Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/62015254/Complaint-Big-Al
Timestamp: 2015-07-28 06:31:17
Document Index: 798254929

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1051', '§ 39', '§ 1121', '§ 1331', '§1338', '§ 1114', '§1125', '§ 1125', '§ 1125', '§495', '§495', '§48', '§ 1391', '§ 1391']

Complaint Big Al
P. 1Complaint Big AlComplaint Big AlRatings: (0)|Views: 2,984|Likes: 0Published by mschwimmertrademark complaint, big al bondstrademark complaint, big al bondsMore info:Categories:Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsPublished by: mschwimmer on Aug 10, 2011Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/62015254/Complaint-Big-Al07/10/2013pdftextoriginal 1UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDACase No. _________________________CARNER BARZAKAY, LLC, a Florida limitedliability company,Plaintiff,v.BIG AL’S BAIL BONDS, INC., a Floridacorporation, BIG AL’S BAIL BONDS, LLC, aFlorida limited liability company, ALANCERTAIN, JR., an individual, and JUSTINAWAYNE, an individual,Defendants._________________________________________/ COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Carner Barzakay, LLC, (“Carner”), by and through its undersigned counsel,hereby sues Defendants, Big Al’s Bail Bonds, Inc. (“Big Al’s Inc.” ), Big Al’s Bail Bonds, LLC,LLC, (“Big Al’s LLC”) (collectively, the “Corporate Defendants”), Alan Certain, Jr. (“Certain”),and Justina Wayne, (“Wayne”) (hereinafter individually each defendant is referred to as“Defendant” and collectively all referred to as “Defendants”), and states:
This is an action for service mark infringement, counterfeiting, unfair competitionand cyberpiracy under the United States Trademark Act (“Lanham Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 etseq. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under § 39 of the Federal Trademark Act, 15U.S.C. § 1121(a), and the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338. This Court hassupplemental jurisdiction of the state statutory and common law claims under 28 U.S.C. §§1338(b) and 1367(a). This complaint asserts claims for federal service mark counterfeiting and
Case 0:11-cv-61775-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/09/2011 Page 1 of 19
2infringement in violation of Section 32 and 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114 and1125(a), for unfair competition in violation of Section 43 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125(a), for cyberpiracy in violation of Section 43 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d), forfederal trademark dilution in violation of Section 43 of the Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c), forservice mark infringement in violation of the common law of Florida, for unfair competition inviolation of the common law of Florida, for service mark dilution in violation of the FloridaTrademark Act (Fla. Stat. §495.001, et. seq.) and the common law of Florida, for civilconspiracy, and for cancellation of a fraudulent Florida trademark under Fla. Stat. §495.101.2.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants under Fla. Stat. §48.193,because they are incorporated in or reside in Florida, have engaged in substantial and not isolatedbusiness activity in the Florida, are operating, conducting, engaging in, or carting on a businessor business venture in Florida, maintain offices in Florida, signed contracts in Florida, haveoffered services and goods into the Florida, and have committed the tortious acts complained of herein in the Florida.3.
Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because all of theDefendants reside in this District and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise tothe claim occurred in this District. The Corporate Defendants are subject to personal jurisdictionin this District because they have engaged in substantial and not isolated business activity in theDistrict, are operating, conducting, engaging in, or carting on a business or business venture inthe District, maintain offices in the District, signed contracts in the District, have offered servicesand goods into the District, and have committed the tortious acts complained of herein in theDistrict. As such, they are deemed, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c), to reside in this District forpurposes of venue.
Case 0:11-cv-61775-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/09/2011 Page 2 of 19
Plaintiff Carner is a Florida limited liability company.5.
Defendant Big Al’s Inc. is a Florida corporation with a principal address of 300S.W. 12
St., Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33315. Its Registered Agent for service of process is DefendantCertain, at the same address.6.
Defendant Big Al’s LLC is a Florida limited liability company with a principaladdress of 300 S.W. 12
St., Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33315. Its Registered Agent for service of process is Defendant Certain, at the same address.7.
Defendant Certain is an individual who, upon information and belief, resides inBroward County, Florida, is the Registered Agent of the Corporate Defendants, President of Defendant Big Al’s Inc., and Manager of Defendant Big Al’s LLC, and has been
at alltimes relevant hereto.8.
Defendant Wayne is an individual who, upon information and belief, resides inBroward County, Florida, is Vice President of Defendant Big Al’s Inc., and Manager of Defendant Big Al’s LLC, and has been
at all times relevant hereto.9.
Upon information and belief, Defendants Certain and Wayne control and directthe activities of the Corporate Defendants, and are the active moving forces behind the tortiousconduct of the Corporate Defendants as alleged herein, and accordingly, are jointly and severallyliable therefor.
As early as 2005, Carner began advertising the mark BIG AL (the “Mark”), inconnection with legal services. Carner has run an extensive series of advertisements in variousmedia featuring the Mark, including, but not limited to, print media, radio and television, and has
Case 0:11-cv-61775-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/09/2011 Page 3 of 19