UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION 

GATES THAT OPEN, LLC, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. Case No.: 

GTO PARTS, LLC; and PLAINTIFF DEMANDS TRIAL

JYT ENTERPRISES, INC., BY JURY

 Defendants. 

________________________________/ 

COMPLAINT

 Plaintiff, Gates That Open, LLC d/b/a GTO (“GTO”), sues 

defendants, GTO Parts, LLC (“GPL”) and JYT Enterprises, Inc. 

(“JYT”), and alleges: 

Background

 1. GTO is a limited liability company organized and 

existing under the laws of the State of Florida, with its 

principal place of business in Tallahassee, Florida. 

 2. On information and belief, GPL is a limited liability 

company organized and existing under the laws of the State of 

Florida, with its principal place of business in Hialeah, 

Florida. 

 3. On information and belief, JYT is a corporation 

organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, 

with its principal place of business in Clermont, Florida. 

4. This action arises under the Patent, Trademark and 

Copyright Laws, as is hereafter more fully alleged, and 

Case 4:11-cv-00158-RH-WCS Document 1 Filed 04/14/11 Page 1 of 19
2

therefore this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. secs. 1331 and 1338(a). This Court also has subject 

matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1338(b) and 

1367(a). 

5. On information and belief, defendants are subject to 

personal jurisdiction in this Court pursuant to Section 

48.193(1)(a), Fla. Stat., because they are operating, 

conducting, engaging in, or carrying on a business or business 

venture in this State or have an agency or office in this State, 

and pursuant to Section 48.193(2), Fla. Stat., because they are 

engaged in substantial and not isolated activity within the 

State. 

GTO and its Intellectual Property

6. GTO was established in 1987 and is a leading United 

States manufacturer of low voltage (DC) and alternating current 

(AC) gate openers and access controls. GTO gates are used in 

residential and commercial applications. More than 1 million 

GTO gate openers have been installed around the world. GTO 

designed every component of its gate openers at its facility in 

Tallahassee. 

 7. The market for automatic gate openers and replacement 

parts is highly competitive. GTO differentiates itself in a 

crowded market through ongoing research and development 

resulting in high quality, reliable products and replacement 

parts. 

 8. A core feature of GTO’s products is that they are 

tested and certified by Electrical Testing Laboratories to meet 

Case 4:11-cv-00158-RH-WCS Document 1 Filed 04/14/11 Page 2 of 19
3

or exceed Underwriters’ Laboratory (“UL”) standards (UL325). 

The UL325 standard was instituted in the automatic gate opener 

industry following Consumer Products Safety Commission reports 

of serious injuries and deaths associated with the equipment. 

The fact that GTO’s products are UL listed is evidence of the 

high quality of its products and provides a significant 

advantage in the market. The process required to comply with 

UL325, however, is expensive and thus results in GTO’s products 

generally being priced higher than non-certified products sold 

by some of GTO’s competitors (primarily foreign). 

 9. GTO has developed a reputation for offering high 

quality products and, as a result, has won considerable goodwill 

for its business. 

 10. In order to protect and enhance its reputation and 

goodwill in the market, GTO engages in a comprehensive program 

to protect its intellectual property. 

 11. GTO has duly registered the trademarks “GTO”, 

“GTO/PRO” and “Mighty Mule” for automatic gate openers and 

associated products in the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office. Copies of Registration Nos. 2158895, 2045729 and 

2695452 are attached as Exhibits A, B and C, respectively. 

 12. GTO also protects its intellectual property through 

patents. As pertinent to this case, on July 7, 2009, United 

States Letters Patent No. 7,557,525, entitled DUAL SWING GATE 

CONTROL SYSTEM (“‘525 Patent”), was duly and legally issued to 

Nguyen Hung and Robert Mayer. (Exhibit D attached). The ‘525 

Patent claims a control system for dual swing gates that employs 

Case 4:11-cv-00158-RH-WCS Document 1 Filed 04/14/11 Page 3 of 19
4

position monitors to maintain a “differential position” between 

the arms during closing in order to ensure proper sequencing. 

 13. GTO also protects its intellectual property through 

copyrights. As pertinent to this case, GTO has duly registered 

its product catalog with the United States Copyright Office. A 

copy of GTO’s copyrighted catalog is attached as Exhibit E. GTO 

has also duly registered the source code for the computer 

software used to operate the control system underlying the ‘525 

Patent, i.e., its MM500/502/3000/4000 master chip, its 

MM502/3000/4000 slave chip and its MM500/502/3000/4000 receiver 

chip. (Exhibits F, G and H). 

