PAGE 1 - COMPLAINT 

Anna Sortun, OSB No. 045279 

 Direct Dial: 503.802.2107 

 Fax: 503.972.3807 

 E-Mail: anna.sortun@tonkon.com 

TONKON TORP LLP

1600 Pioneer Tower 

888 S.W. Fifth Avenue 

Portland, OR 97204 

Robyn C. Crowther, Bar No. 193840 (pro hac vice application anticipated) 

 crowther@caldwell-leslie.com 

Kelly Perigoe, Bar No. 268872 (pro hac vice application anticipated)

 perigoe@caldwell-leslie.com

CALDWELL LESLIE & PROCTOR, PC 

725 South Figueroa Street, 31st Floor 

Los Angeles, California 90017-5524 

Telephone: (213) 629-9040 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

(Portland Division) 

EVOX PRODUCTIONS LLC, a Delaware limited 

liability company, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CHROME DATA SOLUTIONS, LP, a Delaware 

company; CHROME SYSTEMS INC., a Delaware 

corporation; DOES 1-10, 

Defendants. 

Civil No. 3:16-cv-57

COMPLAINT 

1. CONTRIBUTORY AND/OR 

VICARIOUS COPYRIGHT 

INFRINGEMENT 

2. BREACH OF CONTRACT 

3. BREACH OF CONTRACT AND 

CONTRACTUAL INDEMNITY 

4. ACCOUNTING 

5. DECLARATORY RELIEF 

(Demand for Jury Trial)

Case 3:16-cv-00057-PK Document 1 Filed 01/13/16 Page 1 of 20
PAGE 2 - COMPLAINT 

Plaintiff EVOX Productions LLC ("EVOX"), by its attorneys, Caldwell Leslie & 

Proctor, PC, alleges, with personal knowledge as to its own actions, and upon information and 

belief as to those of others, as follows: 

INTRODUCTION 

1. EVOX creates and licenses high-quality, photographic digital images and 

computer generated digital images of substantially all automotive makes and models commonly 

sold in the United States since model year 2000. EVOX is the leading creator of automotive 

image libraries ("AIL") in the United States, and its images are widely recognized as the best in 

its field. EVOX owns the copyrights in hundreds of thousands of photographic digital images 

and computer generated digital images. EVOX's images are widely used by its customers on 

websites and in mobile applications whose purpose is to market the automobiles that are 

portrayed in the EVOX images. 

2. In 2003, EVOX and Defendant Chrome Systems, Inc. ("Chrome Systems") 

entered into the Copyright License Agreement (the "Agreement"), which allowed Chrome 

Systems to sublicense EVOX's AIL to approved sublicensees in exchange for paying EVOX fees 

based upon sublicensees' uses of AIL. For years, Chrome Systems breached the Agreement by 

significantly underreporting the license fees owed to EVOX from at least two of its sublicensees, 

and failing to pay EVOX millions of dollars in fees due under the agreement. More egregiously, 

Chrome Systems and its successor in interest, Defendant Chrome Data Solutions, LP ("Chrome 

Data"), have breached the Agreement by refusing EVOX's requests to audit their records to 

determine if other underreporting exists. 

/ / / 

Case 3:16-cv-00057-PK Document 1 Filed 01/13/16 Page 2 of 20
PAGE 3 - COMPLAINT 

3. Along a similar vein, Chrome Systems had agreed to protect EVOX's intellectual 

property and to use the AIL consistently with EVOX's standards. Chrome Systems and, later, 

Defendants, violated their obligations to EVOX by allowing, on information and belief, 

numerous sublicensees to infringe EVOX images. For example, EVOX has recently learned that 

Potratz Partners Advertising, Inc. ("Potratz"), a New York company, has distributed at least 

53,318 of EVOX's copyrighted photographs, notwithstanding that it did not have a license with 

EVOX and was not an approved sublicensee. Instead, Chrome purported to "license" EVOX's 

images to Potratz, without ever obtaining EVOX's approval and without paying the license fees 

to EVOX that would have been due under the Agreement. As alleged herein, Potratz is just one 

of several such unapproved sublicensees which Chrome allowed to infringe EVOX's images. 

