UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

ABRO INDUSTRIES, INC., )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff, CAUSE NO.

vs.

1 NEW TRADE, INC., IGOR

ZORIN, BORIS BABENCHIK,

VADIM FISHKIN and QUEST

SPECIALTY COATINGS, LLC

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendants.

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, ABRO Industries, Inc. (“ABRO”) by its counsel, and for its complaint against

Defendants 1 New Trade, Inc. (“New Trade"), Igor Zorin (“Zorin”), Boris Babenchik

(“Babenchik”), Vadim Fishkin (“Fishkin”) and Quest Specialty Coatings, LLC (“Quest”)

(collectively referred to as “Defendants”) alleges and states as follows:

PARTIES AND INTRODUCTION

1. ABRO is an Indiana corporation doing business at 3580 Blackthorn Court, South

Bend, Indiana 46628.

2. As a leading distributor of top quality automotive, industrial, and consumer

products to customers in countries across the globe, ABRO has expended

substantial effort and resources to build a valuable reputation and substantial good

will in its brands.

3. New Trade is a Maryland Corporation doing business at 3700 Twin Lakes Court,

Baltimore, Maryland, 21244.

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-01984-TLS-MGG document 1 filed 10/23/14 page 1 of 8
2

4. Quest is a Delaware Limited Liability Company doing business at N92 W14701

Anthony Avenue, Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin, 53051.

5. Upon information and belief, Defendants Zorin and Babenchik are the principal

owners of New Trade and Defendant Fishkin is New Trade’s general manager.

6. Zorin was previously affiliated with JSC Himavtoprom (“JH”), a former distributor

of ABRO products. Babenchik was previously affiliated with a different

distributor of ABRO products.

7. New Trade, under the direction and control of Zorin, Babenchik and Fishkin, is

unfairly competing with ABRO by, among other things, obtaining products from

an affiliate of an ABRO supplier in the United States and then distributing the

products in containers nearly identical to ABRO’s containers used with identical

products, in the same markets as, and to the same customers formerly served by

JH.

8. Through this action, ABRO seeks to put a stop to Defendants’ illegal conduct and

obtain compensation for the violations that have occurred thus far.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 17

U.S.C. §411 and 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1338.

10. This Court has personal jurisdiction over each of the Defendants based upon their

continuous and systematic contacts with ABRO in the State of Indiana and the fact

that the effects of the acts of infringement are being felt by ABRO in this

jurisdiction. Indeed, through these contacts with ABRO, including meetings

between Zorin, Babenchik and representatives of ABRO in South Bend, Indiana,

Defendants learned the identity of ABRO’s suppliers and many details of the

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-01984-TLS-MGG document 1 filed 10/23/14 page 2 of 8
3

business model employed by ABRO from its corporate headquarters in this

jurisdiction.

11. Venue is appropriate in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) and

§1400(a).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

12. ABRO markets and sells various top quality automotive, industrial and consumer

products throughout the world.

13. ABRO’s success is built on its strong network of distributors and the quality and

goodwill associated with ABRO’s intellectual property. ABRO owns an extensive

portfolio of intellectual property rights in more than 165 countries. Because of the

value of ABRO’s intellectual property, ABRO takes enforcement very

seriously. ABRO has an extensive anti-counterfeiting program throughout the

world. The program has resulted in countless raids, product seizures, arrests and

jail terms for counterfeiters.

14. Continuously, since at least 1992, ABRO has sold and distributed a carburetor and

choke cleaner. ABRO is the owner of the intellectual property rights, including

but not limited to the copyrights, associated with the containers in which its

carburetor and choke cleaner is sold.

15. ABRO has applied to the Register of Copyrights to register its copyrights in its

carburetor and choke cleaner packaging (the “Work”) and is the owner of a

pending U.S. Copyright Application therefore assigned Case No. 1-1845314781. A copy of the application is attached as Exhibit 1.

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-01984-TLS-MGG document 1 filed 10/23/14 page 3 of 8
4

16. Defendants have reproduced the Work as packaging for carburetor and choke

cleaning product sold by New Trade and promoted on New Trade’s website and in

New Trade’s promotional materials.

17. For years, ABRO sold its carburetor and choke cleaner to JH for distribution and

sale in Russia. Through his affiliation with JH, Zorin was well aware of ABRO’s

carburetor and choke cleaner product and the Work. Through his affiliation with

another ABRO distributor, Babenchik was well aware of ABRO’s carburetor and

choke cleaner product and the Work. 18. ABRO terminated JH as a distributor on or about December 15, 2013.

19. Upon information and belief, Zorin, Babenchik and Fishkin formed New Trade for

the express purpose of competing with ABRO.

20. New Trade is now acquiring a carburetor and choke cleaning product from Quest

and is distributing this product in competing markets in a container that is virtually

identical to ABRO’s containers. A photograph showing New Trade’s carburetor

and choke cleaner product in the virtually identical container is attached to this

Complaint as Exhibit 2. 21. Quest is well aware of ABRO’s carburetor and choke cleaner product and the

Work, as at least one Quest affiliate supplies products to ABRO. 22. Defendants, without ABRO’s permission, have used and may continue to use

(unless enjoined by the Court) the Work when selling carburetor and choke

cleaner. Defendants have willfully used the Work without ABRO’s consent and

with the intent to capitalize on ABRO’s goodwill and well-known reputation. This

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-01984-TLS-MGG document 1 filed 10/23/14 page 4 of 8
5

use in commerce in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution and/or

advertising of New Trade’s products has damaged ABRO.

