IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

AUTOBIDMASTER, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALPINE AUTO GALLERY, LLC,
VEHIKO, LLC f/kla WINDA Y.COM,
LLC, EDWARD AGABS, and JOHN
DOES 1 through 5,
Defendants.
CASE NO.
COMPLAINT
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff AUTOBIDMASTER, LLC complains and alleges against defendants
ALPINE AUTO GALLERY, LLC, WINDAY.COM, LLC, and EDWARD AGABS
(collectively "Defendants"), as follows :
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff AutoBidMaster, LLC ("AutoBidMaster" or "Plaintiff') is an Oregon
limited liability company with its principal place of business at 6807 NE 79th Court, Suite
B, Portland, Oregon 97218.
2. Defendant Alpine Auto Gallery, LLC ("Alpine"), is a New Jersey limited
liability company with its principal place of business at 1039-1045 Market Street, Paterson,
New Jersey 07513. Upon information and belief, Alpine operates under the assumed
business names and/or trade names Alpine Auto Gallery, Win Day, Alpine Rebuildable
Cars, and Alpine Salvage.
3. Defendant Vehiko, LLC f/k/a/ WinDay.com, LLC ("WinDay"), is a
Connecticut limited liability company with its principal place of business located at 86
Camp Ave. , Darien, Connecticut 06820. Upon information and belief, WinDay changed its
business name from WinDay.com, LLC to Vehiko, LLC on or about October 1, 2013.
4. Defendant Edward Agabs is, upon information and belief, a resident of the
State of Connecticut. Mr. Agabs is the sole member ofWinDay.

Case 3:l4-cv-0l083-AC Document l Filed 07/08/l4 Page l of l2 Page lD#: l

5. Defendants John Does 1 through 5 are individuals and/or legal entities who
participated in the unlawful acts complained of herein, but whose exact identifies are
currently unascertained and/or unknown. Plaintiff respectfully reserves the right to amend
this Complaint once the identities of said John Does have been ascertained.
6. Defendants Alpine, WinDay, Mr. Agabs, and John Does 1 through 5 are
collectively referred to as "Defendants".
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7. This is a civil action for claims arising under the federal trademark laws of
the United States, including without limitation 15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq. , and under the
common laws of the State of Oregon.
8. This court has original jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 28 U.S.C. 1338(a).
9. The amount in controversy between the parties exceeds $75,000.
10. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(a) and (c). Upon information and belief, Defendants have
transacted business in and/or have had continuous and systematic contacts with the District
of Oregon.
FACTS SUPPORTING PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTED RELIEF
11. AutoBidMaster is an industry-leading membership-based online auto auction
marketplace that provides broker services to consumers seeking to purchase used and
salvage vehicles. AutoBidMaster is a registered broker for Copart, Inc. ("Copart").
AutoBidMaster's systems and website enable consumers around the world to participate in
auto auctions operated by Copart and to purchase used and salvage vehicles through its
online marketplace. AutoBidMaster also offers transportation and shipping services around
the globe to improve their member's buying experience.
12. AutoBidMaster maintains and operates a website located at
2
Case 3:l4-cv-0l083-AC Document l Filed 07/08/l4 Page 2 of l2 Page lD#: 2
www.autobidmaster.com ("Website") through which it provides its services. AutoBidMaster
registered, maintained, and started operating the domain name autobidmaster.com on or
about February 23, 2009.
13. AutoBidMaster's business name and domain name "AutoBidMaster"
("Mark") is a mark that AutoBidMaster has used continuously and exclusively in interstate
commerce in connection with providing its services since May 13, 2008. From May 13,
2008 until February 28, 2011, AutoBidMaster operated the Website under the registered
business name of Vestra Motors, LLC using the assumed business name AutoBidMaster. On
or about February 28, 2011 , AutoBidMaster changed its registered business name from
Vestra Motors, LLC to AutoBidMaster, LLC.
14. AutoBidMaster filed for registration of the Mark on May 9, 2011 and the
Mark was registered on December 27, 2011.
15. AutoBidMaster's continuing use of the Mark is prima facie evidence of the
validity of AutoBidMaster's ownership of the Mark.
16. AutoBidMaster has expended substantial sums of money in promoting,
advertising, and marketing the Mark in connection with its services and its Website.
17. As a result of AutoBidMaster's promotion, advertising, and marketing of the
Mark and its Website, the Mark has become exceedingly well-known to people in the auto
auction sales and shipping industry and to internet users in general as a distinctive indication
of origin of services offered by and/or through AutoBidMaster and its Website.