EVOX has suffered significant financial harm based on Defendants' conduct of which it is aware. 

It is also bringing an accounting claim to determine how much more damage has been done 

without its knowledge.

PARTIES

4. EVOX is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business 

in Rancho Dominguez, California. 

5. EVOX is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant Chrome 

Systems is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Portland, Oregon. 

6. EVOX is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant Chrome 

Data is a Delaware company with its principal place of business in Portland, Oregon. EVOX is 

further informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Chrome Data is a joint venture that 

was created in December 2011 by the merger of Chrome Systems and Autodata Solutions, Inc., 

Case 3:16-cv-00057-PK Document 1 Filed 01/13/16 Page 3 of 20
PAGE 4 - COMPLAINT 

and that the partnership is owned equally by third parties DealerTrack and Autodata Solutions, a 

subsidiary of Internet Brands. 

7. EVOX is unaware of the true names and capacities of Does 1 through 10, and 

therefore sues these Defendants by these fictitious names. EVOX will amend this complaint to 

allege the Doe Defendants' true names and capacities when they become known to EVOX. 

8. EVOX is informed and believes that, in performing the acts or omissions 

described in this Complaint, Defendant and Does 1 through 10 were acting as the principal, 

representative, agent, employee, or alter ego of each other and were acting within the scope of 

such agency or employment to commit the acts alleged herein. Each Defendant sued herein 

aided and abetted the other with the intent that each would be successful in their mutual 

endeavors. Each Defendant contributed to EVOX's damages and the statutory violations alleged 

herein. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

9. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action for the infringement of 

United States copyrights pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 501 et seq. and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a); 

42 U.S.C. § 9613(g)(2), providing jurisdiction over declaratory relief actions; and 28 U.S.C. § 

1367(a), providing supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in 

the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy 

under Article III of the United States Constitution 

10. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because, inter alia, EVOX is 

informed and believes that Defendants regularly conduct and have conducted business in this 

District by, among other things, supplying products and services in this District. Additionally, 

Defendants' conduct has occurred in this District, and has caused and continues to cause EVOX 

Case 3:16-cv-00057-PK Document 1 Filed 01/13/16 Page 4 of 20
PAGE 5 - COMPLAINT 

to suffer harm in this District. Moreover, according to its website, Chrome Data has a 

nationwide presence, including: (a) most United States vehicle manufacturers use Chrome Data 

products; (b) more than 90 percent of the largest fleet companies in North America use Chrome 

Data content; (c) 17,000 dealerships use Chrome Data content to help them sell new and used 

vehicles; (d) 6,000 websites use Chrome Data content; and (d) 1,000 financial institutions use 

Chrome Data information as part of making vehicle loans. 

11. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because, inter alia, 

(a) Defendants are doing business within this District; and (b) Defendants' acts or omissions 

giving rise to this lawsuit, as well as substantial injury to EVOX, have occurred and will 

continue to occur in interstate commerce, in this District. 

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 

EVOX's Intellectual Property 

12. EVOX owns the copyrights in hundreds of thousands of digital images and 

photographs under the United States Copyright laws, and has obtained Certificates of Copyright 

Registration from the Register of Copyrights for these works. Each copyright registration 

includes multiple still images for the title automobile, including "Exterior Spins" viewable 

through commonly available third party software. The automobiles and the federally registered 

copyrights which Defendant have infringed by the acts complained of herein include, without 

limitation, the copyrighted photographs listed in Exhibit "1" to the Complaint (the "Copyrighted 

Photographs"). 

13. EVOX has spent substantial time, money, and talent in connection with the 

production, development and marketing of the Copyrighted Photographs. 

Case 3:16-cv-00057-PK Document 1 Filed 01/13/16 Page 5 of 20
PAGE 6 - COMPLAINT 

14. EVOX also owns trademark registrations, including the following 

United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") trademark registration (the "EVOX 

Trademarks"). 

