Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/235846577/Lenny-Kravitz-v-CinderBlock-Trademark
Timestamp: 2016-09-27 23:31:12
Document Index: 169007180

Matched Legal Cases: ['§2201', '§43', '§1125', '§43', '§2201', '§1331', '§ 1367', '§1391', '§ 43', '§1125', '§ 43']

BrowseBrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicWelcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out moreJS 44C/SDNYREV. 4/2014
i a fV 60^7 reAce izuMXPplemMt tteW'ng and service \J X/ W
il J^,of caE> This form, approved by the
The JS-44 civil cover sheet and the information contaihec
pleadings or other papers as required by law, except
Judicial Conference of the United States, in September
W&QEFORRBgT
Dorothy M. Weber of Shukat Arrow HaferWeber &Herbsman, LLP
494 Eighth Avenue, 6th Floor, New York, NY 10001
(P): 212-245-4580; (F): 212-956-6471; dorothy@musiclaw.com
CAUSE OF ACTION (CITE THE U.S. CIVIL STATUTE UNDER WHICH YOU ARE! FJLING AfjD WRITE ABRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE?
(DO NOT CITE JURISDICTIONAL STATUTES UNLESS DI^EpSITY^
Declaratory Judgment 28 U.S.C. §2201 and §43(a) of the Lanham
Cinder Block, LLC
:t, 1£ J.S.C. §1125(a)
herein heither reAce ij£dupplemAt^e\jing and service(
pjrovide i by local y£»of caEi This form, approved by the
s r< quired for use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of
"AUG 04 2014
Has this action, case, orproceeding, orone essentially thesamebeen prejviqusly fjlpd
Ifyes, wasthis case Vol.Q Invol. • Dismissed. No • Yes • If y|es give^te
IS THIS AN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CASE? No [x] Yes [J
in SDNY at any time? Na^jVesQjudge Previously Assigned
(PLACEAN[x] INONEBOXONLY) NATURE O
[ 1140
[ ]152
[ 1160
! 1190
[ 1195
[ ] 320 ASSAULT, LIBEL&
[ ] 345 MARINEPRODUCT
[ ] 355 MOTORVEHICLE
PHARMACEUTICAL PERSONA.
[ J 365 PERSONAL INJURY
PRODUCT LIABILI
INJURY PRODUCT!
[ ] 371 TRUTH INLENDING
[ ] 441 VOTING
[ ] 442 EMPLOYMENT
[ j 443HOUSING/
I ] 448 EDUCATION
PROPERTY DAMAtSE
VACATE SENTEN$E
[ ] 530 HABEASCORPUS
[ ] 535 DEATHPENALTY
[ ] 540 MANDAMUS &OTHfR
UNDERF.R.C.P. 23
t ) 550 CIVIL RIGHTS
[ ] 555 PRISONCONDITION
[ J 560 CIVILDETAINEE
CONDITIONS OFCONFINEMENT
[]K|5
I 16*
RE OF PROPERTY
!1 USC 881
710 FAIR LABOR
I FAMILY MEDICAL
ACT (FMLA)
IMMIG1ATION
I ] 46 2 NATURALIZATION
I J 375 FALSE CLAIMS
[ ] 422 APPEAL [ J400 STATE
[ ] 423 WITHDRAWAL [ ] 410 ANTITRUST
28 USC 157 [ ] 430 BANKS&BANKING
PROPERTY RIGHTS ( ] 470 RACKETEER INFLU
[ ] 820 COPYRIGHTS ORGANIZATION ACT
( ] 830 PATENT (RICO)
M 840 TRADEMARK [ ] 480 CONSUMER CREDIT
[ ]861 HIA(1395ff) EXCHANGE
[ J 862 BLACKLUNG (923)
[ ] 863 DIWC/DIWW(405(g))
[ ] 864 SSID TITLEXVI
[ ] 865 RSI (405(g)) i ] 890 OTHER STATUTORY
( ] 891 AGRICULTURAL ACTS
[ ] 870 TAXES (U.S. Plaintiff or ( ] 893 ENVIRONMENTAL
Defendant) MATTERS
[ ] 871 IRS-THIRD PARTY [ I 895 FREEDOM OF
DEMAND $150,000 OTHER '"junction
fF°SO°sV
CASE IS RELATED TO A CIVIL CASE NOW PENDING IN S.D.N.Y.?
CheckYES only ifdemanded in complaint
JURY DEMAND: DYES SsiO NOTE: You inu it also submit at the time of filingthe Statement of Relatedness form (Form IH-32).
