omens EQ CIV 3928 Buosnr uae RvR luvooe sto crn neem batik a aceasta mace en a as ace Sepa conte etter venta lame ates metros seen y+ Ras ERROATTS MAN4 2 2018 ‘Tele Marketers, Inc. d/b/a Tee Vee Brands (USA); Greenbrier Ontel Products Corporation International, inc, and Dollar Tree Stores, Inc, a ‘(ATTORNEYS [FIRM NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUNBER “ATTORNEYS (F KNOWN) Epstein Drange! Bzornan 8 fara, LLP GotebRackman & Rekinan FO 60 East 42nd Street, New York, NY 10165 212-292-5390 270 Madison Avenue, NY, NY 10016 212-684-3900 ‘Copyright Laws, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.; false designation of origin - Section 43(a); and for related common law claims. ves] tapered Ifyes. was thiscase Votl_] vot CI dismissed Nol] ves Cl ityes, gve dato: 4 Case No. (sce au one woxowy waTuae oF Suir ruemsunan roucnan = ee apes, ereen rm age se T1310 ARELANE. 11982 PERSONAL MUU. RIC 11623 WHTORAWAL pga Ue eae eee oo aes Rie Hh worn 0 SREarcareRaOAL | USE| | mmoranrnniers rie ae soe feee fener, wien: Ue: Sen ‘a ees Figr epetray_. 1100 SRN eieeere |B Lie secre? Ree Pee ui joie ies eter Ee ume ES cere |e eee en uct. |Beseme eee cpr” ema tigi mere iim See Res tis mene 110 Se aumensuare tak EERE re rans ne a ee tte eee HO STS joes (2a a cone alg Ee Set eemeee ie terers ie mate eae eee, [ |S Bian mem a Ea ee, eee then 10 geen anne mie, een ee tao Sine Gut aes (Checkifdemandeain comglaint. (CHECK iF THIS IS AGLASS ACTION UNDER F.RCP.23 DEMAND sua. dmgs_ OTHER Steck YES ony dance compl JURY DEMAND: EYES 18 50, STATE: JUDGE que DO YOU CLAIM THIS CASE IS RELATED TOA CIVIL CASE NOW PENDING IN SONY? DOCKET NUNBER NOTE: Pease suomi tthe tie offing an exolanaton of why cases are deere relatedJason M. Drangel (IMD 7204) . Robert L. Epstein (RE8941) Tip ase William C. Wright (WCW 2213) EPSTEIN DRANGEL BAZERMAN & JAMES, LLP Attorneys for Plaintitf 60 East 42" Street, Suite 820 New York, NY 10165 Tel: 212-292-5390 Fax: 212-292-5391 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK xX Ontel Products Corporation Plaintiff v. : Civ Action No Tele Marketers, Inc, dba Tee Vee Brands (USA); Greenbrier Intemational, Inc. and Dollar Tree Stores, Ine. Defendants Plaintiff, Ontel Products Corporation, a New Jersey corporation, by and through its undersigned counsel, alleges as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1, This action arises under the Copyright Laws of the United States, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.: for false designation of origin and unfair competition in violation of Section 43(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946, as amended (15 U.S.C. §1125(a)); and for related common law cloims, Plointiff seeks injunctive relief, an accounting, compensatory damages, trebling of the accounting and/or compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs.JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C. $1331 and §1338(a). 3. Upon information and belief, venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §$1400(b) and §1391(a) & (c). Upon information and belief, Defendants are undertaking the above-referenced acts of infringement in the state of New York and, more particularly, in this judicial district THE PARTIES 4, Plaintiff Ontel Products Corporation is a New Jersey corporation, having a principal place of business at 21 Law Drive, Fairfield, NJ 07004 (*Onte!”). 5. Defendant Tele Marketers, Inc., dibya Tee Vee Brands (USA) a corporation orgenized and existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey. with its principal place of business at 50 Harrison Street, Suite 118, Hoboken, NJ 07030 (“Tee Vee”). 6. Defendant Greenbrier Intemational. Inc., @ corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Virginia, with its principal place of business at 500 Volvo Parkway, Chesapeake, VA 23320 (“Greenbrier”). 7. Defendant Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Virginia, with its principal place of business at S00 Volvo Parkway, Chesapeake, VA 23320 (Dollar Tree”). FACTUAL AVERMENTS 8. Plaintiff is a leading marketer of quality, innovative consumer products. Plaintiff promotes and sells its producis through national direct response television commercials commonly called “As Seen On TV.” Plaintiff also markets its products at the retail level by