IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Shenzhenjiermaoyiyouxiangongsi, )

A Chinese Corporation )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

The Partnerships And )

Unincorporated Associations )

Identified On Schedule “A” )

)

Defendants. )

)

__________________________________ )

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Shenzhenjiermaoyiyouxiangongsi, a Chinese Corporation (hereinafter,

“Plaintiff”) hereby brings the present action against The Partnerships And Unincorporated

Associations Identified on Schedule “A” attached hereto, (collectively, “Defendants”) and

alleges as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over the claims in this action

pursuant to the provisions of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051, et seq., 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) –

(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

2. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, and this Court may

properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendants since each of the Defendants directly

targets business activities toward consumers in the United States, including Florida, through at

1

Case 0:22-cv-62215-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/25/2022 Page 1 of 16
least the fully interactive, commercial Internet stores operating under the Defendant Names/

Aliases in Schedule A attached hereto (collectively, the “Defendant Internet Stores”).

Specifically, Defendants reach out to do business with Florida residents by operating one or more

commercial, interactive Defendant Internet Stores through which Florida residents can purchase

products bearing infringing versions of Plaintiff’s federally registered Ma&Baby trademark.

Each of the Defendants has targeted sales from Florida residents by operating online stores that

offer shipping to the United States, including Florida, accept payment in U.S. dollars and, on

information and belief, has sold products that infringe Plaintiff’s federally registered trademark.

Each of the Defendants is committing tortious acts in Florida, is engaging in interstate

commerce, and has wrongfully caused Plaintiff substantial injury in the State of Florida.

INTRODUCTION

3. This action has been filed by Plaintiff to combat online e-commerce store operators

who trade upon Plaintiff’s reputation and goodwill by selling and/or offering for sale products in

connection with Plaintiff’s Ma&Baby trademark, which received Registration No. 5,457,379

from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on May 1, 2018 for use with goods in Class 25

(“Ma&Baby” or “Mark” or “Ma&Baby Mark” hereinafter). The Ma&Baby Registration is valid,

subsisting, and in full force and effect. A true and correct copy of the federal trademark

registration certificate for the Ma&Baby Mark is attached hereto as Exhibit One.

4. The Defendants create numerous Defendant Internet Stores and design them to appear

to be selling genuine Plaintiff’s products, while selling inferior imitations of Plaintiff’s products.

These Defendants offer for sale products under the Ma&Baby Mark with a large selection of

sizes and colors to choose from, reflecting a seemingly limitless inventory of products. The

Defendant Internet Stores share unique identifiers, such as design elements and similarities of the

2

Case 0:22-cv-62215-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/25/2022 Page 2 of 16
infringing products offered for sale, establishing a logical relationship between them and

suggesting that Defendants’ illegal operations arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or

series of transactions or occurrences. Defendants attempt to avoid liability by going to great

lengths to conceal both their identities and the full scope and interworking of their illegal

operation. Plaintiff is forced to file this action to combat Defendants’ infringement and/or

counterfeiting of Plaintiff’s registered Ma&Baby Mark as well as to protect unknowing

consumers from purchasing unauthorized Ma&Baby products over the internet. Plaintiff has

been and continues to be irreparably damaged through consumer confusion, dilution, and

tarnishment of its valuable Ma&Baby Mark as a result of Defendants’ actions and seeks

injunctive and monetary relief.

5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over each Defendant, in that each Defendant

conducts significant business in the United States, in Florida and in this Judicial District, and the

acts and events giving rise to this lawsuit of which each Defendant stands accused were

undertaken in Florida and in this Judicial District. In addition, each defendant has offered to sell

and ship infringing products into this Judicial District.

THE PLAINTIFF

6. Plaintiff Shenzhenjiermaoyiyouxiangongsi (hereinafter, “Plaintiff”) is a Chinese

Corporation having its principal place of business in D301-2, #3 Keji Road, Pingshan District,

Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province, China.

7. At all times relevant, Plaintiff has marketed and sold clothing items in Class 25

(“Ma&Baby Products”) through the Walmart.com e-commerce platform, as well as various other

e-commerce platforms, utilizing the Ma&Baby Mark. Sales and revenue derived from

merchandise sold under the Ma&Baby Mark have been significant.