(PLACEAN x IN ONE BOXONLY) 0,RIGI|\
H 1 Original U 2 Removed from Lj 3 Remanded LJ 4
Proceeding state Court from
• a. all parties represented Court"3'6
I | b. At least one
(PLACEAN x IN ONEBOXONLY) BASIS Of
• 1 U.S. PLAINTIFF Q2 U.S. DEFENDANT [x] 3 FEDERAL QU =9TION
(U.S. NOT A FARTY)
ftteiijistated or Lj 5 Transferred from [~J 6 Multidistrict
deepened (Specify District) Litigation
[FOR DIVERSITY CASES ONLY)
CITIZEN OF THIS STATE [ ] 1 [ ] 1
CITIZEN OF ANOTHER STATE [ ] 2 [ ] 2
INCORPORATED or PRINCIPAL
Lenny Kravitz, c/o Dorothy M. Weber, Esq. of Shukat Arrow Hafer Weber &Herbsman, LLP,
494 Eighth Avenue, 6th Floor, New York, New Yofk 10001
Cinder Block, LLC, 7677 Oakport Street, Suite 11M
REPRESENTATION IS HEREBY MADETHAT, AT THIS TIME, I HAV|E BEEN
RESlBiNCE ADDRESSES OF THE FOLLOWING DEFENDANTS:
(DO NOT check either box if this a PRISONER
VTE 08a04/20 14 £|£RATI1R£ OFATTORNEY OKRECOI
3lace:
FOREIGN NATION [ ]6 [ ]6
UNABLE, WITH REASONABLE DILIGENCE, TO ASCERTAIN
PETITION/IPF ISONER CIVIL RIGHTS
)RNEY OKRECORB ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN THIS DISTRICT
[Xj YES (DATE ADMITTED Mo.06 Yr. 1982__j
Attorney Bar Code #4734
Magistrate Judge is to be designated bythe Clerk of the Cd)uft
Ruby J. Krajick, Clerk of Court by. Deputy
hrk, DATED
SHUKAT ARROW HAFER WEBER & HEBB$MAN, L.L.P
494 Eighth Avenue, 6th Floor
Dorothy M. Weber, Esq. (DW 4734)
Attorneys for Lenny Kravitz
Cinder Block, LLC , i *• «-w,
. Lenny Kravitz ("Kravitz"), by his it
Herbsman, LLP, as and for his Complair t
his own acts and upon information and pel:
14 CV 604?
14 CIV
COMPLAIN©
CO -ri
C-5P1
r< , ^"»
, Shukat Arrow Hafer Weber &
upon knowledge with respect to
•^ith respect to the acts of all others,
1. This is an action for, inter
§43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §
under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28
2. This Court has subject mattej: j
relating to trademark infringement, 28 XJJ.B-C
Court has supplemental jurisdiction pur^ijant
alia trademark infringement in violation of
and declaratory judgment arising
§2201 et seq.
mattei- iuk-tisdiction of the federal claims
1125(
§1331, 1338(a) and 1338(b). This
to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), because all
other claims are so related to the federal cp.airois that they form part of the same
of operative facts,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) because
anfcl/br has committed tortious conduct within
controversy and derive from a common nuqleub
3. Venue is proper in this Couift
Defendant has transacted business in
this judicial district, because the events
including, but not limited to sales and
Product, as defined hereinbelow, occurre
cr omissions giving rise to the claims,
di^tKbuiion of the infringing Kravitz
in part, in the Southern District of New
4. Lenny Kravitz is a four-time
has earned multiple gold, platinum, doupl^
and which have sold over thirty eight (3$,p00
Although best known for his musical car$e|r
of major motion pictures , most notably ftis
more recently, "The Hunger Games", "Trie
Daniel's The Butler".
Grarimy Award winning musician who
platinum andtriple platinum albums,
000) million copies worldwide.
Mr. Kravitz has appeared in a number
screen debut in 2009 in "Precious" and,
Hue ger Games: Catching Fire" and "Lee
5. Defendant Cinder Block, LLC is a California Limited Liability
1140, Oakland, California 94621. It
whiih utilizes musicians' intellectual
Company located at 7677 Oakport Street
is in the business of creating merchandis|e
6. This action arises out of a njepchandise agreement betweenthe parties
The Agreement is construed under dated September 18, 2011 (the "Agreemen
,g language regarding the Term of the New York law, and has clear and unambigiou
AS AND FOR A FIRST CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT
thd allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 7. Kravitz repeats and realleges
through 6 as if fully set forth herein.
