Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/206244772/Raptor-Archery-Complaint
Timestamp: 2017-02-21 01:49:03
Document Index: 2686959

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1051', '§ 1331', '§ 1121', '§ 1051', '§ 1391', '§ 1065', '§ 1114', '§ 1116', '§ 1117', '§ 1117', '§ 1125', '§ 1117', '§ 1117', '§ 1116', '§1125', '§ 1117', '§ 1117', '§ 1117', '§ 1116', '§ 1116', '§ 1116', '§ 1117', '§ 1117', '§ 1117']

BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinCase 3:14-cv-00203-STDocument 1
Filed 02/06/14
Page ID#: 1
William H. Sumerfield, OSB #89126 bill@phillipsreynier.com Phillips Reynier Sumerfield & Cline, LLP 718 State Street, P. O. Box 758 Hood River, OR 97031 (541) 386-4264 FAX: (541) 386-2557 Attorney for Plaintiff
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON RAPTOR ARCHERY, INC., an Oregon Corporation, Case No. ___________________
COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ROBERT MAITLAND, D/B/A MAITLAND USA Defendant. COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiff Raptor Archery, Inc. (“Raptor”) files this complaint seeking a judgment and injunctive relief against defendant Robert Maitland doing business as Maitland USA (“Defendants”) for trademark infringement, unfair competition, dilution and false advertising in violation of the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq., and under the common law of Oregon.
1 - COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
Case 3:14-cv-00203-ST
Page ID#: 2
PARTIES 2. Raptor is an Oregon corporation with its principal place of business at 923 11th Street, Hood River, Oregon 97031. 3. Defendant Robert Maitland is doing business as Maitland USA. Defendant’s principal place of business is in Sparks, Nevada. 4. Defendants market Maitland USA products throughout the United States, including the District of Oregon. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. Jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1338 and 1367, and 15 U.S.C. § 1121. 6. The suit is based on a federal question, namely 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq. 7. In addition, the plaintiff and defendants are residents of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.00. 8. Venue is proper in the District of Oregon pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. 9. 2 - COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
Page ID#: 3
Some of the events giving rise to the causes of action described herein occurred in the District of Oregon, and the acts complained of are occurring the District of Oregon. BACKGROUND 10. Raptor Archery manufactures archery products, including bows, arrows, and broadheads. 11. Since 1991, Raptor has continuously marketed its products under the brand name RAPTOR ARCHERY and used RAPTOR ARCHERY trademark through the United States. 12. Raptor has acquired common law trademark rights in its RAPTOR ARCHERY trademark. 13. Raptor registered its RAPTOR ARCHERY trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office on March 17, 1998, and was issued U.S. Trademark Registration No. 2,144,149 for archery equipment, namely, bows, arrows, quivers, shafts, feathers, broadheads, and points. 14. Raptor renewed its trademark registration for RAPTOR ARCHERY on March 12, 2008. 15. The registered RAPTOR ARCHERY mark remains in full force and effect and is valid. 16. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1065, the registered RAPTOR ARCHERY mark has become
3 - COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
Page ID#: 4
incontestable. 17. Long after Raptor began using and registered its RAPTOR ARCHERY mark, Defendants began offering and selling archery products under the name “RAPTOR.” 18. Defendants use marks that are similar to the RAPTOR ARCHERY mark to advertise its products to the public. 19. Defendants’ use of a mark that is identical to the RAPTOR ARCHERY mark constitutes a representation to the public that its products and services are related as to source, origin or sponsorship of the products and services that use the RAPTOR ARCHERY mark. 20. Defendants’ use of marks that are confusingly similar to the RAPTOR ARCHERY mark will reduce the capacity of the RAPTOR ARCHERY mark to serve as unique identifiers of Raptor’s products and services. COUNT ONE: FEDERAL TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT 21. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. 22. Defendants have knowingly used in commerce a reproduction, copy or colorable imitation of Raptor’s registered RAPTOR ARCHERY trademark without the consent of Raptor. 23. 4 - COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
