Facebook, Inc. et al v. 9 Xiu Network (Shenzhen) Technology Co., Ltd. et al

Filing 1

COMPLAINT for Trademark and Service Mark Infringement; False Designation of Origin; Dilution; Cybersquatting; and Breach of Contract; Demand for Trial by Jury against 9 Xiu Feishu Science and Technology Company Ltd., 9 Xiu Network (Shenzhen) Technology Co., Ltd., 9 Xiufei Book Technology Co., Ltd., Wei Gao, Home Network (Fujian) Technology Co., Ltd., Zhaochun Liu, Zhaoping Liu, (Filing Fee: $400.00, receipt number 0971-13136764). Filed by Instagram, LLC & Facebook, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit 6, #7 Exhibit 7, #8 Exhibit 8, #9 Exhibit 9, #10 Exhibit 10, #11 Exhibit 11, #12 Exhibit 12, #13 Civil Cover Sheet)(Steele, David) (Filed on 3/1/2019) Modified on 3/4/2019 (tnS, COURT STAFF).

Case 3:19-cv-01167 Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 1 of 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

TUCKER ELLIS LLP

Chicago ♦ Cleveland ♦ Columbus ♦ Houston ♦ Los Angeles ♦ San Francisco ♦ St. Louis

8

TUCKER ELLIS LLP
David J. Steele - SBN 209797
[e-mail]
Howard A. Kroll - SBN 100981
[e-mail]
Steven E. Lauridsen - SBN 246364
[e-mail]
515 South Flower Street
Forty-Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone:
213.430.3400
Facsimile:
213.430.3409
Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
Facebook, Inc. and Instagram, LLC

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware corporation and
INSTAGRAM, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company,
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

v.

Case No. 19-1167
COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK AND
SERVICE MARK INFRINGEMENT; FALSE
DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN; DILUTION;
CYBERSQUATTING; AND BREACH OF
CONTRACT

9 XIU NETWORK (SHENZHEN) TECHNOLOGY DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
CO., LTD. a/k/a JIUXIU NETWORK
(SHENZHEN) TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.;
9 XIU FEISHU SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
COMPANY LTD.;
9 XIUFEI BOOK TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.;
HOME NETWORK (FUJIAN) TECHNOLOGY
CO., LTD.;
WEI GAO a/k/a GAO WEI;
ZHAOCHUN LIU a/k/a/ LIU ZHAOCHUN; and
ZHAOPING LIU a/k/a LIU ZHAOPING,
Defendants.

23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT

Case 3:19-cv-01167 Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 2 of 22
Plaintiffs Facebook, Inc. and Instagram, LLC, allege the following:

1
2

I.

INTRODUCTION
1.

3

From 2017 until the present, Defendants 9 Xiu Network Science and Technology

(“9 Xiu Shenzhen”), 9 Xiu Feishu Science and Technology Company Ltd. (“9 Xiu Feishu”), 9 Xiufei

6

Book Technology Co., Ltd. (“9 Xiufei”), Home Network (Fujian) Technology Co., Ltd.

7

(“Home Network”), Wei Gao, a/k/a Gao Wei (“Gao”), Zhaochun Liu, a/k/a Liu Zhaochun (“Zhaochun”)

8

TUCKER ELLIS LLP

(Shenzhen) Company Ltd. a/k/a Jiuxiu Network Science and Technology (Shenzhen) Company Ltd.

5

Chicago ♦ Cleveland ♦ Columbus ♦ Houston ♦ Los Angeles ♦ San Francisco ♦ St. Louis

4

and Zhaoping Liu a/k/a Liu Zhaoping (“Zhaoping”) (collectively, “Defendants”), operated a series of

9

websites promoting the sale of fake accounts (e.g. using fake names or other false identifiers) and

10

inauthentic accounts (e.g. used for inauthentic activity). In doing so, Defendants violated Facebook’s

11

Terms of Service (TOS) and Instagram’s Terms of Use (TOU). Defendants also marketed fake and

12

inauthentic accounts for Google, Twitter, Apple, Amazon, LinkedIn, and other online service providers.

13

In marketing fake and inauthentic Facebook and Instagram accounts, Defendants used Facebook and

14

Instagram trademarks and service marks, and confusingly similar domain names, in violation of the

15

Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.) and the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act

16

(15 U.S.C. § 1125). By this lawsuit, Facebook and Instagram seek to stop Defendants’ ongoing unlawful

17

and harmful conduct.

18

II.

19
20
21
22
23

THE PARTIES
2.

Plaintiff Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal place

of business in Menlo Park, California.
3.

Plaintiff Instagram, LLC. (“Instagram”) is a Delaware limited liability company with its

principal place of business in Menlo Park, California.
4.

Defendants 9 Xiu Shenzhen, 9 Xiu Feishu, 9 Xiufei, and Home Network are affiliated

24

companies located in Longyan and Shenzhen in the People’s Republic of China. According to their

25

websites, these Defendants manufacture electronics and hardware, offer software and web development

26

services, virtual private servers, online advertising services, and engage in the registration and sale of

27

accounts, in bulk, for various social networking sites.

28

5.

Since June 2017, Defendant Gao has been the Chief Executive Officer and sole
2
COMPLAINT

Case 3:19-cv-01167 Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 3 of 22
1

shareholder of 9 Xiu Shenzhen. See Exhibit 1 (original screenshot and translation).

2

6.

