IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 

MCM ENTERTAINMENT, INC., 

MARIA CLAUDIA MOLINA, and 

LUNAMAR WELLNESS GROUP, 

LLC., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

DIAZ WORLD TRADE GROUP, INC. 

and MARCO DIAZ, Individually, 

Defendants. 

/ 

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, 

AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Plaintiffs, MCM Entertainment, Inc., Maria Claudia Molina, and Lunamar Wellness Group 

(herein after referred to as “Plaintiffs”) bring this Complaint for trademark infringement and unfair 

competition, against Defendants Diaz World Trade Group, Inc. (“DWTG”) and Marco Diaz 

(“Diaz”), individually, and allege as follows: 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. This is an action arising from, among other things, Defendants’ wrongful trademark 

infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition. Defendants utilized, and by information 

and belief Defendants continue to claim a right to Plaintiffs’ famous and distinctive marks in 

commerce, in connection with goods and in advertising and domain name web presence, in ways 

that are confusingly similar, dilutive, and likely to cause confusion, deception, and mistake with 

Plaintiffs’ trademarks. 

Case 1:22-cv-23189-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 1 of 36
2 

2. Defendants’ conduct has caused and continues to cause direct and indirect economic 

harm and damages to Plaintiffs, and irreparable injury with no adequate remedy at law. 

PLAINTIFFS 

3. Plaintiff, MCM Entertainment, Inc., is a Florida company with a place of business 

at 251-174th Street – Apartment 208, Sunny Isles, FL 33160. 

4. Plaintiff, Maria Claudia Molina (“Claudia Molina”), is a legal resident of the State 

of Florida and resides in Miami-Dade County. 

5. Plaintiff, Lunamar Wellness Group, LLC, is a Florida company with a place of 

business at 251-174th Street – Apartment 208, Sunny Isles, FL 33160. 

DEFENDANTS 

6. Defendant, Diaz World Trade Group, Inc. (“DWTG”), is a Florida company with a 

principal place of business at 8566 N.W. 93rd Street, Medley, Florida 33166. 

7. Defendant, Marco Diaz, (“Diaz”) is a legal resident of the State of Florida and 

resides in Miami-Dade County. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

8. This is an action for trademark infringement and unfair competition arising under 

§§ 1114 and 1125 of the Trademark Act of July 5, 1946, commonly known as the Lanham Act, 15 

U.S.C. §§ 1051, et seq.; and the laws of the State of Florida. 

9. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims in this Complaint 

pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1121 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338, and pursuant to the principles of 

supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 

10. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because (1) Defendants reside 

and have its principal place of business in this State; (2) the causes of action asserted in this 

Case 1:22-cv-23189-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 2 of 36
3 

Complaint arise out of Defendants’ contacts with Florida and this judicial district; and (3) 

Defendants have caused tortious injury to Plaintiff in Florida and this judicial district. 

11. Venue is proper in this judicial district per 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(2), (c)(2), and (d) 

because Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this judicial district. This Court has 

personal jurisdiction over Defendants as detailed above. Further, by information and belief, 

Defendants are selling products branded with the infringing trademarks in this judicial district via, 

among other places, its website. Additionally, the effects of the commission of torts outlined 

herein, including trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition, including in 

online trade channels, are occurring in, aimed at, and/or felt by Plaintiffs located in Miami-Dade, 

Florida, which is located in this judicial district. Venue is therefore proper in this Court because a 

substantial part of the events and tortious conduct giving rise to the claims herein occurred in this 

judicial district and Defendants’ misconduct occurred in this judicial district. The injury, harm, 

and damage Plaintiffs suffered and continues to experience has been inflicted in, and continues to 

be felt, in this District. 

12. Defendant DWTG conducts business in the State of Florida. 

13. Defendant DWTG renders and promotes its services (including services that 

infringe the Plaintiffs’ trademarks) in Florida, including into this judicial district. 

14. Defendants DWTG and Diaz realize pecuniary gains by sales of services 

(including those that infringe the Plaintiffs’ trademarks) into this judicial district. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

Plaintiffs’ Trademarks 

15. Plaintiffs’ own trademarks for shapewear, clothing, books, videos, skin and hair 

products, as well as, health supplements perfected by federal and common law. 

Case 1:22-cv-23189-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 3 of 36
4 

16. Since at least as early as 2007, Plaintiffs have used and are the rightful owners of 

The Marks CLAUDIA MOLINA (United States Trademark Registration No. 4536532), 

(United States Trademark Registration No. 6408787), CLAUDIA MOLINA (United States 

Trademark Registration No. 6408790), CUERPAZO FIT EN 45 DIAS (United States Trademark 

Registration No. 6409627), RETO CUERPAZO PARA SIEMPRE (United States Trademark 

Registration No. 6409633), and PELAZO (United States Trademark Serial No. 97442059) 

(hereinafter referred to as “The Marks”). 

17. Plaintiffs’ Marks are distinctive to the consuming public and Plaintiffs’ trade. 

18. Claudia Molina has established a long-standing over 20 year public career and 

reputation with the consuming public building brands through ownership of trademarks that are 

distinctive to her talent and social brand. 

19. Claudia Molina has utilized her name, face and talent and brand to promote and 

deliver high quality goods and products to the consuming public. 

20. Plaintiffs have expended substantial time, money, and resources testing, marketing, 

advertising, and promoting the goods sold under The Marks, including through Plaintiffs’ 

marketing, advertising and promotional efforts and channels for goods under The Marks. 

21. Plaintiffs have advertised and promoted physical fitness, personal care and related 

products under The Marks for many years, including as host of Univision’s Despierta America’s

Health and Wellness segment with a global Spanish-speaking audience, Univision 23 in Miami, 

Puerto Rico, Chicago, Univision radio, Univision República, Hola TV, Mega TV, RCN TV 

Colombia, People en Español, and many other guest appearances and social media 

platforms, including, but not limited to Youtube.com, Instagram.com, Facebook.com, and 

Claudiamolina.com. See links including but not limited to, 

Case 1:22-cv-23189-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 4 of 36
5 

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2493908607362691; https://youtu.be/h1W5RyfQ_mY; 

https://www.instagram.com/tv/CWoRLL0JtUn/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

22. The Marks are well-known with a valuable goodwill belonging exclusively to 

Plaintiffs. 

23. As a result of The Marks distinctiveness and widespread use and promotion 

throughout the United States, including the talent of Plaintiff, Maria Claudia Molina. The Marks 

are famous trademarks within the meaning of Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 

1125(c), and was famous prior to Defendants’ adoption of The Marks. 

