4888-6323-2856, v. 1 Page 1 of 18 Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Service Mark

 Infringement and Application for Preliminary Injunction 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

GOVERNMENT CAPITAL ()

CORPORATION, ()

Plaintiff ()

()

V. () CIVIL CASE NO. 4:23-cv-00242

()

LEASE SERVICING CENTER, INC. ()

d/b/a LSC, ()

Defendant ()

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR SERVICE MARK INFRINGEMENT

AND APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Plaintiff Government Capital Corporation (hereinafter sometimes referred to as “GCC” or 

“Plaintiff”), by and through its below-identified attorneys, complains of Lease Servicing Center, 

Inc. d/b/a LSC (hereinafter sometimes referred to as “Infringer” or “Defendant”) and for cause of 

action, would show the Court the following:

I.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. The jurisdiction of this Court over Counts I, II, and III is founded upon 15 U.S.C. 

§1125 and 28 U.S.C. §1338(a). Jurisdiction over Counts IV and V is founded under the doctrine 

of supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. §1367(a), and 28 U.S.C. §1338(b). Jurisdiction over Count 

VI arises under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202. Defendant 

is promoting, publicizing, and actually selling the below-described infringing services in this 

judicial district. 

2. Venue for all Counts is, on information and belief, proper in this judicial district 

under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) and (c).

Case 4:23-cv-00242-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/24/23 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 1
4888-6323-2856, v. 1 Page 2 of 18 Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Service Mark

 Infringement and Application for Preliminary Injunction 

II.

THE PARTIES

3. Plaintiff GCC is a Texas corporation having its principal places of business in 

Southlake, Texas.

4. Defendant Lease Servicing Center, Inc. d/b/a LSC is a Minnesota Corporation that 

has a business address at 220 22nd Avenue E, Suite 106, Alexandria, Minnesota 56308. Defendant

has done business in multiple locations in the State of Texas, including having previously done

business in Collin County, Texas. Defendant may be served through its registered agent, C T 

Corporation, at 1999 Bryan St., Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201-3136. 

III.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

5. Since at least January, 1993, GCC has done business under the service mark 

GOVERNMENT CAPITAL CORPORATION, and has also extensively used the short form of 

that service mark, GOVERNMENT CAPITAL, including using those marks (the 

“GOVERNMENT CAPITAL SERVICE MARKS”) in the provision of financing and loan 

services. Government Capital is also the owner of the following United States Service Mark

Application that is currently pending in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO):

Mark App. No. Goods Covered

GOVERNMENT CAPITAL CORPORATION 97766696 Class 36 – Financing and loan 

 services, et. al.

6. GCC has consistently used the GOVERNMENT CAPITAL SERVICE MARKS in 

commerce in connection with its financing and loan services that are primarily provided to 

governmental entities, including municipalities, school districts, counties, other units of local 

government, state agencies, and tribal nations, since at least as early as January 31, 1993 (or 

earlier). GCC has done business throughout the United States in the last thirty years.

Case 4:23-cv-00242-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/24/23 Page 2 of 18 PageID #: 2
4888-6323-2856, v. 1 Page 3 of 18 Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Service Mark

 Infringement and Application for Preliminary Injunction 

7. Plaintiff’s use of the GOVERNMENT CAPITAL SERVICE MARKS has been 

exclusive and continuous since at least January 31, 1993 (or earlier). Since 1993, Plaintiff has 

spent well in excess of $25 Million in marketing, advertising, and sales expenses in order to create 

recognition of the GOVERNMENT CAPITAL SERVICE MARKS and to solidify and enhance 

the business goodwill among members of the relevant population that is associated with and 

connected to the business, including but not limited to, persons involved in management and 

administration of governmental entities, including managerial staff and administrators for various 

municipalities, school districts, counties, other units of local government, state agencies, and tribal 

nations.

