Lone Star Weapons Academy v. Quintal - BACK TO BACK WORD WAR CHAMPS PDF

Case 4:15-cv-00191-Y Document 15 Filed 09/08/15
Page 1 of 19 PageID 92
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
LONE STAR WEAPONS ACADEMY
L.L.C., dba SHEEP DOG MARKET
Plaintiff,
v.
QUINTAL INTERNATIONAL, INC.
Defendant.
Case No. 4:15-cv-191-Y

CLASS ACTION
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT for

DECLARATION of TRADEMARK NON-INFRINGEMENT
and INJUNCTION
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B), Plaintiff, Lone Star
Weapons Academy L.L.C., doing business as Sheep Dog Market (Sheep Dog) files
this First Amended Complaint against Defendant, Quintal International, Inc.
(Quintal), seeking the Court's declaration that Sheep Dog's shirts bearing the
phrase BACK TO BACK WORLD WAR CHAMPS as a decorative statement on
the front of a t-shirt do not infringe any trademark belonging to Quintal, a
permanent injunction prohibiting Quintal from frivolous suits concerning its
registered mark, cancellation of the mark, and damages pursuant to federal antitrust laws and Texas state law for its attempt to illegally monopolize.
This amendment is filed as responsive to defendants motion to dismiss [Doc.
No. #12] and joins Lord Daniel Sportswear, Inc. as a second plaintiff pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(1), and finally, plaintiffs add class action and
federal anti-trust claims.
4:15-CV-191-Y, Lone Star Weapons Academy, LLC v. Quintal Intl Inc.
First Amended Complaint
Page 1
I.
1.
PARTIES
Plaintiff Lone Star Weapons Academy L.L.C., doing business as Sheep Dog
Market (Sheep Dog) is a limited liability company organized and existing under
the laws of the State of Texas, with its primary place of business in Keller, TX,
75165. Sheep Dog also operates an Internet web site from which it sells goods and
advertises services, which is found at http://sheepdogmarket.com/.
2.
Defendant Quintal International, Inc. (Quintal) is a corporation organized
in California and may be served at the office of its attorney, Hung Q. Pham of
Johnson & Pham, LLP, 6355 Topanga Canyon Blvd, Ste. 326, Woodland Hills, CA
91367.
3.
Lord Daniel Sportswear, Inc. (Lord Daniel) joins as a plaintiff to this suit in
this amendment. Lord Daniel is incorporated in Florida and may be contacted at

the office of the undersigned counsel, who represents both plaintiffs in this case.
Lord Daniel is joined as plaintiff as permitted under Rule 20(a)(1).
II.
4.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
Plaintiffs brought this action seeking a declaration of rights with respect to
federal trademark laws. The court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C.
1331 and 1338 (federal question), 15 U.S.C. 1119 (trademark cancellation), and
28 U.S.C. 2201 (declaratory judgment).

Page 2
5.
Plaintiff herein adds claims for violations of the Sherman Act and the
Clayton Act, over which this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 4, 15
U.S.C. 15, and 28 U.S.C. 1337.
6.
The dispute is ripe for adjudication at this time because Quintal's conduct
created a real and reasonable apprehension of liability on the part of both plaintiffs,
who both sold shirts to which Quintal referenced in its cease and desist letters
threatening each, and wishes to continue selling such shirts without fear of
litigation, both on their own sites, and on third-party sites such as Ebay and Zazzle.
7.
This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims for illegal
monopolization pursuant to under 28 U.S.C. 1367(a) because it is so related to

plaintiffs federal claims which are within this Courts original jurisdiction, that the
claims form part of the same case and controversy under Article III of the United
States Constitution.
8.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Quintal because Quintal's agents
purposefully purchased items from plaintiff's facility which it knew was in the State
of Texas, which is supported by the Texas long-arm statute, section 17.042 of the
Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code.
9.
As the facts below show, jurisdiction is supported in this case over this
controversy, as defined and discussed in Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S.
227 (1937).