24. Plaintiffs are the owners of valid and subsisting United States Trademark 

Registration No. 4536532 on the Principal Register for the trademark CLAUDIA MOLINA, with 

first date of use as of January 1, 2007, in connection with entertainment in the nature of live 

performances by actor, entertainer, host, fitness instructor; entertainment services, namely, live, 

televised and movie appearances by a professional entertainer; entertainment services, namely, 

providing a website featuring, photographic, audio and video presentations featuring fitness 

instruction; entertainment services, namely, personal appearances by actor, entertainer, host, 

fitness instructor; educational services, namely, instruction in the fields of fitness and nutrition; 

educational services, namely, providing instruction regarding personal fitness, nutrition, physical 

training; physical fitness and conditioning instruction and training featuring aerobic and anaerobic 

activities combined with resistance and flexibility training; providing live and televised exercise 

classes, body sculpting classes, group fitness classes, and group exercise instruction; providing 

information, instruction and advice over a global computer network on the subjects of exercise and 

fitness; providing instruction on the subject of nutrition. A copy of this registration, which remains 

in full force and effect with respect to the services in International Class 41 (U.S. CLS 100, 101 

Case 1:22-cv-23189-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 5 of 36
6 

and 107) and has become incontestable within the meaning of Section 15 of the Lanham Act, 15 

U.S.C. § 1065, is annexed hereto as Exhibit “A”. 

25. Plaintiffs are the owners of valid and subsisting United States Trademark 

Registration No. 6408787, on the Principal Register for the trademark CM Logo Registration, 

, with first date of use as of July 2016, in connection with body creams; body scrub; 

cosmetic body care preparations, namely, body gels; cosmetic body scrubs for the face, neck and 

hands; face creams for cosmetic use; hair balsam; hair care preparations; hair creams; hair lotions; 

hair shampoos and conditioners; hair spray; hair styling preparations; non-medicated anti-aging 

serum; skin and body topical lotions, creams and oils for cosmetic use; beauty creams for body 

care; liquid vitamin supplements; multi-vitamin preparations; powdered nutritional supplement 

drink mix containing vitamins, proteins, amino acids, collagen, organic spirulina, and organic 

chlorella; vitamin supplements; vitamin tablets; vitamin and mineral supplements; jeans; 

jumpsuits; leggings; pajamas; pants; shapewear; shirts; shorts; skirts; swimwear; underwear; 

athletic bottoms; athletic tops; jackets; sports caps and hats. The Mark consists of a depiction of 

initials “CM” which stands for Claudia Molina. A copy of this registration, which remains in full 

force and effect with respect to the services in International Classes 3, 5, and 25, and is annexed 

hereto as and is annexed hereto as Exhibit “B”. 

26. Plaintiffs are the owners of valid and subsisting United States Trademark 

Registration No. 6408790, on the Principal Register for the trademark CLAUDIA MOLINA, with 

first date of use July 2016, in connection with body creams; body scrub; cosmetic body care 

preparations, namely, body gels; cosmetic body scrubs for the face, neck and hands; face creams 

for cosmetic use; hair balsam; hair care preparations; hair creams; hair lotions; hair shampoos and 

conditioners; hair spray; hair styling preparations; non-medicated anti-aging serum; skin and body 

Case 1:22-cv-23189-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 6 of 36
7 

topical lotions, creams and oils for cosmetic use; beauty creams for body care; liquid vitamin 

supplements; multi-vitamin preparations; powdered nutritional supplement drink mix containing 

vitamins, proteins, amino acids, collagen, organic spirulina, and organic chlorella; vitamin 

supplements; vitamin tablets; vitamin and mineral supplements; jeans; jumpsuits; leggings; 

pajamas; pants; shapewear; shirts; shorts; skirts; swimwear; underwear; athletic bottoms; athletic 

tops; jackets; sports caps and hats. A copy of this registration, which remains in full force and 

effect with respect to the services in International Classes 3, 5 and 25, and is annexed hereto as 

Exhibit “C”. 

27. Plaintiffs are the owners of valid and subsisting United States Trademark 

Registration No. 6409627, on the Principal Register for the trademark CUERPAZO FIT EN 45 

DIAS in the Mark is “HOT BODY FIT IN 45 DAYS”, with first date of use May 2019, in 

connection with providing fitness training services in the field of, namely, a website featuring 

exercise programs and information on physical fitness, exercise to achieve a toned and fit body; 

providing a website featuring information on exercise and fitness; providing a website featuring 

non-downloadable articles in the field of health and fitness, including nutritional tips with meal 

plans, recipes, tips for healthy habits and supplementation, and videos with exercise routines. A 

copy of this registration, which remains in full force and effect with respect to the services in 

International Class 41 (U.S. CLS 100, 101 and 107), and is annexed hereto as Exhibit “D”. 

28. Plaintiffs are the owners of valid and subsisting United States Trademark 

Registration No. 6409633, on the Principal Register for the trademark of the Mark RETO 

CUERPAZO PARA SIEMPRE in the Mark is "HOT BODY CHALLENGE FOREVER", with 

first date of use January 1, 2018, in connection with providing fitness training services in the field 

of losing weight, losing body fat and reaching an ideal weight; providing a website featuring 

Case 1:22-cv-23189-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 7 of 36
8 

information on exercise and fitness; providing a website featuring non-downloadable articles in 

the field of health, fitness, and dietary challenges including nutritional tips with meal plans, 

recipes, tips for healthy habits and supplementation, and videos with exercise routines. A copy of 

this registration, which remains in full force and effect with respect to the services in International 

Class 41 (U.S. CLS 100, 101 and 107), and is annexed hereto as Exhibit “E”. 

29. Plaintiffs are the owners of United States Trademark Application Serial No. 

97442059, for the trademark PELAZO, in the Mark is “GREAT HAIR”, was filed on June 3, 2022, 

in connection with providing hair care creams; hair care lotions; hair care preparations; hairwashing powder; hair balsam; hair cleaning preparations; hair conditioner; hair creams; hair 

dressings for men; hair lacquers; hair mousse; hair mousses; hair nourishers; hair oils; hair 

products, namely, thickening control creams; hair relaxers; Hair rinses; hair shampoo; hair spray; 

hair straightening preparations; hair styling gel; hair styling preparations; hair styling spray; hair 

tonics; non-medicated hair serums; non-medicated hair care preparations; oils for hair 

conditioning; styling gels for enhancing hair. A true and correct printout from the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office’s electronic database showing the current status and title of The 

Mark is annexed hereto as Exhibit “F.” 

Defendants’ Unauthorized Use of Plaintiffs’ Trademarked Products

30. Plaintiffs are the owners of www.shop.claudiamolina.com and use this domain 

under www.shopify.com to sell products under The Marks. This domain was used and related to 

Plaintiffs’ products by way of the online store. By information and belief, Defendants, without the 

knowledge, consent or permission of Plaintiffs, purchased the domain name 

www.shopclaudiamolina.com through www.GoDaddy.com. By information and belief, 

Defendants re-directed the use of www.shopclaudiamolina.com away from Plaintiffs’ Shopify 

Case 1:22-cv-23189-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 8 of 36
9 

online store where Defendants would benefit monetarily without Plaintiffs knowledge, consent or 

permission. Defendants’ unlawful and illegitimate use of The Marks have created an unauthorized 

benefit to Defendants thereby causing harm to Plaintiffs. Defendants’ action and conduct are 

wrongful, improper and illegal. A true and correct copy of www.GoDaddy.com showing the resale 

of www.shopclaudiamolina.com is annexed hereto as Exhibit “G”. 