3

Case 0:22-cv-62215-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/25/2022 Page 3 of 16
8. Plaintiff is the owner of all rights, title and interest in and to the Ma&Baby Mark, U.S.

Trademark Registration No. 5,457,379. See Exhibit 1. The registration is valid, subsisting,

unrevoked and uncancelled. The registration for the Ma&Baby Mark constitutes prima facie

evidence of validity and of Plaintiff’s exclusive right to use the Ma&Baby Mark pursuant to 15

U.S.C. § 1057(b).

9. As detailed below, Plaintiff has been using the Mark since February 14, 2016, in

connection with the advertising and sale of Plaintiff’s Products in interstate and foreign

commerce, including commerce in the State of Florida and the Southern District of Florida.

10. The Ma&Baby Mark has been widely promoted, both in the United States and

throughout the world.

11. Genuine products bearing the Ma&Baby Mark are distributed through Plaintiff’s

internet stores on the Walmart.com platform, as well as other e-commerce platforms. Sales of

Plaintiff’s Ma&Baby Products via Plaintiff’s internet stores represent the entirety of Plaintiff’s

business. The internet stores feature proprietary content, images and designs exclusive to

Plaintiff.

12. The Ma&Baby Mark has never been assigned or licensed to any of the Defendants in

this matter.

13. Plaintiff’s Ma&Baby Mark is a symbol of Plaintiff’s quality, reputation and goodwill

and has never been abandoned.

14. Further, Plaintiff has expended substantial time, money and other resources

developing, advertising and otherwise promoting the Ma&Baby Mark.

4

Case 0:22-cv-62215-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/25/2022 Page 4 of 16
THE DEFENDANTS

15. Plaintiff is currently unaware of the identity and/or location of Defendants. However,

on information and belief, Defendants are individuals and business entities who reside in the

People’s Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions. Defendants conduct business

throughout the United States, including within Florida and in this Judicial District, through the

operation of the fully interactive commercial websites and online marketplaces operating under

the Defendant Internet Stores identified in Schedule A, attached hereto. Each Defendant targets

the United States, including Florida, and has offered to sell and/or has sold and/or continues to

sell infringing and/or counterfeit Ma&Baby Products (“Infringing Products”) to consumers

within the United States, including Florida and in this Judicial District.

16. On information and belief, Defendants, either individually or jointly, operate one or

more e-commerce stores including, and possibly not limited to, those listed in Schedule A

attached hereto. Tactics used by Defendants to conceal their identities and the full scope of their

operation make it virtually impossible for Plaintiff to learn Defendants’ true identities and the

exact interworking of their network. If Defendants provide additional credible information

regarding their identities, Plaintiff will take appropriate steps to amend the Complaint.

17. This lack of precise information notwithstanding, it is well established that

e-commerce sales, including through e-commerce stores like those of Defendants, have resulted

in a sharp increase in the shipment of unauthorized products into the United States. See Exhibit

Two, Fiscal Year 2018 U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) Intellectual Property

Seizure Statistics Report. Over 90% of all CBP intellectual property seizures were smaller

international mail and express shipments (as opposed to large shipping containers). Id. Over 85%

of CBP seizures originated from mainland China and Hong Kong. Id. Counterfeit and pirated

5

Case 0:22-cv-62215-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/25/2022 Page 5 of 16
products account for billions in economic losses, resulting in tens of thousands of lost jobs for

legitimate businesses and broader economic losses, including lost tax revenue.

18. Further, third party service providers like those used by Defendants do not adequately

subject new sellers to verification and confirmation of their identities, allowing counterfeiters to

“routinely use false or inaccurate names and addresses when registering with these e-commerce

platforms.” See Exhibit Three, Daniel C.K. Chow, Alibaba, Amazon, and Counterfeiting in the

Age of the Internet, 40 NW. J. INT’L L. & BUS. 157, 186 (2020); see also report on “Combating

Trafficking in Counterfeit and Pirated Goods” prepared by the U.S. Department of Homeland

Security’s Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans (Jan. 24, 2020), attached as Exhibit Four, and

finding that on “at least some e-commerce platforms, little identifying information is necessary

for a counterfeiter to begin selling” and recommending that “[s]ignificantly enhanced vetting of

third-party sellers” is necessary. Counterfeiters hedge against the risk of being caught and having

their websites taken down from an e-commerce platform by preemptively establishing multiple

virtual store-fronts. See Exhibit Four at 22. Since platforms generally do not require a seller on a

third-party marketplace to identify the underlying business entity, counterfeiters can have many

different profiles that can appear unrelated even though they are commonly owned and operated.