8. Exhibits 1-3 that are attached to this Complaint show current uses of the 

GOVERNMENT CAPITAL SERVICE MARKS on some of webpages of GCC’s website that is 

located at the domain name govcap.com. Exhibit 4 that is attached to this Complaint shows GCC’s 

current FaceBook® main page showing use of the GOVERNMENT CAPITAL SERVICE 

MARKS. GCC’s services are identified and widely recognized throughout the United States by 

the GOVERNMENT CAPITAL SERVICE MARKS.

9. Upon information and belief, since September, 2002, GCC has been the exclusive 

and continuous owner of the domain name registration for the domain name govcap.com (the 

“GOV CAP DOMAIN”). Starting in 2004, the GOV CAP DOMAIN resolved to GCC’s c website, 

and GCC’s website has been located at the GOV CAP DOMAIN since that time. Additionally, 

also starting in or around 2004, GCC’s agents, employees, and representatives have all used the 

related e-mail domain @govcap.com (the “GOV CAP EMAIL DOMAIN”) as part of their e-mail 

addresses that are provided to and used by GCC’s customers when communicating with GCC and 

its representatives in connection with the marketing, sales, and provision of GCC’s loan and 

Case 4:23-cv-00242-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/24/23 Page 3 of 18 PageID #: 3
4888-6323-2856, v. 1 Page 4 of 18 Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Service Mark

 Infringement and Application for Preliminary Injunction 

financing services (the “GOV CAP EMAIL DOMAIN”). 

10. In addition to the above, GCC has for many years used the slogans “DO MORE 

WITH LESS” and “You’re Being Asked to Do More With Less” (collectively, “GOV CAP 

SLOGANS”). Examples of just some of the uses of the GOV CAP SLOGANS over the last decade 

are attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 5.

11. The GOVERNMENT CAPITAL SERVICE MARKS, GOV CAP DOMAIN, GOV 

CAP EMAIL DOMAIN, and the GOV CAP SLOGANS (all of which are sometimes collectively 

referred to as the “GOVERNMENT CAPITAL MARKS”) are all protectable as service marks and 

are entitled to protection under the Lanham Act. GCC has done billions of dollars in business 

using the GOVERNMENT CAPITAL MARKS throughout the United States.

12. Recently, Defendant has begun to intentionally use the infringing service mark 

NCL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL, an infringing short version of that mark, GOVERNMENT 

CAPITAL, the infringing domain name nclgovcap.com, the infringing e-mail domain 

@nclgovcap.com, and the infringing slogan “do more with less” (collectively, the “INFRINGING 

MARKS”) without license or permission. This is evidenced by the multiple screenshots from

Defendant’s website that are attached to this Complaint as Exhibits 6-8, screenshots from 

Defendant’s FaceBook® Page which are attached as Exhibit 9 herewith, and social media posts 

by Defendant attached hereto as Exhibit 10. It is clear from the attached exhibits that Defendant 

is using the INFRINGING MARKS to market and sell services that are identical or highly similar 

to those that GCC has marketed and sold under the GOVERNMENT CAPITAL MARKS 

throughout the United States since 1993.

13. Defendant’s uses of the INFRINGING MARKS are in the nature of actual 

marketing and sales of financing and loan services that are primarily provided to governmental 

Case 4:23-cv-00242-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/24/23 Page 4 of 18 PageID #: 4
4888-6323-2856, v. 1 Page 5 of 18 Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Service Mark

 Infringement and Application for Preliminary Injunction 

entities, including municipalities, school districts, counties, other units of local government, state 

agencies, and tribal nations and that are being offered and sold in commerce in direct competition 

with Plaintiff’s services in the same states and geographic areas.

14. Sales of Defendant’s financing and loan services under the INFRINGING MARKS

have occurred in this state and in this Judicial District.

15. Plaintiff has not authorized, consented to, licensed, or otherwise acquiesced in the 

use of the INFRINGING MARKS or any similar marks or terms by Defendant.

