1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION - DETROIT

GRANITE CITY, INC.,

a Michigan corporation

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 

Hon. 

GRANITE CITY TOPS, INC., Magistrate

a Michigan corporation, and

VENSENT MOUSA, jointly and severally,

Defendants.

_____________________________________________________________________________________/

JAMESON & LANGLOIS, P.C.

Joseph L. Langlois (P43050)

Attorneys for Plaintiff

11843 E. 13 Mile Road

Warren, MI 48093

(586) 795-0787

langlois@jlpclaw.com

_____________________________________________________________________________________/

COMPLAINT

(And Jury Demand)

Plaintiff, Granite City, Inc., states:

NATURE AND BASIS OF ACTION

1. This is an action by Granite City, Inc., a Michigan corporation, against Granite City Tops, Inc., a 

Michigan corporation and Vensent Mousa, an individual, jointly and severally, for unfair 

competition, violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, trademark infringement, and 

cyber-piracy. GRANITE CITY seeks injunctive relief and damages for unfair competition under 

state common law, for violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (“MCPA”), MCL 

§445.901, et seq., for trademark infringement under Section 32 of the Trademark Act of 1946, as 

amended, 15 U.S.C. §1114 (“the Lanham Act”), for unfair competition under Section 43(a) of the 

Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125(c) and under federal common law. 

2:15-cv-11484-PDB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 04/24/15 Pg 1 of 9 Pg ID 1
2

THE PARTIES

2. Granite City, Inc. is a Michigan corporation with a principal place of business in Livonia, Michigan

(hereinafter “PLAINTIFF”).

3. Granite City Tops, Inc. is, upon information and belief, a Michigan corporation with a principal 

place of business at 24008 Haggerty Rd., Farmington Hills, MI 48335 (hereinafter “DEFENDANT 

TOPS”).

4. Vensent Mousa is, upon information and belief, a Michigan resident and serves as officer, director 

and primary shareholder of Granite City Tops, Inc. (hereinafter “DEFENDANT MOUSA”). 

5. Both DEFENDANT TOPS and DEFENDANT MOUSA shall hereinafter be referred to as 

“DEFENDANTS” when being jointly referenced. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. This court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1121, and 28 U.S.C. §1331, as this 

case arises under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125(a). Personal jurisdiction in this district 

is proper inasmuch as DEFENDANTS, upon information and belief, have solicited and conducted 

business within the State of Michigan, thereby purposely availing itself of the privilege of acting in 

the State of Michigan.

7. Pendent or supplemental jurisdiction o this Court exists for the state law claims stated herein, each 

of which arises out of a common nucleus of operative facts with those from which the federal claims 

arise.

8. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

9. PLAINTIFF was founded in February 2009 by its founder, Ervin Sulollari (“Sulollari”). 

10. PLAINTIFF specializes in the production and installation of high quality marble and granite counter 

tops.

11. PLAINTIFF filed Articles of Incorporation with the state of Michigan under the name “Granite 

City, Inc.” 

12. PLAINTIFF has been using the tradename “Granite City” in conjunction with its business 

continuously in commerce since its founding. 

13. PLAINTIFF’s customers are primarily located in southeast Michigan, but have sold products to 

customers in Toledo, Ohio. 

2:15-cv-11484-PDB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 04/24/15 Pg 2 of 9 Pg ID 2
3

14. DEFENDANT TOPS filed Articles of Incorporation with the State of Michigan on or about January 

23, 2013, under the name “Granite City Tops, Inc.”.

15. The Articles of Incorporation of Granite City Tops, Inc. was apparently filed by Lwees Mousa and 

DEFENDANT MOUSA.

16. Upon information and believe, DEEFENDANT TOPS also filed Articles of Incorporation in the 

State of Ohio on or about November 6, 2014, under the name “Granite City Tops, Inc.”. 

17. Upon information and believe, DEFENDANT MOUSA operated a granite counter top business in 

2005 under a different business name and location. 