Prior to June 2017, Defendant Zhaochun was the Chief Executive Officer and sole

3 shareholder of 9 Xiu Shenzhen. See Exhibit 1. Defendant Zhaochun continues to manage accounts used
4 to receive payments on behalf of 9 Xiu Shenzhen..
5

7.

Beginning in May 2017, Defendant Zhaoping registered the domain names and managed

6 the websites at issue in this Complaint.
7

8.

At all times material to this action, each of the Defendants was the agent, servant,

TUCKER ELLIS LLP

Chicago ♦ Cleveland ♦ Columbus ♦ Houston ♦ Los Angeles ♦ San Francisco ♦ St. Louis

8 employee, partner, alter ego, subsidiary, or coconspirator of and with each of the other Defendants, and
9 the acts of each of the Defendants were in the scope of such relationship; in doing the acts and failing to
10 act as alleged in this Complaint, each of the Defendants acted with the knowledge, permission, and the
11 consent of each of the other Defendants; and, each of the Defendants aided and abetted the other
12 Defendants in the acts or omissions alleged in this Complaint.
13 III.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

14

9.

This Court has subject matter over the claims in this Complaint, which arise under the

15 trademark laws of the United States, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1121, and which involve a federal question,
16 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
17

10.

This Court also has jurisdiction over all the claims asserted in this Complaint pursuant to

18 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because complete diversity exists between Facebook and each of the named
19 Defendants, and because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
20

11.

This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the claims in this Complaint that arise under

21 California’s statutory and common law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because the state law claims are
22 substantially related to the federal claims and derive from a common nucleus of operative facts.
23

12.

The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they have created,

24 controlled, and marketed Facebook accounts and in doing so agreed to Facebook’s TOS and Instagram’s
25 TOU. Facebook’s TOS and Instagram’s TOU require Defendants submit to the personal jurisdiction of
26 this Court for litigating any claim, cause of action, or dispute with Facebook or Instagram, respectively.
27

13.

The Court also has personal jurisdiction because Defendants transacted business and

28 committed tortious acts within and directed to this District, and Facebook and Instagram’s claims arise
3
COMPLAINT

Case 3:19-cv-01167 Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 4 of 22
1

from those activities. Defendants knowingly directed and targeted parts of their unlawful scheme at

2

Facebook and Instagram, which have their principal place of business in California. Defendants also

3

targeted Instagram, Google, Twitter, Apple, and others which also have principal places of business in

4

this District.
14.

5

Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) as the threatened

Defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(c)(3) because none of them reside in the United States.

8

TUCKER ELLIS LLP

and actual harm to the Plaintiffs occurred in this district. Venue is also proper with respect to each of the

7

Chicago ♦ Cleveland ♦ Columbus ♦ Houston ♦ Los Angeles ♦ San Francisco ♦ St. Louis

6

IV.

INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
15.

9

Because this action involves intellectual property rights, it is exempt from the Court’s

10

division-specific venue rule pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-2(c).

11

V.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

12

A.

13

16.

Background on Facebook and Instagram
Facebook is a social networking website and mobile application that enables its users to

14

create their own personal profiles and connect with each other on their personal computers and mobile

15

devices. As of September 2018, Facebook had more than 1.49 billion daily active accounts and over

16

2.2 billion monthly active users from all over the world.

17

17.

Everyone who uses Facebook must electronically agree to Facebook’s TOS (available at 

18

https://www.facebook.com/terms.php) and other rules that govern access to, and use of, Facebook.

19

Facebook’s

20

https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/).

21

18.

TOS

include

Facebook’s

Community

Standards

(available

at

Facebook’s TOS prohibit fake and inauthentic accounts. Section 3.1 of Facebook’s TOS

22 requires Facebook users provide accurate information about their identity and prohibits deceptive,
23 misleading, and unlawful conduct. Section 3.1 specifically requires Facebook users to: (a) “Use the same
24 name that [they] use in everyday life;” (b) “Provide accurate information about [themselves];” and (c)
25 “Create only one account (your own)[.]”
26

19.

Facebook’s Community Standards also prohibit Facebook users from misrepresenting

27 their identities or misusing their profiles by, for example, “[m]aintaining multiple accounts” or
28 “[c]reating inauthentic profiles.” Facebook users may not “[i]mpersonate others” by “[c]reating a profile
4
COMPLAINT

Case 3:19-cv-01167 Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 5 of 22
1

assuming the persona of or speaking for another person or entity,” or “[e]ngage in inauthentic behavior”

2

such as creating fake accounts, setting up profiles with fake names, or participating in “coordinated

3

inauthentic behavior,” defined to include deliberately misleading people “about the origin of content” or

4

“about the destination of links off our services.”

5

20.

Instagram is a photo and video sharing and editing service, mobile application, and social

groups of friends. They can also view, comment, and like posts shared on Instagram. As of June 2018,

8

TUCKER ELLIS LLP

network. Instagram users can choose to share their photos and videos with their followers or with select

7

Chicago ♦ Cleveland ♦ Columbus ♦ Houston ♦ Los Angeles ♦ San Francisco ♦ St. Louis

6

Instagram had over 1 billion active accounts.

9

21.

