ORIGINAL COMPLAINT 1

81362.0103.012622.6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

THE PARNELL GROUP LLC, and §

SHAUN PARNELL §

§

Plaintiff, § CIVIL ACTION NO. ___________

§

v. §

§

§

§

ARM CANDY, LLC, and §

JOHN LODS. §

§

§

Defendants. § JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

§

§

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, The Parnell Group LLC (“TPG”) and Shaun Parnell (“Mr. Parnell”), 

collectively “Plaintiffs”, file this its Original Complaint against Arm Candy, LLC, and John 

Lods, collectively “Defendants”, and would respectfully show the Court the following: 

Parties

1. TPG is a Texas limited liability company with a principal place of business at 

6817 Redstart Lane, Dallas, Texas 75214.

2. Mr. Parnell is an individual who resides at 6817 Redstart Lane, Dallas, Texas

75214.

3. Upon information and belief, Arm Candy, LLC (“Arm Candy”) is a Texas limited 

liability company with a principal place of business at 2929 Canton Street, Dallas, Texas 75226. 

The registered agent for service of process for Arm Candy is listed as John Lods at 2305 

Worthington Street, Apt. 212, Dallas, Texas 75204. 

Case 3:22-cv-00327-K Document 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 1 of 11 PageID 1
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT 2

81362.0103.012622.6

4. Upon information and belief, John Lods is an individual who resides at 2305 

Worthington Street, Apt. 212, Dallas, Texas 75204.

Jurisdiction and Venue

5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, and 1338(a)

and 15 U.S.C. § 1121 because this case arises under the Trademark Act of 1946, as amended, 15 

U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.

6. This Court has jurisdiction over the unfair competition claim under the provisions 

of 28 U.S.C. § 1338(b), because this claim is joined with substantial and related claims under the 

trademark laws of the United States, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. 

7. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the claims which arise under the laws

of the State of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), as the claims are so related to the Federal 

claims that they form part of the same case or controversy and derive from a common nucleus of 

operative fact.

8. Venue lies properly in this District as to Defendant Arm Candy under 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1391(b)(1) and 1391(b)(2) because Arm Candy is deemed to reside in this District, may be 

found in this District, and because a substantial part of the acts or omissions giving rise to the 

claims occurred in this District.

9. Venue lies properly in this District as to Defendant John Lods under 28 U.S.C. §§ 

1391(b)(1) and 1391 (b)(2) because he resides in this District, and because a substantial part of 

the acts or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this District.

Factual Allegations

10. Mr. Parnell has offered professional services in the field of software development 

for internet media and market analysis for many years. Mr. Parnell now offers quality software 

Case 3:22-cv-00327-K Document 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 2 of 11 PageID 2
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT 3

81362.0103.012622.6

development and innovative software tool design for gathering internet marketing data and 

analyzing it for effectiveness and cost efficiency. Mr. Parnell has an excellent reputation and is 

known in the industry by his surname “PARNELL” (the “Parnell Surname”). 

11. At least as early as January 2020, Mr. Parnell began offering media and marketing 

consulting services under the mark “THE PARNELL GROUPTM” (“TPG Trademark”). On 

March 3, 2020, TPG was formed with the Texas Secretary of State. TPG provides media and 

marketing consultation services under the TPG Trademark in association with a website located 

at the URL https://theparnellgroup.co (“TPG Website”). On January 5, 2022, TPG applied to 

register the TPG Trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office for “marketing 

consultation services”.

12. Prior to the acts of Defendant, which form the basis of this Complaint, TPG has 

expended substantial amounts time, energy, and money in continuously advertising and promoting 

the TPG Trademark in connection with its services. TPG continues to advertise and promote its 

services to the trade and the public under the TPG Trademark.

13. As a result of the care and skill exercised by TPG in the conduct of its business, 

by extensive advertising and marketing and by consistent high quality services offered under the 

TPG Trademark, TPG is now known as the exclusive source of services offered under the TPG 

Trademark and has acquired an excellent reputation in the industry and extensive customer 

goodwill. 

