1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

RETROBRANDS USA, LLC, a Florida 

limited liability company 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

INVENTEL PRODUCTS, LLC, a New 

Jersey limited liability company, 

Defendant. 

___________________________________/ 

CASE NO. 0:20­cv­61582

COMPLAINT 

Plaintiff, Retrobrands USA, LLC (“Retrobrands”), files this lawsuit against Defendant, 

InvenTel Products, LLC (“InvenTel”), and states: 

PARTIES, JURISDICTION & VENUE 

1. Retrobrands is a Florida limited liability company having its principal place of 

business at 1771 Blount Road, Suite 203, Pompano Beach, FL 33069, and is otherwise sui juris. 

2. InvenTel is a New Jersey limited liability company having a principal place of 

business at 200 Forge Way, Unit 1, Rockaway, NJ 07866, and is otherwise sui juris. 

3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 15 U.S.C. §1121, 

and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a), because this case arises under the Trademark Act of 1946, as 

amended, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051, et seq. 

4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1332 as this matter exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is 

between citizens of different states. 

5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over InvenTel because it entered into 

agreements with Retrobrands whereby it agreed to be subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. 

Case 0:20-cv-61582-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 1 of 14
2 

6. Venue is proper in the Southern District of Florida because InvenTel entered into 

agreements with Retrobrands whereby it agreed that venue was proper in this Court. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

7. Jeffrey Kaplan is the founder, sole owner, and president of Retrobrands, and has 

been in the business of acquiring and relaunching formerly famous, but abandoned brands that still 

have consumer recognition, for many years. 

8. Germane to this lawsuit, Retrobrands is the owner of the well-known MR. 

MICROPHONE® and DASH® brands (collectively, the “Marks”). 

9. Retrobrands owns U.S. Trademark Registration No. 5752378 for MR. 

MICROPHONE®, for use in connection with “microphones.” 

10. Retrobrands owns U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 5845738 and 5916561 for 

DASH®, for use in connection with “all-purpose cleaning preparations” and “laundry detergents,” 

respectively. 

11. Retrobrands also owns World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) 

Registration No. 1296793 for DASH®, for use in connection with “all-purpose cleaning 

preparations.” 

Merchandising License Agreements with InvenTel 

12. On February 4, 2019, Retrobrands and InvenTel entered into two separate 

Merchandising License Agreements for the MR. MICROPHONE® and DASH® brands (the 

“License Agreements”)1, 

1

 Retrobrands has filed concurrently herewith a Motion for Leave to File Under Seal. Should said Motion be granted, 

ATM will file copies of the confidential License Agreements and related documents containing the confidential terms 

and conditions with the Court (Exhibits A through E hereto).

Case 0:20-cv-61582-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 2 of 14
3 

.

2

13. Both Agreements are identical in most respects. 

14. Under the MR MICROPHONE® Agreement, 

. 

A true and correct copy of the MR. MICROPHONE® Agreement is attached as Exhibit A.

15. Under the DASH® Agreement and Amendment (collectively referred to as the 

“DASH® Agreement”), 

. A true and correct copy 

of the DASH® Agreement and Amendment is attached as Exhibit B.

16. Unfortunately, InvenTel failed to adhere to several of its contractual obligations 

and failed to timely cure said breaches. Even worse, after Retrobrands terminated the Agreements, 

InvenTel has refused to cease use of the Marks. As such, Retrobrands has been forced to retain 

counsel in an effort to enforce InvenTel’s contractual obligations, and to file this lawsuit. 

InvenTel Breaches the Agreements 

 

2

 The DASH® Agreement was amended on February 19, 2020. 

Case 0:20-cv-61582-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 3 of 14
4 

 

 

 

 

Case 0:20-cv-61582-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 4 of 14
5 

 

 

 

 

32. InvenTel’s refusal to adhere to its contractual obligations has forced Retrobrands 

to engage counsel to attempt to secure InvenTel’s compliance with the Agreements, and to file and 

pursue the instant action. 

Case 0:20-cv-61582-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 5 of 14
6 

33. Therefore, Retrobrands is entitled to its attorneys’ fees incurred in pursuit of 

attempting to secure a remedy for InvenTel’s unlawful behavior. 

Retrobrands Terminates the Licenses; InvenTel Fails to Adhere to Post-Termination Obligations 

34. As a result of the foregoing breaches, and Retrobrands’ many unsuccessful good 

faith attempts to resolve same with InvenTel, on May 7, 2020, 

, Retrobrands’ counsel set a letter instructing InvenTel to cure its contractual breaches 

within 30 days, or the Agreements would be terminated. A true and correct copy of the letter is 

attached as Exhibit C.

