Ahmed v. Twitter, Inc. et al

Filing 1

COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Naeem Ahmed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits, # 2 Civil Cover Sheets)(Abaid, Kimberly)

FILf:O

UNITED STATES DISTRIcr:~QJ.J.Rfl'rl~ S···O· r· f!''lI ~~
FOR THE DISTRICf OFMASSA~
. F I " L"

ZDI~ JAN
Case No.

-1 A q: _
SO

us: OISVliCl 00ijft{
~:J1 srk ter If" ;MeAR.

Mr. Naeem Ahmed

Complaint

PIainIif£
Y.
1. 'lWIlTER, Inc.
1355 M:lrkel 81. Suite # 900,
San Francisco, CA. 9·U 03
Uniled Siale
And

2. JOHN DOE
8. JOHNDOE
4. JOHNDOE

Defendants

Mr. Naecm Ahmed (hcrcinalicr referred 10 as the "Plainrill"), for her cause of
:ICLiOIl

herein, states as follows:

INTRODUCTION
I. Tluu the Plaiuuff is liIing this suit 10 protect its established and licensed

trademark ".lANG", "CEO" and "THE NE\'VS" (-the Impugned Marks-)
ill

Uniled

SI:llCS,

as it has recently rome

10 the notice

of the Plaintiff Lllal

very serious nature of infringements regarding the same trademarks has

been seen through the

W\\W.lwiIlCLCOI.l1

i.e. Defendant No. 1 (the

'"Twiuer"), being controlled, hosted and ope rated by IJI(~ Dcfcudant No. I.

Thai, the Defendant No. 2,

:~

and

.~

arc the ndmiuisuutors of the Twitter

Profiles attached ill the links below inlringiug the Impugned Marks

("Impugned Profiles"), the same
Impugned Marks of

11K~

:IJ"(~

not only infringing the names of the

Plaintilr bill displaying the Impugned Marks as

display logos of the Impugned Profiles. The links containing the
Impugned Profiles are givcll hereunder;

hUllS:, ilwiuel'.('Olllfgl ' ( 'll('\VS I'nglisll,
hllpS:/'IWitlt'r.nllll'!.lI·(l1 w\\'s

https:

lin III

flWiUl'l'.t'Olll 'gl~nS(I!II,:rI\

hitps: "lwiul'l'."()lllf£'" .kahan!
hltps:'[willl'f.l'OIH'!am; :\ klll.ar

lit!ps:! !1I'iUt'l""OIll!'tlll'lIt'II'S

illl!

PARTIES
~,

That, the Plaintifl, and at all limes relevant

IWl'I'IO, is

domiciled

ill

Karachi

Pakistan.

:1. Thai the Plaintillis a law abiding prolcssiounl.

,t '11mI the Defendant No. I. aliiI ai, all times relevant hereto, is a
corporation, having its rorpo ra le headquarter al San Francisco, Cnliloruia,
Ulliled Stntes.

5. That the Defendant No, [ Twitter, lnc., is all online soriul uctworking and
microhlogging service Ihat enables users

(0

send and read "tweets", which

arc lexI messages limited to I ,to characters. Registered users can read and

post tweets, but unregistered users

call

Twitter through the website interface,

only read them. Users access
S~'fS,

or mobile device app,

Defendant No. I exercises lull ("(/1111'01 over the content on its platform i.c.
\\'\\w.lwilh·r.I'ClIll

including Impugned Profiles

(i. That the Defendant No. 2 is John Doc and IS the infringer of the

tmdcmurk "'!'HEJANG".

7. Thai, the Dcfcudant No. H is John Doc ami IS the iulringcr of the
trademark wGEO".

8. That, the Defendant No. ,t is John Doc and IS the iulringcr of the
trademark "THE NEWS".

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENTS

9. The Court h:IS subject maucrjurisdiction undcr 28 1l.S.C. S 1332 because
there is complete diversity of citizenship between the Plaiuulf and the
Defendant No. 1 and the amount in controversy exceeds $75.000
exclusive of costs and interest.

