You are on page 1of 9

Case 3:13-cv-00350-ST

Document 1

Filed 02/28/13

Page 1 of 9

Page ID#: 1

HIEFIELD FOSTER & GLASCOCK LLP Andrew D. Glascock aglascock@hfg-law.com 6915 SW Macadam Avenue, Suite 300 Portland, Oregon 97219 Telephone: (503) 501-5430 Facsimile: (503) 501-5626 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP Scott M. Pearson (Pro Hac Vice to be filed) spearson@seyfarth.com Joseph A. Escarez (Pro Hac Vice to be filed) jescarez@seyfarth.com 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, California 90067-3021 Telephone: (503) 501-5430 Facsimile: (503) 501-5626 Attorneys for Plaintiffs UTC Fire & Security Corporation and UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION UTC FIRE & SECURITY CORPORATION and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC., Plaintiff, v. JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH 100, Defendant. Case No. 3:13-CV-00350 COMPLAINT DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

15036957v.7

Case 3:13-cv-00350-ST

Document 1

Filed 02/28/13

Page 2 of 9

Page ID#: 2

Plaintiffs UTC Fire & Security Corporation (“UTC”) and UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc. (“UTCA”) (together, “Plaintiffs”) allege as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff UTC is a Delaware corporation which maintains its principal place of

business in Farmington, Connecticut. Plaintiff UTCA is a Delaware corporation which maintains its principal place of business in Bradenton, Florida. 2. Defendants John Does 1-100 (collectively, “Defendants”) are one or more

individuals or entities whose true names and locations are unknown to Plaintiffs at this time. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to allege the true names, capacities and locations when ascertained. However, Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that each of the Defendants, acting alone or in concert with others, formulated, directed, controlled, committed or participated in the acts and practices complained of herein. Plaintiffs have been injured and damaged by the conduct of each of the Defendants. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28

U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338 and 1367, in that this is a civil action involving claims arising under the laws of the United States, including the Lanham Act, and wherein all other claims are so related to claims within the Court’s original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy. This Court also has original subject matter jurisdiction of this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, in that it is a civil action wherein the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and, upon information and belief, is between citizens of different states. 4. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(a) and (b) because

Plaintiffs are informed and believe that a substantial part of the acts, conduct and events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in the District of Oregon and that one or more of the Defendants reside in the District of Oregon.

15036957v.7

2

Case 3:13-cv-00350-ST

Document 1

Filed 02/28/13

Page 3 of 9

Page ID#: 3

NATURE OF ACTION 5. This is an action for unfair competition under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.

§§ 1051, et seq.; violation of the unfair or deceptive acts or practices (“UDAP”) statutes of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Michigan, North Carolina and Washington; and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. Plaintiffs seek actual damages, restitution, an award of attorneys’ fees and costs, punitive damages and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS 6. UTCA was formerly known as GE Security, Inc. On March 1, 2010, UTC

purchased the GE Security business, including all of the capital stock of GE Security, Inc., from the General Electric Company (“GE”). The $1.82 billion acquisition was well-publicized through several media outlets. 7. On April 1, 2010, GE Security, Inc. changed its name to UTC Fire and Security

Americas Corporation, Inc. UTCA provides security-related products and manufactures and sells GE-branded security equipment. UTC remains the sole shareholder of UTCA. 8. In connection with the acquisition, UTC entered into a trademark licensing

agreement with GE’s trademark licensing subsidiary, GE Trademark Licensing, Inc., pursuant to which UTCA has used and continues to use the “GE” brand name in connection with its security business. UTCA’s licensed use of the GE mark is valuable to Plaintiffs, as that use results in greater product sales and more revenue than if the mark were not used. 9. UTCA sells its products to distributors and authorized dealers. Such distributors

and dealers are contractually required to comply with the law, as well as UTCA policies, including policies that prohibit illegal conduct specifically including illegal or improper telemarketing and solicitation. 10. Plaintiffs and GE have received numerous complaints from consumers within the

applicable statute of limitations periods stating that they received illegal and/or wrongful telemarketing calls from individuals or entities claiming to be from “GE Security.” These