Page 3
10.
Venue is properly founded in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1391(b) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims in this
action occurred within this District.
11.
Since this case has been filed, numerous other parties have contacted Sheep
Dog and indicated that Quintal has also contacted them in the exact same manner.
12.
As a result of Quintals actions, plaintiffs have been damaged to the extent
that they have had to hire attorneys to investigate Quintals false claims of
infringement and lost profits during their reasonable evaluation of the dispute.
III.
13.
NATURE OF THE DISPUTE
This is a civil action in which the plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment from
this court that its conduct, as set forth below, does not infringe the trademark of the
defendant, and further seeks a permanent injunction against similar threats of suit
from the defendant, and cancellation of the defendant's mark.
14.
At issue is the ability of vendors to sell t-shirts and other goods which bear
the common patriotic slogan, BACK TO BACK WORLD WAR CHAMPS, which
has been used ornamentally on clothing for many years, long before Quintal
registered it with the United States Patent and Trademark Office in mid-2013.
15.
Quintal seeks to monopolize a patriotic slogan by misusing trademark law
and brow-beating small t-shirt makers with federal lawsuits, knowing that the suits
are frivolous and without support.

Page 4
IV.
16.
DECLARATION SOUGHT
Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration from this Court because, in light of
established principles of U.S. trademark law, its use of the phrase BACK TO
BACK WORLD WAR CHAMPS does not infringe Quintal's trademark when used
ornamentally on shirts, and further asks this Court to put a permanent stop to
Quintal's abusive tactics by issuing a permanent injunction against similar abusive
litigation threats by Quintal.
V.
17.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all persons who have
been damaged from defendants indefensible and abusive trademark claims and
litigation threats (the Class).
18.
The number of potential plaintiffs in the Class is currently undefined, but the
named plaintiffs believe that even minimal discovery will show the Class to be so
numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.
19.
The claims set forth in this complaint are common to each class member,
each of whom have received a cease-and-desist letter from defendant and ceased or
slowed their open sale of shirts accused of infringing defendants mark, thereby
giving up profitable business.
20.
Plaintiff Sheep Dog is a proper representative of this class of persons
because, as will be more fully shown below, its claims are typical of the claims of all

Page 5
members of the class, and these claims are not subject to any unique defenses, and
no interest of Sheep Dog in this litigation conflicts with other class members.
21.
Prosecution of separate actions by or against individual class members
would create a risk of adjudications with respect to individual class members that,
as a practical matter, would be dispositive of the interests of the other members not
parties to the individual adjudications or would substantially impede their ability to
protect their interests.
22.
The questions of law and fact common to the class predominate over any
questions affecting individual members because the damages done to all proposed
class members are similar, and the proposed remedies are also similar.
23.
The amount of damages is unlikely to be sufficient to warrant individuals
filing suit on their own behalf. None of the Class will have unique claims, and the
defendants defenses will generally apply to all claims and all members of the class.
24.
The difficulty in managing the Class as defined is fairly simple; the
defendant knows to whom it has sent demand letters, and how each discussion
ended, so discovery should reveal all the necessary information to adjudicate all of
the claims efficiently.
25.
The claims set out below are proper for certification as a class action under
the provisions of Rules 23(b)(1), (2), and (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
26.
Plaintiffs expect to prove damages exceeding $5,000,000.