18. Upon information and believe DEFENDANT MOUSA started using the name “Granite City Tops, 

Inc.” to directly complete and take away business from PLAINTIFF.

19. Upon information and belief, DEFENDANT TOPS started operating under the name “Granite City 

Tops, Inc.” in a location in Farmington Hills not far from PLAINTIFF’S location in Livonia.

20. On or about January 30, 2015, PLAINTIFF was alerted to the fact that of the existence a gentleman 

called PLAINTIFF’S store inquiring why they were late in the installation of a countertop. Once this 

person realized PLAINTIFF was “Granite City, Inc.” and not “Granite City Tops, Inc.” he 

apologized for calling the wrong company.

21. On or about February 6, 2015, a gentleman came into the store to place an order for a granite 

countertop and then realized after he had placed the order that he was at the “wrong” company and 

thought PLAINTIFF was DEFENDANT TOPS instead.

22. On or about February 23, 2015, a gentleman called PLAINTIFF’S inquiring when his countertop 

would be ready. After a discussion of who the gentleman had previously talked to about the order, 

he realized he had placed the order with DEFENDANT TOPS as opposed to PLAINTIFF.

23. In January 2015, DEFENDANT TOPS placed a very similar advertisement as had been previously 

placed by PLAINTIFF, including listing Granite for “as low as $29.99/SQ. FT.” compared to 

PLAINTIFF’S advertisement which included “GRANITE Starting at $29.99/sq. ft.”, as well as 

other similarities. 

24. DEFENDANT TOPS utilizes the domain name www.granitecitytops.com as its domain name. 

25. Upon information and belief, DEFENDANT TOPS sells and installs granite countertops and similar 

and related products to the same customer base as PLAINTIFF. 

2:15-cv-11484-PDB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 04/24/15 Pg 3 of 9 Pg ID 3
4

26. Alerted to the DEFENDANT TOPS existence and its website, PLAINTIFF acted promptly to 

protect its trademark rights. PLAINTIFF immediately filed its own trademark applications for 

“GRANITE CITY”, sent a ceases and desist letter to DEFENDANT TOPS, and commenced 

preparation for the filing of complaint for trademark infringement and related claims.

COUNT I

(FEDERAL UNFAIR COMPETITION AND FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN

UNDER §43(a) OF THE LANHAM ACT)

27. PLAINTIFF incorporates and realleges, as if fully set forth in this paragraph, the allegations of the 

foregoing paragraphs.

28. The PLAINTIFF marks, as more fully described above, are well established marks that serve to 

identify the goods and services sponsored, approved by, authorized by, associated with, or affiliated 

exclusively with the PLAINTIFF marks of GRANITE CITY, INC., which has an exceptional 

reputation in the industry.

29. As evidenced by the PLAINTIFF’S continued and exclusive use since early 2009, PLAINTIFF’s 

marks have acquired distinctiveness among purchasers of granite countertops and related products 

within the southeast Michigan area.

30. Upon information and belief, prior to the use of the name “Granite City Tops, Inc.”, 

DEFENDANTS had actual and constructive knowledge of the use and ownership by PLAINTIFF of

the GRANITE CITY marks and were aware of the advertising and promotional activities sponsored 

by PLAINTIFF.

31. DEFENDANTS, in connection with granite countertops and related products, have used and 

continue to use, and has expressed an intent to expand, their use of the GRANITE CITY marks in a 

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

connection, or association of DEFENDANT TOPS with PLAINTIFF, and to the origin, 

sponsorship, or approval of DEFENDANT TOPS’ goods, services, and/or commercial activities of 

PLAINTIFF.

32. The DEFENDANTS’ use of the GRANITE CITY marks constitutes false designations of origin, 

false descriptions and false representations in interstate commerce in violation of §43(a) of the 

Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125(a).

