06803285.5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

JPAR Franchising, LLC,

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 4:23-cv-322

Jason Will Real Estate, LLC, Jason 

Will, and Diana Will, 

Defendants. 

Complaint

Plaintiff JPAR Franchising, LLC (“JPAR”) alleges the following Complaint: 

Nature of Action

1. This is an action for unfair competition and false designation of origin

in violation of § 43(a) of the United States Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1125(a); breach of contract; trademark infringement in violation of § 43(a) of the

United States Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1); dilution in violation of 

Ala. Code § 8-12-17; and related claims for trademark infringement and unfair 

competition under common law. 

Case 4:23-cv-00322-SDJ Document 1 Filed 04/13/23 Page 1 of 30 PageID #: 1
06803285.5 2

The Parties

1. JPAR Franchising, LLC is a limited liability company organized and 

existing under the laws of the State of Texas with its principal place of business at

5045 Lorimar Dr., Ste 180, Plano, Texas 75093.

2. Defendant Jason Will Real Estate, LLC (the “Will Entity”) is a limited 

liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Alabama 

with principal places of business at:

a. 154 N. Section Street, Fairhope, Alabama 36532;

b. 3800 Gulf Shores Parkway, Suite 106, Gulf Shores, AL 36542; 

and

c. 4524 Southlake Pkwy, Suite 4, Hoover, Alabama 35244.

3. Upon information and belief, Defendant Jason Will is an individual 

residing in Hoover, Alabama. 

4. Upon information and belief, Defendant Diana Will is an individual 

residing in Hoover, Alabama.

Jurisdiction and Venue

5. The Court has original jurisdiction over this subject matter of this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 1338(a) and (b) and 15 U.S.C. § 1121.

6. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state statutory 

and common law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.

Case 4:23-cv-00322-SDJ Document 1 Filed 04/13/23 Page 2 of 30 PageID #: 2
06803285.5 3

7. Defendants have contractually agreed to personal jurisdiction in this 

District. In addition, Defendants regularly transacted business within this District 

as a former franchisee of JPAR, and Defendants have committed tortious acts within this District including, for example, committing willful trademark violations expressly aimed at JPAR, a company with its principal place of business in this District.

8. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 as the 

unlawful acts of the Defendants complained of herein have been committed by the 

Defendants within this District and have had or will have had effect in this District.

Factual Background

9. Plaintiff develops and operates a system for operating real estate brokerage franchises throughout the United States. Under its franchise agreements, 

Plaintiff licenses its franchisees to use its system and various Service Marks associated therewith.1

10. Registered Service Marks licensed by Plaintiff include:

Mark Serial No. Registration No. Goods and Services

JPAR 87219641 5357909 Advertising of commercial or 

residential real estate.

JPAR 88628934 6171016 Franchise support services, 

 1 Under the Franchise Agreement between JPAR and the Will Entity, “Service Marks” include 

“proprietary marks registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office and certain 

states, as well as all common law trademarks and service marks, trade names, logo types, insignias, designs and other commercial symbols that [JPAR] now or hereafter is authorized to use 

and does use or authorizes others to use to identify the Franchised Business.” (Franchise Agreement, Sections II, Exhibit 1.)

Case 4:23-cv-00322-SDJ Document 1 Filed 04/13/23 Page 3 of 30 PageID #: 3
06803285.5 4

namely, offering business 

management assistance and 

technical consulting in the establishment, operation and 

marketing of real estate brokerage agencies and real estate 

agencies; Franchising, namely, 

consultation on and assistance 

in business management, organization and promotion in 

the field of real estate.

JPAR 

Commercial

97165109 6942957 Advertising of commercial or 

residential real estate

JPAR Real 

Estate

97163055 6942902 Advertising of commercial or 

residential real estate

11. As a result of Plaintiff’s use of its Service Marks in connection with 

Plaintiff’s goods and services, consumers have come to associate the Service 

Marks exclusively with Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s brokerage system, and Plaintiff’s franchisees.

12. Plaintiff operates a website hosted at jpar.com from which Plaintiff 

markets its goods and services. 

13. Plaintiff also registers websites for franchisees to advertise their JPAR 

franchises. 

The Franchise Agreement

14. In September 2019, Jason Will and the Will Entity entered into a 

Franchise Agreement (the “Franchise Agreement”) with JPAR, by which the Will 

Entity became a JPAR franchisee.