Everyone who uses Instagram must electronically agree to Instagram’s TOU and other

10

rules that govern access to and use of Instagram, including Instagram’s Community Guidelines (available

11

at https://help.instagram.com/581066165581870). Instagram’s TOU prohibit users from: (a)

12

“[I]mpersonat[ing] others or provid[ing] inaccurate information . . . including registration information;”

13

(b) Engaging in “unlawful, misleading, or fraudulent” actions; (c) “[I]nterfering or impairing the intended

14

operation of the Service;” and (d) “Attempt[ing] to buy, sell, or transfer any aspect of [an Instagram]

15

account.”

16
17

22.

In addition, Instagram’s Community Guidelines prohibit users from artificially collecting

positive account attributes (i.e. likes, followers, and shares).

18

B.

Facebook and Instagram’s Enforcement Against Fake and Inauthentic Accounts

19

23.

Fake and inauthentic accounts can be used for spam and phishing campaigns,

20

misinformation campaigns, marketing scams, advertising fraud, and other fraud schemes which are

21

profitable at scale. These schemes frequently target the users of various social networking sites and online

22

services providers, in addition to Facebook and Instagram. As a result, illicit online marketplaces

23

advertise and sell bulk quantities of fake and inauthentic social media accounts.

24

24.

Fake and inauthentic Facebook and Instagram accounts can be created manually or

25

through an automated process utilizing computer scripts and bots. Illicit enterprises that create and control

26

fake and inauthentic accounts in order to artificially inflate engagement and likes are sometimes referred

27

to as “click farms.”

28

25.

To combat fraud schemes on their platforms, Facebook and Instagram proactively use a
5
COMPLAINT

Case 3:19-cv-01167 Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 6 of 22
1

combination of technical and manual means to detect and disable fake and inauthentic accounts. For

2

example, between January and September 2018, Facebook and Instagram disabled over 2.1 billion

3

inauthentic accounts, often within minutes of the accounts’ creation.

4

26.

Facebook and Instagram use different processes and systems for detecting fake accounts

5 at different stages in their lifecycle, including:
6

a.

creating the account appears suspicious or automated.

7

TUCKER ELLIS LLP

Chicago ♦ Cleveland ♦ Columbus ♦ Houston ♦ Los Angeles ♦ San Francisco ♦ St. Louis

8

Pre-registration. Facebook blocks the registration of an account when the process of

b.

Registration. Facebook requires that users register for an account before they can use

9

Facebook and provide a valid first and last name, date of birth, gender, and a phone number

10

or email. Facebook and Instagram also apply machine-learning models to detect

11

inauthentic accounts at this stage and disable any identified accounts.

12

c.

Confirmation. After registering, Facebook requires users to confirm their accounts by

13

responding to an email or text message sent to the contact information provided during

14

registration.

15

d.

Post-registration. Facebook and Instagram apply machine-learning models to detect

16

inauthentic accounts after registration. If an account is flagged as possibly inauthentic,

17

Facebook may ask the user to enter a phone number, confirm a code sent to the registration

18

email, or ask the user to respond to various technical tests or “checks,” including

19

ReCaptcha, to confirm that he or she is a human. Similarly, Instagram also uses machine

20

learning and other tools to help identify accounts engaged in inauthentic activity (i.e., likes,

21

follows, and comments).

22

e.

Reporting. Facebook use and Instagram various technical means to investigate accounts
reported as inauthentic. If these are not conclusive, the accounts are reviewed manually.

23
24

C.

25

27.

Facebook and Instagram’s Trademarks and Service Marks
Facebook owns the exclusive rights to several trademarks and service marks including:

26 (a) the distinctive FACEBOOK trademark and service mark, having used the mark in connection with its
27 goods and services since 2004; (b) the distinctive FACEBOOK (and its design) trademark and service
28 mark, having used the mark in connection with its goods and services since 2005; and (c) the distinctive
6
COMPLAINT

Case 3:19-cv-01167 Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 7 of 22
1

“f” (and its design) trademark and service mark, having used the mark in connection with its goods and

2

services since 2006 (collectively referred to in this Complaint as the “Facebook Trademarks”). The

3

Facebook Trademarks at issue in this Complaint are shown in Figures 1 and 2 below:

4
5
6
7

Figure 1: FACEBOOK (design)

Figure 2: Facebook “F” (design)

TUCKER ELLIS LLP

Chicago ♦ Cleveland ♦ Columbus ♦ Houston ♦ Los Angeles ♦ San Francisco ♦ St. Louis

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

28.

Facebook’s use of the Facebook Trademarks in interstate commerce has been extensive,

continuous, and substantially exclusive. Facebook has made, and continues to make, a substantial
investment of time, effort, and expense in the promotion of Facebook and the Facebook Trademarks. As
a result of Facebook’s efforts and use, the Facebook Trademarks are inextricably linked with the products
and services offered by Facebook. Facebook Trademarks are now famous, and they are recognized
around the world as signifying high-quality, authentic goods and services provided by Facebook.
29.

In addition to its extensive common law rights in the Facebook Trademarks, Facebook

own numerous United States registrations for the Facebook Trademarks. Relevant to this case are the
following registrations:
a. United States Registration Number 3,122,052;
b. United States Registration Number 3,881,770;
c. United States Registration Number 3,934,743;
d. United States Registration Number 4,102,823; and
e. United States Registration Number 4,102,824.
Copies of the registration certificates are attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 2.

24
25
26
27
28
7
COMPLAINT

Case 3:19-cv-01167 Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 8 of 22
1

30.