Trademark Registration No. Goods/services 

EVOX 3,765,883 Photography, audio and video recording 

services in the field of automotive imaging in 

international class 41 

EVOX IMAGES 3,649,661 Stock photography services, namely, leasing 

reproduction rights of photographs and 

transparencies to others in international 

class 45 

15. The EVOX Trademarks are registered on the Principal Register of the PTO 

pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1051, and these registrations are valid, subsisting, and enforceable. 

16. EVOX has developed a very successful business licensing its library of 

copyrighted automotive photographs. EVOX has used the EVOX Trademarks in connection 

with its advertising, promotion, sale, and offering for sale of its products and services 

nationwide. EVOX's products and services are known and recognized by the EVOX 

Trademarks. 

17. EVOX has used the EVOX mark and trade name continuously since 1995 

nationwide, in interstate commerce, either alone or in conjunction with other words and marks, 

to identify EVOX as the source of high quality goods and services in its field. 

18. EVOX has used the EVOX IMAGES mark continuously since 2006 nationwide, 

in interstate commerce, either alone or in conjunction with other words and marks, to identify 

EVOX as the source of high quality goods and services in its field. 

/ / / 

Case 3:16-cv-00057-PK Document 1 Filed 01/13/16 Page 6 of 20
PAGE 7 - COMPLAINT 

EVOX's Sublicensing Agreement with Chrome Systems

19. On October 6, 2003, EVOX and Chrome Systems entered into the Agreement, 

through which EVOX granted Chrome Systems "a nonexclusive, nontransferable limited 

copyright license" to use images in EVOX's automotive image library ("AIL"), as well as the 

right to sublicense the AIL. (A true and correct copy of the Agreement is attached hereto as 

Exhibit "2.") 

20. Paragraph 2.2 of the Agreement states that "Sublicenses by [Chrome Systems], as 

authorized by this Agreement, shall contain terms and conditions no less protective of EVOX's 

rights than those set forth by EVOX in this Agreement." 

21. Paragraph 2.1 of the Agreement requires Chrome Systems to "use the AIL 

consistently with EVOX's standards." 

22. Paragraph 3.2 of the Agreement requires Chrome Systems to "keep commercially 

reasonable records of its hosting and use of the AIL, and of all sublicensing in accordance with 

generally accepted accounting principles, consistently applied." 

23. The Agreement also required Chrome Systems to submit to EVOX a complete 

report of its net revenues, including information regarding the markets in which EVOX products 

were used, within fifteen days after the end of each calendar month. (Agreement, ¶ 3.4.) Under 

the Agreement, EVOX had the right to hire an independent auditor to verify sales figures 

relevant to this Agreement and, in the event that Chrome Systems "had underreported sales 

figures by more than five percent (5%) in any period," Chrome Systems had to reimburse EVOX 

for all audit costs. (Agreement, ¶ 6.6.) 

24. Under Paragraph 9.4 of the Agreement, Chrome Systems agreed to defend and 

indemnify EVOX "against any loss, cost, damage, liability or expense (including reasonable 

Case 3:16-cv-00057-PK Document 1 Filed 01/13/16 Page 7 of 20
PAGE 8 - COMPLAINT 

attorneys' fees) suffered or incurred by EVOX in connection with any negligent act or omission 

of" Chrome Systems, "including but not limited to . . . infringement . . . of EVOX's intellectual 

property rights," and further agreed that in the event of a breach of the proprietary rights 

provision of the Agreement, EVOX would be entitled to all remedies available at law or in 

equity and that EVOX would be entitled to recover its attorneys' fees and costs. 

25. Although the Agreement otherwise would have expired on February 15, 2008, 

EVOX and Chrome Systems entered into a series of side letters that permitted Chrome Systems 

to continue to supply EVOX products to Chrome Systems' sublicenses, subject to all the terms 

and conditions of the Agreement. 

