Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/98681319/John-Xereas-Amended-Complaint
Timestamp: 2017-02-26 01:55:49
Document Index: 50596632

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1051', '§ 1121', '§ 1331', '§ 1338', '§ 1367', '§ 1391', '§ 1400', 'Application No. 76710275', '§ 1125', '§ 1125', '§ 1116', '§ 1125', '§ 1125', '§ 1117', '§ 1117', '§ 1117', 'arty7838', 'arty7838']

John Xereas' Amended Complaint | Plaintiff
BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinCase 1:12-cv-00456-RWR Document 3 Filed 03/27/12 Page 1 of 36IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JOHN N. XEREAS, 2520 13th Street, NW, Apt. 7, Washington, DC 20009 Plaintiff, v. MARJORIE A. HEISS, GEOFFREY O.S. DAWSON, RIOT ACT DC, LLC, and SQUIID, INC., Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-cv-456-RWR
AMENDED COMPLAINT As his Amended Complaint in this action, Plaintiff John N. Xereas (“Plaintiff” or “Xereas”), by his undersigned attorneys, alleges as follows, upon actual knowledge with respect to his own acts and upon information and belief with respect to all other matters. NATURE OF THE CASE 1. This is a civil action to remedy acts of, inter alia, infringement of an
unregistered trademark pursuant to Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.; federal unfair competition; misappropriation; conversion; breach of contract and of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; fraudulent inducement; conspiracy to defraud; tortious interference with contractual relations; unjust enrichment under common law; cybersquatting; defamation; and libel. 2. Plaintiff brings this action because Defendants, individually and in
association with each other and/or third parties, have willfully infringed the RIOT ACT trademarks owned by Plaintiff; have engaged in unfair business practices; have
unlawfully misappropriated numerous RIOT ACT domain names and other domain names; have deprived Plaintiff of the rights and benefits of his ownership of his RIOT ACT trademarks and domain names; have breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; have prevented Plaintiff from receiving personal and business email directed to him at his johnx@riotactcomedy.com email account; have conspired to defraud Plaintiff; have engaged in cybersquatting, have been unjustly enriched as a result of their actions; and have engaged in both written and oral communications with members of the entertainment industry and the general public, including RIOT ACT fan club members, agents, event planners, and others that falsely represent that Plaintiff’s employment was terminated due to incompetence and/or dishonest business practices. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. Jurisdiction is predicated upon 15 U.S.C. § 1121, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and
28 USC § 1338(a) and (b), and jurisdiction supplemental thereto. 4. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the claims in this
Complaint,which arise under the common law of the District of Columbia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), because the 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. 5. Defendants are each subject to this Court’s personal jurisdiction because
they reside in and/or operate and transact business in the District of Columbia, can be found in this District, and have committed the acts complained of herein in this District. 6. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c)
and § 1400(a); because Plaintiff is located in this District; Plaintiff’s claims arise in this
District because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this District; and Defendants are doing and have done business within this District. THE PARTIES 7. Plaintiff John N. Xereas is a resident of the District of Columbia with a
residential address at 2520 13th Street, NW, Apt. 7, Washington, DC 20009. 8. Defendant Marjorie A. Heiss (“Heiss”) is a resident of the District of
Columbia with a residence at 1359 28th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20007. She is an attorney and member of the District of Columbia Bar. 9. Defendant Geoffrey O.S. Dawson (“Dawson”) is a resident of the District
of Columbia with an address at 4905 Potomac Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20007. 10. Defendant Riot Act DC, LLC is a Limited Liability Corporation organized
under the laws of the District of Columbia. 11. Defendant Squiid, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with an address at 409
Colesville Manor Drive #2, Silver Spring, Maryland 20904. STATEMENT OF FACTS 12. For at least the past 17 years, Plaintiff Xereas has managed comedy clubs
and been involved in the comedy business in and around the Washington Metropolitan Area. 13. In the late 1990s, Plaintiff Xereas conceived of the name RIOT ACT as a
trademark for use in connection with his business as a comedy event organizer and comedy club talent scout, as well as for the name of a future comedy club Plaintiff intended to create, as the name of a record label devoted to comedy acts, and as the name of a potential television show about comedy clubs.
Case 1:12-cv-00456-RWR Document 3 Filed 03/27/12 Page 4 of 36
In March 2005, Plaintiff Xereas obtained a trademark search to determine
the availability of the RIOT ACT trademark for use in connection with comedy related services. Upon learning that the mark was available, on April 16, 2005 Plaintiff Xereas registered the following domain names through Network Solutions: “riotactcomedy.com”, “riotactentertainment.com”, “riotactcomedytheater.com”, and “riotactrecords.com”. Those domain names were registered to Plaintiff Xereas, as sole owner, through April 16, 2015. 15. Following registration of the domain names listed above, Plaintiff Xereas
established business and personal email addresses for himself and family members associated with his comedy booking business at “riotactcomedy.com.” In particular, Plaintiff Xereas commenced doing business at the email address “johnx@riotactcomedy.com.” He also created an email address for his brother Ted Xereas, an event planner, at “tedx@riotactcomedy.com” and for his mother Maria Xereas, an assistant in Plaintiff Xereas’ comedy booking business, at “maria@riotactcomedy.com.” The email addresses johnx@riotactcomedy.com and tedx@riotactcomedy.com have been in consistent use by Plaintiff and his family members for both business and personal use since 2005. The email address for Maria Xereas was established in 2007. 16. In September 2005, Plaintiff Xereas launched his business as a comedy
and entertainment booking agent, event planner, and producer under the name and mark RIOT ACT ENTERTAINMENT and at the domain name “riotactcomedy.com.” Attached as Exhibit 1 are advertisements from the City Paper dated September 23 and 30, 2005, October 14 and 21, 2005, and November 11, 2005 reflecting Plaintiff’s use of
Case 1:12-cv-00456-RWR Document 3 Filed 03/27/12 Page 5 of 36
the RIOT ACT mark. Attached as Exhibit 2 is a cached page of Plaintiff’s “riotactcomedy.com” website dated October 18, 2005 and obtained from the Internet Archive (archive.org). The website announces GW Lisner Auditorium for October 1, 2005 with comedians Jeff Ross and Dan Nuturman, October 25, 2005, featuring wellknown comedians Judy Gold and Wendy Liebman, and November 15, 2055 with Bob Saget. Among other services, Riot Act Entertainment booked comics and entertainment for universities, corporations, and private functions both locally and nationally and launched a companion website at “hireacomic.net” to assist people in locating qualified, diverse comedy entertainment for any function. 17. In addition to launching the Riot Act Entertainment business, Plaintiff