Page ID#: 5
Defendants’ use in commerce of a reproduction, copy or colorable imitation of the RAPTOR ARCHERY mark has been in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of Defendants’ products and services. 24. Defendants’ use in commerce of the RAPTOR ARCHERY mark is likely to cause confusion of consumers, or to cause mistake, or to deceive consumers desiring to purchase genuine Raptor products regarding the source and quality of the products and services or their association with Raptor. 25. Defendants’ use in commerce of the RAPTOR ARCHERY mark is a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114. 26. Defendants’ use in commerce of a reproduction, copy or colorable imitation of the RAPTOR ARCHERY mark has caused loss of goodwill and profits to Raptor, has damaged the reputation of the genuine RAPTOR ARCHERY brand and has injured the public by causing confusion, mistake, and deception. 27. Defendants have used the RAPTOR ARCHERY mark in commerce with the knowledge and intent that such use causes confusion, mistake, and deception to the purchasing public. 28. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a), Raptor is entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to prevent Defendants’ continuing use in commerce of a reproduction, copy or
5 - COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
Page ID#: 6
colorable imitation of the RAPTOR ARCHERY mark. 29. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), Raptor is entitled to damages for Defendants’ use in commerce of a reproduction, copy or colorable imitation of the RAPTOR ARCHERY mark, an accounting of profits made by Defendants, and recovery of Raptor’s costs of this action. 30. The intentional use of a reproduction, copy or colorable imitation of the RAPTOR ARCHERY mark by Defendants makes this an exceptional case entitling Raptor to an award of three times its actual damages and recovery of its reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). COUNT TWO: COMMON LAW TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT 31. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. 32. Defendants’ acts constitute trademark infringement under the common law of the State of Oregon. 33. Defendants’ acts of trademark infringement entitle Raptor to recover its damages and costs of this action, together with an accounting of profits made by Defendants on sales of its goods and services in connection with which Defendants uses a reproduction, copy or colorable imitation of the RAPTOR ARCHERY mark. 34. 6 - COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
Page ID#: 7
The acts of Defendants have been malicious and calculated to injure Raptor. The willful, wanton and malicious nature of Defendants’ conduct entitles Raptor to an award of punitive damages against Defendants. 35. Defendants’ infringement of the RAPTOR ARCHERY mark is irreparably injuring Raptor’s goodwill and, unless enjoined by this Court, will continue to do so. 36. Further, Raptor may not have an adequate legal remedy in the event money damages cannot property be calculated. 37. Under the common law of the State of Oregon, plaintiff is entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to prevent Defendants’ continuing trademark infringement. COUNT THREE: FEDERAL UNFAIR COMPETITION 38. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. 39. The actions of Defendants constitute unfair competition with Raptor in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). 40. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), Raptor is entitled to damages for Defendants’ unfair competition, an accounting of profits made by Raptor and recovery of Raptor’s costs of this action.
