Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/237099033/Bowman-v-Crossfit-Seeking-Judgment-Crossfit-is-Generic
Timestamp: 2017-09-20 21:30:59
Document Index: 540218728

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1121', '§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 1114', '§ 1115', '§ 1127', '§\n1127']

Bowman v. Crossfit - Seeking Judgment Crossfit is Generic | Declaratory Judgment | Complaint
COLTER BOWMAN, an individual
v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-cv-771
CROSSFIT INC., § JURY DEMANDED
Plaintiff COLTER BOWMAN (“Plaintiff”), appearing through its undersigned counsel,
1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to
Section 39 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1121 and Chapter 85 of the Judiciary and Judicial
Procedure Code, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338. This lawsuit is brought pursuant to the
2. Jurisdiction is proper against Defendant as Plaintiff believes that Defendant’s
threatening communications against Plaintiff, as outlined in the Complaint, provide sufficient
contacts with this District, such that Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas.
3. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. because Defendant is
subject to personal jurisdiction in this Court and because a substantial part of the harm threatened
to Plaintiff is occurring in this District by reason of the facts set forth in this Complaint.
Case 1:14-cv-00771 Document 1 Filed 08/15/14 Page 1 of 5
4. Plaintiff, Colter Bowman (“Plaintiff”) is an individual with an address of 4111
Marathon Blvd Suite 250, Austin TX 78756.
5. Defendant Crossfit, Inc., (“Defendant”) is a Delaware Corporation with a principal
place of business at 1500 Green Hills Road Suite 201 Scotts Valley, CA 95066.
A. THE CROSSFIT WORKOUT
6. Crossfit, Inc. is strength and conditioning exercise program. See
http://www.crossfit.com/cf-info/what-crossfit.html. It was developed by Greg Glassman in 2004.
See http://www.inc.com/magazine/201307/burt-helm/crossfit-empire.html.
7. Colter Bowman operates a website called www.crossfitwod.com in which people
can find different types of crossfit workouts. Nothing is sold on crossfitwod.com, instead the
website merely provides a description of different crossfit workouts, a history of high intensity
training, a glossary of crossfit terms, and a blog devoted to crossfit workouts and diet.
8. On July 17, 2014, Defendant sent Plaintiff a cease and desist letter alleging
violation of its “Crossfit” trademarks, namely Reg. Nos. 3007458, 3826111, 4049689, 4053443,
4332239 and 4122681. (Exhibit A). Defendant demanded Plaintiff accept its terms to cease all
use of crossfit by 12pm on July 22, 2014 by 12pm. Id.
9. On July 29, 2014, Marshall S. Brenner, Defendant’s Deputy General Counsel, sent
an email to Plaintiff in which Defendant reiterated its demand that Plaintiff cease all use of
crossfit and threatened that: “[t]ypically when one receives an email from me it means that a
lawsuit is about to be filed. This case is no different.” (Exhibit B)
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT – LANHAM ACT 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125
10. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in each of the
Case 1:14-cv-00771 Document 1 Filed 08/15/14 Page 2 of 5
Preceding Paragraphs as fully set forth in this Paragraph.
11. An actual controversy exists between Plaintiff and Defendant as to whether
Plaintiff’s descriptive use of the term “crossfit” is an infringement of Defendant’s registered and
common law trademarks. Plaintiff denies that there could be any likelihood of confusion as
Defendant alleges. Plaintiff merely uses the term “crossfit” to describe a type of workout which
is a fair use pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b)(4).
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT – LANHAM ACT 15 U.S.C. § 1127
12. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in each of the
13. An actual controversy exists between Plaintiff and Defendant as to whether
Defendant’s trademarks in the term “crossfit” has been abandoned as generic under 15 U.S.C. §
1127. Plaintiff alleges that because consumers identify “crossfit” as a particular method of
exercise, and not as an indicator of source, it has become generic.
(a) For a judicial determination and order declaring that Defendant’s crossfit trademarks
have become generic;
(b) For a judicial determination that Plaintiff’s use of crossfit on
www.crossfitwod.com is not an infringement of any of Defendant’s asserted trademark in crossfit;
(c) For an Order enjoining Defendant and its agents and attorneys from further
asserting trademark rights in the term crossfit.
(d) For Plaintiff to recover its costs and attorney’s fees in bringing this action.
(e) Such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
Case 1:14-cv-00771 Document 1 Filed 08/15/14 Page 3 of 5
Plaintiff demands a jury trial in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b).
DATED: August 15, 2014 Respectfully submitted,
By:/s/ Joshua G. Jones
Texas Bar No. 24065517
512-615-5474
jjones@reedscardino.com
Case 1:14-cv-00771 Document 1 Filed 08/15/14 Page 4 of 5
I certify that the foregoing COMPLAINT was filed on August 15, 2014 via the cm/ecf system which
/s/ Joshua Jones
Case 1:14-cv-00771 Document 1 Filed 08/15/14 Page 5 of 5
Documents Similar To Bowman v. Crossfit - Seeking Judgment Crossfit is Generic
David Wawrzynski v. HJ Heinz Co, 3rd Cir. (2014)
Adak Seafood sues Adak Fisheries
Depomed v. Zydus Pharmaceuticals et. al.
Depomed v. Impax Laboratories et. al.
Strauss v. Hamilton et al - Document No. 9