UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 

ADIDAS AG, ADIDAS INTERNATIONAL 

MARKETING B.V., and ADIDAS AMERICA, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

THE INDIVIDUALS, PARTNERSHIPS AND 

UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED 

ON SCHEDULE “A,”

Defendants.

/

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiffs, adidas AG, adidas International Marketing B.V., and adidas America, Inc., 

(collectively “Plaintiffs”), hereby sue Defendants, the Individuals, Partnerships, and 

Unincorporated Associations identified on Schedule “A” hereto (collectively “Defendants”). 

Defendants are promoting, selling, offering for sale and distributing goods bearing counterfeits 

and confusingly similar imitations of Plaintiffs’ trademarks within this district through various 

Internet based e-commerce stores and fully interactive commercial Internet websites operating 

using the seller identities and domain names set forth on Schedule “A” hereto (the “Seller IDs

and Subject Domain Names”). In support of their claims, Plaintiffs allege as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This is an action for federal trademark counterfeiting and infringement, false 

designation of origin, cybersquatting, common law unfair competition, and common law 

trademark infringement pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1116, and 1125(a) and (d), and The All

Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), and Florida’s common law. Accordingly, this Court has subject 

Case 0:20-cv-61146-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/11/2020 Page 1 of 27
2

matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1121 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 

1338. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over Plaintiffs’

state law claims because those claims are so related to the federal claims that they form part of 

the same case or controversy.

2. Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this district, because they direct 

business activities toward and conduct business with consumers throughout the United States, 

including within the State of Florida and this district through at least the Internet based ecommerce stores and fully interactive commercial Internet websites accessible in Florida and 

operating under the Seller IDs and Subject Domain Names. 

3. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 since Defendants are, 

upon information and belief, aliens engaged in infringing activities and causing harm within this 

district by advertising, offering to sell, selling and/or shipping infringing products into this 

district.

THE PLAINTIFFS

4. Plaintiff adidas AG (“adidas AG”) is a joint stock company organized and 

existing under the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany, having its office and principal place 

of business at Postach 1120, D-91072 Herzogenaurach, Federal Republic of Germany. adidas 

AG is currently, and for years has been, one of the world’s leading manufacturers of athletic 

footwear and apparel, including products bearing the distinctive adidas Mark, Trefoil Mark, 3 

Bars Logo, Three-Stripe Mark, THE BRAND WITH THE 3 STRIPES Mark, CLIMALITE 

Mark, CLIMAWARM Mark, CLIMACOOL Mark, BOOST Mark, STAN SMITH Mark, and 

CLIMACHILL Mark. 

Case 0:20-cv-61146-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/11/2020 Page 2 of 27
3

5. Plaintiff adidas International Marketing B.V. (“adidas International”) is a 

corporation organized and existing under the laws of Netherlands, having its principal place of 

business in the Netherlands. adidas International is wholly owned by adidas AG and its 

affiliates.

6. Plaintiff adidas America, Inc. (“adidas America”) is a corporation organized and 

existing under the laws of the State of Oregon, having its principal place of business at 5055 N. 

Greeley Avenue, Portland, Oregon, 97217. adidas America is wholly owned by adidas AG and 

its affiliates, and within this country adidas America is a licensed distributor of adidas-branded 

merchandise, including goods bearing the distinctive adidas Mark, Trefoil Mark, 3 Bars Logo, 

Three-Stripe Mark, THE BRAND WITH THE 3 STRIPES Mark, CLIMALITE Mark, 

CLIMAWARM Mark, CLIMACOOL Mark, BOOST Mark, STAN SMITH Mark, and 

CLIMACHILL Mark. adidas AG, adidas International, and adidas America shall be referred to 

herein collectively as “adidas.”

7. Plaintiffs’ trademarked goods are sold through various channels of trade within 

the State of Florida, including this district. Defendants, through the sale and offer to sell 

counterfeit and infringing versions of Plaintiffs’ branded products, are directly, and unfairly, 

competing with Plaintiffs’ economic interests in the State of Florida and causing Plaintiffs harm 

within this jurisdiction.

8. Like many other famous trademark owners, Plaintiffs suffer ongoing daily and 

sustained violations of their trademark rights at the hands of counterfeiters and infringers, such 

as Defendants herein, who wrongfully reproduce and counterfeit Plaintiffs’ trademarks for the 

twin purposes of (i) duping and confusing the consuming public and (ii) earning substantial 

profits across their ecommerce stores. The natural and intended byproduct of Defendants’ 

Case 0:20-cv-61146-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/11/2020 Page 3 of 27
4

actions is the erosion and destruction of the goodwill associated with Plaintiffs’ names and 

associated trademarks and the destruction of the legitimate market sector in which they operate.

9. In order to combat the indivisible harm caused by the combined actions of 

Defendants and others engaging in similar conduct, each year Plaintiffs expend significant 

monetary resources in connection with trademark enforcement efforts, including legal fees, 

investigative fees, and support mechanisms for law enforcement such as field training guides and 

seminars. The exponential growth of counterfeiting over the Internet has created an environment 

that require companies, such as Plaintiffs, to expend significant time and money across a wide 

spectrum of efforts in order to protect both consumers and themselves from the ill effects of 

confusion and the erosion of the goodwill connected to Plaintiffs’ brands.