Instagram owns the exclusive rights to several trademark and service marks including the

2

distinctive INSTAGRAM trademark, having used the mark in connection with its goods and services as

3

early as 2010. Instagram also owns the exclusive rights to the Instagram Camera Logo and the stylized

4

forms of the INSTAGRAM trademark (all trademarks collectively referred to in this Complaint as the

5

“Instagram Trademarks”). The Instagram Trademarks at issue in this Complaint are shown below in

6

Figures 3 and 4:

7

TUCKER ELLIS LLP

Chicago ♦ Cleveland ♦ Columbus ♦ Houston ♦ Los Angeles ♦ San Francisco ♦ St. Louis

8
9
10

Figure 3: INSTAGRAM wordmark (stylized form)

Figure 4: Instagram Camera Logo (multicolor)

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

31.

Instagram’s use of the Instagram Trademarks in interstate commerce has been extensive,

continuous, and substantially exclusive. Instagram has made, and continues to make, a substantial
investment of time, effort, and expense in the promotion of Instagram and the Instagram Trademarks. As
a result of Instagram’s efforts and use, the Instagram Trademarks are inextricably linked with the products
and services offered by Instagram. Instagram Trademarks are now famous, and they are recognized
around the world as signifying high-quality, authentic goods and services provided by Instagram.
32.

In addition to its extensive common law rights in the Instagram Trademarks, Instagram

own numerous United States registrations for the Instagram Trademarks. Relevant to this case are the
following registrations:
a. United States Registration Number 4,795,634;
b. United States Registration Number 4,146,057;
c. United States Registration Number 4,756,754;
d. United States Registration Number 5,566,030;
e. United States Registration Number 4,170,675;
f. United States Registration Number 4,856,047;
g. United States Registration Number 4,822,600;
h. United States Registration Number 4,827,509;
8
COMPLAINT

Case 3:19-cv-01167 Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 9 of 22

j. United States Registration Number 5,019,151;

3

k. United States Registration Number 5,181,545;

4

l. United States Registration Number 5,198,379;

5

m. United States Registration Number 5,299,116;

6

n. United States Registration Number 5,299,118;

7

o. United States Registration Number 5,299,119; and

8

TUCKER ELLIS LLP

i. United States Registration Number 4,863,595;

2

Chicago ♦ Cleveland ♦ Columbus ♦ Houston ♦ Los Angeles ♦ San Francisco ♦ St. Louis

1

p. United States Registration Number 5,299,120.

9

Copies of the registration certificates are attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 3.

10

D.

Lanham Act

11
12
13

Defendants’ Websites Violate Facebook’s TOS and Instagram’s TOU and the

33.

Since 2017, Defendants promoted the sale of fake and inauthentic Facebook and Instagram

accounts using the following websites:

14

a. 9xiufacebook.com (Exhibit 4);

15

b. 9xiufacebook.cc (Exhibit 5);

16

c. 9xiufacebook.net (Exhibit 6);

17

d. maihaoba.cc (Exhibit 7);

18

e. myfacebook.cc (Exhibit 8); and

19

f. myhaoba.com (Exhibit 9).

20

34.

On these sites, Defendants advertised that they created, controlled, and maintained fake

21

and inauthentic Facebook and Instagram accounts and marketed these for sale, as shown in Exhibits 4-9.

22

This violated Facebook’s TOS and Instagram’s TOU.

23

35.

The sites also marketed and sold fake and inauthentic Twitter, Google Voice, Gmail,

24 YouTube, LinkedIn, Apple, Amazon, Pinterest, Snapchat, and others. Defendants sold the accounts in
25

packages, or “bundles,” which included bulk quantities of accounts belonging to Facebook, Instagram,

26

and others. The price of the accounts varied by the age of accounts and other attributes, including the

27

number of followers or geographical location associated with the accounts. Screenshots of bundles the

28

fake and inauthentic accounts sold on 9xiufacebook.com. See Exhibit 10.
9
COMPLAINT

Case 3:19-cv-01167 Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 10 of 22
1

36.

In addition to selling fake and inauthentic accounts, Defendants advertised marketing tools

2

and services designed to increase likes, comments, friends, and other activity on Facebook, Instagram,

3

Amazon, Google, LinkedIn, and other sites. Defendants also advertised other tools designed for

4

unauthorized marketing and spam.

5

37.

Defendants accepted payments for their illicit services through accounts established with

9xiufacebook.com, showing these payment methods is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 11. As shown

8

TUCKER ELLIS LLP

Alipay, PayPal, and the Bank of China. A screenshot from one of Defendants’ websites,

7

Chicago ♦ Cleveland ♦ Columbus ♦ Houston ♦ Los Angeles ♦ San Francisco ♦ St. Louis

6

in Exhibit 11, at least two the account were controlled by Defendant Zhaochun.

9

38.

In response to Facebook’s past enforcement actions against fake and inauthentic accounts,

10

as set forth above in paragraphs 23-26, Defendants falsely advertised the availability of fake accounts that

11

could not be detected, disabled, or suspended by Facebook. The Defendants charged a premium for these

12

types of accounts. To promote these accounts, Defendants falsely represented that they were “Facebook

13

China Regional Strategic Partner.” See Exhibit 9.

14

E.

15

39.

16

Defendants Also Registered and Used Infringing Domain Names
Between 2017 and 2019, Defendants registered and used domain names that are identical

or confusingly similar to the Facebook Trademarks, including:

17

a. 9xiufacebook.com;

18

b. 9xiufacebook.cc;

19

c. 9xiufacebook.net;

20

d. infacebook.cc;

21

e. myfacebook.cc; and

22

g. facebook88.net.

