UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SINGH MANAGEMENT CO., LLC )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Case No. ________

v. )

)

SINGH BUILDING COMPANY, INC., )

SINGH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., )

SINGH GROUP LLC, )

SINGH GROUP II LLC, )

SINGH LENDING, LLC d/b/a TEAM SINGH, )

SINGH MORTGAGE GROUP LLC, )

SINGH PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, )

DARSHAN GREWAL, and )

PARGAT GREWAL, )

)

Defendants. )

VERIFIED COMPLAINT

Singh Management Co., LLC (“Singh Management LLC” or “Plaintiff”),

through counsel, states as follows for its Verified Complaint against Singh

Building Company, Inc. (“Singh Building”), Singh Development Company, Inc.

(“Singh DCI”), Singh Group LLC (“Singh Group”), Singh Group II LLC (“Singh

Group II”), Singh Lending Group, LLC d/b/a Team Singh (“Singh Lending”),

Singh Mortgage Group, LLC (“Singh Mortgage”), Singh Property Management,

LLC (“Singh Property”), Darshan Grewal (“Darshan”), and Pargat Grewal

(“Pargat”) (collectively, the “Defendants”):

2:15-cv-11478-BAF-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 1 of 30 Pg ID 1
2

1. This is an action for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and

false designation of origin arising under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et

seq., trademark infringement and unfair competition under Michigan common law

and M.C.L. § 445.42, and for violations of Michigan Consumer Protection Act,

M.C.L. § 445.903. Because Defendants’ willful infringement and improper use of

Plaintiff’s “SINGH” brand and trademark is ongoing and Plaintiff has been, and is

likely to continue to be, harmed by such infringement and unauthorized use, Plaintiff seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.

Parties

2. Plaintiff Singh Management Co., LLC is a Michigan limited liability

company with a registered office address of 7125 Orchard Lake Road, Suite 200,

West Bloomfield, Michigan 48325. Plaintiff is a real estate management company

that operates and manages properties in Michigan, North Carolina, and Virginia.

3. Upon information and belief, Defendant Singh Building Company,

Inc. is a Michigan corporation with a registered office address of 2290 Science

Parkway, Okemos, Michigan 48864. Upon further information and belief,

Defendant Singh Building Company, Inc. regularly conducts business within the

State of Michigan, including without limitation within this district.

4. Upon information and belief, Defendant Singh Development

Company, Inc. is a Michigan corporation with a registered office address of 2290

2:15-cv-11478-BAF-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 2 of 30 Pg ID 2
3

Science Parkway, Okemos, Michigan 48864. Upon further information and belief,

Defendant Singh Development Company, Inc. regularly conducts business within

the State of Michigan, including without limitation within this district.

5. Upon information and belief, Defendant Singh Group LLC is a

Michigan limited liability company with a registered office address of 7457

Franklin Road, Suite 304, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48301. Upon further

information and belief, Defendant Singh Group LLC regularly conducts business

within the State of Michigan, including without limitation within this district. 6. Upon information and belief, Defendant Singh Group II LLC is a

Michigan limited liability company with a registered office address of 7457

Franklin Road, Suite 304, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48301. Upon further

information and belief, Defendant Singh Group II LLC regularly conducts business

within the State of Michigan, including without limitation within this district.

7. Upon information and belief, Defendant Singh Lending, LLC d/b/a

Team Singh is a Michigan limited liability company with a registered office

address of 2290 Science Parkway, Okemos, Michigan 48864. Upon further

information and belief, Defendant Singh Lending, LLC regularly conducts

business within the State of Michigan, including without limitation within this

district.

8. Upon information and belief, Defendant Singh Mortgage Group, LLC

2:15-cv-11478-BAF-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 3 of 30 Pg ID 3
4

is a Michigan limited liability company with a registered office address of 2290

Science Parkway, Okemos, Michigan 48864. Upon further information and belief,

Defendant Singh Mortgage Group, LLC regularly conducts business within the

State of Michigan, including without limitation within this district.