See Exhibit Four at 39. Further, “E-commerce platforms create bureaucratic or technical hurdles

in helping brand owners to locate or identify sources of counterfeits and counterfeiters.” See

Exhibit Three at 186–187.

19. On information and belief, Defendants have engaged in fraudulent conduct when

registering the Defendant Internet Stores by providing false, misleading and/or incomplete

information to Internet based e-commerce platforms. On information and belief, certain

Defendants have anonymously registered and maintained Defendant Internet Stores to prevent

6

Case 0:22-cv-62215-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/25/2022 Page 6 of 16
discovery of their true identities and the scope of their counterfeiting and infringement network.

20. On information and belief, Defendants regularly register or acquire new seller aliases

for the purpose of offering for sale and selling the Infringing Products. Such seller alias

registration patterns are one of many common tactics used by the Defendants to conceal their

identities and the full scope and interworking of their counterfeiting and infringement operation,

and to avoid being shut down.

21. Even though Defendants operate under multiple fictitious aliases, the e-commerce

stores operating as the Defendant Internet Stores often share unique identifiers, such as templates

with common design elements. E-commerce stores operating as the Defendant Internet Stores, or

other currently unknown aliases, include other notable common features such as use of the same

registration patterns, accepted payment methods, check-out methods, keywords, illegitimate

search engine optimization (SEO), advertising tactics, similarities in price and quantities, the

same incorrect grammar and misspellings, and/or the use of the same text and images.

Additionally, Infringing Products offered for sale by the Defendant Internet Stores bear similar

irregularities and indicia of being counterfeit to one another, suggesting that the Infringing

Products were manufactured by and come from a common source and that Defendants are

interrelated.

22. On information and belief, Defendants are in constant communication with each other

and regularly participate in QQ.com and WeChat chat rooms and through websites such as

sellerdefense.cn regarding tactics for operating multiple accounts, evading detection, pending

litigation, and potential new lawsuits.

23. Infringers and counterfeiters such as Defendants typically operate under multiple

seller aliases and payment accounts so that they can continue operation in spite of Plaintiff’s

7

Case 0:22-cv-62215-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/25/2022 Page 7 of 16
enforcement efforts. On information and belief, Defendants maintain off-shore bank accounts

and regularly move funds from their financial accounts to off-shore accounts outside the

jurisdiction of this Court to avoid payment of any monetary judgment awarded to Plaintiff.

Indeed, analysis of financial transaction logs from previous similar cases indicates that off-shore

counterfeiters regularly move funds from U.S.-based financial accounts to off-shore accounts

outside the jurisdiction of this Court.

24. On information and belief, Defendants are an interrelated group of counterfeiters

working in active concert to knowingly and willfully manufacture, import, distribute, offer for

sale, and sell the Infringing Products in the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions

or occurrences. Defendants, without any authorization or license from Plaintiff, knowingly and

willfully used and continue to use the Ma&Baby Mark in connection with the advertisement,

distribution, offering for sale, and sale of infringing products into the United States and Florida

over the Internet.

25. In sum, Plaintiff’s investigation shows that the telltale signs of an illegal

counterfeiting ring are present in the instant action. For example, Schedule A shows the use of

store names by the Defendant Internet Stores that have the appearance of being fabricated. Even

if a company name appears to be legitimate, review of the Defendant Internet Stores reveals

vague or non-existent company descriptions and descriptions of company purpose. Thus, the

Defendant Internet Stores are using fake online storefronts designed to appear to be selling

genuine Plaintiff’s Products while they are actually selling inferior imitations of Plaintiff’s

Products.

26. Defendants’ unauthorized use of the Ma&Baby Mark in connection with the

advertising, distribution, offering for sale, and sale of Infringing Products, including the sale of

8

Case 0:22-cv-62215-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/25/2022 Page 8 of 16
Infringing Products into the United States, including Florida, is likely to cause and has caused

confusion, mistake, and deception by and among consumers and is irreparably harming Plaintiff.