The Agreements 

31. On April 7, 2018, MCM Entertainment, Inc., f/s/o Maria Claudia Molina p/k/a 

Claudia Molina (“Licensor”) and Diaz World Trade Group, Inc. (“Licensee”) entered into a certain 

Retail Merchandising Agreement (hereinafter referred to as “First Agreement”) authorizing DWTG 

to manufacture and distribute Plaintiffs’ shapewear and sportswear in all 50 states in the United 

States, Latin America and the Caribbean related to The Marks in connection with services covered 

by United States Trademark Registration No. 4,536,532. 

32. Such First Agreement, which acknowledged that use of The Marks inured to the 

benefit of Plaintiffs and required that Defendant DWTG provide Plaintiffs with the following: 

(a) copies of all consumer data from the Official Online Store; (b) timely accounting including 

detailed written statements indicating for each of the licensed products; (c) the gross sales amounts; 

(d) any applicable fees and/or taxes against such gross sales; (e) Defendant DWTG’s selling price 

of the applicable licensed products; (f) quantity of sales; (g) the royalties due to Plaintiffs, (h) any 

other information necessary to enable Plaintiffs to calculated and verify the accuracy of the 

royalties payable; (i) any other information requested by Plaintiffs from time to time; (j) accurate 

and timely receipt of statement(s) and payment(s) of invoices to Plaintiffs’; (k) interest on late 

payments due to Plaintiffs; (l) to maintain proper records and books of accounts and keep accounts 

separate from any other products unrelated to Plaintiffs; (m) allow Plaintiffs and or authorized 

Case 1:22-cv-23189-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 9 of 36
10 

representatives access to inspect and copy accounts and access DWTG’s place of business and 

warehouse; (n) audit of accounts; (o) the responsibility for paying Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys’ 

fees and the fees of any independent accountant incurred by the Plaintiffs or its representatives 

related to incorrect reporting of sales and/or stored products by DWTG to Plaintiffs; and (p) 

preservation of accounts for a period not less than six (6) years. 

33. Defendant DWTG unequivocally acknowledged and agreed that Plaintiffs are the 

proprietors of trademarks registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office 

34. Defendant DWTG was strictly prohibited from use of Plaintiffs’ trademarks at any 

time or in a manner likely to prejudice their legal protection or validity or cause confusion as to 

the ownership of Plaintiffs’ trademarks. 

35. Defendant was required to obtain prior written consent of Plaintiffs to use the name 

of Plaintiffs or any trademarks, indications of origin, copyright material, character names or 

appearances of characters belonging to Plaintiffs, whether or not specifically related to the licensed 

properties. 

36. Defendant DWTG was prohibited during and after the term of the Agreement from 

taking any action that might invalidate the trademarks or copyrights, impair any of Plaintiffs’ rights 

in or to the trademarks or copyrights, or create any rights adverse to those of Plaintiffs in the 

trademarks or copyrights. 

37. During or after the term of the Agreement, Defendant DWTG was and is strictly 

prohibited from challenging Plaintiffs’ title or rights in or to the trademarks or copyrights, or assert 

the invalidity or contest any use or any registration by Plaintiffs of the trademarks or copyrights; 

and required to protect them from third-party infringement; ensuring Plaintiffs’ copyright is not 

invalidated or impaired of any of Plaintiffs’ rights in nor create any right adverse to those of 

Case 1:22-cv-23189-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 10 of 36
11 

Plaintiffs in the trademarks or copyrights. A true and correct copy of the Retail Merchandising 

License Agreement dated April 7, 2018 is attached hereto as Exhibit “H”. 

38. On September 7, 2018, MCM Entertainment, Inc., f/s/o Maria Claudia Molina p/k/a 

Claudia Molina (“Licensor”) and Diaz World Trade Group, Inc. (“Licensee”) entered into a certain 

Retail Merchandising Agreement (hereinafter referred to as “Second Agreement”) allowing DWTG 

to distribute the brand of Claudia Molina products that included body treatments and body creams, 

to handle customer service, to collect taxes and shipping from customers and pick and pack services 

related to The Marks in connection with services covered by United States Trademark Registration 

Nos. 6,408,787 and 6,408,790. A true and correct copy of the Retail Merchandising License 

Agreement dated September 7, 2018 is attached hereto as Exhibit “I”. 

39. On September 12, 2019, MCM Entertainment, Inc., f/s/o Maria Claudia Molina 

p/k/a Claudia Molina (“Licensor”) and Diaz World Trade Group, Inc. (“Licensee”) entered into a 

certain Retail Merchandising Agreement (hereinafter referred to as “Third Agreement”) for the 

sourcing, sale and retailing of Plaintiffs’ trademarked protein and BCAA products in connection 

with services covered by United States Trademark Registration Nos. 6,408,787 and 6,408,790. A 

true and correct copy of the Retail Merchandising License Agreement dated September 12, 2019 

is attached hereto as Exhibit “J”. 

40. On October 10, 2018, without Plaintiffs knowledge or consent, Defendants, Marco 

Diaz and DWTG clandestinely and unlawfully entered into a Mutual Confidentiality, NonSolicitation and Exclusivity Agreement with Plato Rosinke, Julien Marie Incorporated and New 

World Nutritionals (hereinafter collectively referred to as “New World Nutritionals”) for 

distribution of Plaintiffs’ trademarked products under the brand Claudia Molina (“CM and/or 

Case 1:22-cv-23189-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 11 of 36
12 

Maria Claudia Molina and/or MCM Entertainment Inc and/or Lunamar Wellness Group LLC and 

its related companies). 

41. Plaintiffs are the true owners of all confidential and proprietary documents, 

formulas, and products under The Marks that Defendants have compromised by entering into the 

clandestine agreement with New World Nutritionals. A true and correct copy of the Mutual 

Confidentiality, Non-Solicitation and Exclusivity Agreement dated October 10, 2018, is attached 

hereto as Exhibit “K”. 

Harm to Plaintiffs and the Public

42. By virtue of extensive recognition, the high quality of products offered under The 

Marks, Plaintiffs’ incontestable trademark registration and other trademark registrations, as well as 

Plaintiffs’ reputation and hard work, The Marks are famous and widely recognized in the United 

States and beyond as high quality products originating exclusively from Plaintiffs. 

43. The Marks have become an intrinsic and essential part of the valuable goodwill and 

property of Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ name, image and brand are well-established and well-known to 

customers who trust and value the name “Claudia Molina”. Therefore, only Plaintiffs and expressly 

authorized agents may use The Marks. 

44. Defendants’ activities against The Marks falsely suggest that Defendants have 

ownership and/or licensing rights which Defendants do not have. 

45. Furthermore, Defendants’ wrongful acts create a likelihood of confusion as to the 

name, brand, image, reputations, affiliation, ownership of the products and dilution of The Marks. 

46. Defendants’ unlawful and illegitimate use of The Marks have created an 

unauthorized benefit to Defendants thereby causing harm to Plaintiffs. Defendants’ action and 

conduct are wrongful, improper and unlawful. 