Case 4:23-cv-00322-SDJ Document 1 Filed 04/13/23 Page 4 of 30 PageID #: 4
06803285.5 5

15. In conjunction with the Franchise Agreement, Jason Will and Diana 

Will executed a Nondisclosure, Noncompetition and Nontransfer Covenant and 

Personal Guarantee with JPAR (the “Personal Guarantee”). 

16. Under the Personal Guarantee, Will and Diana Will “unconditionally

and irrevocably guarantee[d] the full performance of each and all the terms, covenants and conditions of [the Franchise Agreement] to be kept and performed by 

[the Will Entity] including, but not limited to, the payment of all sums due thereunder.” (Personal Guarantee, Exhibit 2.) More specifically, they agreed “individually and jointly to comply with and be bound by all provisions of this Franchise 

Agreement in any way related to nondisclosure, noncompetition and non-transfer 

to the same extent as if each of them were the Franchisee, including but not limited 

to paragraphs . . . 13.01,” which paragraph includes prohibitions on posttermination use of the marks addressed herein. (Id.)

17. The Will Entity initially operated JPAR franchises in three locations 

in Mobile and Baldwin Counties, Alabama: Fairhope, Gulf Shores, and Mobile. 

The Will Entity branded these locations under the name “JPAR Coast & County.”

18. The Will Entity subsequently opened additional JPAR franchises in 

Birmingham, and Hoover, Alabama. The Will Entity branded these locations under 

the name “JPAR Impact.”

Case 4:23-cv-00322-SDJ Document 1 Filed 04/13/23 Page 5 of 30 PageID #: 5
06803285.5 6

19. Plaintiff registered the website JPARStrong.com for marketing the 

Will Entity franchises.

20. On or around April 22, 2022, the Will Entity sold its interest in its 

Mobile, Alabama franchise. The purchaser began operating the location under the 

name “JPAR Gulf Coast.” JPAR Gulf Coast also operates a franchise location in 

Spanish Fort, Alabama, which is in Baldwin County.

21. While operating as a JPAR franchisee, the Will Entity marketed itself 

using both the Service Marks and the names and marks “Jason Will Real Estate,” 

“JWRE,” “JWRE Real Estate” and “JWRE residential commercial” (the “JWRE 

Marks”). 

Case 4:23-cv-00322-SDJ Document 1 Filed 04/13/23 Page 6 of 30 PageID #: 6
06803285.5 7

22. From September 2019 until 2023, the JWRE Marks were often used 

simultaneously and in connection with the Service Marks. 

Case 4:23-cv-00322-SDJ Document 1 Filed 04/13/23 Page 7 of 30 PageID #: 7
06803285.5 8

Case 4:23-cv-00322-SDJ Document 1 Filed 04/13/23 Page 8 of 30 PageID #: 8
06803285.5 9

 

23. Under the Franchise Agreement, Defendants agreed that:

all artwork, graphics, layouts, slogans, names, titles, text or 

similar materials incorporating, or being used in connection 

with, the Service Marks that may be created by [the Will Entity], its employees, agents and subcontractors and any other parCase 4:23-cv-00322-SDJ Document 1 Filed 04/13/23 Page 9 of 30 PageID #: 9
06803285.5 10

ty with whom it may contract to have such materials produced 

pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of 

[JPAR], including copyright and trademark rights.

(Franchise Agreement, Section 7.01, Exhibit 1.)

24. Defendants further agreed that the Will Entity would:

use the Service Marks solely in connection with the Franchised 

Business and shall not use or display the Service Marks in connection with the operation of any business, the performance of 

any other service or the conduct of any real estate or other activity outside the scope of the Franchised Business. 

(Franchise Agreement, Section 7.01, Exhibit 1.)

25. Upon termination of the Franchise Agreement, Defendants agreed that 

the Will Entity would promptly:

discontinue the use and/or display of the Service Marks in any 

manner whatsoever and all Materials containing or bearing 

same and shall not thereafter operate or do business under the 

Assumed Name or any other name or in any manner that might 

tend to give the general public the impression that Franchisee is 

in any way associated or affiliated with Franchisor, or any of 

the businesses conducted by it or other owners of the Service 

Marks.

(Agreement, Sections 13.01(a), Exhibit 1.)