DEFENDANTS' UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES
18. Upon information and belief, at all material times herein, defendant Agabs
and John Does 1 through 5 acted as the duly authorized employee, representative, and/or
agent (actual and/or apparent) of defendants WinDay and Alpine.
19. Upon information and belief, Alpine is a registered broker for Copart.
20. Upon information and belief, Defendants registered, maintained, controlled,
3
Case 3:l4-cv-0l083-AC Document l Filed 07/08/l4 Page 3 of l2 Page lD#: 3
and/or operated the websites with domain names winday.com, alpineautogallery.com,
alpinesalvage.com, alpinerebuildablecars.com, through which they operate and/or provide
online auto auction and shipping services that are identical and/or substantially similar to
those offered by AutoBidMaster.
21. On or about January 12, 2012, Defendants registered, maintained, and started
operating a website with the uniform resource locator ("URL") address
www.autobidmaser.com, which is inherently and/or confusingly similar to AutoBidMaster's
domain name autobidmaster.com and/or the Mark.
22. On or about January 12, 2012, Defendants registered, maintained, and started
operating a website with the uniform resource locator ("URL") address
www.autobidmater.com, which is inherently and/or confusingly similar to AutoBidMaster's
domain name autobidmaster.com and/or the Mark.
23. On or about January 12, 2012, Defendants used the Mark in advertising,
promoting, and/or marketing the online auto auction services of WinDay and Alpine, which
are identical or confusingly similar to AutoBidMaster's, usmg the websites
www.autobidmaser.com, www.autobidmater.com, and www.winday.com. When the
consumer typed the URL www.autobidmaser.com or www.autobidmater.com, the consumer
was automatically redirected to Defendants' competitive website with the URL
www.winday.com. Defendants also operate the websites www.alpinesalvage.com and
www.alpinerebuildablecars.com, which, upon information and belief, receive customer
referrals from the website www.winday.com.
24. Defendants used deceptive techniques to divert AutoBidMaster's customers
from the Website by using websites with domain names and/or URLs
www.autobidmaser.com and www.autobidmater.com, which redirected unsuspecting
customers to Defendants' competing website with the URL www.windday.com.
25. Defendants pray on consumers who mistype the Website's domain name
4
Case 3:l4-cv-0l083-AC Document l Filed 07/08/l4 Page 4 of l2 Page lD#: 4
and/or consumers who forget AutoBidMaster's domain and/or business name.
26. Notwithstanding AutoBidMaster's well-established prior rights in the Mark,
Defendants intentionally and deliberately used the Mark, and/or confusingly similar
variations thereof, without AutoBidMaster's authorization and/or permission, to promote
Defendants' competing website and services.
COUNT 1
FEDERAL TRADEMARK INFRINGMENT
(15 u.s.c. 1114)
27. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein the allegations contained m
paragraphs 1-26 of this Complaint.
28. Defendants' actions described above and, specifically, without limitation,
Defendants' unauthorized use of AutoBidMaster's Mark, and/or confusingly similar
variations thereof, in commerce to advertise, promote, market, and/or sell Defendants'
competing website and services throughout the United States including Oregon, was likely
to cause and/or has caused actual confusion among consumers who mistakenly believe that
Defendants' services are provided by or emanate from, or are otherwise sponsored,
approved, authorized, and/or licensed by or otherwise associated with AutoBidMaster.
29. Defendants' use of AutoBidMaster's Mark, and/or confusingly similar
variations thereof, constitutes trademark infringement in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1114(1).
30. As a direct and proximate result, AutoBidMaster has suffered damages in an
amount to be determined at trial, consisting of, among other things, diminution in the value
and goodwill associated with the Mark, and injury to AutoBidMaster's business.
31. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117, AutoBidMaster is entitled to recover damages
in an amount to be proven at trial , profits made by Defendants, and the costs of this action.
Furthermore, AutoBidMaster is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the
actions of Defendants were in bad faith, and undertaken willfully and with the intention of
5
Case 3:l4-cv-0l083-AC Document l Filed 07/08/l4 Page 5 of l2 Page lD#: 5
causmg confusion, mistake, or deception, making this an exceptional case entitling
AutoBidMaster to recover additional treble damages and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant
to 15 U.S.C. 1117.
COUNT II
FEDERAL TRADEMARK DILUTION
(15 U.S.C. 1125(c))
32. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein the allegations contained m
paragraphs 1-31 of this Complaint.
33. Defendants' actions described above and, specifically, without limitation,
Defendants' unauthorized use of AutoBidMaster's Mark, and/or confusingly similar
variations thereof, in commerce to advertise, promote, market, and/or sell Defendants'
competing website and services throughout the United States including Oregon, was likely
to cause and/or has caused actual confusion among consumers who mistakenly believe that
Defendants' services are provided by or emanate from, or are otherwise sponsored,
approved, authorized, and/or licensed by or otherwise associated with AutoBidMaster.