2:15-cv-11484-PDB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 04/24/15 Pg 4 of 9 Pg ID 4
5

33. As a proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ actions, PLAINTIFF has suffered and will continue to 

suffer great damage to its business, goodwill, reputation, profits and the strength of its tradename 

and trademarks. The injury is and continues to be ongoing and irreparable. 

34. An award of monetary damages alone cannot fully compensate PLAINTIFF for its injuries and 

PLAINTIFF lacks an adequate remedy at law.

COUNT II

(VIOLATION OF ANTI-CYBERSQUATTING CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT (CYBERPIRACY)

UNDER 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)

35. Plaintiff incorporates and realleges, as if fully set forth in this paragraph, the allegations of the 

foregoing paragraphs.

36. As alleged above, DEFENDANT TOPS uses the domain name www.granitecitytops.com

(hereinafter the “Infringing Domain Name”) which is very similar to PLAINTIFF’S marks and its 

own domain name www.granitecitymi.com. 

37. DEFENDANTS have registered and are using the Infringing Domain Name without PLAINTIFF’S 

authorization and with a bad faith intent to profit from PLAINTIFF’S marks and own tradename 

and domain name in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d).

38. PLAINTIFF’S marks were distinctive at the time DEFENDANTS registered the Infringing Domain 

Name and remain distinctive today.

39. The Infringing Domain Name was confusingly similar to PLAINTIFF’S marks at the time 

DEFENDANTS registered the Infringing Domain Name, and they remain so today.

40. DEFENDANTS did not believe or could not reasonably have believed their use of the Infringing 

Domain Name constituted fair use or was otherwise lawful.

41. As a result of DEFENDANTS’ wrongful registration and use of the Infringing Domain Nam, 

PLAINTIFF has suffered substantial damages, as well as the continuing loss of the goodwill and 

reputation established by PLAINTIFF in its marks. This continuing loss of goodwill cannot be 

properly calculated and thus constitutes irreparable harm and an injury for which PLAINITFF has 

not adequate remedy at law. PLAINTIFF will continue to suffer irreparable harm unless this Court 

enjoins DEFENDANTS’ conduct and orders that the Infringing Domain Name be transferred to 

PLAINTIFF. 

2:15-cv-11484-PDB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 04/24/15 Pg 5 of 9 Pg ID 5
6

COUNT III

(STATE UNFAIR COMPETITION – MICHIGAN COMMON LAW)

42. PLAINTIFF incorporates and realleges, as if fully set forth in this paragraph, the allegations of the 

foregoing paragraphs.

43. By their acts alleged herein, DEFENDANTS have engaged in trademark infringement and unfair 

competition under the common law of the State of Michigan.

44. DEFENDANTS’ use of the mark “GRANITE CITY” in the name of its entity “Granite City Tops, 

Inc.”, and on its website, advertisements, marketing materials, etc., is identical to PLAINTIFF’s 

mark and tradename of “GRANITE CITY”.

45. DEFENDANTS have intentionally deceived the public by misrepresenting that DEFENDANTS

products being offered for sale are products are those of PLAINTIFF’s, thereby appropriating to 

DEFENDANTS the reputation PLAINTIFF has acquired for its own products.

46. Upon information and belief the aforesaid acts were undertaken willfully and with the intention of 

causing confusion, mistake or deception.

47. By reason of the acts of DEFENDANTS alleged herein, PLAINTIFF has suffered, is suffering and 

will continue to suffer irreparable damage and, unless, said DEFENDANTS are restrained from 

continuing its wrongful acts, the damage will be increased.

48. PLAINTIFF has no adequate remedy at law.

COUNT IV

(COMMON LAW INJUNCTION)

49. PLAINTIFF incorporates and realleges, as if fully set forth in this paragraph, the allegations of the 

foregoing paragraphs.

50. DEFENDANT TOPS is clearly infringing on PLAINTIFF’s use of the GRANITE CITY tradename 

and mark.

51. PLAINTIFF has suffered substantial damages as a proximate result of DEFENDANT TOPS illegal 

use of the GRANITE CITY mark.