Infringement of EVOX's Intellectual Property 

26. In or around April 2013, EVOX discovered that a third-party, Potratz, was using 

EVOX images without having sought or purchase a license from EVOX to use the Copyrighted 

Photographs. At no time has EVOX ever granted a license to Potratz to use the Copyrighted 

Photographs. EVOX is informed and believes that Potratz has distributed at least 53,318 of 

EVOX's Copyrighted Photographs to the public without EVOX's consent. 

27. At all times relevant to the claims asserted herein, EVOX did not consent to or 

authorize Potratz's use and/or distribution of EVOX's Copyrighted Photographs and to the extent 

consent to such use had previously been given, any such consent had expired. 

28. Potratz's unlawful and unauthorized distribution, transmission, copying, public 

display and use of the Copyrighted Photographs has irreparably harmed EVOX's copyrights and 

exclusive rights in the Copyrighted Photographs. 

29. After EVOX learned of Potratz's infringement, and the extent of it, EVOX 

contacted Potratz to demand that it cease and desist such infringing uses. As part of these 

Case 3:16-cv-00057-PK Document 1 Filed 01/13/16 Page 8 of 20
PAGE 9 - COMPLAINT 

communications, Potratz informed EVOX that it believed it had a license from Chrome Data to 

use the images. 

30. Chrome has failed to pay EVOX the fees associated with Potratz's use of EVOX 

images that would have been due under the Agreement had Potratz been an approved 

sublicensee. 

31. On information and belief, beginning no later than January 2013, Chrome made 

EVOX's Copyrighted Photographs available to additional entities including but not limited to 

Beechmont Motors and DealerSocket, Inc. (collectively and with Potratz, the "Unauthorized 

Sublicensees") without the contractually requisite authorization from EVOX and/or after such 

authorization had expired. On information and belief, these acts by Chrome allowed for and 

resulted in the unauthorized use of EVOX's Copyrighted Photographs by the Unauthorized 

Sublicensees and/or Chrome's underreporting of and underpayment for such uses by such 

Unauthorized Sublicensees. 

32. The Unauthorized Sublicensees' unlawful and unauthorized distribution, 

transmission, copying, public display and use of the Copyrighted Photographs has irreparably 

harmed EVOX's copyrights and exclusive rights in the Copyrighted Photographs. 

Underreporting of Sublicensing Fees 

33. EVOX is informed and believes that Chrome Systems has significantly 

underreported the fees of at least two, and potentially more, sublicensees. 

34. As set forth above, Potratz has distributed at least 53,318 of EVOX's Copyrighted 

Photographs to the public, and Chrome Systems has failed to properly report these uses and has 

not paid EVOX its share of the sublicense fees that are attributable to these uses. 

/ / / 

Case 3:16-cv-00057-PK Document 1 Filed 01/13/16 Page 9 of 20
PAGE 10 - COMPLAINT 

35. As set forth above, on information and belief, Chrome Systems has failed to 

properly report uses of EVOX's Copyrighted Photographs by the Unauthorized Sublicensees and 

has not paid EVOX its share of the sublicense fees that are attributable to these uses. 

36. Chrome Systems has significantly underreported in at least one other 

circumstance. In or around 2005, Chrome Systems entered into a sublicense agreement with a 

third party Gabriels Technology Solutions, Inc. ("GTS") by which GTS paid sublicense fees to 

Chrome Systems to use EVOX images. 

37. On February 6, 2013, EVOX filed a lawsuit against GTS in the United States 

District Court for the Central District of California, captioned EVOX Productions, LLC v. 

Gabriels Technology Solutions, Inc., Case No. CV13-00846, alleging claims for copyright 

infringement, contributory copyright infringement, trademark infringement, unfair competition, 

and two Lanham Act claims. After the lawsuit was filed, EVOX learned that GTS and Chrome 

Systems had significantly underreported licensing fees for the period of 2005 to 2010 by, inter 

alia, 

(a) paying the lowest possible fee for a package of 11 still photos, which ranges 

in price from $110 to $350 per month, depending on the size of the website on which the image 

appears, when GTS in fact should have paid the most expensive fee for access to the full set of 

AIL, which ranges from $630 to $2,430 per month, depending on the size of the website; 

(b) by paying lower fees for the use of AIL in small or medium websites when, in 

fact, most of the websites were in the "largest" category and subject to higher fees; and 

(c) for underreporting use of EVOX images on as many as 100 websites. 