14. The TPG Trademark symbolizes the reputation and goodwill that TPG now 

enjoys. Consequently, the TPG Trademark constitutes a valuable asset of TPG. TPG’s business 

depends in part upon the recognition of the TPG Trademark in the industry and on the reputation 

and goodwill symbolized thereby.

Case 3:22-cv-00327-K Document 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 3 of 11 PageID 3
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT 4

81362.0103.012622.6

15. On information and belief, in or about Fall 2021, Defendants published a webpage 

located at the URL https://thearmcandy.com/parnell/ (“Infringing Website”). The Infringing 

Website advertises marketing software and services (“Infringing Goods and Services”) in this 

judicial district and throughout the United States, prominently featuring the Parnell Surname. 

Further, the Infringing Goods and Services compete directly with the services offered by TPG.

16. Defendants have adopted and used the trademark “PARNELL” (the “Infringing 

Mark”) on the Infringing Website, in commerce, in association with the Infringing Goods and

Services in this judicial district and throughout the United States by sale, offer for sale, providing 

and advertising of, at least, the goods and services of downloading marketing campaign data and 

creating strategic media plans associated with it.

17. At no time has TPG or Mr. Parnell authorized or approved Defendants’ use of the

Parnell Surname or the Infringing Mark, nor has TPG or Mr. Parnell authorized or approved the 

sale, offer for sale, provision, or advertising of the Infringing Website or the Infringing Goods and

Services. As a result of Defendants’ unauthorized use of the Parnell Surname and the Infringing 

Mark, Mr. Parnell and TPG have suffered and will continue to suffer damages, including, but not 

limited to, lost revenue, damage to their reputations, and mental anguish.

Count I

False Designation of Origin

(15 U.S.C. § 1125(a))

18. TPG repeats and reallege Paragraphs 1 through 17 as if fully set forth herein.

19. Since prior to the acts of the Defendants described in this Complaint, TPG has 

continuously marketed and sold its services under the TPG Trademark.

20. The TPG Trademark is inherently distinctive and represents services which 

originate from a single source, namely TPG.

Case 3:22-cv-00327-K Document 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 4 of 11 PageID 4
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT 5

81362.0103.012622.6

21. Alternatively, the TPG Trademark has acquired a secondary meaning in the 

marketplace, because TPG has extensively advertised and provided uniformly high quality services

under the TPG Trademark for a time sufficient to gain recognition. For this reason, the TPG

Trademark is now recognized by the public and the trade as representing services which originate 

from a single source, namely TPG.

22. Defendants’ acts are in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A) because 

Defendants have used a word, term, name, symbol or device, in commerce, namely the 

Infringing Mark, in association with their goods and services, which constitutes a false 

designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, and false or misleading 

representation of fact, which is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to 

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

or approval of Defendants’ goods and services and commercial activities by TPG.

23. Defendants’ acts are in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B) because 

Defendants have used a word, term, name, symbol or device, in commerce, namely the 

Infringing Mark, on their goods and services, which constitutes a false designation of origin, 

false or misleading description of fact, and false or misleading representation of fact, which in 

commercial advertising and promotion misrepresents the nature, characteristics, and qualities of 

Defendants’ goods and services and commercial activities.

24. Defendants’ acts of false designation of origin are fraudulent, deliberate, willful 

and malicious, and have been committed with the intent to cause injury to TPG and its property 

rights in the TPG Trademark, and to cause confusion, mistake and deception.

Case 3:22-cv-00327-K Document 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 5 of 11 PageID 5
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT 6

81362.0103.012622.6

Count II

Unfair Competition

(Texas Common Law)

25. TPG repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 24 as if fully set forth herein.

26. The acts of Defendants constitute unfair competition and trademark infringement 

under the common law of the State of Texas. TPG has adopted and used the TPG Trademark in 

connection with its services continuously since at least as early as January 2020. The TPG

Trademark identifies TPG as a sole source of services offered by TPG and distinguishes those 

services from the services of many others.