Page 6
VI.
27.
SPECIFIC FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO DISPUTE

Plaintiff Sheep Dog sells various clothing and other items from its website,
http://sheepdogmarket.com/.
28.
Plaintiff Lord Daniel sells various clothing and other items from its website,
http://www.theflagshirt.com.
29.
Until threatened by defendant, plaintiffs openly sold shirts on the above-
referenced websites bearing the phrase, "BACK TO BACK WORLD CHAMPS" to

the public. A typical shirt sold by Sheep Dog is shown on Exhibit A. Typical
offerings by Lord Daniel showing the phrase in question is shown on Exhibit B.
30.
Quintal has sent plaintiffs multiple letters which threaten suit for trademark
infringement, basing its claims for infringement on Quintal's registered mark and
its viewing of shirts similar to those shown in the exhibits which use the phrase on
the front of a t-shirt sold on their websites. These threatening letters included fully
drafted petitions for trademark infringement by Quintal against both plaintiffs. The
demand letters to Sheep Dog and Lord Daniel are attached as Exhibits C and D.
31.
In addition, the cease-and-desist letters included requests for vendor sources
and clearly intended to interfere with plaintiffs business relationships.

32.
Plaintiffs do not use the phrase "BACK TO BACK WORLD CHAMPS" as a
source indicator, yet defendant seeks to take advantage of small t-shirt vendors who
do not understand trademark law by threatening them with suits for infringement
when no such infringement occurs.
Page 7
33.
In discussion with Quintal's counsel, Sheep Dog has asked for any case law
supporting Quintal's position that an ornamental use of a popular phrase that was
famous for years prior to its registration can be the gravamen of a trademark
infringement suit when placed on the front of a shirt.
34.
Quintal refused to discuss the matter, but instead repeated demands that
Sheep Dog provide detailed financial data regarding shirt sales, inventory and other
intrusive data, so it could compute a proper damage amount, giving a one-week
deadline.
35.
Defendant has similarly badgered Lord Daniel for sales information in
repeated attempts to calculated imagined damages.

36.
Defendant has similarly badgered Barstool Sports, Inc., which responded by a
federal lawsuit in Massachusetts on June 15, 2015, styled Barstool Sports, Inc. v
Quintal International, Inc., in case number 1:15-cv-12338-DJC.
37.
Plaintiffs are aware that defendant has similarly badgered at least a dozen
other businesses located in diverse locations across the country.

38.
To date, defendant has actually sued no one for infringement. The clear
pattern is to send demand letters and collect money when possible, but faced with
opposition, defendant has not acted to enforce its mark based on ornamental use.
39.
Plaintiffs assert that no reasonable person would look at the products that
plaintiffs sell and conclude that the shirt was made or sold by a company that uses
the phrase "BACK TO BACK WORLD CHAMPS" as a source indicator, and no
Page 8
reasonable litigant could conclude that such a suit could be reasonably calculated to
elicit a favorable outcome.
40.
The USPTOs trademark records show that defendant filed its application for
registration of "BACK TO BACK WORLD CHAMPS" on June 24, 2013, and claims
commercial use as early as January 1, 2011.
41.
While defendant was in the process of registering "BACK TO BACK WORLD
CHAMPS" as a source indicator, Texas-based Grandex Inc. (Grandex) filed a