THE DEFENDANTS

10. Defendants are individuals and/or business entities of unknown makeup, each of 

whom, upon information and belief, either reside and/or operate in foreign jurisdictions, or 

redistribute products from the same or similar sources in those locations and/or ship their goods 

from the same or similar sources in those locations to shipping and fulfillment centers within the 

United States to redistribute their products from those locations. Defendants have the capacity to 

be sued pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b). Defendants target their business 

activities toward consumers throughout the United States, including within this district through 

the simultaneous operation of the Internet e-commerce stores via Internet marketplace websites 

under the Seller IDs or the fully interactive Internet websites under the Subject Domain Names.

11. Defendants use aliases in conjunction with the operation of their businesses, 

including but not limited to those identified by the same Defendant Number on Schedule “A” 

hereto.

Case 0:20-cv-61146-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/11/2020 Page 4 of 27
5

12. Defendants are the past and present controlling forces behind the sale of products 

bearing counterfeits and infringements of Plaintiffs’ trademarks as described herein using at least 

the Seller IDs and Subject Domain Names. 

13. Defendants directly engage in unfair competition with Plaintiffs by advertising, 

offering for sale, and selling goods bearing counterfeits and infringements of one or more of 

Plaintiffs’ trademarks to consumers within the United States and this district through Internet 

based e-commerce stores or commercial Internet websites using, at least, the Seller IDs and 

Subject Domain Names and additional names, seller identification aliases, and domain names not 

yet known to Plaintiffs. Defendants have purposefully directed some portion of their illegal 

activities towards consumers in the State of Florida through the advertisement, offer to sell, sale 

and/or shipment of counterfeit and infringing branded versions of Plaintiffs’ goods into the State. 

14. Defendants have registered, established or purchased, and maintained the Seller 

IDs and Subject Domain Names. Defendants may have engaged in fraudulent conduct with 

respect to the registration of the Seller IDs and Subject Domain Names by providing false and/or 

misleading information to their domain name registrars or the Internet marketplace websites

where they sell during the registration or maintenance process related to their respective Seller 

IDs and Subject Domain Names. Upon information and belief, many Defendants have registered 

and/or maintained their Seller IDs and Subject Domain Names for the sole purpose of engaging 

in illegal counterfeiting activities.

15. Defendants will likely continue to register or acquire new seller identification 

aliases and domain names for the purpose of selling and offering for sale goods bearing 

counterfeit and confusingly similar imitations of Plaintiffs’ trademarks unless preliminarily and 

permanently enjoined.

Case 0:20-cv-61146-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/11/2020 Page 5 of 27
6

16. Defendants use their Internet-based businesses in order to infringe the intellectual 

property rights of Plaintiffs and others.

17. Defendants’ business names, i.e., the Seller IDs and Subject Domain Names, 

associated payment accounts, and any other alias seller identification names and domain names 

used in connection with the sale of counterfeit and infringing goods bearing one or more of 

Plaintiffs’ trademarks are essential components of Defendants’ online activities and are one of 

the means by which Defendants further their counterfeiting and infringement scheme and cause 

harm to Plaintiffs. Moreover, Defendants are using Plaintiffs’ famous names and/or trademarks 

to drive Internet consumer traffic to their e-commerce stores and websites operating under the 

Seller IDs and Subject Domain Names, thereby increasing the value of the Seller IDs and Subject 

Domain Names and decreasing the size and value of Plaintiffs’ legitimate marketplace at 

Plaintiffs’ expense.

COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

adidas’s Trademark Rights

18. adidas is currently, and for years has been, one of the world’s leading 

manufacturers of athletic footwear, apparel, and sporting equipment. adidas has used its famous 

and distinctive trademarks, , , , Three-Stripe Mark, THE BRAND WITH 

THE 3 STRIPES Mark, CLIMALITE Mark, CLIMAWARM Mark, CLIMACOOL Mark, 

BOOST Mark, STAN SMITH Mark, and CLIMACHILL Mark (collectively, the “adidas 

Marks”), for many years in connection with the above-mentioned goods. The adidas Marks 

signify the quality and reputation of adidas products.

Case 0:20-cv-61146-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/11/2020 Page 6 of 27
7

19. adidas is the owner of multiple trademark registrations for the adidas Marks, 

including the following valid trademark registrations, issued by the United States Patent and 

Trademark Office:

Trademark Registration

Number

Registration 

Date Class / Goods

0,870,136 May 27, 1969 IC25. Athletic Training Suits.

ADIDAS 0,891,222 May 19, 1970

IC25. sport shoes namely, track and field 

shoes, baseball, boxing, football, skating, 

golf, and soccer shoes; sportswear 

namely, suits, shorts, pants, tights, shirts, 

gloves, and the like; jerseys; socks; sport 

shoes namely, track and field training 

shoes, basketball shoes, and tennis shoes. 

0,973,161 November 20, 

1973

IC 018. tote bags.

IC 25. specific purpose athletic shoes; 

general purpose sport shoes, sportswearnamely, suits, shorts, pants, tights, shirts, 

jerseys, socks, and gloves.

