Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/112374225/Newtechbio-v-Septicleanse-Complaint
Timestamp: 2017-06-26 11:08:50
Document Index: 451337256

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1121', '§1125', '§1331', '§1962', '§1367', '§ 1332', '§1391', '§1962', '§1961', '§1961', '§1343', '§1125', '§ 1125', '§1962']

Newtechbio v Septicleanse Complaint | Racketeer Influenced And Corrupt Organizations Act | Web Search Engine
Newtechbio v Septicleanse ComplaintUploaded by Eric GoldmanRelated InterestsRacketeer Influenced And Corrupt Organizations ActWeb Search EngineComplaintDefamationTrademarkRating and Stats0.0 (0)Document ActionsDownloadShare or Embed DocumentEmbedDescription: Newtechbio v Septicleanse ComplaintView MoreNewtechbio v Septicleanse ComplaintCopyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentCase 3:12-cv-05882-MAS-TJB Document 1 Filed 09/19/12 Page 1 of 49 PageID: 1UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY TRENTON VICINAGE
NATURE OF ACTION 1. This is an action for injunctive relief and damages necessitated by defendants' pattern of racketeering comprising a deceptive and unlawful Internet marketing scheme in the septic system chemicals industry, with wire fraud predicate acts in which they create fictitious disparaging reviews of the products of plaintiff and its legitimate competitors while promoting their competing products. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. This Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1121(a), 15 U.S.C. §1125(a), 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and
1338(b), 18 U.S.C. §1962(c) and (d), and supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367(a). 3. This Court also has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, because the plaintiff and the defendants are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 4. Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in New Jersey because they have purposefully directed their
5. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391. THE PARTIES 6. Plaintiff Newtechbio Inc. is a New Jersey corporation having its principal place of business at 4301 US Hwy 9 North, Main Building Rear, Howell, New Jersey 07731. 7. Defendant Septicleanse, Inc. is a Florida corporation with its principal office at 711 Commerce Way. Suite 5, Jupiter, Florida 33458. 8. Defendant Bradley A. Markin a/k/a Brad Markin
reputation online and it does deliver long term results, it didn’t quite work as quickly or completely as our top rated brands." [Exhibit C]. m. "See How NT Max Compared to Our Top 8 Septic Treatment Comparison Chart." [Exhibit C]. n. "If there was any drawback to New Tech Bio, it is the fact that the shock is in liquid form, or at least it appears to be. Liquid septic treatments just don’t work Regardless of
Max may have an alternate treatment designed for these circumstances; however we were not able to locate it." [Exhibit E]. q. "We consider NT Max a quality treatment and a professionally run operation. While it didn’t rate as well as
r. "See how New Tech Bio Compared by reading our Septic Treatments Reviewed." [Exhibit E]. s. "New Tech Bio Testimonials: “I used this product, followed the directions and if I am being honest, I am not sure if it worked. From reading these other testimonials,
I think maybe I may have been expecting too much, but I don’t think it did a whole lot. That’s my two cents. For what is
flushable, granular packages that their monthly treatment does, instead it is a heavy liquid container. That is just not ideal for someone in my predicament." [Exhibit G]. u. "Beware - most septic system treatments do NOT work. If you are thinking of buying a septic system treatment product that is NOT carried below, you should reconsider. tried it, and it didn’t work". [Exhibit H]. 30. All of the aforementioned reviews are fictitious and were created by defendants. We
§1962(d), in United States v. Betonsports PLC (U.S.D.C. E.D.Mo. 2006, Closed 2011), Case No. 4:06-cr-00337-CEJ. involved an online illegal gaming operation. 55. The pattern of racketeering activity of defendants in the present action is essentially the same as their ongoing pattern of racketeering activity in the Internet sale of face cream products. They operate through Dermagist, Inc. (and That activity
septic products websites without having to repeatedly create the aforementioned web page on each one. FIRST COUNT Participation in a RICO Enterprise through a Pattern of Racketeering Activity 18 U.S.C. §§1961(5), 1962(c) 57. Plaintiff repeats the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as though set forth at length herein. 58. Beginning on or about June 14, 2012 and continuing to the present time, the individual defendants associated in a RICO enterprise whose activities affected interstate commerce and constituted wire fraud. 59. During the ten (10) calendar years preceding the date of this Verified Complaint, all individual defendants did cooperate jointly and severally in the commission of two or
more of the RICO predicate acts that are itemized at 18 U.S.C.§1961(1)(B), including acts of wire fraud (violation of 18 U.S.C. §1343), and did so in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) ("Prohibited activities"). 60. All individual defendants did commit two or more of the offenses described above and they each continue to engage in Prohibited Activities via the enterprise. Their aforemen-
FOURTH COUNT Trademark Infringement 74. Plaintiff repeats the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as though set forth at length herein. 75. Defendants have used and are using plaintiff's common law trademark NT-MAX in a manner likely to cause confusion as to the source of products with which those trademarks are associated. 76. Said activities were and are willful, malicious, and intended to damage plaintiff and its trademarks and trade names so as to cause enrichment of defendants. 77. As a result of defendants' libelous activities, plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer a loss of sales and profits, for which losses defendants are liable. 78. As a result of defendants' unlawful activities as described above, plaintiff has suffered and will, unless defendants are restrained by this Court, continue to suffer irreparable injury for which there is no adequate remedy at law. FIFTH COUNT False Advertising - Violation of 15 U.S.C. §1125(a) 79. Plaintiff repeats the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as though set forth at length herein.
