IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS-EASTERN DIVISION

VIAHART LLC )

 )

 Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) No. 1:20-cv-5039

 )

THE PARTNERSHIPS AND )

UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS )

IDENTIFIED IN SCHEDULE “A”, )

 )

 Defendants. )

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Viahart LLC (“Plaintiff”), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby files 

this Complaint against the partnerships and unincorporated associations identified in Schedule “A” 

(together, “Defendants”). In support thereof, Plaintiff states as follows:

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over the claims in this action 

pursuant to the provisions of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051, et seq., 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a)-(b) 

and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This Court has jurisdiction over the claims in this action that arise under 

the laws of the State of Illinois pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because the state law claims are 

so related to the federal claims that they form part of the same case or controversy and derive 

from a common nucleus of operative facts.

2. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, and this Court may 

properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendants, since each of the Defendants directly 

targets business activities toward consumers in the United States, including Illinois, through their 

operation of or assistance in the operation of the fully interactive, commercial Internet Stores 

identified in Schedule A. Specifically, each of the Defendants are directly reaching out to do 
2

business with Illinois residents by operating or assisting in the operation of one or more 

commercial, interactive e-commerce stores that sell products using counterfeit versions of 

Plaintiff’s federally registered trademarks directly to Illinois consumers. In short, each of the 

Defendants is committing tortious acts in Illinois, is engaging in interstate commerce, and has 

wrongfully caused Plaintiff substantial injury in the State of Illinois.

II. INTRODUCTION

3. This action has been filed by Plaintiff to combat online counterfeiters and infringers 

who trade upon Plaintiff’s reputation and goodwill by selling and/or offering for sale unauthorized 

and unlicensed counterfeit and infringing products, including children’s toys and games, using 

counterfeit versions of Plaintiff’s federally registered trademarks (the “Counterfeit Products”). The 

Defendants create Internet Stores (“the Defendant Internet Stores”) by the dozens and design them 

to appear to be selling genuine Plaintiff’s products, while actually selling Counterfeit Products to 

unknowing consumers. 

Not only do The Defendant Internet Stores share unique identifiers, such as design 

elements and similarities of the Counterfeit Products offered for sale, but they are also connected 

through mutual family and friends, as well as through a common manufacturing factory, thereby 

establishing the fact that Defendants’ counterfeiting and infringement operation arises out of the 

same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences. Defendants attempt to avoid 

liability by going to great lengths to conceal both their identities and the full scope and 

interworking of their counterfeiting operation, including changing the names of their stores 

multiple times, opening new stores, helping their friends open stores, and making subtle changes 

to their products. Plaintiff is forced to file this action to combat Defendants’ counterfeiting and 

willful infringement of Plaintiff’s registered trademark, as well as to protect unknowing consumers 
3

from purchasing Counterfeit Products over the Internet. Plaintiff has been and continue to be 

irreparably damaged through consumer confusion, dilution, and tarnishment of their valuable 

trademarks as a result of Defendants’ actions and seek injunctive and monetary relief.

III. THE PARTIES

Plaintiff Viahart LLC

4. Plaintiff is the creator and seller of the famous BRAIN FLAKES® interlocking 

plastic disks. Described as “every teacher’s favorite ‘brain break’ activity,”1 Plaintiff originally 

created, designed, and trademarked the well-renown educational toy that is today used in 

classrooms across the country and it has built up its brand into an international success.

5. BRAIN FLAKES®, which is described by one toy reviewer as “a revolutionary 

addition to the world of children’s (and adults'!) construction toys,” has been recognized by a 

number of national media such as the Wall Street Journal® and People.com®, and has been 

1

the-gadgeteer.com/2020/03/04/every-teachers-favorite-brain-break-activity-the-original-brain-flakes/ 

(last accessed on August 21, 2020).
4

included in recent lists of top toys for kids, including among the “Best building Toys for Kids (The 

Future Engineers) in 2020 and the top 10 STEM Toys of 2019.”

6. Over the last decade, Plaintiff’s BRAIN FLAKES® have become enormously 

popular, driven, in part, by Plaintiff’s quality standards and innovative design. Among the 

purchasing public, genuine Brain Flakes® are instantly recognizable as such and symbolize high 

quality. Indeed, Brain Flakes® are among Amazon’s top selling products in the category of 

children’s toys and games.