9. Upon information and belief, Defendant Singh Property Management,

LLC is a Michigan limited liability company with a registered office address of

7457 Franklin Road, Suite 304, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48301. Upon further

information and belief, Defendant Singh Property Management, LLC regularly

conducts business within the State of Michigan, including without limitation within

this district. 10. Upon information and belief, Defendant Darshan Grewal is an

individual residing at 6297 Nicholas Drive, West Bloomfield, Michigan 48322. 11. Upon information and belief, Defendant Pargat Grewal is an

individual residing at 6275 Nicholas Drive, West Bloomfield, Michigan 48322. Jurisdiction, Controlling Law, and Venue

12. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action

pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1121(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this is a civil action

for, inter alia, trademark infringement, unfair competition, and false designation of

origin arising under the laws of the United States. This Court has supplemental

jurisdiction over the claims in this action that arise under Michigan statutory and

2:15-cv-11478-BAF-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 4 of 30 Pg ID 4
5

common law under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

13. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants Singh Building,

Singh DCI, Singh Group, Singh Group II, Singh Lending, Singh Mortgage, and

Singh Property because these Defendants have substantial contacts in this district

by, among other things, maintaining a place of business at either or both of 2290

Science Parkway, Okemos, Michigan 48864 and 7457 Franklin Road, Suite 304,

Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48301, and purposefully availing themselves of the

benefits and protections of Michigan law by regularly conducting business in this

State and judicial district. In addition, the infringing conduct of the Defendants is

occurring in this district, as they are each presently advertising, marketing, offering

to sell, and selling real estate management, real estate development, and/or

residential and commercial building construction services under the SINGH Mark

and trade name in Michigan and in this judicial district.

14. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants Darshan and

Pargat (collectively, “Individual Defendants”) because they reside in Michigan and

in this judicial district, and because they are purposefully availing themselves of

the benefits and protections of Michigan law by regularly conducting business in

this State. In addition, the infringing conduct of Individual Defendants Darshan

and Pargat is occurring in this district, as they are each presently advertising,

marketing, offering to sell, and selling real estate management, real estate

2:15-cv-11478-BAF-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 5 of 30 Pg ID 5
6

development, and/or residential and commercial building construction services

under the SINGH Mark and trade name in Michigan and in this judicial district.

15. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§

1391(b) and (c) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims

arose within this judicial district, because Defendants Singh Building, Singh DCI, Singh Group, Singh Group II, Singh Lending, Singh Mortgage, and Singh Property

are each licensed to do business, and do business, within this judicial district, and

because Individual Defendants Darshan and Pargat reside, and are subject to

personal jurisdiction, in this judicial district. The Defendants provide real estate

management, real estate development, and/or residential and commercial building

construction services within this district, maintain places of business within this

district, and target consumers within this district. This district is the situs of the

subject matter of this case, where consumers are confused and likely to be

confused by the Defendants’ infringement, and where a substantial part of the

events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred and continue to occur.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

The Singh Companies

16. On or about February 13, 1973, Gurmale Singh Grewal (“Gurmale”)

founded Singh Associates, a partnership organized under the laws of the State of

Michigan, and the first of what today is a vast network of companies (“Singh

2:15-cv-11478-BAF-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 6 of 30 Pg ID 6
7

Companies”), all one hundred percent (100%) owned and operated by first and

second generation members of Gurmale’s family (“Grewal family”). These

various companies have been primarily organized in the State of Michigan, many

as limited liability companies. Nearly all incorporate, or co-brand with, the

SINGH brand. 17. During the past 40+ years, the Singh Companies have provided a large

variety of real estate services and have developed and/or own over 95 properties

throughout the State of Michigan and various other states including North Carolina

and Virginia. Each of these properties proudly displays the “SINGH” brand on

outfacing structures or entrance monuments. In the past five years alone, the Singh

Companies have spent in excess of $18 million in advertising and marketing

through Plaintiff’s SINGH brand.

18. Plaintiff Singh Management Co., LLC is now a major real estate

developer and industry leader, with properties located in Michigan, North Carolina,

Virginia, and Punjab, India. Since 1973, Singh has actively developed, built and

managed premier residential apartments and townhomes; independent and assisted

living senior retirement communities; single family homes and subdivisions; along

with retail centers and commercial properties, including class A office buildings.

The Singh Companies’ portfolio consists of a high end, luxury class of diversified

real estate holdings.