15036957v.7

3

Case 3:13-cv-00350-ST

Document 1

Filed 02/28/13

Page 4 of 9

Page ID#: 4

complaints include that consumers received autodialed or prerecorded calls for commercial purposes, that they received incessant and/or repetitive telemarketing calls, that requests to stop calling were ignored, that they are on the national Do Not Call list but still received numerous calls, that harassing and/or vulgar language was used, and that they were falsely told they had won free GE home security systems. Some consumers also indicated that harassing flyers were left on their doorsteps claiming attempts to deliver GE home security systems. More than 71 such complaints were received during the six months preceding the filing of this Complaint. Based on the similar nature of these complaints, Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that they originate from either a single entity or a small group of individuals and entities, each of which is one of the Defendants. 11. Defendants’ telemarketing and other conduct violates federal and state laws,

including, without limitation, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, various state privacy laws and state unfair and deceptive acts and practices statutes. Because Defendants falsely have claimed to be from GE Security, Plaintiffs have been additionally damaged. 12. The complaints indicate that Defendants’ wrongful conduct has taken place across

state lines and has originated at least in part from this judicial district. The complaints received during the last six months were from consumers located in Alabama, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Maryland, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington and West Virginia. Most of the complaining consumers provided Plaintiffs or GE with the telephone number shown on Caller ID during the wrongful telephone call. This Caller ID information indicates that Defendants placed calls from several different states, with numerous calls originating from the (503) and (971) area codes located in this judicial district. COUNT I (Lanham Act Unfair Competition - False Designation of Origin) (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A)) 13. herein. Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege the previous paragraphs as if fully set forth

15036957v.7

4

Case 3:13-cv-00350-ST

Document 1

Filed 02/28/13

Page 5 of 9

Page ID#: 5

14.

Defendants’ false and misleading description of their goods and services being

affiliated, connected to or in association with GE and/or Plaintiffs constitutes false designation of origin, sponsorship or approval pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A), has caused and will continue to cause monetary damage to Plaintiffs, and is also causing irreparable harm to Plaintiffs for which there is no adequate remedy at law. 15. UTCA has been using the GE mark on and in connection with the sale of security

products and services in interstate commerce. 16. Defendants’ use of the GE mark in interstate commerce to promote, market, or

sell security products and services in direct competition with Plaintiffs’ security products and services is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection or association of Defendants with Plaintiffs and/or GE. 17. As a result, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer monetary damages in

an amount to be determined at trial, inclusive of attorneys’ fees and costs under 15 U.S.C. § 1117. Unless Defendants are restrained and enjoined, Plaintiffs will continue to be damaged by Defendants’ acts. 18. Plaintiffs have been damaged because UTCA has lost sales of genuine GE-

branded security products when customers purchase what they believe are genuine GE-branded products from Defendants. Moreover, consumers who receive harassing telemarketing calls and solicitations from Defendants (claiming to be from GE Security) are less likely to purchase GEbranded products from UTCA and its distributors. 19. The damage caused by Defendants’ actions is not entirely susceptible to ready or

precise calculation in that such damage also involves lost profits, lost business opportunities, loss of goodwill and reputation, and confusion of consumers, such that monetary damages alone cannot adequately compensate Plaintiffs for Defendants’ misconduct. 20. Unless permanently enjoined by the Court, Defendants will continue to make

false descriptions and representations and to pass off their security goods and services as affiliated with Plaintiffs and/or GE, all to Plaintiffs’ irreparable injury.

15036957v.7

5

Case 3:13-cv-00350-ST

Document 1

Filed 02/28/13

Page 6 of 9

Page ID#: 6

COUNT II (Lanham Act Unfair Competition - False Advertising) (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B)) 21. herein. 22. Defendants have had no license, permission, consent or authorization to use the Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege the previous paragraphs as if fully set forth

GE mark, in connection with their businesses or to hold themselves out or represent themselves as authorized to sell GE-branded goods. 23. Defendants have continued to advertise, promote and offer for sale goods bearing

the GE mark in direct competition with Plaintiffs, which misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities or geographic origin of Defendants’ goods and services and makes it appear that Defendants are authorized to sell goods bearing the GE mark. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that Defendants have made such representations and actual sales to customers or potential customers in this district and elsewhere. 24. Defendants’ continued intentional use of the GE mark, in connection with their

businesses as alleged above, constitutes a false and misleading description or representation of fact, with knowledge of the falsity, in commercial advertising and promotion, which misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities and origin of Defendants’ goods, services and commercial activities, within the meaning of and in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B). 25. As a result, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer monetary damages in

an amount to be determined at trial, inclusive of attorneys’ fees and costs under 15 U.S.C. § 1117. Unless Defendants are restrained and enjoined, Plaintiffs will continue to be damaged by Defendants’ acts. 26. Plaintiffs have been damaged because, on information and belief, UTCA has lost

sales of genuine GE-branded security products when customers purchase what they believe are genuine GE-branded products from Defendants. Moreover, consumers who receive harassing

