4842-0107-7793.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

INTERSTATE RESTORATION GROUP, INC., a

Texas corporation, and INTERSTATE

RESTORATION LLC, a Colorado limited liability

company,

Plaintiffs,

v.

INTERSTATE CONSTRUCTION, LLC, a

Michigan limited liability company,

Defendant.

Case No.

Hon.

Vanessa L. Miller (P67794)

Margaret L. Mettler (P77026)

FOLEY & LARDNER LLP

500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 2700

Detroit, MI 48226

Telephone: 313.234.7100

Fax: 313.234.2800

Email: vmiller@foley.com

mmettler@foley.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Interstate Restoration

Group, Inc. and Interstate Restoration LLC

COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs Interstate Restoration Group, Inc. and Interstate Restoration

LLC (collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs” or “Interstate”), by and through their

counsel Foley & Lardner LLP, hereby file this Complaint against Defendant

5:15-cv-11044-JEL-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 03/20/15 Pg 1 of 14 Pg ID 1
2

Interstate Construction, LLC (“Defendant” or “Interstate Construction”), and in

support thereof state as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is an action for damages and injunctive and other relief, asserting

various statutory and common law claims against Defendant, including trademark

infringement, unfair competition, and other related claims. Defendant, without

authorization or consent, willfully adopted, and is now using, names and

trademarks that are the same or similar to Plaintiffs’ names and trademarks on and

in connection with services of the same type as those offered by Plaintiffs.

PARTIES

2. Plaintiff Interstate Restoration Group, Inc. is a Texas corporation with

its principal place of business in Fort Worth, Texas.

3. Plaintiff Interstate Restoration LLC is a Colorado limited liability

company with its principal place of business in Fort Worth, Texas. Plaintiff

Interstate Restoration LLC operates in Michigan under the assumed name

Interstate Restoration Michigan, LLC.

4. On information and belief, Defendant Interstate Construction is a

Michigan limited liability company with its principal place of business in Sterling

Heights, Michigan.

5:15-cv-11044-JEL-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 03/20/15 Pg 2 of 14 Pg ID 2
3

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. This is an action for trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C.

§ 1125(a) and common law; use of false designations of origin under 15 U.S.C.

§ 1125(a); violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, Mich. Comp. Laws

§ 445.903; and infringement and unfair competition under Michigan common law.

6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims pursuant to

15 U.S.C. § 1121(a) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) and (b), and supplemental

jurisdiction over the claims arising under the statutory and common law of the

State of Michigan pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because the state law claims are

so related to the federal claims that they form part of the same case or controversy.

7. On information and belief, this Court has personal jurisdiction over

Defendant under Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 600.711 and 600.715 because Defendant is

domiciled in the State of Michigan and/or conducts substantial business in this

forum and because this action arises, in whole or in part, from Defendant’s

transaction of business within the State of Michigan and its commission of tortious

acts within the State of Michigan. Plaintiffs have been harmed and continue to

suffer harm in the State of Michigan.

8. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b) and (c). On

information and belief, Defendant regularly transacts, and/or has transacted, business

5:15-cv-11044-JEL-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 03/20/15 Pg 3 of 14 Pg ID 3
4

in this District, including by offering services to customers in this District and/or a

substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this District.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

The Interstate Plaintiffs

9. For more than 16 years, Interstate has been providing restoration,

emergency response, emergency recovery, general contracting, construction, and

related services to businesses and individuals suffering property damage due to

fires, floods, and other natural and man-made disasters.

10. Since 1998, Interstate has marketed and sold restoration, emergency

response, emergency recovery, general contracting, construction, and related

services to customers in the United States, including, since 2002, to customers in

Michigan. During this time, Interstate has used the name and mark INTERSTATE

and various INTERSTATE-formative names and marks to identify its services and

to distinguish them from services others offer by, among other things, prominently

displaying its names and marks on promotional materials, advertising, websites,

and other media. This includes, inter alia, use of the following trade names and

marks: INTERSTATE, INTERSTATE RESTORATION, INTERSTATE

RESTORATION GROUP, INTERSTATE RESTORATION GROUP & Design, as

well as the below-pictured mark:

5:15-cv-11044-JEL-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 03/20/15 Pg 4 of 14 Pg ID 4
5

Collectively, all of Interstate’s foregoing names and marks are hereinafter referred

to as the “Interstate Marks.”

11. Interstate operates 18 offices strategically located in 12 different states

– Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey,

North Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and Washington – allowing it to respond to an

incident anywhere in the country. Interstate currently has two offices in Michigan:

one in Southfield and one in Grand Rapids.

12. Since it was established in 1998, Interstate has served thousands of

clients in a wide range of industries – including banks and financial institutions,

commercial and corporate clients, government and public sector entities, healthcare

organizations, hotels and resorts, industrial and manufacturing clients, multifamily

housing facilities, religious institutions, restaurants, retail outfits, and schools and

universities – as well as homeowners. Interstate’s clients include Fortune 500

companies as well as the U.S. Postal Service.