Xereas also launched a record label under the name and mark RIOT ACT RECORDS. The October 18, 2005 website printout from “riotactcomedy.com” includes an announcement that Joel Hass, comedy director at XM radio, was retained in the Fall of 2005 by Riot Act Records as its producer for all comedy albums. See Exhibit 2 hereto. A copy of a cached page from the “riotactcomedy.com” website dated December 17, 2005 includes an announcement of the first talent signing to Riot Act Records of comedian, musician Doug Powell, and a link to the associated website “riotactrecords.com.” See Exhibit 3 hereto. 18. From 2005 through 2012, Plaintiff Xereas continued to do business under
various RIOT ACT trademarks and trade names, including, inter alia, RIOT ACT, RIOT ACT ENTERTAINMENT, RIOT ACT RECORDS, RIOT ACT COMEDY, RIOT ACT TV (collectively, the “RIOT ACT Trademarks”), and at the various RIOT ACT domain names including, inter alia, “riotactcomedy.com”, “riotactentertainment.com”,
Case 1:12-cv-00456-RWR Document 3 Filed 03/27/12 Page 6 of 36
“riotactcomedytheater.com”, and “riotactrecords.com” (collectively, the “RIOT ACT Domain Names”). Attached as Exhibit 4 is a printout of a July 21, 2009 communication reflecting Plaintiff Xereas’ ownership of multiple domain names including those listed above. 19. In the years following its launch in 2005, Plaintiff Xereas, doing business
as RIOT ACT and RIOT ACT ENTERTAINMENT, organized and produced more than 100 comedy shows in the DC area and across the country including five (5) shows at the GW Lisner Auditorium, four (4) shows at the Lincoln Theater, two (2) shows at the 9:30 Club and at Constitution Hall. Attached as Exhibit 5 is a representative sampling of show advertising in the City Paper for the period February 10, 2006 - September 28, 2007. 20. In February 2007, Plaintiff Xereas briefly operated a comedy club under
the name and trademark RIOT ACT COMEDY CLUB located at 1610 14th Street, NW, Washington, DC underneath the HR-57 Jazz Club (hereafter, “Riot Act Club #1”). The Riot Act Club #1 received considerable and positive media and public attention during its tenure including being identified as one of the Best Bets by The Washington Post, selected three times as Pick of the Week by the City Paper, and covered in articles in The Washington Post, The Washington Times, Metro Weekly, and other local press. Printouts of two articles from The Washington Post dated March 30, 2007 and July 6, 2007 and obtained from the Westlaw database are attached as Exhibit 6. 21. Riot Act Club #1 ceased to operate in or around November 2007 due to
issues related to the size and capacity of the venue. Following closure of the Riot Act Club #1, and throughout 2008, 2009, and 2010, Plaintiff Xereas continued to actively
Case 1:12-cv-00456-RWR Document 3 Filed 03/27/12 Page 7 of 36
pursue his comedy booking and production business under the RIOT ACT Trademarks and at the RIOT ACT Domain Names, as well as his plans to reopen a RIOT ACT comedy club at a larger and more significant venue. Copies of booking performance agreements for Riot Act Entertainment sponsored performances in 2008 are attached as Exhibit 7. Also attached is an article reporting on the September 19, 2008 show organized by Plaintiff at DAR Constitution Hall; a flier for RIOT ACT TUESDAYS, a regular event sponsored by Plaintiff during that period; and a communication from Comcast Cable detailing RIOT ACT ENTERTAINMENT advertising for the period September 4, 2008 - September 24, 2008. Attached as Exhibit 8 are performance agreements for various events arranged by Plaintiff in 2009. Performance agreements and invoices reflecting Plaintiff’s continued use of the RIOT ACT Trademarks in 2010 are attached as Exhibit 9. 22. During that post Riot Act Club #1 time period, Plaintiff Xereas developed a
detailed business plan and, together with Restauranteur Constantine Stavropoulos, owner of the Diner and Tryst in Adams Morgan and Open City in Woodley Park, pursued space for a new club at 14th and T. The property was ultimately sold to and developed by the owners of Room & Board. A copy of the 2009 business plan developed by Plaintiff Xereas in connection with that offering is attached hereto as Exhibit 10. A March 6, 2009 article from the Washington City Paper describing the venture is attached here as Exhibit 11. 23. In July 2009, in anticipation of expanding his business and relaunching his
efforts to open a RIOT ACT comedy club in the Washington, DC area, Plaintiff Xereas registered more than sixty (60) other RIOT ACT-formative domain names including, but
Case 1:12-cv-00456-RWR Document 3 Filed 03/27/12 Page 8 of 36
not limited to, “riotactcomedytheaters.com,” “riotactevents.com,” “riotactconcerts.com,” “riotactdownloads.com,” “rioactfanclub.com,” “riotactfundraiser.com,” “riotactmerchandise.com,” “riotactgear.com,” “riotactcomedyclub.com,” “riotactdvds.com,” “riotactclothes.com,” “riotactcomedyclugs.com,” “riotactkids.com,” “riotactshow.com,” “riotactmusic.com,” and “riotactcomics.com.” Each of those domain names were registered to Plaintiff Xereas as sole owner, for the period July 19, 2009 through July 19, 2011. A May 20, 2011 renewal notice from domain name registrar GoDaddy.com to Plaintiff is attached hereto as Exhibit 12. 24. Since launching his businesses under the various RIOT ACT Trademarks
and at the various RIOT ACT Domain Names in 2005, Plaintiff Xereas has devoted significant resources, both financial and personal, to establish the reputation of the RIOT ACT Trademarks both within and outside of the comedy community, as a source of high quality entertainment services and civic responsibility. Through his RIOT ACT businesses, Plaintiff Xereas has been actively involved in community and fundraising activities for various charitable causes including Hands On DC, The Posse Foundation, The Surfrider Foundation, the YMCA, The Girl and Boys Clubs of America, and the Whitman Walker Clinic, to name a few. Over the years since its inception, Riot Act Entertainment has donated numerous show tickets to private auctions that benefitted many worthy causes and charitable organizations in the larger DC metropolitan area. 25. As a result of his longstanding efforts, and those of various family
members and friends associated with his businesses, the RIOT ACT Trademarks have become well known and are favorably perceived in the community.
Case 1:12-cv-00456-RWR Document 3 Filed 03/27/12 Page 9 of 36
Through longstanding use of the RIOT ACT Trademarks and RIOT ACT
Domain Names, Plaintiff Xereas has acquired valuable common law rights in the RIOT ACT Trademarks and Domain Names. DEFENDANTS DAWSON AND HEISS 27. In or about March 2010, and in connection with his efforts to expand his
business under the RIOT ACT Trademarks and establish a larger comedy venue in the Washington, DC area, Plaintiff Xereas was introduced to Defendant Dawson by a real estate agent attempting to lease space at 505 9th Street, NW, Washington DC (which later became the address known as 801 E. Street, NW, Washington, DC) to Defendant Dawson to open a restaurant. Under the then-existing zoning restrictions for that space, an ordinary restaurant could not be opened at that location. The zoning restrictions did, however, permit an arts/theater venue such as a restaurant that was part of a comedy club. 28. During their initial meetings, Plaintiff Xereas informed Defendant Dawson
of his experience in the comedy field, his longstanding family business under the RIOT ACT Trademarks, and of his interest in launching a new comedy club under the RIOT ACT Trademark. Defendant Dawson, on the other hand, informed Plaintiff Xereas of his longstanding expertise in the restaurant business and of the multiple local restaurants he owned or owns, designed, and operates as a partner in DC-based Bedrock Management Company. Defendant Dawson expressed an interest in participating in the comedy club business venture proposed to him by Plaintiff and agreed to contribute to it financially, to operate a restaurant within the comedy theater, and to solicit other investors to the venture.