16. Defendant's use of the INFRINGING MARKS has caused multiple instances of 

actual confusion. Multiple customers that have done repeated business with GCC over the years 

have recently become confused about whether or not Defendant is the same entity as GCC and 

whether or not the services provided by Defendant are actually being provided by GCC. Thirdparty finance entities and vendors have also recently become confused about whether or not 

Defendant is part of, or related to, GCC. Moreover, Defendant’s use of the INFRINGING 

MARKS has caused GCC to lose at least one known municipal financing deal, and upon 

information and belief, multiple instances of actual confusion created by Defendant’s unpermitted 

use of the INFRINGING MARKS have occurred that have resulted in lost sales of services by 

GCC and therefore resulted in direct economic damage to GCC. If Defendant is not restrained 

from its ongoing infringement and if it is allowed to continue to make use of the INFRINGING 

MARKS in the relevant market, there is a significant likelihood of continuing actual confusion, 

mistake, and deception of consumers and others in relevant populations, as to the origin, 

sponsorship, approval or affiliation of the respective services of the parties.

17. Such use of the INFRINGING MARKS by Defendant in connection with its loan 

and financing services has caused actual confusion in this District among multiple people.

Case 4:23-cv-00242-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/24/23 Page 5 of 18 PageID #: 5
4888-6323-2856, v. 1 Page 6 of 18 Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Service Mark

 Infringement and Application for Preliminary Injunction 

18. Such use by Defendant of the INFRINGING MARKS is, therefore, an infringement 

of Plaintiff’s rights in the GOVERNMENT CAPITAL MARKS that have long been used by 

Plaintiff in connection with its services throughout the United States. Defendant’s use of the 

INFRINGING MARKS, and all variations and colorable imitations of the INFRINGING MARKS, 

is likely to create confusion and has caused actual confusion in this District.

19. Defendant's use of the INFRINGING MARKS constitutes common law service 

mark infringement as well as a “false designation of origin” under federal unfair competition law, 

but also represents direct infringement of Plaintiff's GOVERNMENT CAPITAL MARKS that 

creates confusion, deception, and mistakes. The type of services Defendant offers under the 

INFRINGING MARKS are identical or highly similar to the type of services offered by Plaintiff'

under the GOVERNMENT CAPITAL MARKS, and Defendant’s INFRINGING MARKS are the 

same or virtually the same as Plaintiff’s GOVERNMENT CAPITAL MARKS that Plaintiff has 

long used as service marks throughout the United States.

20. Defendant’s infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair competitive 

practices are intentional. In one instance, one of GCC’s customers in this Judicial District recently 

became confused about whether Defendant was the same entity as GCC. The customer directly 

inquired with Defendant as to whether or not Defendant was the same entity as GCC, and 

Defendant refused to answer the question and tried to complete a sale of services anyway despite 

not being willing to clarify that Defendant is a totally separate entity from GCC. Furthermore, the 

rapid adoption of all the INFRINGING MARKS at approximately the same time in the recent past 

resulting in simultaneous infringement of each and all of the GOVERNMENT CAPITAL MARKS 

indicates that Defendant’s decision to adopt the INFRINGING MARKS was intentional and was 

intended to unfairly compete with Plaintiff by attempting to solicit and confuse Plaintiff’s longCase 4:23-cv-00242-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/24/23 Page 6 of 18 PageID #: 6
4888-6323-2856, v. 1 Page 7 of 18 Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Service Mark

 Infringement and Application for Preliminary Injunction 

standing customers, vendors, and financial partners. 

21. Defendant's usurpation of Plaintiff’s GOVERNMENT CAPITAL MARKS has 

created actual confusion on the part of customers and potential customers of Plaintiff in multiple 

locations in the United States. Upon information and belief, Defendant’s usurpation of Plaintiff’s 

GOVERNMENT CAPITAL MARKS creates both direct and reverse confusion.

22. Defendant's use of the INFRINGING MARKS has caused members of the relevant 

population to incorrectly believe that Defendant’s loan and financing services are somehow 

provided by, sponsored by, approved by, or affiliated with Plaintiff. None of these beliefs are 

correct, and there is actual confusion due to Defendant’s intentional and deliberate infringement.

