Page 1 of 10
LV 418,706,654v1 8-22-08
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
G r e e n b e r g T r a u r i g , L L P S u i t e 5 0 0 N o r t h , 3 7 7 3 H o w a r d H u g h e s P a r k w a y L a s V e g a s , N e v a d a 8 9 1 6 9 ( 7 0 2 ) 7 9 2 - 3 7 7 3 ( 7 0 2 ) 7 9 2 - 9 0 0 2 ( f a x )
Mark G. Tratos (Bar No. 1086)Eric W. Swanis. (Bar No. 6840)Peter H. Ajemian (Bar. No. 9491)GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP3773 Howard Hughes ParkwaySuite 500 NorthLas Vegas, Nevada 89169Telephone: (702) 792-3773Facsimile: (702) 792-9002Counsel for Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF NEVADA
Glen J. Lerner, P.C.; Glen J. Lerner,Plaintiffs,v.Richard Sackett, an individual, LawCoUSA, PLLC, a D.C. corporation and GroupMatrix, Inc. a company of foreign originDefendants.Case No.
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Glen J. Lerner, P.C., a professional corporation, and Glen J. Lerner,individually, (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Lerner”), for their Complaint againstDefendants Richard Sackett (“Sackett”), LawCo USA, PLLC (“LawCo”), and Group Matrix,Inc. (“Group Matrix”) (collectively, “Defendants”) hereby allege as follows:
NATURE OF CLAIMS
1. Lerner seeks a declaratory judgment that his use of the HEAVY HITTER andHEAVY HITTERS trademarks (collectively the “Marks”) for legal services has not infringedor otherwise violated Defendants’ alleged trademark or other rights in HEAVY HITTER orHEAVY HITTERS for legal or any other services.
JURISDICTION
2. This case arises under the Federal Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C. §§2201 and 2202, the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq., and related state and common
Case 2:08-cv-01123-KJD-RJJ Document 1 Filed 08/22/2008 Page 1 of 10
Page 2 of 10
LV 418,706,654v1 8-22-08
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
G r e e n b e r g T r a u r i g , L L P S u i t e 5 0 0 N o r t h , 3 7 7 3 H o w a r d H u g h e s P a r k w a y L a s V e g a s , N e v a d a 8 9 1 6 9 ( 7 0 2 ) 7 9 2 - 3 7 7 3 ( 7 0 2 ) 7 9 2 - 9 0 0 2 ( f a x )
law sections related to trademark infringement, unfair competition, and/or deceptive tradepractices.3. This Court has jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. § 1121 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331and 1338. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claimspursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they: (a)attempted to contract with Lerner, whom they knew was located in the State of Nevada;(b) solicit or have solicited business in the State of Nevada; and (c) have sent threateningcorrespondence to Lerner in the State of Nevada threatening to take action against Lernerif Lerner does not comply with their demands.5. Defendants have created an actual case and controversy and a reasonableapprehension of litigation by, among other things, sending a letter threatening to file suitagainst Lerner on August 14, 2008.
THE PARTIES
6. Plaintiff Glen J. Lerner is an attorney and President of Glen J. Lerner, P.C., aNevada professional corporation with its principal place of business in Las Vegas,Nevada. Lerner primarily represents plaintiffs who have been personally injured due tothe negligent conduct of others.7. Upon information and belief, Defendant Sackett is an individual living in theState of Louisiana who allegedly owns trademark registrations and applications with theUnited States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for HEAVY HITTERS.8. Upon information and belief, LawCo USA, PLLC, is a corporation registeredin Washington, D.C. with its principal place of business in Washington, D.C. Uponinformation and belief, LawCo is an advertising agency which is owned and operated bySackett.9. Upon information and belief, Group Matrix, Inc., is a corporation with itsprincipal place of business in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Upon information and belief,Group Matrix is an advertising agency which is owned and operated by Sackett.
Case 2:08-cv-01123-KJD-RJJ Document 1 Filed 08/22/2008 Page 2 of 10
Page 3 of 10
LV 418,706,654v1 8-22-08
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
G r e e n b e r g T r a u r i g , L L P S u i t e 5 0 0 N o r t h , 3 7 7 3 H o w a r d H u g h e s P a r k w a y L a s V e g a s , N e v a d a 8 9 1 6 9 ( 7 0 2 ) 7 9 2 - 3 7 7 3 ( 7 0 2 ) 7 9 2 - 9 0 0 2 ( f a x )
ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
10. Plaintiff is in the business of providing legal services to the purchasing publicin the State of Nevada.11. Plaintiff has since 2001 used the trademarks HEAVY HITTER and HEAVYHITTERS in commerce in association with his provision of legal services. Plaintiff hasexpended millions of dollars in advertising said services under the Marks, has exertedevery effort to maintain the highest standards of quality for said services, and has createdinvaluable good will under said trademarks among the purchasing public.12. On information and belief, Defendants are involved in the business ofproviding advertising and promotion services to third parties.13. In August of 2002, Plaintiff attempted to enter into an advertising agreementwith Defendants regarding the advertising and promotion of Plaintiff’s legal services (the“Agreement”). At the time the parties attempted to enter into the Agreement, Plaintiffbelieved that Defendants had legitimate trademark rights in the terms HEAVY HITTERand HEAVY HITTERS for use in connection with legal services based upon Defendants’alleged ownership of U.S. Trademark Application Serial Nos. 78/056565, filed on April 3,2001, and 78/080511, filed on August 22, 2001.14. Prior to attempting to enter into the Agreement, and during the term of thealleged Agreement, Plaintiff used the Marks exclusively and extensively as a sourceidentifier of his legal services offered in the State of Nevada. Defendants inducedPlaintiffs to enter into the alleged Agreement based upon the misrepresentation thatDefendants owned legitimate trademark rights in the Marks. However, in realityDefendants did not and do not own trademark rights in the Marks for legal services asDefendants themselves do not provide such legal services in connection with the Marks.Additionally, Defendants cannot provide such services because Defendants are notlicensed attorneys capable of providing legal services.15. Defendants cannot rely on Plaintiff’s use of the Marks under the allegedAgreement to establish trademark rights because Defendants did not control the quality of
Case 2:08-cv-01123-KJD-RJJ Document 1 Filed 08/22/2008 Page 3 of 10
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
More From This User
Notes
Load more