1,300,627 October 16, 

1984

IC 025. Sportswear-Namely, Suits, 

Shorts, Pants, Tights, Shirts, Jerseys, 

Socks, Gloves, Jackets, Coats, 

Swimwear, Sweaters, Caps, Pullovers, 

Warm-Up Suits, Boots, Shoes, Slippers.

1,310,140 December 18, 

1984

IC 025. Sportswear-Namely, Suits, 

Shorts, Pants, Tights, Shirts, Jerseys, 

Socks, Gloves, Jackets, Coats, 

Swimwear, Sweaters, Caps, Pullovers, 

Warm-Up Suits, Rain Suits, Ski Suits, 

Jump Suits, Boots, Shoes, Slippers. 

THE BRAND 

WITH THE 3 

STRIPES

1,674,229 February 4, 

1992

IC 025. boots, slippers, sandals; shoes, 

boots and after ski boots for hiking and 

trekking, athletic shoes and generalpurpose sports shoes.

CLIMALITE 1,809,301 December 7, 

1993 IC 025. Shirts.

2,016,963 November 19, 

1996

IC 025. Sports and leisure wear, namely 

jackets.

Case 0:20-cv-61146-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/11/2020 Page 7 of 27
8

2,058,619 May 6, 1997 IC 025. Sports and leisure wear, namely 

shirts.

2,278,589 September 21, 

1999 IC 025. athletic and leisure footwear.

2,278,591 September 21, 

1999

IC 25. sports and leisure wear, namely, 

shorts.

2,284,308 October 12, 

1999

IC 025. sports and leisure wear, namely 

pants.

CLIMAWARM 2,290,958 November 9, 

1999

IC 025. Clothing, namely, sweaters, vests, 

sweat pants, jackets, caps, [ scarves and 

gloves ].

2,411,802 December 12, 

2000

IC 018. All purpose sport bags, athletic 

bags, traveling bags, backpacks, 

knapsacks.

IC 025. Sports and leisure wear, namely, 

shorts, pants, shirts, T-shirts, jerseys, 

socks, gloves, jackets, swimwear, caps 

and hats, pullovers, sweat-shirts, sweat 

suits, track suits, warm-up suits; boots, 

sandals, specific purpose athletic shoes 

and general all purpose sports shoes.

IC 028. Sports balls and playground balls; 

guards for athletic use, namely, shin 

guards, knee guards and leg guards.

CLIMACOOL 2,651,581 November 19, 

2002

IC 025. Clothing, namely, footwear, sport 

shoes, headwear, shirts, T-shirts, jerseys, 

underwear, swimwear, shorts, pants, 

skirts, sweaters, caps, hats, visors, warm 

up suits, rain suits, ski suits, jumpsuits, 

boots, sandals, sweat shirts, jackets, 

uniforms, wrist bands and head bands, 

gloves and socks.

3,029,127 December 13, 

2005

IC 025. Clothing, namely, T-Shirts, 

sweatshirts, jackets and coats.

3,029,129 December 13, 

2005 IC 025. Footwear.

Case 0:20-cv-61146-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/11/2020 Page 8 of 27
9

3,029,135 December 13, 

2005 IC 025. Footwear.

3,104,117 June 13, 2006

IC 009. Optical apparatus and 

instruments, namely, eyeglasses and 

sunglasses.

IC 014. Horological and chronometric 

instruments, namely, watches

IC 018. Leather and imitations of leather, 

and goods made from these materials in 

the nature of bags for general and sport 

use, namely, handbags, tote bags, waist 

packs, overnight bags, backpacks, 

knapsacks and beach bags; trunks; 

traveling bags for general and sport use; 

leather and imitations of leather and 

goods made from these materials, 

namely, wallets, briefcases. 

IC 025. Sports and leisure wear, namely 

suits, shorts, pants, sweatpants, skirts, 

skorts, dresses, blouses, shirts, T-shirts, 

sleeveless tops, polo shirts, vests, jerseys, 

sweaters, sweatshirts, pullovers, coats, 

jackets, track suits, training suits, warmup suits, swimwear, underwear, socks, 

gloves, scarves, wristbands and belts; 

headgear, namely caps, hats, visors, 

headbands; athletic footwear and leisure 

foot wear, namely boots, sandals, specific 

purpose athletic shoes and general 

purpose sports shoes.

3,580,958 February 24, 

2009

IC 025. Clothing, namely, shirts; 

footwear

STAN SMITH 3,590,187 March 17, 2009 IC 025. Footwear.

CLIMACHILL 4,585,788 August 12, 

2014

IC 025. Footwear; apparel, namely, shirts, 

tops, shorts.

Case 0:20-cv-61146-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/11/2020 Page 9 of 27
10

The adidas Marks are used in conjunction with the manufacture and distribution of quality goods 

in the categories identified above. True and correct copies of the Certificates of Registration for 

the adidas Marks are attached hereto as Composite Exhibit “1.”

20. The adidas Marks have been used in interstate commerce to identify and 

distinguish adidas products for an extended period of time and serve as symbols of adidas’s

quality, reputation, and goodwill. 