8. The Agreement between the) p^artfl^s, terminated by its terms on March
9. On July 16, 2014 Jason Grebiie, ijllie Chief Executive Officer of Cinder
Block , notwithstanding the clear terminlatjion
litigation against Kravitz, his manager a^i|l arty
which Kravitz wishes to sign a new deal
demandedpayment of the sum of One HMdreldl
10. Thus, an actual controversy
under the Agreement affecting Kravitz's
11. Kravitz seeks a declaration
has Arisen as to the rights and obligations
abilhty to contract with a third party.
f hi4 rights and obligations under the
terminated, as a matter of law, on
d)f the Agreement, threatened
new merchandising company with
bir his! upcoming tour. Greene also
Fifty Thousand ($150,000.00)
Agreement, and judgment that the Agreement
12. Kravitz has no adequate re:medy
AS AND FOR A SECOND CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT
(Violation of § 43(^)
13. Kravitz repeats and reallege
through 12 as if fully set forth herein.
14. The name "Lenny Kravitz"
meaning and is immediately identifiable
endorsed or licensed by Mr. Kravitz. The
misappropriation and from use on unauthonz^
15. Defendant has unlawfully u^e>d, i'p.d
the Lanham Act)
allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 CsS
(the trademark") has acquired secondary
source of numerous products
'^raclbmark is entitled to protection from
goods and products,
continues to unlawfully use the
"Kravitz Product") after the Term
tjo ciiise confusion and/or mistake by
Akre^bient is in effect.
Trademark in connection with merchandise (the
of the Agreement in a way which is likelj
falsely suggesting and implying that the
16. The aforesaid acts of Defendajnt
false and misleading descriptions and r
violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham
17. The aforesaid acts of
constitute false designation of origin,
ebrlesefltations and unfair competition in
Alt, tt> U.S.C. §1125(a).
Defendajnt lkkve been intentional, willful and in
18. The acts and conduct of the Defendant has caused, and unless
restrained and enjoined by this Court wi
Plaintiff in that there is a likelihood of
harm cannot be adequately compensated
19. Plaintiff has no adequate
continue to cause, irreparable harm to
c6nifusi(|)n by the public. Such irreparable
measured by money alone,
edy rem
20. By reason of the foregoing,
injunction enjoining Defendant from
the Lanham Act, and to an award of damla&es
Iflpintjiff is entitled both to a permanent
cont|iituiiig the aforesaid violations of § 43(a) of
in an amount not less than three
times Defendant's profits or damages, whiqheypr is greater, and reasonable
AS AND FOR A THIRD CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT
21. Plaintiff repeats and reallege^ th^
1 through 20 with the same force and effect as
22. At all times herein Plaintiff was
allegations contained in paragraphs
is the owner of the Trademark. and
23. By Defendant's public sale
Defendant has violated Plaintiffs Tradeifrirk
of the merchandise with the Trademark,
24. Plaintiff has been irreparably
Trademark, and will continue to suffer ii
Defendant continues to publicly
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing Hasol>is> Plaintiff requests that the Court
1. That judgment entered thai tjhe contract terminated as a matter of
2. Ordering Defendant to
derived from their acts of infringement a|n|I fo^
damaged by Defendant's use of the
irp^paifkble damage in the future if
dissemiiialte merchandise with the Trademark.
accoinjit fd>i* all profits, gains and advantages
its other violations of law;
3. That all gains, profits and a^an^ges derived by Defendant from its
acts of infringement to be deemed to be
4. Ordering Defendant to turn
are now within Defendant's ownership 01
he d in constructive trust for the benefit of
over all copies of the Kravitz Product that
dontrol, which were subject to the
5. Permanently enjoining and
and representatives from producing, mariufacitirin
marketing, promoting, advertising and/o^ (HheH-wise
which were subject to the Agreement, or
place, and from otherwise infringing the
6. That Plaintiff be awarded
restrainin ing Defendant, its agents, affiliates
g, printing, distributing, selling,
ise exploiting the Kravitz Product,
the foregoing activities to take CE.usmg
his reasonable attorneys' fees and the costs
of this action from the Defendant; and