34. Defendants' use of AutoBidMaster's Mark, and confusingly similar variations
thereof, was likely to cause and/or has caused dilution by blurring and tarnishment in
violation 15 U.S.C. 1125(c).
35. As a direct and proximate result, AutoBidMaster has suffered damages in an
amount to be determined at trial, consisting of, among other things, diminution in the value
and goodwill associated with the Mark, and injury to AutoBidMaster's business.
36. On information and belief, the actions of Defendants described above were
deliberate and willful and undertaken with the intent to trade upon the reputation and
goodwill of AutoBidMaster, and to dilute the Mark. AutoBidMaster is therefore entitled to
recover damages in an amount to be proven at trial , profits made by Defendants, and the
costs of this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117.
6
Case 3:l4-cv-0l083-AC Document l Filed 07/08/l4 Page 6 of l2 Page lD#: 6
COUNT III
FEDERAL CYBERPIRACY
(15 u.s.c. 1125(d))
37. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein the allegations contained m
paragraphs 1-36 ofthis Complaint.
38. The domain names autobidmaser.com and autobidmater.com are substantially
the same and/or confusingly similar to AutoBidMaster's Mark, business name, and Website
domain name.
39. Defendants' registration and use of the domain names autobidmaser.com and
autobidmater.com were in bad faith and were intended to permit Defendants to profit from
the reputation and goodwill of AutoBidMaster and/or the Mark.
40. Defendants' use of AutoBidMaster's Mark, and/or confusingly similar
variations thereof, constitutes cyberpiracy in violation 15 U .S.C. 1125( d).
41. As a direct and proximate result, AutoBidMaster has suffered damages in an
amount to be determined at trial , consisting of, among other things, diminution in the value
and goodwill associated with the Mark, and injury to AutoBidMaster's business.
42. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117, AutoBidMaster is entitled to recover
compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial , profits made by Defendants or
statutory damages in the amount of not less than $1 ,000 and not more than $100,000 per
domain name, and the costs of this action. Furthermore, AutoBidMaster is informed and
believes, and on that basis alleges, that the actions of Defendants were in bad faith,
undertaken willfully, and with the intention of causing confusion, mistake, or deception,
making this an exceptional case entitling AutoBidMaster to recover additional treble
damages and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117.
Ill
Ill
7
Case 3:l4-cv-0l083-AC Document l Filed 07/08/l4 Page 7 of l2 Page lD#: 7
COUNT IV
FEDERAL UNFAIR COMPETITION
(15 U.S.C. 1125(a))
43. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein the allegations contained m
paragraphs 1-42 of this Complaint.
44. Defendants' actions described above and, specifically, without limitation,
Defendants' unauthorized use of AutoBidMaster's Mark, and/or confusingly similar
variations thereof, in commerce to advertise, promote, market, and/or sell Defendants'
competing website and services throughout the United States including Oregon, constitute
false designations of origin and false descriptions or representations that Defendants' website
and/or services originate from or are authorized by AutoBidMaster, when in fact they are
not. Such conduct limits AutoBidMaster's ability to interact with potential customers.
45. Defendants' unauthorized use of the Mark, and confusing similar variations
thereof, was likely to cause and/or has caused actual confusion among consumers who
mistakenly believe that Defendants' services are provided by or emanate from, or are
otherwise sponsored, approved, authorized, and/or licensed by or otherwise associated with
AutoBidMaster.
46. Defendants' conduct was willful and was intended to reap the benefit of
AutoBidMaster's goodwill in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(l)(A).
47. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' wrongful conduct,
AutoBidMaster has suffered damages. AutoBidMaster is entitled to recover damages in an
amount to be proven at trial , profits made by Defendants, and the costs of this action.
COUNTV
COMMON LAW TRADEMARK INFRINGMENT
48. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein the allegations contained m
paragraphs 1-4 7 of this Complaint.
8
Case 3:l4-cv-0l083-AC Document l Filed 07/08/l4 Page 8 of l2 Page lD#: 8
49. AutoBidMaster has common law rights in the Mark based on its continuous
use ofthe Mark in Oregon in connection with its Website and services.
50. Defendants' actions described above and, specifically, without limitation,
Defendants' unauthorized use of AutoBidMaster's Mark, and/or confusingly similar
variations thereof, in commerce to advertise, promote, market, and/or sell Defendants'
competing website and services throughout the United States including Oregon, was likely
to cause and/or has caused actual confusion among consumers who mistakenly believe that
Defendants' services are provided by or emanate from, or are otherwise sponsored,
approved, authorized, and/or licensed by or otherwise associated with AutoBidMaster.