10.That the jurisdirtion over Dclcndam No. 1 is proper IlCGIlISe the
Dcfcndaur

No

IS

involved

III

the

busiuess

of clcrtrouic

commcrce/Imcruct Couuucrce lor hosting and IIm'ing control over irs
services being provided in not only United StaleSbut ;111 over the globe.

11.The residents of the Massachuscus have access to the infriugiru; impugned

Profiles on the Twitter, same inlriugiug UpOI1 the stylized trademark logo
of the Plaiiuill. The misuse of the trademark belonging to the Plaintill'
should be enough to constitute minimum contacts lor the purposes of
establishing the pc rsoi 1:11 jurisdiction between the Plaiiuill' and the
Defendant No. I.

i2. That the hum}' and harm
Massad iuseus.

10

the Plaintill' has occurred

III

the

J:-J. That even otherwise thc Court hOI:> subicct maucrjurisdiction lor the daim

being of Trademark infriugemcut,

H. Venue in this district is proper under 28 U.S.c. § 1::l91 because a
substantial part or the events giving rise to the claim O(TUIl'l~d in the

District.

FAcruALSTATEMENTS
15.That the Plaintifl' is the common law and statutory licensee

or

the

Impugned Mark "THE .lANG" in US through Trademark Number:
HCi 12:3767 and licCIISCl~ or thc Impugned Mark "(;EO' in United Kingdmu

through the Trademark Number

{)KOOOO:~031·~~7 and

"THE NE\VS" ill

United States through the Trademark Number 86123789 (See Annexure

A>. The Plaintill' has been using the same logos since I!J9H in connection
with the news publication; broadcasting; rclecouuuuniration; news;
entertainment; live shows; comedy in Classes :if! and 41 or the
International Chssilic;l/iolJ or Goods and Services lor the Purposes or thc
Regisuution of Marks under the j'llicc Agreement.

16. That, to shock and dismay or the Pluiruill, it

IIOIS

recently disclosed

10

the

Plaintiff tluu the names or the Impugned Profiles and the Impugned
Logos are conlusiugly similar 10 the Trademarks or the Plaintilf, and the
opcnuor/uscr/owucr/adminisuator or the Impugned Proliles lire using the

Trademark names as well as the stylizer] logos (the 'Impugned Logos' ­
A.nnexuM B) as their own, without the permission and consent or the
PlainlilT.

17:l1lat the Dclcudant No.2 is using the Pluinull's trademark 'THEJANG"
and the Defendant No. 3 is using the trademark 'GEO" and the
Defendant No.

,~

is using the trademark ''THE. NE\VS", ill violation or

multiple international conventions, treaties as well

:IS

criminal

and

\;1\\'5

civil laws rq;anling trademark iulringemeut, couutcrlciung, and unfair
competition. '111c 0\11Icr/opcrator/user!admillisU,ltor of I1w Impugned

Profiles has acted Il1"J" fide ami his act of using PlaintiJrs trademark in his

business and on Impugned Profiles is illegal, unlawful, unauthorized and
damaging to the name, business and repute of the Plaiuull.

IScreeosbot containing the evidence of the infringement of
the Impugned Trademarks is annexed herein asAnnexure
·BI

DEFENDANTS KNOWLEDGE OFTIIEFAl.SlTY

18. That, the Dclcudnnt No. I was iufonncd and was scut a notice of

trademark inliingemcnt by the

Impugned Profiles through online

complaint forms and also through hard copies. therefore the same

\I'IS

lully aware of the infringement of the Plaintill's Trademarks.

19. That, it is further added as per the knowledge of 1he Defendant No. 1 111;11
the defendant has actual knowledge of the website's activities, thai
Defendant No. I knowingly avoided learning the full extent of the

infringing' al'til·ities and dclibenucly disregarded t111..~ uotice/notilicntious of
the Plaintill. Therefore, the Defendant No. I knowingly enabled the
infringing ronduet by allowing the Impugned Profiles and willlully
permitting the infringers

10

display the logo of the Plaiutiff as their

011'11,

and ill consequence the Plaintiff suffered irreparable harm and damage.