Case 1:22-cv-23189-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 12 of 36
13 

47. Defendants’ bad acts have irreparably harmed The Marks and, if not enjoined, will 

continue to irreparably harm Plaintiffs and the goodwill associated with its name, brand, image and 

products. 

48. Defendants’ bad acts have irreparably harmed The Marks and, if not enjoined, will 

continue to irreparably harm consumers and the general public, who have an inherent interest in 

being free from confusion, mistake and deception. 

49. Plaintiffs have retained the undersigned law firm and have agreed to pay it a 

reasonable fee for its service. 

50. All conditions precedent to the institution of these proceedings have been satisfied, 

excused, or waived. 

COUNT I 

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT UNDER THE LANHAM ACT, 15. U.S.C. § 1114(1) 

51. Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 50 as if fully set forth 

herein. 

52. Plaintiffs are the owners of federal trademark registrations in the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office, which is subsisting. 

53. Defendants’ acts have injured Plaintiffs’ use of The Marks and is likely to cause 

confusion, mistake and deception among consumers, the public and the trade as to whether 

Defendants’ services are affiliated with, sponsored by, or endorsed by Plaintiffs. 

54. Confusion of source or sponsorship of Defendants’ use of The Marks is inevitable 

based on the fact that from its inception Defendants’ use of such marks in connection with the 

services was pursuant to Agreements authorizing use of said Marks under the direction and control 

of Plaintiffs. At all times relevant to these proceedings, Defendants’ were aware of Plaintiffs’ rights 

in The Marks and the U.S. applications and registrations directed thereto. 

Case 1:22-cv-23189-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 13 of 36
14 

55. Defendants have acted with actual or constructive knowledge of Plaintiffs’ rights 

in The Marks and registrations and, upon information and belief, with deliberate intention to 

confuse consumers. 

56. As a result of its unauthorized use of The Marks, Defendants have made and will 

continue to mark profits and/or gains to which they are not entitled. 

57. Defendants’ actions, as set forth above, constitute infringement of Plaintiffs’ 

trademark registrations in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1114(1). 

COUNT II 

FEDERAL UNFAIR COMPETITION UNDER 

THE LANHAM ACT, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) 

58. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 50 as if fully set 

forth herein. 

59. Plaintiffs have secured rights in The Marks in the United States prior to any use of 

the same by Defendants. 

60. At all times relevant to these proceedings and pursuant to the Agreements all use 

of The Marks for the services by Defendants have inured to the benefit of Plaintiffs. Defendants 

have no rights in The Marks. 

61. Defendants’ continued use of The Marks without authorization and without 

submitting to Plaintiffs’ direction and control constitutes unfair competition in violation of 15 

U.S.C. § 1125(a). 

62. Defendants’ offering of the services under The Marks is likely to cause confusion, 

mistake, and deception among the public. 

63. Defendants’ use of the infringing marks falsely represents that their services and 

goods are connected or associated with the services and goods of Plaintiffs, all to the harm and 

Case 1:22-cv-23189-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 14 of 36
15 

damage to Plaintiffs’ own goodwill in The Marks. Such willful and intentional conduct on the 

part of Defendants places Plaintiffs’ own reputation beyond its control, thereby causing irreparable 

injury to Plaintiffs and amounts to unfair competition under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 

U.S.C. § 1125(a). 

64. Defendants’ willful and infringing conduct has caused, is causing, and will cause, 

irreparable harm to Plaintiffs’ trademark rights and that conduct will continue unless enjoined by 

the Court. Moreover, Plaintiffs are without an adequate remedy at law to halt such ongoing 

unlawful conduct. 

Plaintiffs are entitled to entry of permanent injunctive relief restraining and enjoining 

Defendants pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116. 

COUNT III 

TRADEMARK DILUTION UNDER THE LANHAM ACT, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c) 

65. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 50 as if fully set 

forth herein. 

66. The use of The Marks in the United States has been the subject of considerable 

publicity and promotion, and as a result such marks have become widely known and recognized 

by the general consuming public. 

67. The Marks were famous and garnered recognition prior to any unauthorized use of 

such marks by Defendants. 

68. Defendants’ full knowledge of the renown of The Marks have capitalized on such 

renown to promote its business. Defendants have used and by information and belief continue to 

use The Marks in commerce in connection with the advertisement, promotion, sale and profit of 

the services under the Agreements. 

Case 1:22-cv-23189-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 15 of 36
16 

69. Defendants’ actions as described herein have caused and continue to cause 

irreparable injury to, and a likelihood of dilution of the distinctive quality of, The Marks in 

violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under 15 U.S.C. §1125(c) and common law. 

70. Defendants’ wrongful use of Plaintiffs’ trademarks is likely to impair the distinctive 

nature of those marks and to tarnish the reputation built with said marks. 

71. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered 

irreparable harm to The Marks. Unless Defendants are enjoined, the valuable marks will continue 

to be irreparably harmed and are likely to be diluted. 

COUNT IV 

VIOLATION OF FLORIDA’S DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE 

PRACTICES ACT, CHAPTER 501, PART II, FLORIDA STATUTES 

72. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 50 as if fully set 

forth herein. 

73. Section 501.204(1), Florida Statutes states “[u]nfair methods of competition, 

unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any 

trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.” 

74. Defendants have infringed The Marks in violation of its trademark rights. 

75. Defendants’ deliberate use of The Marks without authorization or knowledge of 

Plaintiffs is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, 

connection, sponsorship or association of Defendants with Plaintiffs, or as to the origin, 

sponsorship or approval of Defendants’ services. 

76. Defendants’ deliberate conduct is likely to result in consumers purchasing 

Defendants’ products in the mistaken belief that the same originate with or are offered under the 

auspices of Plaintiffs. 

Case 1:22-cv-23189-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 16 of 36
17 

77. Moreover, Defendants are withholding product that can expire or otherwise spoil 

which could cause further impact by among other things, diminishing the value of the brands and 

Marks and the reputation of Plaintiff Maria Claudia Molina. 

78. Plaintiffs have placed Defendants on notice of same and Defendants refuse to 

respond as of the date of the filing of this complaint. 

79. Such actions constitute unfair competition under Florida common law and have 

caused, and will continue to cause Plaintiffs to sustain damage. 

80. As a result of Defendants’ violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade 

Practices Act, Plaintiffs have and will continue to be damaged. 

81. Defendants have engaged in wanton, willful and wrongful acts and practices when 

they knew or should have known that such acts and practices were unfair or deceptive or otherwise 

prohibited by law. Moreover, Plaintiffs are without an adequate remedy at law to halt such 

unlawful conduct. 

COUNT V 

TRADEMARK DILUTION UNDER 

SECTION 495.151, FLORIDA STATUTES 

82. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 50 as if fully set 

forth herein. 

83. The Marks are famous within the State of Florida and beyond. 

84. The Marks have been the subject of substantial advertising and promotional 

expenditure and have garnered substantial publicity. 

85. Plaintiff, Maria Claudia Molina, a celebrity in the media profession is the face of 

The Marks, thereby providing media attention, that benefit the advertising, promotion, sale, and 

profit of the products. 