13. Interstate actively advertises and promotes the Interstate Marks

through its website <http://www.interstaterestoration.com/> (“Interstate Website”);

its blog <http://www.interstaterestoration.com/blog> (“Interstate Blog”); and

5:15-cv-11044-JEL-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 03/20/15 Pg 5 of 14 Pg ID 5
6

various social media platforms where it has a significant presence, such as

Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and YouTube.

14. Interstate’s services have been publicized in leading business media

articles, and since Interstate first began using the Interstate Marks in 1998, it has

spent significant sums promoting its restoration, emergency response, emergency

recovery, general contracting, construction, and related services. Over the course

of the past 16-plus years, Interstate has expended in excess of $10 million to

advertise and promote the Interstate Marks.

15. Since its inception, Interstate has sold over $800 million in

restoration, emergency response, emergency recovery, general contracting,

construction, and related services. Last year, Interstate’s revenue exceeded $100

million, including business conducted in Michigan.

16. Due to Interstate’s long and continuous use of the Interstate Marks in

connection with the provision of restoration, emergency response, emergency

recovery, general contracting, construction, and related services throughout the

United States, the Interstate Marks have come to indicate to consumers of those

services that Interstate is the source of those services.

17. As a result of Interstate’s extensive use of, and sales under, the

Interstate Marks, the Interstate Marks represent highly valuable goodwill owned by

Interstate.

5:15-cv-11044-JEL-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 03/20/15 Pg 6 of 14 Pg ID 6
7

Defendant Interstate Construction

18. Upon Information and belief, in or about April 2006, Defendant began

operating as Interstate Construction, LLC in Michigan. Like Interstate, Interstate

Construction provides restoration, emergency, and related services.

19. Upon information and belief, Interstate Construction has used and/or

currently uses, inter alia, the following INTERSTATE and INTERSTATEformative names and marks to advertise and promote the same types of services as

those Interstate offers by displaying them on promotional materials, on websites,

and in other advertising in the United States: INTERSTATE; INTERSTATE

CONSTRUCTION; INTERSTATE CONSTRUCTION, LLC; as well as the

below-pictured mark:

20. Like Interstate, Interstate Construction advertises and promotes its

services through its website <http://www.interstateconstructionllc.com/> and its

Facebook page.

21. The services offered by Interstate Construction under the name and

mark INTERSTATE CONSTRUCTION and other INTERSTATE-formative

5:15-cv-11044-JEL-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 03/20/15 Pg 7 of 14 Pg ID 7
8

names and marks are the same types of services offered by Interstate under the

Interstate Marks.

22. Interstate Construction’s services target the same consumers as

Interstate’s services.

23. Interstate Construction’s marketing, promotion, and offering of the

same types of services as those offered by Interstate using INTERSTATEformative names and marks has caused, and is likely to continue causing,

confusion, mistake, or deception as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of

Interstate Construction’s services. As a result of Interstate Construction’s

unauthorized use of INTERSTATE-formative names and marks, which are

confusingly similar to the Interstate Marks, consumers are likely to believe,

erroneously, that Interstate Construction’s services have been endorsed by,

approved by, sponsored by, or affiliated with Interstate. Such confusion is likely to

damage Interstate in a variety of ways, including the loss of its ability to control

the nature, quality, and consumer perception of its services and the goodwill and

reputation associated with the Interstate Marks.

24. On information and belief, Interstate Construction had actual

knowledge of Interstate’s name and trademark rights prior to adopting its

INTERSTATE-formative names and marks and acted knowingly and willingly in

5:15-cv-11044-JEL-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 03/20/15 Pg 8 of 14 Pg ID 8
9

adopting confusingly similar names and marks for identical, related, and/or

complementary services.

25. Interstate Construction’s unauthorized adoption and use of

INTERSTATE-formative names and marks gives Interstate Construction’s services

a salability they would not otherwise have had by allowing Interstate Construction

to receive the benefit of the goodwill, commercial magnetism, and reputation

established at great labor and expense, and cultivated over many years, by

Interstate in the Interstate Marks and the services to which they refer.

26. Interstate Construction’s use of INTERSTATE-formative names and

marks has been without Interstate’s authorization or consent.

27. Upon information and belief, Interstate Construction’s acts

complained of herein have been willful, and intended to trade upon the reputation

of Interstate and its services offered under the Interstate Marks and thereby cause

harm to Interstate.

28. Interstate Construction’s aforementioned conduct has caused, and will

continue to cause, inter alia, immediate and irreparable injury to Interstate and to

its goodwill, reputation, and ability to provide restoration, emergency response,

emergency recovery, general contracting, construction, and related services under

the Interstate Marks, and will continue both to damage Interstate and deceive the

public unless enjoined by this Court. Interstate has no adequate remedy at law.