Case 1:12-cv-00456-RWR Document 3 Filed 03/27/12 Page 10 of 36
Shortly thereafter, Defendant Dawson introduced Plaintiff to Defendant
Heiss, a corporate and tax attorney and longstanding in-house counsel for Mr. Dawson’s Bedrock Management Company, as another potential investor and business partner in the proposed comedy club and dinner theater venture (the “Venture”). 30. Following various meetings, Plaintiff and Defendants Dawson and Heiss
decided to go into business together to launch a new comedy club at 801 E. Street, NW under the name and trademark RIOT ACT COMEDY CLUB, pursuant to a trademark license from Plaintiff Xereas, and utilizing the very same business plan earlier prepared and used by Plaintiff during his 2008-2009 efforts to lease another location for his club. 31. Plaintiff Xereas permitted use of his trademarks by the Venture relying
upon his ownership interest and role as General Manager to insure quality control and proper use of his RIOT ACT Trademarks and RIOT ACT Domain Names. From the inception of their plans to enter into business together, Plaintiff made clear, and Defendants Dawson and Heiss were aware, that the RIOT ACT Trademarks and RIOT ACT Domain Names were owned, and were to be continually owned, solely and exclusively by Plaintiff. 32. In April or May 2010, Plaintiff Xereas and Defendants Dawson and Heiss
agreed to memorialize their planned business relationship, and to establish a corporate entity to pursue their plans to open a new RIOT ACT COMEDY CLUB at 801 E. Street, NW, Washington, DC (hereafter, “Riot Act Club #2”). The parties agreed verbally that Plaintiff Xereas would contribute his ability, expertise, talent, and experience in comedy club management, comedy booking services, comedy production services, and the like to the Venture; Mr. Dawson would contribute his ability, expertise, talent, and
Case 1:12-cv-00456-RWR Document 3 Filed 03/27/12 Page 11 of 36
experience as a restauranteur designer, owner, and operator, and in finding investors and assisting, when needed, in the Venture’s management; and Ms. Heiss would contribute her expertise as a corporate and tax attorney to the Venture. 33. During that period, Defendant Heiss, a licensed DC attorney, prepared the
necessary documents to pursue the parties’ Venture including an Operating Agreement and the Articles of Organization for a DC limited liability corporation, identified as Riot Act DC, LLC (the “LLC”). Heiss registered the LLC with the District of Columbia on May 6, 2010. Also on May 6, 2010, Plaintiff Xereas, without benefit of counsel, and Defendants Dawson and Heiss executed the Operating Agreement. Among other things, the Operating Agreement provided for each of the three Managing Members (i.e., Plaintiff Xereas, Defendant Dawson, and Defendant Heiss) to contribute the sum of $100,000 to the Venture as operating capital. 34. On November 1, 2010, the parties entered into an Amended and Restated
Operating Agreement of Riot Act DC, LLC (“Amended Operating Agreement”) which retained a number of fundamental terms from the original agreement including the identity of the Managing Members. A copy of one of the final mark-ups of that Amended Operated Agreement is attached as Exhibit 13. Defendants never provided Plaintiff with a copy of the final executed Amended Operating Agreement. 35. Both the original Operating Agreement and the Amended Operating
Agreement established two tiers of ownership in Riot Act DC, LLC. According to the agreements, Class A members, comprised solely of the three Managing Members (i.e., Plaintiff Xereas and Defendants Dawson and Heiss), were to be exclusively responsible for the operation of the business of Riot Act DC, LLC. The Agreement also provided for
Case 1:12-cv-00456-RWR Document 3 Filed 03/27/12 Page 12 of 36
Class B members to hold an ownership interest in the LLC but have no management role in its operation. Both the original and Amended Operating Agreement provided that any management decisions should be controlled and dictated by a two-thirds vote of the Class A Members. 36. Following the formation of the LLC, Plaintiff Xereas, together with
Defendants Dawson and Heiss, finalized the “Business Plan for Start Up Business Riot Act Comedy Theater” (“RIOT ACT Business Plan”). The purpose of the Business Plan was not only to lay out the responsibility and expectations of the three Managing Members, but to solicit investment in the business by third parties (namely, Class B members). The Business Plan was used as a principal selling tool to solicit Class B Members. Ultimately, the LLC raised a total of $2.3 million dollars from Class B investors. A true and correct copy of the RIOT ACT Business Plan is attached as Exhibit 14. The portions of the RIOT ACT Business Plan pertaining to the comedy club (as contrasted with the restaurant) were copied from Plaintiff Xereas’ earlier (20082009) business plans. 37. The RIOT ACT Business Plan as prepared by Plaintiff Xereas and
Defendants Dawson and Heiss, reflected Plaintiff’s understanding of the terms of the contractual relationship entered into by himself, Mr. Dawson, and Ms. Heiss in pursuing their business venture. In particular, the RIOT ACT Business Plan specifically recognized and detailed Plaintiff Xereas’ longstanding rights in, and use of, the RIOT ACT Trademarks in connection with comedy services. Significantly, the RIOT ACT Business Plan provided for Plaintiff Xereas’ contribution to the business of his expertise and experience in the comedy club field but did not provide for the assignment or any
Case 1:12-cv-00456-RWR Document 3 Filed 03/27/12 Page 13 of 36
ownership transfer of the RIOT ACT Trademarks and Domain Names from Plaintiff Xereas to the LLC or anyone else. 38. The RIOT ACT Business Plan expressly recognized and stated “the
appeal and success of the Riot Act Comedy Theater would lie first and foremost in the ability, expertise, talent, and vast experience of John Xereas.” The RIOT ACT Business Plan specified that Plaintiff Xereas would act as Riot Act Club #2’s General Manager, be responsible for entertainment bookings, contribute his customer list of approximately 12,000 email addresses and contact details to the Venture, for the Venture to benefit from revenue earned through Plaintiff Xereas’ longstanding “hireacomic.com” website, for Riot Act Club #2 to operate its website at Plaintiff’s longstanding “riotactcomedy.com” domain name, for Riot Act Club #2 to sell a range of collateral merchandise featuring the various RIOT ACT Trademarks, and for Riot Act Club #2 to sell CDs and DVDs produced by Plaintiff’s business Riot Act Records. 39. On or about December 30, 2010, the LLC signed a lease for space for
Riot Act Club #2 at 404 9th Street, NW, Washington, DC (later known as 801 E. Street, NW, Washington, DC). Over the course of the next several months, Defendant Dawson took the lead in the planning, supervision, reconstruction, and build-out of the future club space. Defendant Dawson hired Geoff McNabola to act as general contractor for the build-out and was solely responsible for the finances related to that build-out. Plaintiff Xereas was never provided access to the financial documents related to the build-out. 40. In or around January 2011, the LLC hired Defendant Squiid, Inc., a
website design company, to create a new and improved website for Riot Act Club #2 at
Case 1:12-cv-00456-RWR Document 3 Filed 03/27/12 Page 14 of 36
Plaintiff Xereas’ longstanding domain name “riotactcomedy.com.” In connection with that project, Plaintiff Xereas provided to Defendant Squiid all registration, password, and other information associated with his “riotactcomedy.com” domain name and other RIOT ACT Domain Names for use in developing the club website. Defendant Squiid was offered full access to RIOT ACT Domain Names and websites, and to Plaintiff Xereas’ email account at johnx@riotactcomedy.com, solely in connection with its web development activities. Defendant Squiid was expressly informed that ownership of the RIOT ACT Domain Names should be retained by Plaintiff and that no changes to domain name ownership records should be made. 41. With the input and approval of Plaintiff Xereas, the LLC also developed a
new RIOT ACT CLUB Logo for use on the club website and in connection with the operations and promotion of Riot Act Club #2. 42. In the time period leading up to the formal opening of Riot Act Club #2 in
August 2011, Plaintiff Xereas and Defendant Dawson repeatedly discussed their mutual understanding that ownership of the RIOT ACT Trademarks and RIOT ACT Domain Names would remain exclusively with Plaintiff Xereas. It was Plaintiff Xereas’ understanding, confirmed in multiple conversations with Defendant Dawson, that the Plaintiff should pursue federal registration for the RIOT ACT Trademarks in his name, that he would continue to retain full ownership of the RIOT ACT Trademarks and RIOT ACT Domain Names, and that once it became profitable, Riot Act Club #2 would pay to Plaintiff a trademark licensing fee for its use of the RIOT ACT name and marks, and associated domain names.
