Silvers v. Google, Inc.

Filing 9

NOTICE of similar actions and request for transfer and consolidation by Stelor Productions,L (cj, Deputy Clerk)

Silvers v. Google, Inc.

Doc. 9

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 1 of 57 Aug 23 2005

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 05-80387 CIV RYSKAMP/VITUNIC STEVEN A. SILVERS, an individual, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant. _______________________________________/ GOOGLE INC., a Delaware corporation Counterclaimant, v. STEVEN A. SILVERS, an individual; STELOR PRODUCTIONS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; STELOR PRODUCTIONS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Counterdefendants. ________________________________________/ COUNTERDEFENDANT STELOR PRODUCTIONS, LLC'S NOTICE OF SIMILAR ACTIONS AND REQUEST FOR TRANSFER AND CONSOLIDATION Counterdefendant Stelor Productions, LLC ("Stelor"), by and through undersigned counsel and pursuant to Local Rule 3.9 and Rule 42(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., hereby provides this notice of similar actions and requests on the following grounds that a related action, styled Stelor Productions, LLC v. Steven A. Silvers, pending as Case No. 05-80393-CIV-HURLEY, be transferred and consolidated with this action:1

1

A similar notice is being filed in the related action, pursuant to Local Rule 3.9

1 of 57

9/ m Dockets.Justia.cocj

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 2 of 57

CASE NO. 05-80387 CIV RYSKAMP/VITUNIC

NOTICE OF SIMILAR ACTIONS 1. On May 5, 2005, Stelor filed an action (the "Stelor Action") against Steven

Silvers ­ the plaintiff and counter-defendant in this case. The Stelor Action involves Stelor's claim for a declaratory judgment that the License Agreement pursuant to which Silvers licensed to Stelor the exclusive worldwide rights to the Googles intellectual property and trademarks remains valid and in full force and effect. As part of the Stelor Action, moreover, Stelor claims that it ­ and not Silvers ­ has the exclusive right to bring any trademark infringement actions against Google, Inc., including the present action pending before this Court (the "Google Action"). Stelor claims that Silvers' unilateral pursuit of that action against Google, Inc. violates the applicable License Agreement, and Stelor seeks an injunction barring Silvers' from pursuing the claim against Google, Inc. in the Google Action. 2. In the Google Action, as this Court is aware, Silvers claims that Google, Inc. is

infringing with Silvers' rights as the senior user of the Googles Trademark. Invoking the Court's federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the related provisions of § 1338, Silvers brings claims under the federal trademark laws, and under Florida common law for unfair competition.2 3. Although the Google Action has been pending since May 4, 2005, Stelor has just

learned that Google, Inc. filed a Counterclaim, and has included Stelor as a counterdefendant. Among other allegations, Google, Inc. claims that neither Silvers nor Stelor has any valid or enforceable rights in the Googles Trademark. Google, Inc. thus seeks a declaratory judgment

Silvers also invokes the Court's supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, as well as diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 2

2

2 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 3 of 57

CASE NO. 05-80387 CIV RYSKAMP/VITUNIC

that it is not infringing, but also seeks judgment under the federal trademark laws canceling the Googles Trademark, Registration No. 2,087,590. COMMON QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT 4. Accordingly, these two actions involve common questions of law and fact, and

subject matter which is a material part of the subject matter of the other respective action. 5. These common issues include: (1) whether Stelor or Silvers has the right to

pursue the claims in the Google Action against Google, Inc.; and (2) whether Stelor or Silvers has the right (and the related responsibility) to defend the claims brought by Google, Inc. for a declaration of non-infringement and/or cancellation of the Googles Trademark. Both of these critical issues turn on whether Silvers' purported termination of the License Agreement is valid or not. 6. Another common issue is whether, if Google, Inc.'s allegation is true that it ­ and

not Silvers ­ has the exclusive right to use the Googles Intellectual Property and Trademarks, Silvers breached the express warranties he made in the License Agreement that he had exclusive ownership of all such property, and that the license would violate no applicable laws. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER THE STELOR CLAIMS EXISTS IN THE GOOGLE ACTION 7. In addition, the Court in this Google Action has supplemental jurisdiction,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, over the claims raised in the Stelor Action. 8. An issue has arisen, however, in the Stelor Action about the existence of diversity

jurisdiction. Pursuant to an Order Granting Without Prejudice Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the Stelor Action, Stelor is required to identify each of its members ­ tracing back through however many layers of partners or members that existed. As Stelor has just discovered through 3

3 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 4 of 57

CASE NO. 05-80387 CIV RYSKAMP/VITUNIC

that tracing process, a sub-member does in fact reside in Florida. jurisdiction appears not to exist between Stelor and Silvers. 9.