5:15-cv-11044-JEL-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 03/20/15 Pg 9 of 14 Pg ID 9
10

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

FEDERAL TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT & UNFAIR COMPETITION

(15 U.S.C. § 1114)

29. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation contained in

the preceding paragraphs in this Complaint, and incorporate them herein by

reference.

30. By the acts complained of herein, Defendant has infringed Plaintiffs’

rights in the Interstate Marks, has unfairly competed with Plaintiffs, and has falsely

designated the origin of Defendant’s services, causing irreparable injury to

Plaintiffs in violation of §43(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946, as amended (15

U.S.C. § 1125(a)).

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

COMMON LAW TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

31. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation contained in

the preceding paragraphs in this Complaint, and incorporate them herein by

reference.

32. The acts of Defendant complained of herein constitute common law

trademark infringement of Plaintiffs’ trademark rights and unfair competition.

5:15-cv-11044-JEL-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 03/20/15 Pg 10 of 14 Pg ID 10
11

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF MICHIGAN CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

33. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation contained in

the preceding paragraphs in this Complaint, and incorporate them herein by

reference.

34. The State of Michigan has an important interest in ensuring that

persons and entities doing business with Michigan residents fully comply with

Michigan laws.

35. The aforesaid acts of Defendant constitute unfair, unconscionable, or

deceptive methods, acts, or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce in

violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act. Mich. Comp. Laws

§ 445.903(1)(a)-(c), (e).

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Court:

A. Issue a preliminary and permanent injunction, restraining Defendant and

each of its directors, officers, partners, distributors, agents, servants,

employees, and attorneys, and all those in active concert or participation

with Defendant, from:

1. using, in connection with the advertising, marketing, sale, or

promotion of restoration, emergency response, emergency

5:15-cv-11044-JEL-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 03/20/15 Pg 11 of 14 Pg ID 11
12

recovery, general contracting, construction, or related services,

any name or mark consisting in whole, or in part, of the term

“Interstate” (whether in word or logo form) or any other name

or mark likely to cause confusion with any of Plaintiffs’

Interstate Marks;

2. using any false designation of origin or false description, or

performing any act that is likely to lead members of the trade or

public to believe that any of Defendant’s services are licensed,

sponsored, approved, or authorized by either of Plaintiffs, or are

in any other manner associated or connected with Plaintiffs;

3. doing any act or thing likely to confuse, mislead, or deceive

others into believing that Defendant, or any of its products or

services, emanate from either of Plaintiffs or are connected

with, affiliated with, sponsored by, associated with, or approved

or authorized by either of Plaintiffs; and

4. engaging in any other activity constituting unfair competition

with either of Plaintiffs, or infringement of any of Plaintiffs’

Interstate Marks.

B. Order all advertising, promotional materials, displays, domain names,

social media handles, and any other materials in tangible or electronic

5:15-cv-11044-JEL-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 03/20/15 Pg 12 of 14 Pg ID 12
13

form that Defendant or any of its agents possess bearing INTERSTATEformative names or marks or any colorable imitation thereof, which are

in the possession and control of Defendant or any of its agents, to be

delivered up to Plaintiffs for destruction.

C. Order Defendant to pay Plaintiffs:

1. treble Defendant’s profits from sales of services under an

INTERSTATE-formative name or mark;

2. treble Plaintiffs’ actual damages arising out of Defendant’s acts

of infringement and unfair competition; and

3. Plaintiffs’ costs in this civil action, including reasonable

attorneys’ fees and expenses, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117.

D. Order Defendant to take such other action as the Court deems appropriate

to prevent the trade and public from mistakenly believing that any

services offered, advertised, or promoted by or on behalf of Defendant

are authorized by Plaintiffs or are related in any way to Plaintiffs’

services.

E. Order Defendant to file with the Court and serve upon Plaintiffs’ counsel

within thirty (30) days after entry of judgment a report in writing under

oath setting forth in detail the manner and form in which Defendant has

complied with the above pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a).

5:15-cv-11044-JEL-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 03/20/15 Pg 13 of 14 Pg ID 13
14

F. Grant to Plaintiffs such other and further relief as the Court deems just

and proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs request a

trial by jury of any issues so triable by right.

Dated: March 20, 2015 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Vanessa L. Miller

Vanessa L. Miller (P67794)

Margaret L. Mettler (P77026)

FOLEY & LARDNER LLP

500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 2700

Detroit, MI 48226

Telephone: 313.234.7100

Fax: 313.234.2800

Email: vmiller@foley.com

mmettler@foley.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Interstate

Restoration Group, Inc. and Interstate

Restoration LLC

5:15-cv-11044-JEL-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 03/20/15 Pg 14 of 14 Pg ID 14