7 - COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
Page ID#: 8
41. Defendants’ unfair competition with Raptor has been willful and wanton for the purpose of deceiving consumers and injuring the goodwill of Raptor. 42. Defendants’ acts of unfair competition make this an exceptional case entitling Raptor to an award of three times its actual damages pursuant to and recovery of its reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). 43. Defendants’ acts of unfair competition are irreparably injuring Raptor’s goodwill and eroding Raptor’s share of the market and, unless enjoined by this Court, will continue to do so. 44. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a), Raptor is entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to prevent Defendants’ continuing acts of unfair competition. COUNT FOUR: COMMON LAW UNFAIR COMPETITION 45. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. 46. Defendants’ acts constitute unfair competition under the common law of the State of Oregon. 47. Defendants’ acts of unfair competition entitle Raptor to recover its damages and costs of this action, together with an accounting of profits made by Defendants. 8 - COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
Page ID#: 9
48. Defendants’ acts of unfair competition have been malicious and calculated to injury Raptor. 49. The willful, wanton and malicious nature of Defendants’ conduct entitles Raptor to an award of punitive damages against Defendants. 50. Defendants’ acts of unfair competition are irreparably injuring Raptor’s goodwill and eroding Raptor’s share of the market, and unless enjoined by this Court, will continue to do so. Further, Raptor may not have an adequate legal remedy in the event money damages cannot properly be calculated. 51. Under the common law of the State of Oregon, Raptor is entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to prevent Defendants’ continuing acts of unfair competition. COUNT FIVE: FEDERAL FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN OR SOURCE 52. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. 53. The RAPTOR ARCHERY mark is distinctive, and indicates to consumers that products and services bearing such marks originate from a single source. 54. Raptor’s products symbolize substantial goodwill of Raptor resulting in significant sales
9 - COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
Page ID#: 10
of its high-quality archery products. 55. Defendants’ use of the RAPTOR ARCHERY mark likely causes confusion, or mistake, or deceives consumers as to the origin or source of Defendants’ products and services. 56. Defendants’ use in commerce of a reproduction, copy or colorable imitation of the RAPTOR ARCHERY mark is likely to cause consumers to believe that Raptor’s and Defendants’ products and services come from the same origin or source, or that Raptor sponsors or approves the goods of Defendants, or that Raptor and Defendants are somehow affiliated, connected or associated with one another when in fact they are not. 57. Defendants’ use in commerce of a reproduction, copy or colorable imitation of the RAPTOR ARCHERY mark is injuring the goodwill of Raptor. 58. The actions of Defendants constitute a violation of 15 U.S.C. §1125. 59. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117, Raptor is entitled to damages for Defendants’ violations, an accounting of profits made by Defendants on sales of its goods, and recovery of Raptor’s costs of this action. 60. Defendants have willfully and wantonly infringed the RAPTOR ARCHERY mark, and its actions have been calculated to confuse, mislead or deceive consumers, and to injure the 10 - COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
Page ID#: 11
goodwill of Raptor. 61. The acts of Defendants make this an exceptional case entitling Raptor to an award of three times its actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) and (b) and recovery of its reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). 62. Defendants’ infringement of the RAPTOR ARCHERY mark is irreparably injuring Raptor’s goodwill and eroding Raptor’s share of the market, and unless enjoined by this Court, will continue to do so. 63. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116, Raptor is entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to prevent Defendants’ continuing trademark infringement. JURY DEMAND 64. Raptor hereby demands a trial by jury. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that: 1. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116 and the common and statutory laws of the State of
