Jack Russell v. Mark Kendall et al

Filing 1

COMPLAINT against Defendants Bigg Time Entertainment Inc, Audie Desbrow, Does 1-10, Mark Kendall, Michael Lardie. Case assigned to Judge Otis D Wright, II for all further proceedings. Discovery referred to Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow.(Filing fee $ 350 PAID.) Jury Demanded., filed by Plaintiff Jack Russell. (et) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/26/2012: # 1 Ntc of Assignment, # 2 Summons, # 3 Civil Cover Sheet) (mg).

1

1.

This is a civil action seeking injunctive relief and damages for federal trademark

2

infringement/false endorsement, federal trademark dilution, and federal statutory unfair

3

competition under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051, et seq. (the“Lanham Act”), and

4

specifically 15 U.S.C. § 1125, and California state common law trademark infringement, injury

5

to business reputation and interference with prospective economic advantage, and statutory

6

unfair competition.

7
8

2.

This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over the federal claims in this action

9

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1338(a) and (b),and 15 U.S.C. 1121, and

10

supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

11
12

3.

13

and belief, reside in the State of California. In addition, Defendants do business in the State of

14

California and have performed as “Great White” within the state, and events giving rise to the

15

cause of action have occurred within California.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants, all of whom, on information

16
17

4.

18

and belief, all defendants reside within the State of California, and Defendants Mark Kendall and

19

Audie Desbrow reside in this district, and Defendant Bigg Time Entertainment, Inc. has a

20

principal place of business within this district. Additionally the principal events complained of

21

have and will occur in this District.

Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), in that, on information

22
23

NATURE OF THE ACTION

24
25

5.

This is an action for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and damages arising

26

from Defendants’ infringement of the Federal and California state statutory and common law

27

rights of Plaintiff JACK RUSSELL and his common law trademark of the band name “GREAT

28
COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT, TRADEMARK DILUTION, UNFAIR COMPETITION, INJURY TO
BUSINESS REPUTATION

2

1

WHITE”. Plaintiff is the founder and lead singer of the musical group “Great White”.

2

Throughout the group’s existence, he has been the primary creative director of the band. He

3

determined the band’s membership, signed most all of its contracts, gave nearly all of the band’s

4

publicity interviews, and determined the band’s creative direction. He has been the sole member

5

is the only original member of the band to continuously perform with the group throughout its

6

existence. He is also the sole member to exercise control over the quality of the groups service.

7

Accordingly, Plaintiff is the owner of the common law trademark in the name “Great White”.

8
9

6.

The individual Defendants, MARK KENDALL, AUDIE DESBROW, and MICHAEL

10

LARDIE seek to perform, promote and market themselves as the musical group “Great White”,

11

without Plaintiff’s consent, and have recently announced that they will release an album under

12

that name. By performing and announcing their intent to record an album under the name

13

“GREAT WHITE”, Defendants have infringed upon and diluted the value of the trademark

14

rights owned by Plaintiff. Further, Defendants have, both individually and through their agents,

15

intentionally defamed Plaintiff and injured his business reputation and ability to contract by

16

stating to promoters and to the general public that he is unable to perform as a musician, and by

17

wrongfully threatening to file legal action against any venue or promoter that books Plaintiff to

18

perform.

19

7.

20

and booking the individual defendants as the band “Great White” without Plaintiff’s consent.

21

BIGG TIME ENTERTAINMENT INC. is a California Corporation with a principal place of

22

business in Los Angeles, California. BIGG TIME ENTERTAINMENT, INC. has assisted and

23

profited from the individual defendants infringement and dilution of Plaintiff’s common law

24

trademark, and has assisted and profited from individual defendants attempts to wrongfully

25

injure Plaintiff’s business reputation and ability to contract.

Defendant BIGG TIME ENTERTAINMENT, INC., acts as the talent agency promoting

26
27

PARTIES

28
COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT, TRADEMARK DILUTION, UNFAIR COMPETITION, INJURY TO
BUSINESS REPUTATION

3

1

8.