7. Plaintiff has generated millions of dollars in sales from its Brain Flakes® products

through national retail chains, such as Wal-Mart®, eBay®, through several other online and offline 

stores, as well as through Plaintiff’s Amazon store and e-commerce website. 

8. Plaintiff incorporates a variety of distinctive marks in the design of its various 

products and is the exclusive owner of several federally-registered trademarks for educational toys 

and games in Class 018, as well as retail stores services in Class 035 (“the Viahart Trademarks”). 

These registrations include:

Registration No. Marks

1420858 BRAIN FLAKES

5049910

(International)

BRAIN FLAKES

5370197 GOODMINTON

5407364 VIAHART

9. The Viahart Trademarks have been used exclusively and continuously by Plaintiff

for many years and have never been abandoned. The above U.S. registrations for the Viahart 

Trademarks are valid, subsisting, and in full force and effect. True and correct copies of the United 

States Registration Certificates for the above-listed Viahart Trademarks are attached hereto as 
5

Exhibit 1. The registrations for the Viahart Trademarks constitute prima facie evidence of their 

validity and of Plaintiff’s exclusive right to use the Viahart Trademarks pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 

1057(b).

10. Plaintiff uses the Viahart Trademarks to identify its goods. The Viahart Trademarks 

are distinctive when applied to Plaintiff’s products, signifying to the purchaser that the products 

come from Plaintiff and are manufactured to Plaintiff’s quality and safety standards—which is 

uniquely important in the of market of children’s toys. 

11. Plaintiff has expended substantial time, money, and other resources in developing, 

advertising and quality testing products sold under the Viahart Trademarks. As a result, products 

bearing the Viahart Trademarks are widely recognized and exclusively associated by consumer 

and the public as being quality products designed, manufactured, and distributed via Plaintiff. As 

such, the goodwill associated with Viahart Trademarks is of incalculable and inestimable value to 

Plaintiff. 

The Defendants

12. Defendants are individuals and business entities who reside in the People’s 

Republic of China. Defendants conduct business or assist in business conducted throughout the 

United States (including within the State of Illinois and this Judicial District) through the 

manufacturing, online advertising and selling, and importation and distribution of children’s 

educational toys that use counterfeit and infringing versions of the Viahart Trademarks. Each 

Defendant has targeted Illinois by selling or knowingly assisting in the selling of Counterfeit 

Products to Illinois consumers via various online Amazon stores. 

13. Defendants are an interrelated group of counterfeiters and infringers, who resides 

in the same city in China, and who all work in active concert to knowingly and willfully 
6

manufacture, import, distribute, offer for sale, and sell products using counterfeit versions of the 

Viahart Trademarks in the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences. 

Tactics used by Defendants to conceal their identities and the full scope of their counterfeiting 

operation make it virtually impossible for Plaintiff to learn the precise scope and the exact 

interworking of their counterfeit network. In the event that Defendants provide additional credible 

information regarding their identities, Plaintiff will take appropriate steps to amend the Amended 

Complaint.

IV. DEFENDANTS’ UNLAWFUL CONDUCT

14. The success of Plaintiff’s brands, particularly its BRAIN FLAKES® brand, has 

resulted in significant counterfeiting. Consequently, Plaintiff has recently instituted a worldwide 

anti-counterfeiting program to investigate suspicious online marketplace listings. In recent years,

Plaintiff has identified hundreds fully interactive, commercial Internet stores on various ecommerce platforms, including the Defendant Internet Stores, which are offering for sale and 

selling Counterfeit Products to consumers in this Judicial District and throughout the United States. 

Internet websites like the Defendant Internet Stores are estimated to receive tens of millions of 

visits per year and generated over $509 billion in annual online sales in 2016 alone. See Exhibit 

2. According to an intellectual property rights seizures statistics report issued by the United States 

Department of Homeland Security, the manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP) of goods 

seized by the U.S. government in fiscal year 2018 was over $1.4 billion. See Exhibit 2.

