise, Suite 250 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 Email: litigate@stetinalaw.com Tel: (949) 855-1246 Fax: (949) 855-6371 Attorneys for Plaintiff LITHOCRETE, INC. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LITHOCRETE, INC., a California corporation Plaintiff vs. SINGLE EAGLE, INC., a California corporation doing business as CONCRETE CONTRACTORS INTERSTATE, and DOES 1 through 5, inclusive Defendants Case No.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF RESULTING FROM: 1.
 
False Patent Marking 2.
 
False Advertising Under the Lanham Act 3.
 
Trade Libel; 4.
 
Intentional Interference With Plaintiff's Prospective Economic Advantage; 5.
 
Injunctive Relief DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff, Lithocrete, Inc., for its Complaint against Single Eagle, Inc. dba. Concrete Contractors Interstate state and allege as follows:
PARTIES
1.
 
Plaintiff, Lithocrete, Inc. (“Lithocrete” or “Plaintiff”) is a corporation
'14CV0685 DHBMMA
 
12345910111213141516 17 18 1920212223242526 27 28 
 
Case No.
 
2
 
COMPLAINT
   S
   T   E   T   I   N   A 
   B
   R   U   N   D   A 
   G
   A   R   R   E   D 
   &
 
   B
   R   U   C   K   E   R
 
                                                                                                                                            
                                                                                    
organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, and having a principal place of business at 829 West 17
th
 Street, Suite 5, Costa Mesa, California 92627. 2.
 
Upon information and believe, Defendant Single Eagle, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of California and is doing business as Concrete Contractors Interstate (“CCI”), having a principal place of business at 12599 Stotler Court, Poway, California 92064. 3.
 
The true names and capacities of the Defendants named herein as DOES 1-5, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, are unknown to Lithocrete, who therefore sues said Defendants by said fictitious names. Lithocrete is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the Defendants designated herein as DOE is legally responsible for the events and happenings hereinafter alleged and legally caused injury and damages proximately thereby to Lithocrete as herein alleged. Lithocrete will seek leave to amend the Complaint when the true names and capacities of said DOE Defendants have been ascertained. CCI and DOES 1-5 are herein collectively referred to as “Defendants”). 4.
 
Lithocrete is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that each of the Defendants participated in and is in some manner responsible for the acts described in this Complaint and any damages resulting therefrom. 5.
 
Lithocrete is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that each of the Defendants has acted in concert and participation with each other concerning each of the claims in this Complaint. 6.
 
Lithocrete is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that each of the Defendants were empowered to act as the agent, servant and/or employees of each of the other Defendants, and that all the acts alleged to have been done by each of them were authorized, approved and/or ratified by each of the other Defendants.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7.
 
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction of this action under 28 U.S.C.
 
12345910111213141516 17 18 1920212223242526 27 28 
 
Case No.
 
3
 
COMPLAINT
   S
   T   E   T   I   N   A 
   B
   R   U   N   D   A 
   G
   A   R   R   E   D 
   &
 
   B
   R   U   C   K   E   R
 
                                                                                                                                            
                                                                                    
§§1331, 1338(a) as this action involves claims arising under the U.S. Patent Act of 1952, as amended, specifically 35 U.S.C. §292 for false patent marking. This action also involves claims arising under the Lanham Act, specifically 15 U.S.C. 1125(a) for false advertising. 8.
 
CCI is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district because it offers its decorative concrete installations in California and in this district. 9.
 
Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) and (c) because CCI is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district and resides in this district, and because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim(s) occurred in this district, namely the marketing and offering of falsely marked and falsely advertised decorative concrete installations in this district.
BACKGROUND OF THE CONTROVERSY
10.
 
The Patent Act of 1952, 35 U.S.C. §292(a), prohibits falsely marking upon, affixing to, or using in advertising in connection with any unpatented article, the word “patent” or any word or number importing that the same is patented, when no patent has issued for the purpose of deceiving the public. 11.
 
Under 35 U.S.C. §292(b), a person who has suffered a competitive injury as a result of a violation of this section may file a civil action in a district court of the United States to recover damages. 12.
 
In the instant case, CCI makes and sells multiple seeded aggregate products that indicate on its website, www.seicci.com the following: “To show our commitment to architects and general contractor’s budgets, we developed and patented ECS-AG, our own equal to Lithocrete ®”. In fact, no such patent exists. 13.
 
In the absence of a patent having been issued for Defendant’s ECS-AG product, Defendant has no legal right to claim the benefits of novelty and exclusivity attendant to the award of a patent by the United States Patent Office. 14.
 
Lithocrete has been and is currently in the business of concrete construction, as well as developing innovative installations and methods associated

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)//-->