 14. GTO sells its products and replacement parts to enduser customers both directly and indirectly through authorized 

dealers. 

15. GTO is careful to protect its reputation for selling 

high quality, reliable products with respect to sales by 

authorized dealers. GTO’s standard product warranty 

specifically provides that the warranty is void if damage to the 

product results from “use of non-GTO specified or approved 

components or replacement parts.” A copy of the standard 

product warranty is attached as Exhibit I. 

Defendants’ Infringing and Deceptive Conduct

16. Neither GPL nor JYT is an authorized dealer of GTO 

products and neither has entered into a written distributor 

agreement with GTO. 

17. On information and belief, GPL and JYT are subject to 

common ownership and are engaged in a joint venture or are 

Case 4:11-cv-00158-RH-WCS Document 1 Filed 04/14/11 Page 4 of 19
5

otherwise operating in a coordinated manner. Records maintained 

by the Florida Secretary of State indicate that the president of 

JYT is Julio Y. Toledo. (Exhibit J attached). Mr. Toledo is 

also involved with GPL. Attached as Exhibit K are copies of 

shipping records received upon purchase of products from GPL. 

These records identify Mr. Toledo as the shipper. 

18. Though they are not authorized GTO distributors, 

defendants have adopted and commenced a course of conduct in 

connection with the marketing and sale of gate opener 

replacement parts that violates all of the intellectual property 

rights (trademark, copyright and patent) that are central to the 

protection of GTO’s business model as described above. 

19. Defendants have infringed GTO’s trademarks. First and 

foremost, GPL has done so by adopting a company name -- “GTO 

Parts, LLC” -- that in and of itself suggests that it is part of 

or affiliated with GTO. 

20. In addition to the company name, defendants’ shipping 

materials also include a product manual that is a verbatim copy 

of GTO’s product manual. Copies of GTO’s manual and defendants’ 

manual are attached, respectively, as Exhibits L and M. 

Defendants’ copying is so pervasive that they even include GTO’s 

telephone and fax numbers, as well as its website information. 

Similarly, defendants are also marketing a transmitter product 

that is virtually identical to GTO’s transmitter product, and 

appears to be a direct copy or “clone” of GTO’s design and trade 

dress. 

Case 4:11-cv-00158-RH-WCS Document 1 Filed 04/14/11 Page 5 of 19
6

21. As another example, attached as Exhibit N is a copy of 

a “blast email” sent by defendants using the trademark “GTO PRO” 

that is owned by GTO. 

22. As another example, attached as Exhibit O is an 

advertisement placed by defendants on “Ebay” offering to sell 

what is described as a “GTO Mighty Mule R4211 Control Circuit 

Board Gate Opener.” The product advertised in Exhibit O is not 

in fact a GTO product, but instead a non-UL certified “knock 

off.” 

23. Defendants are also infringing GTO’s copyrights in 

connection with an internet website they own and operate: 

www.openers4less.com. A customer who enters the search term 

“GTO” into the search field of this website is presented 

photographs of several products, including at least one 

photograph of a GTO/Mighty Mule product (the gate opening 

sensor) that is identical to the photograph published by GTO in 

its copyrighted product catalog. A copy of a page from 

defendants’ website displaying the gate opening sensor in this 

manner is attached as Exhibit P. 

24. Defendants’ website is designed in a manner that would 

cause a reasonable consumer interested in purchasing authentic 

GTO/Mighty Mule products to believe he or she is able to do so 

through the website. For example, upon being presented with the 

search result indicated in the preceding paragraph, the 

customer’s means of obtaining further information about the 318 

MHz 1-button transmitter displayed is to click “Add to Cart.” 

At that point, the same photograph appears next to yet another 

Case 4:11-cv-00158-RH-WCS Document 1 Filed 04/14/11 Page 6 of 19
7

link that the customer must locate and click in order to obtain 

information. Finally, at the bottom of the multi-paragraph 

description provided when the customer clicks that link, the 

website states that the product is “[c]ompatible with GTO RB741 

and Mighty Mule FM135.” Copies if this series of web pages are 

attached as Exhibit Q. 

25. On information and belief, GTO’s trademarks appear in 

the meta tags and HTML code of defendants’ website and are used 

to generate the search results referred to above. 