2:15-cv-11478-BAF-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 7 of 30 Pg ID 7
8

The Original SINGH Mark

19. Gurmale chose the trade name “SINGH” in 1973 and by 1976 Singh

Associates had developed its first subdivision in Michigan, Turtle Creek. The sign

at the entrance of this subdivision still reads “A SINGH Development” and is

located on Singh Boulevard in Novi, Michigan. See Exhibit A, photo of the

neighborhood sign and street sign at the entrance of the subdivision.

20. During the first decade and growth of the Singh Companies, the

SINGH logo went through various transformations. During the mid-1980s and

earlier, the SINGH branded companies used the SINGH trade name in connection

with the Khanda, a Sikh symbol. See, e.g., Exhibit B, letters from 1985 and 1986

depicting the early SINGH trade name, with the Khanda in the upper-left corner.

During the late-1980s, the Khanda was eliminated. See, e.g., Exhibit C, letters

from 1987 and 1988 depicting the revised SINGH trade name, without the Khanda.

Still, through the decades and the changes, the Singh Companies’ use of the

SINGH brand has remained constant and extensive. 21. Since Singh Associates was formed in 1973, the Singh Companies

have continuously used the SINGH trade name in interstate commerce, and have

developed substantial consumer recognition, secondary meaning and goodwill in

the “SINGH” trade name in connection with real estate management, real estate

development, and residential and commercial building construction services.

2:15-cv-11478-BAF-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 8 of 30 Pg ID 8
9

The Registered SINGH Mark

22. In or about 1982, long before the Individual Defendants were

employed by any of the Singh Companies, the then-existing members of the

Grewal family formed Singh Management Company, Inc. (“Singh Management

Inc.”), a Michigan corporation, to provide real estate management services. Other

SINGH branded companies under common control and ownership engaged in

single and multifamily real estate development, and residential, commercial, and

industrial and office building development. 23. In or about 1989, Singh Management Inc. commissioned the

development of a stylized SINGH logo (the “SINGH Mark”), depicted below,

which it adopted and began to use in commerce by at least November 27, 1989 in

connection with the real estate management, real estate development, and

residential and commercial building construction services provided by the Singh

Companies.

24. On October 10, 1997, Singh Management Inc. filed an application

with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), U.S. Trademark

Application Serial No. 75/371,423, seeking to register the SINGH Mark on the

2:15-cv-11478-BAF-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 9 of 30 Pg ID 9
10

Principal Register in connection with “real estate management” services in

International Class 36 and “real estate development” and “residential and

commercial building construction” services in International Class 37 (collectively,

the “SINGH Services”).

25. On May 25, 1999, the USPTO issued U.S. Registration No. 2,247,287

for the SINGH Mark with the SINGH Services. A true and accurate copy of the

registration certificate for U.S. Registration No. 2,247,287 is attached hereto as

Exhibit D. U.S. Registration No. 2,247,287 became incontestable on July 7, 2004,

and is active and subsisting as of the date of this Complaint.

26. In the United States, a trademark registered on the Principal Register

confers all of the benefits of registration provided under the Trademark Act,

including: a legal presumption of the registrant’s ownership of the mark and the

registrant’s exclusive right to use the mark nationwide on or in connection with the

goods and/or services listed in the registration; providing constructive notice to the

public of the registrant’s claim of ownership of the mark; and the ability to bring

an action concerning the mark in federal court.

27. The SINGH Mark is registered on the Principal Register. Further, the

federally registered SINGH Mark has become incontestable based on its having

been in continuous use in commerce for more than five years after being placed on

the Principal Register. An incontestable registration is not only presumed valid,

2:15-cv-11478-BAF-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 10 of 30 Pg ID 10
11

but is immune from challenge except on certain, limited grounds.

The Plaintiff – Singh Management Co., LLC

28. Plaintiff Singh Management Co., LLC was formed on or about March

22, 1999 so that all of the assets of Singh Management Inc. could be transferred to

Plaintiff, which occurred on or about January 1, 2000. As part of this transfer of

all assets, Plaintiff came into ownership of, inter alia, the SINGH brand and all

goodwill represented by the SINGH Mark and U.S. Registration No. 2,247,287.

29. Plaintiff Singh Management Co., LLC’s present ownership of U.S.

Registration No. 2,247,287 for the SINGH Mark is recorded in the USPTO

Assignments division at Reel 5496, Frame 0023.