52. PLAINTIFF has been irreparably harmed by DEFENDANT TOPS infringement and has no 

adequate remedy at law.

2:15-cv-11484-PDB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 04/24/15 Pg 6 of 9 Pg ID 6
7

COUNT V

(VIOLATION OF MICHIGAN CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT (“MCPA”)

53. PLAINTIFF incorporates and realleges, as if fully set forth in this paragraph, the allegations of the 

foregoing paragraphs.

54. DEFENDANTSs sale of its products constitutes “trade or commerce” within the meaning of 

445.902(1)(g) of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (“MCPA”), MCL §445.901, et seq.

55. DEFENDANTSs actions as set forth above have and are causing confusion or misunderstanding as 

to the source, sponsorship, approval and/or certification of goods or services within the meaning of 

the MCPA, MCL §445.903(1)(a). 

56. PLAINTIFF has suffered substantial damages as a proximate result of DEFENDANTS actions.

57. PLAINTIFF has been irreparably harmed by DEFENDANTS actions and has no adequate remedy 

at law.

58. PLAINTIFF is entitled to statutory damages and attorney fees. 

2:15-cv-11484-PDB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 04/24/15 Pg 7 of 9 Pg ID 7
8

PRAYERS FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF respectfully requests that this Court:

A. Enter judgment that DEFENDANTS have used false designations of origin, false 

descriptions, and false representations, in bad faith and in willful violation of 15 U.S.C. 

§1125(a); and with bad faith intent to profit from PLAINTIFF’s GRANITE CITY marks, 

has registered, trafficked in, and used, a domain name identical, dilutive or confusingly 

similar to PLAINTIFF’s GRANITE CITY marks in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1125(d).

B. Award actual or statutory damages for DEFENDANT TOPS and DEFENDANT 

MOUSA’S violation of 15 U.S.C. §1125(d)(1) in an amount of not less than $1,000.00 and 

not more than $100,000 per domain name, as the court considers just.

C. Enter an order pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1125(d)(IX)(ii)(c) that DEFENDANT TOPS forfeit, 

cancel or transfer the domain name “granitecitytops.com” to PLAINTIFF.

D. Issue a preliminary injunction and thereafter a permanent injunction under 15 U.S.C. 

§1116(a) ordering DEFENDANT TOPS and DEFENDANT MOUSA and their respective 

officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert with 

them, to refrain from using, authorizing or employing the name or mark “GRANITE CITY” 

or any colorable imitation of PLAINTIFF’s GRANITY CITY marks, including without 

limitation the use of the mark “GRANITE CITY” and “GRANITE CITY, INC.” and to file 

with the court and serve on the PLAINTIFF within thirty (30) days of service on 

DEFENDANT TOPS and DEFENDANT MOUSA of such injunction a report in writing 

under oath setting forth in detail the manner and form in which DEFENDANTS have 

complied with the injunction.

E. Issue an order under 15 U.S.C. §1118 ordering that all labels, signs, prints, packages, 

wrappers, receptacles, and advertisements in the possession of DEFENDANTS bearing the 

registered marks or colorable imitation of such marks, shall be delivered and destroyed.

F. Enter judgment that DEFENDANTS use of PLAINTIFF’s GRANITE CITY marks violates 

the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, and award all damages, including costs and 

reasonable attorney fees, as authorized by that Act.

G. Such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate.

2:15-cv-11484-PDB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 04/24/15 Pg 8 of 9 Pg ID 8
9

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 38(b) and 5(d), PLAINTIFF demands a jury trial of all issues triable by 

jury.

Dated this April 24, 2015.

/s/Joseph L. Langlois

Jameson & Langlois, P.C.

Attorney for the Plaintiff

11843 E. Thirteen Mile Road

Warren, MI 48093

(586) 795-0787

e-mail: langlois@jlpclaw.com

P43050

2:15-cv-11484-PDB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 04/24/15 Pg 9 of 9 Pg ID 9