Plaintiff Jack Russell is the founder and lead singer of the band Great White. Mr. Russell

2

founded the band in 1978. It was originally called “Dante Fox” until the name was changed to

3

“Great White” in 1982. Over the past thirty years, the band experienced astonishing success, and

4

also faced difficult challenges. Through both success and difficulty, Jack Russell was the one

5

constant member of the band. Mr Russell was the primary creative director of the band. He

6

determined the band’s membership, signed most all of its contracts, gave nearly all of the band’s

7

publicity interviews, determined the band’s creative direction, and exercised the power to both

8

dissolve and reform the band. While the band’s membership has changed substantially over the

9

past thirty years (over 20 musicians have played with the band in various capacities in that time),

10

Jack Russell has always been the lead singer and creative director of the band. Until recent

11

events that form the basis of this lawsuit, there has never been a “Great White” without Jack

12

Russell.

13
14

9.

15

“Great White”. Mr Kendall was a member of the original “Great White” in 1982, but resigned

16

from the band in 2000. Plaintiff hired Ty Longley to replace Kendall, and continued to perform

17

as “Great White” and “Jack Russell’s Great White” after Mr. Kendall quit the band. Plaintiff

18

later hired Kendall to perform as part of “Jack Russell’s Great White” at the end of 2002. In

19

2010, Plaintiff took a temporary absence from the band to recuperate from major surgery.

20

During that time, Mr. Kendall played guitar for the band ‘Great White” with a number of

21

temporary fill in vocalists. After Plaintiff announced that he had recuperated from surgery, Mr.

22

Kendall, along with defendants Lardie and Desbrow, filed a trademark application for the name

23

“Great White” with the United States Patent and Trademark Office without plaintiff’s knowledge

24

and consent in an attempt to lay claim to the band name. Mr Kendall has since continued to

25

perform with other vocalists under the name “Great White” without plaintiff’s consent. On

26

information and belief, Mr Kendall is a resides in San Bernardino County.

Defendant Mark Kendall is the lead guitarist of the band currently promoting itself as

27
28
COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT, TRADEMARK DILUTION, UNFAIR COMPETITION, INJURY TO
BUSINESS REPUTATION

4

1

10.

Defendants Michael Lardie and Audie Desbrow were not members of the original “Great

2

White”. They joined the band in 1985. In 2000, shortly after Mr. Kendall resigned, Audie

3

Desbrow was fired by Plaintiff. Michael Lardie remained with the band through the end of

4

2001, when Plaintiff announced that the band would stop playing. At the end of 2002, Plaintiff

5

reformed the band, without Lardie or Desbrow, who both remained absent from the band until

6

2006, when Plaintiff invited them to return for a reunion tour. Lardie and Desbrow, along with

7

defendant Kendall, were playing with the band while Plaintiff was recuperating from surgery in

8

2011, joined with defendant Kendall in attempting to trademark the name “Great White” and

9

have been performing as the “Official” Great White band without Plaintiff’s consent. On

10

information and belief, Defendant Lardie resides in Sacramento County, and Defendant Desbrow

11

resides in Los Angeles County.

12
13

11.

14

and booking the individual defendants as the band “Great White” without Plaintiff’s consent.

15

BIGG TIME ENTERTAINMENT INC. is a California Corporation with a principal place of

16

business in Los Angeles, California. BIGG TIME ENTERTAINMENT, INC. has assisted and

17

profited from the individual defendants infringement and dilution of Plaintiff’s common law

18

trademark, and has assisted and profited from individual defendants attempts to wrongfully

19

injure Plaintiff’s business reputation and ability to contract.

Defendant BIGG TIME ENTERTAINMENT, INC., acts as the talent agency promoting

20
21

12.

22

and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint

23

to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and

24

therefore alleges that each of the fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for

25

the occurrences herein alleged, and Plaintiff ‘s injuries as herein alleged were proximately

26

caused by such defendants. These fictitiously named defendants along with the defendants

27

named above, are herein referred to collectively as "Defendants."

Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and identities of DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

28
COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT, TRADEMARK DILUTION, UNFAIR COMPETITION, INJURY TO
BUSINESS REPUTATION

5

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS

1
2

13.

Plaintiff Jack Russell is the founder and lead singer of the band "Great White". From the

3

band’s inception, he exerted primary creative control over the band, made the hiring and firing

4

decisions for the band, signed nearly all of the contracts for the band, coined the name for the

5

band, and performed nearly all of the interviews for the band. Other band members, including

6

Defendants, came and went, but Plaintiff has continuously been the lead singer and director of

7

the band. Until recently there had never been a “Great White” without Jack Russell, who is

8

undeniably the face and voice of the band, and indisputably owns the trademark to the name

9
10

14.