21. The adidas Marks are well-known and famous and have been for many years. 

adidas has expended substantial time, money and other resources developing, advertising and 

otherwise promoting the adidas Marks. Specifically, adidas has used the adidas Marks in 

connection with its frequent sponsorship of sports tournaments and organizations, as well as 

professional athletes and collegiate sports teams. For example, adidas has long-term 

relationships with the University of Nebraska, and the University of Louisville. Among many 

others, NBA stars Derrick Rose, James Harden, and Andrew Wiggins, NFL stars Von Miller, 

Aaron Rodgers, Dak Prescott, NHL star Sidney Crosby, baseball player Kris Bryant, and soccer 

stars David Beckman and Lionel Messi all are sponsored by adidas. For many years, adidas has 

been a sponsor of the World Cup soccer tournament, has sponsored the world-famous Boston 

Marathon for more than a decade, and has sponsored many other events, teams, and individuals. 

Prominent use of the adidas Marks in connection with these sponsorship activities has further 

enhanced the adidas Marks’ recognition and fame. The adidas Marks qualify as famous marks as 

that term is used in 15 U.S.C. §1125(c)(1).

22. adidas has extensively used, advertised, and promoted the adidas Marks in the 

United States in association with the sale of quality products. adidas has spent hundreds of 

millions of dollars promoting the adidas Marks and products bearing the adidas Marks. In recent 

Case 0:20-cv-61146-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/11/2020 Page 10 of 27
11

years, annual sales of products bearing the adidas Marks have totaled in the billions of dollars 

globally and in the hundreds of millions of dollars within the United States.

23. The adidas Marks have achieved secondary meaning as identifiers of quality 

goods as a result of adidas’s advertisement, promotion, and sale of such goods thereunder.

24. As a result of adidas’s efforts, members of the consuming public readily identify 

merchandise bearing or sold under the adidas Marks, as being quality merchandise sponsored 

and approved by adidas.

25. adidas has carefully monitored and policed the use of the adidas Marks and has 

never assigned or licensed the adidas Marks to any Defendant in this matter.

26. Genuine goods bearing the adidas Marks are widely legitimately advertised and 

promoted by adidas, authorized distributors and unrelated third parties via the Internet. Over the 

course of the past several years, visibility on the Internet, particularly via Internet search engines 

such as Google, Yahoo!, and Bing has become increasingly important to adidas’s overall 

marketing and consumer education efforts. Thus, adidas expends significant monetary resources 

on Internet marketing and consumer education, including search engine optimization (“SEO”) 

strategies. Those strategies allow adidas and its authorized retailers to fairly and legitimately 

educate consumers about the value associated with the adidas Marks and the goods sold 

thereunder. Similarly, Defendants’ individual seller stores and websites are indexed on search 

engines and compete directly with adidas for space in the search results.

Defendants’ Infringing Activities

27. In blatant disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights, Defendants are promoting and 

advertising, distributing, selling and/or offering for sale goods in interstate commerce that bear 

counterfeit and confusingly similar imitations of the adidas Marks (the “Counterfeit Goods”) 

Case 0:20-cv-61146-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/11/2020 Page 11 of 27
12

through at least the Internet based e-commerce stores or commercial Internet websites operating 

under the Seller IDs and Subject Domain Names. Specifically, Defendants are using the adidas 

Marks to initially attract online consumers and drive them to Defendants’ ecommerce stores 

operating under the Seller IDs and Subject Domain Names. Defendants are using identical 

copies of one or more of the adidas Marks for different quality goods. Plaintiffs have used the 

adidas Marks extensively and continuously before Defendants began offering counterfeit and 

confusingly similar imitations of Plaintiffs’ merchandise.

28. Defendants’ Counterfeit Goods are of a quality substantially different than that of 

Plaintiffs’ genuine goods. Defendants are actively using, promoting and otherwise advertising, 

distributing, selling and/or offering for sale substantial quantities of their Counterfeit Goods with 

the knowledge and intent that such goods will be mistaken for the genuine quality goods offered 

for sale by Plaintiffs despite Defendants’ knowledge that they are without authority to use the 

adidas Marks. The net effect of Defendants’ actions is likely to cause confusion of consumers at 

the time of initial interest, sale, and in the post-sale setting, who will believe all of Defendants’ 

goods offered for sale in Defendants’ e-commerce stores and websites are genuine goods 

originating from, associated with, and/or approved by Plaintiffs.

29. Defendants advertise their e-commerce stores and websites, including their 

Counterfeit Goods offered for sale to the consuming public via at least the e-commerce stores 

and websites under the Seller IDs and Subject Domain Names. In so advertising their stores and 

products, Defendants improperly and unlawfully use one or more of the adidas Marks without 

Plaintiffs’ permission.

30. As part of their overall infringement and counterfeiting scheme, most Defendants 

are, upon information and belief, employing and benefitting from substantially similar, 

Case 0:20-cv-61146-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/11/2020 Page 12 of 27
13

advertising and marketing strategies based, in large measure, upon an illegal use of counterfeits 

and infringements of the adidas Marks. Specifically, Defendants are using counterfeits and 

infringements of one or more of Plaintiffs’ famous names or trademarks in order to make their ecommerce stores and websites selling illegal goods appear more relevant and attractive to 

consumers searching for both Plaintiffs’ and non-Plaintiffs’ goods and information online. By 

their actions, Defendants are contributing to the creation and maintenance of an illegal 

marketplace operating in parallel to the legitimate marketplace for Plaintiffs’ genuine goods. 