23
24

Publicly available registration information for each domain name is attached as Exhibit 12.
40.

According to the domain name registration information in Exhibit 12, Zhaoping registered

25 the above-listed domain names, with the exception of 9xiufacebook.com and myfacebook.cc. On
26

information and belief, Defendants have intentionally provided misleading ownership information to mask

27

the fact that the domain names 9xiufacebook.com and myfacebook.cc were also registered and controlled

28

by Defendants.
10
COMPLAINT

Case 3:19-cv-01167 Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 11 of 22
1

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

2

[Trademark and Service Mark Infringement of
Facebook Trademarks Under 15 U.S.C. § 1114]

3
4

41.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs.

5

42.

Defendants have used the Facebook Trademarks in interstate commerce. Defendants’ use

sponsorship, or approval of Defendants’ unauthorized use of the Facebook Trademarks on the websites

8

TUCKER ELLIS LLP

of the Facebook Trademarks is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception as to the origin,

7

Chicago ♦ Cleveland ♦ Columbus ♦ Houston ♦ Los Angeles ♦ San Francisco ♦ St. Louis

6

controlled by Defendants.

9

43.

The above-described acts of Defendants constitute trademark and service mark

10 infringement in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1) and entitle Facebook to relief.
11

44.

Defendants have unfairly profited from the alleged trademark and service mark

12 infringement.
13

45.

By reason of Defendants’ acts of trademark and service mark infringement, Facebook has

14 suffered damage to the goodwill associated with the Facebook Trademarks.
15

46.

Defendants have irreparably harmed Facebook and, if not enjoined, will continue to

16 irreparably harm Facebook and its federally registered trademarks and service marks.
17

47.

Defendants have irreparably harmed the general public and, if not enjoined, will continue

18 to irreparably harm the general public, which has an interest in being free from confusion, mistake, and
19 deception.
20

48.

Facebook’s remedy at law is not adequate to compensate it for the injuries inflicted by

21 Defendants. Accordingly, Facebook is entitled to the entry of a temporary restraining order against
22 Defendants and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116.
23

49.

Facebook is entitled to damages, and Facebook is further entitled to have those damages

24 trebled under 15 U.S.C. § 1117.
25

50.

This is an exceptional case making Facebook eligible for an award of attorneys’ fees

26 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117.
27
28
11
COMPLAINT

Case 3:19-cv-01167 Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 12 of 22
1

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

2

[Trademark and Service Mark Infringement of
Instagram Trademarks Under 15 U.S.C. § 1114]

3
4

51.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs.

5

52.

Defendants have used the Instagram Trademarks in interstate commerce. Defendants’ use

6 of the Instagram Trademarks is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception as to the origin,
7 sponsorship, or approval of Defendants’ unauthorized use of the Instagram Trademarks on the websites

TUCKER ELLIS LLP

Chicago ♦ Cleveland ♦ Columbus ♦ Houston ♦ Los Angeles ♦ San Francisco ♦ St. Louis

8 controlled by Defendants.
9

53.

The above-described acts of Defendants constitute trademark and service mark

10 infringement in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1), entitled Instagram to relief.
11

54.

Defendants have unfairly profited from the alleged trademark and service mark

12 infringement.
13

55.

By reason of Defendants’ acts of trademark and service mark infringement, Instagram has

14 suffered damage to the goodwill associated with the Instagram Trademarks.
15

56.

Defendants have irreparably harmed Instagram and, if not enjoined, will continue to

16 irreparably harm Instagram and its federally registered trademarks and service marks.
17

57.

Defendants have irreparably harmed the general public and, if not enjoined, will continue

18 to irreparably harm the general public, which has an interest in being free from confusion, mistake, and
19 deception.
20

58.

Instagram’s remedy at law is not adequate to compensate it for the injuries inflicted by

21

Defendants. Accordingly, Instagram is entitled to the entry of a temporary restraining order against

22

Defendants and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116.

23
24
25

59.

Instagram is entitled to damages, and Instagram is further entitled to have those damages

trebled under 15 U.S.C. § 1117.
60.

This is an exceptional case making Instagram eligible for an award of attorneys’ fees

26 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117.
27
28
12
COMPLAINT

Case 3:19-cv-01167 Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 13 of 22
1

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

2

[Trademark Infringement of Facebook Trademarks
and False Designation of Origin Under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)]

3
4

61.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs.

5

62.

The Facebook Trademarks are distinctive marks that are associated with Facebook and

6
7

exclusively identify its business, products, and services.
63.

Defendants’ use in commerce of the Facebook Trademarks, and variations thereof, is likely

TUCKER ELLIS LLP

Chicago ♦ Cleveland ♦ Columbus ♦ Houston ♦ Los Angeles ♦ San Francisco ♦ St. Louis

8 to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive the relevant public that Defendants’ goods and
9 services are authorized, sponsored, or approved by, or are affiliated with, Facebook.
10

64.

Defendants’ acts constitute trademark and service mark infringement of the Facebook

11 Trademarks, as well as false designation of origin, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), entitling Facebook
12 to relief.
13

65.

Defendants have unfairly profited from their conduct.

14

66.

By reason of the above-described acts of Defendants, Facebook has suffered damage to the

15 goodwill associated with the Facebook Trademarks.
16

67.