11

name to "Great White" in 1982. In 1982, the band consisted of Plaintiff, Defendant Mark

12

Kendall, Lorne Black and Gary Holland.

Plaintiff started the band in 1978 under the name “Dante Fox”, and later changed the

13
14

15.

15

touring. As with most bands, the lineup of musicians changed over time. In 1985, Plaintiff fired

16

Gary Holland and hired Defendant Audie Desbrow to replace him. Plaintiff also hired

17

Defendant Michael Lardie in late 1985 to play keyboards and guitar, after the release of their

18

third studio recording “Shot in the Dark”.

“Great White” spent the next several years developing a following, releasing albums, and

19
20

16.

21

Bitten...” which by 1988 had sold over one million copies and was certified “Platinum”. Over

22

the next five years, the band toured and released two more albums: “...Twice Shy” released in

23

1989 sold over two million copies, and “Hooked” released in 1991 sold over half a million

24

copies, which was followed by the album “Psycho City” in 1992. During this period, the band

25

lineup, again like most bands, continued to change. Lorne Black was replaced by Tony

26

Montana, who was in turn replaced by other bassists, and studio musicians were also hired for

27

recording sessions.

In 1987, the band achieved mainstream success with the release of the album “Once

28
COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT, TRADEMARK DILUTION, UNFAIR COMPETITION, INJURY TO
BUSINESS REPUTATION

6

1

17.

The band continued to tour throughout the 90s, releasing three more albums. Again, the

2

lineup changed, Tony Montana was replaced with other musicians, including Sean McNabb.

3

Mark Kendall underwent treatment for alcoholism and Plaintiff hired Al Petrelli to replace him

4

on tour, and also similarly hired drummers to replace Defendant Audie Desbrow

5
6

18.

In 2000, the line up of the band changed substantially. Defendant Mark Kendall quit the

7

band in January of 2000. Plaintiff hired Matthew Johnson to replace Kendall, and continued to

8

perform as "Great White". Plaintiff also fired Defendant Audie Desbrow as drummer and

9

replaced him.. Plaintiff continued on with the band, and from 2000 to the end of 2001, when

10

Plaintiff dissolved the band (albeit temporarily). During that period the band consisted of

11

Plaintiff and a number of other musicians.

12
13

19.

14

would stop performing. However, in late 2002, Plaintiff reformed the band, and called it ‘Jack

15

Russell’s Great White”. Plaintiff invited Defendant Mark Kendall to play guitar, who agreed to

16

join the band as an employee. From 2002 to 2005, the band toured as either “Jack Russell’s

17

Great White” or “Great White”.

In November of 2001, Plaintiff decided, albeit for only a short while, that “Great White”

18
19

20.

20

them to rejoin the band for a reunion tour. From 2006 to 2010, the band consisted of Plaintiff,

21

Defendants, and bassist Sean Mcnabb whom Plaintiff later fired and replaced with Scott Snyder.

Defendants Lardie and Desbrow did not rejoin the band until 2006, when Plaintiff invited

22
23

21.

24

threatening condition. While he recuperated from this surgery, other singers filled in for him

25

during the band’s live performances, however, it was undisputed that Plaintiff’s absence was

26

temporary, and that he retained his position in the band’s lineup and would resume singing with

27

the band upon his recuperation.

In August of 2010, Plaintiff was hospitalized and underwent emergency surgery for a life

28
COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT, TRADEMARK DILUTION, UNFAIR COMPETITION, INJURY TO
BUSINESS REPUTATION

7

1

22.

By December of 2011, Plaintiff had recuperated sufficiently to be able to once again

2

perform as lead singer. However, Defendants, who had apparently decided that they would

3

prefer that band continue without Plaintiff, stated that he would not be “permitted” to return to

4

his band until he agreed to a lengthy set of conditions (including, for example, that he agree to no

5

longer take the pain medications or even the anti-inflammatory medicines that had been

6

prescribed by his treating physicians) that was clearly designed to keep him from returning to the

7

band.

8
9

23.

Also during this time, without the knowledge or consent of Plaintiff, Defendants secretly

10

drafted and filed an application to register a trademark, in their name only, for both the name

11

“Great White” and the band’s logo. The United States Patent and Trademark Office serial

12

number for the application is 85489480.

13
14

24.

15

attempting to keep him from returning to the band, hired new musicians and began rehearsing for

16

a new tour.

Plaintiff, rightfully sensing that the musicians he had hired to play in Great White were

17
18

25.