26. Defendants further agreed that: 

if [the Will Entity] engages in any business thereafter, it shall 

use trade names, service marks or trademarks (if any) that 

are significantly different from those under which [the Will 

Entity] had done business [prior to terminating the Franchise 

Agreement] and shall use sign formats (if any) that are significantly different in color and type face. 

(Franchise Agreement, Sections 13.01(b)(v), Exhibit 1.)

Case 4:23-cv-00322-SDJ Document 1 Filed 04/13/23 Page 10 of 30 PageID #: 10
06803285.5 11

27. Defendants agreed that:

should it for any reason fail to use and promote the Service 

Marks in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, in addition to the other rights and remedies available to [JPAR] for this 

and other breaches of this Agreement, [the Will Entity] agrees 

to pay to [JPAR] as liquidated damages and not as penalty, an 

amount equal to the total Continuing Royalty, On Boarding Fee 

and Annual Dues due and payable by [the Will Entity] to 

[JPAR] for the two Anniversary Years immediately preceding 

[the Will Entity’s] failure to comply with the terms of this paragraph. 

(Franchise Agreement, Section 7.08, Exhibit 1.)

28. Plaintiff and Defendants further agreed to use this Court to litigate any 

disputes regarding Defendants’ use of the Service Marks and other marks in which 

Plaintiff has an interest in this Court. (Franchise Agreement, Sections 12.02(b), 

12.06, 12.07(a), Exhibit 1.)

Defendants’ Wrongful Use of the Service Marks

29. Upon information and belief, during the fall of 2022, Will announced 

to some or all of the Will Entity’s agents and employees that he had been and 

would be establishing a new or rebranded real estate brokerage outside of the 

JPAR franchise network. At no point prior to these communications did the Will 

Entity and JPAR agree to terminate the Agreement.

30. Beginning in October 2022, Will and the Will Entity ceased paying 

JPAR the royalties, fees, dues, and other amounts owed to JPAR under the Franchise Agreement.

Case 4:23-cv-00322-SDJ Document 1 Filed 04/13/23 Page 11 of 30 PageID #: 11
06803285.5 12

31. Nonetheless, the Will Entity continued to market itself and its services 

using the Service Marks during October, November, and December 2022.

32. Throughout this time period, the Will Entity continued marketing itself using the JWRE Marks in conjunction with the Service Marks.

Case 4:23-cv-00322-SDJ Document 1 Filed 04/13/23 Page 12 of 30 PageID #: 12
06803285.5 13

33. On January 19, 2023, based on the Will Entity’s communications with 

its agents and its continued non-payment of the amounts owed under the Franchise 

Agreement, Plaintiff acknowledged the Will Entity’s termination of the Franchise 

Agreement. 

Willful Infringement and Defendants’ Efforts to Confuse

34. Following termination, the Will Entity continued using the same 

JWRE Marks that it had used when affiliated with JPAR. 

35. Upon information and belief, in January 2023 the Will Entity began 

marketing its Fairhope, Alabama location under the name “JWRE Gulf Coast” in 

an effort to confuse consumers and compete with the Mobile, Alabama JPAR franCase 4:23-cv-00322-SDJ Document 1 Filed 04/13/23 Page 13 of 30 PageID #: 13
06803285.5 14

chise it had sold months earlier, which is branded as and operated under the name 

“JPAR Gulf Coast.”

36. In addition, the Will Entity converted existing Facebook pages associated with its JPAR franchises to use with its non-franchised business in competition with JPAR. Consumers and members of the public who followed these pages 

did so in order to follow a JPAR-affiliated business. By converting these Facebook 

pages for use for the benefit of the Will Entity’s non-franchised business, Defendants have willfully and intentionally sought to confuse or convert followers of 

those Facebook pages away from a JPAR affiliated business.

37. In addition, the Will Entity used other names and marks that were intended to confuse consumers by their similarity to the names and marks under 

which the Will Entity has operated as a JPAR franchisee. For example, the Will 

Entity, when operating as a JPAR franchise, was affiliated with the name “JPAR 

Strong.” Following termination of the Franchise Agreement, the Will Entity began 

using the name and mark “JWRE Strong” in its marketing, including Facebook 

pages, email domains, and urls.

Case 4:23-cv-00322-SDJ Document 1 Filed 04/13/23 Page 14 of 30 PageID #: 14
06803285.5 15

38. As a result of Defendants’ intentional efforts, internet searches now 

incorrectly indicate that Defendants’ remain affiliated with Plaintiff and the Service Marks.

