Lewis and Roca LLP3993 Howard Hughes ParkwaySuite 600Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
against its competitors. In these lawsuits, 1-800 asserted objectively baseless claims against itscompetitors without regard to merits and without a genuine interest in redressing grievances, butrather to harass, neutralize and vanquish its competition. From extensive practice, 1-800’slitigation apparatus has become a well-oiled machine. Indeed, 1-800 now has a form complaintfor its frequent lawsuits against competitors, which is always at the ready and requires little morethan a new caption from lawsuit to lawsuit.e)
When Lens refused to accede to 1-800’s demands, 1-800 unleashed thelitigation equivalent of a thermonuclear war in response to the damage equivalent of a hangnail.The district court determined that 1-800’s infringement claim, if successful, might have fetchedtwenty dollars and fifty-one cents ($20.51) in lost profits. Nonetheless, 1-800 poured enormousfinancial and other resources into the lawsuit, and pursued scorched-earth tactics usually reservedfor bet-the-company litigation. In the end, upon information and belief, 1-800 spent around$1,100,000 in attorneys’ fees to chase $20.51 in damages.f)
In late 2010, the district court tossed 1-800’s lawsuit against Lens in acomprehensive 65-page decision. By then, however, 1-800 had achieved its objective. Lens hadincurred in excess of $1,400,000 in litigation fees and expenses to defend against 1-800’sfrivolous infringement claims.g)
Undeterred, 1-800 now hopes to revive its lawsuit and extend the pain basedupon “new evidence.” Once again, however, 1-800 has no basis for its argument. The federalcourt dismissed 1-800’s lawsuit on December 14, 2010, while its so-called “new evidence” is fromNovember 30, 2009.4.
1-800’s anticompetitive behavior has violated state and federal antitrust laws, theLanham Act and Nevada common law. Lens files this lawsuit to stop 1-800’s misconduct andanticompetitive practices; to recover compensatory and treble damages; and to obtain injunctiveand other equitable relief. Lens further seeks declaratory relief in connection with 1-800’sasserted trademark rights. /// ///
Case 2:11-cv-00918 Document 1 Filed 06/06/11 Page 3 of 46