19

White” and demanded through his attorneys that they cease performing under the name.

20

Defendants refused, and have continued to perform as “Great White” with other lead singers

21

without Plaintiff’s consent.

Plaintiff informed Defendants that they did not own the trademark to the name “Great

22
23

26.

24

White” so that the public knows that they will be seeing him as the lead singer when they see his

25

band’s live performances, and will be viewing a performance that maintains the vocal style and

26

quality of the music they have come to expect from “Great White”.

Plaintiff, in order to minimize confusion, has named his band “Jack Russell’s Great

27
28
COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT, TRADEMARK DILUTION, UNFAIR COMPETITION, INJURY TO
BUSINESS REPUTATION

8

1

27.

In an attempt to injure the business reputation of Plaintiff and interfere with his band’s

2

prospective economic advantage, Defendants posted defamatory material about him on their

3

website (www.greatwhiterocks.com) claiming that he was too infirm to perform as a musician.

4

Defendants also claimed to be the true owners of the “Great White” trademark, and posted

5

threats to litigate against any venue or promoter that booked Plaintiff’s band. Plaintiff has also

6

been informed by various venues that Defendants, by and through their agents, contacted

7

bookers that had employed Plaintiff’s band and threatened litigation.

8
9

28.

On March 17, 2012, Defendants announced that they would be releasing an album

10

entitled “Elation” as “Great White” on May 18, 2012. Release of the album will irretrievably

11

alter the discography of the band “Great White”, tarnishing and diluting the trademark,

12

reputation, and goodwill that Plaintiff has developed over 30 years.

13
14

29.

15

memorabilia the same types of wholesale, retail and distribution channels and to the same classes

16

of purchasers as Plaintiff’s products and services.

Defendants market their musical performances, CDs, DVDs, other recordings and band

17
18

30.

19

deception in the minds of the public, and will result in the dilution and tarnishment of the mark.

20

Defendants' infringement constitutes a willful and malicious violation of Plaintiff’s trademark

21

rights, aimed at preventing Plaintiff from continuing to build a business around a mark that he

22

has long possessed and depriving him of nearly 30 years of goodwill.

Defendants' wrongful use of Plaintiff’s mark is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or

23
24

31.

Defendants do not own the trademark to the name Great White. It is well settled in the

25

Ninth Circuit that, with respect to trademark disputes over ownership of band names, “a person

26

who remains continuously involved with the group and is in a position to control the quality of

27

its services retains the right to use of the mark”. Robi v Reed, 173 F.3d 736, 741. As with the

28
COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT, TRADEMARK DILUTION, UNFAIR COMPETITION, INJURY TO
BUSINESS REPUTATION

9

1

prevailing party in Robi, Plaintiff “founded the group, gave the group its name, managed the

2

group, and is the only member who has continuously performed with the group” throughout its

3

existence. Id. Accordingly, it is Plaintiff, not Defendants, who owns the right to the “Great

4

White” trademark.

5
6
7

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
(15 U.S.C. § 1125(a))

8
9
32.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 31

10
of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
11
12
33.

Plaintiff, as the sole member of the band who was consistently present in the group and

13
maintained control over the quality of the services of the group throughout the majority of its
14
existence, owns the common law trademark to the name “Great White”.
15
16
34.

By intentionally using Plaintiff’s “Great White” common law trademark in commerce to

17
promote their musical performances, record and sell music, and sell other items displaying
18
Plaintiff’s mark without Plaintiff’s permission, Defendants are deliberately, intentionally and
19
willfully infringing upon Plaintiff’s common law trademark, and the goodwill associated by
20
the public with Plaintiff’s mark, diluting the value of the mark and creating confusion in the
21
mind of the consuming public regarding which band they will be seeing perform, or buying
22
music or other memorabilia from, when they see the name “Great White”.
23
24
35.

Upon information and belief, if not preliminarily and permanently enjoined by this

25
Court, Defendants will continue to advertise and display, and will sell, distribute and otherwise
26
exploit Plaintiff’s common law trademark for their own commercial use in violation of Plaintiffs’
27
rights under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) for which Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy
28
COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT, TRADEMARK DILUTION, UNFAIR COMPETITION, INJURY TO
BUSINESS REPUTATION

10

1

at law.

2
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
DILUTION OF UNREGISTERED TRADEMARK
(15 U.S.C. § 1125 (c))

3
4
5

36.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 31

6

of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein..

7
8

37.