Case 1:12-cv-00456-RWR Document 3 Filed 03/27/12 Page 15 of 36
Consistent with the parties’ understanding, Plaintiff Xereas filed U.S.
Trademark Application No. 76710275 for the mark RIOT ACT covering “comedy production in bars, restaurants, and other theatrical venues” on January 13, 2012, claiming a date of first use of September 2005 (the “Application”). A printout of the application details derived from the USPTO’s TESS database is attached hereto as Exhibit 15. That Application is currently pending. 44. In the months following the December 2010 signing of the lease for the
Riot Act Club #2, Plaintiff Xereas devoted his full time, resources, contacts, and considerable talents towards the establishment of a new state of the art comedy club. His activities during this time period included working closely with employees of Defendant Squiid to build a new “riotactcomedy.com” website, including consulting on the site’s design, layout, functionalities, and content; establishing a presence for the club in social media including creating a Facebook page and website content; establishing a Twitter account and commencing electronic communications via that account; reaching out to talent managers, agents, comics and other contacts in the comedy and entertainment industry to notify them of the new Venture; booking talent for future shows; establishing club policies and procedures; developing club marketing and advertising plans; developing a weekly club schedule of events and activities; codeveloping with Defendant Squiid a new ticket reservations system; hiring and managing employees; making hotel and ground transportation arrangements for talent; responding to all emails directed to the “info@riotactcomedy.com” email address; and all other aspects of club operations. Plaintiff Xereas provided these services to the LLC for no compensation, in his role as a co-owner of the LLC and General Manager of Riot
Case 1:12-cv-00456-RWR Document 3 Filed 03/27/12 Page 16 of 36
Act Club #2, and in anticipation of future earnings from club operations. Attached as Exhibit 16 is a copy of a July 1, 2011 article from the Washington Business Journal regarding the Venture, and confirming the parties’ anticipated roles in the Venture. 45. In July-August 2011, in accordance with his financial obligations under the
Amended Operating Agreement, Plaintiff Xereas contributed the first of two $50,000 investment payments to the LLC. 46. On August 10, 2011, Defendant Heiss registered the trade name RIOT
ACT COMEDY THEATER with the District of Columbia. 47. Riot Act Club #2 opened to the public on August 11, 2011. A copy of a
story about the opening posted on About.com is attached as Exhibit 17. 48. Following the club’s formal opening, and in his role as Owner/Operator,
Plaintiff Xereas assumed responsibility for almost all operational aspects of the business including, but not limited to, the various responsibilities detailed in Paragraph 44 above. Plaintiff Xereas also took on responsibility for club staffing, acted as club host and, when needed, as bartender, waiter, sound supervisor, lighting supervisor, PR manager, and the like. Consistent with his reputation in the industry, Plaintiff worked tirelessly to ensure the commercial and financial success of Riot Act Club #2 and, correspondingly, the LLC. 49. On or about August 29, 2011, in advance of taking action to federally
register the RIOT ACT Trademarks, Plaintiff Xereas arranged for a follow-up trademark availability search to be conducted to confirm the continued availability for use and registration of the RIOT ACT Trademarks for comedy services in the U.S. The search
Case 1:12-cv-00456-RWR Document 3 Filed 03/27/12 Page 17 of 36
results confirmed Plaintiff Xereas’ exclusive ownership of the various Riot Act Domain Names. See domain name printout at Exhibit 18. DEFENDANTS’ WRONGFUL ACTS 50. In or around September 2011, shortly after the opening of Riot Act Club
#2, as a result of interactions between the parties and information received from club employees, Plaintiff Xereas began to suspect that Defendants Dawson and Heiss were trying to push him out of the business. 51. On October 1, 2011, Defendants Dawson and Heiss presented Plaintiff
with a draft Second Amended Operating Agreement for signature. That Second Amended Operating Agreement, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 19, would have significantly reduced Plaintiff’s ownership percentage in the LLC, degraded his investment status from a Class A Managing Member to a Class B investor with no management responsibilities or rights, removed his voting rights, and allowed for his termination as General Manager without compensation either for his work to date or for his ownership contribution. Plaintiff refused to sign the Second Amended Operating Agreement. 52. Following the confrontation with Defendants Dawson and Heiss over the
Second Amended Operating Agreement, Plaintiff Xereas notified Mr. Dawson yet again of his exclusive ownership of the RIOT ACT Trademarks and RIOT ACT Domain Names. In an email to Defendant Dawson dated October 1, 2011, Plaintiff followed up on the parties’ earlier conversations regarding the need to revise the Amended Operating Agreement to specifically address Plaintiff’s ongoing ownership of the RIOT ACT Trademarks and clarify the terms of the license pursuant to which the LLC was
Case 1:12-cv-00456-RWR Document 3 Filed 03/27/12 Page 18 of 36
permitted to continue to use the RIOT ACT Trademarks. A true and correct copy of that email is attached as Exhibit 20. 53. Following repeated verbal assurances from both Defendants Dawson and
Heiss regarding their continued interest in the Venture and, in particular, in working together with Plaintiff Xereas to ensure the club’s success, Plaintiff continued throughout the months of October, November, and December 2011 to devote his full time and resources to the ongoing operations and success of the club. 54. In November 2011, Plaintiff Xereas paid into the LLC his remaining
$50,000 contribution. 55. Throughout the Fall of 2011, despite the universally positive reviews
awarded the club by patrons and local press, successful booking of high profile talent, and significant ticket sales, Plaintiff Xereas’ relationship with Defendants Dawson and Heiss continued to deteriorate. 56. In November 2011, Plaintiff Xereas met with Defendants Dawson and
Heiss to request that the parties prepare and sign a formal employment contract and that he receive a salary for his efforts over the prior two year period. Defendants Dawson and Heiss refused to enter into a written employment contract with Plaintiff. They agreed to compensate him effective December 2011 at an annual salary of $42,000. Upon information and belief, this salary was significantly lower than existing salaries paid by Defendants Dawson and Heiss to other members of the club’s management staff. To date, he has received a little over $8,000 for 2 years of work and dedication.