80. Defendants have misrepresented the nature, characteristics, and qualities of plaintiff's septic system products in connection with their commercial advertising and promotion of defendants' competing products. 81. Plaintiff has an interest in being protected against defendants' false, deceptive and misleading claims, reviews and statements, and has been and will continue to be damaged by their aforementioned unlawful activities. 82. Defendants' acts constitute commercial speech made for the purpose of influencing consumers to buy defendants' septic system products, which is disseminated to the relevant purchasing public. 83. Defendants' unlawful conduct constitutes unfair competition and false designation of origin or sponsorship in violation of the Lanham Act section 43(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). 84. Said activities were and are willful, malicious, and intended to damage plaintiff and its trademarks and trade names so as to cause enrichment of defendants. 85. As a result of defendants' false designations of origin and related unlawful conduct as described above, plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer a loss of sales and profits, for which losses defendants are liable. 26
86. As a result of defendants' unlawful activities as described above, plaintiff has suffered and will, unless defendants are restrained by this Court, continue to suffer irreparable injury for which there is no adequate remedy at law. RELIEF REQUESTED A, On the First Count, a judgment or order: a. Declaring that all individual defendants, jointly and severally, acting in concert, have formed and operated a RICO enterprise, and have engaged and are engaging in racketeering activities prohibited by 18 U.S.C. §1962(c). b. Requiring the individual defendants and
Recommended DocumentsDocuments Similar To Newtechbio v Septicleanse ComplaintSkip carouselNAPRx VS. AIMS MEDICAL SALES COLLEGE, MEDICAL SALES COLLEGE12-06-08 Courts and Judges as racketeering enterprises under RICO (the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) - key element in the current financial crisisCite 303 F.3d 100 Sys Management v Keneth Loiselle LOISUnited States v. Yves Beliard, A/K/A Josue C. Charles, 618 F.2d 886, 1st Cir. (1980)Collingsworth Declaration in Support of Albert Van BilderbeekAP Letters to Huffman/KleinUnited States v. Novia Turkette, Jr., United States of America v. John Vargas, 656 F.2d 5, 1st Cir. (1981)Gold and Silver Breakout as Fascist Business Model Crumbles[1]Department of LaborWeb Beyond Google HandoutFraud on the Court Full Bench Disqualification Order Re Set Aside Motion - Chief US District Judge Morrison C. England Jr. US District Court Eastern District of California Bench Recusal Order - U.S. v. Sierra Pacific IndustriesCase 1:12-cv-03047Opposition to Motion to Amend (Redaction)Index to Petition 12-7747 and Rule Applications.pdfCRIMPRO2013.4CasesElvera Sadallah and Valley View Country Club, Inc., as the Assignee of Elvera Sadallah v. City of Utica and Edward Hanna, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Mayor of the City of Utica, New York, 383 F.3d 34, 2d Cir. (2004)Robles-Vazquez v. Tirado Garcia, 1st Cir. (1997)Information Management free testHandout for Clerks of CourtEqual Remuneration Punjab Rules 1976[1]Joseph Rodonich, Alex Chotowicky, Wasyl Lawro, and Harry Diduck, Plaintiffs- Cross-Appellees v. House Wreckers Union Local 95 of Laborers' International Union, Laborers' International Union of North America, John Senyshyn, Individually and as President, and John Roschetski, Individually and as Secretary-Treasurer of House Wreckers Union Local 95 of Laborers' International Union of North America, Stephean McNair Joseph