39. In addition, the Will Entity has not removed various prior marketing 

and advertisements associating it with the Plaintiff and the Service Marks. As of 

this filing, the Will Entity continues to maintain online posts, videos, and marketing using the Service Marks and the JWRE Marks that were used while the Will 

Entity was a JPAR franchisee, and which indicate an association with JPAR.

Case 4:23-cv-00322-SDJ Document 1 Filed 04/13/23 Page 15 of 30 PageID #: 15
06803285.5 16

40. The Will Entity maintains at least four different Facebook pages, all 

of which contain photos and posts marketing itself and its services using the Service Marks and indicating an association with Plaintiff.

 

Case 4:23-cv-00322-SDJ Document 1 Filed 04/13/23 Page 16 of 30 PageID #: 16
06803285.5 17

Case 4:23-cv-00322-SDJ Document 1 Filed 04/13/23 Page 17 of 30 PageID #: 17
06803285.5 18

41. The Will Entity maintains a YouTube channel, which continues to

display videos and marketing efforts that use the Service Marks to falsely indicate 

an association with Plaintiff.

42. The Will Entity continues marketing itself as “Jason Will Real Estate,” and continues using the same JWRE Marks that were used when the Will 

Entity was a JPAR franchisee, which can be viewed in the previous pictures, as 

well as the Will Entity’s website jasonwillrealestate.com:

Case 4:23-cv-00322-SDJ Document 1 Filed 04/13/23 Page 18 of 30 PageID #: 18
06803285.5 19

43. Defendants have made further intentional efforts to confuse consumers about their affiliation with the JPAR franchise network. For example, the Will 

Entity’s “JWRE Gulf Coast” Facebook page includes and directs viewers to a hyperlink to a JPAR affiliated website. 

44. Defendants are not authorized to use the Service Marks, nor are they 

permitted to use any marks that are the same or similar to ones they used while the 

Will Entity was a JPAR franchisee, such as the JWRE Marks. 

45. Defendants are in breach of their Franchise Agreement and are intentionally misleading and confusing consumers by continuing to use the Service 

Marks and by using the JWRE Marks as set forth above, resulting in harm to Plaintiff.

Case 4:23-cv-00322-SDJ Document 1 Filed 04/13/23 Page 19 of 30 PageID #: 19
06803285.5 20

Count I

Service Marks – Unfair Competition, False Designations

of Origin, and False and Misleading Descriptions and Representation

46. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1–45 of this Complaint as if fully set 

forth fully herein.

47. Defendants’ continued use of the Service Marks constitutes unfair 

competition pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). Defendants’ continued use of the

Service Marks is deceptive and likely to cause confusion and mistake among consumers. Defendants’ unfair competition has caused and will continue to cause 

damage to Plaintiff.

48. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ actions are undertaken for 

the willful and calculated purpose of destroying Plaintiff’s goodwill in its products 

and services and for the willful and calculated purpose of misleading and deceiving 

the public and to steal Plaintiff’s customers.

49. The activities of Defendants have caused and will cause irreparable 

harm to Plaintiff for which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a).

50. In addition to Plaintiff’s actual damages, Plaintiff is entitled to receive 

Defendants’ profits pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a).

51. Plaintiff is also entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees and costs of suit 

pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117.

Case 4:23-cv-00322-SDJ Document 1 Filed 04/13/23 Page 20 of 30 PageID #: 20
06803285.5 21

Count II

Breach of Contract

52. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1–45 of this Complaint as if fully set 

forth fully herein.

53. Defendants’ continued use of the Service Marks and JWRE Marks violates the Franchise Agreement, including Sections 7.01, 7.06, 13.01(a), and 

13.01(b)(v).

54. Plaintiff has been harmed by Defendants’ breach of the Franchise 

Agreement.

55. Pursuant to Section 7.08 of the Franchise Agreement, in addition to 

further damages, Plaintiff is entitled liquidated damages in the amount of the total 

Continuing Royalty, On Boarding Fee, and Annual Dues due and payable for the 

two Anniversary Years immediately preceding Defendants’ termination of their 

franchises, which amounts total no less than $333,532.54.

Count III

Federal Trademark Infringement

56. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1–45 of this Complaint as if fully set 

forth fully herein.