7. That the Court award Plaintiff si^h other general and special relief to
Appropriate, and as justice and equity which he may be entitled, as the Court dsems
R3 pectfully submitted,
S flUK^T ARROWHAFER WEBER
&J HERDSMAN, LLP
Qkl^U
Dorothy M. W^er (DMW 4734)
hone: (212) 245-4580
d|orothy@musiclaw. com
More From This UserUS v. Lostutter - Mark Jaffe Admission Pro Hac ViceMackenzie Architects v. VLG Real Estate, et al. - order on motion on the pleadings092016_cfpb_WFBconsentorder Wells Fargo phony accounts.pdfSlated IP v. Independent Film Dev Group - Sup Ct NY opinion.pdfIndictment-USA-v-Lostutter-aka-KYAnonymous (1).pdfGriffin v. Ed Sheeran - Lets Get It On copyright complaint.pdfBagwell v. WWE complaint.pdfHSK dba Zerorez v. USOC complaint.pdfRiot Games v. Argote - League of Legends- DMCA complaint.pdfWhite and Ward v. Warner-Tamerlane - Ain't No Fun complaint.pdfHorror Inc. v. Miller - Friday the 13th Complaint.pdfGreggs v. Grande and Guetta - complaint.pdfOrder Denying Plaintiffs Mot for Preliminary a (1)Highsmith v. Getty - copyright management information.pdfManzari v. Associated Newspaperes - 9th Circuit libel.pdfHerbal Access - TTAB opinion.pdfRussell Road Food v. Spencer, Crazy Horse - 9th Circuit.pdfUSA v. Vaulin - Kickass Torrents indictment.pdfCottrell v. Duke - Wal-Mart Derivative Action 8th CircuitUS v. Eberts - 7th Circuit sentencing.pdfOrchard Hill Master Fund v. Fairway Fund - 2nd Circuit.pdfUSA v. Matthew Keys - Mark H. Jaffe Notice of Appearance.pdfECF 14 Motion for Bail Pending Appeal Denied 2016.07.21 US v Keys AppealJeffrey-Mead-Kurzon-v-Democratic-National-Committee-and-New-York-State-Democratic-Committee.pdfJeffrey-Mead-Kurzon-v-Democratic-National-Committee-and-New-York-State-Democratic-Committee.pdf
Lenny Kravitz v. CinderBlock - Trademark by Mark H. Jaffe39 viewsEmbedDownloadInterests: LawRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: © All Rights ReservedDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentMore informationShow less
RelatedAbella vs Franciscoby Charmaine Reyes FabellaUntitledby eurolexAmiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF - Document No. 39by Justia.comFLMD 13-cv-01579 Doc 82by J DoeHabush v Cannon Response to Motion to Dismissby Eric GoldmanUntitledby eurolex1403-14221by Jill GonzalezBombay Oil Industries Ltd. and ... vs Raj Oil Mills and Ors. on 28 June, 1991by disha_11_89Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc., 514 F.3d 1063, 10th Cir. (2008)by Scribd Government DocsSensible Foods v World Gourmetby Lara PearsonReply to Counterclaimby Nancy StilesAir France v Carrascoso 18 SCRA 155 (1966)by Jemuel BayotUntitledby eurolexEvidence, Regalado Book outline!by amun dinLanglois Lawsuitby windsorstarEFF: 20041201 alsup deniesby EFF[6] Song Fo v. Hawaiian Phils. 47 Phil 821 (1928)by Fides DamascoJanuary '11 Newsletterby Jonathan CooperWebster v. Hoban, 11 U.S. 399 (1813)by Scribd Government DocsMarshall ContractsII Spring 2010by Matt LevesqueVernice Cita v. Links Marketing Group - Kind Mat trademark complaint.pdfby Mark H. JaffeLicenseby thbenkoUntitledby eurolexNational Healthy Start Complaintby Kenan FarrellKiller Joe order on terminated subpoenaby Andrew NortonAmigo v. Cluett Peabody Digestby viva_33Untitledby eurolexAramark Complaintby Kenan FarrellSimilar to Lenny Kravitz v. CinderBlock - TrademarkAbella vs FranciscoUntitledAmiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF - Document No. 39FLMD 13-cv-01579 Doc 82Habush v Cannon Response to Motion to DismissUntitled1403-14221Bombay Oil Industries Ltd. and ... vs Raj Oil Mills and Ors. on 28 June, 1991Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc., 514 F.3d 1063, 10th Cir. (2008)Sensible Foods v World GourmetReply to CounterclaimAir France v Carrascoso 18 SCRA 155 (1966)UntitledEvidence, Regalado Book outline!Langlois LawsuitEFF[6] Song Fo v. Hawaiian Phils. 47 Phil 821 (1928)January '11 NewsletterWebster v. Hoban, 11 U.S. 399 (1813)Marshall ContractsII Spring 2010Vernice Cita v. Links Marketing Group - Kind Mat trademark complaint.pdfLicenseUntitledNational Healthy Start ComplaintKiller Joe order on terminated subpoenaAmigo v. Cluett Peabody DigestUntitledAramark ComplaintGiroux vs. FrederickMoCo Sched Hearing Statement Re Miller Family 2012 Lawsuit v. MCPS BOE and FB Coaches