Accordingly, diversity

As set forth above, though, the Action can properly proceed if restyled as a

crossclaim in the Google Action. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), the Court in the Google Action has supplemental jurisdiction over those claims, since this Court has original federal question jurisdiction over the Google Action and Stelor's claims against Silvers "are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution." REQUEST FOR TRANSFER AND CONSOLIDATION 10. "The trial courts' managerial power is especially strong and flexible in matters of

consolidation" pursuant to Rule 42(a). In re Air Crash Disaster, 549 F.2d 1006,1013 (5th Cir. 1977). Indeed, as the Court emphasized, the Rule provides a "broad grant of authority,

particularly in the last clause", which authorizes the Court "may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay". Id. Thus, "[i]n this Circuit, district judges have been `urged to make good use of Rule 42(a) . . . in order to expedite the trial and eliminate unnecessary repetition and confusion." Id. Consolidation for all purposes, moreover, has been recognized to merge the cases into one for jurisdictional purposes. See Lewis Charters, Inc. v. Huckins Yacht Corporation, 871 F.2d 1046, 1048-49 (11th Cir. 1989); Ringwald v. Harris, 675 F.2d 768, 770 (5th Cir. 1982). 11. Under the circumstances, Stelor requests that the Stelor Action be transferred to Procedurally, this would be

and consolidated for all purposes with the Google Action.

4

4 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 5 of 57

CASE NO. 05-80387 CIV RYSKAMP/VITUNIC

accomplished by an order of transfer and consolidation, restyling Stelor's complaint as a crossclaim in the Google Action. A proposed Crossclaim is attached hereto as Exhibit "1". 12. Transfer and consolidation for all purposes is warranted pursuant to the local

rules, as well as Rule 42(a), given the common questions involved in these actions as set forth above. 13. Given the counterclaim filed in the Google Action, the issues involved in the

Stelor Action will necessarily need to be litigated and addressed by the parties and the Court in the Google Action. The approach requested by Stelor will avoid unwarranted duplication of judicial labor, and the need for multiple decisions on related issues. 14. In addition, this approach will avoid the inefficiency and additional duplication

that would be required if the Stelor Action were finally dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, with Stelor then separately filing those same claims as a crossclaim in the Google Action. 15. Indeed, this district has already invested substantial effort in the dispute between

Stelor and Silvers, with an evidentiary hearing held in the Stelor Action by Magistrate Hopkins on Stelor's motion for preliminary injunction and, with extensive briefing by the parties, a subsequent decision by the Stelor Court adopting in part and rejecting in part the Magistrate's report recommendation. An appeal, moreover, is pending before the Eleventh Circuit related to that decision. 16. If the Stelor Action were simply dismissed, with Stelor independently refiling the

same claims as a crossclaim in the Google Action, then all of the effort and judicial resources invested in connection with the preliminary injunction proceedings would need to be reduplicated in the Google Action, and depending on the outcome, a new appeal filed. 5

5 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 6 of 57

CASE NO. 05-80387 CIV RYSKAMP/VITUNIC

17.