request for extended time to file an opposition to the mark. Grandex owns the mark
Rowdy Gentlemen and sells shirts similar to the other parties discussed. Agents
for Grandex have informed the undersigned that in its discussion with defendant,
Grandex asserted that it had already been selling its products prior to Grandexs
registration process, but agreed to refrain from opposing the registration, if
Grandex would not sue Grandex for infringement. Grandex did not choose to oppose
the registration, and Quintal has continued to sell shirts bearing the phrase in
question unabated.
42.
Plaintiffs assert that Quintal did not use "BACK TO BACK WORLD
CHAMPS" commercially as early as January 1, 2011, but instead has merely made
that claim fraudulently to support trademark abuse and extortion tactics against
less sophisticated t-shirt vendors who cannot discern between valid disputes and
sham threats, and are faced with buying peace or facing the threat of a federal
lawsuit in a court located hundreds of miles away.
Page 9
43.
The slogan "BACK TO BACK WORLD CHAMPS" has been seen and used in
popular culture at least as far back as April 2010. A cursory view of industry
indicates that shirts with this slogan on their front are available from many
sources, and have been for years.
44.
Plaintiff has also learned that Quintal has claimed trademark violations
against other vendors and threatened their livelihood by also making complaints to
online aggregators such as Zazzle.com, causing Zazzle to require vendors selling
such clothing to remove it from their offering or lose the sales channel completely.
45.
While aware that not every business that has received a demand letter has
complied, and after a reasonable search in PACER and by other means, the
undersigned counsel is aware no trademark infringement case that Quintal has
filed against anyone who did not comply with its demands.
46.
It is expected that during discovery, Quintal will be forced to admit that it
has sent similar threatening letters to a large number of t-shirt vendors, and browbeaten many of them into giving up their sales of the shirts or lose online thirdparty sales channels such as Zazzle, which do not want to get involved in a
trademark dispute and be accused of contributing to infringement.
47.
Plaintiffs wish to continue selling shirts bearing the referenced slogan, and
also wish to sell their shirts on third-party sites without fear of litigation.
48.
Quintals trademark infringement operation consists of 1) sending demand
letters to those who sell clothing items with the phrase BACK TO BACK WORLD
Page 10
WAR CHAMPS, 2) collecting small sums from unsophisticated shirt vendors who
reasonably fear being forced to defend itself in a California court far away from
their homes; 3) walking away from any perceived pushback from an alleged
infringer; and 4) never actually filing suit for infringement.
49.
Quintals behavior constitutes a pattern of illegal antitrust behavior
threatening sham litigation, as its owners are aware their legal claims are invalid.
VII.
50.
CLAIM 1 - DECLARATION OF TRADEMARK NON-INFRINGEMENT

Based on the preceding allegations, there exists a substantial controversy of
sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant declaratory relief between the parties.
51.
Irrespective of the trademarks validity, the court should exercise its
discretion, pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act and the Lanham Act,
to issue a declaratory judgment in this action because:
a. Plaintiffs do not use defendant's mark as a source indicator.
b. No reasonable person would interpret plaintiff's use of the patriotic
slogan, "BACK TO BACK WORLD WAR CHAMPS" is an indicator of
source when it is printed on the front of a t-shirt or ballcap.
c. Defendant has a pattern of this behavior, and will continue to abuse small
t-shirt vendors who must hire attorneys to defend them or give up profits.
d. The requested relief will resolve all of the disputes between the parties,
save all parties numerous, time-consuming, expensive, and unnecessary
proceedings and will assure that t-shirt vendors can provide a popular
Page 11
shirt without legal harassment by a legal team which is well aware that
its position is untenable.
52.
The Trademark Manual of Examination Procedure 1202.04 states: Because
the function of a trademark is to identify a single commercial source for particular

