1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE US UNCUT LLC, Plaintiff, v. RYAN CLAYTON, and JOHN DOES Nos. 1 through 10. Defendants. Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-368-PB

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

 

 NOW COMES plaintiff US Uncut LLC (“US Uncut”) by its attorneys, Devine Millimet

& Branch, Professional Association, pursuant to Rule 65(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby moves for a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants from continuing to

infringe upon US Uncut’s protected service mark US UNCUT and mislead consumers as to the

sponsorship, source and origin of the goods and services they are offering. In support of this Motion, US Uncut states as follows: 1.

 

US Uncut is an online media company that uses the common law service mark US UNCUT in connection with its news reporting service that generates tens of million monthly visitors to its Facebook page and web site, usuncut.com. Indeed, with more than 1.5 million

Facebook followers, US Uncut is among one of Facebook’s top 25 publishers. US Uncut has

used its mark in connection with its news reporting services since its incorporation in September 2014 and its owners, Carl Gibson and Mark Provost, used the mark before then in connection

Case 1:16-cv-00368-PB Document 8 Filed 08/25/16 Page 1 of 4

 

 2

with their grassroots movement against government austerity and corporate tax dodging. 2.

 

US Uncut believes Ryan Clayton and the John Doe defendants (yet to be

identified) are behind a scheme that unfolded on August 3, 2016 to hijack control of US Uncut’s

Facebook page. The hijacking has resulted in US Uncut losing its administrator rights to its Facebook page, meaning US Uncut can no longer control the content of its Facebook page. Making matters worse, a new (and anonymous) administrator for the US Uncut Facebook page is

 posting content to the page in order to direct US Uncut’s audience to a copycat website called “usuncut.news.” The website is virtually identical in the look and feel to US Uncut’s website,

even down to the style and layout of the page, and the types of articles and content that plaintiff has become famous for publishing. This conduct is blatant trademark infringement and unfair competition, among other violations of law, and US Uncut is entitled to immediate injunctive relief to stop it. 3.

 

Accordingly, US Uncut now moves for a preliminary injunction against defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a) to enjoin defendants from continuing to infringe

upon US Uncut’s protected trademark rights and from continuing their unlawful conduct in hijacking US Uncut’s Facebook page.

4.

 

As explained in the accompanying memorandum of law, which is filed simultaneously herewith and incorporated herein, a preliminary injunction is warranted in this case because US Uncut has demonstrated that it is likely to prevail on the merits of its trademark

and cyberpiracy claims. In this regard, defendants’ hijacking and continuing use of US Uncut’s

Facebook page amounts to a wholesale impersonation of US Uncut and its business. In addition,

the domain name for defendants’ website, usuncut.news, is not merely confusingly similar, but nearly identical to US Uncuts’ protected tra

demark.

Case 1:16-cv-00368-PB Document 8 Filed 08/25/16 Page 2 of 4

 

 3

5.

 

In addition, defendants’ use of the US UNCUT mark is likely to cause consumer

confusion in the marketplace and US Uncut has sustained, and will continue to sustain,

irreparable harm as a result of defendants’ infringement of its trademark. The

 balance of harms

weighs in favor of an injunction, as does the public’s interest in protecting trademarks and

 preventing cyberpiracy. 6.

 

 No concurrence to this motion has been requested because of the nature of the relief requested and because no defendant has appeared in the action. WHEREFORE, US Uncut respectfully requests that this Honorable Court: A.

 

Schedule a prompt hearing on US Uncut

’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction;

B.

 

Upon completion of the hearing, issue an Order prohibiting defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys and any person(s) acting in concert or  participation with defendants from using or displ

aying in any way US Uncut’s protected trademark or any names, marks or words that are confusingly similar to US Uncut’s protected

trademark, and ordering defendants to restore to US Uncut sole administrator rights to its Facebook page; C.

 

Prohibit defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys and any person(s) in active concert or participation with them from using the Internet domain

name “usuncut.news”;

D.

 

Prohibit defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys

and any person(s) acting in concert or participation with them from us US Uncut’s protected trademark or any names, marks or words that are confusingly similar to US Uncut’s protected

trademark within meta tags on any website; and E.

 

Grant US Uncut such other and further relief as this Court deems just and

Case 1:16-cv-00368-PB Document 8 Filed 08/25/16 Page 3 of 4