26. The products sold by defendants identified as 

“compatible” with GTO/Mighty Mule products are not in fact 

compatible. They are not compatible because GTO’s warranty 

requires that only authentic GTO replacement parts be used. If 

a customer installs one of the inauthentic knock-offs sold by 

defendants, his or her warranty will be voided. Also, 

defendants’ inauthentic substitutes are not tested and certified 

to meet UL325 standards, as are GTO’s products. 

27. Defendants are also infringing GTO’s patent rights. 

Specifically, defendants are selling a replacement control board 

that incorporates the patented dual swing gate control system 

that is the subject of the ‘525 patent. On information and 

belief, the software used in defendants’ replacement control 

boards was created through the unauthorized copying of the 

copyrighted source or object code that is the subject to 

Exhibits F, G and H attached. 

28. On September 9, 2010, GTO sent defendants cease and 

desist letters demanding that they cease their infringing acts. 

Case 4:11-cv-00158-RH-WCS Document 1 Filed 04/14/11 Page 7 of 19
8

Copies of these cease and desist letters are attached as 

Exhibits R and S. 

29. Despite GTO’s written request that defendants cease 

use of its marks, defendants have, on information and belief, 

continued to market their products in the manner alleged. Such 

marketing is likely to cause the public to believe, contrary to 

fact, that defendants are authorized GTO dealers, or that 

defendants’ business and the automatic gate operator parts they 

sell are sponsored, licensed and/or otherwise approved by, or 

are in some way connected or affiliated with, GTO. 

Count I: Trademark Infringement

30. GTO incorporates and realleges as if fully set forth 

herein paragraphs 1 through 29 of the Complaint. 

31. GTO owns the rights to the valid and legally 

protectable registered trademarks “GTO”, “GTO/PRO” and “Mighty 

Mule, including but not limited to the goodwill and equity 

associated with the marks. The marks are, at a minimum, 

descriptive and have achieved secondary meaning with the 

relevant consuming public, which has come to recognize products 

bearing the marks as high quality and connected with GTO. Due 

to GTO’s integrity and investment of time, effort, and other 

resources to promote and protect the marks as symbols of 

excellence, the marks now enjoy, and have long enjoyed, an 

exceedingly valuable goodwill and strong secondary meaning in 

the market of consumers and potential consumers of the GTO 

family of products within the United States and throughout the 

world. 

Case 4:11-cv-00158-RH-WCS Document 1 Filed 04/14/11 Page 8 of 19
9

32. Registration Nos. 2158895, 2045729 and 2695452 are 

each prima facie evidence of the validity and GTO’s ownership 

thereof, and are constructive notice of GTO’s ownership of the 

marks, all as provided by §§ 7(b) and 22 of the Federal 

Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1057(b) and 1072. As Registration 

Nos. 2158895, 2045729 and 2695452 have each achieved 

incontestable status under § 15 of the Federal Trademark Act, 15 

U.S.C. § 1065, said registrations are conclusive evidence of 

GTO’s exclusive right to use the marks “GTO”, “GTO/PRO” and 

“Mighty Mule” in commerce. 

33. GTO and defendants are competitors in the market for 

automatic gate openers and associated replacement equipment. 

34. Defendants are using GTO’s registered trademarks in a 

manner intended to cause the public to believe that their 

inauthentic substitutes emanate from, or are endorsed by, 

affiliated with, or sponsored by, GTO. 

35. Defendants’ use of GTO’s trademarks is likely to and 

has caused confusion, mistake, and deception as to defendants’ 

affiliation, association, or connection with GTO, and GTO’s 

sponsorship, endorsement, and approval of the inauthentic 

substitutes sold by defendants. 

36. Upon information and belief, defendants have used 

GTO’s trademarks in connection with advertising, promoting, 

marketing, and selling their inauthentic substitutes in 

interstate commerce, including but not limited to on their 

internet website. 

Case 4:11-cv-00158-RH-WCS Document 1 Filed 04/14/11 Page 9 of 19
10

37. Defendants knew or should have known that their 

conduct was false and misleading and/or likely to mislead. 

38. Defendants’ actions have at all times been without 

GTO’s consent. Defendants’ acts constitute willful and 

deliberate infringement of GTO’s marks. 

39. As an actual and proximate result of defendants’ 

actions, GTO has suffered and will continue to suffer 

irreparable injury to its business, reputation and goodwill. 

GTO has no adequate remedy at law for these wrongs and injuries. 