Defendants’ deliberate, intentional and willful use of the “Great White” to promote their

9

live musical performances, and to record and distribute records, CDs, and DVDs of those

10

performances under the name “Great White, has resulted in actual dilution of the mark by

11

blurring and tarnishment, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c). Defendants have blurred and

12

tarnished the distinctive quality and goodwill of the “Great White” mark by their creation of a

13

second band under the same name as Plaintiff’s mark that markets itself as the “authentic” band,

14

to the detriment of Plaintiff.

15
16

38.

By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have deliberately, willfully and knowingly

17

diluted and threatened to further dilute the rights of Plaintiff in his common law trademark in

18

commerce, in order to intentionally deceive and mislead consumers and the public at large, and

19

to willfully usurp the goodwill and reputation associated with the Plaintiff’s mark.

20
21

39.

Upon information and belief, unless preliminarily and permanently enjoined by this

22

Court, Defendants will continue to dilute, and to cause serious and irreparable harm and damage

23

to the reputation and goodwill associated with Plaintiff’s mark for which Plaintiff has no

24

adequate remedy at law.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
FALSE DESCRIPTION

25
26
27

40.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 31

28
COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT, TRADEMARK DILUTION, UNFAIR COMPETITION, INJURY TO
BUSINESS REPUTATION

11

1

of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

2
3

41.

4

Plaintiff’s trademark established in the entertainment-related market for consumer products that

5

Defendants' use thereof in the context of entertainment is likely to cause confusion, or to cause

6

mistake, or to deceive consumers as to the affiliation, connection or association of Plaintiff’s

7

products, or to deceive consumers as to the origin, sponsorship or approval by Plaintiff of the

8

Defendants' counterfeit products. Plaintiff avers that Defendants' use of the mark "Great White"

9

comprises a false description or representation of Defendants' business or products under 15

10

Defendants' wrongful use of Plaintiff’s mark is such a colorable imitation and copy of

U.S.C. § 1125(a) (Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act).

11

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
FEDERAL UNFAIR COMPETITION
(15 U.S.C. § 1125(a))

12
13
42.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 31

14
of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
15
16
43.

Defendants' use of Plaintiff’s mark to promote and market their live performances, to

17
record and sell records, and to sell other products bearing the mark places them in direct
18
competition with Plaintiff’s live performances and sales of goods bearing the mark and
19
constitutes Unfair Competition pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). Defendants' use of Plaintiff’s
20
mark is likely to cause confusion, mistake and deception among consumers and will result in
21
continued dillution and tarnishment of the mark. Defendants' unfair competition has caused and
22
will continue to cause damage to Plaintiff, and is causing irreparable harm to Plaintiff for which
23
there is no adequate remedy at law.
24
25
44.

Upon information and belief, unless preliminarily and permanently enjoined by this

26
Court, Defendants will continue to unlawfully advertise and exploit the Plaintiffs’ mark, causing
27
plaintiff irreparable damage and injury for which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law
28
COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT, TRADEMARK DILUTION, UNFAIR COMPETITION, INJURY TO
BUSINESS REPUTATION

12

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
COMMON LAW TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
(California Common Law)

1
2
3
45.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 31

4
of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
5
6
46.

This cause of action under California state common law is separate and independent of

7
the federally-based causes of action previously set forth herein, but it is between the same parties
8
and is based on the same operative facts as set forth in the prior causes of action; this Court
9
accordingly has supplemental jurisdiction over said claim.
10
11
47.

As set forth above, Plaintiff resides and does business in the State of California, where he

12
owns and owns common law trademark rights throughout the United States in the “Great White”
13
trademark for purposes of musical performances and the sale of goods related to those
14
performances
15
16
48.

The use of Plaintiff’s mark by Defendants in connection with the promotion of their live

17
musical performances and with the advertising, sale and distribution of CDs, DVDs, electronic
18
musical downloads, clothing and other memorabilia without Plaintiff’s permission, in the State
19
of California and elsewhere in the United States, is likely to cause and has caused confusion
20
among consumers as to the source of Defendants’ products, and purchasers thereof will likely
21
associate such products as originating with Plaintiff, all to the detriment of said Plaintiffs.
22
23
49.