Oregon, defendants, Defendants, its officers, agents, employees, servants, attorneys, successors, and assigns, and all others in privity or acting in concert or active participation with them, be preliminarily and permanently enjoined from: a. Directly or indirectly manufacturing, distributing, advertising, marketing
11 - COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
Page ID#: 12
or selling Defendants’ products in any fashion which would state, imply or suggest that such products are Raptor’s brand products or are associated with or come from the same source as the Raptor brand; b. Inducing or enabling others to directly or indirectly manufacture,
distribute, advertise, market or sell one or more infringing goods under a reproduction, copy or colorable imitation of the RAPTOR ARCHERY mark; c. Making or inducing others to make any false, misleading or deceptive
statement of act, or representation of fact in connection with the promotion, advertisement, display, sale, offering for sale, manufacture, production, circulation or distribution of one or more infringing services or goods in such fashion as to suggest that such infringing services or goods are connected with or associated with or sponsored by Plaintiff. 2. Defendants be adjudged to have intentionally infringed and copied the RAPTOR
ARCHERY mark and to have manufactured, distributed, marketed, advertised and/or sold infringing goods and be required to pay Raptor: a. infringement; b. infringement; c. d. e. 3. Its reasonable attorney’s fees; Its costs and expenses; and Pre-judgment interest; Three times the actual damages of Raptor resulting from said Its actual damages and any profits of Defendants resulting from said
Defendants be adjudged to have unfairly competed with Raptor and be required to
12 - COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
Page ID#: 13
pay Raptor: a. unfair competition; b. c. d. 4. Its reasonable attorney’s fees; Its costs and expenses; and Prejudgment interest; Its actual damages and any profits of Defendants resulting from its acts of
Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116 and the common law of the State of Oregon,
Defendants, its officers, agents, employees, servants, attorneys, successors, and assigns, and all others in privity or acting in concert or active participation with them, be preliminarily and permanently enjoined from: a. b. Defendants’ goods; c. Making or inducing others to make any false, misleading or deceptive Directly or indirectly falsely designating the origin of Defendants’s goods; Inducing others to directly or indirectly falsely designate the origin of
statement of fact, or representation of fact in connection with the promotion, advertisement, display, sale, offering for sale, manufacture, production, circulation or distribution of Defendants’ goods as to the origin or source of Defendants’ goods so as to cause consumers to believe that Raptor’s and Defendants’ goods come from the same origin or source, or that Raptor sponsors or approves Defendants’ goods, or that Raptor and Defendants are somehow affiliated, connected or associated with one another; 5. Defendants be adjudged to have falsely designated the origin or, and induced
others to have falsely designated the origin of Defendants’ goods and be required to pay Raptor:
13 - COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
Page ID#: 14
Its actual damages and any profits of Defendants resulting from said false
designation of origin, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) or alternatively, statutory damages in an amount to be determined by this Court; b. Three times the actual damages of Raptor resulting from said false
designation of origin, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a); c. d. e. 6. Its reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a); Its costs and expenses; and Pre-judgment interest;
Defendants be ordered to deliver up for destruction all products, labels, signs,
plates, packages, dies, wrappers, receptacles and advertisements in its possession or under its control, bearing any words, terms names, symbols, devices, or any combination thereof, which: simulate, reproduce, counterfeit, copy or colorably imitate the RAPTOR ARCHERY mark in connection with the promotion, advertisement, display, sale, offering for sale, manufacture, production, circulation or distribution or any product in such fashion as to relate or connect, or tend to relate or connect, such service or product in any way to Raptor; or otherwise misrepresent the source or origin of Defendants’ goods; and all plates, molds, matrices and other means of making the same; 7. Defendants be ordered to take corrective action to correct any erroneous