The damage to GTO includes harm to its goodwill and reputation 

that money cannot compensate. GTO is, therefore entitled to a 

preliminary and permanent injunction, as set forth in 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1117, restraining and enjoining defendants and their agents, 

servants, and employees, from engaging in false advertising and 

from otherwise making or utilizing false and misleading 

statements in connection with the promotion, advertisement or 

sale of defendants’ goods, services or commercial activities. 

40. As an actual and proximate result of defendants’ 

actions, GTO has suffered damages. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. sec. 

1117, GTO is entitled to damages for defendants’ Lanham Act 

violations, an accounting for profits made by defendants’ on 

sales of their inauthentic discount substitutes and restitution 

and the disgorgement of defendants’ ill-gotten gains, as well as 

recovery of GTO’s costs incurred in prosecuting this action. 

41. GTO is informed and believes that defendants’ conduct 

was undertaken willfully and with the intention of causing 

confusion, mistake, or deception, making this an exceptional 

Case 4:11-cv-00158-RH-WCS Document 1 Filed 04/14/11 Page 10 of 19
11

case entitling GTO to recover additional damages and reasonable 

attorneys’ fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117. 

Count II: Copyright Infringement

42. GTO incorporates and realleges as if fully set forth 

herein paragraphs 1 through 29 of the Complaint. 

43. GTO’s copyrighted product catalog and the source and 

object code incorporated into its control board are original 

works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression, 

and are copyrightable subject matter under the law of the United 

States. 

44. GTO at all times retained all ownership and copyright 

in and to its copyrighted materials and has thereby maintained 

the validity of its copyrights in its copyrighted materials. 

45. GTO currently and at all relevant times has been the 

sole author and proprietor of all right, title and interest in 

and to the copyrighted product catalog and computer source code 

and object code that is the subject of Exhibits E, F, G and H 

attached. 

46. Defendants have infringed upon GTO’s copyrights by 

using protected elements of the copyrighted materials and by 

copying, reproducing, selling or distributing protectable 

elements of GTO’s copyrighted materials. Defendants’ actions 

constitute copyright infringement in violation of the Copyright 

Act, 17 U.S.C. sec. 101, et seq. 

47. Alternatively, and to the extent other unknown persons 

or entities copied GTO’s source code or object code and 

manufactured replacement control boards for resale by 

Case 4:11-cv-00158-RH-WCS Document 1 Filed 04/14/11 Page 11 of 19
12

defendants, defendants contributed to the infringing acts of 

such unknown persons or entities. Without authorization, 

defendants induced and encouraged the infringement by continuing 

to purchase and distribute infringing control boards 

notwithstanding knowledge of and specific notice regarding the 

infringement, thereby providing a national and worldwide 

distribution channel for the infringing replacement control 

boards. 

48. Defendants used, copied, made derivative works, sold 

and distributed GTO’s copyrighted materials with full knowledge 

that their use was unauthorized. Therefore, defendants’ actions 

have been willful and intentional, in disregard and indifference 

to GTO’s rights. 

49. Defendants’ copyright infringement has caused, and 

will continue to cause, GTO to suffer substantial injuries, loss 

and damage, and GTO is entitled to recover damages, including 

any and all profits defendants have made as a result of their 

wrongful conduct pursuant to 17 U.S.C. sec. 504. Alternatively, 

GTO may be entitled to statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. sec. 

504(c). 

50. Additionally, because defendants’ infringement has 

been willful within the meaning of the Copyright Act, any award 

of statutory damages should be enhanced in accordance with 17 

U.S.C. sec. 504(c)(2). 

51. Defendants’ conduct is causing, and unless enjoined 

and restrained by this Court, will continue to cause GTO great 

and irreparable injury. It would be difficult to determine the 

Case 4:11-cv-00158-RH-WCS Document 1 Filed 04/14/11 Page 12 of 19
13

measure of money damages that would provide adequate relief for 

defendants’ continuing acts. GTO has no adequate remedy at law. 

Therefore, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. secs. 502 and 503, GTO is 

entitled to injunctive relief prohibiting defendants from 

further infringing GTO’s copyrighted materials. 

52. GTO is also entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees 

and costs of suit pursuant to 17 U.S.C. sec. 505. 

Count III: Patent Infringement

53. GTO incorporates and realleges as if fully set forth 

herein paragraphs 1 through 29 of the Complaint. 