23. Defendant is not only using the INFRINGING MARKS in connection with 

promoting types of services that are identical or highly similar to the types of services offered by 

Plaintiff, but is doing so in the same markets where Plaintiff’s services are routinely offered and 

sold under the GOVERNMENT CAPITAL MARKS. Defendant has been directly soliciting 

business from multiple, long-standing customers of Plaintiff while intentionally using the 

confusingly similar INFRINGING MARKS in order to unfairly compete with Plaintiff and its 

salespeople and to siphon off business that would otherwise be awarded to GCC.

24. GCC has also recently learned that Defendant has obtained a federal registration 

for the following composite service mark shown below:

(referred to herein as the “DEFENDANT’S REGISTRATION”). DEFENDANT’S 

REGISTRATION was registered by USPTO under U.S. Service Mark Registration No. 6,543,160

on November 2, 2021. A copy of the registration certificate for DEFENDANT’S 

Case 4:23-cv-00242-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/24/23 Page 7 of 18 PageID #: 7
4888-6323-2856, v. 1 Page 8 of 18 Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Service Mark

 Infringement and Application for Preliminary Injunction 

REGISTRATION is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 11 hereto.

25. At the time that Defendant filed its trademark application that led to 

DEFENDANT’S REGISTRATION, Defendant did not inform USPTO that the term 

GOVERNMENT CAPITAL was already in use by one of Defendant’s competitors (GCC) 

throughout the United States in connection with sales of the same or highly similar services to the 

same types of customers. Defendant also did not file any type of concurrent use application with 

USPTO regarding the already-in-use service mark GOVERNMENT CAPITAL.

26. Importantly, DEFENDANT’S REGISTRATION was only obtained by Defendant 

after Defendant entered an express disclaimer of the term GOVERNMENT CAPITAL. As can be 

seen when reviewing the registration certificate for DEFENDANT’S REGISTRATION that is 

attached hereto as Exhibit 11, DEFENDANT’S REGISTRATION expressly and specifically states 

“No claim is made to the exclusive right to use the following apart from the mark as shown: 

‘GOVERNMENT CAPITAL’.” In other words, Defendant has expressly agreed and represented

in its public filings with the USPTO that Defendant does not have any exclusive right to use the 

term GOVERNMENT CAPITAL (apart from the registered mark) to the exclusion of others.

27. It is Plaintiff’s position in this lawsuit that DEFENDANT’S REGISTRATION 

should be cancelled by the Court because, despite the express disclaimer regarding any exclusive 

rights to use the term “GOVERNMENT CAPITAL” apart from the entirety of the registered mark, 

Defendant’s use of the registered mark is causing actual confusion and is likely to continue to 

cause confusion, mistake, and misunderstanding in the relevant channels of trade and in the 

relevant marketplace. Thus, DEFENDANT’S REGISTRATION should be cancelled by this Court 

pursuant to the power given to the Court to cancel registrations under the Lanham Act.

Case 4:23-cv-00242-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/24/23 Page 8 of 18 PageID #: 8
4888-6323-2856, v. 1 Page 9 of 18 Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Service Mark

 Infringement and Application for Preliminary Injunction 

IV.

COUNTS

COUNT I

SERVICE MARK INFRINGEMENT (Forward Confusion)

28. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the preceding Paragraphs 1 - 27.

29. The use by Defendant of the INFRINGING MARKS in commerce is likely to cause 

confusion, mistake, or deception among purchasers or prospective purchasers, vendors, and 

financial services partners as to affiliation, connection, or association of the parties and as to the 

source, sponsorship, and approval of Plaintiff’s and Defendant's services, and it has in fact already 

caused actual confusion in the marketplace on multiple occasions.

30. Defendant is therefore liable for infringement of Plaintiff’s GOVERNMENT 

CAPITAL MARKS and false designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. §1125, et seq.

31. Plaintiff has been and is being irreparably damaged by the foregoing acts of 

Defendant and, unless Defendant is restrained, said infringing acts will continue. Having no 

adequate remedy at law, Plaintiff seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief in addition to 

its actual damages and all of Defendant’s profits.