Sherman, Andrew Klebetz, Albert Bender, William Nahay, Phil Chillak, Joseph Pastroski, Samuel Adams, Harold Spellman, Peter Jones, John Slan, Earl Dupree, and John Chillak, Cross-Appellants, 817 F.2d 967, 2d Cir. (1987)Tips for Finding Quality Cost-Free Internet Resources in International BusinessForcible EntryHow to Search the Internet EffectivelyElection Monitoring ENG submit your site to search enginesAhmed v. Berkshire, 94 F.3d 640, 1st Cir. (1996)O'Shea v MGN Ltdjournalism scavenger hunt 1MADocuments About Racketeer Influenced And Corrupt Organizations ActSkip carouselMotion to DismissChase Initial ComplaintUnited States v. Benjamin Ruggiero, Nicholas Santora, Anthony Rabito, and Antonio Tomasulo, 726 F.2d 913, 2d Cir. (1984)United States v. Francisco Humberto Navarro-Ordas, Jose Jane, Haydee Alvarez De Rodriguez, Andres Felipe Rodriguez-Ortega, United States of America v. Andres Felipe Rodriguez-Ortega, 770 F.2d 959, 11th Cir. (1985)Puerto Rico Coffee Roasters v. Pan American - trademark opinion.pdfGary E. Hindes v. Michael N. Castle Friends of Mike Castle Dale E. Wolf Committee to Elect Dale Wolf William E. Manning Bruce E. Winn Carl Hostetter John C. Sargent, and Michael E. Harkins, 937 F.2d 868, 3rd Cir. (1991)Janis v. Ed Story & Associate, 124 F.3d 216, 10th Cir. (1997)The European Community, Acting on Its Own Behalf and on Behalf of the Member States It Has Power to Represent, and the Kingdom of Belgium, Republic of Finland, French Republic, Hellenic Republic, Federal Republic of Germany, Italian Republic, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Portuguese Republic, and Kingdom of Spain, Individually v. Rjr Nabisco, Inc., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco International, Inc., Rjr Acquisition Corp., F/k/a Nabisco Group Holdings Corp. And R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., Philip Morris International, Inc., Philip Morris Companies, Inc., Philip Morris Incorporated, D/B/A Philip Morris Products, Inc., and Philip Morris Duty Free, Inc., Department of Amazonas, Department of Antioquia, Department of Atlantico, Department of Bolivar, Department of Caqueta, Department of Casanare, Department of Cesar, Department of Choco, Department of Cordoba, Department of Cundinamarca, Department of Huila, United States v. Maxwell-Anthony, 254 F.3d 21, 1st Cir. (2001)United States v. Constantine "Gus" Karas, United States of America v. Joseph Nicholas Pecora, 624 F.2d 500, 4th Cir. (1980)United States v. George W. Schell John B. Cain, Jr., A/K/A John Boy Thomas R. Stevens, A/K/A Hyper and Freda Virginia Gallo Wilson, 775 F.2d 559, 4th Cir. (1985)Isaac Lerner, Eli Lerner, Ballyward Investment Company, Ltd., Jaime Sohacheski, Gaston Limited, Hotel Investors, Inc., Perky Limited, Abraham Rappaport, Esther Rappaport, Moshe Cohn, Establissement Somer, Josef Kohn, Chancery Enterprises, Ltd., Rosdev Developments, Inc., Michael Rosenberg, Bruce Bayroff, Joshua Goldstein, Land Tech Manalapan Llc, Theodore Brodie, Meyer Rosenbaum, Mr Associates Llc, Ilana Blumkin, as Trustee, Emdee Tours, Inc., Alexander Hasenfeld, Inc., Profit Sharing Retirement Plan, Hasenfeld Stein, Inc., Pension Trust, Aeg Agency, Inc., Aaron Garfinkel, Rivka Stein, Aaron Y. Rubinson, Steven B. Rothchild, P.C., Money Purchase Plan, Pinchos Rubinson, Akiva Leiman, Estate of Boruch Rubinson, Chaim and Rachel Lefkowitz, Naftali and Sarah Lipshutz, Mendel and Feigy Lipschutz, Reisel Bergstein, Michael Konig, Esther Wertenteil, Aaron Wertenteil, Teena Rubinfeld, Mark Wertenteil, Morris and Sarah Friedman, the Regal Trade, S.A., Vavel Corp., Chadwick Funding Co., L.P., AlECF 240 RedactedJohn W. Lyon Eleanor L. Lyon Ronald L. Williams, in His Capacity as Trustee