An order of transfer and consolidation, restyling Stelor's complaint as a

crossclaim in the form attached hereto, would avoid all such reduplication, and enable the pending appeal to proceed. WHEREFORE, Stelor respectfully requests entry of an order transferring and consolidating this action with the Google Action pending as Case No. 05-80387, and restyling the claims and deeming them filed as a crossclaim in the form attached hereto. BURLINGTON, WEIL, SCHWIEP, KAPLAN & BLONSKY, P.A. Attorneys for STELOR PRODUCTIONS, LLC 2699 South Bayshore Drive, Penthouse Miami, Florida 33133 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Email: [e-mail] By: /s/ Kevin C. Kaplan Kevin C. Kaplan Florida Bar No. 933848 David J. Zack Florida Bar No. 641685

6

6 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 7 of 57

CASE NO. 05-80387 CIV RYSKAMP/VITUNIC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on this 23rd day of August, 2005 upon the following: Adam T. Rabin, Esq. DIMOND, KAPLAN & ROTHSTEIN, P.A. Suite 708 200 S.E. First Street Miami, Florida 33131 Jan Douglas Atlas ADORNO & YOSS LLP 350 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1700 Fort Lauderdale, Flroida 33301 Kenneth R. Hartmann, Esq. Gail M. McQuilkin, Esq. KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON, P.A. 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Andrew P. Bridges WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 101 California Street, Suite 3900 San Francisco, California 94111

/s/ Kevin C. Kaplan Kevin C. Kaplan

7

7 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 8 of 57

EXHIBIT 1

8 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 9 of 57

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 05-80387 CIV RYSKAMP/VITUNIC STEVEN A. SILVERS, an individual, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant. _______________________________________/ GOOGLE INC., a Delaware corporation Counterclaimant, v. STEVEN A. SILVERS, an individual; STELOR PRODUCTIONS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; STELOR PRODUCTIONS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Counterdefendants. ________________________________________/ STELOR PRODUCTIONS, LLC'S CROSSCLAIM AGAINST STEVEN SILVERS Counterdefendant, STELOR PRODUCTIONS, L.L.C., f/k/a STELOR PRODUCTIONS, INC. ("Stelor"), by and through its undersigned attorneys, hereby files this Crossclaim against Cross-Defendant STEVEN A. SILVERS ("Silvers") and alleges as follows: 1. This is a civil action seeking an injunction, a declaratory judgment, and other

relief based upon Silvers' breach of a settlement agreement between the parties, his failure to honor another agreement between the parties, and the harm and threatened harm engendered by his actions.

9 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 10 of 57

Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue 2. Stelor is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the

State of Delaware, and having its principal place of business in Darnestown, Maryland. Stelor converted from a corporation to a limited liability company effective on or about March 14, 2005. The members of Stelor consist of residents of various states including Florida. 3. 4. Silvers is a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida and is sui juris. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1367(a), since the Court has original jurisdiction over this action and the crossclaim involves claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. This Court also has jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, because the parties' irreconcilable differences in the interpretation of specific contractual provisions, combined with Silvers' threats and breaches have created a justiciable case or controversy between the parties. 5. Stelor's claims arise in whole or in part in the Southern District of Florida. The

contracts at issue in this action specifically provide that all disputes are to be resolved by this Court and that the parties consent to jurisdiction in this Court. Silvers also resides in this District. Venue is accordingly proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a). Factual Allegations 6. In 1991, Silvers published a children's edutainment book entitled Googles and the

Planet of Goo about four loveable alien creatures called "Googles". That book displayed the trademark GOOGLES & Design on the outside back cover. Silvers registered copyrights in that 2

10 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 11 of 57

book and additional related works from 1991 through 1994. In 1995, Silvers applied for a design patent on a tennis shoe having the GOOGLES & Design trademark displayed in at least four places on it (and that patent was subsequently issued September 1, 1998). On August 2, 1996, a company controlled by Silvers, The Googles Children's Workshop, Inc., filed an application for federal registration in the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") of GOOGLES & Design as a trademark for "children's books" claiming use since June 1994. That application matured into Registration No. 2,087,590 issued August 12, 1997 (the "GOOGLES Registration"). 7. On July 18, 1997, Silvers registered the domain name googles.com and, on or

about that date, started using GOOGLES as a service mark on his website for pre-school and young children (the GOOGLES & Design Trademark, Copyrights, Domain Name, and Patent will be collectively referred to as "GOOGLES IP"). As a natural expansion of the GOOGLES children's book and website, there have been sales of children's merchandise related to the Googles characters, namely, GOOGLES stickers, plush toys and music CDs, and distribution of GOOGLES children's T-shirts. 8. Despite these efforts to preserve, expand and promote the GOOGLES IP, Silvers'

venture made little impact in a marketplace crowded with children's materials from bigger and better financed providers. In an effort to successfully capitalize on the GOOGLES IP, Silvers sought partners to carry forward his vision. An initial effort between Silvers and Aurora