DEFENDANTS’ UNLAWFUL CONDUCT

27. The success of Plaintiff’s Ma&Baby brand has resulted in its counterfeiting and

infringement. Plaintiff has identified numerous domain names linked to marketplace listings on

certain platforms including the Defendant Internet Stores, which were offering for sale, selling,

and importing counterfeit and/or Infringing Products to consumers in Florida, this Judicial

District, and throughout the United States. Defendants have persisted in creating the Defendant

Internet Stores.

28. Upon information and belief, Defendants facilitate sales by designing the

Defendant Internet Stores so that they appear to unknowing consumers to be authorized online

retailers, outlet stores, or wholesalers selling genuine Ma&Baby items. This is particularly true

where the Defendants have utilized the same e-commerce platform, Walmart.com, as Plaintiff.

Many of the Defendant Internet Stores look sophisticated and accept payment in U.S. dollars via

credit cards, Western Union and PayPal. Defendant Internet Stores often include images and

design elements that make it very difficult for consumers to distinguish such counterfeit sites

from that of an authorized retailer. Defendants further perpetuate the illusion of legitimacy by

offering customer service and using indicia of authenticity and security that consumers have

come to associate with authorized retailers. Plaintiff has not licensed or authorized Defendants to

use its Ma&Baby Mark and none of the Defendants are authorized retailers of genuine

Ma&Baby products.

29. Upon information and belief, Defendants also deceive unknowing consumers by

using the Ma&Baby Mark without authorization within the content, text, and/or meta tags of

9

Case 0:22-cv-62215-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/25/2022 Page 9 of 16
their websites to attract various search engines crawling the Internet looking for websites

relevant to consumer searches for Ma&Baby Products. Additionally, upon information and

belief, Defendants use other unauthorized search engine optimization (SEO) tactics and social

media spamming so that the Defendant Internet Stores listings show up at or near the top of

relevant search results and misdirect consumers searching for genuine Ma&Baby Products.

30. Defendants often go to great lengths to conceal their identities and often use multiple

fictitious names and addresses to register and operate their massive network of Defendant

Internet Stores. For example, to avoid detection, Defendants register Defendant Internet Stores

using names and physical addresses that are incomplete, contain randomly typed letters, or fail to

include cities or states. Upon information and belief, Defendants regularly create new websites

and online marketplace accounts on various platforms using the identities listed in Schedule A to

the Complaint, as well as other unknown fictitious names and addresses. Such Defendant

Internet Store registration patterns are one of many common tactics used by the Defendants to

conceal their identities, the full scope and interworking of their massive counterfeiting operation,

and to avoid being shut down.

31. There are also similarities among the Defendant Internet Stores. For example, some

of the Defendant websites have virtually identical layouts. In addition, the counterfeit and/or

infringing products for sale in the Defendant Internet Stores bear similarities and indicia of being

related to one another, suggesting that the counterfeit and/or Infringing Products were

manufactured by and come from a common source and that, upon information and belief,

Defendants are interrelated. For example, Defendants use the same e-commerce platform as

Plaintiff. The Defendant Internet Stores also include other notable common features on the same

e-commerce platform, including use of the same domain name registration patterns, unique

10

Case 0:22-cv-62215-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/25/2022 Page 10 of 16
shopping cart platforms, accepted payment methods, check-out methods, illegitimate SEO

tactics, identically or similarly priced items and volume sales discounts, similar hosting services,

similar name servers, and the use of the same text and images.

32. Defendants in this case and defendants in other similar cases against online

counterfeiters use a variety of other common tactics to evade enforcement efforts. For example,

counterfeiters like Defendants will often register new domain names or online marketplace

accounts under new aliases once they receive notice of a lawsuit. Counterfeiters also typically

ship products in small quantities via international mail to minimize detection by U.S. Customs

and Border Protection.

33. Further, counterfeiters such as Defendants typically operate multiple credit card

merchant accounts and vendor accounts, such as PayPal accounts, behind layers of payment

gateways so that they can continue operation in spite of Plaintiff’s enforcement efforts. Upon

information and belief, the foreign Defendants maintain off-shore bank accounts and regularly

move funds from their payment accounts to off-shore bank accounts outside the jurisdiction of

this Court. Indeed, analysis of payment transaction logs from previous similar cases indicates

that offshore counterfeiters regularly move funds from U.S.-based accounts to China-based bank

accounts outside the jurisdiction of this Court.

