Ahmed v. Facebook, Inc. et al

Filing 1

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

f

r

r,

r!

UNITED STATES DISTRICT C~U.R;r
1.,[ 0
..
ticl ·~L.ttd{S OEFteE
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSSETS
' .

ZO I~ JAN - 1 A q: 4q

Mr. Naeem Ahmed
Complaint
Plaintiff

v.
I. FACEBOOK, Inc.
1601 Willow Rd. Menlo
Park, CA, 94025
(650) 308·7300

And

2. JOHN DOE
3. JOHN DOE
4. JOHN DOE

Defendants

Mr. Naeem Ahmed (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff'), for his cause
of action herein, states as follows:

INTRODUCTION

I. That the Plaintiff is filing this suit to protect its established and licensed

trademark "JANG", "GEO" and "THE NEWS" «'the Impugned
Marks") in United States, as it has recently come to the notice of the
Plaintiff that very serious nature of infringements regarding the same
trademarks has been seen through the www.facebook.com i.e. Defendant
No.1 (the "FACEOOOK"), being controlled, hosted and operated by
the Defendant No. I. That, the Defendant No.2, 3 and 4 are the

,

,

administrators of the Facebook pages attached in the links below
infringing the Impugned Marks ("Impugned Pages"), the same are not
only infringing the name of the Impugned Marks of the Plaintiff but
displaying the Impugned Marks as display logos of the Impugned Pages.
The links containing the Impugned Pages are given hereunder;
A.

1l\lps:f/wwW.tllC~hllok.cOJI1;(jl."(ll~nclislld(lt"rv

B. hurs:!/www.111cdmok.com/(iClll 1rdul)oITv
C. h1tn:i/www.faccoollk.co/Hlgcl)surcr
D. hllps:Nwww.lacchook.coll1fharp.Jlgl!lltv

E. hllPS:!/www.laccbook.com!gcokaJullli
F. hUllS:!!"W"

.lacl.·bol)k.c(ltn/g~ol~/.IV

G. htlp:/ iwww.lilccl.kl(lk.l:om!AA(ITV

H. hllll:!!Www.thcd)(l(lk.coll1/Jan~[)oiContJ)(ltPk
I. hltllS:/iwww.faccbmlk.com!l1lCNc\\.slmcmalionaJ

PARTIES
2. That. the Plaintiff, and at all times relevant hereto, is domiciled in

Karachi Pakistan.
3. That the Plaintiffis a law abiding professional.
4. That the Defendant No. I, at all times relevant hereto, is a corporation,
. having its corporate headquarter at Menlo Park, California, United
States.

5. That the Defendant No. I operates as a social networking company
worldwide. It builds various tools that enable users to connect, share,
discover, and communicate with each other on mobile devices and
computers. It has more than 1.06 billion monthly active users and 618
million daily active users. DefendantNo. I exercises full control over the
content including Impugned Pages
6. That the Defendant No. 2 is John Doe and is the infringer of the

trademark"THE JANG".

7. That, the Defendant No. 3 is John Doe and is the infringer of the
trademark "GEO".

8. That. the Defendant No. 4 is John Doe and is the infringer of the
trademark "THE NEWS".

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENTS

9. The Court has subject matter Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.c. § 1332
because there is complete diversity of citizenship between the Plaintiff
and the Defendant No. I and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000
exclusive of costs and interest.

10.That the Jurisdiction over Defendant No. 1 is proper because the
Defendant

No

is

involved

in

the

business

of electronic

commerce/Internet Commerce for hosting and having control over its
services being provided in not only United States but all over the globe.

II. The residents of the Massachusetts have access to the infringing
Impugned Pages on the Facebook, same infringing upon the stylized
trademark logo of the Plaintiff. The misuse of the trademark belonging to
the Plaintiff should be enough to constitute minimum contacts for the
purposes of establishing the personal jurisdiction between the Plaintiff
and the Defendant No. I.

12.That the injury and harm to the Plaintiff has occurred in the
Massachusetts.