Case 1:22-cv-23189-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 17 of 36
18 

86. The Marks have been used and/or continue to be used in the State of Florida and 

elsewhere by Defendants on behalf of Plaintiffs without Plaintiffs’ consent or knowledge. 

87. The Marks are inherently distinctive and have also acquired significant distinction 

and goodwill in the State of Florida by means of use and advertisement of The Marks and 

associated services throughout Florida since at least January of 2007. 

88. Unless Defendants are enjoined, the value of The Marks will continue to be 

irreparably harmed and are likely to be diluted in the State of Florida and beyond. 

COUNT VI 

BREACH OF CONTRACT

89. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 50 as if fully set 

forth herein. 

90. Defendants undertook the duty to perform certain contractual obligations under the 

Agreements. The terms of these contracts between Plaintiffs and Defendants include, but are not 

limited to, Defendants acknowledgment that Plaintiffs are the proprietors of trademarks registered 

with the United States Patent and Trademark Office and DWTG will not use the Plaintiffs’ 

trademarks at any time or in a manner likely to prejudice their legal protection or validity, nor 

cause confusion as to the ownership of Plaintiffs’ trademarks. 

91. Defendant DWTG agreed that it would not, without the written consent of 

Plaintiffs, make use of the name of Plaintiffs or any trademarks, indications of origin, copyright 

material, character names or appearances of characters belonging to Plaintiffs, whether or not 

specifically related to the licensed properties. 

92. Defendant DWTG further agreed that during or after the term of the Agreement, it 

would not take any action that might invalidate the trademarks or copyrights, impair any of 

Case 1:22-cv-23189-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 18 of 36
19 

Plaintiffs’ rights in or to the trademarks or copyrights, or create any rights adverse to those of 

Plaintiff in the trademarks or copyrights. 

93. Defendant DWTG also agreed that during or after the term of the Agreement, it 

would not challenge Plaintiffs’ title or rights in or to the trademarks or copyrights, or assert the 

invalidity or contest any use or any registration by Plaintiffs of the trademarks or copyrights; 

protection from third-party infringement; ensuring Plaintiffs’ copyright is not invalidated or impair 

any of Plaintiffs’ rights in or to the trademarks or copyrights or create any right adverse to those 

of Plaintiffs in the trademarks or copyrights. 

94. At all times relevant herein, Defendants breached the valid and enforceable 

contractual obligations by, inter alia, engaging in alternate financial agreements with third-parties; 

claimed creative rights to The Marks; and sold Plaintiffs’ products under The Marks under 

alternate third-party agreements. Each act constitutes a material breach as they are inconsistent 

with the terms of all of the Agreements referenced herein. 

95. At all times material, Plaintiffs have complied with all of the obligations under all 

of these contractual Agreements. As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs have been harmed 

as a result of these material breaches and now seeks liquidated damages, pursuant to the 

Agreements. 

COUNT VII 

TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP 

AS TO MARCO DIAZ

96. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 50 as if fully set 

forth herein. 

97. Plaintiffs had a contractual relationship with Defendants prior to Defendant Diaz 

entering into any agreements with New World Nutritionals. Under the terms of the pre-existing 

Case 1:22-cv-23189-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 19 of 36
20 

contract between Plaintiffs and Defendants, Defendants acknowledged that Plaintiffs are the 

proprietors of trademarks registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office and that 

Defendant DWTG would not use the Plaintiffs’ trademarks at any time or in a manner likely to 

prejudice their legal protection or validity, nor cause confusion as to the ownership of Plaintiffs’ 

trademarks. 

98. Defendant DWTG agreed that it would not, without the written consent of 

Plaintiffs, make use of the name of Plaintiffs or any trademarks, indications of origin, copyright 

material, character names or appearances of characters belonging to Plaintiffs, whether or not 

specifically related to the licensed properties. 

99. Defendant DWTG further agreed that during or after the term of the Agreement, it 

would not take any action that might invalidate the trademarks or copyrights, impair any of 

Plaintiffs’ rights in or to the trademarks or copyrights, or create any rights adverse to those of 

Plaintiff in the trademarks or copyrights. 

100. Defendant DWTG also agreed that during or after the term of the Agreement, it 

would not challenge Plaintiffs’ title or rights in or to the trademarks or copyrights, or assert the 

invalidity or contest any use or any registration by Plaintiffs of the trademarks or copyrights; and 

required to protect them from third-party infringement; ensuring Plaintiffs’ copyright is not 

invalidated or impaired of any of Plaintiffs’ rights in nor create any right adverse to those of 

Plaintiffs in the trademarks or copyrights. 

101. At all times relevant herein, Defendant Diaz was fully knowledgeable of the 

business and contractual relationship between Plaintiffs and Defendant DWTG. Notwithstanding 

that knowledge, Defendant Diaz encouraged, facilitated, assisted, and caused Defendant DWTG 

to breach its agreement with Plaintiffs. Concurrently, Defendant Diaz was aware that The Marks 

Case 1:22-cv-23189-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 20 of 36
21 

are the lawful property of the Plaintiffs which have been registered with the United States Patent 

and Trademark Office. A true and correct copy of the Mutual Confidentiality, Non-Solicitation 

and Exclusivity Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit “K”. 

102. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Diaz’ infringing conduct alleged 

herein, Plaintiff have sustained, and will continue to sustain substantial, immediate, and irreparable 

injury, for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Unless Defendant Diaz’ infringing conduct 

is enjoined by this Court, Defendant Diaz will continue to infringe The Marks at issue. 

103. Plaintiffs are entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief restraining and 

enjoining Defendant Diaz’ ongoing infringing conduct, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116. 

COUNT VIII 

ACCOUNTING AND DAMAGES 

104. Plaintiffs readopt and reallege the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 50 

as if fully set forth herein. 

105. This is an action for an accounting and damages and is directed to Defendants Diaz 

World Trade Group, Inc. and Marco Diaz. 

106. On or about April 7, 2018, MCM Entertainment, Inc., f/s/o Maria Claudia Molina 

p/k/a Claudia Molina (“Licensor”) and Diaz World Trade Group, Inc. (“Licensee”) entered into a 

certain Retail Merchandising Agreement (hereinafter referred to as “First Agreement”) authorizing 

DWTG to manufacture and distribute Plaintiffs’ shapewear and sportswear in all 50 states in the 

United States, Latin America and the Caribbean related to The Marks in connection with services 

covered by United States Trademark Registration No. 4,536,532. 