Collection, Inc. ("Aurora") failed and Silvers thereafter sought another partner. Silvers was in no position to move forward alone, as he had many personal and business hurdles to overcome. Significant among them were a lack of capital, a lack of connections, a lack of experience, a lack 3

11 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 12 of 57

of access to financing, an increasingly adverse relationship with Aurora, and negative aspects of Silvers' background that made him unsuited to serve as figurehead or spokesman for an enterprise aimed at providing wholesome and enriching entertainment to an audience of impressionable children. 9. Accordingly, when Stelor was formed to develop Silvers' concept into a reality,

Stelor's enthusiasm and interest were tempered by legitimate concerns and reservations. Stelor saw potential in the GOOGLES IP and Stelor's founders also had confidence in their ability to raise the needed funds and to create a compelling and attractive "Googles" universe that would enlighten, entertain, educate, and develop children by providing them with fascinating and uplifting products, programs and services. But aware of Aurora's aborted effort, and wary that Silvers' background could jeopardize the "Googles" program, Stelor insisted that any arrangement with Silvers contain safeguards and protections. 10. Thus, when on or around June 1, 2002, Stelor and Silvers entered into a "License,

Distribution and Manufacturing Agreement" ("License Agreement") and a Consulting Agreement (true and correct copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibits "A" and "B", respectively), Stelor bargained for, and obtained, promises, commitments and obligations from Silvers designed to ensure Stelor's ability to develop the "Googles" program free from undue interference by Silvers. The License Agreement gives Stelor the sole and exclusive worldwide license to commercialize the Googles characters and the GOOGLES IP. Among the pertinent provisions of the License Agreement and the Consulting Agreement are the following: (a) The License Agreement gives Stelor exclusive rights in the "Googles" products, trademarks and intellectual property and specifies that those rights are exclusive even as to 4

12 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 13 of 57

Silvers (Ex. "A" at ¶¶ IA, IB). (b) The License Agreement gives Stelor an irrevocable power of attorney to apply for, maintain, enforce and defend intellectual property rights, including trademarks, websites and domain names. Stelor, not Silvers, assumed responsibility for handling all Googles trademark and other intellectual property matters (Ex. "A" at ¶ VIIIA). (c) The License Agreement and the Consulting Agreement require Silvers to fully cooperate with Stelor, while the Consulting Agreement makes plain that Silvers shall have no power to direct or control the daily activities of Stelor (Ex. "A" at ¶ VIIIE; Ex. "B" at ¶ 3). (d) To protect Stelor from possible public embarrassment, both the License Agreement and the Consulting Agreement expressly prohibit Silvers from initiating or maintaining "any relationship or conversation with [Stelor's] current or prospective clients, vendors, any company relationships with the media (press, etc.), without the prior express written request by [Stelor]." (e) Critically, Silvers also expressly warranted that he "owns the exclusive rights in and to the Licensed Intellectual Property, Licensed Trademarks, Licensed Patents and Licensed Copyrights necessary to effectual the granting of the Licensed Rights from the LICENSOR to the LICENSEE". (Ex. "A" at ¶ VA(iii)). Silvers, moreover, warranted that his performance of the License Agreement would "not violate or conflict with any applicable U.S. law or regulation". (Ex. "A" at ¶ VA(ii)). 11. Silvers freely agreed to these and other contractual obligations and restrictions.