impression the public may have derived concerning the source or origin of Defendants’ goods, including without limitation the placement of corrective advertising; 8. Raptor be granted such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate to correct
any erroneous impression the public may have derived concerning the source or origin of 14 - COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
Page ID#: 15
Defendants’ goods; and 9. Raptor be awarded such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
DATED this 6th day of February, 2014. PHILLIPS REYNIER SUMERFIELD & CLINE, LLP
s/William H. Sumerfield, OSB #89126 Attorney for Plaintiff (541) 386-4264 bill@phillipsreynier.com
15 - COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
More From This UserSkip carouselHenager ComplaintKlipsch ComplaintOregon Trademark and Service Mark ApplicationSuper 8 ComplaintAcushnet ComplaintDropzonems ComplaintLitov ComplaintNichols ComplaintNichols ComplaintSunlight Supply ComplaintRoambuilt ComplaintOregon Brewing Company Exhibit 1Oregon Brewing Company ComplaintSmoke Free ComplaintDelicato ComplaintEndeavour ComplaintOMRI ComplaintMecca Companies ComplaintThe Art of Design ComplaintPacific Foods ComplaintAramark ExhibitAramark ComplaintZIG ZAG ComplaintDeeks ComplaintTillamook Country Complaint
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulRaptor Archery Complaint by Kenan Farrell0.0 (0)EmbedDownloadDescriptionOregon Trademark Complaint, Federal Trademark Infringement, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Common Law Unfair Competition, Federal False Designation of Origin or SourceOregon Trademark Complaint, Federal Trademark Infringement, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Common Law Unfair Competition, Federal False Designation of Origin or SourceInterests: Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedRight Connection v. McGinley - Lifestyles trademark complaint.pdfby Mark H. JaffeVictoria's Secret v. Michael Ray Projectby Mark H. JaffeTwisted Complaintby Kenan Farrell11-12088-MLWby barzilay123Magpul v. Mayo - Complaintby slbursteinCraigslist v. Dealercmo - CraigsMax trademark.pdfby Mark H. JaffeBattaglia v. SYSCO - Chicago Style Trademark Complaintby Mark H. JaffeGeorgia Woman Sues AOL/Huffington Postby Alexander Charles Kaufman12-10641-MBBby barzilay123Magpul Lawsuit - Complaint Filed 8/8/13by Richard JohnsonOld Pepper Bourbon Trademark Complaintby Mark H. Jaffe11-11463-DPWby barzilay123Sulzer Mixpac Et. Al. v. Certified Dental Supply Et. Al.by PatentBlast11-11036-MBBby barzilay123Crossfit v. Quinnie complaint - KrossFit.pdfby Mark H. JaffeGroupon Trademark Infringement Complaintby Ryan Gile, Esq.US Gates Intl v Light Star Travel Agencyby propertyintangibleMargaret Winters v. Ashwood trademark complaint.pdfby Mark H. JaffeComplaint Happy Wife Happy Lifeby Marty SchwimmerStevo Design v Brandon Link Complaintby sirjsslutGonzaga trademark complaint - Date Grape Kool Aid.pdfby Mark H. JaffeDope Trademark Infringement Lawsuitby Mark H. JaffeComplaintby SusanMedarisCoilStarr Prods. v. Prince Lionheart - Complaintby slbursteinRolex Watch U.S.A. v. Leland Stanford Hoffman Trademark Complaintby Kenan FarrellMVL Rights, LLC v. Airbase Industries, LLC - Complaintby david7460Haru Holding Co v. Harusaki Inc. - trademark complaint EDNY.pdfby Mark H. JaffeEstate of J. Bishop v. Equinox Int. Corp., 256 F.3d 1050, 10th Cir. (2001)by Scribd Government DocsSimilar to Raptor Archery ComplaintSkip carouselRight Connection v. McGinley - Lifestyles trademark complaint.pdfVictoria's Secret v. Michael Ray ProjectTwisted Complaint11-12088-MLWMagpul v. Mayo - ComplaintCraigslist v. Dealercmo - CraigsMax trademark.pdfBattaglia v. SYSCO - Chicago Style Trademark ComplaintGeorgia Woman Sues AOL/Huffington Post12-10641-MBBMagpul Lawsuit - Complaint Filed 8/8/13Old Pepper Bourbon Trademark Complaint11-11463-DPWSulzer Mixpac Et. Al. v. Certified Dental Supply Et. Al.11-11036-MBBCrossfit v. Quinnie complaint - KrossFit.pdfGroupon Trademark Infringement ComplaintUS Gates Intl v Light Star Travel AgencyMargaret Winters v. Ashwood trademark complaint.pdfComplaint Happy Wife Happy LifeStevo Design v Brandon Link ComplaintGonzaga trademark complaint - Date Grape Kool Aid.pdfDope Trademark Infringement LawsuitComplaintStarr Prods. v. Prince Lionheart - ComplaintRolex Watch U.S.A. v. Leland Stanford Hoffman Trademark ComplaintMVL Rights, LLC v. Airbase Industries, LLC - ComplaintHaru Holding Co v. Harusaki Inc. - trademark complaint EDNY.pdfEstate of J. Bishop v. Equinox Int. Corp., 256 F.3d 1050, 10th Cir. (2001)Sportsgrants v. CrossfitVIP Products v Sears ComplaintRaptor Archery Complaint