Defendants have irreparably harmed Facebook, and if they are not enjoined, they will

17 continue to irreparably harm Facebook and the Facebook Trademarks.
18

68.

Defendants have irreparably harmed the general public, and if the Defendants are not

19 enjoined, they will continue to irreparably harm the general public, which has an interest in being free
20 from confusion, mistake, and deception.
21

69.

Facebook’s remedy at law is not adequate to compensate it for the injuries inflicted by

22 Defendants. Accordingly, Facebook is entitled to the entry of a temporary restraining order against
23 Defendants as well as preliminary and permanent injunctive relief pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117.
24

70.

This is an exceptional case making Facebook eligible for an award of attorneys’ fees

25 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117.
26
27
28
13
COMPLAINT

Case 3:19-cv-01167 Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 14 of 22
1

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

2

[Trademark Infringement of the Instagram Trademarks
and False Designation of Origin Under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)]

3
4

71.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs.

5

72.

The Instagram Trademarks are distinctive marks that are associated with Instagram and

6 exclusively identify its business, products, and services.
7

73.

Defendants’ use in commerce of the Instagram Trademarks, and variations thereof, is likely

TUCKER ELLIS LLP

Chicago ♦ Cleveland ♦ Columbus ♦ Houston ♦ Los Angeles ♦ San Francisco ♦ St. Louis

8 to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive the relevant public that Defendants’ goods and
9 services are authorized, sponsored, or approved by, or are affiliated with, Instagram.
10

74.

Defendants’ acts constitute trademark and service mark infringement of the Instagram

11 Trademarks, as well as false designation of origin, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), entitling Instagram
12 to relief.
13

75.

Defendants have unfairly profited from their conduct.

14

76.

Instagram has suffered damage to the goodwill associated with the Instagram Trademarks.

15

77.

Defendants have irreparably harmed Instagram and, if they are not enjoined, they will

16 continue to irreparably harm Instagram and the Instagram Trademarks.
17

78.

Defendants have irreparably harmed the general public, and if Defendants are not enjoined,

18 they will continue to irreparably harm the general public, which has an interest in being free from
19 confusion, mistake, and deception.
20

79.

Instagram’s remedy at law is not adequate to compensate it for the injuries inflicted by

21 Defendants. Accordingly, Instagram is entitled to the entry of a temporary restraining order against
22 Defendants as well as preliminary and permanent injunctive relief pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117.
23

80.

This is an exceptional case making Instagram eligible for an award of attorneys’ fees

24 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117.
25

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

26

[Dilution of the Facebook Trademarks Under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)]

27
28

81.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs.
14
COMPLAINT

Case 3:19-cv-01167 Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 15 of 22
1

82.

The Facebook Trademarks are famous, as that term is used in 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c), and

2 they were famous before Defendants’ use of the Facebook Trademarks and variations of the trademarks
3 in commerce. This fame is based on, among other things, the inherent distinctiveness and federal
4 registration of each of the Facebook Trademarks as well as the extensive and exclusive worldwide use,
5 advertising, promotion, and recognition of the Facebook Trademarks.
6

83.

Defendants’ use of the Facebook Trademarks, and variations thereof, in commerce is likely

7 to cause dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment of the Facebook Trademarks.

TUCKER ELLIS LLP

Chicago ♦ Cleveland ♦ Columbus ♦ Houston ♦ Los Angeles ♦ San Francisco ♦ St. Louis

8

84.

Defendants’ acts constitute dilution by blurring and dilution by tarnishment in violation of

9 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c), entitling Facebook to relief.
10

85.

Defendants have unfairly profited from their conduct.

11

86.

Defendants damaged the goodwill associated with the Facebook Trademarks and they will

12 continue to cause irreparable harm.
13

87.

Facebook’s remedy at law is not adequate to compensate it for the injuries inflicted by

14 Defendants.
15

88.

Accordingly, Facebook is entitled to the entry of a temporary restraining order against

16 Defendants as well as preliminary and permanent injunctive relief pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116.
17

89.

Because Defendants’ acted willfully, Facebook is entitled to damages, and those damages

18 should be trebled pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117.
19

90.

This is an exceptional case making Facebook eligible for an award of attorneys’ fees

20 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117.
21

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

22

[Dilution of the Instagram Trademarks Under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)]

23

91.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs.

24

92.

The Instagram Trademarks are famous, as that term is used in 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c), and

25 they were famous before Defendants’ use of the Instagram Trademarks and variations thereof in
26 commerce. This fame is based on, among other things, the inherent distinctiveness and federal registration
27 of each of the Instagram Trademarks as well as the extensive and exclusive nationwide use, advertising,
28 promotion, and recognition of the Instagram Trademarks.
15
COMPLAINT

Case 3:19-cv-01167 Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 16 of 22
1
2
3
4

93.

Defendants’ use of the Instagram Trademarks, and variations thereof, in commerce is likely

to cause dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment of the Instagram Trademarks.
94.

Defendants’ conduct constitutes dilution by blurring and dilution by tarnishment in

5 violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c), entitling Instagram to relief.
6

95.

Defendants have unfairly profited from their conduct.

7

96.

Instagram has suffered damage to the goodwill associated with the Instagram Trademarks

TUCKER ELLIS LLP

Chicago ♦ Cleveland ♦ Columbus ♦ Houston ♦ Los Angeles ♦ San Francisco ♦ St. Louis

8 and has suffered, and will continue to suffer, irreparable harm.
9
10
11

97.