 38. EVOX estimates that, over the course of 2005 to 2010, GTS's license fees were 

underreported by close to $3 million. 

Case 3:16-cv-00057-PK Document 1 Filed 01/13/16 Page 10 of 20
PAGE 11 - COMPLAINT 

39. Under the Agreement with EVOX and Chrome Systems, Chrome Systems was 

required to pay EVOX between 60 to 85 percent of its net revenues, including sublicense fees. 

Between 2005 and 2010, Chrome Systems paid EVOX approximately $85,000 —a fraction of 

the millions of dollars in GTS sublicense fees that Chrome Systems owed EVOX. 

40. Chrome Systems breached its duties to EVOX under the Agreement by 

underreporting GTS's sublicense fees and failing to pay to EVOX the 60 to 85 percent of the 

actual amount of sublicense fees. 

41. EVOX did not learn about Chrome Systems' underreporting until 2014, and could 

not have learned of it before that time because the information was solely within the possession 

of Defendants and GTS, and Defendants and GTS actively concealed the underreporting in an 

effort to avoid paying EVOX the millions of dollars it was due. 

42. GTS was not the only sublicensee of Chrome Systems in the period in question. 

Accordingly, on or around May 13, 2015, EVOX provided written notice to Defendants of its 

request to exercise its audit rights under the Agreement in order to ascertain whether any other 

sublicense fees had been underreported. As of the date of filing, Defendants have not responded 

to this written request. 

EVOX's Compliance with Paragraph 11.2 of the Agreement 

43. Pursuant to Paragraph 11.2 of the Agreement, on or about October 26, 2015, counsel 

for EVOX sent a letter to Defendants to Chrome Systems to notify Chrome Systems of EVOX's 

potential claims against Defendants and to initiate alternative dispute resolution procedures as set 

forth in Paragraph 11.2. 

44. Following the October 26, 2015 letter, counsel for EVOX and counsel for 

Defendants engaged in amicable discussions in an attempt to resolve the parties' dispute. 

Case 3:16-cv-00057-PK Document 1 Filed 01/13/16 Page 11 of 20
PAGE 12 - COMPLAINT 

45. Pursuant to Paragraph 11.2 of the Agreement, counsel for EVOX has requested that 

the parties submit to mediation of their dispute. As of the filing of this complaint Defendants 

have not agreed to participate in a mediation. 

46. Notwithstanding that the parties have not yet engaged in a mediation, EVOX has 

filed the instant complaint in order to preserve its claims in the face of Defendants' unwillingness 

to enter into an effective tolling agreement pending the parties' efforts at alternative dispute 

resolution. 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 

(Contributory and/or Vicarious Copyright Infringement) 

(Against All Defendants)

 47. EVOX hereby incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained 

above, as though set forth herein in full. 

 48. Each of the Copyrighted Photographs is an original pictorial work and constitutes 

copyrightable subject matter under 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 102. 

 49. During all times relevant to this complaint, the Unauthorized Sublicensees were 

not, and are not, licensed or otherwise authorized to distribute, transmit, copy, or display the 

Copyrighted Photographs. 

 50. The Unauthorized Sublicensees have infringed EVOX's copyrights the 

Copyrighted Photographs through the distribution, transmission, copying, or public display of the 

Copyrighted Photographs on their own websites and on the websites of certain car dealerships. 

 51. EVOX is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that Defendants, and 

each of them, knowingly induced, participated in, aided and abetted in, and profited from the 

Unauthorized Sublicensees' infringements of the Copyrighted Photographs. 