27. As a result of the care and skill exercised by TPG in the conduct of its business 

and particularly in the maintenance of high quality services, by its extensive advertising, and by 

the extensive and continuous marketing efforts throughout the industry, the services offered 

under the TPG Trademark have acquired a reputation for high quality. As a result of these 

efforts by TPG, consumers and the industry recognize the TPG Trademark to identify TPG

exclusively as a source of high quality services. The TPG Trademark has acquired wide 

notoriety and symbolizes the goodwill which TPG has created by the sale of dependable and 

high quality services. Consequently, the TPG Trademark constitutes a valuable asset of TPG.

28. Subsequent to the adoption and use of the TPG Trademark by TPG, Defendants

began infringing the TPG Trademark by advertising and selling competing and similar or 

identical goods and services under a trademark, namely the Infringing Mark, that is confusingly 

similar to and creates the same commercial impression as the TPG Trademark. Such conduct 

represents unfair competition and misappropriation and is designed to cause confusion and 

mistake and to deceive purchasers into believing that Defendants’ goods and services are 

somehow sponsored by, provided by, or associated with TPG.

Case 3:22-cv-00327-K Document 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 6 of 11 PageID 6
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT 7

81362.0103.012622.6

29. On information and belief, Defendants have attempted to and have passed off 

Defendants’ goods and services as those of TPG. 

30. Defendants’ acts of false designation of origin and trademark infringement are 

fraudulent, deliberate, willful and malicious, and have been committed with the intent to cause 

injury to TPG and its property rights in the TPG Trademark, and to cause confusion, mistake and 

deception.

Count III

Surname Misappropriation

(Texas Common Law)

31. Mr. Parnell repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 30 as if fully set forth 

herein.

32. The acts of Defendants constitute surname misappropriation under the common 

law of the State of Texas. 

33. Defendants have published and continue to display and publish the Parnell 

Surname on the Infringing Website to advertise and promote Defendants’ competing goods and 

services without Mr. Parnell’s authorization or consent. 

34. Defendants have used and continue to use the Parnell Surname for the value 

associated with it and not for an incidental or newsworthy purpose. 

35. Mr. Parnell can be identified from the use of the Parnell Surname on the 

Infringing Website. 

36. On information and belief, Defendants have improperly gained an advantage in 

the marketplace through the misappropriation of the Parnell Surname by deceiving customers 

into buying the Infringing Goods and Services based on the misconception that the Infringing 

Case 3:22-cv-00327-K Document 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 7 of 11 PageID 7
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT 8

81362.0103.012622.6

Goods and Services are those of Mr. Parnell or are associated with or approved or sponsored by 

Mr. Parnell.

37. Defendants’ acts of surname misappropriation are fraudulent, deliberate, willful 

and malicious, and have been committed with the intent to cause injury to Mr. Parnell and his

right of publicity in the Parnell Surname.

Allegations Of Damage

38. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege Paragraphs 1 through 37 as if fully set forth herein.

39. Because of Defendants’ acts of trademark infringement and unfair competition,

described in this Complaint, TPG has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable damage to 

its business, reputation and goodwill and to endure a loss of sales and profits in an amount yet to 

be determined.

40. Because of Defendants’ surname misappropriation, described in this Complaint, 

Mr. Parnell has suffered and will continue to suffer damages, including, but not limited to mental 

anguish, and damage to his reputation and right of publicity.

41. Because of Defendants’ acts described in this Complaint, Defendants have been 

and will continue to be unjustly enriched by profits they have made through the sale of goods 

and services under the Infringing Mark and under the Parnell Surname at least on the Infringing 

Website.

42. Defendants’ acts of trademark infringement, unfair competition, and violations of 

Texas common law were and are all willful and deliberate.

43. Unless Defendants are enjoined from their infringing actions, as described in this 

Complaint, Mr. Parnell and TPG will suffer irreparable harm, for which there is no adequate 

remedy at law.

Case 3:22-cv-00327-K Document 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 8 of 11 PageID 8
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT 9

81362.0103.012622.6

Demand For Jury Trial

44. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiffs demands a jury trial. 