30. Since November 27, 1989, Plaintiff and its predecessor-in-interest,

Singh Management Inc., which has since been dissolved, have owned all rights,

title, and interest in and to the SINGH Mark and trade name, and have licensed

such rights to the various Singh Companies for use in connection with the SINGH

Services currently provided by these companies in various states including

Michigan, North Carolina and Virginia. All use of the SINGH Mark and trade

name (collectively, “SINGH”) by the various Singh Companies has inured, and

continues to inure, to the benefit of Plaintiff Singh Management Co., LLC. 31. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff and its predecessorin-interest have used SINGH, as further represented by U.S. Registration No.

2:15-cv-11478-BAF-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 11 of 30 Pg ID 11
12

2,247,287, in connection with the advertisement, promotion, offering, and sale of

the SINGH Services in interstate commerce. Plaintiff and its licensees

prominently display SINGH on websites operated by Plaintiff and/or its licensee,

including without limitation on http://www.singhweb.com, as well as in

advertisements, marketing materials, print media, and on signs, banners, and

various other promotional materials. See, e.g., Exhibit E, February 28, 1990 letter

from Singh Management Inc. bearing SINGH on letterhead; Exhibit F, Summer

1999 newsletter bearing SINGH; Exhibit G, Winter 1999 newsletter bearing

SINGH; Exhibit H, August 1999 mailing label bearing SINGH; Exhibit I, May 28,

2000 newspaper advertisements depicting SINGH; Exhibit J, screen shot of

http://www.singhweb.com; Exhibit K, assorted brochures and advertising

collateral, all bearing SINGH. 32. Over the course of more than 40 years, Plaintiff and its predecessorin-interest have invested a great deal of time, effort, and resources in the

development of a distinctive and well-known brand, such that SINGH Services

have become widely recognized as emanating from Plaintiff and as maintaining

only the highest quality standards as represented by Plaintiff’s tag line “A

Tradition of Excellence.” See, e.g., Exhibit J. 33. SINGH, when used in connection with SINGH Services, indicates to

members of the purchasing public that the services being offered originate from

2:15-cv-11478-BAF-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 12 of 30 Pg ID 12
13

and are provided by Plaintiff only, including through its authorized licensees, and

by no other person or entity.

34. Plaintiff has extensively used its SINGH brand to identify and

distinguish its services from those of its competitors, such that SINGH represents

and possesses significant goodwill and secondary meaning, which is of great

monetary and reputational value to Plaintiff.

35. Because of Plaintiff’s and its predecessor-in-interest’s significant

expenditure of time, effort, and money in the advertising, marketing, and

promotion of SINGH, the SINGH brand has developed and now possesses

exceptionally strong secondary meaning (i.e., acquired distinctiveness) to

consumers of real estate management, real estate development, and/or residential

and commercial building construction services, such that the consuming public

identifies it as indicating services of distinctively high quality originating from

Plaintiff.

Defendants’ Infringing Conduct

36. Defendants are presently advertising, promoting, offering, and selling

real estate management, real estate development, and/or residential and

commercial building construction services under SINGH, including by using

SINGH on their websites, in print and online advertisements, and otherwise. True

and accurate copies of Defendants’ use of SINGH in connection with selling real

2:15-cv-11478-BAF-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 13 of 30 Pg ID 13
14

estate management, real estate development, and/or residential and commercial

building construction services, are attached hereto as Exhibit L. 37. Individual Defendants Darshan and Pargat are second generation

members of the Grewal family. For years, Darshan and Pargat were actively

involved in the Grewal family business and the many Singh Companies until 2010

(for Darshan) and 2011 (for Pargat), when they were both relieved of their

authority and respective positions within the various Singh Companies following

the discovery that both had been engaging in, among other improprieties, self- dealing and embezzlement from the Singh Companies.. 38. Individual Defendants Darshan and Pargat are now using several new

entities within the State of Michigan, each incorporating the SINGH trade name

and/or SINGH Mark, including without limitation Defendants Singh Building,

Singh DCI, Singh Group, Singh Group II, Singh Lending, Singh Mortgage, and

Singh Property. Through these Defendant companies and in an individual

capacity, Defendants are providing real estate management, real estate

development, and/or residential and commercial building construction services to

the public, all under the SINGH Mark and trade name. 39. Defendants are not authorized or permitted to use SINGH or any

variations thereof. Any express or implied license that Defendants believe they

may have had at any prior point in time, despite the Individual Defendants having