15036957v.7

6

Case 3:13-cv-00350-ST

Document 1

Filed 02/28/13

Page 7 of 9

Page ID#: 7

telemarketing calls and solicitations from Defendants (claiming to be from GE Security) are less likely to purchase GE-branded products from UTCA and its distributors. 27. The damage caused by Defendants’ actions is not entirely susceptible to ready or

precise calculation in that such damage also involves lost profits, lost business opportunities, loss of goodwill and reputation, and confusion of consumers, such that monetary damages alone cannot adequately compensate Plaintiffs for Defendants’ misconduct. 28. Unless permanently enjoined by the Court, Defendants will continue to falsely

advertise the nature, characteristics and qualities of their security goods and services, all to Plaintiffs’ irreparable injury. 29. At all times relevant, Defendants have had actual and constructive notice of

Plaintiffs’ commercial interest in the GE mark. Accordingly, the infringing and tortious acts of Defendants are intentional, willful and deliberate. COUNT III (Violation of UDAP Statutes of 11 States) 30. herein. 31. Defendants know and at all relevant times have known that UTC is a licensee of Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege the previous paragraphs as if fully set forth

the GE mark for use by its subsidiary, UTCA, in the sale of GE-branded security products. Defendants never obtained permission from Plaintiffs or GE to use the GE mark in connection with their business transactions. 32. By knowingly and intentionally misrepresenting to consumers that they were

calling from “GE Security,” Defendants engaged in unfair competition or unfair, unlawful, unconscionable, deceptive, or fraudulent acts or practices in violation of the following state statutes: Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. and 17500, et seq.; Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1105, et seq.; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110a, et seq.; Del. Code §§ 2511, et seq. and 2531, et seq.; Fla. Stat. § 501.201, et seq.; La. Rev. Stat. § 51:1401, et seq.; Mass. Gen. L. Ch. 93A, Chapter 11;

15036957v.7

7

Case 3:13-cv-00350-ST

Document 1

Filed 02/28/13

Page 8 of 9

Page ID#: 8

Minn. Stat. §§ 325D.43, et seq., Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 445.901, et seq.; N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, et seq.; and Wash. Rev. Code. § 19.86.010, et seq. 33. Defendants’ intentional misuse of the GE mark in connection with their marketing

and advertising materials was specifically designed to induce consumers to purchase Defendants’ goods and services under the false belief that those goods and services were affiliated, connected with or in association with Plaintiffs and/or GE. 34. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unfair methods of competition

and unfair or deceptive acts or practices, Plaintiffs have suffered actual economic damages, lost money or property, suffered reputational harm, and otherwise been wronged. COUNT IV (Intentional Interference with Business Relations) 35. herein. 36. UTC’s licensing agreement with GE allows UTCA to use and benefit from the Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege the previous paragraphs as if fully set forth

“GE” brand name in connection with its security business. 37. UTCA sells its GE-branded products to distributors and dealers who, in turn, are

permitted to benefit from the use of the GE mark. 38. Defendants are aware of Plaintiffs’ business relationships with GE and UTCA’s

distributors and dealers. Defendants have intentionally interfered with these relationships by falsely contacting consumers in illegal and wrongful ways and claiming to be from “GE Security.” 39. Plaintiffs have been damaged because, on information and belief, UTCA loses

sales of genuine GE-branded security products when customers purchase what they believe are genuine GE-branded products from Defendants. Moreover, consumers who receive harassing telemarketing calls and solicitations from Defendants (claiming to be from GE Security) are less likely to purchase GE-branded products from UTCA and its distributors. For these and other

15036957v.7

8

Case 3:13-cv-00350-ST

Document 1

Filed 02/28/13

Page 9 of 9

Page ID#: 9

reasons, as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ misconduct, Plaintiffs have suffered actual economic damages. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants in each Claim for Relief, jointly and severally, as follows: (1) An award of compensatory, consequential, statutory and/or punitive damages to Plaintiffs in an amount to be determined at trial; (2) An award to Plaintiffs of punitive damages for willful and malicious conduct by Defendants; (3) Temporary, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief ordering Defendants to cease falsely identifying themselves as having any affiliation with GE Security, GE and/or Plaintiffs, and all other appropriate equitable relief; (4) An award of interests, costs and attorneys’ fees incurred by Plaintiffs in prosecuting this action; and (5) An award to Plaintiffs of such other and further relief as may be just and proper under the circumstances. DATED: February 28, 2013 By:/s/Andrew D. Glascock Andrew D. Glascock Attorneys for Plaintiffs UTC Fire & Security Corporation and UTC Fire and Security Americas Corporation, Inc. JURY TRIAL DEMAND Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38 and L.R. 38.1, plaintiffs hereby demand trial by jury.

15036957v.7

9