IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS-EASTERN DIVISION

BRITHRIC ENTERPRISES, LLC and )

BRITHRIC ENTERPRISES REALTY, LLC )

dba BE REALTY, )

 )

Plaintiffs, )

 )

v. ) No. 20-cv-4696

 )

BAY EQUITY LLC, )

 )

Defendant. )

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Brithric Enterprises, LLC (“Plaintiff BE”) and Plaintiff Brithric Enterprises 

Realty, LLC dba BE REALTY (“Plaintiff BE REALTY”) (together, “Plaintiffs”), by and through 

their undersigned counsel, hereby file this Complaint against Defendant Bay Equity LLC 

(“Defendant” or “Bay Equity”). In support thereof, Plaintiffs state as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. This is an action for unfair competition pursuant to the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)),

False Registration (15 U.S.C. § 1120), violation of the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices 

Act (815 ILCS § 510) and Illinois Consumer Fraud And Deceptive Business Practices Act 

(815 ILCS § 505), and violation of Illinois unfair competition laws.

2. This action results from, inter alia, Defendant’s unauthorized and knowing use and 

registration of a trademark confusingly similar to Plaintiffs’ BE and BE REALTY marks

and logos, as well as Defendant’s willfully deceptive and fraudulent business practices.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 and 1338(b) and

has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Case: 1:20-cv-04696 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/10/20 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:1
2

4. Venue and personal jurisdiction are proper in the Northern District of Illinois under 28 

U.S.C. § 1391(b) and 15 U.S.C. § 1221 because, inter alia, a substantial part of the events 

or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this district and Defendant has promoted 

its services online and offline in this district while using a mark confusingly similar to 

Plaintiff’s BE and BE REALTY marks and logos.

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff Brithric Enterprises, LLC (“Plaintiff BE”) is an Illinois limited liability company 

with its principal place of business located at 3352 N. Sheffield Ave., Chicago, Illinois 

60657. Plaintiff BE owns the BE REALTY mark and logo.

6. Plaintiff Brithric Enterprises Realty, LLC dba as “Be Realty” (“Plaintiff Be Realty”) is an 

Illinois limited liability company with a principal place of business located at 3352 North

Sheffield Ave., Chicago, Illinois 60657. Plaintiff BE licenses the marks at issue to Plaintiff 

Be Realty.

7. Defendant is a California limited liability company with its principal place of business 

located at 28 Liberty Ship Way, Suite 2800, Sausalito, CA 94965 or 770 Tamalpais Drive, 

Suite 207, Corte Madera, CA 94925. On information and belief, one of Defendant’s 

Illinois offices is located at 6619 Cermak Rd, Berwyn, IL 60402.

BACKGROUND

8. Since as early as December of 2012, Plaintiffs have used the mark for, among 

other things, residential real estate services, including real estate brokerage services and 

mortgage-related services. See Exhibits 1-2. 

9. For nearly a decade, Plaintiffs have built a reputation for 5-star service throughout the U.S. 

and Canada under the BE REALTY name and logo mark.

Case: 1:20-cv-04696 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/10/20 Page 2 of 11 PageID #:2
3

10. Indeed, Plaintiff Be Realty filed for and was granted a dba for “BE REALTY” eight years 

ago in July of 2012, and it has since exclusively held itself as and promoted its services 

under the BE REALTY name. See Exhibit 3 

11. Since at least May of 2014, Plaintiff Be Realty has used the BE mark and logo 

mark in connection with its residential real estate transactions services, including brokerage 

services. See Exhibit 4. 

12. In addition to the and marks, Plaintiffs’ family of marks also includes 

the trademarked tagline “BE WHERE YOU WANT TO BE, BE REALTY” (Reg. No. 

4222829) (together, “Plaintiffs’ Be Marks”); however, Plaintiffs are it is best-known to 

consumers by the shorthand “BE.” See Exhibit 5-6. 

Defendant’s Trademark Infringement

13. Starting in late December of 2018 or early January of 2019, Defendant began using the 

marks and in connection with, among other things, residential real estate 

transactions services, including mortgage brokerage services (“Defendant’s Be Marks”). 

See Exhibit 7. 

14. Based on online and offline evidence and Defendant’s trademark applications, for over a 

decade, Defendant used and held itself out as “Bay Equity” and “PinPoint Mortgage”—

until January of 2019 when it suddenly began using the infringing Defendant’s Be Marks. 

15. Put another way, Plaintiffs have clear priority over the use of “BE” marks in connection 

with residential real estate transaction services, including brokerage services and mortgagerelated services, by at least six years.

16. Notably, Plaintiffs have never objected to, and do not now object to, Defendant’s use of 

Defendant’s “Bay Equity” or “PinPoint Mortgage” name or mark. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04696 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/10/20 Page 3 of 11 PageID #:3
4

17. However, Plaintiffs have objected to, do object to, and have been damaged by Defendant’s 

unlawful use of and invalid registration of the infringing and marks for use in 

connection with residential real estate transactions services, including mortgage brokerage 

services, which is confusingly similar to Plaintiffs’ Be Marks used for, among other things, 

residential real estate transactions services, including brokerage services and mortgagerelated services.