51. Defendants' use of AutoBidMaster's Mark, and confusingly similar variations
thereof, constitutes common law trademark infringement.
52. As a direct result, AutoBidMaster has suffered damages in an amount to be
determined at trial consisting of, among other things, diminution in the value and goodwill
associated with the Mark, and injury to AutoBidMaster's business.
53. AutoBidMaster is entitled to recover damages in an amount to be proven at
trial, profits made by Defendants, and the costs of this action.
COUNT VI
COMMON LAW UNFAIR COMPETITION
54. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein the allegations contained m
paragraphs 1-53 ofthis Complaint.
55. Defendants' actions described above and, specifically, without limitation,
Defendants' unauthorized use of AutoBidMaster's Mark, and/or confusingly similar
variations thereof, in commerce to advertise, promote, market, and/or sell Defendants'
competing website and services throughout the United States including Oregon, constitute
false designations of origin and false descriptions or representations that Defendants' website
and/or services originate from or are authorized by AutoBidMaster, when in fact they are
9
Case 3:l4-cv-0l083-AC Document l Filed 07/08/l4 Page 9 of l2 Page lD#: 9
not. Such conduct limits AutoBidMaster's ability to interact with potential customers.
56. Defendants' unauthorized use of the Mark, and/or confusing similar
variations thereof, has caused actual confusion among consumers who mistakenly believe
that Defendants' services are provided by or emanate from, or are otherwise sponsored,
approved, authorized, and/or licensed by or otherwise associated with AutoBidMaster.
57. Defendants' conduct is willful and was intended to reap the benefit of
AutoBidMaster's goodwill, and constitutes common law unfair competition.
58. As a result of Defendants' wrongful conduct, AutoBidMaster has suffered
damages. AutoBidMaster is entitled to recover damages in an amount to be proven at trial ,
profits made by Defendants, and the costs of this action.
COUNT VII
UNJUST ENRICHMENT
59. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein the allegations contained m
paragraphs 1-58 ofthis Complaint.
60. Defendants have received and/or will receive unjust enrichment from its
unauthorized use of AutoBidMaster's Mark. Accordingly, any such enrichment is unjust and
should, in equity, be returned to AutoBidMaster.
61. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' use of the Mark, and/or
confusing similar variations thereof, AutoBidMaster has been irreparably harmed, and
Defendants have been unjustly enriched at AutoBidMaster's expense and must make
restitution.
COUNT VIII
ACTION TO PIERCE CORPORATE VEIL
62. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein the allegations contained m
paragraphs 1-61 of this Complaint.
63. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that members
10
Case 3:l4-cv-0l083-AC Document l Filed 07/08/l4 Page l0 of l2 Page lD#: l0
and/or managers of Defendants actively participated in the unlawful conduct complained of
herein. As active participants in said conduct, the individual Defendants are not entitled to
the limited liability protections of the corporate form.
64. In addition and/or in the alternative, Plaintiff believes and therefor alleges
that Defendants have misused the limited liability company form and/or disregarded
formalities to a dree where the distinction between the individual and entity Defendants and
the distinction among the Defendants has been rendered meaningless, thereby rendering the
entity and/or entities a "sham" for purposes of this action.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as follows:
(1) An award in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants for Plaintiffs actual
damages and all profits received by Defendants as a result of their unlawful use of
AutoBidMaster's Mark and/or confusing similar variations thereof, in an amount to be
determined at the time of trial, which is anticipated to be in excess of$75,000; or
(2) In the alternative, and at Plaintiffs election, an award in favor of Plaintiff and
against Defendants for statutory damages in the amount of not less than $1 ,000 and not more
than $100,000 per domain name, as the court considers just, in an amount to be determined
at the time of trial , which is anticipated to be in excess of$75,000; and
(3) An award in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants for interest, costs of
this suit, and reasonable attorneys' fees; and
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
( 4) Such other relief that the Court deems equitable, just, and appropriate.
11
Case 3:l4-cv-0l083-AC Document l Filed 07/08/l4 Page ll of l2 Page lD#: ll
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff respectfully demands a trial by jury.
DATED: July _ _ , 2014.
Nathaniel L. Funk
Chief Legal Officer
AutoBidMaster, LLC
6807 NE 79th Ct. , Ste. B
Portland, OR 97218
(503) 298-4300 x300
nate.funk@autobidmaster.com
Attorney for Plaintiff
12

Case 3:l4-cv-0l083-AC Document l Filed 07/08/l4 Page l2 of l2 Page lD#: l2