Stelor, believing it had the necessary rights and protections, then threw itself enthusiastically into the task of using its best efforts to develop The Googles concept and intellectual property. To this end, Stelor has spent millions of dollars, and its principals and employees have devoted 5

13 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 14 of 57

themselves tirelessly to making Stelor and the "Googles" successful and profitable, both for themselves and for the benefit of Silvers. 12. Notwithstanding his contractual agreements, Silvers displayed an unwillingness to

abide by his obligations and commenced a campaign to inject and entwine himself into the very fabric of Stelor's business. He subverted Stelor's intellectual property rights by diverting He interfered with litigation

communications from the USPTO from Stelor to himself.

undertaken by Stelor against third parties. He held himself out as a Stelor representative at crucial industry trade shows. He threatened to communicate directly with the trade and press concerning the GOOGLES IP. He withheld information vital to Stelor's ability to carry out the business of transforming the basic Googles idea into a thriving and profitable business and denied it access to Googles domain names. All of these actions were in violation of the License Agreement. 13. As a result of Silvers' actions, Stelor was left with no choice other than to file a

complaint against him for injunctive, declaratory and other relief related to his breaches. The Complaint was filed on or about October 18, 2004 and the cause was styled Stelor Productions, Inc. v. Steven A. Silvers, Case No. 04-80954-Civ-Hurley, United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ("the prior litigation"). The Complaint sought injunctive relief requiring Silvers to notify the USPTO that it was to communicate with Stelor, to provide Stelor with access to the Googles domain names, to refrain from communicating with the media and vendors concerning the GOOGLES IP, and to refrain from interfering in litigation undertaken by Stelor, as well as a declaration that Stelor was in compliance with the Licensing Agreement. Silvers subsequently filed a counterclaim asserting that Stelor was in breach and he purported to 6

14 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 15 of 57

terminate the License Agreement. 14. On or about January 28, 2005, Stelor and Silvers entered into a Confidential A true and

Settlement Agreement ("Settlement Agreement") resolving the prior litigation.

correct copy of the Settlement Agreement has been filed with the Court separately under seal, in accordance with its terms. 15. Among other things, the Settlement Agreement vindicated the positions taken by

Stelor in the prior litigation. The Settlement Agreement gives Stelor the right to control the domain names, requires Silvers to cooperate in all respects in pending and future trademark and domain name dispute proceedings filed by Stelor, withdraws Silvers' purported termination of the License Agreement and reaffirms his obligations under it, and makes Stelor's counsel the sole correspondent with the USPTO. The Settlement Agreement also required the dismissal of the prior litigation, with a reservation of exclusive continuing jurisdiction with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida to enforce its terms, with the prevailing party in any enforcement action recovering reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Silvers was paid valuable consideration for entering into the Settlement Agreement. 16. On February 8, 2005, Stelor and Silvers filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal

without Prejudice of the prior litigation. The stipulation was granted by Order dated February 17, 2005 and the prior litigation was administratively closed. 17. Unfortunately, soon thereafter, Silvers once again proved himself unwilling to

abide by the terms of his contractual undertakings. He repeatedly failed to cooperate in pending and future trademark and domain name dispute proceedings. He repeatedly failed to provide

7

15 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 16 of 57

evidence of paid insurance premiums. And, most importantly, he schemed to undo Stelor's business activities and steal its work. 18. As he did in the prior litigation when he purported to terminate the License

Agreement, only to withdraw the notice of termination and reaffirm his obligations under the License Agreement, Silvers has once again purported to terminate the License Agreement. By letter dated April 27, 2005, counsel for Silvers wrote to Steven Esrig of Stelor reinstating the notice of termination of the License Agreement based on five invalid grounds. A true and correct copy of the April 27 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit "C". 19. Counsel for Stelor responded by letter dated April 29, 2005, in which Stelor

refuted each of the specious grounds cited by Silvers, offered to cure any conceivable breaches, and demanded withdrawal of the notice of termination, confirmation that Silvers would abide by the terms of the License Agreement and the Settlement Agreement, and written assurance that Silvers will make no efforts to interfere in any manner with the business of Stelor. Specifically, Stelor demonstrated that it has met its obligation to offer unit interests to Silvers, it has paid or attempted to pay all royalty advances that Silvers could possibly claim, it has cooperated in the audit of the books and records, it has offered to make samples of licensed products available, and it has provided a royalty statement showing that no royalties are owed. A true and correct copy of the April 29 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit "D". 20. On May 2, 2005, Silvers' counsel dispatched a letter refusing to comply with the

reasonable demands made by Stelor. Indeed, the letter, in stating that Silvers "intends to go in a different direction to develop his characters and intellectual property", essentially conceded that Silvers is planning immediate actions that are prohibited by the License Agreement and the 8