Case 3:16-cv-00057-PK Document 1 Filed 01/13/16 Page 12 of 20
PAGE 13 - COMPLAINT 

 52. EVOX is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that Defendants, and 

each of them, are vicariously liable for the infringement alleged herein because they had the right 

and ability to supervise the infringing conduct and because they had a direct financial interest in 

the infringing conduct. 

 53. Due to Defendants' acts of infringement, EVOX has no adequate remedy at law 

and is entitled to injunctive relief pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 502(a) and impoundment of infringing 

goods pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 503(a). 

 54. By reason of the Defendants' acts of contributory and vicarious infringement, 

EVOX has suffered and will continue to suffer substantial damages to its business, as well as 

additional general and special damages, in an amount to be established at trial. 

 55. Due to Defendants' acts of infringement, Defendants have obtained direct and 

indirect profits they would not otherwise have realized but for the infringement of EVOX's 

copyrights. EVOX is thus entitled to disgorgement of Defendants' profits directly and indirectly 

attributable to Defendants' infringement of EVOX's copyrights in an amount to be established at 

trial or to statutory damages as provided by Section 504(c)(1) for non-willful infringement. 

 56. In the alternative, EVOX is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that 

Defendants' acts of infringement were willful, intentional and malicious, which further subjects 

Defendants to liability for statutory damages under Section 504(c)(2) of the Copyright Act, 17 

U.S.C. § 504(c)(2), in the sum of up to one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) per 

infringement of each registered copyrighted work. 

 57. EVOX is also entitled to recover its attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 17 

U.S.C. § 505. 

/ / /

Case 3:16-cv-00057-PK Document 1 Filed 01/13/16 Page 13 of 20
PAGE 14 - COMPLAINT 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 

(Breach of Contract) 

(Against All Defendants) 

58. EVOX hereby incorporates by reference each and every allegation 

contained above, as though set forth herein in full. 

 59. EVOX and Chrome Systems entered into a valid written contract, the Agreement, 

which was executed by the parties on or about October 6, 2003. After the Agreement's 

expiration date, the parties entered into a series of side letters by which they agreed to be bound 

by the terms of the Agreement throughout the relevant time period. 

 60. EVOX fulfilled and/or performed all conditions, covenants, and promises 

required on its part in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Agreement except for 

those conditions, covenants, obligations, and promises that were waived, excused, or prevented 

by Chrome Systems. 

 61. Chrome Systems materially breached the Agreement by, inter alia, (a) failing to 

submit appropriate records of sublicense fees, (b) underreporting sublicense fees, (c) not paying 

EVOX the full extent of sublicense fees, and (d) failing to protect EVOX's intellectual property. 

 62. EVOX did not learn about Chrome Systems' underreporting until 2014, and could 

not have learned of it before that time because the information was solely within the possession 

of Defendants and sublicensees, and Defendants and sublicensees actively concealed the 

underreporting in an effort to avoid paying EVOX the millions of dollars it was due. 

 63. EVOX has suffered damages as a direct and proximate result of Chrome System's 

breaches of the Agreement in a sum to be proved at trial. 

/ / / 

Case 3:16-cv-00057-PK Document 1 Filed 01/13/16 Page 14 of 20
PAGE 15 - COMPLAINT 

 64. Chrome Data is also liable for these damages as the successor in interest to 

Chrome Systems and because, on information and belief, it is an alter ego of Chrome Systems. 

EVOX is informed and believes that Defendants, for the purpose of attempting to shield 

themselves from liability or responsibility for wrongful acts committed in furtherance of their 

business activities, created, or caused to have created separate entities for the purpose of 

improperly trying to avoid their lawful obligations. EVOX is informed and believes that 

Defendants have, among other things, failed to treat each other as separate entities, commingled 

their funds and assets, held out the other as liable for their own debts, used the same offices and 

employees, and used one as a mere shell or conduit for the affairs of the other. Unless Chrome 

Data is treated as an alter ego of Chrome Systems, injustice will result to EVOX. 