32. The willful nature of Defendant's infringement, if established by subsequent 

discovery, will render this case exceptional within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. §1117, entitling 

Plaintiff to an award of its reasonable attorney fees.

33. Plaintiff further asserts that Defendant’s use of the INFRINGING MARKS in 

connection with offering and selling the same types of services offered and sold by Plaintiff under 

its GOVERNMENT CAPITAL MARKS constitutes sales of counterfeit services under 15 U.S.C. 

§1116(d), entitling Plaintiff to elect recovery of statutory damages at any time prior to the entry of 

final judgment pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1117(c).

Case 4:23-cv-00242-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/24/23 Page 9 of 18 PageID #: 9
4888-6323-2856, v. 1 Page 10 of 18 Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Service Mark

 Infringement and Application for Preliminary Injunction 

COUNT II

SERVICE MARK INFRINGEMENT (Reverse Confusion)

34. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the preceding Paragraphs 1 – 33.

35. The use by Defendant of the INFRINGING MARKS in commerce is likely to cause 

confusion, mistake, or deception among purchasers or prospective purchasers, vendors, and 

financial services partners as to the respective source, sponsorship, approval or affiliation of 

Plaintiff's and Defendant's services. In fact such confusion has already actually occurred in this 

District and in other locations.

36. The infringing acts of Defendant are likely to create both forward confusion (that 

Defendant's services are provided by, sponsored by, approved by, or affiliated with Plaintiff) and 

reverse confusion (that Plaintiff’s services are provided by, sponsored by, approved by, or 

affiliated with Defendant).

37. Defendant is therefore liable for infringement of Plaintiff's GOVERNMENT 

CAPITAL MARKS and false designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. §1125, et seq.

38. Plaintiff has been and is being irreparably damaged by the foregoing acts of 

Defendant and, unless Defendant is restrained, said infringing acts will continue. Having no 

adequate remedy at law, Plaintiff seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief in addition to 

its actual damages and Defendant’s profits.

39. The willful nature of Defendant's infringement, if established by subsequent 

discovery, will render this case exceptional within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. §1117, entitling 

Plaintiff to an award of its reasonable attorney fees.

40. Plaintiff further asserts that Defendant’s use of the INFRINGING MARKS in 

connection with offering and selling the same types of services offered and sold by Plaintiff under 

its GOVERNMENT CAPITAL MARKS constitutes sales of counterfeit services under 15 U.S.C. 

Case 4:23-cv-00242-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/24/23 Page 10 of 18 PageID #: 10
4888-6323-2856, v. 1 Page 11 of 18 Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Service Mark

 Infringement and Application for Preliminary Injunction 

§1116(d), entitling Plaintiff to elect recovery of statutory damages at any time prior to the entry of 

final judgment pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1117(c).

COUNT III

FEDERAL FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN

41. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates in this Count each of the allegations set forth in 

paragraphs 1-40.

42. Defendant’s use of the INFRINGING MARKS in commerce is a false description 

and representation that its services are provided by, sponsored by, or affiliated with Plaintiff’s 

services that have been offered and sold under the GOVERNMENT CAPITAL MARKS for many 

years prior to the time that Defendant began using the INFRINGING MARKS. Such use is in 

violation of 15 U.S.C. §1125(a) because it is a false designation of origin for which Plaintiff is 

entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and damages as therein provided.

COUNT IV

STATE UNFAIR COMPETITION

43. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates in this Count each of the allegations set forth in 

paragraphs 1-42.

44. The aforesaid acts of Defendant constitute service mark infringement, 

misappropriation of Plaintiff’s rights, unjust enrichment, passing off of Defendant’s services as 

those of Plaintiff, and unfair competition, all in violation of the common law of the State of Texas.

COUNT V

STATE ACTION FOR INJURY TO A BUSINESS REPUTATION,

TRADE NAME OR MARK

45. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates in this Count each of the allegations set forth in 

paragraphs 1-44.