57. Defendants’ continued use of the Service Marks and JWRE Marks infringes on the Service Marks, is deceptive and likely to cause confusion and misCase 4:23-cv-00322-SDJ Document 1 Filed 04/13/23 Page 21 of 30 PageID #: 21
06803285.5 22

take among the public as to the identity and origin of the products and services offered by Plaintiff and its franchisees.

58. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ actions are undertaken for 

the willful and calculated purpose of destroying Plaintiff’s goodwill in its products 

and services and for the willful and calculated purpose of misleading and deceiving 

the public and stealing the customers of Plaintiff and its franchisees.

59. By reason of the foregoing acts, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for 

trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114.

60. The activities of Defendants have caused and will continue to cause 

irreparable harm to Plaintiff for which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 

1116(a).

61. Plaintiff is entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees and costs of suit pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117.

Count IV

Common Law Trademark Infringement

62. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1–45 of this Complaint as if fully set 

forth fully herein.

63. Plaintiff, by virtue of its prior adoption and use of the Service Marks

in interstate commerce, has acquired, established and owns valuable common law 

rights in the Service Marks, which serves to identify the goods and services offered 

Case 4:23-cv-00322-SDJ Document 1 Filed 04/13/23 Page 22 of 30 PageID #: 22
06803285.5 23

by Plaintiff alone, and the goods and services offered in connection with that mark 

are regarded by the public as being offered by, sponsored by, approved by, authorized by, associated with, or affiliated with Plaintiff.

64. Defendants are using the Service Marks and JWRE Marks, without

authorization, in commerce in connection with the advertising or promotion of the 

Defendants’ agents and real estate services, and such use is deceptive and likely to 

cause confusion and mistake among consumers as to the true franchise affiliation 

or association of the related services.

65. Defendants’ conduct constitutes trademark infringement in violation 

of the common law of Alabama.

66. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ trademark infringement, Plaintiff has suffered actual and irreparable injury for which no adequate 

remedy exists at law.

67. Defendants’ wrongful conduct will continue to cause such injury unless enjoined by this Court.

Count V

Alabama Trademark Dilution

68. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1–45 of this Complaint as if fully set 

forth fully herein.

Case 4:23-cv-00322-SDJ Document 1 Filed 04/13/23 Page 23 of 30 PageID #: 23
06803285.5 24

69. By virtue of widespread and prominent use in connection with the 

Plaintiff’s franchise network, the Service Marks have become famous in the State 

of Alabama and beyond and is an asset of substantial value to Plaintiff.

70. Defendants have used Plaintiff’s Service Marks, without authorization, in commerce in connection with the promotion of Defendant’s agents and real 

estate services, offering or advertising its real estate services in direct competition 

with Plaintiff.

71. Defendants’ use has occurred after the Service Marks became famous, 

and their use dilutes the distinctive quality of Plaintiff’s famous Service Marks, including by blurring and by tarnishment.

72. Defendants’ conduct constitutes trademark dilution in violation of 

Ala. Code § 8-12-17.

73. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct in violation 

of Ala. Code § 8-12-17, Plaintiff has suffered actual and irreparable injury for 

which no adequate remedy exists at law.

74. Defendants’ wrongful conduct will continue to cause such injury unless enjoined by this Court.

Count VI

Unfair Competition

75. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1–45 of this Complaint as if fully set 

forth fully herein.

Case 4:23-cv-00322-SDJ Document 1 Filed 04/13/23 Page 24 of 30 PageID #: 24
06803285.5 25

76. Defendants, by their continued use of the Service Marks and JWRE 

Marks (which are associated with and indicative of the Service Marks), are using 

in commerce in Alabama a colorable imitation of Plaintiff’s Service Marks in connection with the promotion of Defendants’ agents, and real estate services. Defendants’ use of these infringing marks constitutes passing off, infringement and 

misappropriation of Plaintiff’s Service Marks, all in violation of the law of unfair 

competition.

Prayer for Relief

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that:

1. The Court enter a judgment that the Service Marks are valid and enforceable, and that Defendants, as a result of their unauthorized use of the Service 

Marks, have:

a. breached Franchise Agreement;

b. infringed Plaintiff’s rights in the Service Marks in violation of 

15 U.S.C. §1114(1), and the common law of the State of Alabama;

c. engaged in unfair competition with Plaintiff in violation of the 

Federal Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125(a)(1)(A) and the common law of the State of Alabama; and

Case 4:23-cv-00322-SDJ Document 1 Filed 04/13/23 Page 25 of 30 PageID #: 25
06803285.5 26

d. diluted the distinctive quality of the Service Marks in violation 

of Ala. Code § 8-12-17.