of the Cub Trust v. Larry A. Campbell Yvonne E. Campbell Edward W. Storke, Individually and in His Capacity as Trustee of the Joan Trust Barry R. Strohm Robert P. Jenkins Joan Campbell Marcum, and Manus H. Perkins Donald L. Davidson, 28 F.3d 1210, 4th Cir. (1994)Martinez v. American Airlines, 74 F.3d 247, 11th Cir. (1996)Best Barnds Consumer Products v. Funky RicoUnited States v. Alex Simmons, A/K/A "Yaqui," Robert Cofer, Arnold Lawson, A/K/A "Country Bones," Larry Caldwell, Miriam Baker, Barry Judd, A/K/A "Box," William Norris, A/K/A "El San," Gary Simmons, A/K/A "Merciful," A/K/A "Merc," Lawrence Williams, A/K/A "Hammy Red," Steven Monsanto, A/K/A "Stevie," A/K/A "Fats," Peter Monsanto, A/K/A "Pj," A/K/A "Petey," Sedgwick Harvey, A/K/A "Uncle Harvey,", 923 F.2d 934, 2d Cir. (1991)Kerr-Mcgee Refining Corporation, Cross-Appellee v. M/t Triumph, Her Boilers, Tackle, Etc., Triumph Tankers, Ltd., Cross-Appellant, 924 F.2d 467, 2d Cir. (1991)United States v. Tavares, 1st Cir. (2016)United States v. Pedroza-Orengo, 1st Cir. (2016)Docket No. 97-9205, 154 F.3d 56, 2d Cir. (1998)Focus Golf Systems v. Emery, 4th Cir. (2002)ECF 84 RedactedQuintero de Quintero v. Roque, 1st Cir. (1992)PR Highway and Transportation v. Redondo Construction Corp., 1st Cir. (2016)United States of America, Cross-Appellant v. Walter J. Butler, Cross-Appellee, 954 F.2d 114, 2d Cir. (1992)Thomas v. McLaughlin Joseph Gall MacGall Inc. And MacGall Associates Limited Partnership v. Arthur Anderson Capital Housing Financing Corporation, Inc. Imagineers, Inc. David Harrity and Handler and Friar Architects, Inc., Also Known as Handler Associates Architects, 962 F.2d 187, 2d Cir. (1992)Ideal Steel Supply Corp. v. Joseph Anza, Vincent Anza, and National Steel Supply, Inc., 373 F.3d 251, 2d Cir. (2004)Bieter Company v. Beatta Blomquist Federal Land Company Eagan Tower Office Building Partnership Eagan Heights Commercial Park Advance Developers, Inc. Cliff Road Properties Hoffman Development Group, Inc. Hdg Associates Limited Partnership Eagan Associates Limited Partnership Crp of Eagan, Inc. Robert L. Hoffman Patrick C. Hoffman Jack F. Daly, Jr., Advance Developers, Inc. Cliff Road Properties Hoffman Development Group, Inc. Hdg Associates Limited Partnership Eagan Associates Limited Partnership Crp of Eagan, Inc. Robert L. Hoffman Patrick C. Hoffman Jack F. Daly, Jr., Third Party v. Dorsey & Whitney, a Minnesota Partnership Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, Third Party, 987 F.2d 1319, 3rd Cir. (1993)United States v. Lizza Industries, Inc., Herbert Hochreiter, 775 F.2d 492, 2d Cir. (1985)More From Eric GoldmanSkip carouselCornett v GawkerFraley v FacebookAckerman v Zynga Ruling on DemurrerAckerman v Zynga complaintApple v Superior Court re KrescentApple v Superior Court re Krescent182621095_v_1_07.23.12 [#69-1] Corrected Exhibit a to Pltfs Mtn for Leave to FAC182603984_v_1!7!09-12 PURSEBLOG (#48) Ntc and Motion to Strike182572673_v_1!6!12-12 (#42) Minute Order and Court RulingLegend Morphy v. Xcentric Ventures, LLC ComplaintSterk v Best BuyAcademy v GoDaddy Denial of Discovery Against GoogleReal View v. 20-20 July 11 2012 Order Re Daubert MotionBollea (Hulk Hogan) v. Gawker Media, LLC Shah v MyLife Magistrate ReportTiffany v 925JewelryMaxRicchio v. Amazon.com Inc.Knowles v eBay ComplaintKelley v Amazon ComplaintReinsdorf v Skechers Us ADawkins v. Yahoo Inc DismissalPlimmer v Google Inc. ComplaintAllure Jewelers v. UluScooter Store v SpinLife.Com ReconsiderationGranger v Acme Abstract CompanyBackpage v McKenna Preliminary Injunction GrantedCraigslist v. 3Taps AnswerHealth and Body Store v. JustBrandsAcademy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences v. GoDaddy.com, Inc.