16 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 17 of 57

Settlement Agreement and violative of Stelor's rights under those agreements, notwithstanding the fact that the License Agreement requires 60 days notice and an opportunity to cure prior to termination. See Ex. "A" at ¶ IX. A true and correct copy of the May 2 letter (which bears the erroneous year "2004" rather than "2005", as correctly reflected in the facsimile transmission information) is attached hereto as Exhibit "E". 21. Silvers began acting on the threat made in his counsel's letter before the letter was

dispatched, even though his notice of termination, even if valid, is not effective until June 26, 2005. On April 28, 2005, Stelor learned from godaddy.com, a domain name registrar, that Silvers had violated the License Agreement and the Settlement Agreement by changing 78 different Googles domain names from Stelor's control to Silvers' control and improperly excluded Stelor from being the administrative contact with the domain name registrar. Due to Silvers' actions in violation of the agreements, Stelor is currently unable to reassert control over the domain names that it has licensed. 22. Moreover, Silvers hijacked the entirety of the content of the website located at

www.googles.com and developed, produced and operated by Stelor at great expense. Stelor received notice of this conduct on May 3, 2005 from Verio, Inc., a web hosting firm, which informed that another customer (obviously Silvers) had requested to add googles.com to their account, at which point Stelor learned that the website had been deactivated and brought down. Having taken this action in express violation of the agreements, Silvers has taken from Stelor content in which it has made a seven-figure investment, and has taken from Stelor the ability to control intellectual property that it has licensed and that it has created.

9

17 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 18 of 57

23.

Without its website content, Stelor could not display its product and meet with

potential licensees. It could not demonstrate its product to its users and their customers. It could not launch and protect pending expansions to its brand. Advertisements that had been placed promoting the website for an upcoming trade show were rendered useless and, as a result, Stelor's reputation was damaged and it lost industry goodwill. Moreover, its ability to prepare and submit materials for that trade show was compromised. 24. Furthermore, Stelor developed the content and exclusively operated the website

devoted to the "Googles" characters, offering a variety of services and features geared to delighting children and their parents. The website is the public's window into the Googles' world. Being able to operate and modify this website is among Stelor's most important

priorities. As a result of Silvers' dishonesty and maliciousness, the intellectual property was taken from Stelor's control and the website was replaced with a message created by Silvers, presumably. A true and correct copy of the website content established after Silvers hijacked the site is attached hereto as Exhibit "F". 25. All conditions precedent to the commencement of this action have either occurred,

been waived or been excused. 26. Stelor has retained undersigned counsel to prosecute this action and is obligated to

them for reasonable attorney's fees and costs in connection therewith.

10

18 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 19 of 57

COUNT ONE (Breach of Contract) 27. Stelor re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1

through 26, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 28. Silvers' actions set forth above constitute material breaches of the Licensing

Agreement and the Settlement Agreement. In addition, Silvers has breached the Agreements by unilaterally filing a trademark infringement action against Google, Inc., a valuable right that belongs exclusively to Stelor under the Agreements. 29. 30. 31. 32. As a result of Silvers' actions, Stelor has been damaged. Silvers' breaches have caused irreparable injury to Stelor. Stelor has no adequate remedy at law. Furthermore, if Silvers is free to ignore the terms of the License Agreement and

the Settlement Agreement, nothing prevents him from pursuing the action against Google, Inc., and negotiating directly with Google, Inc., which Silvers will continue to do if not enjoined. The Settlement Agreement expressly provides that any attempt to negotiate with Google, Inc. without Stelor's participation constitutes a breach of the Settlement Agreement that creates irreparable harm and for which injunctive relief will be necessary. COUNT TWO (Declaratory Judgment) 33. Stelor re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1

through 26, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 34. U.S.C. § 2201. 11 This is a claim for declaratory judgment under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28

19 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 20 of 57

35.