Defendants are causing individual, concurrent and indivisible harm to Plaintiffs and the 

consuming public by (i) depriving Plaintiffs of their right to fairly compete for space online and 

within search engine results and reducing the visibility of Plaintiffs’ genuine goods on the World 

Wide Web, (ii) causing an overall degradation of the value of the goodwill associated with the 

adidas Marks, and/or (iii) increasing Plaintiffs’ overall cost to market their goods and educate 

consumers about their brands via the Internet.

31. Defendants are concurrently conducting and targeting their counterfeiting and 

infringing activities toward consumers and likely causing unified harm within this district and 

elsewhere throughout the United States. As a result, Defendants are defrauding Plaintiffs and the 

consuming public for Defendants’ own benefit.

32. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants in this action have had full knowledge of 

Plaintiffs’ ownership of the adidas Marks, including their, exclusive rights to use and license 

such intellectual property and the goodwill associated therewith.

33. Defendants’ use of the adidas Marks, including the promotion and advertisement, 

reproduction, distribution, sale and offering for sale of their Counterfeit Goods, is without 

Plaintiffs’ consent or authorization.

Case 0:20-cv-61146-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/11/2020 Page 13 of 27
14

34. Defendants are engaging in the above-described illegal counterfeiting and 

infringing activities knowingly and intentionally or with reckless disregard or willful blindness to 

Plaintiffs’ rights for the purpose of trading on Plaintiffs’ goodwill and reputations. If 

Defendants’ intentional counterfeiting and infringing activities are not preliminarily and 

permanently enjoined by this Court, Plaintiffs and the consuming public will continue to be 

harmed.

35. Defendants’ above identified infringing activities are likely to cause confusion, 

deception and mistake in the minds of consumers before, during, and after the time of purchase. 

Moreover, Defendants’ wrongful conduct is likely to create a false impression and deceive 

customers, the public, and the trade into believing there is a connection or association between 

Plaintiffs’ genuine goods and Defendants’ Counterfeit Goods, which there is not.

36. Moreover, at least Defendant Number 102 has registered its Subject Domain 

Name, using marks that are nearly identical and/or confusingly similar to at least one of 

Plaintiffs’ Marks, (the “Cybersquatted Subject Domain Name”).

37. Defendant Number 102 has registered and/or used the Cybersquatted Subject 

Domain Name with the bad faith intent to profit from Plaintiffs’ Marks.

38. Defendants do not have, nor have they ever had, the right or authority to use 

Plaintiffs’ Marks. Further, Plaintiffs’ Marks have never been assigned or licensed to be used on 

any of the websites operating under the Cybersquatted Subject Domain Name.

39. Upon information and belief, Defendant Number 102 has provided false and/or 

misleading contact information when applying for the registration of the Cybersquatted Subject 

Domain Name, or has intentionally failed to maintain accurate contact information with respect 

to the registration of the Cybersquatted Subject Domain Name.

Case 0:20-cv-61146-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/11/2020 Page 14 of 27
15

40. Defendant Number 102 has never used the Cybersquatted Subject Domain Name 

in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

41. Defendant Number 102 has not made any bona fide non-commercial or fair use of 

Plaintiffs’ Marks on a website accessible under the Cybersquatted Subject Domain Name.

42. Defendant Number 102 has intentionally incorporated Plaintiffs’ Marks in its

Cybersquatted Subject Domain Name to divert consumers looking for Plaintiffs’ Internet 

websites to its own Internet websites for commercial gain.

43. Given the visibility of Defendants’ various e-commerce stores and websites and 

the similarity of their actions, it is clear Defendants are either related, or at a minimum, cannot 

help but know of each other’s existence and the unified harm likely to be caused to Plaintiffs and 

the overall consumer market in which they operate as a result of Defendants’ concurrent actions.

44. Although some Defendants may be physically acting independently, they may 

properly be deemed to be acting in concert because the combined force of their actions serves to 

multiply the harm caused to Plaintiffs.

45. Defendants’ payment and financial accounts are being used by Defendants to 

accept, receive, and deposit profits from Defendants’ trademark counterfeiting and infringing 

and unfairly competitive activities connected to their Seller IDs and Subject Domain Names and 

any other alias seller identification names or domain names being used and/or controlled by 

them.

46. Further, Defendants are likely to transfer or secret their assets to avoid payment of 

any monetary judgment awarded to Plaintiffs.

47. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.

Case 0:20-cv-61146-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/11/2020 Page 15 of 27
16

48. Plaintiffs are suffering irreparable injury and have suffered substantial damages as 

a result of Defendants’ unauthorized and wrongful use of the adidas Marks. If Defendants’ 

counterfeiting and infringing, cybersquatting, and unfairly competitive activities are not 

preliminarily and permanently enjoined by this Court, Plaintiffs and the consuming public will 

continue to be harmed.

49. The harm and damages sustained by Plaintiffs have been directly and proximately 

caused by Defendants’ wrongful reproduction, use, advertisement, promotion, offers to sell, and 

sale of their Counterfeit Goods.

COUNT I - TRADEMARK COUNTERFEITING AND INFRINGEMENT

PURSUANT TO § 32 OF THE LANHAM ACT (15 U.S.C. § 1114)

50. Plaintiffs hereby adopt and re-allege the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 

through 49 above.