35. InvenTel failed to respond. 

36. Accordingly, on June 16, 2020, Retrobrands wrote to confirm the termination of 

the Agreements, and made the following post-termination demands: 

a.

 

 

 

 

A true and correct copy of the letter is attached as Exhibit D.

Case 0:20-cv-61582-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 6 of 14
7 

37.

. 

38. On June 18, 2020, InvenTel’s representative emailed Retrobrands’ counsel 

asserting that the May 7, 2020 letter was not received, yet it is indisputable that InvenTel’s 

principal, Yasir Abdul, received the letter. Nevertheless, Retrobrands’ counsel forwarded said 

letter. 

39.

. 

41. On June 30, 2020, in an effort to “clean the slate,” Retrobrands sent InvenTel a 

proposal for new license agreements for the Marks. 

42. InvenTel failed to respond to same and has since failed to 

. 

43. Indeed, as of the date of this filing, InvenTel continues to advertise and sell MR. 

MICROPHONE® and DASH® products. See Composite Exhibit E. 

44. As a direct and proximate result of InvenTel’s acts complained of herein, 

Retrobrands has been forced to retain the undersigned law firm, and has agreed to pay said firm a 

reasonable fee for their services, and to pay all costs associated with the prosecution of this matter. 

COUNT I - Breach of Contract 

(MR. MICROPHONE® Agreement) 

45. Retrobrands realleges and reavers paragraphs 1-44 as if fully set forth herein. 

Case 0:20-cv-61582-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 7 of 14
8 

46. Retrobrands and InvenTel entered into a valid agreement 

 . 

47. Retrobrands has complied with all its obligations under the MR. MICROPHONE®

Agreement. 

48. InvenTel has breached the MR. MICROPHONE® Agreement, as further explained 

above, by, at a minimum, 

a.

49. Retrobrands has been monetarily damaged as a result of InvenTel’s breaches of the 

MR. MICROPHONE® Agreement. 

50. Moreover, InvenTel’s refusal to honor Retrobrands’ exclusive intellectual property 

rights has caused, and will continue to cause, irreparable harm. Each day that Retrobrands is 

deprived of its earned intellectual property rights causes irreparable injury. 

51. Retrobrands has no adequate remedy at law, especially because the property at issue 

are trademarks and goodwill that are being damaged. 

52. There is no remedy at law that can fully compensate Retrobrands for the deprivation 

Case 0:20-cv-61582-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 8 of 14
9 

of said intellectual property rights, and, in light of the facts of this case, there is a substantial 

likelihood that Retrobrands will succeed on the merits of the instant case. 

COUNT II - Breach of Contract 

(DASH® Agreement) 

53. Retrobrands realleges and reavers paragraphs 1-44 as if fully set forth herein. 

54. Retrobrands and InvenTel entered into a valid agreement for 

 . 

55. Retrobrands has complied will all its obligations under the DASH® Agreement. 

56. InvenTel has breached the DASH® Agreement, as further explained above, by, at a 

minimum, 

a.

57. Retrobrands has been monetarily damaged as a result of InvenTel’s breaches of the 

DASH® Agreement. 

58. Moreover, InvenTel’s refusal to honor Retrobrands’ exclusive intellectual property 

rights has caused, and will continue to cause, irreparable harm. Each day that Retrobrands is 

Case 0:20-cv-61582-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 9 of 14
10 

deprived of its earned intellectual property rights causes irreparable injury. 

59. Retrobrands has no adequate remedy at law, especially because the property at issue 

are trademarks and goodwill that are being damaged. 

60. There is no remedy at law that can fully compensate Retrobrands for the deprivation 

of said intellectual property rights, and, in light of the facts of this case, there is a substantial 

likelihood that Retrobrands will succeed on the merits of the instant case. 

COUNT III – Trademark Infringement 

61. Retrobrands realleges and reavers paragraphs 1-44 as if fully set forth herein.

62. Retrobrands is the legal and rightful owner of the MR. MICROPHONE® and 

DASH® Marks. 

63.

 

64. The Agreements terminated thirty days from May 7, 2020 (i.e. on June 6, 2020). 

65.

. 

66. These acts are in direct and willful violation of §43(a) of the Trademark Act of 

1946, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 1114, in that InvenTel has used the Marks in connection with the 

sale of products bearing said Marks which is likely to cause confusion, and to cause mistake, and 

to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of InvenTel with Retrobrands, and as to 

the origin, sponsorship, and approval of InvenTel’s products and commercial activities by 

Retrobrands.