13.That even otherwise the Court has subject matter jurisdiction for the
claim being of Trademark infringement.

14. Venue in this district is proper under 28 U.S.c. § 1391 because a
substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in the
District.

FACTUAL STATEMENTS

IS.That the Plaintiff is the common law and statutory licensee of the
Impugned Mark "THE JANG" in US through Trademark Number:
86123767 and licensee of the Impugned Mark "GEO' in United
Kingdom through the Trademark Number UK00003031447 and "THE
NEWS" in United States through the Trademark Number 86123789.
(See Annexure A). The Plaintiff has been using the same logos since
1998

in connection

with

the

news

publication;

broadcasting;

telecommunication; news; entertainment; live shows; comedy in Classes
38 and 41 of the International Classification of Goods and Services for
the Purposes of the Registration of Marks under the Nice Agreement.

16.That, to shock and dismay of the Plaintiff, it has recently disclosed to the
Plaintiff that the names of the Impugned Pages and the Impugned Logos
are confusingly similar to the Trademarks of the Plaintiff, and the
operator/user/owner/administrator of the Impugned Pages are using the
Trademark names as well as the stylized logos (the 'Impugned Logos' ­
Annexure B) as their own, without the permission and consent of the
Plaintiff.

17.That the Defendant No.2 is using the Plaintiffs trademark 'THE lANG"
and the Defendant No. 3 is using the trademark 'GEO" and the
Defendant No.4 is using the trademark "THE NEWS", in violation of
multiple international conventions, treaties as well as criminal laws and
civil laws regarding trademark infringement, counterfeiting, and unfair
competition. The owner/operator/user/administrator of the Impugned
Pages has acted mala fide and his act of using Plaintiffs trademark in his
business and on Impugned Pages is illegal, unlawful, unauthorized and
damaging to the name, business and repute of the Plaintiff.

[Screenshot

containing the
evidence of the
infringement of the Impugned Trademarks is annexed
herein as Annexure - OJ

DEFENDANTS KNOWLEDGE OF THE FALSITY

18.That, all the Defendant No. 1 was informed and was sent a notice of
trademark infringement

by the Impugned Pages through online

complaint

forms

with

185136628353667,

the

complaints

185563198302791,

bearing

Numbers:

462437430527523,

1376479662606710, 1404572903118348, 1376479662606716 and also
through hard copies, therefore the same was fully aware of the
infringement of the Plaintiff's Trademarks.

19.The Defendant No. Iacknowledged the receipt of the online claim form
by replying and agreeing to remove the link A, C and E from the above
mentioned URL's only and further only from UK, US and Canada. The
Defendant. 1 in spite of its show of realization of the infringement of the
Plaintiff's Impugned Trademarks failed to remove all the mentioned
URL's from www.faccbook.conl globally.
20. The Plaintiff also tried to convince the Defendant No. I through email
dated: 23.12.2013 regarding the aggravation of the infringement causing
continuous losses to the Defendant No. I, but to no avail. The Plaintiff
reiterated to the Defendant time and again that Internet is an
open medium and people can access the Plaintiffs trademarks from
anywhere and as the said URL's are infringing the Plaintiffs trademark
and as a causing great loss and damage to the Plaintiff.
21. That, the Plaintiff also ingeminated as to the point of jurisdiction and
global

access

to

the

infringed

content

that

that

the

hundreds of expatriates US citizens, the embassies worldwide and their
staff, US armed forces deployed internationally and thousands of
multinational US firms are exposed to this trademark fraud by the
infringement of the Plaintiff's trademarks and thus causing loss by the
same magnitude. Besides above, there are hundreds of US case laws
supporting stringent action by US courts against such violations and thus
Google Inc. has removed the mobile app from all jurisdictions, nationally
and internationally.