51. This is an action for trademark counterfeiting and infringement against

Defendants based on their use of counterfeit and confusingly similar imitations of the adidas 

Marks in commerce in connection with the promotion, advertisement, distribution, offering for 

sale and/or sale of the Counterfeit Goods.

52. Specifically, Defendants are promoting and otherwise advertising, selling, 

offering for sale, and distributing products using counterfeits and/or infringements of one or 

more of the adidas Marks. Defendants are continuously infringing and inducing others to 

infringe the adidas Marks by using one or more of them to advertise, promote, offer to sell, 

and/or sell counterfeit and infringing branded goods. 

53. Defendants’ concurrent counterfeiting and infringing activities are likely to cause 

and actually are causing confusion, mistake, and deception among members of the trade and the 

general consuming public as to the origin and quality of Defendants’ Counterfeit Goods.

Case 0:20-cv-61146-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/11/2020 Page 16 of 27
17

54. Defendants’ unlawful actions have caused and are continuing to cause 

unquantifiable damages to Plaintiffs and are unjustly enriching Defendants with profits at 

Plaintiffs’ expense.

55. Defendants’ above-described illegal actions constitute counterfeiting and 

infringement of the adidas Marks in violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under § 32 of the Lanham Act, 

15 U.S.C. § 1114.

56. Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable injury and damages 

due to Defendants’ above described activities if Defendants are not preliminarily and 

permanently enjoined. Additionally, Defendants will continue to wrongfully profit from their 

illegal activities.

COUNT II - FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN

PURSUANT TO § 43(a) OF THE LANHAM ACT (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a))

57. Plaintiffs hereby adopt and re-allege the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 

through 49 above. 

58. Defendants’ Counterfeit Goods bearing, offered for sale, and sold under copies of 

one or more of one of the adidas Marks have been widely advertised and offered for sale 

throughout the United States via the Internet.

59. Defendants’ Counterfeit Goods bearing, offered for sale, and sold using copies of 

one or more of the adidas Marks are virtually identical in appearance to Plaintiffs’ genuine 

goods. However, Defendants’ Counterfeit Goods are different in quality. Accordingly, 

Defendants’ activities are likely to cause confusion in the trade and among the general public as 

to at least the origin or sponsorship of their Counterfeit Goods. 

60. Defendants have used in connection with their advertisement, offer for sale, and 

sale of the Counterfeit Goods, false designations of origin and false descriptions and 

Case 0:20-cv-61146-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/11/2020 Page 17 of 27
18

representations, including words or other symbols and trade dress which tend to falsely describe 

or represent such goods and have caused such goods to enter into commerce with full knowledge 

of the falsity of such designations of origin and such descriptions and representations, all to 

Plaintiffs’ detriment.

61. Defendants have authorized infringing uses of one or more of the adidas Marks in 

Defendants’ advertisement and promotion of their counterfeit and infringing branded goods. 

Defendants have also misrepresented to members of the consuming public that the Counterfeit 

Goods being advertised and sold by them are genuine, non-infringing goods.

62. Additionally, many Defendants are using counterfeits and infringements of one or 

more of the adidas Marks in order to unfairly compete with Plaintiffs and others for space within 

organic search engine and social media results, thereby jointly depriving Plaintiffs of a valuable 

marketing and educational tool which would otherwise be available to Plaintiffs and reducing the 

visibility of Plaintiffs’ genuine goods on the World Wide Web and across social media 

platforms.

63. Defendants’ above-described actions are in violation of Section 43(a) of the 

Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125(a).

64. Plaintiffs have sustained indivisible injury and damage caused by Defendants’ 

concurrent conduct, and absent an entry of an injunction by this Court, Defendants will continue 

to wrongfully reap profits and each Plaintiff will continue to suffer irreparable injury to their

goodwill and business reputations, as well as monetary damages.

Case 0:20-cv-61146-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/11/2020 Page 18 of 27
19

COUNT III - CLAIM FOR RELIEF FOR CYBERSQUATTING

UNDER §43(d) OF THE LANHAM ACT (15 U.S.C. §1125(d))

(Against Defendant Number 102 only)

65. Plaintiffs hereby adopt and re-allege the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 

through 49 above.

66. Defendant Number 102 has acted with the bad faith intent to profit from the 

adidas Marks and the goodwill associated with the adidas Marks by registering and using the 

Cybersquatted Subject Domain Name.

67. The adidas Marks were distinctive and famous at the time Number 102 registered 

the Cybersquatted Subject Domain Name.

68. The Cybersquatted Subject Domain Name is identical to, confusingly similar to or 

dilutive of one or more of the adidas Marks.

69. Defendant Number 102’s conduct is done with knowledge and constitutes a 

willful violation of Plaintiffs’ rights in the adidas Marks. At a minimum, Defendants’ conduct 

constitutes reckless disregard for and willful blindness to Plaintiffs’ rights.

70. Defendant Number 102’s actions constitute cybersquatting in violation of §43(d) 

of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125(d). 

71. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and have each suffered and will 

continue to suffer irreparable injury and damage due to the above described activities of 

Defendant Number 102 if it is not enjoined

Case 0:20-cv-61146-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/11/2020 Page 19 of 27
20

COUNT IV - COMMON LAW UNFAIR COMPETITION

72. Plaintiffs hereby adopt and re-allege the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 

through 49 above.