54. The named inventors on the ‘525 Patent have assigned 

their rights in the ‘525 Patent to GTO. Since the issuance of 

the ‘525 Patent, it has been in full force and effect, and GTO 

is now the owner by assignment of the entire right, title and 

interest in and to the ‘525 Patent, including the right to sue 

for past and continuing infringements. 

55. On information and belief, defendants have infringed 

and continue to infringe, literally or by equivalents, the ‘525 

Patent by making, offering for sale, selling, and/or using, in 

the United States, a replacement control board incorporating the 

patented dual swing gate control system that employs position 

monitors to maintain a “differential position” between the arms 

during closing in order to ensure proper sequencing. Defendants 

are selling the infringing product without the authorization of 

GTO, and defendants will continue to do so unless enjoined by 

this Court. 

Case 4:11-cv-00158-RH-WCS Document 1 Filed 04/14/11 Page 13 of 19
14

56. On information and belief, defendants have knowingly 

and actively induced infringement, literally or by equivalents, 

of the ‘525 Patent by causing and/or encouraging others to make, 

manufacture, offer for sale, sell, and/or use, in the United 

States, a replacement control board incorporating the patented 

dual swing gate control system, as described in the ‘525 Patent, 

without the authorization of GTO, and defendants will continue 

to do so unless enjoined by this Court. 

57. As a result of defendants’ infringement of the ‘525 

Patent, GTO is entitled to an award of damages adequate to 

compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a 

reasonable royalty for any use made of the invention both by 

defendants and by others who have been induced to make, 

manufacture, offer for sale, sell, and/or use the invention by 

defendants. 

58. Defendants have deprived GTO of its exclusive rights 

to the patented invention, and defendants will continue to do so 

unless enjoined by this Court. 

59. GTO has no adequate remedy at law to compel defendants 

to cease their infringement of the ‘525 Patent. The resulting 

harm is substantial and irreparable. 

60. Unless enjoined, defendants’ conduct will damage GTO’s 

business and interfere with GTO’s ability to make, have made, 

use, offer to use, sell, and offer to sell the subject matter of 

the ‘525 patent. 

61. By virtue of defendants’ wrongful acts and omissions 

as alleged above, GTO is entitled to injunctive relief. 

Case 4:11-cv-00158-RH-WCS Document 1 Filed 04/14/11 Page 14 of 19
15

Count IV: Unfair Competition

62. GTO incorporates and realleges as if fully set forth 

herein paragraphs 1 through 29 of the Complaint. 

63. Defendants’ adoption of the business name “GTO Parts, 

LLC,” as well as and in combination with the use of GTO’s 

registered trademarks and copyrighted product images, 

constitutes false designation of origin or a false description 

or representation that wrongfully and falsely designates the 

inauthentic substitutes sold by defendants as originating from 

or being connected with GTO, and constitutes the utilization of 

a false description or representation in interstate commerce. 

64. Defendants’ conduct, as described above, constitutes 

unfair competition and “passing off” another product as GTO’s 

products, and the use of false designations of origin, false or 

misleading descriptions of fact, and/or false or misleading 

representations of fact. 

65. By reason of the foregoing, defendants have violated 

and continue to violate 15 U.S.C. sec. 1125(a). 

66. Defendants’ conduct has created confusion among 

members of the general public and/or is likely to cause 

confusion among the general public. 

67. Defendants’ conduct has proximately caused damage to 

GTO and will continue to damage GTO irreparably. GTO has no 

adequate remedy at law for these wrongs and injuries. The 

damage to GTO includes harm to its goodwill and reputation in 

the marketplace that money cannot compensate. GTO is, 

therefore, entitled to a preliminary and permanent injunction 

Case 4:11-cv-00158-RH-WCS Document 1 Filed 04/14/11 Page 15 of 19
16

restraining and enjoining defendants and their agents, servants, 

and employees, from using, registering, or transferring GTO’s 

trademarks or any colorable imitation or variation thereof, on 

their internet website(s) or otherwise in connection with the 

promotion, advertisement, sale and marketing of their 

inauthentic substitutes. 

68. As an actual and proximate result of defendants’ 

conduct, GTO has suffered damages. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. sec. 

1117, GTO is entitled to damages for defendants’ Lanham Act 

violations, an accounting for profits made by defendants on 

sales of GTO imitations, and restitution and the disgorgement of 

defendants’ ill-gotten gains, as well as recovery of its costs 

incurred in prosecuting this action. 