22. That, it is further added as per the knowledge of the Defendant No. I that
the defendant has actual knowledge of the website's activities, that
Defendant No. 1 knowingly avoided learning the full extent of the
infringing

activities

and

deliberately

disregarded

the

notice/notifications/complaints of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant
No. I knowingly enabled the infringing conduct by allowing the
Impugned Pages and willfully permitting the infringers to display the

logo of the Plaintiff as their own, and in consequence the Plaintiff
suffered irreparable harm and damage.

23. The Defendant No. I had the constructive knowledge of the fact that its
user/administrator, Defendant No.2, 3 and Defendant No.4, were using
its services to directly infringe the Plaintiff's intellectual property rights,
and the same 'had reasonable means to withdraw its services so that they
could not be used to directly infringe but continued to provide its
services", but deliberately failed to stop the infringement and mitigate
the harm to the Plaintiff.

24. That the Plaintiff is continuously suffering loss and harm to its business,
repute and the same is continuously imputing the brand identity and
saturation of the brand/logos of the Plaintiff, which can cause irreparable
loss to the Plaintiff.

25. That, the Defendant No. I has even refused to provide the required
information regarding the owner/operator/user/administrator of the
Impugned Pages and Impugned logos to the Plaintiff. That shows the
obvious malafide on part of the Defendant No. I and its willful aid and
abetment in the infringements of the intellectual property rights of the
Plaintiff by the Defendant No.2, 3 and 4.

HARM TO BUSINESS

26. Since the infringements of the trademarks of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff
business has suffered heavy losses due to confusion among the
customers of the Plaintiff as many of the customers have been deceived
into diversion to the Impugned Pages.

27. Thc infringements are causing saturation of the logo and brand of the
Plaintiff thus causing irreparable loss to the brand and identity of the
Plaintiffs business.

28. That, the continuous infringement of the Plaintiffs Trademarks has
caused mental torture, mental agony and stress to the Plaintiff and thus
has diminished his working ability.

29.As a direct and proximate result of the actions of the Defendantls as
detailed above, the Plaintiff has suffered irreparable loss and damage to
his business and goodwill gained thereby.

30. That the injuries are the natural consequence of, and directly and
proximately caused by, the willful and deliberate act of the Defendants.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION·
TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

31. The Defendants illegal, unauthorized use of the trademark of the Plaintiff
is first cause of action against the Defendants.

32. The Plaintiff sent a Trademark infringement notice to the Defendant No.
I for to Cease and Desist the infringement of the intellectual property
rights of the Plaintiff, but the same failed to do so and let the violations
continue.

33. That the Plaintiff also filed several online complaints through the proper
channel as provided by the Defendant No. I, and in response to that the
Defendant No. I removed the reported pages from United Kingdom. The
Defendant ignored the fact that the trademarks of the Plaintiff we seen
and accessible all around the globe and the loss suffering it was hardly
mitigated by removal from the jurisdiction of UK only.

34. That the Defendant No. I also ignored the fact that removal of pages
from United Kingdom only does not stop the people including
expatriates from accessing those pages, infringing the trademarks of the
Plaintiff.

35. That the Defendant has knowledge of the infringement but instead
ignored to redress the grievances of the Plaintiff.

36. That, the Defendant No. I has even refused to inform infringer or
produce its information to the Plaintiff, showing obvious mala fide.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION ­
PUNITIVE DAMAGES

37.That the actions of the Defendants were intentional, mala fide, illegal,
unlawful and full with damaging intentions.
38.That the act of infringement has caused loss up to S 5 Million till the
filing of this case and is growing on everyday basis.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff request that this Court enter judgment against all
Defendants,jointly or severally,as follows:
i.

Damagesin the amount of$ 5 Million.

ii.

Grant an injunction directing the Defendant I to remove all
URL's globally including but not limited to the URL's above
from www.facebook.cOOl, for infringing the Impugned trademarks
of the Plaintiff.

iii.

Punitive damagesand attorney's fees; and

iv.

Any and all relief to which Plaintiff may appear entitled.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rulesof the Civil Procedure, Plaintiff
demands trial byjury in this action of all issues so triable.

Dated: / - (

-It(

Respectfullysubmitted