73. This is an action against Defendants based on their promotion, advertisement, 

distribution, sale, and/or offering for sale of goods using or bearing marks which are virtually 

identical to one or more of the adidas Marks in violation of Florida’s common law of unfair 

competition.

74. Specifically, Defendants are promoting and otherwise advertising, selling, 

offering for sale, and distributing goods bearing counterfeits and infringements of one or more of 

the adidas Marks. Defendants are also using counterfeits and infringements of one or more of

the adidas Marks to unfairly compete with Plaintiffs and others for (i) space in search engine and 

social media results across an array of search terms and/or (ii) visibility on the World Wide Web.

75. Defendants’ infringing activities are likely to cause and actually are causing 

confusion, mistake, and deception among members of the trade and the general consuming 

public as to the origin and quality of Defendants’ ecommerce stores as a whole and all products 

sold therein by their use of the adidas Marks.

76. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and are suffering irreparable injury and 

damages as a result of Defendants’ actions.

COUNT V - COMMON LAW TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

77. Plaintiffs hereby adopt and re-allege the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 

through 49 above.

78. This is an action for common law trademark infringement against Defendants 

based on their promotion, advertisement, offering for sale, and sale of their Counterfeit Goods 

Case 0:20-cv-61146-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/11/2020 Page 20 of 27
21

bearing one or more of the adidas Marks. Plaintiffs are the owners of all common law rights in 

and to the adidas Marks. 

79. Specifically, Defendants are promoting and otherwise advertising, distributing, 

offering for sale, and selling goods using and bearing infringements of one or more of the adidas 

Marks.

80. Defendants infringing activities are likely to cause and actually are causing 

confusion, mistake and deception among members of the trade and the general consuming public 

as to the origin and quality of Defendants’ Counterfeit Goods bearing the adidas Marks. 

81. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and are suffering damages and 

irreparable injury as a result of Defendants’ actions.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

82. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment on all Counts of this Complaint and 

an award of equitable relief and monetary relief against Defendants as follows:

a. Entry of temporary restraining order, as well as preliminary and 

permanent injunctions pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 

enjoining Defendants, their agents, representatives, servants, employees, and all those acting in 

concert or participation therewith, from manufacturing or causing to be manufactured, importing, 

advertising or promoting, distributing, selling or offering to sell their Counterfeit Goods; from 

infringing, counterfeiting, or diluting the adidas Marks; from using the adidas Marks, or any 

mark or design similar thereto, in connection with the sale of any unauthorized goods; from 

using any logo, trade name or trademark or design which may be calculated to falsely advertise 

the services or goods of Defendants as being sponsored by, authorized by, endorsed by, or in any 

way associated with Plaintiffs; from falsely representing themselves as being connected with 

Case 0:20-cv-61146-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/11/2020 Page 21 of 27
22

Plaintiffs, through sponsorship or association, or engaging in any act which is likely to falsely 

cause members of the trade and/or of the purchasing public to believe any goods or services of 

Defendants are in any way endorsed by, approved by, and/or associated with Plaintiffs; from 

using any reproduction, counterfeit, infringement, copy, or colorable imitation of the adidas 

Marks in connection with the publicity, promotion, sale, or advertising of any goods sold by 

Defendants; from affixing, applying, annexing or using in connection with the sale of any goods, 

a false description or representation, including words or other symbols tending to falsely describe 

or represent Defendants’ goods as being those of Plaintiffs, or in any way endorsed by Plaintiffs 

and from offering such goods in commerce; from engaging in search engine optimization 

strategies using colorable imitations of Plaintiffs’ names or trademarks; and from otherwise 

unfairly competing with Plaintiffs.

b. Entry of a temporary restraining order, as well as preliminary and 

permanent injunctions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), The All Writs Act, and the Court’s

inherent authority, enjoining Defendants and all third parties with actual notice of an injunction 

issued by the Court from participating in, including providing financial services, technical 

services or other support to, Defendants in connection with the sale and distribution of nongenuine goods bearing and/or using counterfeits of the adidas Marks.

c. Entry of an order pursuant to 28 U.S.C §1651(a), The All Writs Act and 

the Court’s inherent authority, that, upon Plaintiffs’ request, the top level domain (TLD) Registry 

for each of the Subject Domain Names or their administrators, including backend registry 

operators or administrators, place the Subject Domain Names, and any other domains names 

being used and/or controlled by Defendants to engage in the business of marketing, offering to 

sell, and/or selling goods bearing counterfeits and infringements of the adidas Marks, on 

Case 0:20-cv-61146-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/11/2020 Page 22 of 27
23

Registry Hold status for the remainder of the registration period for any such domain name, thus 

removing them from the TLD zone files which link the Subject Domain Names, and any other 

domain names used by Defendants, to the IP addresses where the associated websites are hosted.

d. Entry of an order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), The All Writs Act, and 

the Court’s inherent authority, canceling for the life of the current registration or, at Plaintiffs’ 

election, transferring the Subject Domain Names, and any other domain names used by 

Defendants to engage in their counterfeiting of the adidas Marks, to Plaintiffs’ control so they 

may no longer be used for illegal purposes.