46. The use by Defendant of the INFRINGING MARKS in the State of Texas is likely 

Case 4:23-cv-00242-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/24/23 Page 11 of 18 PageID #: 11
4888-6323-2856, v. 1 Page 12 of 18 Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Service Mark

 Infringement and Application for Preliminary Injunction 

to injure the business reputation of Plaintiff, and to dilute the distinctive quality of Plaintiff’s

GOVERNMENT CAPITAL MARKS, for which Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. §16.29 prescribes 

injunctive relief.

COUNT VI

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

47. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates in this Count each of the allegations set forth in 

paragraphs 1-46.

48. There is a justiciable controversy between Defendant and Plaintiff concerning the 

right of Plaintiff to prevent the use of the INFRINGING MARKS by Defendant in view of 

Plaintiff’s ownership of the GOVERNMENT CAPITAL MARKS for identical or highly similar 

services.

49. Plaintiff is entitled to, and hereby requests, a declaratory judgment that Defendant's 

publicizing, marketing, and selling services under the INFRINGING MARKS infringes Plaintiff’s 

rights in and to the GOVERNMENT CAPITAL MARKS for loan and financing services.

COUNT VII

APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

50. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates in this Count each of the allegations set forth in 

paragraphs 1-49.

51. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1116, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a), and this 

Court’s inherent equitable powers to restrain Defendant from engaging in tortious conduct that is 

causing irreparable harm, Plaintiff requests that the Court, pending trial on the merits, issue a 

preliminary injunction, and after trial on the merits, to issue a permanent injunction that enjoins 

Defendant, along with its respective employees, agents, partners, joint venturers, representatives, 

and all those persons acting in concert with it, or any of the aforesaid, together with those persons 

Case 4:23-cv-00242-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/24/23 Page 12 of 18 PageID #: 12
4888-6323-2856, v. 1 Page 13 of 18 Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Service Mark

 Infringement and Application for Preliminary Injunction 

having actual knowledge of this Court’s Order, from the following conduct:

a. Any further use as a service mark, business name, tradename, display, promotion, 

and/or advertising of the terms GOVERNMENT CAPITAL, NCL 

GOVERNMENT CAPITAL, GOV CAP, govcap.com, nclgovcap.com, 

@nclgovcap.com, DO MORE WITH LESS, and DOING MORE WITH LESS, or 

any colorable variations thereof, in connection with, or in promotion of, loan and 

financing services;

b. The further sale and offer for sale of any services in connection with the marks

GOVERNMENT CAPITAL, NCL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL, GOV CAP, 

govcap.com, nclgovcap.com, @nclgovcap.com, DO MORE WITH LESS, and 

DOING MORE WITH LESS, or any colorable variations thereof;

c. The further production and dissemination of advertising and marketing material 

that in any way exhibits or includes the trade names or service marks

GOVERNMENT CAPITAL, NCL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL, GOV CAP, 

govcap.com, nclgovcap.com, @nclgovcap.com, DO MORE WITH LESS, and 

DOING MORE WITH LESS, or any colorable variations of those marks; 

d. The further use of the marks GOVERNMENT CAPITAL, NCL GOVERNMENT 

CAPITAL, GOV CAP, govcap.com, nclgovcap.com, @nclgovcap.com, DO 

MORE WITH LESS, and DOING MORE WITH LESS, or any colorable variations

of those marks, on FaceBook®, Twitter®, Instagram®, or on any other website or 

Internet-based social media whatsoever; 

e. The further use of the marks GOVERNMENT CAPITAL, NCL GOVERNMENT 

CAPITAL, GOV CAP, govcap.com, nclgovcap.com, @nclgovcap.com, DO 

Case 4:23-cv-00242-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/24/23 Page 13 of 18 PageID #: 13
4888-6323-2856, v. 1 Page 14 of 18 Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Service Mark

 Infringement and Application for Preliminary Injunction 

MORE WITH LESS, and DOING MORE WITH LESS, or any colorable variations

of those marks, on labels and signs, signage, and any other similar marketing or 

advertising uses in connection with loan and financing services.

52. Plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary injunction because a balancing of the four factor 

preliminary injunction test weighs heavily in Plaintiff’s favor.

53. Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that Defendant’s use of the 

INFRINGING MARKS in connection with its loan and financing services constitutes service mark 

infringement under the Lanham Act and constitutes illegal service mark dilution under Texas law. 

Defendant’s INFRINGING MARKS are identical or nearly identical to Plaintiff’s 

GOVERNMENT CAPITAL MARKS in terms of spelling and pronunciation of the 

GOVERNMENT CAPITAL, GOV CAP, and DO MORE WITH LESS terms in the marks. 

Furthermore, the INFRINGING MARKS are being used by Defendant in connection with the same 

or highly similar types of services as those of Plaintiff, namely, loan and financing services. Such 

use is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive and therefore constitutes service 

mark infringement with regard to Plaintiff’s GOVERNMENT CAPITAL MARKS. The similarity 

of the marks also establishes a strong case that Defendant’s use of the INFRINGING MARKS

dilutes the distinctive quality of Plaintiff’s GOVERNMENT CAPITAL MARKS and that such use 

is intentional.

54. Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that Defendant’s use of the 

INFRINGING MARKS in connection with its loan and financing services constitutes unfair 

competition under the Lanham Act. Defendant’s INFRINGING MARKS are extremely similar to 

Plaintiff’s GOVERNMENT CAPITAL MARKS, so much so that it creates a likelihood of 

confusion or mistake when used in connection with loan and financing services, and has in fact 

Case 4:23-cv-00242-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/24/23 Page 14 of 18 PageID #: 14
4888-6323-2856, v. 1 Page 15 of 18 Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Service Mark

 Infringement and Application for Preliminary Injunction 

already caused actual confusion.

55. Plaintiff has and will continue to be irreparably harmed by Defendant’s service 

mark infringement and Defendant’s false designation of origin. Defendant has damaged, and 

continues to damage the prospects for Plaintiff to profit from its duly acquired and protected 

property interest in the GOVERNMENT CAPITAL MARKS. Consumers who see both the 

INFRINGING MARKS used in connection with services sold by Defendant and the 

GOVERNMENT CAPITAL MARKS used in connection with services sold by Plaintiff are selfevidently likely to assume some false connection between the respective users and their respective 

services. The likelihood of confusion caused by the improper use of a confusingly similar mark 

is, in itself, irreparable injury. This is bolstered by the fact that there have already been multiple 

instances of actual confusion among customers in the relevant market.

56. The balance of hardships also favors Plaintiff. The hardships that will be 

encountered by Plaintiff if a preliminary injunction is not granted clearly outweigh the hardships 

caused to Defendant if such an injunction issues. Plaintiff is not requesting that Defendant be 

enjoined from competing. Plaintiff is only asking that Defendant be required to compete fairly by 

using a non-infringing mark in connection with its competing services. Hence the only harm to 

Defendant from issuance of an injunction, is that the Defendant will be required to use a mark that 

is not likely to cause confusion or destroy the existing or potential future goodwill developed by 

Plaintiff through its long-standing use of the GOVERNMENT CAPITAL MARKS.

57. Granting a preliminary injunction would be consistent with the public interest. A 

preliminary injunction in this case not only would preserve and protect Plaintiff’s existing and 

prospective goodwill in the GOVERNMENT CAPITAL MARKS, but also would advance the 

public interest by preventing the confusion or deception of consumers in violation of the Lanham 

Case 4:23-cv-00242-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/24/23 Page 15 of 18 PageID #: 15
4888-6323-2856, v. 1 Page 16 of 18 Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Service Mark

 Infringement and Application for Preliminary Injunction 

Act. 

58. Plaintiff is willing to post a bond in the amount the Court deems appropriate. Given 

that Defendant has flagrantly infringed Plaintiff’s service mark rights, only a de minimis bond 

would be appropriate.