goods or services, if consumers are accustomed to seeing a slogan used in connection
with goods/services from may difference sources, it is likely that consumers would
not view the slogan as a source identifier for such goods/services
53.
Case law supports this view in similar situations, deciding that the more
commonly a phrase is used in everyday parlance, the less likely the public will use
it to identify only one source and the less likely the phrase will be recognized by
purchasers as a trademark or service mark. In re Eagle Crest, 96 USPQ2d at 122930 (noting that [a]s a matter of competitive policy, it should be close to impossible
for one competitor to achieve exclusive rights in common phrases or slogans,
quoting J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition
7.23 (4th ed. 2010).
VIII.
54.
CLAIM 2 - REQUEST FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
Based on the preceding allegations, there exists a need to protect the public
and the thousands of small t-shirt sellers across this country who are likely targets
for ongoing abusive behavior as defendant has shown in the facts of this case.
55.
The court should exercise its discretion to issue a permanent injunction to
protect the public and other t-shirt vendors from Quintal's abusive attempts to use
Page 12
trademark law to eliminate competition regarding the sale of a shirt with a popular
common phrase which existed years before the mark was registered.
IX.
56.
CLAIM 3 - REQUEST FOR TRADEMARK CANCELLATION
After an examination of the market and an earnest search, Sheep Dog can
find no example of any earnest use by the defendant of the registered mark in
commerce. Even in defendants counterclaim exhibits in which defendant is arguing
that plaintiff Sheep Dog is infringing Quintals mark, Quintal provides only exhibits
showing the mark on clothing, but provides not even an assertion that the mark is
being used in commerce.
57.
Plaintiff is aware that clothing using the slogan was popular and placed on
clothing long before its registration as a mark by Quintal, and these many uses
should have shown the mark to be a generic phrase unregisterable.
58.
Fewer than five years have passed since defendant has registered the mark,
so any ground that would have prevented registration continues to qualify as a legal
ground for cancellation.
59.
Based on the popularity of the patriotic slogan and the registration of the
mark, it appears that the registration of the mark was one of bad faith, solely for
the purpose of litigation, rather than true commercial use.
60.
Based on the number of t-shirt vendors who have sold shirts bearing the
registered mark as mere ornament, plaintiffs argue that the mark is generic
pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1064, which states that the primary significance of the
Page 13
registered mark to the relevant public rather than purchaser motivation shall be
the test for determining whether the registered mark has become the generic name
of goods or services on or in connection with which it has been used.
61.
Pursuant to Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) 1202.04,
Slogans and other terms that are merely information in nature, or common
laudatory phrases or statements that would ordinarily be used in business or in the
particular trade or industry, are not registrable.
62.
The Trademark Manual of Examination Procedure 1202.04 states: Because
the function of a trademark is to identify a single commercial source for particular

goods or services, if consumers are accustomed to seeing a slogan used in connection
with goods/services from may difference sources, it is likely that consumers would
not view the slogan as a source identifier for such goods/services.
63.
Case law supports this view in similar situations, deciding that the more
commonly a phrase is used in everyday parlance, the less likely the public will use
it to identify only one source and the less likely the phrase will be recognized by
purchasers as a trademark or service mark. In re Eagle Crest, 96 USPQ2d at 122930 (noting that [a]s a matter of competitive policy, it should be close to impossible
for one competitor to achieve exclusive rights in common phrases or slogans.
(quoting J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition
7.23 (4th ed. 2010)).

Page 14
64.
The motivation of the public to buy the shirt is the patriotic slogan on the
shirt, rather than any idea that the slogan is being used as a source indicator. Thus,
the mark should be cancelled.
X.
65.
CLAIM 3 - TEXAS FREE ENTERPRISE AND ANTITRUST ACT OF 1983