2:15-cv-11478-BAF-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 14 of 30 Pg ID 14
15

been relieved of their positions within the SINGH Companies, has been

terminated. 40. Notwithstanding the lack of any right or license in or to the SINGH

brand, Defendants continue to advertise, promote, offer, and sell real estate

management, real estate development, and/or residential and commercial building

construction services under SINGH to consumers in Michigan, including in this

judicial district. 41. Defendants advertise, promote, offer, and sell real estate management,

real estate development, and/or residential and commercial building construction

services under SINGH in the same channels of commerce and to the same classes

of consumers as Plaintiff advertises, promotes, offers, and sells Plaintiff’s SINGH

Services under SINGH. 42. Plaintiff has rights in its registered SINGH Mark that are superior to

any rights Defendants may have in SINGH, which Defendants use in connection

with identical, similar, and/or related services to those offered by Plaintiff.

43. Defendants are not authorized or permitted to use Plaintiff’s registered

SINGH Mark, or SINGH trade name, or any variations thereof.

44. On information and belief, Defendants were aware of Plaintiff’s use

of, and federal registration for, SINGH when Defendants commenced use of

SINGH in Michigan and in this judicial district.

2:15-cv-11478-BAF-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 15 of 30 Pg ID 15
16

45. At the time Defendants began using SINGH in Michigan and in this

judicial district, Defendants had actual and constructive notice of Plaintiff’s

federally registered SINGH Mark under 15 U.S.C. § 1072 and had actual notice of

Plaintiff’s SINGH trade name prior to any involvement of Darshan or Pargat in the

Singh Companies.

46. Defendants’ use of SINGH has created confusion, and continues to

create a likelihood of confusion, mistake, or deception among consumers with

Plaintiff’s SINGH brand. 47. Defendants knew, or should have known by the exercise of reasonable

care, that their use of SINGH in connection with real estate management, real

estate development, and/or residential and commercial building construction

services would cause confusion, mistake, or deception among consumers with

Plaintiff’s SINGH brand. 48. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and will

continue to suffer irreparable harm in addition to damages.

COUNT I

(Federal Trademark Infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114)

49. Plaintiff repeats and realleges, as if fully set forth herein, each and

every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs.

50. This claim arises under 15 U.S.C. § 1114 for willful and deliberate

infringement of the SINGH Mark set forth in U.S. Registration No. 2,247,287.

2:15-cv-11478-BAF-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 16 of 30 Pg ID 16
17

51. The SINGH Mark set forth in U.S. Registration No. 2,247,287 is

valid, protectable, and enforceable.

52. U.S. Registration No. 2,247,287 is incontestable under 15 U.S.C. §

1065.

53. Plaintiff has rights in its SINGH Mark set forth in U.S. Registration

No. 2,247,287 that are superior to any rights Defendants may have in the SINGH

Mark, which Defendants improperly use in connection with identical, similar,

and/or related services to those offered by Plaintiff.

54. Consumers associate the SINGH Mark set forth in U.S. Registration

No. 2,247,287 with Plaintiff as the single source of the goods and services

provided under that mark.

55. Defendants do not have consent, permission, or license to use the

SINGH Mark, and Plaintiff further explicitly terminated any rights or license, express or implied, Defendants may have believed that they had in the SINGH

Mark. 56. Defendants’ use of the SINGH Mark has created and does create a

likelihood of confusion, mistake, or deception among consumers with or regarding

the SINGH Mark set forth in U.S. Registration No. 2,247,287. 57. At the time Defendants began using the SINGH Mark, Defendants

had constructive notice of Plaintiff’s federally registered SINGH Mark under 15

2:15-cv-11478-BAF-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 17 of 30 Pg ID 17
18

U.S.C. § 1072.

58. Defendants knew, or should have known by the exercise of reasonable

care, that their use of the SINGH Mark in connection with real estate management,

real estate development, and/or residential and commercial building construction

services would cause confusion, mistake, or deception among consumers with

Plaintiff’s SINGH Mark set forth in U.S. Registration No. 2,247,287. 59. On information and belief, Defendants knew of Plaintiff’s rights in the

SINGH Mark set forth in U.S. Registration No. 2,247,287, and intended to trade

off and did trade off, and intend to trade off and will trade off, the extensive

goodwill built up by Plaintiff in its SINGH Mark.