Case 1:12-cv-00456-RWR Document 3 Filed 03/27/12 Page 19 of 36
On or about January 17, 2012, without provocation or warning,
Defendants Dawson and Heiss terminated the employment of Ted Xereas, Plaintiff Xereas’ brother and an event planner for the club, and of Mike Farfel, a close personal friend of Plaintiff Xereas who assisted Plaintiff in the day-to-day operations of the club. Although Ted Xereas had utilized the email address “tedx@riotactcomedy.com” since 2005 for both commercial and personal business, Defendants thereafter prevented Ted Xereas’ access to his longstanding email account. 58. On January 26, 2012, a date known to Defendants as Plaintiff’s birthday,
Defendants Dawson and Heiss held a meeting during which they purported, as the majority of the Managing Members, to authorize the removal of Plaintiff from any management role or authority for the operation of Riot Act Club #2 and/or the LLC. On or about that same date, Defendants Dawson and Heiss arranged for the locks and security system codes at Riot Act Club #2 to be changed to prevent Plaintiff’s access to the club or business records. A copy of the minutes of that January 26, 2012 meeting, as provided to Plaintiff by counsel for Defendants Dawson and Heiss, is attached as Exhibit 21. Defendants Dawson and Heiss also arranged with Defendant Squiid to thereafter prohibit Plaintiff’s access to his longstanding business and personal email account at johnx@riotactcomedy.com, and terminated Plaintiff’s access to all other Riot Act email accounts and databases. 59. On that same date and during that same meeting, Defendants Dawson
and Heiss also terminated the employment of Maria Xereas, Plaintiff’s mother, who had assisted Plaintiff Xereas in various aspects of club business, and terminated her access
Case 1:12-cv-00456-RWR Document 3 Filed 03/27/12 Page 20 of 36
to her longstanding business and personal email account at “maria@riotactcomedy.com.” 60. At the direction of Defendants Dawson and Heiss, and without Plaintiff’s
knowledge, authorization, or approval, Defendant Squiid wrongfully revised the Domain Name Registration information for “riotactcomedy.com” to unlawfully transfer ownership of the Domain Names to the LLC. A printout of current WHOIS data for the Domain Names including, in particular, riotactcomedy.com, riotactcomics.com, riotactentertainment.com, riotactrecords.com, riotactshow.com, riotacttour.com, and hireacomic.net, is attached as Exhibit 22. 61. As a result of the actions taken by Defendant Squiid and Defendants
Dawson and Heiss, Plaintiff has been denied access to his longstanding email accounts, deprived of ownership of various of his RIOT ACT Domain Names, denied access to club booking records and to his customer and contact lists, and denied entry to Riot Act Club #2, all to his detriment. 62. Since the date of his effective termination on January 26, 2012,
Defendants Dawson and Heiss have systematically, and without cause, terminated the employment of all club employees associated with Plaintiff. 63. Since the date of his effective termination on January 26, 2012,
Defendants Dawson and Heiss have actively engaged in both written and oral communications with members of the entertainment industry and the general public, including RIOT ACT fan club members, agents, event planners, and others falsely representing that Plaintiff Xereas’ employment was terminated due to incompetence,
Case 1:12-cv-00456-RWR Document 3 Filed 03/27/12 Page 21 of 36
dishonest business practices, deceptive sales practices, and other like false and defamatory claims. 64. Defendant Dawson and Heiss have made such claims despite full
knowledge of their falsity, and with the intention of causing damage to Plaintiff’s Xereas’ personal and business reputation and to his ability to continue to operate in his field of expertise. 65. Despite repeated demands by Plaintiff, Defendants Dawson and Heiss
have failed and refused to provide Plaintiff and/or his counsel with access to the books and records of the LLC to determine its profitability, the true cost of the build-out supervised by Defendant Dawson, other expenses charged to the LLC, and the current value of Plaintiff’s investment in that business. 66. Despite repeated demands, Defendants Dawson and Heiss have
continued to deny and prevent Plaintiff’s access to his email account at “johnx@riotactcomedy.com,” and have continued, despite the termination of Plaintiff’s activities in the club’s operations, to use the RIOT ACT Trademarks and RIOT ACT Domain Names without Plaintiff’s permission or authority. 67. On February 14, 2012, counsel for Plaintiff sent a letter to counsel for
Defendants Dawson, Heiss, and the LLC reminding them of Plaintiff’s ownership of the RIOT ACT Trademarks and Domain Names, and demanding that they cease and desist from any further use of the RIOT ACT Trademarks and Domain Names, and any variations thereof, thereby terminating the trademark license. A copy of that letter is attached as Exhibit 23.
Case 1:12-cv-00456-RWR Document 3 Filed 03/27/12 Page 22 of 36
As of the date of this filing, Defendants Dawson and Heiss continue to
make unauthorized and improper use of the RIOT ACT Trademarks and Domain Names. 69. On information and belief, Defendants Dawson and Heiss entered into the
original and Amended Operating Agreements, business relationship, and implied trademark license with Plaintiff Xereas in bad faith, with the intention of taking improper advantage of Plaintiff’s comedy club management expertise, talent booking skills, industry contacts, email customer lists, and long-established and favorable reputation in the industry, his financial contribution, and his significant contribution of time, solely for purposes of launching a comedy club using the established RIOT ACT Trademarks and at the RIOT ACT Domain Names, with the intention of thereafter terminating Plaintiff’s participation, involvement, and ownership in the Venture. 70. Following the effective termination and exclusion from the business of
Plaintiff, the reviews of and customer experience reports for Riot Act Club #2 have become overwhelming negative, the club’s ticket sales have significantly declined, and the profitability of the club has decreased significantly, all resulting in damage to Plaintiff’s reputation, to the goodwill he has long labored to establish in the RIOT ACT Trademarks, and to his financial investment in the Venture. INJURY TO PLAINTIFF XEREAS 71. Defendants Dawson, Heiss, and Riot Act DC, LLC’s wrongful and
continued unauthorized use of the RIOT ACT Trademarks and RIOT ACT Domain Names have caused, and if permitted to continue will continue to cause, confusion, mistake, and deception on the part of consumers, members of the entertainment
Case 1:12-cv-00456-RWR Document 3 Filed 03/27/12 Page 23 of 36
industry, and members of the non-profit community as to the source of the LLC’s services, the association or sponsorship of the LLC with Plaintiff Xereas, and to irreparably injure Plaintiff by diminishing and damaging Plaintiff’s reputation and the reputation of his RIOT ACT Trademarks and their hard-earned goodwill. 72. Defendants Dawson, Heiss, and Riot Act DC, LLC’s wrongful and
unauthorized use of the RIOT ACT Trademarks and RIOT ACT Domain Names are causing damage to Plaintiff because they have and are likely to continue to mislead the public, the entertainment industry, and the non-profit community into believing that the LLC’s business and activities are authorized by, attributable to, sponsored by, or associated with, Plaintiff. 73. Defendants Dawson and Heiss, by themselves and through their agents,
have falsely and maliciously represented in both verbal and written communications with members of the entertainment industry, members of the general public, agents, event planner and others, that Plaintiff Xereas was dismissed from the club due to incompetence and/or dishonest business practices, causing irreparable damage to Plaintiff’s business and personal reputation, and interfering with his ability to continue to do business in his field of expertise. 74. Defendant Squiid’s unauthorized and unlawful transfer of ownership, and