15. Defendants facilitate sales by designing their product listings and descriptions on 

Defendant Internet Stores so that they appear to unknowing consumers to be authorized online 

retailers of Brain Flakes®; however, Plaintiff has not licensed or authorized Defendants to use any 
7

of the Viahart Trademarks, and none of the Defendants are authorized retailers of genuine Brain 

Flakes®. 

16. Many of the Defendants also deceive unknowing consumers by using the Viahart 

Trademarks without authorization within the content, text, and/or meta tags of their Internet stores 

in order to attract various search engines crawling the Internet looking for Internet stores relevant 

to consumer searches for Brain Flakes®. Other Defendants show the Viahart Trademarks in 

product images while using strategic item titles and descriptions that will trigger their listings when 

consumers are searching for Plaintiff’s products. 

17. On information and belief, counterfeiters such as Defendants go to great lengths to 

conceal their identities and often use multiple fictitious names and addresses to register and operate 

their network of Defendant Internet Stores. On information and belief, counterfeiters such as 

Defendants regularly create new online marketplace accounts on various platforms using multiple 

fictitious names and addresses. On information and belief, such internet store registration patterns 

are one of many common tactics used by the counterfeiters to conceal their identities, the full scope 

and interworking of their counterfeiting operation, and to avoid being shut down. 

18. Even though Defendants operate several online stores, on information and belief, 

those stores source their Counterfeit products from the same manufacturer located in China. 

19. On information and belief, counterfeiters also typically ship products in small 

quantities via international mail to minimize detection by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. 

20. On information and belief, counterfeiters operate multiple credit card merchant 

accounts and PayPal accounts behind layers of payment gateways so that they can continue 

operation in spite of Plaintiff’s enforcement efforts. On information and belief, counterfeiters 
8

maintain off-shore bank accounts and regularly move funds from their PayPal accounts or other 

financial accounts to off-shore bank accounts outside the jurisdiction of this Court. 

21. Defendants, without any authorization or license from Plaintiff, have knowingly 

and willfully used and continue to use the Viahart Trademarks in connection with the 

advertisement, distribution, offering for sale, and sale of Counterfeit Products into the United 

States and Illinois over the Internet. 

22. Defendants’ use of the Viahart Trademarks in connection with the advertising, 

distribution, offering for sale, and sale of Counterfeit Products, including the sale of Counterfeit 

Products into the United States, including Illinois, is likely to cause and has caused confusion, 

mistake, and deception by and among consumers and is irreparably harming Plaintiff.

COUNT I

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AND COUNTERFEITING (15 U.S.C. § 1114)

23. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in 

paragraphs 1 through 22. 

24. This is a trademark infringement and counterfeit action against Defendants based on 

their unauthorized use in commerce of counterfeit imitations of the federally registered the Viahart 

Trademarks in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, and/or advertising of 

infringing goods. The Viahart Trademarks are distinctive marks. Consumers have come to expect 

the highest quality from Plaintiff’s products offered, sold or marketed under the Viahart 

Trademarks.

25. Defendants have sold, offered to sell, marketed, distributed, and advertised, and are 

still selling, offering to sell, marketing, distributing, and advertising products using counterfeit 

reproductions of the Viahart Trademarks without Plaintiff’s permission. 
9

26. Plaintiff is the exclusive owners of the Viahart Trademarks. Plaintiff’s United 

States Registrations for the Viahart Trademarks (Exhibits 1) are in full force and effect. Defendants 

have knowledge of Plaintiff’s rights in the Viahart Trademarks and are willfully infringing and 

intentionally using counterfeits and infringing versions of the Viahart Trademarks. Defendants’ 

willful, intentional and unauthorized use of the Viahart Trademarks is likely to cause and is causing 

confusion, mistake, and deception as to the origin and quality of the Counterfeit Products among 

the general public. 

27. Defendants’ activities constitute willful trademark infringement and counterfeiting 

under Section 32 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114. 

28. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law, and if Defendants’ actions are not enjoined, 

Plaintiff will continue to suffer irreparable harm to their reputations and the goodwill of the Viahart 

Trademarks. 