59. In light of these considerations, Plaintiff’s Application for Preliminary Injunction 

should be granted.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues which are triable.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Government Capital Corporation respectfully requests:

(a) That Defendant Lease Servicing Center, Inc. and each of its respective agents, 

servants, employees, partners, joint venturers, successors, and assigns, and all other persons acting

in active concert and participation with Defendant, be preliminarily and permanently enjoined 

from using the marks GOVERNMENT CAPITAL, NCL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL, GOV CAP, 

govcap.com, nclgovcap.com, @nclgovcap.com, DO MORE WITH LESS, and DOING MORE 

WITH LESS, or any colorable variations thereof, and whether alone or as part of composite marks,

in any manner with respect to loan and financing services with which the use of such marks would 

reasonably give rise to a likelihood of confusion.

(b) That Defendant Lease Servicing Center, Inc. be ordered to deliver up for 

destruction all signs, advertisements, circulars, brochures, labels, goods, business cards, and any 

and all other items in its possession or under its control which bear the GOVERNMENT 

CAPITAL, NCL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL, GOV CAP, govcap.com, nclgovcap.com, 

@nclgovcap.com, DO MORE WITH LESS, and DOING MORE WITH LESS marks (alone or as 

Case 4:23-cv-00242-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/24/23 Page 16 of 18 PageID #: 16
4888-6323-2856, v. 1 Page 17 of 18 Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Service Mark

 Infringement and Application for Preliminary Injunction 

part of a composite mark) or any colorable variations thereof, and to remove, take down, and delete 

all Internet websites, social media posts, Internet listings, social media accounts, social media 

listings, and all other electronic media of whatsoever type or kind displaying the GOVERNMENT 

CAPITAL, NCL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL, GOV CAP, govcap.com, nclgovcap.com, 

@nclgovcap.com, DO MORE WITH LESS, and DOING MORE WITH LESS marks (alone or as 

part of a composite mark) and all similar variations of same.

(c) That Plaintiff’s Application for Temporary Injunction incorporated herein be heard 

and granted at the earliest possible time.

(d) That Defendant Lease Servicing Center, Inc. be required to account to Plaintiff 

Government Capital Corporation for any and all profits derived by Defendant from the aforesaid 

misconduct, and for all damages sustained by Plaintiff Government Capital Corporation by reason 

of said unlawful acts, and that a judgment be entered against Defendant for said amounts, and that, 

if further investigation yields facts which justify such a holding by this Court, that said damages 

be enlarged by virtue of 15 U.S.C. §1117(b).

(e) That a declaratory judgment be granted Plaintiff to the effect that Defendant's 

publicizing, marketing, and selling its services under the GOVERNMENT CAPITAL, NCL 

GOVERNMENT CAPITAL, GOV CAP, govcap.com, nclgovcap.com, @nclgovcap.com, DO 

MORE WITH LESS, and DOING MORE WITH LESS marks infringes Plaintiff’s rights in and to 

the GOVERNMENT CAPITAL MARKS with regard to loan and financing services.

(f) That costs of this action be awarded to Plaintiff Government Capital Corporation.

(g) That Plaintiff Government Capital Corporation be awarded its reasonable 

attorney’s fees expended in filing and prosecuting this action.

(h) The Court cancel U.S. Service Mark Registration No. 6,543,160, in whole or in 

Case 4:23-cv-00242-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/24/23 Page 17 of 18 PageID #: 17
4888-6323-2856, v. 1 Page 18 of 18 Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Service Mark

 Infringement and Application for Preliminary Injunction 

part, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1119.

(i) That Plaintiff be granted such other and further relief as the Court deems proper 

and just.

Respectfully Submitted,

_________________________________________

John A. "Andy" Powell

State Bar No. 24029775

USPTO Reg. No. 71,533

powell@namanhowell.com

Jacqueline P. Altman 

State Bar No. 24087010

jaltman@namanhowell.com

Mark W. Altman, II

State Bar No. 24094064

maltman@namanhowell.com

of

NAMAN, HOWELL, SMITH & LEE, PLLC

400 Austin Avenue, 8th Floor

Waco, Texas 76701

(254) 755-4100

FAX (254) 754-6331

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

GOVERNMENT CAPITAL CORPORATION

Case 4:23-cv-00242-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/24/23 Page 18 of 18 PageID #: 18