revision of registration information for the RIOT ACT Domain Names, and other related domain names previously held by Plaintiff Xereas, to the LLC, and denial of access to Plaintiff Xereas of all RIOT ACT Domain Name email accounts including his “riotactcomedy.com” email accounts, have prevented Plaintiff Xereas from exercising his ownership rights and control of his property, and precluded his ability to receive and
Case 1:12-cv-00456-RWR Document 3 Filed 03/27/12 Page 24 of 36
send email for both personal and business purposes, thereby causing irreparable damage to his personal and business reputation. COUNT I. Federal Infringement of an Unregistered Trademark and False Designation of Origin under Section 43(a)(1)(A) of the Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A) Asserted Against Defendants Dawson, Heiss, and Riot Act DC, LLC 75. Plaintiff repeats and realleges every allegation set forth in Paragraphs 1
through 74 above. 76. Plaintiff’s RIOT ACT Trademarks are inherently distinctive for comedy
related services and have acquired recognition and secondary meaning in and among the general public and the entertainment industry as a source of high quality entertainment services. 77. By virtue of Plaintiff’s longstanding and extensive use of the RIOT ACT
Trademarks in interstate commerce, the RIOT ACT Trademarks have come to serve as a designation of origin for Plaintiff’s various comedy services and activities, and have become valuable symbols of the goodwill Plaintiff and his businesses have labored to acquire over the years. 78. The actions of Defendants Dawson, Heiss, and Riot Act DC, LLC in
continuing to use the RIOT ACT Trademarks and Domain Names following the termination of Plaintiff’s management and control over the quality of the services offered by the LLC, the termination of Plaintiff’s day-to-day involvement in the operations of Riot Act Club #2, and the termination of the trademark and domain name license to the LLC, are likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of Defendants, and each of them, and their commercial
Case 1:12-cv-00456-RWR Document 3 Filed 03/27/12 Page 25 of 36
activities, by or with Plaintiff, and thus constitute trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A). 79. Defendants Dawson, Heiss, and Riot Act DC, LLC’s activities, as
described above, have damaged the reputation of Plaintiff, and the reputation, and goodwill of the RIOT ACT Trademarks and the value thereof. 80. Defendants’ wrongful acts have irreparably injured Plaintiff and will
continue to do so unless and until such acts are enjoined by this Court under 15 U.S.C. § 1116. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. COUNT II. Federal Unfair Competition under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) Asserted Against Defendants Dawson, Heiss, and Riot Act DC, LLC
Plaintiff repeats and realleges every allegation set forth in Paragraphs 1
through 80 above. 82. By continuing to utilize the RIOT ACT Trademarks and RIOT ACT Domain
Names despite lawful termination of their right to use the same, and the resulting misrepresentation of an association of Defendants Dawson, Heiss, and Riot Act DC, LLC with Plaintiff, Defendants have impaired the distinctiveness of the RIOT ACT Trademarks, and unfairly competed with Plaintiff by depriving Plaintiff of access to his domain name “riotactcomedy.com” and corresponding email accounts; interfered with Plaintiff’s ability to maintain professional contacts and relationships and to continue doing business with members of the industry; and caused irreparable harm to the
Case 1:12-cv-00456-RWR Document 3 Filed 03/27/12 Page 26 of 36
reputation and goodwill of the RIOT ACT Trademarks and the business reputation of Plaintiff. COUNT III. Common Law Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition under D.C. Common Law Asserted Against Defendants Dawson, Heiss, and Riot Act DC, LLC
through 82 above. 84. The aforesaid acts of Defendants Dawson, Heiss, and Riot Act DC, LLC
constitute common-law trademark infringement, misappropriation of Plaintiff’s goodwill, and unfair competition under DC common law. 85. Defendants Dawson, Heiss, and Riot Act DC, LLC’s activities, as
described above, have damaged the reputation and goodwill held by the RIOT ACT Trademarks and the value thereof. 86. Defendants’ wrongful acts have irreparably injured Plaintiff as set forth
above, and will continue to do so unless and until such acts are enjoined by this Court. COUNT IV. Unlawful Conversion Asserted Against All Named Defendants 87. Plaintiff repeats and realleges every allegation set forth in Paragraphs 1
through 86 above. 88. Until the unauthorized and illegal actions taken by Defendants Dawson,
Heiss, and Squiid, Plaintiff was the original registrant, and the sole and exclusive owner of the domain name “riotactcomedy.com.” 89. At the direction of Defendants Dawson and Heiss, and without Plaintiff’s
knowledge, authorization, or approval, Defendant Squiid unlawfully converted the RIOT 26
Case 1:12-cv-00456-RWR Document 3 Filed 03/27/12 Page 27 of 36
ACT Domain Names and hireacomic.com domain name by revising the Domain Name Registration information to effectuate the unlawful and unauthorized transfer of ownership of the RIOT ACT Domain Names and hireacomic.com domain name from Plaintiff to the LLC. In addition, by virtue of their actions as described above, Defendants intentionally deprived Plaintiff of access to his domain names which would allow him to correct these illegal actions. 90. As a result of Defendants’ wrongful and intentional exercise of dominion
and control over Plaintiff’s RIOT ACT Domain Names and property, Plaintiff has been denied access to his longstanding email accounts at riotactcomedy.com and deprived of ownership of his RIOT ACT Domain Names, all resulting in misrepresentation to the public and industry of the ownership of the RIOT ACT Domain Names and the RIOT ACT Trademarks. 91. The willful, wrongful, intentional, and reckless acts of Defendants as
described above constitute conversion of Plaintiff’s assets, as a direct and proximate result of which Plaintiff has been irreparably injured, including damage to his business and personal reputation, which damage will continue unless and until such acts are enjoined by this Court. COUNT V. Breach of Contract and of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Under DC Common Law Asserted Against Defendants Dawson and Heiss 92. Plaintiff repeats and realleges every allegation set forth in Paragraphs 1
through 91 above. 93. As contract parties in the District of Columbia, Defendants Dawson and
Heiss owed Plaintiff a duty of good faith and fair dealing. 27
Case 1:12-cv-00456-RWR Document 3 Filed 03/27/12 Page 28 of 36
Defendants breached their duty of good faith and fair dealing by
fraudulently inducing Plaintiff to enter into a business relationship with them, to sign the Operating Agreement, to contribute $100,000, and to contribute his time and industry expertise, contacts, and business plans, as well as the right to use Plaintiff’s RIOT ACT Trademarks and Domain Names, to the Venture, and then terminating Plaintiff Xereas’ participation, involvement, and ownership in the Venture shortly after the club’s opening. 95. As a proximate result of Defendants’ breach of their duty of good faith and
fair dealing, Plaintiff has been deprived of income throughout the time period leading up to the club’s opening and for several months thereafter; has suffered damage to his business and personal reputation; has been denied access to his email accounts; has lost ownership of the RIOT ACT Domain Names and hireacomic.com domain name; has suffered irreparable damage to the reputation and goodwill of his RIOT ACT Trademarks; and has sustained other economic losses. COUNT VI. Fraudulent Inducement under DC Common Law Asserted Against Defendants Dawson and Heiss 96. Plaintiff repeats and realleges every allegation set forth in Paragraphs 1
through 95 above. 97. Defendants Dawson and Heiss fraudulently induced Plaintiff to enter into a
business relationship with them, to sign the Operating Agreement, to contribute $100,000, and to contribute his time and industry expertise, contacts, and business plans, and to allow use of the RIOT ACT Trademarks and Domain Names by the Venture, all the while intending to terminate without cause Plaintiff Xereas’ participation, involvement, and ownership shortly after the club’s opening.