Instagram’s remedy at law is not adequate to compensate it for the injuries inflicted by

Defendants.
98.

Accordingly, Instagram is entitled to the entry of a temporary restraining order against

12 Defendants as well as preliminary and permanent injunctive relief pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116.
13

99.

By reason of Defendants’ willful acts, Instagram is entitled to damages, and those

14 damages should be trebled pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117.
15

100.

This is an exceptional case making Instagram eligible for an award of attorneys’

16 fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117.
17

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

18

[Cybersquatting on the Facebook Trademarks Under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)]

19

101.

Facebook realleges and incorporates by reference all of the preceding paragraphs.

20

102.

Defendants registered, trafficked in, or used the domain names 9xiufacebook.com,

21

9xiufacebook.cc, 9xiufacebook.net, infacebook.cc, myfacebook.cc, and facebook88.net (collectively, the

22

“Infringing Domain Names”).

23

103.

The Facebook Trademarks were distinctive and federally registered at the United States

24 Patent and Trademark Office at the time Defendants registered and used the Infringing Domain Names.
25

104.

The Facebook Trademarks are and were famous within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)

26 at the time of the registration of each of the Infringing Domain Names.
27

105.

The Infringing Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Facebook Trademarks.

28

106.

The Infringing Domain Names are dilutive of the Facebook Trademarks.
16
COMPLAINT

Case 3:19-cv-01167 Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 17 of 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

107.

Defendants registered, trafficked in, or used the Infringing Domain Names with a bad faith

intent to profit from the Facebook Trademarks.
108.

The Infringing Domain Names do not consist of the legal name of any of the Defendants,

nor do they consist of a name that is otherwise commonly used to identify any of the Defendants.
109.

Defendants have not made any prior use of any of the Infringing Domain Names in

connection with the bona fide offering of any goods or services.
110.

Defendants have not made any bona fide fair use of the Facebook Trademarks on a website

TUCKER ELLIS LLP

Chicago ♦ Cleveland ♦ Columbus ♦ Houston ♦ Los Angeles ♦ San Francisco ♦ St. Louis

8 accessible at any of the Infringing Domain Names.
9

111.

Defendants registered and used the Infringing Domain Names to divert consumers from

10 Facebook’s legitimate website (www.facebook.com) to a website accessible under the Infringing Domain
11

Names for Defendants’ commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source,

12

sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of their websites.

13
14
15

112.

Defendants’ registration, use, and/or trafficking in the Infringing Domain Names

constitutes cybersquatting in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d), entitling Facebook to relief.
113.

Facebook’s remedy at law is not adequate to compensate it for the injuries Defendants

16

inflicted on Facebook. Accordingly, Facebook is entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief

17

pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116.

18

114.

Facebook is entitled to recover its costs as well as Defendants’ profits, Facebook’s actual

19

damages, or statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1117, on election by Facebook, in an amount of

20

$100,000 per domain name.

21

115.

This is an exceptional case making Facebook eligible for an award of attorneys’ fees under

22

15 U.S.C. § 1117.

23

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

24

[Breach of Contract: Facebook’s TOS]

25

116.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs.

26

117.

Access to and use of Facebook’s services is governed by Facebook’s TOS and its related

27
28

policies.
118.

Defendants agreed to and became bound by Facebook’s TOS and related policies through
17
COMPLAINT

Case 3:19-cv-01167 Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 18 of 22
1
2

their use of Facebook and its services.
119.

Facebook has performed all conditions, covenants, and promises required of it in

3 accordance with Facebook’s TOS and related policies.
4

120.

Defendants knowingly, willfully, and systematically breached and continue to breach

5 Facebook’s TOS and related policies as alleged herein.
6

121.

Defendants’ past and ongoing breaches have directly and proximately caused, and continue

7 to directly and proximately cause, irreparable harm and injury to Facebook.

TUCKER ELLIS LLP

Chicago ♦ Cleveland ♦ Columbus ♦ Houston ♦ Los Angeles ♦ San Francisco ♦ St. Louis

8

122.

When Defendants agreed to and became bound by Facebook’s TOS and related policies,

9 both Facebook and Defendants knew or reasonably could have foreseen that the harm and injury to
10 Facebook was likely to occur in the ordinary course of events as a result of Defendants’ breach.
11

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

12

[Breach of Contract: Instagram’s TOU]

13

123.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs.

14

124.

Access to and use of Instagram’s services is governed by Instagram’s TOU and its related

15 policies.
16

125.

Defendants agreed to and became bound by Instagram’s TOU and related policies through

17 their use of Instagram and its services.
18

126.

Instagram has performed all conditions, covenants, and promises required of it in

19 accordance with Instagram’s TOU and related policies.
20

127.

Defendants knowingly, willfully, and systematically breached and continues to breach

21 Instagram’s TOU and related policies as alleged herein.
22

128.

Defendants’ past and ongoing breaches have directly and proximately caused, and continue

23 to directly and proximately cause, irreparable harm and injury to Instagram.
24

129.

When Defendants agreed to and became bound by Instagram’s TOU and related policies,

25 both Instagram and Defendants knew or reasonably could have foreseen that the harm and injury to
26 Instagram was likely to occur in the ordinary course of events as a result of Defendants’ breach.
27
28
18
COMPLAINT

Case 3:19-cv-01167 Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 19 of 22
1

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

2

Plaintiffs request judgment against Defendants as follows:

3

1.