Plaintiff Sheep Dog brings a claim pursuant to section 15.05(b) of the Texas
Business & Commerce Code, which states: It is unlawful for any person to
monopolize, attempt to monopolize, or conspire to monopolize any part of trade or
commerce (the Act). Tex. Bus. & Com. Code 15.05(b) (emphasis added).
66.
Quintal attempted to monopolize a specific ornamental design by misusing
trademark law, when defendant has no design patent, and therefore has no factual
or legal grounds to support those demands, thereby violating the Act.
67.
Section 15.21 of the Texas Business & Commerce Code allows individuals to
file suit on this basis for damages, tripled when the behavior is flagrant, as well as
attorney fees.
68.
Quintal's behavior was flagrant. Plaintiff provided ample time for Quintal to
retract its demands, and yet Quintal persisted until this suit was filed.
69.
Quintals insistence that its would-be victims hand over their sources shows
that Quintal also intended to interfere in the business relations of its competitors.
70.
Quintals behavior qualifies sham litigation and therefore actionable under
anti-trust claims, because its threatened litigation was "objectively baseless in the
sense that no reasonable litigant could realistically expect success on the merits";
Page 15
and (2) there was subjective intent to use the litigation to interfere directly with the
business relationships of a competitor, the test developed by the Supreme Court in
Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 508
U.S. 49, 123 L. Ed. 2d 611, 113 S. Ct. 1920 (1993), as discussed and explained
further in Estee Lauder, Inc. v. Fragrance Counter, Inc., 189 F.R.D. 269, 273
(S.D.N.Y. 1999).
XI.
CLAIM 3 SHERMAN ACT and CLAYTON ACT VIOLATIONS
71.
Plaintiff incorporates all previous statements of fact and argument.
72.
Defendant has adopted a practice of threatening suit for behavior that its
agents know, or should know, does not constitute trademark infringement, and
focuses attention on small vendors who are unsophisticated and more likely to just
pay defendant and cease selling the accused shirts than to hire an attorney and
defend their behavior as non-infringing.
73.
Defendants behavior constitutes an attempt to monopolize, or combine or
conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or
commerce among the several States, a violation of 15 U.S.C. 2 leading to damages
available under 15 U.S.C. 15.
74.
Aware that defendant has responded that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine in
response, defendants assert that defendants infringement claims are sham under
the Supreme Courts established test for "sham" litigation, as plaintiffs can prove
that defendants trademark claims are "objectively baseless in the sense that no
Page 16
reasonable litigant could realistically expect success on the merits and defendants
have stated their subjective intent to use the litigation to interfere directly with the
business relationships of a competitor. See Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v.
Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 508 U.S. 49, 123 L. Ed. 2d 611, 113 S. Ct. 1920
(1993), as discussed and explained further in Estee Lauder, Inc. v. Fragrance
Counter, Inc., 189 F.R.D. 269, 273 (S.D.N.Y. 1999).
75.
Under the antitrust laws of the United States, plaintiffs are entitled to
recover their reasonable attorneys fees and three times their damages.
XII.
76.
CLAIM FOR ATTORNEY FEES
Plaintiffs request an award of attorney fees pursuant to Section 15.21(a) of
the Tex. Bus. & Com. Code.

77.
Plaintiffs also request an award of attorney fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 2
and 15 U.S.C. 15(a).

XIII.
78.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
Plaintiff requests judgment that this Court render a declaration judgment
that: Ornamental use of the phrase BACK TO BACK WORLD WAR does not
infringe any trademark rights of Defendant Quintal; and,
79.
Plaintiff requests that this Court cancel trademark registration number
85968426 for BACK TO BACK WORLD WAR CHAMPS because it is generic, and

Page 17
because the registration was obtained fraudulently and solely for litigation
purposes; and,
80.
Plaintiff requests that the Court permanently enjoin defendant Quintal
International from complaining or threatening suits for use of the phrase "back to
back world war champs" when that phrase is used ornamentally; and,
81.
Plaintiff requests an award of damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 2 and 15 for
defendants violations of the Sherman and Clayton Acts.

82.
Plaintiff requests that this Court award Plaintiff triple the economic damages
it has suffered, as well as reasonable attorneys fees pursuant to Tex. Bus. & Com.
Code 15.21(a); and,
83.
Plaintiff requests that this Court award Plaintiff its costs in this action; and,
84.
Plaintiff requests that this Court grant Plaintiff any and all other and
further equitable and legal relief that may be just and proper.
JURY DEMAND - Plaintiff requests trial by jury of all claims.

Dated: September 8, 2015.
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Warren V. Norred
Warren Norred, TX Bar 24045094
Norred Law, PLLC
200 E. Abram, Suite 300
Arlington, TX 76010
O: 817-704-3984; F: 817-524-6686
wnorred@norredlaw.com
Attorney for Plaintiff
Page 18
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, I hereby certify that on
September 8, 2015, I served the foregoing Amended Complaint on all parties
requesting service, using the electronic filing system of the court.
.
s/ Warren V. Norred

Page 19

Lone Star Weapons Academy v. Quintal - BACK TO BACK WORD WAR CHAMPS PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lone Star Weapons Academy v. Quintal - BACK TO BACK WORD WAR CHAMPS PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 4:15-cv-00191-Y Document 15 Filed 09/08/15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case No. 4:15-cv-191-Y

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT for

Case 4:15-cv-00191-Y Document 15 Filed 09/08/15

Defendant Quintal International, Inc. (Quintal) is a corporation organized

this amendment. Lord Daniel is incorporated in Florida and may be contacted at

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Plaintiffs brought this action seeking a declaration of rights with respect to

4:15-CV-191-Y, Lone Star Weapons Academy, LLC v. Quintal Intl Inc.

