Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Peoples Express Kelsey

Peoples Express Kelsey

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2,305|Likes:
Published by marty7838
people's express allegs defendant kelsey traffics in itu application
people's express allegs defendant kelsey traffics in itu application

More info:

Published by: marty7838 on Apr 27, 2012
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

04/27/2012

pdf

text

original

 
FILED
APR
26
2012
CLfiflK.
US
DISTRICT
COURT
NORFOLK.
VA
IN
THE
UNITED
STATES
DISTRICT
COURT
FORTHE
EASTERN
DISTRICT
OF
VIRGINIA
Norfolk
Division
PEOPLEEXPRESS
AIRLINES,
INC.
A
Delaware
Corporation
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil
Action
No.:
200
KELSEY
ASSOCIATES,
LLC,
A
New
Jersey
Limited
Liability
Company
Defendant.
Serve:
SCOTT
P
BORSACK,
Registered
Agent
for
Defendant
WHITE
AND
WILLIAMS
LLP
457
HADDONFIELD
ROAD
SUITE
400
CHERRY
HILL,
NJ
080022220
COMPLAINTCOMES
NOW
Plaintiff,
PeopleExpress
Airlines,
Inc.
d/b/a
PEOPLExpress
Airlines
or
PEOPLExpress
("PEOPLExpress"),
a
Delaware
corporation,
by
and
through
its
undersigned
counsel,
and
for
its
Complaint
against
Defendant,
200
Kelsey
Associates,
LLC,
("200Kelsey")
states
asfollows:
JURISDICTION
ANDVENUE
1.
This
is
an
action
for
declaratory
judgment
for
determination
of
the
parties'rights
incertain
trademarks
and
for
judgment
against
Defendants
for
unfair
competition.
The
action
arises
under
the
Lanham
Act,15
U.S.C.
§§1051
etseq.
the
Declaratory
Judgment
Act,
28
U.S.C.
PeopleExpress
Airlines
v.
200
Kelsey
AssociatesU.S.
Dist.
Court,
E.D.Va.
CaseNo.
cv
COMPLAINT
04/26/2012
BYERS
LAW
GROUP
WWW.BYERSLAWGROUP.COM
Page
1
of20
Case 4:12-cv-00061-MSD-DEM Document 1 Filed 04/26/12 Page 1 of 20 PageID# 1
 
§2201,
and
the
common
law
of
the
Commonwealth
of
Virginia.
The
Court
has
subject
matter
jurisdictionto
hear
this
action
under
15
U.S.C.
§1121
and28
U.S.C.
§§1331,1338
(a),
and
1367.
2.
Upon
information
and
belief,this
Courthas
diversityjurisdiction
over
the
defendants
under
28
U.S.C.§1332.
3.
Venue
is
proper
in
thisdistrict
under
28
U.S.C.§1391.
PARTIES
4.
Plaintiff
PeopleExpress
Airlines,
Inc.
("PEOPLExpress"),
is
a
Delaware
Corporation
witha
principle
businessaddress
of902
Bland
Boulevard,
NewportNews,
Va.23602.
5.
Defendant
200
Kelsey
Associates
LLC
("200Kelsey")
is
a
limited
liability
company
organized
under
the
laws
of
theState
of
New
Jersey,
and
a
principle
businessaddress
of1064
Bay
Head,
Mamaroneck,
N.Y.
Kelsey's
registered
agent
is
Scott
P.
Borsack,
White
andWilliams
LLP,457
Haddonfield
Road,
Suite
400,
Cherry
Hill,
N.J.
08002.
6.
Kelsey
is,
upon
information
and
belief,
a
two-member
LLC
withMichaelReich
and
Donald
Reich
as
thesole
members.
INTRODUCTION
7.
200
Kelsey
is
usingloopholes
in
the
lawand
preying
on
weak
enforcement
mechanisms
within
the
U.S.
Trademark
Office
to
"squat"
onmarks
in
an
attempt
toprofit
by
ransoming
the
mark
to
those
with
a
bona
fideintentto
use
the
mark
in
commerce.
8.
In
particular,
and
counter
to
thehistory
and
intent
of
trademark
law,
200
Kelseyhas
filed
hundreds
of
intent-to-use
trademark
applications
without
having
any
bona
fide
intent
to
use
the
marks
in
commerce.
200
Kelsey's
strategy
involves
choosing
marks
that
already
have
consumer
associations
with
goodsand
services,
filing
the
intent-to-useapplications,
waiting
until
theapplication
for
trademark
registration
is
allowed,then
filing
the
maximum
number
of
PeopleExpress
Airlines
v.
200
Kelsey
Associates
byers
law
group
U.S.
Dist.
Court,
E.D.Va.
CaseNo.
cv
www.byerslawgroup.com
COMPLAINT
04/26/2012
Page
2
of
20
Case 4:12-cv-00061-MSD-DEM Document 1 Filed 04/26/12 Page 2 of 20 PageID# 2
 
extensions
of
time
to
file
astatement
of
use
and,
just
before
the
final
extension
of
time
lapses
(causing
theapplication
to
go
abandoned),
200
Kelsey
files
another
identicalintent-to-use
application.
9.
In
this
manner,
200
Kelseyhas
isolated
legitimateusers
from
trademark
registrationfor
as
much
as
eight
or
more
years.
10.
The
final
step
in
200
Kelsey's
scheme
is
to
demand
a
"license"
to
use
the
mark
that
it
has
no
rights
to.
This
includes
holding
atleast
one
"auction"
where200
Kelsey
sold"licenses"for
the
marks
that
had
pending
intent-to-useapplications.
11.
In
summary,200
Kelsey
understands
and
is
exploitingthe
U.S.
Trademarks
Office's
(the
"Office's")
inability
to
handlesuchbehavior
as
a
whole
asa
result
of
jurisdictional
and
enforcement
limitations
on
the
powerof
the
Office,
includingthe
inability
of
the
Trademark
Trial
andAppeal
Board
to
sanction
such
behaviorand/or
award
damages,
attorneys'
fees,
and
costs.
As
a
result,
a
legitimate
trademark
user
must
either
forego
registration
of
a
mark
and
wait
out
-
for
years
-
the
ability
to
make
legitimate
use
of
the
U.S.
trademark
registration
process
to
protect
themselves
and
the
consuming
public
throughuse
of
the
mark,
or
spend
tens
of
thousands
of
dollarsfightingto
have
illegitimate
applications
opposed
(assuming,
of
course,
that
the
legitimate
user
discoversthe
problem
during
theshortthirty-day
window
for
opposition
after
a
trademark
application
is
allowed),
or
finally,
allow
200
Kelsey
toextort
money
for
a
trademark
that
it
has
no
rights
in,
and
thereby
(1)
legitimize
rightsin
something
that
it
doesn't
own
and
(2)
maintain
control
over
a
mark
that
is
being
legitimately
used
in
the
marketplace.
12.200
Kelsey
has
drawn
the
family
of
PEOPLExpress
marks
and
websites
into
it's
scheme,
leaving
PEOPLExpress
with
no
choicebut
to
seek
relief
from
this
Court
asdetailed
below.
PeopleExpress
Airlines
v.
200
Kelsey
Associates
byers
law
group
U.S.
Dist.
Court,
E.D.Va.
Case
No.
cv
www.byerslawgroup.com
COMPLAINT
04/26/2012
Page3of20
Case 4:12-cv-00061-MSD-DEM Document 1 Filed 04/26/12 Page 3 of 20 PageID# 3

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)//-->