That the Court enter a judgment against Defendants that Defendants have:
a. Infringed the rights of Facebook in the federally registered Facebook Trademarks

4

in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1);

5

b. Infringed the rights of Facebook in the Facebook Trademarks in violation of

6

15 U.S.C. § 1125(a);

7

TUCKER ELLIS LLP

Chicago ♦ Cleveland ♦ Columbus ♦ Houston ♦ Los Angeles ♦ San Francisco ♦ St. Louis

8

c. Diluted the Facebook Trademarks in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c);

9

d. Infringed the rights of Facebook in the Facebook Trademarks in violation of
15 U.S.C. § 1125(d);

10

e. Breached its contracts with Facebook in violation of California statutory and

11

common law.

12

f. Infringed the rights of Instagram in the federally registered Instagram Trademarks

13

in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1);

14

g. Infringed the rights of Instagram in the Instagram Trademarks in violation of

15

15 U.S.C. § 1125(a);

16
17

h. Diluted the Instagram Trademarks in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c);

18

i. Breached its contracts with Instagram in violation of California statutory and
common law.

19
20

2.

That each of the above acts was willful.

21

3.

That the Court issue a permanent injunction enjoining and restraining Defendants and their

22

agents, servants, employees, successors and assigns, and all other persons acting in concert with or in

23

conspiracy with or affiliated with Defendants, from:

24

a. Engaging in any infringing activity including advertising, franchising, selling, and

25

offering for sale any goods or services in connection with the Facebook Trademarks

26

or any similar mark;

27
28

b. Engaging in any activity that lessens the distinctiveness or tarnishes the Facebook
Trademarks;
19
COMPLAINT

Case 3:19-cv-01167 Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 20 of 22
c. Registering, using or trafficking in any domain name that is identical or confusingly

1

similar to any of the Facebook Trademarks; and

2

d. Creating or maintaining any Facebook accounts or otherwise accessing Facebook

3

in violation of Facebook’s TOS.

4
5

e. Engaging in any infringing activity including advertising, franchising, selling, and

6

offering for sale any goods or services in connection with the Instagram

7

Trademarks or any similar mark;
f. Engaging in any activity that lessens the distinctiveness or tarnishes the Instagram

TUCKER ELLIS LLP

Chicago ♦ Cleveland ♦ Columbus ♦ Houston ♦ Los Angeles ♦ San Francisco ♦ St. Louis

8

Trademarks;

9

g. Registering, using or trafficking in any domain name that is identical or confusingly

10

similar to any of the Instagram Trademarks; and

11

h. Creating or maintaining any Instagram accounts or otherwise accessing Instagram

12

in violation of Instagram’s TOU.

13
14

4.

That Facebook and Instagram be awarded damages for Defendant’s trademark and service

15 mark infringement and that these damages be trebled due to Defendants’ willfulness, in accordance with
16 the provisions of 15 U.S.C. § 1117.
17

5.

That Facebook and Instagram be awarded all profits resulting from Defendants’

18 infringement of Facebook’s rights and Instagram’s rights and by means of Defendants’ illegal acts.
19

6.

That Defendants be ordered to account for and disgorge to Facebook and to Instagram all

20 amounts by which Defendants have been unjustly enriched by reason of the unlawful acts complained of
21 herein.
22

7.

That Facebook be awarded $100,000 in statutory damages per infringing domain name by

23 reason of Defendants’ cybersquatting in accordance with the provisions of 15 U.S.C. § 1117.
24

8.

That Facebook and Instagram be awarded an amount sufficient to reimburse them for the

25 costs of corrective advertising.
26

9.

That Facebook and Instagram be awarded damages sufficient to compensate them for

27 Defendants breaches of Facebook’s TOS and related policies and Instagram’s TOU and related policies.
28

10.

That Facebook and Instagram be awarded prejudgment interest on all damages for which
20
COMPLAINT

Case 3:19-cv-01167 Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 21 of 22
1
2
3

it is entitled to such interest.
11.

That Facebook and Instagram be awarded its reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to

15 U.S.C. § 1117, California law, and any other applicable provision of law.

4

12.

That Facebook and Instagram be awarded its costs of suit.

5

13.

That the Court grant all such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

6
7

DATED: March 1, 2019

Tucker Ellis LLP

TUCKER ELLIS LLP

Chicago ♦ Cleveland ♦ Columbus ♦ Houston ♦ Los Angeles ♦ San Francisco ♦ St. Louis

8
9
10
11

By: /s/David J. Steele
David J. Steele
Howard A. Kroll
Steven E. Lauridsen

12

Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
Facebook, Inc. and
Instagram, LLC

13
14

Jessica Romero
Michael Chmelar
Stacey Chen
Platform Enforcement and Litigation
Facebook, Inc.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
21

COMPLAINT

Case 3:19-cv-01167 Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 22 of 22
1
2

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
Plaintiff Facebook, Inc. hereby demands a trial by jury to decide all issues so triable in this case.

3
4 DATED: March 1, 2019

Tucker Ellis LLP

5
6
7

TUCKER ELLIS LLP

Chicago ♦ Cleveland ♦ Columbus ♦ Houston ♦ Los Angeles ♦ San Francisco ♦ St. Louis

8

By: /s/David J. Steele
David J. Steele
Howard A. Kroll
Steven E. Lauridsen

9

Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
Facebook, Inc. and
Instagram, LLC

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
22

COMPLAINT