Prayer

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request:

45. That Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, 

confederates and all persons in active concert or participation with any of them, be enjoined,

immediately and preliminarily, during the pendency of this action, and thereafter perpetually 

from:

A. Using the TPG Trademark, or any reproduction, counterfeit, copy or 

colorable imitation of the TPG Trademark, including but not limited to the 

Infringing Mark, in connection with the advertising, selling or offering for 

sale, goods and services that are the same or similar to those offered by 

TPG;

B. Using the TPG Trademark, or any reproduction, counterfeit, copy or 

colorable imitation of the TPG Trademark, including but not limited to the 

Infringing Mark, in any manner likely to cause confusion, to cause 

mistake or to deceive;

C. Using the Parnell Surname, and any likeness of Mr. Parnell, in any and all

public or private publications, including, but not limited to, all advertising, 

sales and offers for sale of, any and all goods and services whatsoever;

D. Committing any acts, including, but not limited to marketing and 

advertising under the Infringing Mark and/or the Parnell Surname, which 

are calculated to cause purchasers to believe that the services of 

Case 3:22-cv-00327-K Document 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 9 of 11 PageID 9
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT 10

81362.0103.012622.6

Defendants are those of TPG and/or Mr. Parnell, in whole or in part,

unless they are entirely such;

E. Competing unfairly with TPG and Mr. Parnell in any manner, including, 

but not limited to, use of the TPG Trademark and/or the Parnell Surname;

F. Deleting, destroying, altering, disposing of, concealing, tampering with or 

in any manner secreting any and all electronic files, web pages, computer 

code, business records, invoices, correspondence, books of account, 

receipts and other documentation relating or referring in any manner to 

providing, advertising, sale and offer for sale of any goods or services

incorporating the TPG Trademark, Parnell Surname, or any other 

trademark which is confusingly similar to the TPG Trademark or Parnell 

Surname, including but not limited to the Infringing Mark;

46. That, after final hearing, Defendants be required to deliver up for destruction or, 

alternatively, to obliterate all infringing marks on their entire inventory of infringing items, 

including but not limited to advertising materials, brochures, electronic files, webpages, signs, 

video and audio recordings, catalogs, and all electronic content or advertising of any kind and 

any other material in their possession incorporating the TPG Trademark, or the Parnell Surname, 

and any other trademark which is confusingly similar to either of them, including, but not limited 

to, the Infringing Mark;

47. That for the next five (5) years, upon ten (10) days notice, TPG and Mr. Parnell, 

or either of them, be permitted to inspect and audit Defendants’ business records, including, but 

not limited to, electronic files, to determine compliance with the Order issued by the Court;

Case 3:22-cv-00327-K Document 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 10 of 11 PageID 10
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT 11

81362.0103.012622.6

48. That Defendants be ordered to account for and pay over to TPG and Mr. Parnell

all damages sustained by Plaintiffs and profits realized by Defendants by reason of Defendant’s 

trademark infringement, as alleged herein, and that all profits be trebled as provided by 15 

U.S.C. § 1117 because of the willfulness of Defendants’ acts;

49. That Defendants be ordered to account and pay over to TPG and Mr. Parnell all 

damages sustained by Plaintiffs and profits realized by Defendants by reason of Defendant’s 

surname misappropriation, as alleged herein;

50. That TPG and Mr. Parnell be awarded prejudgment and post-judgment interest;

51. That TPG and Mr. Parnell be awarded their costs and reasonable attorney’s fees

as provided by 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a); and,

52. That TPG and Mr. Parnell have such other and further relief as the Court deems 

just and proper.

Dated: February 9, 2022. Respectfully submitted,

 s/George R. Schultz

George R. Schultz

Texas State Bar No. 17837500

rschultz@grspc.com

Nicole R. Marsh

Texas State Bar No. 24044653

nmarsh@grspc.com

SCHULTZ & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

5400 LBJ Freeway

Suite 1200

Dallas, Texas 75240

(214) 210-5940 telephone

(214) 210-5941 facsimile

Case 3:22-cv-00327-K Document 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 11 of 11 PageID 11