Source: https://es.scribd.com/document/335371117/Run-DMC-Trademark-Complaint
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 23:07:46+00:00

Document:
Run-DMC lawsuit accusing retailers of trademark violation.
1410 Broadway, Suite 1202, New York, NY 10018.
at 1410 Broadway, Suite 1202, New York, NY 10018.
company located at 2021 7th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98121.
business address located at 850 Cherry Ave., San Bruno, CA 94066.
a business address at 221 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030.
physical address at 3352 Charlotte Ave, Rosemead, CA 91770 and a mailing address at 2446 N.
San Gabriel Blvd, #C, Rosemead, CA 91770. Vision is a business partner of Amazon.
address at 3680 Tyler Ave., El. Monte, CA 91731. Vision is a business partner of Amazon.
a business partner of Amazon.
Amazon and split revenue with Amazon while infringing on the RUN-DMC trademark.
Jurisdiction is predicated on federal question and the New York Long Arm Statute.
music publishing, concerts, merchandising and endorsement deals.
and utilize the RUN-DMC trademark. See Exhibit B. The products include glasses, hats, tshirts, patches, wallets and other items.
with the RUN-DMC trademark without the permission of RUN-DMC.
trademark and goodwill of RUN-DMC.
amazon.com, jet.com and Walmart.com and trade on the goodwill of RUN-DMC.
and/or trades on the goodwill of Plaintiffs trademark.
endorsement of its products. Vision does this through a business arrangement with Amazon.
and endorsement of its products. Infinity does this through a business arrangement with Amazon.
The actions of Defendants infringes on the mark of RUN-DMC.
The actions of Defendants are diluting the mark of RUN-DMC.
in the use of RUN-DMCs trademark.
by the Defendants. The actions of the Defendants has harmed RUN-DMC in its business.
Plaintiff repeats paragraphs 1-25 above.
manufacturing, promotion and distribution of hats, shirts, glasses associated with RUN-DMC.
The Defendants have harmed the Plaintiff in its business.
Plaintiff repeats paragraphs 1-32 above.
Defendants are attempting to trade upon the goodwill of RUN-DMC.
($1,600,000.00) to endorse a brand of sneakers. The brand is extremely valuable.
Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-39 above.
the manufacturing, advertising, distributing, marketing and selling of its products.
were advertised as being related to RUN-DMC and/or directly use the trademark RUN-DMC.
Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-43 above.
Plaintiff is entitled to an injunction against the Defendants.
the restraining order and injunction would not disserve the public interest.
Plaintiff has a likelihood of success on the merits.
Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-49 above.
RUN-DMC began creating, marketing, advertising and promoting RUN-DMC.
utilizing the name and mark RUN-DMC.
Plaintiff repeats paragraphs 1-53 above.
Defendants actions are in violation of Lanham Trademark Act.
Plaintiff and causing injury to the Plaintiff.
Plaintiff repeats paragraphs 1-59 above.
standards as the Lanham Act (see Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp v. Marvel Enters., 220 F.
Supp. 2d 289, 297-98 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) and Kensington Publg Corp. v. Gutierrez, No. 05 Civ.
10529 (LTS) (AJP), 2009 WL 4277080, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 10, 2009)).
example, Starbucks Corp. v. Wolfes Borough Coffee, Inc., 588 F. 3d 97, 114 (2d Cir. 2009)).
products with its registered trademark.
Plaintiff repeats paragraphs 1-64 above.
New York recognizes common law unfair competition claims applicable to trademarks.
See ITC Ltd. v. Punchgini, Inc., 9 NY.3d 467, 476-77 (2007).
or intent. See Jeffrey Milstein, Inc. v. Greger, Lawlor, Roth, Inc., 58 F.3d 27, 35 (2d Cir. 1995).
example, US Polo Assn v. PRL USA Holdings, Inc., 800 F. Supp. 2d 515, 538 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).
The sum of Fifty Million Dollars ($50,000,000.00).
Any other relief this Court deems just and equitable.
IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: series of musical, sound and video recordings.
IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: entertainment in the nature of live musical performances.
SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.