Upon information and belief, unless preliminarily and permanently enjoined by this

24
Court, Defendants will continue their aforesaid willful and deliberate infringement of Plaintiffs’
25
trademark in the name “Great White”
26
27

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
CALIFORNIA UNFAIR COMPETITION
(Cal. Bus. Prof Code 17200 et seq)

28
COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT, TRADEMARK DILUTION, UNFAIR COMPETITION, INJURY TO
BUSINESS REPUTATION

13

1
2

50.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 31

3

of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

4
5

51.

This cause of action under California state law is separate and independent of the

6

federally-based causes of action previously set forth herein, but it is between the same parties

7

and is based on the same operative facts as set forth in the prior causes of action; this Court

8

accordingly has supplemental jurisdiction over said claim.

9
10

52.

11

unfair or fraudulent business act or practice” or any “unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading

12

advertising” constitutes unfair competition under the statute..

California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 provides that any “unlawful,

13
14

53.

15

engages, has engaged, or proposes to engage in unfair competition may be enjoined in any court

16

of competent jurisdiction”

California Business and Professions Code Section 17203 provides that any “person who

17
18

54.

19

the California Business and Professions Code, and Plaintiff therefore seeks to enjoin Defendants

20

from further infringement of his trademark in the name “Great White”.

Defendants’ unlawful acts complained of herein constitute unfair competition pursuant to

21
22

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
COMMON LAW INJURY TO BUSINESS REPUTATION AND INTERFERENCE WITH
PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE

23
24

55.

Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference, as though specifically pleaded herein, the

25

allegations of paragraphs 1 through 31.

26
27

56.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' wrongful use of Plaintiff’s trademark inures to and

28
COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT, TRADEMARK DILUTION, UNFAIR COMPETITION, INJURY TO
BUSINESS REPUTATION

14

1

creates a likelihood of injury to Plaintiff’s business reputation because any adverse reaction by

2

the public to Defendants and the quality of its products and the nature of its business will injure

3

the business reputation of Plaintiff and the goodwill that he enjoys in connection with his mark

4

"Great White". Also, the confusion created in the mind of the public regarding which band is the

5

authentic Great White injures Plaintiff’s business reputation. Additionally, Defendants’ repeated

6

false statements regarding the ability of Plaintiff to perform as a musician and threats of

7

unjustified litigation have injured his business reputation and interfered with Plaintiff’s business

8

contracts and ability to contract. All of the foregoing have caused damage to plaintiff.

9
10

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, plaintiff prays for judgment against DEFENDANTS, as follows:

11
12
13

1.

The Defendants, MARK KENDALL, AUDIE DESBROW, MICHAEL LARDIE, BIG

14

TIME ENTERTAINMENT, INC. and their agents, officers, employees, representatives,

15

successors, assigns, and all other persons acting for, with, by, through or under authority

16

from Defendants, and each of them, be preliminarily and permanently enjoined from:

17

(a) Using Plaintiff’s trademark or any colorable imitation thereof;

18

(b) using any trademark that imitates or is confusingly similar to or in any way

19

similar to Plaintiff’s trademark "Great White," or that is likely to cause confusion,

20

mistake, deception, or public misunderstanding as to the origin of Plaintiff’s

21

products or his connectedness to Defendants.

22

(c) that Defendants remove Plaintiff’s trademark from any and all websites under

23

their control and remove all references to being the “Official” Great White

24
25

2.

The Defendants be required to file with the Court and serve on Plaintiff within thirty (30)

26

days after entry of the Injunction, a report in writing under oath setting forth in detail the

27

manner and form in which Defendants have complied with the Injunction;

28
COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT, TRADEMARK DILUTION, UNFAIR COMPETITION, INJURY TO
BUSINESS REPUTATION

15

1

3.

2
3

acts alleged herein;
4.

5.

That Defendants be ordered to remove all defamatory material injurious to Plaintiffs
business reputation from any websites under their control;

6

7

That Defendants be compelled to disgorge to Plaintiff all profits derived from the illegal
acts complained of herein;

4

5

That Defendants be held liable for all damages suffered by Plaintiff resulting from the

6.

For an order pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1119 cancelling any registration for the mark "Great
White" obtained by defendants subsequent to the initiation of this action;

8
9

7.

For damages not less than$ 500,000 and to the extent permitted by law;

10

8.

For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

11
12
13

14

Dated: March 22, 2012

15
16
17
18

,-

By~-----------------

19

Brian Acree

20

Attorney for Plaintiff

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT, TRADEMARK DILUTION, UNFAIR COMPETITION, INJURY TO
BUSINESS REPUTATION

16