e. Entry of an order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), The All Writs Act, and 

the Court’s inherent authority, that, upon Plaintiffs’ request, the applicable governing Internet 

marketplace website operators and/or administrators for the Seller IDs who are provided with 

notice of an injunction issued by the Court disable and/or cease facilitating access to the Seller 

IDs, and any other alias seller identification names being used and/or controlled by Defendants 

to engage in the business of marketing, offering to sell and/or selling goods bearing counterfeits 

and infringements of the adidas Marks.

f. Entry of an order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), The All Writs Act, and 

the Court’s inherent authority, that, upon Plaintiffs’ request, any Internet marketplace website 

operators and/or administrators for the Seller IDs, who are provided with notice of an injunction 

issued by the Court identify any e-mail address known to be associated with Defendants’ 

respective Seller ID.

Case 0:20-cv-61146-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/11/2020 Page 23 of 27
24

g. Entry of an order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), The All Writs Act, and 

the Court’s inherent authority, that, upon Plaintiffs’ request, any Internet marketplace website 

operators and/or administrators who are provided with notice of an injunction issued by the 

Court permanently remove from the multiple platforms, which include, inter alia, a Direct 

platform, Group platform, Seller Product Management platform, Vendor Product Management 

platform, and Brand Registry platform, any and all listings and associated images of goods 

bearing counterfeits and/or infringements of the adidas Marks via the e-commerce stores 

operating under the Seller IDs, and upon Plaintiffs’ request, any other listings and images of 

goods bearing counterfeits and/or infringements of the adidas Marks associated with and/or 

linked to the same sellers or linked to any other alias seller identification names being used 

and/or controlled by Defendants to promote, offer for sale and/or sell goods bearing counterfeits 

and/or infringements of the adidas Marks.

h. Entry of an order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), The All Writs Act, and 

the Court’s inherent authority, that, upon Plaintiffs’ request, Defendants and any Internet 

marketplace website operators and/or administrators who are provided with notice of an 

injunction issued by the Court, immediately cease fulfillment of and sequester all goods of each 

Defendant bearing one or more of the adidas Marks in its inventory, possession, custody, or 

control, and surrender those goods to Plaintiffs.

i. Entry of an order requiring Defendants to account to and pay Plaintiffs for 

all profits and damages resulting from Defendants’ trademark counterfeiting and infringing and 

unfairly competitive activities and that the award to Plaintiffs be trebled, as provided for under 

15 U.S.C. §1117, or, at Plaintiffs’ election with respect to Count I, that Plaintiffs be awarded 

statutory damages from each Defendant in the amount of two million dollars ($2,000,000.00) per 

Case 0:20-cv-61146-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/11/2020 Page 24 of 27
25

each counterfeit trademark used and product type sold, as provided by 15 U.S.C. §1117(c)(2) of 

the Lanham Act.

j. Entry of an order requiring Defendant Number 102 to account to and pay 

Plaintiffs for all profits and damages resulting from Defendant Number 102’s cybersquatting 

activities and that the award to Plaintiffs be trebled, as provided for under 15 U.S.C. §1117, or, at 

Plaintiffs’ election with respect to Count III, that Plaintiffs be awarded statutory damages from 

Defendant Number 102 in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) per 

cybersquatted domain name used as provided by 15 U.S.C. §1117(d) of the Lanham Act.

k. Entry of an award pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117 (a) and (b) of Plaintiffs’ 

costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees and investigative fees associated with bringing this action.

l. Entry of an order that, upon Plaintiffs’ request, Defendants and any 

financial institutions, payment processors, banks, escrow services, money transmitters, or 

marketplace platforms, and their related companies and affiliates, identify and restrain all funds, 

up to and including the total amount of judgment, in all financial accounts and/or sub-accounts 

used in connection with the Seller IDs and Subject Domain Names or other alias seller 

identification or e-commerce store names, domain names, and/or websites used by Defendants 

presently or in the future, as well as any other related accounts of the same customer(s) and any 

other accounts which transfer funds into the same financial institution account(s), to be 

surrendered to Plaintiffs in partial satisfaction of the monetary judgment entered herein.

m. Entry of an award of pre-judgment interest on the judgment amount.

n. Entry of an order for any further relief as the Court may deem just and 

proper.

Case 0:20-cv-61146-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/11/2020 Page 25 of 27
26

DATED: June 11, 2020. Respectfully submitted,

STEPHEN M. GAFFIGAN, P.A.

By: Stephen M. Gaffigan__________

Stephen M. Gaffigan (Fla. Bar No. 025844)

Virgilio Gigante (Fla. Bar No. 082635)

T. Raquel Rodriguez-Albizu (Fla. Bar. No. 103372)

401 East Las Olas Blvd., #130-453

Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301

Telephone: (954) 767-4819

E-mail: stephen@smgpa.net

E-mail: leo@smgpa.net

E-mail: Raquel@smgpa.net

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 0:20-cv-61146-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/11/2020 Page 26 of 27
27

SCHEDULE “A”

[This page is the subject of Plaintiff’s Motion to File Under Seal. As such, this page has 

been redacted in accordance with L.R. 5.4(b)(1)]

Case 0:20-cv-61146-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/11/2020 Page 27 of 27