20, '111e Dcfcudaut No. I had the constructive knowledge of the Iact that its
user/administrator, Defendant No.2, :1 and ·L, were using Its services to
directly infringe the Plninufl's intellectual property rights. and the same
'had reasonable means 10 withdraw its services so that they could not he

used

10

directly infringe bUI continued

dclibcmtcly lailcd

10

10

provide its services". but

slop the infringement and

miligal(~

111(' harm

10

the

Plnintif].

21. Thai the Plaintiff is routiuuously suffering loss and harm

10

its business,

repute and Ihe same is continuously imputing the brand identity and
saturation of the brand/logos of

IJR~

Plnintill, which can ('aU1\C irreparable

loss to the Plainrilf

22. Tluu, the Defeudmu No. I has

C\'(~II

refused to provide the required

information regarding the owncr/opcrutor/uscr/administrntor of the

Impugned Profiles and lmpugned logos to ihe Plairuill. That shows the
obvious 111;/1., lkic

Oil

part of the Dclcudau; No. I ;\IId its willful aid and

abetment in the inlriugcrucuts of the intellectual property rights of the

Plaiutill' hy the Dclcudaut No.2. a;11111 :lo

HARM TO BUSINESS

2:t Since the inl..ingclllenis of the trademarks of the Plaintilr, the Plniuull'
business has sullercd heavy losses due

10

confusion among the customers

of the Plaimilf as man)' of the customers have been deceived into
diversion 10 the hupugncd Profiles,

2·lo The infringements arc causing saturation of the logo and brand or the
Plaiutill' thus causing irreparable loss

10

the hraud and identity of the

Plainlill's business.

2!J.11Iat, the continuous infringement of the Plaintiffs Trademarks have
caused mental torture, mental agony and stress 10 the Plauuill'and thus has
diminished his working ability.

26. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of the Dcfendant/s as
derailed above, the Plaiuull' h"s suffered irreparable loss and damage to
his business and goodwill brained thereby.

27. That the injuries arc the natural rouscqucnrc of, and directly and
proximately caused by, the will lui and deliberate act of the Defendants.

FIRST CAUSE OFACl10N- TRADEMARK 1NFRINGEMENT
28, '111C Defendants illegal, unauthorized usc of the trademark of the Plainrill'
is first C;IUSC or action against the Defendants.

29. The Piaintillscm a Trademark iulringcrucru Ilolice

10

the Defendant No.

I 1<11' to Cease and Desist the iulriugcmcur of the hucllcctual property
rights of the Piailltill. hut the sallie lailcd til do so "lid let th...~ violalions
continue.

30. That

the

Plaintill'

also

filed

several

online

complaints

lrom

WW\\'.lwilll'r.l'IJlII. reporting the trademarks infringements but to no avail ;L~
the Dclcndnut No. has failed to reply / respond

10

allY of irs complaints.

31. That the Defendant has knowledge of the infringement but instead
ignored to redress the grievances or the Plaintill.

32. That, the Dcicndaru Nil. 1 has even refused

10

inform infringer or

produce its information to the Plaintill, showing obvious

1/1:"" Ikk:

SECOND CAUSE OFACTION - PUNTI1VE DAMAGES

33, That the actions or

tJIC

Defendants were iutcntional, mala lidc, illegal.

unlawful and "ill with damabolng intentions.

~H. That

the art of infringcnicnt has caused loss up to

S .5 Million

till the Jiling

of this case :U1d is growing on everyday basis.

\VHEHEFORE, Plaintilf request that this Court enter judgment against all
Defendants, jointly or severally, as follows:

I.

Damages in the amount of S .s Million.

II.

Grant an injunction directing the Defendant I to remove all the profiles
including but not limited to the URL's above from www.twitt... .com,
r
for infringing the trademarks of the Plaintiff.

III.

Punitive damages and attorney's lees; and

IV.

Any and all rcliefto which Plaintill' may appear entitled.

DEMAND FORJURYTRlAL

Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of the Civil Procedure, Plaintiff
demands trial by jury in this nction or all issues so triable.

Dated:

L~

:Ii

Respectfully submiucd

ANNEXURE-A