Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Officeware v Dropbox

Officeware v Dropbox

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,765 |Likes:
Published by propertyintangible

More info:

Published by: propertyintangible on Jul 01, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

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

07/01/2011

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXASDALLAS DIVISIONOFFICEWARE
 
CORPORATION
 
d/b/a §FILESANYWHERE.COM § Civil Action No. _____________ §
 Plaintiff  
, §§v. §§DROPBOX, INC. §§
 Defendant 
. §ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Officeware Corporation d/b/a FilesAnywhere.com (“Plaintiff”) files thisComplaint against defendant Dropbox, Inc. (“Defendant”).
I. Parties
1.
 
Plaintiff is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texaswith a principal place of business at 8600 Freeport Parkway, Suite 220, Irving, Texas 75063.2.
 
Defendant is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with a principal place of business at of 153 Kearny Street, Mezzanine, San Francisco,California 94108 and a designated agent at Incorporating Services, Ltd., 3500 South DupontHighway, Dover, Delaware 19901. Defendant is a foreign entity that conducts business in Texas but has not designated an agent for service of process in Texas. Accordingly, substitute servicemay be effected on the Secretary of State under the Texas Long-Arm Statute, Tex. Civ. Prac. &Rem. Code § 17.041-.045.
II. Jurisdiction And Venue
3.
 
This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1121 and 28U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338, and 1367 and general principles of ancillary and pendent jurisdiction.
Case 3:11-cv-01448-L Document 1 Filed 06/30/11 Page 1 of 10 PageID 1
 
4.
 
Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because asubstantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this district and becauseDefendant is using an infringing trademark in this judicial district.
III. Statement of the Claim
5.
 
This case involves Defendant’s unauthorized use of Plaintiff’s trademarks.Defendant applied to register with the U.S. Patent and Trademark office (“USPTO”) the termDROPBOX (the “Infringing Mark”), an identical term confusingly similar to Plaintiff’sDROPBOX, FILE DROPBOX, and DROPBOX LINKS marks (collectively, “Plaintiff’sMarks”). Plaintiff has used the DROPBOX and FILE DROPBOX marks in connection with providing online non-downloadable software for uploading and transferring files since at least asearly as 2004. Plaintiff additionally has used the DROPBOX LINKS mark and Plaintiff’saccompanying distinctive design mark (“Plaintiff’s Design”) in connection with the sameservices at least as early as 2006. Defendant has applied to register the Infringing Mark for essentially identical services as those provided by Plaintiff and has continued to use theInfringing Mark and Infringing Logo in the same marketplace.6.
 
As a result, Plaintiff seeks injunctive and monetary relief for (a) unfair competition and false designation of origin in commerce under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act,15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (b) common law unfair competition under the laws of the State of Texas;(c) trademark dilution under Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 16.29; and (d) unjust enrichment under the laws of the State of Texas.
VI. Statement of Facts
7.
 
Plaintiff is one of the world’s leading providers of remote file storage, and one of the oldest surviving original online storage providers.
O
RIGINAL
C
OMPLAINT
Page 2
Case 3:11-cv-01448-L Document 1 Filed 06/30/11 Page 2 of 10 PageID 2
 
8.
 
Plaintiff’s remote file storage services allow its customers to utilize high transfer speeds to upload computer data files to Plaintiff’s remote servers for sharing and access bymultiple users.9.
 
Plaintiff’s services have been utilized by a multitude of significant corporatecustomers and have been featured in numerous publications such as CBS MarketWatch, theDallas Morning News, PC Magazine, Forbes.com, and Yahoo! Finance.10.
 
As a result, Plaintiff has a long and distinguished reputation for quality services.11.
 
Plaintiff began using the DROPBOX and FILE DROPBOX marks at least as earlyas 2004, and the DROPBOX LINKS mark and Plaintiff’s Design at least as early as 2006, andhas continuously used these marks thereafter.12.
 
Plaintiff devotes substantial effort, time, and resources to ensuring the highquality of their services, including those associated with Plaintiff’s Marks and Plaintiff’s Design.13.
 
The use of Plaintiff’s Marks and Plaintiff’s Design distinguishes Plaintiff’sservices from the services of other sellers, and consumers have come to recognize Plaintiff’sMarks and Plaintiff’s Design and the related services as originating with Plaintiff.Defendant’s Unlawful Activities14.
 
According to its website, Defendant provides a service “that lets you bring your  photos, docs, and videos anywhere and share them easily.”
See
http://www.dropbox.com/about.Defendant was allegedly founded in 2007.
 Id.
 15.
 
On or about September 1, 2009, Defendant filed Application No. 77/817,716 withthe USPTO seeking registration of the Infringing Mark for various categories including remotefile storage services. The claimed categories are essentially identical to the services provided byPlaintiff in connection with Plaintiff’s Marks.
O
RIGINAL
C
OMPLAINT
Page 3
Case 3:11-cv-01448-L Document 1 Filed 06/30/11 Page 3 of 10 PageID 3

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->