107. The First Agreement, which acknowledged that use of The Marks inured to the 

benefit of Plaintiffs and required that Defendant DWTG provide Plaintiffs with the following: (a) 

copies of all consumer data from the Official Online Store; (b) timely accounting including 

Case 1:22-cv-23189-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 21 of 36
22 

detailed written statements indicating for each of the licensed products; (c) the gross sales amounts; 

(d) any applicable fees and/or taxes against such gross sales; (e) Defendant DWTG’s selling price 

of the applicable licensed products; (f) quantity of sales; (g) the royalties due to Plaintiffs, (h) any 

other information necessary to enable Plaintiffs to calculated and verify the accuracy of the 

royalties payable; (i) any other information requested by Plaintiffs from time to time; (j) accurate 

and timely receipt of statement(s) and payment(s) of invoices to Plaintiffs’; (k) interest on late 

payments due to Plaintiffs; (l) to maintain proper records and books of accounts and keep accounts 

separate from any other products unrelated to Plaintiffs; (m) allow Plaintiffs and or authorized 

representatives access to inspect and copy accounts and access DWTG’s place of business and 

warehouse; (n) audit of accounts; (o) the responsibility for paying Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys’ 

fees and the fees of any independent accountant incurred by the Plaintiffs or its representatives 

related to incorrect reporting of sales and/or stored products by DWTG to Plaintiffs; and (p) 

preservation of accounts for a period not less than six (6) years. 

108. On September 7, 2018, MCM Entertainment, Inc., f/s/o Maria Claudia Molina p/k/a 

Claudia Molina (“Licensor”) and Diaz World Trade Group, Inc. (“Licensee”) entered into a certain 

Retail Merchandising Agreement (hereinafter referred to as “Second Agreement”) allowing DWTG 

to distribute the brand of Claudia Molina products that included body treatments and body creams, 

to handle customer service, to collect taxes and shipping from customers and pick and pack services 

related to The Marks. See Exhibit “I.” 

109. On September 12, 2019, MCM Entertainment, Inc., f/s/o Maria Claudia Molina 

p/k/a Claudia Molina (“Licensor”) and Diaz World Trade Group, Inc. (“Licensee”) entered into a 

certain Retail Merchandising Agreement (hereinafter referred to as “Third Agreement”) for the 

sourcing, sale and retailing of Plaintiffs’ trademarked protein and BCAA products. See Exhibit “J.” 

Case 1:22-cv-23189-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 22 of 36
23 

110. On October 10, 2018, Defendants, Marco Diaz and DWTG entered into a Mutual 

Confidentiality, Non-Solicitation and Exclusivity Agreement with Plato Rosinke, Julien Marie 

Incorporated and New World Nutritionals (hereinafter collectively referred to as “New World 

Nutritionals”) for distribution of Plaintiffs’ trademarked products under the brand Claudia Molina 

(“CM and/or Maria Claudia Molina and/or MCM Entertainment Inc and/or Lunamar Wellness 

Group LLC and its related companies) without Plaintiffs’ knowledge, consent or approval. See

Exhibit “K.” 

111. Defendants have failed to provide an accounting as required by the Agreements 

between the parties. 

112. By information and belief, Defendants have materially breached and tortiously 

interfered with the contracts as set forth herein. 

113. By information and belief, Defendants have been: 

a. Misappropriating and misusing revenues and profits thereby depriving 

Plaintiffs revenues and profits; and/or 

b. Misappropriating and misusing revenues and profits for personal gain in 

an unauthorized manner, thereby depriving Plaintiffs of revenues and 

profits; and/or 

c. Engaging in the unauthorized sale and use of Plaintiffs’ products; and/or 

d. Unlawfully withholding Plaintiffs’ products; and/or 

e. unlawfully challenging Plaintiffs’ title or rights in or to the trademarks or 

copyrights, or asserted the invalidity or contest any use or any registration 

by Plaintiffs of the trademarks or copyrights; and/or 

f. violating the Agreements between the parties thereby jeopardizing and 

otherwise creating diminishment in value of Plaintiffs’ Marks and/or loss 

of profits; and/or 

g. clandestinely entering into at least one third-party agreement in violation 

of the Agreement with Plaintiffs. 

Case 1:22-cv-23189-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 23 of 36
24 

114. As a direct result of the breaches and violations of the Agreements between 

Plaintiffs and Defendants, as a result of the tortious interference with the Agreements, and the 

unaccounted for misappropriation of funds, the Plaintiffs have suffered damages and losses, 

including but not limited to, loss of revenues and profits from the Defendants misappropriation 

and diversion of same; violation of the Agreements and deprivation of valuable rights under the 

Agreements by Defendants. These damages are well in excess of the sum of Seventy-Five 

Thousand ($75,000.00) Dollars and are believed to be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, for 

which the Defendants, are liable. 

115. By information and belief, the Defendants, have diverted, used and expended for 

unauthorized, unaccounted and/or unlawful purposes a large portion of this money, as well as the 

continuing revenues and profits from the sale of Plaintiffs’ products. 

116. Plaintiffs do not know and are ignorant of the various transactions and transfers of 

diverted monies and the ultimate whereabouts of assets, customer lists, revenues and profits as a 

result of all the Defendants’ illegal and unauthorized actions and threatened use of Plaintiffs’ 

intellectual property rights, including, but not limited to, Claudia Molina’s name and likeness. 

117. Defendants have restricted Plaintiffs’ access to its online store thereby prohibiting 

Plaintiffs’ lawful right to its products, inventory, customer lists, revenue and profits under the 

Agreements. 

118. Defendants have refused to account for inventory of Plaintiffs’ products of which 

many have expiration dates that will prevent the products from being sold. This further exposes 

Plaintiffs to losses, including, but not limited to, the diminishment of the value of The Marks. 

119. Plaintiffs demand upon Defendants, to account for all sums of money and to further 

account for all of the requirements under the agreements between the parties. 

Case 1:22-cv-23189-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 24 of 36
25 

COUNT IX 

CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST

120. Plaintiffs readopt and reallege the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 50 

as though more fully set forth herein. 

121. Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into Agreements identified above. At the time 

the parties entered into the Agreements, a relationship of trust existed between and amongst them. 

122. Defendants took advantage of their relationship of trust with Plaintiffs through 

fraud, or by abuse of confidence, reposed and accepted, such that the Defendants gained something 

for themselves which in equity and good conscience they should not be permitted to hold which 

includes extensive inventory of Plaintiffs’ products. 

123. Defendants have wrongfully misappropriated Plaintiffs’ monies due and owing and 

products and are using Plaintiffs’ products under The Marks for their own benefit and/or use. 

124. The monies due and owing include Plaintiffs’ percentage for sales in May 2022 and 

June 2022 that Defendants refuse to provide, are estimated at over $196,000.00. 

125. Defendants have exercised and taken dominion, control and custody over Plaintiffs’ 

products and have excluded and deprived Plaintiffs access to the products and proceeds of the sale 

of products. 

126. It is unjust for Defendants to be allowed to retain the proceeds from the sale of 

Plaintiffs’ products and the inventory products under The Marks, as Defendants acquired same 

deceitfully and in an otherwise wrongful manner. 

127. Unless a constructive trust is imposed over the proceeds of the sale and inventory 

of Plaintiffs’ products, Defendants would be unjustly enriched at the expense of Plaintiffs. 

Case 1:22-cv-23189-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 25 of 36
26 

128. A constructive trust is necessary as there is no other adequate and speedy remedy 

at law that can prevent Defendants, from removing or depleting the aforesaid products once and 

for all. 