By virtue of his notice of termination (Exhibit "C"), Silvers has taken the position

that Stelor has breached the Settlement Agreement and that the License Agreement is terminated. As detailed above, Silvers has also taken actions in violation of his obligations and undertakings pursuant to the License Agreement and the Settlement Agreement, in apparent reliance upon his purported termination of the License Agreement. 36. Stelor believes that the Settlement Agreement and the License Agreement are

valid and effective contractual commitments that continue to bind the parties. Stelor further contends that Silvers' prior actions, his current actions and his threatened future conduct both violate the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the License Agreement and threaten the business of Stelor. Stelor additionally has ongoing financial obligations under the Settlement Agreement that it is prepared to meet, but which are not required if the License Agreement has been terminated. 37. Accordingly, Stelor is in doubt about its rights and Silvers' rights under the

License Agreement and the Settlement Agreement. COUNT THREE (Breach of Express Warranty) 38. Stelor re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1

through 26, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 39. This is a claim, in the alternative, for breach of express warranty seeking damages

in excess of $75,000.00, exclusive of attorneys' fees and costs.

12

20 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 21 of 57

40.

Among other provisions in the License Agreement, Silvers expressly warranted

that he "owns the exclusive rights in and to the Licensed Intellectual Property, Licensed Trademarks, Licensed Patents and Licensed Copyrights necessary to effectual the granting of the Licensed Rights from the LICENSOR to the LICENSEE". (Ex. "A" at ¶ VA(iii)). Silvers, moreover, warranted that his performance of the License Agreement would "not violate or conflict with any applicable U.S. law or regulation". 41. (Ex. "A" at ¶ VA(ii)).

Silvers similarly represented in the initial whereas clauses of the License

Agreement that he "is the sole and exclusive owner of the GOOGLES trademarks", as well as of the "GOOGLES characters." 42. Stelor reasonable relied on these representations, which were a material

inducement for it to enter into the agreement, and to pursue the development of the property through substantial effort and investment. 43. Google, Inc., however, in the counterclaim filed against Silvers and Stelor, has

alleged that it ­ and not Silvers ­ has the right to use the Licensed Property and Trademarks, and has further alleged that the use of the Googles Property and Trademarks violates applicable trademark and other laws. Google, in fact, seeks to cancel the GOOGLES Registration. 44. If Google, Inc.'s allegations are correct, then Silvers has breached the express

warranties set forth in the License Agreement. 45. As a result of Silvers' actions, Stelor has been damaged.

13

21 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 22 of 57

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff STELOR PRODUCTIONS, L.L.C. prays that this Court issue and award the following relief: (a) a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendant STEVEN A.

SILVERS from taking any action in violation of or contrary to the terms of the Licensing Agreement or the Settlement Agreement and affirmatively requiring him to restore the domain names and website to Stelor's control; (b) a declaratory judgment declaring that Stelor has complied with its

obligations under the Licensing Agreement and the Settlement Agreement and that those agreements remain in full force and effect; (c) a judgment awarding Stelor its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs

pursuant to ¶ 17 of the Settlement Agreement; (d) (e) proper. BURLINGTON, WEIL, SCHWIEP, KAPLAN & BLONSKY, P.A. Attorneys for Plaintiff 2699 South Bayshore Drive, Penthouse Miami, Florida 33133 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Email: [e-mail] By: /s/ Kevin C. Kaplan Kevin C. Kaplan Florida Bar No. 933848 David J. Zack Florida Bar No. 641685 14 a judgment, in the alternative, awarding damages to Stelor; and a judgment awarding Stelor such other relief as may be deemed just and

22 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 23 of 57

23 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 24 of 57

24 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 25 of 57

25 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 26 of 57

26 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 27 of 57

27 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 28 of 57

28 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 29 of 57

29 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 30 of 57

30 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 31 of 57

31 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 32 of 57

32 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 33 of 57

33 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 34 of 57

34 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 35 of 57

35 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 36 of 57

36 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 37 of 57

37 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 38 of 57

38 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 39 of 57

39 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 40 of 57

40 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 41 of 57

41 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 42 of 57

42 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 43 of 57

43 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 44 of 57

44 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 45 of 57

45 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 46 of 57

46 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 47 of 57

47 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 48 of 57

48 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 49 of 57

49 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 50 of 57

50 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 51 of 57

51 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 52 of 57

52 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 53 of 57

53 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 54 of 57

54 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 55 of 57

55 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 56 of 57

56 of 57

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 9

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2005

Page 57 of 57

57 of 57