2. A judgment be entered in Plaintiff’s favor, ordering Plaintiff to pay 

any and all amounts owed as a result of their breaches of the Franchise Agreement 

including, without limitation, liquidated damages of at least $333,532.54;

3. Defendants and their agents, officers, suppliers, distributors, employees, representatives, successors, assigns, attorneys and all other persons acting for, 

with, by, through or under authority from Defendants, and each of them, be temporarily and permanently enjoined from:

e. using Plaintiff’s Service Marks or any colorable imitation 

thereof; 

f. using the JWRE Marks or any marks that are not significantly 

different therefrom;

g. using any trademark that imitates or is confusingly similar to or 

in any way similar to the Service Marks or the JWRE Marks, or that is likely to 

cause confusion, mistake, deception, or public misunderstanding as to the origin of 

Plaintiff’s products and services or their connectedness to Defendants; 

h. passing off or inducing or enabling others to sell or pass off any 

goods or services that are not authorized by Plaintiff as goods or services sponsored or endorsed by, associated or affiliated with Plaintiff; and

Case 4:23-cv-00322-SDJ Document 1 Filed 04/13/23 Page 26 of 30 PageID #: 26
06803285.5 27

i. otherwise diluting the distinctive quality of the Service Marks.

4. A judgment that, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117, Defendants be held liable for all damages suffered by Plaintiff resulting from the acts alleged herein and 

that such damages be trebled;

5. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117, Defendants be compelled to account to 

Plaintiff for any and all profits derived by them from their illegal acts complained 

of herein; 

6. Defendants be ordered pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1118 to deliver up for 

destruction all containers, labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles, 

advertising, promotional material or the like in possession, custody or under the 

control of Defendants bearing a trademark found to infringe Plaintiff’s trademark 

rights, as well as all plates, matrices, and other means of making the same;

7. Defendants be ordered to submit a report in writing under oath setting 

forth in detail the manner and form in which Defendants have complied with the 

injunction, as provided by Section 34(a) of the Lanham Act; 

8. Defendants be ordered to pay an award of damages in an amount to be 

determined at trial, plus pre- and post- judgment interest; 

9. Defendants be ordered to pay an award of punitive damages as allowable under the law.

Case 4:23-cv-00322-SDJ Document 1 Filed 04/13/23 Page 27 of 30 PageID #: 27
06803285.5 28 

10. The Court declare this to be an exceptional case and award Plaintiff its 

full costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117; 

11. The Court grant Plaintiff any other remedy to which it may be entitled 

as provided for in 15 U.S.C. §§ 1116 and 1117 or under state law; and 

12. The Court grant Plaintiff such and other further relief that the Court 

deems just and proper. 

DATED this 13th day of April, 2023. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Josh Baker .

Josh Baker (Texas Bar No. 24117370)

MAYNARD NEXSEN

7320 N. MoPac Expy

Suite 309

Austin, TX 78731

jbaker@maynardnexsen.com

Telephone: 205-254-1840

Facsimile: 512-359-7996

/s/ Bo Bledsoe 

Bo Bledsoe (Alabama Bar No. 9054R88D, 

pro hac vice forthcoming)

MAYNARD NEXSEN

1901 Sixth Avenue North

Suite 1700 

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

bbledsoe@maynardnexsen.com

Telephone: 205-254-1849

Case 4:23-cv-00322-SDJ Document 1 Filed 04/13/23 Page 28 of 30 PageID #: 28
06803285.5 29

Facsimile: 205-254-1999

Attorneys for Claimant JPAR Franchising, 

LLC

Case 4:23-cv-00322-SDJ Document 1 Filed 04/13/23 Page 29 of 30 PageID #: 29
06803285.5 30 

Service to be made upon Defendants at the following addresses:

Jason Will

2370 Bellevue Terrace

Hoover, AL 35226

Diana Will

2370 Bellevue Terrace

Hoover, AL 35226

Jason Will Real Estate, LLC 

c/o Jason Will

1307 Main Street

Daphne, AL 36526

 /s/ Josh Baker 

Attorney for Claimant JPAR Franchising, 

LLC

Case 4:23-cv-00322-SDJ Document 1 Filed 04/13/23 Page 30 of 30 PageID #: 30