Case 0:20-cv-61582-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 10 of 14
11 

67. InvenTel’s acts are being performed in willful, deliberate, and intentional disregard 

of Retrobrands’s rights in the Marks.

68. As a direct result of InvenTel’s actions and the likely confusion, mistake or 

deception, Retrobrands has suffered damages in an amount not yet determined.

69. Given its brazen disregard for Retrobrands’ rights, InvenTel’s conduct in this 

instance is exceptional, and, as such, Retrobrands should be entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees 

in this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) which provides, in part, that the “court in exceptional 

cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.”

70. Moreover, InvenTel’s refusal to honor Retrobrands’ exclusive intellectual property 

rights has caused, and will continue to cause, irreparable harm. Each day that Retrobrands is 

deprived of its earned intellectual property rights causes irreparable injury. 

71. Retrobrands has no adequate remedy at law, especially because the property at issue 

are trademarks and goodwill that are being damaged. 

72. There is no remedy at law that can fully compensate Retrobrands for the deprivation 

of said intellectual property rights, and, in light of the facts of this case, there is a substantial 

likelihood that Retrobrands will succeed on the merits of the instant case.

COUNT IV – Trademark Counterfeiting 

73. Retrobrands realleges and reavers paragraphs 1-44 as if fully set forth herein. 

74. Retrobrands is the legal and rightful owner of the MR. MICROPHONE® and 

DASH® Marks. 

75.

Case 0:20-cv-61582-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 11 of 14
12 

 

76. The Agreements terminated thirty days from May 7, 2020 (i.e. on June 6, 2020). 

77.

78. InvenTel’s acts are in direct and willful violation of §43(a) of the Trademark Act 

of 1946, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 1114, in that it has used the Marks in a spurious manner which 

is likely to cause confusion, and to cause mistake, and to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, 

or association of InvenTel with Retrobrands and as to the origin, sponsorship, and approval of 

InvenTel’s products and commercial activities by Retrobrands. 

79. InvenTel’s unlawful actions constitute trademark counterfeiting in violation of the 

Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114. 

80. InvenTel’s actions are being performed in willful, deliberate, and/or intentional 

disregard of Retrobrands’s rights in the Marks. 

81. As a direct result of InvenTel’s actions and the likely confusion, mistake or 

deception, Retrobrands has suffered damages in an amount not yet determined. 

82. InvenTel’s conduct in this instance is exceptional, and, as such, Retrobrands should 

be entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees in this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) which 

provides, in part, that the “court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the 

prevailing party.” 

83. Moreover, InvenTel’s refusal to honor Retrobrands’ exclusive intellectual property 

rights has caused, and will continue to cause, irreparable harm. Each day that Retrobrands is 

deprived of its earned intellectual property rights causes irreparable injury. 

84. Retrobrands has no adequate remedy at law, especially because the property at issue 

Case 0:20-cv-61582-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 12 of 14
13 

are trademarks and goodwill that are being damaged. 

85. There is no remedy at law that can fully compensate Retrobrands for the deprivation 

of said intellectual property rights, and, in light of the facts of this case, there is a substantial 

likelihood that Retrobrands will succeed on the merits of the instant case. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Retrobrands prays for judgment in their favor and against InvenTel 

containing the following provisions: 

A. A temporary and permanent injunction enjoining InvenTel, and all of those acting in 

concert with it, including, but not limited to, its agents, affiliates, subsidiaries, officers, 

directors, attorneys and employees 

 

 (d) requiring it to comply with all post-termination 

obligations; and (d) requiring it to file with the Court, and serve upon Retrobrands’ 

counsel, within thirty (30) days after entry of an order or judgment, a report, in writing, 

and under oath, setting forth, in detail, the manner and form in which InvenTel has 

complied with the requirements of the injunction and order; 

B. An award of damages, including enhanced damages, against InvenTel in an amount to 

be proven at trial, including pre- and post-judgment interest; 

Case 0:20-cv-61582-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 13 of 14
14 

C. An award of costs of suit, including attorneys’ and expert fees, expenses and 

disbursements; and 

D. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Retrobrands hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable as a matter of law. 

Respectfully submitted, 

THE CONCEPT LAW GROUP, P.A. 

6400 N. Andrews Ave., Suite 500 

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309 

Tel: 754.300.1500 

By: /s/ Adam S. Goldman 

Adam S. Goldman, Esq. 

Fla. Bar. No. 86761 

agoldman@conceptlaw.com

Alexander D. Brown, Esq. 

Fla. Bar No. 752665 

abrown@conceptlaw.com

Counsel for Retrobrands

Case 0:20-cv-61582-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 14 of 14