Case 1:12-cv-00456-RWR Document 3 Filed 03/27/12 Page 29 of 36
As a proximate result of Defendants’ fraud, Plaintiff Xereas has been
deprived of income throughout the time period leading up to the club’s opening and for several months thereafter; has suffered damage to his business and personal reputation; has been denied access to his email accounts; has lost ownership of the “riotactcomedy.com” domain name; has suffered irreparable damage to the goodwill of his RIOT ACT Trademarks; and has sustained other economic losses. COUNT VII. Conspiracy to Defraud Under DC Common Law Asserted Against Defendants Dawson and Heiss 99. Plaintiff repeats and realleges every allegation set forth in Paragraphs 1
through 98 above. 100. Defendants Dawson and Heiss conspired to defraud Plaintiff Xereas by
agreeing between themselves and taking actions intended to fraudulently induce Plaintiff to enter into a business relationship with them, to sign the Operating Agreement, to contribute $100,000, and to contribute his time and industry expertise, contacts, and business plans, and to allow use of the RIOT ACT Trademarks and Domain Names by the Venture, all the while intending to terminate, without cause, Plaintiff’s participation, involvement, and ownership shortly after the club’s opening. 101. Defendants Dawson and Heiss actively concealed their fraud from Plaintiff
intending to obtain and take improper advantage of Plaintiff Xereas’ comedy club management expertise, talent booking skills, industry contacts, email customer lists, and long established and favorable reputation in the industry, solely for the purpose of launching a comedy club using the RIOT ACT Trademarks and RIOT ACT Domain
Case 1:12-cv-00456-RWR Document 3 Filed 03/27/12 Page 30 of 36
Names, with the intention of terminating Plaintiff’s participation, involvement, and ownership in the Venture. 102. As a proximate result of Defendants Dawson and Heiss’ conspiracy to
defraud, Plaintiff Xereas, his reputation, his relationships, and his trademarks have been irreparably injured. COUNT VIII. Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations Asserted Against Defendants Dawson and Heiss 103. Plaintiff repeats and realleges every allegation set forth in Paragraphs 1
through 102 above. 104. Defendants Dawson and Heiss were well aware of the business
relationship that Plaintiff Xereas had with numerous talent managers, agents, comics and other contacts in the comedy and entertainment industry and acted intentionally to deprive Plaintiff of his ownership of the RIOT ACT Domain Names, his access to his longstanding email address at johnx@riotactcomedy.com, and thereby his ability to maintain contact and relationships, and continue doing business with, these individuals. 105. As a direct and proximate result of these malicious and intentional acts, as
described above, Plaintiff’s industry reputation, and relationships with current and prospective customers and industry players have been irreparably damaged, resulting in damage to his economic interests.
Case 1:12-cv-00456-RWR Document 3 Filed 03/27/12 Page 31 of 36
COUNT IX. Unjust Enrichment under DC Common Law Asserted Against Defendants Dawson, Heiss, and Riot Act DC, LLC
through 105 above. 107. Defendants Dawson, Heiss, and Riot Act DC, LLC’s activities, as
described above, have provided an immediate market and commercial recognition for their services which they otherwise would not have, and have resulted in unjust enrichment at Plaintiff’s expense. 108. As a direct and proximate result of the willful actions, conduct, and
practices of Defendants alleged above, Plaintiff has been damaged and will continue to be irreparably harmed. COUNT X Cybersquatting Under Section 43(d) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. A § 1125(d) Against All Defendants 109. Plaintiff repeats and realleges every allegation set forth in Paragraph 1
through 108 above. 110. Defendants caused to be registered, registered, and/or used the RIOT
ACT Domain Names with a bad-faith intent to profit from Plaintiff’s RIOT ACT Trademarks. 111. Plaintiff’s RIOT ACT Trademarks were distinctive and had acquired
secondary meaning at the time Defendants caused to be registered, registered, and/or used the RIOT ACT Domain Names.
Case 1:12-cv-00456-RWR Document 3 Filed 03/27/12 Page 32 of 36
The RIOT ACT Domain Names are identical and/or confusingly similar to
Plaintiff’s RIOT ACT Trademarks. COUNT XI Defamation -- Libel and Slander Against Defendants Heiss and Dawson 113. Plaintiff repeats and realleges every allegation set forth in Paragraph 1
through 112 above. 114. Defendants Heiss and Dawson have repeatedly made oral and written
statements directly stating or implying that Plaintiff Xereas was dismissed from the Venture due to incompetence and/or dishonest business practices. 115. 116. party. 117. Defendants knew the statements to be false or, in the alternative, The foregoing statements are false and defamatory. Defendants published these statements without any privilege to any third
published the statements in reckless disregard for the truth or falsity thereof. 118. Defendants’ intentions in publishing these statements were malicious or, if
not malicious, than at least reckless. 119. Defendants’ statements are demonstrably false and malicious and have
severely and irreparably harmed Plaintiff, his personal and professional reputation, and his future business prospects.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 120. Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff
hereby demands a trial by jury on any issue triable of right by a jury.
Case 1:12-cv-00456-RWR Document 3 Filed 03/27/12 Page 33 of 36
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Xereas prays that this Court enter judgment in his favor on each and every count set forth above, and award it relief including, but not limited, the following: A. An Order declaring that Defendants’ use of the RIOT ACT Trademarks
and RIOT ACT Domain Names infringes Plaintiff’s RIOT ACT Trademarks and constitutes unfair competition under federal and/or common law, as detailed above; B. A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants Dawson,
Heiss, and Riot Act DC, LLC, and their respective employees, agents, officers, directors, shareholders, subsidiaries, related companies, affiliates, and all persons in active concert or participation with any of them from: (1) Using the trademark or trade name RIOT ACT, the domain name
riotactcomedy.com, any variations of the RIOT ACT mark and name, and any other marks or names that are confusingly similar to the RIOT ACT mark and name or RIOT ACT-formative marks and names including, but not limited to, use as or as part of a trademark, trade name, corporate name, business name, email address, domain name, URL, metatag, or other identifier; (2) From representing by any means whatsoever, directly or indirectly,
that Defendants, any products or services offered by Defendants, or any activities undertaken by Defendants, are associated or connected in any way, or sponsored by, affiliated or connected with Plaintiff or his various RIOT ACT businesses.