18. In June of this year, after Defendant began growing its consumer presence in Illinois, 

Plaintiffs contacted Defendant to attempt to resolve the trademark issue in a reasonable and 

amicable manner by sending a respectful letter demanding that Defendant cease using 

Defendant’s Be Marks and go back to using its full name “Bay Equity.” See Exhibit 8. 

19. Although Plaintiffs’ brand and goodwill had already been damaged by Defendant’s 

unauthorized use and registration of Defendant’s Be Marks, Plaintiff nonetheless offered 

to resolve the issue without any monetary payment, and with a full release of liability for 

Defendant, as long as Defendant stopped using the infringing marks and abandoned its 

federal trademark registration and application for the infringing marks. See Exhibit 8.

20. Despite multiple good-faith communications by Plaintiff, however, Defendant declined to 

agree to Plaintiff’s reasonable terms, and thus Plaintiffs were forced to bring this action. 

21. To this day, Defendant continues to use the confusingly similar “BE” marks and logo in 

connection with residential real estate transactions services, including brokerage services

in Illinois and throughout the nation, as it continues to direct consumers to its website using 

the “BE” logo mark.

22. Plaintiffs have invested substantial time, effort, and money promoting, marketing, 

advertising, and building up Plaintiffs’ Be Marks.

Case: 1:20-cv-04696 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/10/20 Page 4 of 11 PageID #:4
5

23. As a result of the continuous and considerable effort and investment, Plaintiffs’ Be Marks 

have become, through public acceptance and recognition, an asset of substantial value 

symbolizing Plaintiffs’ quality of services and goodwill.

24. Plaintiffs have never authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Defendant to use 

Plaintiff’s Be Marks or any confusingly similar marks.

25. Most importantly, Defendant has begun using Defendant’s Be Marks and branding more 

prominently, particularly in Illinois—one of Plaintiff’s primary markets.

26. Without court intervention, the likelihood of confusion will only escalate, Plaintiffs’ brand 

and goodwill will only be further diminished, Plaintiffs will continue to lose control of its 

reputation, and Plaintiffs will suffer escalating damages. 

COUNT I

FEDERAL UNFAIR COMPETITION (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a))

27. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference into this Count all of the allegations appearing in 

paragraphs 1-26 of this Complaint as if set forth fully herein.

28. Defendant has passed off and continues to pass off its services as Plaintiffs’ services by 

knowingly and intentionally using a confusingly similar variation of Plaintiffs’ name and 

mark in connection with residential real estate transactions services, including mortgage 

brokerage services without Plaintiffs’ authorization.

29. The relevant public has believed, and is likely to increasingly believe in the future, that 

Defendant’s services originate with, are licensed by, are sponsored by, are connected with, 

or otherwise associated with Plaintiffs. 

30. Defendant’s unauthorized use of the infringing mark falsely represents Defendant as being 

legitimately connected with Plaintiffs and places Plaintiffs’ reputation beyond Plaintiffs’

control.

Case: 1:20-cv-04696 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/10/20 Page 5 of 11 PageID #:5
6

31. Defendant’s willful tortious conduct has proximately and in fact caused Plaintiffs damages, 

including consumer confusion, sales diversion, lost goodwill, loss of advertising 

investment, and loss of control of Plaintiffs’ reputation. 

32. Defendant’s unlawful and willful conduct will continue to irreparably damage Plaintiffs 

unless enjoined by this Court.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Honorable Court enter an order and judgment in favor 

of Plaintiffs and against Defendant as follows:

(a) A permanent mandatory injunction ordering Defendant to stop passing its services 

off as Plaintiffs’ services by not using the “BE” name, mark, or logo—or any 

similar variation thereof—in connection with mortgage and real estate services;

(b) Damages associated with the infringement, in an amount to be determined at trial, 

but in no event less than $100,000;

(c) Plaintiffs’ costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1117;

(d) Both pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and

(e) Such other and further relief as this Court finds just and equitable.

COUNT II

FALSE REGISTRATION (15 U.S.C. § 1120)

33. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference into this Count all of the allegations appearing in 

paragraphs 1-32 of this Complaint as if set forth fully herein.

34. On information and belief, prior to applying for the federal trademark registration for BE 

(Reg. 6029963), Defendant was aware of Plaintiffs and their interstate commerce use of 

the BE REALTY and BE marks and logos for real estate brokerage services and mortgagerelated services.

Case: 1:20-cv-04696 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/10/20 Page 6 of 11 PageID #:6
7

35. On information and belief, despite this knowledge, Defendant knowingly falsely 

represented under oath in its federal trademark application before the United States Patent 

and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) that “after an inquiry reasonable under the 

circumstances,” it did not know or believe any other person had “the right to use the mark 

in commerce, either in the identical form or in such near resemblance as to be likely, when 

used on or in connection with the goods/services of such other persons, to cause confusion 

or mistake, or to deceive.”

36. As a result of Defendant’s deliberately and materially false and misleading representations, 

the USPTO ultimately registered—and Defendant falsely procured—the mark. 