Case 4:15-cv-00191-Y Document 15 Filed 09/08/15

monopolization pursuant to under 28 U.S.C. 1367(a) because it is so related to

4:15-CV-191-Y, Lone Star Weapons Academy, LLC v. Quintal Intl Inc.

Case 4:15-cv-00191-Y Document 15 Filed 09/08/15

Venue is properly founded in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

As a result of Quintals actions, plaintiffs have been damaged to the extent

NATURE OF THE DISPUTE

Quintal seeks to monopolize a patriotic slogan by misusing trademark law

4:15-CV-191-Y, Lone Star Weapons Academy, LLC v. Quintal Intl Inc.

Case 4:15-cv-00191-Y Document 15 Filed 09/08/15

Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration from this Court because, in light of

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff Sheep Dog is a proper representative of this class of persons

4:15-CV-191-Y, Lone Star Weapons Academy, LLC v. Quintal Intl Inc.

Case 4:15-cv-00191-Y Document 15 Filed 09/08/15

Prosecution of separate actions by or against individual class members

The amount of damages is unlikely to be sufficient to warrant individuals

The difficulty in managing the Class as defined is fairly simple; the

Plaintiffs expect to prove damages exceeding $5,000,000.

4:15-CV-191-Y, Lone Star Weapons Academy, LLC v. Quintal Intl Inc.

Case 4:15-cv-00191-Y Document 15 Filed 09/08/15

SPECIFIC FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO DISPUTE

Until threatened by defendant, plaintiffs openly sold shirts on the above-

referenced websites bearing the phrase, "BACK TO BACK WORLD CHAMPS" to

In addition, the cease-and-desist letters included requests for vendor sources

and clearly intended to interfere with plaintiffs business relationships.

Plaintiffs do not use the phrase "BACK TO BACK WORLD CHAMPS" as a

Case 4:15-cv-00191-Y Document 15 Filed 09/08/15

Defendant has similarly badgered Lord Daniel for sales information in

repeated attempts to calculated imagined damages.

Defendant has similarly badgered Barstool Sports, Inc., which responded by a

other businesses located in diverse locations across the country.

Case 4:15-cv-00191-Y Document 15 Filed 09/08/15

Page 9 of 19 PageID 100

While defendant was in the process of registering "BACK TO BACK WORLD

CHAMPS" as a source indicator, Texas-based Grandex Inc. (Grandex) filed a

Case 4:15-cv-00191-Y Document 15 Filed 09/08/15

Page 10 of 19 PageID 101

It is expected that during discovery, Quintal will be forced to admit that it

Quintals trademark infringement operation consists of 1) sending demand

Case 4:15-cv-00191-Y Document 15 Filed 09/08/15

Page 11 of 19 PageID 102

Quintals behavior constitutes a pattern of illegal antitrust behavior

CLAIM 1 - DECLARATION OF TRADEMARK NON-INFRINGEMENT

Irrespective of the trademarks validity, the court should exercise its

Case 4:15-cv-00191-Y Document 15 Filed 09/08/15

Page 12 of 19 PageID 103

The Trademark Manual of Examination Procedure 1202.04 states: Because

the function of a trademark is to identify a single commercial source for particular

CLAIM 2 - REQUEST FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION

The court should exercise its discretion to issue a permanent injunction to

Case 4:15-cv-00191-Y Document 15 Filed 09/08/15