29. The injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff has been directly and proximately 

caused by Defendants’ wrongful reproduction, use, advertisement, promotion, offering to sell, and 

sale of Counterfeit Products.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows: 

(1) That Defendants, their affiliates, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, 

confederates, and all persons acting for, with, by, through, under or in active concert with them be 

temporarily, preliminarily, and permanently enjoined and restrained from: 

a. using the Viahart Trademarks or any reproductions, counterfeit copies or 

colorable imitations thereof in any manner in connection with the 

distribution, marketing, advertising, offering for sale, or sale of any product 
10

that is not a genuine products or is not authorized by Plaintiff to be sold in 

connection with the Viahart Trademarks; 

b. passing off, inducing, or enabling others to sell or pass off any product as a 

genuine products or any other product produced by Plaintiff, that is not 

Plaintiff’s or not produced under the authorization, control, or supervision 

of Plaintiff’s and approved by Plaintiff for sale under the Viahart

Trademarks; 

c. committing any acts calculated to cause consumers to believe that 

Defendants’ Counterfeit Products are those sold under the authorization, 

control or supervision of Plaintiff, or are sponsored by, approved by, or 

otherwise connected with Plaintiff; 

d. further infringing the Viahart Trademarks and damaging Plaintiff’s

goodwill; and

e. manufacturing, shipping, delivering, holding for sale, transferring or 

otherwise moving, storing, distributing, returning, or otherwise disposing 

of, in any manner, products or inventory not manufactured by or for 

Plaintiff, nor authorized by Plaintiff to be sold or offered for sale, and which 

bear any of Plaintiff’s trademarks, including the Plaintiff’s Trademarks, or 

any reproductions, counterfeit copies or colorable imitations thereof;

(2) Entry of an Order that, upon Plaintiff’s request, those in privity with Defendants and 

those with notice of the injunction, including, without limitation, any online marketplace platforms 

such as iOffer, eBay, AliExpress, Alibaba, Amazon, Wish.com, and Dhgate, sponsored search 

engine or ad-word providers, credit cards, banks, merchant account providers, third party 
11

processors and other payment processing service providers, and Internet search engines such as 

Google, Bing and Yahoo (collectively, the “Third Party Providers”) shall: 

a. disable and cease providing services being used by Defendants, currently or 

in the future, to engage in the sale of goods using the Viahart Trademarks; 

b. disable and cease displaying any advertisements used by or associated with 

Defendants in connection with the sale of counterfeit and infringing goods 

using the Viahart Trademarks; and 

c. take all steps necessary to prevent links to the Defendant Internet Stores 

identified on Schedule A from displaying in search results, including, but 

not limited to, removing links to the Defendant Internet Stores from any 

search index;

(3) That Defendants account for and pay to Plaintiff all profits realized by Defendants by 

reason of Defendants’ unlawful acts herein alleged, and that the amount of damages for 

infringement of the Viahart Trademarks be increased by a sum not exceeding three times the 

amount thereof as provided by 15 U.S.C. § 1117; 

(4) In the alternative, that Plaintiff be awarded statutory damages for willful trademark 

counterfeiting pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c)(2) of $2,000,000 for each and every use of the 

Viahart Trademarks; 

(5) That Plaintiff be awarded their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and 

(6) That Plaintiff be awarded any and all other relief that this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT II

FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a))

30. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in 

paragraphs 1 through 29. 
12

31. Defendants’ promotion, marketing, offering for sale, and sale of Counterfeit 

Products has created and is creating a likelihood of confusion, mistake, and deception among the 

general public as to the affiliation, connection, or association with Plaintiff or the origin, 

sponsorship, or approval of Defendants’ Counterfeit Products by Plaintiff. 

32. By using the Viahart Trademarks on the Counterfeit Products, Defendants create a 

false designation of origin and a misleading representation of fact as to the origin and sponsorship 

of the Counterfeit Products. 

33. Defendants’ false designation of origin and misrepresentation of fact as to the origin 

and/or sponsorship of the Counterfeit Products to the general public involves the use of counterfeit 

marks and is a willful violation of Section 43 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125. 

34. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law and, if Defendants’ actions are not enjoined, 

Plaintiff will continue to suffer irreparable harm to their reputations and the associated goodwill 

of the Viahart® and Brain Flakes® brands.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows: 

(1) That Defendants, their affiliates, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, 

confederates, and all persons acting for, with, by, through, under or in active concert with them be 

temporarily, preliminarily, and permanently enjoined and restrained from: 

a. using the Viahart Trademarks or any reproductions, counterfeit copies or 

colorable imitations thereof in any manner in connection with the 

distribution, marketing, advertising, offering for sale, or sale of any product 

that is not a genuine product or is not authorized by Plaintiff to be sold in 

connection with the Viahart Trademarks; 
13

b. passing off, inducing, or enabling others to sell or pass off any product as a 

genuine products or any other product produced by Plaintiff, that is not 

Plaintiff’s or not produced under the authorization, control, or supervision 

of Plaintiff and approved by Plaintiff for sale under the Viahart Trademarks; 

c. committing any acts calculated to cause consumers to believe that 

Defendants’ Counterfeit Products are those sold under the authorization, 

control or supervision of Plaintiff, or are sponsored by, approved by, or 

otherwise connected with Plaintiff; 

d. further infringing the Viahart Trademarks and damaging Plaintiff’s 

goodwill; and

e. manufacturing, shipping, delivering, holding for sale, transferring or 

otherwise moving, storing, distributing, returning, or otherwise disposing 

of, in any manner, products or inventory not manufactured by or for 

Plaintiff, nor authorized by Plaintiff to be sold or offered for sale, and which 

bear any of the Viahart Trademarks, or any reproductions, counterfeit 

copies or colorable imitations thereof;

(2) That Defendants account for and pay to Plaintiff all profits realized by Defendants by 

reason of Defendants’ unlawful acts herein alleged, and that the amount of damages for 

infringement of the Viahart Trademarks be increased by a sum not exceeding the 

statutory limit;

(3) Plaintiff’s costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees;

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

(5) Such other and further relief as this Court finds just and equitable.
14

COUNT III

VIOLATION OF ILLINOIS UNIFORM DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT

(815 ILCS § 510, et seq.)

35. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in 

paragraphs 1 through 34. 

36. Defendants have engaged in acts violating Illinois law including, but not limited to, 

passing off their Counterfeit Products as those of Plaintiff, causing a likelihood of confusion and/or 

misunderstanding as to the source of their goods, causing a likelihood of confusion and/or 

misunderstanding as to an affiliation, connection, or association with genuine Viahart® and Brain 

Flakes® products, representing that their products have Plaintiff’s approval when they do not, and 

engaging in other conduct which creates a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding among the 

public. 

47. The foregoing Defendants’ acts constitute a willful violation of the Illinois Uniform 

Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 ILCS § 510, et seq.

48. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law, and Defendants’ conduct has caused 

Plaintiff to suffer damage to their reputations and associated goodwill. Unless enjoined by the 

Court, Plaintiff will suffer future irreparable harm as a direct result of Defendants’ unlawful 

activities.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Honorable Court enter an order and judgment in 

favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant as follows:

(1) That Defendants, their affiliates, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, 

confederates, and all persons acting for, with, by, through, under or in active concert with them be 

temporarily, preliminarily, and permanently enjoined and restrained from: 
15

a. using the Viahart Trademarks or any reproductions, counterfeit copies or 

colorable imitations thereof in any manner in connection with the 

distribution, marketing, advertising, offering for sale, or sale of any product 

that is not a genuine product or is not authorized by Plaintiff be sold in 

connection with the Viahart Trademarks; 

b. passing off, inducing, or enabling others to sell or pass off any product as a 

genuine product or any other product produced by Plaintiff that is not 

Plaintiff or not produced under the authorization, control, or supervision of 

Plaintiff and approved by Plaintiff for sale under the Viahart Trademarks; 

c. committing any acts calculated to cause consumers to believe that 

Defendants’ Counterfeit Products are those sold under the authorization, 

control or supervision of Plaintiff, or are sponsored by, approved by, or 

otherwise connected with Plaintiff; 

d. further infringing the Viahart Trademarks and damaging Viahart’s 

goodwill; and

e. manufacturing, shipping, delivering, holding for sale, transferring or 

otherwise moving, storing, distributing, returning, or otherwise disposing 

of, in any manner, products or inventory not manufactured by or for 

Plaintiff, nor authorized by Plaintiff to be sold or offered for sale, and which 

bear any of the Viahart Trademarks, or any reproductions, counterfeit 

copies or colorable imitations thereof;

(2) Plaintiff’s costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 815 ILCS § 510/3;

(3) Such other and further relief as this Court finds just and equitable.
16

COUNT III

CONTRIBUTORY COUNTERFEITING AND TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

(15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125(a))

49. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in 

paragraphs 1 through 48.

