________________________________________________________________________________________________________

PLAINTIFF’S

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND Page 1 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXASECARLIST, LLC §§Plaintiff, §§v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-CV-00643AUTOREVO, LTD., and AUTOREVORC, L.L.C.Defendants.§§§§§

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff eCarList, LLC, a Texas Limited Liability Company (“

Plaintiff

”) files this

Complaint against AutoRevo, Ltd., and its general partner, AutoRevo RC, L.L.C. (collectively,

"Defendants"

) and alleges the following:

I.THE PARTIES

Plaintiff, eCarList, LLC is a limited liability company, organized and existingunder the laws of the State of Texas, with its principal place of business in Dallas, Texas.2.

Defendant, AutoRevo, Ltd. is a limited partnership, organized and existing underthe laws of the State of Texas. AutoRevo, Ltd. has its principal place of business in the State of Texas. AutoRevo, Ltd., may be served with process by serving its registered agent, Kenneth C.Polk, at 7920 Belt Line Road, Suite 450, Dallas, Texas 75254 or wherever else he may be found.3.

Defendant, AutoRevo RC, L.L.C. is a limited liability company, organized andexisting under the laws of the State of Texas. AutoRevo RC, L.L.C. has its principal place of business in the State of Texas. AutoRevo RC, L.L.C., may be served with process by serving its

Case 3:11-cv-00643-D Document 1 Filed 03/30/11 Page 1 of 10 PageID 1

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

PLAINTIFF’S

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND Page 2 of 10

registered agent, Kenneth C. Polk, at 7920 Belt Line Road, Suite 450, Dallas, Texas 75254 orwherever else he may be found.

II.JURISDICTION AND VENUE

This action arises under the Lanham Trademark Act 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq.(the

"Lanham Act"

). Accordingly, this Court has federal question jurisdiction over the subjectmatter of this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1221 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1338(a).5.

This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims arising under thelaws of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because these claims are so related to Plaintiff'sclaims under federal law that they form part of the same case or controversy and derive from acommon nucleus of operative facts.6.

Venue is proper in the Northern District of Texas, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391because a substantial part of the events which give rise to the claims alleged herein occurredwithin this district and Defendants reside within this district.

III.FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff is an industry leader in providing internet-related services to automobile

dealerships. By way of example, some of Plaintiff’s services and products include vehicle

inventory management, vehicle inventory listing management, digital paperwork, vehicle pricinganalytics, and design/creation of award winning dealership websites. Plaintiff has spent yearsand significant resources developing its products and services. The quality, ability, and design of its products/services far exceed any of its compet

itors. Plaintiff’s products and services have a

Case 3:11-cv-00643-D Document 1 Filed 03/30/11 Page 2 of 10 PageID 2

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

PLAINTIFF’S

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND Page 3 of 10

very unique and distinctive look, feel, design, layout, image, and methodology. Plaintiff isknown by its competitors as being the best in the industry. As a result, Plaintiff's products areoften copied by its competitors and used as competitive products. Defendants are one of thosecompetitors.8.

In September of 2008, Plaintiff completed development of a computer graphicaluser interface (

"CGUI"

) that received vehicle specific information and returned a real time"True Target" selling price for the vehicle. The price returned by Plaintiff's CGUI was not justan average of competitor's prices, but rather what a vehicle should be priced at to be dead even ina market based upon its options, mileage, and competitors' current pricing. Plaintiff's softwarewas designed to be the most transparent and visually engaging appraisal system available in theindustry. The software was the first to combine current retail data from AutoTrader, Cars.comand eBay Motors with powerful industry data from NADA, Black Book, Kelley Blue Book,AuctionNet, Galves, AutoCheck, and CARFAX. It then added powerful metrics created byPlaintiff, like "Market Days Supply," "Price Variation", and "Option Filtering," to ensure theresult was the vehicle's true target price.9.

This software was very beneficial to Plaintiff's customers as it allowed them tocompetitively price their current inventory, as well as properly value prospective inventory.Beginning in September of 2008, Plaintiff marketed the software by using "target" methodologythrough various mediums including, internet websites, message boards, and social media. Astechnology evolved, Plaintiff developed a smart phone application fittingly named, "TrueTarget",which allowed customer's to conveniently use Plaintiff's CGUI from their smart phone. Plaintiff

Case 3:11-cv-00643-D Document 1 Filed 03/30/11 Page 3 of 10 PageID 3