60. Defendants’ wrongful acts alleged herein violated Plaintiff’s rights

under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(a), and, on information and belief, have been deliberate,

willful, and in disregard of Plaintiff’s rights.

61. Defendants’ wrongful acts alleged herein have permitted and/or will

permit Defendants to earn substantial revenues and profits on the strength of

Plaintiff’s SINGH Mark set forth in U.S. Registration No. 2,247,287. 62. By reason of Defendants’ wrongful acts alleged herein, Plaintiff has

suffered and is continuing to suffer irreparable damage to its business, trade,

reputation, and goodwill as a result of the erroneous perception that the services of

Defendants are affiliated with, sponsored by, approved by, or originate from

2:15-cv-11478-BAF-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 18 of 30 Pg ID 18
19

Plaintiff.

63. As a result of Defendants’ wrongful acts alleged herein, Plaintiff has

suffered and is continuing to suffer irreparable injury. Plaintiff cannot be

adequately compensated for these injuries by damages alone, and Plaintiff has no

adequate remedy at law for Defendants’ infringement of its rights. Plaintiff is

entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, Defendants’ profits trebled, as well as Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117. COUNT II

(Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, and

False Designation of Origin under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a))

64. Plaintiff repeats and realleges, as if fully set forth herein, each and

every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs.

65. This claim arises under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) for willful and deliberate

infringement, unfair competition, and false designation of origin, all with regard to

Defendants’ unauthorized use of Plaintiff’s SINGH brand. 66. The SINGH brand is valid, protectable, and enforceable.

67. Plaintiff has continuously and exclusively used SINGH since 1973 in

connection with the advertisement, promotion, offer, and sale of real estate

management, real estate development, and residential and commercial building

construction services, and related services, prior to Defendants’ use of SINGH in

connection with similar, related, and/or identical services.

2:15-cv-11478-BAF-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 19 of 30 Pg ID 19
20

68. By reason of Plaintiff’s continuous and exclusive use and promotion

of SINGH, as well as the distinctiveness of SINGH, consumers associate SINGH

with a single source of services provided under SINGH by Plaintiff. 69. Defendants use SINGH to promote the sale of, and in fact sell,

services that are identical to those offered by Plaintiff in connection with SINGH. 70. On information and belief, Defendants have used SINGH in

connection with the advertisement, promotion, offer, and sale of real estate

management, real estate development, and/or residential and commercial building

construction services within the State of Michigan, and to citizens of the State of

Michigan. 71. Defendants’ use of SINGH creates a likelihood of confusion, mistake,

or deception among consumers between Defendants’ services and the services

offered by Plaintiff in connection with SINGH. 72. At the time Defendants began using SINGH, Defendants had actual

and constructive notice of Plaintiff’s federally registered SINGH Mark under 15

U.S.C. § 1072, and had actual notice of Plaintiff’s SINGH trade name. 73. Defendants knew, or should have known, that their use of SINGH in

connection with real estate management, real estate development, and/or

residential and commercial building construction services, in addition to related

services, would cause confusion, mistake, or deception among consumers of those

2:15-cv-11478-BAF-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 20 of 30 Pg ID 20
21

services.

74. On information and belief, Defendants knew of Plaintiff’s prior use of

SINGH, and intended to induce and did induce, and intends to induce and will

induce, consumers to purchase Defendants’ services by trading off the goodwill

built up by Plaintiff in SINGH. 75. Defendants’ use of SINGH is likely to cause consumers and other

members of the public to believe in error that Defendants’ services have been

authorized, sponsored, approved, or endorsed by Plaintiff, or that Defendants are in

some way affiliated with Plaintiff.

76. Defendants’ wrongful acts alleged herein constitute trademark

infringement, unfair competition, and false designation of origin in violation of

Plaintiff’s rights under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) and, on information and belief, have

been deliberate, willful, and in disregard of Plaintiff’s rights.