50. By providing third parties counterfeit and infringing products, by providing third 

parties Plaintiff’s specific product designs and specs, by connecting third-parties to authorized 

manufacturers of Plaintiff’s products, and by assisting third parties set up Amazon stores and other 

online stores to sell counterfeit and infringing products, Defendants induced, caused, and/or 

materially contributed to the counterfeit and infringing conduct of third parties with knowledge of 

those third parties’ direct infringement and counterfeit sales. 

51. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law, and if Defendants’ actions are not enjoined, 

Plaintiff will continue to suffer irreparable harm to their reputations and the goodwill of the Viahart 

Trademarks. 

52. The injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff has been directly and proximately 

caused by Defendants’ contributory infringement and counterfeiting assistance. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows: 

(1) That Defendants, their affiliates, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, 

confederates, and all persons acting for, with, by, through, under or in active concert with them be 

temporarily, preliminarily, and permanently enjoined and restrained from: 

a. assisting third parties from using the Viahart Trademarks or any 

reproductions, counterfeit copies or colorable imitations thereof in any 

manner in connection with the distribution, marketing, advertising, offering 
17

for sale, or sale of any product that is not a genuine products or is not 

authorized by Plaintiff to be sold in connection with Viahart Trademarks; 

b. assisting third parties with passing off, inducing, or enabling others to sell 

or pass off any product as a genuine products or any other product produced 

by Plaintiff, that is not Plaintiff’s or not produced under the authorization, 

control, or supervision of Plaintiff and approved by Plaintiff for sale under 

the Viahart Trademarks; 

c. assisting third parties with the manufacturing, shipping, delivering, holding 

for sale, transferring or otherwise moving, storing, distributing, returning, 

or otherwise disposing of, in any manner, products or inventory not 

manufactured by or for Plaintiff, nor authorized by Plaintiff to be sold or 

offered for sale, and which bear any of Plaintiff’s trademarks, including the 

Viahart Trademarks, or any reproductions, counterfeit copies or colorable 

imitations thereof;

(2) Entry of an Order that, upon Plaintiff’s request, those in privity with Defendants and 

those with notice of the injunction, including, without limitation, any online marketplace platforms 

such as iOffer, eBay, AliExpress, Alibaba, Amazon, Wish.com, and Dhgate, sponsored search 

engine or ad-word providers, credit cards, banks, merchant account providers, third party 

processors and other payment processing service providers, and Internet search engines such as 

Google, Bing and Yahoo (collectively, the “Third Party Providers”) shall: 

a. disable and cease providing services being used by Defendants, currently or 

in the future, to engage in the sale of goods using the Viahart Trademarks; 
18

b. disable and cease displaying any advertisements used by or associated with 

Defendants in connection with the sale of counterfeit and infringing goods 

using the Viahart Trademarks; and 

c. take all steps necessary to prevent links to the Defendant Internet Stores 

identified on Schedule A from displaying in search results, including, but 

not limited to, removing links to the Defendant Internet Stores from any 

search index;

(3) That Defendants account for and pay to Plaintiff all profits realized by Defendants by 

reason of Defendants’ unlawful acts herein alleged, and that the amount of damages for 

infringement of the Viahart Trademarks be increased by a sum not exceeding three times the 

amount thereof as provided by 15 U.S.C. § 1117; 

(4) In the alternative, that Plaintiff be awarded statutory damages for willful trademark 

counterfeiting pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c)(2) of $2,000,000 for each and every use of the 

Viahart Trademarks; 

(5) That Plaintiff be awarded their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and 

(6) That Plaintiff be awarded any and all other relief that this Court deems just and proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

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

P. 38(b).

Date: August 27, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/S/DALIAH SAPER

DALIAH SAPER

MATT GROTHOUSE

BRANDON BEYMER

SAPER LAW OFFICES, LLC

505 N. LASALLE, SUITE 60654
19

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60654

(312) 527-4100