COUNT I

(Copyright Infringement)

23. ABRO incorporates by reference herein Paragraphs 1 through 22 above.

24. ABRO is pursuing copyright registration for the Work. 25. Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §401, ABRO’s copyright registration, when issued, will be

prima facie evidence of the validity of the copyright, of ABRO’s ownership of the

Work, and of ABRO’s exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute and display the

Work and produce derivative works based upon the Work pursuant to 17 U.S.C.

§§106, 201, and 410(c).

26. Defendants had access to the Work. 27. Defendants have directly, contributorily, and/or vicariously infringed and are

continuing to infringe ABRO’s copyright in the Work and distributing the

copyrighted material, or otherwise making it available, without ABRO’s consent.

These acts of infringement include exportation of copies of the Work, without the

authority or consent of ABRO, in violation of 17 U.S.C. §602(a)(2).

28. Defendants’ conduct violates several exclusive rights under 17 U.S.C. §106

belonging to ABRO. In particular, Defendants’ conduct violates ABRO’s rights to

reproduce, display and distribute the Work. 29. Defendants’ infringing conduct has caused and is causing irreparable injury and

damage to ABRO in an amount not yet capable of determination and, unless

restrained, will cause further irreparable injury, leaving ABRO with no adequate

remedy at law.

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-01984-TLS-MGG document 1 filed 10/23/14 page 5 of 8
6

30. ABRO is entitled to injunctive relief against Defendants, restraining further acts of

infringement.

COUNT II

(Personal Liability and/or Vicarious Liability

for Copyright Infringement -- Zorin, Babenchik, and Fishkin)

31. ABRO incorporates by reference herein Paragraphs 1 through 30 above.

32. Zorin, Babenchik and Fishkin know of New Trade’s infringing activities and, upon

information and belief, have personally participated in and are directing these

activities.

33. Given their positions, Zorin, Babenchik and Fishkin have the right and ability to

control the advertising and content on New Trade’s website, catalogs and various

publications and the manner in which New Trade packages and sells its products.

34. Similarly, Zorin, Babenchik and Fishkin have the right and ability to direct the

removal of infringing advertising and content from New Trade’s website, catalogs

and elsewhere and to change the containers New Trade uses to sell products.

35. Zorin and Babenchik also have a direct financial interest in the sales generated by

and through the advertising and content on New Trade’s website, catalogs and

other publications and by and through the use of ABRO’s intellectual property

including the Work. 36. ABRO is entitled to injunctive relief against Zorin, Babenchik and Fishkin

restraining them from directing further acts of infringement by New Trade’s

infringing conduct.

37. Zorin, Babenchik and Fishkin are personally liable to ABRO for the injuries

ABRO has suffered by virtue of New Trade’s actions.

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-01984-TLS-MGG document 1 filed 10/23/14 page 6 of 8
7

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, ABRO requests the Court to award the following relief:

A. Judgment on all counts against each of the Defendants individually and jointly

and severally and in favor of ABRO;

B. A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining and restraining Defendants,

their subsidiaries, related companies, associates, agents, servants, employees, officers, directors,

representatives, successors, assigns, attorneys and all persons that act in concert and participation

with them who learn of the injunction through personal service or otherwise:

(1) From further acts of infringement; and

(2) From copying, using, distributing, publishing by any means or creating a

derivative work of the Work under 17 U.S.C. §502;

C. An award of actual damages caused by and any profits obtained by Defendants

attributable to infringement of the Work pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §504(b);

D. For infringement of the Work occurring after registration thereof, an award of

statutory damages or alternatively actual damages caused by and any profits obtained by

Defendants attributable to the infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §§504(b) and 504(c);

E. Impoundment and destruction of all products, catalogs, advertisements,

promotional materials or other materials in Defendants’ possession, custody or control found to

have been made or used in violation of ABRO’s copyrights pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §503;

F. An award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §505;

G. An award of prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and

H. All other just and proper relief.

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-01984-TLS-MGG document 1 filed 10/23/14 page 7 of 8
8

JURY DEMAND

ABRO, by counsel, and under Fed. R. Civ. P. 38, demands a trial by jury of all issues

triable of right by jury.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ D. Randall Brown

D. Randall Brown (15127-49)

randy.brown@btlaw.com

600 One Summit Square

Fort Wayne, IN 46802

Telephone: (260) 423-9440

Facsimile: (260) 424-8316

Alice J. Springer (25105-64)

alice.springer@btlaw.com

Georgina D. Jenkins (31357 71)

georgina.jenkins@btlaw.com

700 1st Source Bank Center

100 North Michigan Street

South Bend, IN 46601-1632

Telephone: (574) 233-1171

Facsimile: (574) 237-1125

ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFF

SBDS01 404406v1

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-01984-TLS-MGG document 1 filed 10/23/14 page 8 of 8