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 

(Breach of Contract and Contractual Indemnity) 

(Against All Defendants) 

 65. EVOX hereby incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained 

above, as though set forth herein in full. 

 66. EVOX and Chrome Systems entered into a valid written contract, the Agreement, 

which was executed by the parties on or about October 6, 2003. After the Agreement's 

expiration date, the parties entered into a series of side letters by which they agreed to be bound 

by the terms of the Agreement throughout the relevant time period. 

 67. EVOX fulfilled and/or performed all conditions, covenants, and promises 

required on its part in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Agreement and the 

Amendment except for those conditions, covenants, obligations, and promises that were waived, 

excused, or prevented by Chrome Systems. 

Case 3:16-cv-00057-PK Document 1 Filed 01/13/16 Page 15 of 20
PAGE 16 - COMPLAINT 

 68. Under Paragraph 9.4 of the Agreement, Chrome Systems agreed to defend and 

indemnify EVOX "against any loss, cost, damage, liability or expense (including reasonable 

attorneys' fees) suffered or incurred by EVOX in connection with any negligent act or omission 

of" Chrome Systems, "including but not limited to . . . infringement . . . of EVOX's intellectual 

property rights," and further agreed that in the event of a breach of the proprietary rights 

provision of the Agreement, EVOX would be entitled to all remedies available at law or in 

equity and that EVOX would be entitled to recover its attorneys' fees and costs. 

 69. Chrome Data is also liable for these damages as the successor in interest to 

Chrome Systems and because, on information and belief, it is an alter ego of Chrome Systems. 

EVOX is informed and believes that Defendants, for the purpose of attempting to shield 

themselves from liability or responsibility for wrongful acts committed in furtherance of their 

business activities, created, or caused to have created separate entities for the purpose of 

improperly trying to avoid their lawful obligations. EVOX is informed and believes that 

Defendants have, among other things, failed to treat each other as separate entities, commingled 

their funds and assets, held out the other as liable for their own debts, used the same offices and 

employees, and used one as a mere shell or conduit for the affairs of the other. Unless Chrome 

Data is treated as an alter ego of Chrome Systems, injustice will result to EVOX. 

 70. Pursuant to the Agreement, Defendants are obligated to indemnify EVOX for 

damages incurred as a result of underreporting by Chrome Systems' sublicensees, as well as the 

infringement of EVOX's intellectual property rights. These damages include attorneys' fees and 

costs incurred by EVOX. 

 71. Despite due demand, Defendants have refused to reimburse EVOX for damages 

incurred to date as a result of underreporting by Chrome Systems regarding its sublicensees, as 

Case 3:16-cv-00057-PK Document 1 Filed 01/13/16 Page 16 of 20
PAGE 17 - COMPLAINT 

well as the infringement of EVOX's intellectual property rights. As a result of Defendants' 

failure to accept their obligations in this regard, EVOX has suffered and is continuing to suffer 

damages, including without limitation attorneys' fees and costs and other monetary damages. 

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

(Accounting) 

(Against All Defendants) 

 72. EVOX hereby incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained 

above, as though set forth herein in full. 

 73. EVOX and Chrome Systems entered into a valid written contract, the Agreement, 

which was executed by the parties on or about October 6, 2003. The Agreement provided to 

EVOX the right to audit Chrome Systems books and records to determine Chrome Systems' net 

revenues earned from sublicensees. 

 74. On or around May 13, 2015, EVOX provided written notice to Defendants that it 

wished to exercise its audit rights under the Agreement. 

 75. Defendants have failed to respond to EVOX's written notice and have not made 

available all relevant information for EVOX's review. 

 76. As a result of the aforementioned, Defendants have received revenues related to 

EVOX's images, a portion of which is due to EVOX. The amount of money due from 

Defendants to EVOX is unknown to EVOX and cannot be ascertained without an accounting of 

all relevant information necessary to verify Defendants' sales figures, including but not limited to 

receipts and payments from sublicensees. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 3:16-cv-00057-PK Document 1 Filed 01/13/16 Page 17 of 20
PAGE 18 - COMPLAINT 

 77. EVOX has demanded an accounting of the aforementioned transactions from 

Defendants and payment of the amount due, but Defendants have failed and refused, and 

continue to fail and refuse, to render such an accounting and pay such sum. 