77. Defendants’ wrongful acts alleged herein have permitted and/or will

permit Defendants to earn substantial revenues and profits on the strength of

Plaintiff’s extensive advertising, consumer recognition, and goodwill associated

with SINGH. 78. By reason of Defendants’ wrongful acts alleged herein, Plaintiff has

suffered and is continuing to suffer irreparable damage to its business, trade,

reputation, and goodwill as a result of the erroneous perception that the goods and

2:15-cv-11478-BAF-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 21 of 30 Pg ID 21
22

services of Defendants are affiliated with, sponsored by, approved by, or originate

from Plaintiff.

79. As a result of Defendants’ wrongful acts alleged herein, Plaintiff has

suffered and is continuing to suffer irreparable injury. Plaintiff cannot be

adequately compensated for these injuries by damages alone, and Plaintiff has no

adequate remedy at law for Defendants’ infringement of its rights. Plaintiff is

entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, Defendants’ profits trebled,

as well as its attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117. COUNT III

(Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition under Michigan Common

Law and M.C.L. § 445.42)

80. Plaintiff repeats and realleges, as if fully set forth herein, each and

every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs.

81. Plaintiff owns all rights, title, and interest in and to SINGH, including

all common law rights therein.

82. Defendants, without Plaintiff’s authorization, have used and are

continuing to use SINGH in connection with real estate management, real estate

development, and/or residential and commercial building construction services, in

addition to related services.

83. Defendants’ use of SINGH is intended to cause, has caused, and is

likely to continue to cause confusion, mistake, or deception among consumers

2:15-cv-11478-BAF-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 22 of 30 Pg ID 22
23

between Defendants’ services and the services offered by Plaintiff in connection

with SINGH.

84. Defendants knew, or should have known, that their use of SINGH in

connection with real estate management, real estate development, and/or

residential and commercial building construction services, in addition to related

services, would cause confusion, mistake, or deception among consumers of those

services.

85. Defendants’ wrongful acts alleged herein constitute trademark

infringement and unfair competition in violation of Plaintiff’s rights under

Michigan common law and M.C.L. § 445.42, where on information and belief,

Defendants’ wrongful acts have been deliberate, willful, and in disregard of

Plaintiff’s rights.

86. Defendants’ wrongful acts alleged herein have permitted and/or will

permit Defendants to earn substantial revenues and profits on the strength of

Plaintiff’s extensive advertising, consumer recognition, and goodwill associated

with SINGH.

87. By reason of Defendants’ wrongful acts alleged herein, Plaintiff has

suffered and is continuing to suffer damage to its business, trade, reputation, and

goodwill as a result of the erroneous perception that the services of Defendants are

affiliated with, sponsored by, approved by, or originate from Plaintiff.

2:15-cv-11478-BAF-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 23 of 30 Pg ID 23
24

88. As a result of Defendants’ wrongful acts alleged herein, Plaintiff has

suffered and is continuing to suffer irreparable injury. Plaintiff cannot be

adequately compensated for these injuries by damages alone, and Plaintiff has no

adequate remedy at law for Defendants’ infringement of its rights.

COUNT IV

(Violation of Michigan Consumer Protection Act, M.C.L. § 445.903)

89. Plaintiff repeats and realleges, as if fully set forth herein, each and

every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs.

90. Defendants, without Plaintiff’s authorization, have used and are

continuing to use SINGH in connection with real estate management, real estate

development, and/or residential and commercial building construction services, in

addition to related services.

91. Defendants’ use of SINGH is intended to cause, has caused, and is

likely to continue to cause confusion, mistake, or deception among consumers

between Defendants’ services and the services offered by Plaintiff in connection

with SINGH.

92. Defendants knew, or should have known, that their use of SINGH in

connection with real estate management, real estate development, and/or

residential and commercial building construction services, in addition to related

services, would cause confusion, mistake, or deception among consumers of those

services.

2:15-cv-11478-BAF-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 24 of 30 Pg ID 24
25

93. Defendants’ actions described above constitute unfair,

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

commerce, in violation of Michigan’s Consumer Protection Act, M.C.L. §

445.903(1)(a), (b), and (c).

94. Defendants’ wrongful acts alleged herein have permitted and/or will

permit Defendants to earn substantial revenues and profits on the strength of

Plaintiff’s extensive advertising, consumer recognition, and goodwill associated

with SINGH.

95. By reason of Defendants’ wrongful acts alleged herein, Plaintiff has

suffered and is continuing to suffer damage to its business, trade, reputation, and

goodwill as a result of the erroneous perception that the services of Defendants are

affiliated with, sponsored by, approved by, or originate from Plaintiff.