34. Defendants, without any authorization or license from Plaintiff, have knowingly and

willfully used and continue to use the Ma&Baby Mark in connection with the advertisement,

distribution, offering for sale, and sale of counterfeit and infringing products into the United

States and Florida over the Internet. Each Defendant Internet Store offers shipping to the United

States, including Florida, and, on information and belief, each Defendant has offered to sell

counterfeit and/or infringing Ma&Baby Products into the United States, including Florida.

11

Case 0:22-cv-62215-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/25/2022 Page 11 of 16
35. Defendants’ use of the Ma&Baby Mark in connection with the advertising,

distribution, offering for sale, and sale of counterfeit products, including the sale of counterfeit

and infringing Ma&Baby Products into Florida, is likely to cause and has caused confusion,

mistake, and deception by and among consumers and is irreparably harming Plaintiff.

COUNT I

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AND COUNTERFEITING

(15 U.S.C. §1114)

36. Plaintiff repleads and incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in

the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

37. This is a trademark infringement action against Defendants based on their

unauthorized use in commerce of counterfeit imitations of the Ma&Baby Mark in connection

with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, and/or advertising of infringing goods.

38. Defendants have sold, offered to sell, marketed, distributed, and advertised, and/or are

still selling, offering to sell, marketing, distributing, and advertising products in connection with

the Ma&Baby Mark without Plaintiff’s permission.

39. Defendants have infringed on Plaintiff’s rights in the Ma&Baby Mark by, among

other things, using in commerce the identical and confusingly similar name “Ma&Baby” in

connection with the promotion, advertising, sale, offering for sale, and distribution of counterfeit

Ma&Baby Products.

40. Plaintiff is the exclusive owner of the Ma&Baby Mark. Plaintiff’s United States

Registration for the Ma&Baby Mark (Exhibit One) is in full force and effect. Plaintiff has never

licensed these Defendants to use the Ma&Baby mark, authorized these Defendants in the

capacity as a reseller or retailer for Ma&Baby, or permitted these Defendants to market, offer for

sale, advertise, or distribute Ma&Baby branded products. Upon information and belief,

12

Case 0:22-cv-62215-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/25/2022 Page 12 of 16
Defendants have knowledge of Plaintiff’s rights in the Ma&Baby Mark and are willfully

infringing and intentionally using counterfeits of the Ma&Baby Marks. Defendants’ willful,

intentional and unauthorized use of the Ma&Baby Mark is likely to cause and is causing

confusion, mistake, and deception as to the origin and quality of the counterfeit goods among the

general public. Through Defendants’ infringing activity, Defendants compromise the goodwill of

the Ma&Baby Mark by depriving Plaintiff the exclusive control over the customer experience

and guarantees of the brand.

41. Defendants’ activities constitute willful trademark infringement and counterfeiting

under Section 32 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114.

42. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law, and if Defendants’ actions are not

preliminarily or permanently enjoined, Plaintiff will continue to suffer irreparable harm to its

reputation and the goodwill of its Ma&Baby Mark.

43. The injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff have been directly and proximately

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

and sale of counterfeit Ma&Baby Products.

COUNT II

FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN

(15 U.S.C. § 1125(a))

44. Plaintiff repleads and incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in

the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

45. Defendants’ promotion, marketing, offering for sale, and sale of counterfeit products

has created and is creating a likelihood of confusion, mistake, and deception among the general

public as to the affiliation, connection, or association with Plaintiff or the origin, sponsorship, or

approval of Defendants’ counterfeit and/or infringing Ma&Baby Products by Plaintiff.

13

Case 0:22-cv-62215-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/25/2022 Page 13 of 16
46. By using the Ma&Baby Mark in connection with the sale of counterfeit and/or

infringing Ma&Baby Products, Defendants create a false designation of origin and a misleading

representation of fact as to the origin and sponsorship of the counterfeit products. Specifically, by

using the Ma&Baby brand to promote their counterfeit products, Defendants wrongfully imply to

potential customers that customers can expect Defendants to conform with the customer service

standards and provide any warranties or guarantees associated with the Ma&Baby brand.