Case 1:12-cv-00456-RWR Document 3 Filed 03/27/12 Page 34 of 36
From registering any trademark, service mark, trade name, domain
name, or other identifier that includes the trademark RIOT ACT. (4) From opposing, petitioning to cancel, or otherwise interfering with
Plaintiff’s use and registration of RIOT ACT or RIOT ACT formative marks as a trademark, service mark, trade name, or as a domain name or part of a domain name. (5) From engaging in further libelous or defamatory communications
with any third party regarding Plaintiff Xereas, members of his family, his business activities, or otherwise. (6) Requiring Defendants to change any corporate name, trade name,
business name, and designations and materials reflecting any corporate name, trade name, or business name, including telephone listings so as to eliminate any and all use of the RIOT ACT trademark and name, or any name or mark confusingly similar thereto. C. An Order directing Defendants to transfer to Plaintiff the RIOT ACT
Domain Names, the “hireacomic.com” domain name, and all other domain names they own or control that contain or are identical or confusingly similar to Plaintiff’s RIOT ACT Trademarks (including, but not limited to, any domain names containing RIOT) and to immediately remove and de-list the RIOT ACT Domain Names from any search engines or directories in which they may appear. D. An order directing the current Registrar of the RIOT ACT Domain Names
and “hireacomic.com” domain name, and any other domain names owned or controlled
Case 1:12-cv-00456-RWR Document 3 Filed 03/27/12 Page 35 of 36
by Defendants that were previously owned by Plaintiff Xereas, or containing RIOT ACT, or RIOT, or a variation thereof. E. An Order directing Defendants to file with this Court and serve on
Plaintiff’s attorneys, thirty (30) days after the entry of any permanent injunction, a report in writing and under oath setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with the injunction. F. An Order requiring Defendants to pay Plaintiff compensatory damages in
an amount as yet undetermined caused by the foregoing unlawful acts, and trebling such damages in accordance with 15 U.S.C. § 1117 and other applicable laws; G. An Order requiring Defendants to pay statutory damages under 15 U.S.C.
§ 1117(d), on election by Plaintiff, in an amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for each RIOT ACT Domain Name and other domain names previously owned by Plaintiff that Defendants have registered and/or used, in bad faith, without Plaintiff’s permission. H. An Order requiring Defendants to pay Plaintiff punitive damages in an
amount as yet undetermined cause by the foregoing unlawful acts of Defendants. I. An Order requiring Defendants to pay Plaintiff’s costs and attorneys fees
in this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117 and other applicable laws; and J. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
Case 1:12-cv-00456-RWR Document 3 Filed 03/27/12 Page 36 of 36
By:/s/Stephanie H. Bald Julia Anne Matheson (D.C. Bar No. 452692) Laurence R. Hefter (D.C. Bar No. 177402) Stephanie H. Bald (D.C. Bar No. 493933) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP. 901 New York Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 Tel: (202) 408-4000 Fax: (202) 408-4400 and Irwin H. Liptz (D.C. Bar No. 171702) KIVITZ & LIPTZ, L.L.C. 7979 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, MD 20814 Tel: (301) 951-3400 Fax: (301) 951-3646 Counsel for Plaintiff John N. Xereas
More From This UserSkip carouselDistrict Court ruling on XEREAS v. HEISS et. al. motion to dismissXereas' Response to Heiss/Dawson's Motion to DismissHeiss & Dawson's Motion to Dismiss
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulJohn Xereas' Amended Complaint by c_heller0.0 (0)EmbedDownloadRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentMore informationShow less
RelatedVulcan Golf, LLC v. Google Inc. et al - Document No. 107by Justia.comRomanian Chamber of Commerceby marty7838Complaint - Lucasfilm v. Brownby Darius C. GambinoSHF ICANN Responseby ciceroandhomerComplaint Williams v Columbus Bar Assoc.by Lara PearsonDawn Donut Company, Inc. v. Hart's Food Stores, Inc. And Starhart Bakeries, Inc., 267 F.2d 358, 2d Cir. (1959)by Scribd Government DocsComplaint Gloveablesby mschwimmerRohn v. Viacom et al - GUPPIES v. BUBBLE GUPPPIES trademark opinion.pdfby Mark H. Jaffeoldseminoleheightsfoundation orgDECISIONby ciceroandhomerComplaint Icebreak v Ice and Icebergby marty7838Virtualpoint v. Poarch Band of Creek Indians - amended complaint.pdfby Mark H. JaffeKinekt Design v. One Moment in Time Et. Al.by PatentBlastIP Litigation on the Internetby Giridhar PillarisettiReasonover Complaint Wlegendby pauloverhauserReasoner v Solarium Trademark Complaintby Kenan FarrellWorldVAWA_10_21_08by Legal WriterQuartz Hill Chamber of Commerce v. Quartz Hill Community Pagaent - Miss Quart Hil trademark complaint.pdfby Mark H. JaffeInstaprints v. Instagram declaratory judgment trademark complaint.pdfby Mark H. JaffeTrademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filingby Frank HerreraOakland Jockey Club v. Kentucky Downs - trademark use opinion.pdfby Mark H. JaffeEast West, LLC v Rahmanby propertyintangiblei play v. D. Catton Enterpriseby PriorSmartWastson v. Doe - cybersquatting CFAA.pdfby Mark H. JaffeThorogood v. Bad to the Boneby Mark H. JaffeInternmath v. NxtBigThing - trademark fraud complaint.pdfby Mark H. JaffeL.A. Triumph v. Madonna (C.D. Cal. 2011) (Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Madonna From Case)by Charles Colman Law, PLLCPsychic Readers Network v. General Mills - Miss Cleo complaint.pdfby Mark H. JaffeDecision: Moxon v Myersby Tony OrtegaSimilar to John Xereas' Amended ComplaintSkip carouselVulcan Golf, LLC v. Google Inc. et al - Document No. 107Romanian Chamber of CommerceComplaint - Lucasfilm v. BrownSHF ICANN ResponseComplaint Williams v Columbus Bar Assoc.Dawn Donut Company, Inc. v. Hart's Food Stores, Inc. And Starhart Bakeries, Inc., 267 F.2d 358, 2d Cir. (1959)Complaint GloveablesRohn v. Viacom et al - GUPPIES v. BUBBLE GUPPPIES trademark opinion.pdfoldseminoleheightsfoundation orgDECISIONComplaint Icebreak v Ice and IcebergVirtualpoint v. Poarch Band of Creek Indians - amended complaint.pdfKinekt Design v. One Moment in Time Et. Al.IP Litigation on the InternetReasonover Complaint WlegendReasoner v Solarium Trademark ComplaintWorldVAWA_10_21_08Quartz Hill Chamber of Commerce v. Quartz Hill Community Pagaent - Miss Quart Hil trademark complaint.pdfInstaprints v. Instagram declaratory judgment trademark complaint.pdfTrademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic FilingOakland Jockey Club v. Kentucky Downs - trademark use opinion.pdfEast West, LLC v Rahmani play v. D. Catton EnterpriseWastson v. Doe - cybersquatting CFAA.pdfThorogood v. Bad to the BoneInternmath v. NxtBigThing - trademark fraud complaint.pdfL.A. Triumph v. Madonna (C.D. Cal. 2011) (Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Madonna From Case)Psychic Readers Network v. General Mills - Miss Cleo complaint.pdfDecisionRVK.com UDRP1402130 Rohit SaxenaJohn Xereas' Amended Complaint