96. As a result of Defendants’ wrongful acts alleged herein, Plaintiff has

suffered and is continuing to suffer irreparable injury. Plaintiff cannot be

adequately compensated for these injuries by damages alone, and Plaintiff has no

adequate remedy at law for Defendants’ infringement of its rights.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief:

a. Judgment for Plaintiff on its causes of action against Defendants for

trademark infringement, unfair competition, and false designation of origin under

2:15-cv-11478-BAF-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 25 of 30 Pg ID 25
26

15 USC §§ 1114, and 1125(a); trademark infringement and unfair competition

under the common law of Michigan and M.C.L. § 445.42; and unfair,

unconscionable, or deceptive trade practices in violation of Michigan’s Consumer

Protection Act, M.C.L. § 445.903;

b. Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against Defendants, their

officers, directors, agents, and employees and all those in active concert or

participation with Defendants, including their business partners who receive actual

notice of the judgment by personal service or otherwise (including under 15 USC §

1116, Michigan’s Consumer Protection Act, M.C.L. § 445.911(1)(b) and

Michigan’s Trademark Act, M.C.L § 429.43), as follows:

i. from further commercial use of SINGH, including any similar

variation thereof, either alone or in combination with other

words, names, or symbols, on or in connection with the

advertisement, marketing, offering for sale, or sale of real estate

management, real estate development, and residential and

commercial building construction services;

ii. from performing or committing any other acts falsely

representing Defendants’ services, or which are likely to cause

confusion or mistake in the mind of the purchasing public, or to

lead purchasers or the trade to believe that Defendants’ services

2:15-cv-11478-BAF-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 26 of 30 Pg ID 26
27

come from or are the services of Plaintiff, or are somehow

sponsored by, associated with, affiliated with, or connected

with Plaintiff, or that there is some relation, association,

affiliation, or connection between Plaintiff and Defendants;

iii. from passing off, or inducing or enabling others to sell or pass

off, Defendants’ products or services as those of Plaintiff; and

iv. from otherwise unfairly competing with Plaintiff, and from any

other acts which discourage, dilute, or destroy the public’s

recognition of SINGH. c. That upon final judgment, if in favor of Plaintiff, this Court issue a

Writ to the United States Marshall that directs the Marshall to seize and impound

all of Defendants’ advertising materials used to infringe SINGH, and that all of

these items be destroyed;

d. An award of actual, statutory, multiple, treble, exemplary, enhanced,

and/or punitive damages, plus interest, and an accounting of and disgorgement of

Defendants’ profits, for Defendants’ violations of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114 and 1125(a), pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117, and M.C.L. § 429.42;

e. A determination that this case is exceptional, entitling Plaintiff to,

inter alia, reasonable attorneys’ fees under 15 U.S.C. § 1117;

f. An award of interest, including pre- and post-judgment interest, and

2:15-cv-11478-BAF-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 27 of 30 Pg ID 27
28

costs of this action, together with Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees, including under

Michigan’s Consumer Protection Act, M.C.L. § 445.911(2) and Michigan’s

Trademark Act, M.C.L. § 429.42; and

g. Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, demand is

hereby made for trial by jury on all issues triable to a jury.

SINGH MANAGEMENT CO., LLC, by and through its attorneys:

/s/ Matthew P. Allen

Matthew P. Allen

Michigan State Bar No. 57914

MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK

AND STONE, P.L.C.

840 W. Long Lake Road, Suite 150

Troy, Michigan 48098

Phone: (248) 879-2000

Fax: (248) 879-2001

allen@millercanfield.com

OF COUNSEL:

Richard T. Matthews

North Carolina State Bar No. 32817

(admission pending)

Neil C. Magnuson

North Carolina State Bar No. 40272

(admission pending)

WILLIAMS MULLEN

301 Fayetteville St., Suite 1700

Raleigh, North Carolina 27601

2:15-cv-11478-BAF-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 28 of 30 Pg ID 28
29

Telephone: 919.981.4000

Facsimile: 919.981.4300

Email: rmatthews@williamsmullen.com

Email: nmagnuson@williamsmullen.com

2:15-cv-11478-BAF-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 29 of 30 Pg ID 29