37. Most importantly, Defendant’s registration has caused Plaintiffs damages, including loss 

of goodwill and distinction in the market, increased difficulty in enforcing its mark and 

rights, the inability to register several of Plaintiffs’ Be Marks, and overall consumer 

confusion of ownership.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Honorable Court enter an order and judgment in favor 

of Plaintiffs and against Defendant as follows:

(a) The cancellation of Defendant’s federal trademark registration and any similar pending 

applications;

(b) Damages associated with Defendant’s false registration, in an amount to be determined 

at trial, but in no event less than $10,000;

(c) Plaintiffs’ costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1117;

(d) Both pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and

(e) Such other and further relief as this Court finds just and equitable.

Case: 1:20-cv-04696 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/10/20 Page 7 of 11 PageID #:7
8

COUNT III

VIOLATION OF THE UNIFORM DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT

(815 ILCS § 510)

38. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference into this Count all of the allegations appearing in 

paragraphs 1-37 of this Complaint as if set forth fully herein.

39. Through its use of confusingly similar marks for mortgage brokerage services and other 

related real estate-based services, Defendant has passed off and continues to pass off its 

services as Plaintiffs’ services and has caused and continues to cause the likelihood of 

confusion and misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval, affiliation, 

connection, or association of its services. 815 ILCS § 510/2(a)(1)-(3), (12).

40. Defendant’s knowing tortious conduct proximately and in fact cause Illinois consumers 

and Plaintiffs damages through consumer confusion, and Defendant will continue to do so

unless enjoined by this Court.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Honorable Court enter an order and judgment in 

favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant as follows:

(a) A permanent mandatory injunction ordering Defendant to stop unfairly 

confusing consumers;

(b) Plaintiffs’ costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 815 ILCS § 510/3; 

(c) Such other and further relief as this Court finds just and equitable.

COUNT IV

VIOLATION OF THE ILLINOIS CONSUMER FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS 

PRACTICES ACT (815 ILCS § 505/1)

41. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference into this Count all of the allegations appearing in 

paragraphs 1-40 of this Complaint as if set forth fully herein.

42. Plaintiffs have a valid and protectable right in Plaintiffs’ Be Marks.

Case: 1:20-cv-04696 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/10/20 Page 8 of 11 PageID #:8
9

43. Plaintiffs’ mark is inherently distinctive or has otherwise acquired distinctness. 

44. Defendant’s unauthorized use of the and marks has caused and continues to 

cause the likelihood of confusion and misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, 

approval, affiliation, connection, or association of its services, thereby constituting a 

violation of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice Act.

45. As a direct and proximate result of the above-mentioned acts, practices and conduct, 

Plaintiffs have been and are likely to be substantially damaged in their business, including 

their reputation and goodwill, for which the Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. 

46. Unless enjoined by this Court, the Defendant will continue to engage in deceptive business 

practices to the Plaintiffs’ irreparable injury. 

47. The threat of future injury to the general public and to Plaintiffs’ business, identity, 

goodwill and reputation necessitates the award of injunctive relief to prevent the 

Defendant’s continued wrongful and false acts.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Honorable Court enter an order and judgment in favor 

of Plaintiffs and against Defendant as follows:

(a) A preliminary and permanent mandatory injunction ordering Defendant to stop 

passing its services off as Plaintiffs’ services by not using the “BE” name, mark, or 

logo—or any similar variation thereof—in connection with any mortgage and real 

estate services;

(b) Damages associated with the infringement, in an amount to be determined at 

trial, but in no event less than $100,000;

(c) Such other and further relief as this Court finds just and equitable.

Case: 1:20-cv-04696 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/10/20 Page 9 of 11 PageID #:9
10

COUNT V

VIOLATION OF ILLINOIS UNFAIR COMPETITION (ILLINOIS COMMON LAW)

48. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference into this Count all of the allegations appearing in 

paragraphs 1-47 of this Complaint as if set forth fully herein.

49. Defendant’s knowing and unauthorized use of the “BE” marks in connection with the 

advertising and sale of mortgage brokerage services and other real estate-related services

has caused and will continue to cause consumer confusion as to the source of the services 

at issue, as well as the sponsorship and/or affiliation of Plaintiffs to those services. 

50. As an actual and proximate result of Defendant’s unfair competition, Plaintiffs have 

suffered extensive damages, including diversion of sales, loss of goodwill and control of 

over their reputation, and related damages.

51. Defendant’s unfair competition has been willful and intentional.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Honorable Court enter an order and judgment in 

favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant as follows;

(a) For damages to Plaintiffs, in an amount to be determined at trial, but in no event

less than $100,000.

(b) Both pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and,

(c) Such other and further relief as this Court finds just and equitable.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial on all issues triable as of right to a jury. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 38(b).

Date: August 10, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/S/DALIAH SAPER

DALIAH SAPER

MATT GROTHOUSE

BRANDON BEAMER

Case: 1:20-cv-04696 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/10/20 Page 10 of 11 PageID #:10
11

SAPER LAW OFFICES, LLC

505 N. LASALLE, SUITE 60654

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60654

(312) 527-4100

DS@SAPERLAW.COM

Case: 1:20-cv-04696 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/10/20 Page 11 of 11 PageID #:11