COUNT X 

APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER

129. Plaintiffs readopt and reallege the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 50 

and 118 through 125 as though more fully set forth herein. 

130. The Court should appoint a Receiver and direct such Receiver to take possession 

of the products and inventory and preserve and protect the assets, revenues and profits from further 

issue by Defendants; to take control of the products/inventory and preserve and protect the assets, 

revenues and profits from further misuse by Defendants during the pendency of these proceedings 

and further request that the Receiver be required to account to Plaintiffs for Defendants’ misuse, 

waste of assets and misappropriation of funds. 

COUNT XI 

VIOLATION OF DEFEND TRADE SECRETS ACT (DTSA)

131. Plaintiffs readopt and reallege the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 50 

as though more fully set forth herein. 

132. Defendants have engaged in the actual or threatened misappropriation of Plaintiffs’ 

Marks and Confidential Information, in violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), 18 

U.S.C. § 1836, et seq. 

133. The Confidential Information is related to products provided by Plaintiffs that are 

used in and intended for use in interstate commerce. 

134. Defendants, among other things, clandestinely entered into a contract with 

manufacturer New World Nutritionals without Plaintiffs’ knowledge or consent. 

Case 1:22-cv-23189-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 26 of 36
27 

135. Moreover, Defendants without authorization entered into an agreement and 

provided confidential formulas of Plaintiffs’ products to New World Nutritionals that 

compromised the integrity and ownership of the products under The Marks. 

136. Defendants’ actions were intentional, willful, outrageous and malicious, justifying 

the imposition of injunctive relief and actual and exemplary damages. 

COUNT XII 

MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRETS AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

137. Plaintiffs readopt and reallege the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 50 

as though more fully set forth herein. 

138. Defendants have engaged in the actual or threatened misappropriation of Plaintiffs’ 

Confidential Information, in violation of common law and the Florida Uniform Trade Secrets Act., 

Chapter 688.001, et seq. 

139. Defendants’ actions were and continue to be intentional, willful, outrageous and 

malicious, justifying the imposition of injunctive relief and actual and exemplary damages. 

COUNT XIII 

FRAUD 

140. Plaintiffs readopt and reallege the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 

139 as though more fully set forth herein. 

141. Defendants intentionally entered into an Agreement with New Word Nutritionals 

and violated the Agreements with Plaintiffs. 

142. Defendants by way of the Agreements with Plaintiffs, agreed to protect Plaintiffs 

from third-party infringement; agreed to ensure Plaintiffs’ copyright would not be invalidated or 

impaired and agreed, among other things, not to create any right adverse to those of Plaintiffs in 

the trademarks or copyrights. 

Case 1:22-cv-23189-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 27 of 36
28 

143. Defendants made numerous, repeated false statements of fact, actions and/or 

omissions, including, but not limited to, (a) Defendants claims that they have title or rights in 

Plaintiffs trademarks; (b) purchasing the domain name www.shopclaudiamolina.com through 

www.GoDaddy.com to clandestinely divert customers to Defendants domain instead of Plaintiffs 

www.shop.claudiamolina.com and use this domain under www.shopify.com to sell products under 

The Marks; and (c) clandestinely behind the back of Plaintiffs entering into a contract with 

manufacturer New World Nutritionals for financial gain at the detriment of Plaintiffs; 

144. Defendants omitted to disclose material information which, if disclosed, would 

have revealed Defendants scheme to defraud Plaintiffs, including (i) Defendants’ intent to directly 

benefit from Plaintiffs’ Marks without knowledge and consent of Plaintiffs; (ii) Defendants’ 

intentional violation of the Agreements entered into with Plaintiffs; (iii) Defendants intent to 

financially benefit from Plaintiffs’ products without Plaintiffs’ knowledge or consent; and (iv) 

Defendants intent to distribute, sell, profits, and comprise Plaintiffs’ products under The Marks. 

145. The statements of fact, misrepresentations and omissions were known by 

Defendants to be false and misleading at the time they were made or omitted to be disclosed. 

146. The false statements, misrepresentations and omissions were made for the purpose 

of inducing Plaintiffs to rely upon them in the course of conducting its business, and Plaintiffs did 

in fact rely upon the truth of the statements and misrepresentations. 

147. Defendants’ scheme to defraud Plaintiffs by false statements, misrepresentations, 

omissions of fact and concealment of activities have caused the loss of business, reputation, and 

customer and supplier goodwill. 

Case 1:22-cv-23189-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 28 of 36
29 

148. The actions of Defendants were intentional, willful, outrageous and malicious, 

justifying the imposition of not only compensatory damages and injunctive relief but also 

attorneys’ fees and costs and punitive damages. 

COUNT XIV 

UNJUST ENRICHMENT 

149. Plaintiffs readopt and reallege the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 50 

as though more fully set forth herein. 

150. Defendants have failed to pay Plaintiffs for profits from sales of products from at 

least May 2022 to the present. 

151. Defendants have withheld Plaintiffs’ products/inventory without justification even 

after demand for same. 

152. Defendants have claimed creative rights and continued use of The Marks without 

authorization and without submitting to Plaintiffs’ direction. 

153. Defendants have engaged in clandestine agreement(s) with third parties and have 

revealed confidential information that have harmed Plaintiffs. 

154. Defendants have sold Plaintiffs’ products under The Marks under alternate thirdparty agreement(s). 

155. As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs have been unjustly harmed. 

156. Circumstances were such that Defendants knew or reasonably should have known 

that Plaintiffs would expect payments from Defendants for the sales and for the monies accepted 

and conferred on Defendants. 

157. Defendants have accepted, used, enjoyed and benefited from the monies and 

products rendered. The benefit of the monies withheld and products Defendants are holding 

constitutes unjust enrichment. 

Case 1:22-cv-23189-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 29 of 36
30 

158. Defendants have refused and continue to refuse to pay Plaintiffs the monies or 

provide the products held in inventory. It is inequitable for Defendants to retain the benefits 

without paying the value thereof to Plaintiffs. 

COUNT XV 

PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

159. Plaintiffs readopt and reallege the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 50 

as though more fully set forth herein. 

160. This is an action for injunctive relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

65. 

161. Plaintiffs seek the issuance of preliminary and permanent injunction requiring 

Defendants to perform under the Agreements, including Defendants’ obligation to keep 

confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret information. 

162. Plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its claims against 

Defendants, including for breach of the Agreements. 

163. A substantial threat of irreparable injury to Plaintiffs exists if Defendants are not 

required to abide by the terms of the Agreements and restrict the dissemination of confidential 

information which is essential to Plaintiffs’ products and The Marks. 

164. The actual and threatened injury, loss, or damage to Plaintiffs far outweighs any 

prejudice that Defendants may suffer as a result of the entry of a preliminary or permanent 

injunction. 

165. The issuance of preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Defendants to 

perform obligations under the Agreements, including, but not limited to, keeping confidential 

certain proprietary and/or trade secret information would best serve the public interest. 

166. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. 