47. Defendants’ false designation of origin and misrepresentation of fact as to the origin

and/or sponsorship of the counterfeit Ma&Baby Products to the general public is a willful

violation of Section 43 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:

1) That Defendants, their affiliates, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys,

confederates, and all persons acting for, with, by, through, under, or in concert with them be

temporarily, preliminarily, and permanently enjoined and restrained from:

a. using the Ma&Baby Mark or any reproductions, counterfeit copies, or colorable

imitations thereof in any manner in connection with the distribution, marketing, advertising,

offering for sale, or sale of any product that is not a genuine Ma&Baby Product or is not

authorized by Plaintiff to be sold in connection with the Ma&Baby Mark;

b. passing off, inducing, or enabling others to sell or pass off any product as a genuine

Ma&Baby Product or any other product produced by Plaintiff that is not Plaintiff’s or is not

produced under the authorization, control, or supervision of Plaintiff and approved by Plaintiff

for sale under the Ma&Baby Mark;

14

Case 0:22-cv-62215-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/25/2022 Page 14 of 16
c. committing any acts calculated to cause consumers to believe that Defendants’

counterfeit Ma&Baby Products are those sold under the authorization, control, or supervision of

Plaintiff, or are sponsored by, approved by, or otherwise connected with Plaintiff;

d. further infringing the Ma&Baby Mark and damaging Plaintiff’s goodwill; and

e. manufacturing, shipping, delivering, holding for sale, transferring or otherwise moving,

storing, distributing, returning, or otherwise disposing of, in any manner, products or inventory

not manufactured by or for Plaintiff, nor authorized by Plaintiff to be sold or offered for sale, and

which bear any of Plaintiff’s Marks, including the Ma&Baby Mark, or any

reproductions, counterfeit copies, or colorable imitations thereof, or the Ma&Baby Mark;

f. using, linking to, transferring, selling, exercising control over, or otherwise owning

online marketplace accounts that are being used to sell products or inventory not authorized by

Plaintiff which bear the Ma&Baby Mark;

g. operating and/or hosting websites which are involved with the distribution, marketing,

advertising, offering for sale, or sale products or inventory not authorized by Plaintiff which bear

the Ma&Baby Mark;

2) Entry of an Order that, upon Plaintiff’s request, those in privity with Defendants and

those with notice of the injunction, including, without limitation, any online marketplace

platforms such as Walmart.com, sponsored search engine or ad-word providers, credit cards,

banks, merchant account providers, third party processors and other payment processing service

providers, and Internet search engines such as Google, Bing and Yahoo (collectively, the “Third

Party Providers”) shall:

a. disable and cease providing services being used by Defendants, currently or in the

future, to engage in the sale of goods using the Ma&Baby Mark;

15

Case 0:22-cv-62215-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/25/2022 Page 15 of 16
b. disable and cease displaying any advertisements used by or associated with Defendants

in connection with the sale of goods using without authorization the Ma&Baby Mark;

and

c. take all steps necessary to prevent links from Defendants’ Internet Stores from

displaying in search results, including, but not limited to, removing links to Defendants’

Internet Stores from any search index;

3) That Defendants account for and pay to Plaintiff all profits realized by Defendants by

reason of Defendants’ unlawful acts herein alleged, and that the amount of damages for

infringement of the mark be increased by a sum not exceeding three times the amount thereof as

provided by 15 U.S.C. § 1117;

4) In the alternative, that Plaintiff be awarded statutory damages for willful trademark

counterfeiting pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c)(2) of $2,000,000 for each and every use of the

Ma&Baby Mark;

5) That Plaintiff be awarded its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs as available under 15

U.S.C. § 1117, and other applicable law;

6) Plaintiff demands a trial by jury;

7) Award any and all other relief that this Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted this 25th of November, 2022.

/s/ Lydia Pittaway

Bar No. 0044790

Ford Banister IP

305 Broadway - Floor 7

New York, NY 10007

Telephone: 212-500-3268

Email: lpittaway@fordbanister.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

16

Case 0:22-cv-62215-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/25/2022 Page 16 of 16