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

(Declaratory Relief) 

(Against All Defendants) 

 78. EVOX hereby incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained 

above, as though set forth herein in full. 

 79. An actual controversy has arisen between EVOX and Defendants concerning the 

parties' rights and obligations under the Agreement. EVOX contends that it has complied with 

the alternative dispute resolution procedures in Paragraph 11.2 of the Agreement. Defendants 

dispute that contention. 

 80. EVOX is entitled to a declaration from this Court that EVOX has complied with 

Paragraph 11.2 of the Agreement and/or that it is excused from complying with Paragraph 11.2 

of the Agreement by Defendants' failure to comply with same.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, EVOX prays for judgment and relief as follows: 

1. For the First Cause of Action, for an award at EVOX's election, pursuant to 17 

U.S.C. § 504, of either (1) the actual damages suffered by EVOX with respect to past 

infringement, plus any additional profits of Defendants that are attributable to the infringement 

that are not taken into account in computing the actual damages; or (2) statutory damages as 

provided by Section 504(c)(1). 

/ / / 

Case 3:16-cv-00057-PK Document 1 Filed 01/13/16 Page 18 of 20
PAGE 19 - COMPLAINT 

2. In the alternative, for the First Cause of Action, for a finding that the Defendants' 

infringement was willful, and for an award to EVOX, at its election, of statutory damages against 

Defendants for willfully committing infringement as provided by 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2); 

3. For the First Cause of Action, for an order that Defendants account for all sales, 

revenues, costs and profits from their wrongful conduct and unauthorized use of EVOX's 

Copyrights, and that Defendants pay EVOX damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but 

including Defendants' profits and actual damages suffered by EVOX as a result of Defendants' 

wrongful acts; 

4. For the Second Cause of Action, for actual damages in an amount above the 

jurisdictional minimum, in an amount to be proved at trial; 

5. For the Third Cause of Action, for indemnification as appropriate for damages 

incurred as a result of underreporting by Chrome Systems' sublicensees, including attorneys' fees 

and costs incurred by EVOX; 

6. For the Fourth Cause of Action, for an accounting between EVOX and 

Defendants, and for the amount found to be due from Defendants to EVOX as a result of that 

accounting; 

7. For the Fifth Cause of Action, for a declaration that EVOX has complied with 

Paragraph 11.2 of the Agreement and/or that it is excused from complying with Paragraph 11.2 

of the Agreement by Defendants' failure to comply with same. 

8. For injunctive relief; 

9. For attorneys' fees and costs of suit herein incurred as permitted by law; 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 3:16-cv-00057-PK Document 1 Filed 01/13/16 Page 19 of 20
PAGE 20 - COMPLAINT 

10. For pre-judgment interest at the maximum legal rate; and 

11. For such other and further relief as may be just and proper. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38, plaintiff demands a jury trial on all issues raised in this 

Complaint triable to a jury. 

DATED this 13th day of January, 2016. 

TONKON TORP LLP

By: /s/ Anna Sortun 

Anna Sortun, OSB No. 045279 

 Direct Dial: 503.802.2107 

 Fax: 503.972.3807 

 E-Mail: anna.sortun@tonkon.com 

CALDWELL LESLIE & PROCTOR, PC

Robyn C. Crowther, Bar No. 193840 

 (pro hac vice application anticipated) 

 crowther@caldwell-leslie.com 

Kelly Perigoe, Bar No. 268872 

 (pro hac vice application anticipated)

 perigoe@caldwell-leslie.com 

725 South Figueroa Street, 31st Floor 

Los Angeles, California 90017-5524 

Telephone: (213) 629-9040 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

080000/02107/6950298v1 

Case 3:16-cv-00057-PK Document 1 Filed 01/13/16 Page 20 of 20