Case 1:22-cv-23189-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 30 of 36
31 

167. Security in the amount of $5,000 is appropriate. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs MCM ENTERTAINMENT, INC., MARIA CLAUDIA 

MOLINA, and LUNAMAR WELLNESS GROUP, LLC., request: 

A. That this Court hold that Defendants have infringed Plaintiffs’ trademarks 

as identified in paragraph 16 herein; 

B. That this Court adjudge that Defendants have unfairly competed with 

Plaintiffs under 15 U.S.C. §1125(a) by the use of the identical marks without authorization; 

C. That this Court adjudge that Plaintiffs are the owners of The Marks that are 

being diluted under 15 U.S.C. §1125(c); 

D. That the Court adjudge that one or more of The Marks is famous in the State 

of Florida and that the famous mark(s) are being diluted under Florida State Law; 

E. That this Court hold that there is a substantial likelihood that Defendants 

will continue such unlawful activities unless immediately and permanently enjoined from 

doing so; 

F. That this Court grant a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining 

DWTG and Diaz and its’ agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and those persons in 

active concert or participation with them, or any of them, from infringement of The Marks, 

and from engaging in unfair trade practices, including enjoining all use of The Marks, or 

any other colorable imitation of Plaintiffs’ Trademarks, whether as a mark, metatag, 

keyword, name, or domain name, or variation of domain name; or component of a mark, 

metatag, keyword, name or variation or domain name, or in any other manner likely to 

cause confusion with Plaintiffs’ marks; 

Case 1:22-cv-23189-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 31 of 36
32 

G. That this Court order Defendants to surrender immediately for destruction 

all products and packaging that depict the infringing marks, and other materials constituting 

infringement of Plaintiffs’, in Defendants’ possession, custody or control pursuant to 15 

U.S.C. § 1118; 

H. That all damages sustained by Plaintiffs by trebled and that Defendants be 

compelled to pay damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a); 

I. That because of the exceptional nature of the case and the willful and 

intentional nature of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, the Court award Plaintiffs reasonable 

attorneys’ fees and costs in accordance with 15 U.S.C. §1117(a). 

J. That the Defendants be directed to account to the Plaintiffs for all funds and 

product received, sold and/or shipped or assigned by the Defendants in connection with the 

Agreements; 

K. That the Defendants be directed to account for all of the Defendants’ acts in 

accordance with the Agreements and otherwise provide copies of all consumer data from 

the Official Online Store; monthly calendar accountings including detailed written 

statements indicating for each of the licensed products, without limitation, the gross sales 

amounts, any applicable fees and/or taxes against such gross sales, DWTG’s selling price 

of the applicable licensed products, quantity of sales, the royalties due to Plaintiffs, and 

any other information necessary to enable Plaintiffs to calculated and verify the accuracy 

of the royalties payable; accurate receipt of statement) and payment of invoices and 

shipping fees to Plaintiffs; interest on late payments due to Plaintiffs; provide proper 

records and books of accounts; allow access to inspect and copy accounts and access 

Case 1:22-cv-23189-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 32 of 36
33 

DWTG’s place of business and warehouse in furtherance of conducting an audit of 

accounts; 

L. That the Plaintiffs have judgment against the Defendants for all sums or 

balances found to be due and owing the Plaintiffs from the Defendants; 

M. That a constructive trust on all monies dispersed or to be dispersed from the 

sale of the products or monies transferred into any bank account or other tangible or 

intangible asset and any sums as may be found to have been wrongfully taken from the 

Plaintiffs; 

N. That a Receiver be appointed to take control of the products/inventory and 

preserve and protect the assets, revenues and profits from further misuse by the Defendants. 

O. Enjoin, temporarily and preliminarily, Defendants to preserve and not 

destroy any originals or copies of all files, documents and/or data containing any 

confidential, proprietary or trade secret information of Plaintiffs as well as all 

communications, documents and/or data referring or relating to Plaintiffs’ products. 

P. Enjoin, temporarily, preliminarily and permanently thereafter, Defendants 

from directly or indirectly using, disclosing or retaining any confidential, proprietary or 

trade secret information of Plaintiffs. 

Q. Enjoin, temporarily, preliminarily and permanently following a final order 

of this Court, Defendants from soliciting, doing business with, selling to, any of Plaintiffs’ 

products which are confidential and protected as intellectual property; 

R. Enjoin, temporarily, preliminarily and permanently from communicating 

with prospective client, customer or accounts, who have purchased or have been solicited 

with Plaintiffs’ products, including, but not limited to providing a customer list; 

Case 1:22-cv-23189-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 33 of 36
34 

S. Order Defendants to return to Plaintiffs all Plaintiffs’ confidential, 

proprietary or trade secret information and produce for inspection and analysis all personal 

computers, smartphones, thumb drives and any other digital media storage devices in 

Defendants’ possession or control; 

T. Order Defendants to provide a detailed accounting of all funds and other 

benefits of economic value attributable directly or indirectly to the activities of selling 

Plaintiffs’ products; 

U. Enter final judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor and against Defendants for 

monetary damages, including, but not limited to, all amounts necessary to compensate 

Plaintiffs for Defendants’ wrongful activities, including profits corresponding to Plaintiffs 

from sales, including those since May 2022 and all of the monies that may be determined 

to be owed upon an accurate accounting, and any and all damages as well as reasonable 

attorneys’ fees and costs and pre - and post-judgment interest; 

V. Enter final judgment in Plaintiffs favor and against Defendants for punitive 

or exemplary damages and pre - and post-judgment interest for Defendants’ willful and 

malicious conduct, as well as for preliminary and permanent injunction as requested 

hereunder; and 

W. That Plaintiffs have such other and further relief as this Court deems just 

and proper. 

Case 1:22-cv-23189-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 34 of 36
35 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38, Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues so 

triable. 

ROIG LAWYERS 

44 W. Flagler Street, Suite 2100 

Miami, FL 33130 

Tel: (305) 405-0997 

Pleadings@roiglawyers.com

Nbellido@roiglawyers.com 

By: /s/ Nelson C. Bellido 

 Nelson C. Bellido

 Fla. Bar. No. 974048 

- and - 

ALBERT BORDAS, P.A. 

5975 Sunset Drive, Suite 705 

Miami, FL 33143 

Tel: (305) 669-9848 

albert@bordasiplaw.com 

By: /s/ Albert Bordas 

 Albert Bordas

 Fla. Bar. No. 330220 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Case 1:22-cv-23189-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 35 of 36
36

VERIFICATION

I, Maria Claudia Molina, hereby certify as follows:

1. I am the President of MCM ENTERTAINMENT, INC. and LUNAMAR 

WELLNESS GROUP, LLC., and as such, I am authorized to make this Verification on behalf of 

Plaintiffs.

2. I have read the attached Verified Complaint and based on my personal knowledge 

and my knowledge of information reported to me, and in my capacity, the factual allegations 

regarding the events contained in the Verified Complaint are true and correct.

3. I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America 

that the foregoing statements made by me are true and correct.

____________________________

MARIA CLAUDIA MOLINA

9/30/2022

Case 1:22-cv-23189-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 36 of 36