69. Defendants’ conduct has been willful, with the intent 

to cause confusion and deceive. Accordingly, GTO is entitled to 

recover three times its damages and defendants’ profits, as well 

as its reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in prosecuting this 

action, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. sec. 1117. 

Count V: Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices

70. GTO incorporates and realleges as if fully set forth 

herein paragraphs 1 through 29 of the Complaint. 

71. By reason of the foregoing, defendants have been and 

continue to engage in unfair methods of competition, 

unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts 

or practices in the conduct of their trade or commerce, in 

violation of Section 501, Fla. Stat. 

Case 4:11-cv-00158-RH-WCS Document 1 Filed 04/14/11 Page 16 of 19
17

72. Defendants’ conduct has proximately caused damage to 

GTO and will continue to damage GTO irreparably. GTO has no 

adequate remedy at law for these wrongs and injuries. The 

damage to GTO includes harm to its goodwill and reputation in 

the marketplace that money cannot compensate. GTO is, 

therefore, entitled to a preliminary and permanent injunction 

restraining and enjoining defendants and their agents, servants, 

and employees, and all persons acting thereunder, in concert 

with, or on their behalf, from using, registering, or 

transferring GTO’s trademarks or any colorable imitation or 

variation thereof, on their internet website or otherwise in 

connection with the promotion, advertisement, sale and marketing 

of their inauthentic discount substitutes. 

73. GTO seeks compensatory damage in an amount that will 

compensate it for all damages caused by defendants. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

 Wherefore, plaintiff GTO prays for judgment against 

defendants as follows: 

a. For a judgment that defendants have willfully and 

intentionally infringed GTO’s trademarks, copyrights 

and U.S. Patent No. 7,557,525; 

b. Entering judgment in favor of GTO for defendants’ 

intentional, knowing and willful unfair competition in 

violation of 15 U.S.C. sec. 1125; 

c. Entering judgment in favor of GTO for defendants’ 

intentional, knowing and willful violation of Section 

501, Fla. Stat.; 

Case 4:11-cv-00158-RH-WCS Document 1 Filed 04/14/11 Page 17 of 19
18

d. Awarding GTO actual damages and treble damages, 

interest (including prejudgment interest), and its 

reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in 

prosecuting this action 

e. Preliminarily and permanently enjoining defendants and 

their officers, agents, servants, directors, and 

employees, and all persons in active concert or 

participation with them, from directly or indirectly 

making or causing to be made, offering or causing to 

be offered for sale, selling or causing to be sold, or 

using or causing to be used, any replacement control 

board incorporating a dual swing gate control system 

that employs position monitors to maintain a 

“differential position” between the arms during 

closing in order to ensure proper sequencing automatic 

gate opener, as described in the ‘525 patent, or 

otherwise directly or indirectly infringing or 

inducing the infringement, either literally or by 

equivalents, of the ‘525 patent. 

f. Preliminarily and permanently enjoining defendants and 

their officers, agents, servants, directors, and 

employees, and all persons in active concert or 

participation with them, from: (a) passing off GTO’s 

products as its own; (b) reproducing or displaying the 

GTO, GTO/PRO of Mighty Mule marks in any form, 

including any derivatives thereof, on its Internet 

website or otherwise; (c) further creating confusion 

Case 4:11-cv-00158-RH-WCS Document 1 Filed 04/14/11 Page 18 of 19
19

as to the rightful ownership of the GTO, GTO/PRO or 

Mighty Mule marks; 

g. Preliminarily and permanently enjoining defendants and 

their officers, agents, servants, directors, and 

employees, and all persons in active concert or 

participation with them, from using, copying, 

reproducing, making derivative works or making any 

other infringing use or infringing distribution of 

software programs, catalogs or product manuals 

protected by the following federally registered 

copyrights: (a) TX0006142911; (b) TX0006142913; (c) 

TX0006142919; and 

h. For such other and further relief as this Court deems 

just and appropriate. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 AUSLEY & McMULLEN 

 /s/Robert N. Clarke, Jr.___ 

 Robert N. Clarke, Jr. 

 Fla. Bar No. 0592900 

 Martin B. Sipple 

 Fla. Bar No. 0135399 

 123 South Calhoun Street 

 P.O. Box 391 (zip 32302) 

 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 

 (850) 224-9115 – telephone 

 (850) 222-7560 – facsimile 

Attorneys for Gates That 

Open, LLC 

Case 4:11-cv-00158-RH-WCS Document 1 Filed 04/14/11 Page 19 of 19