Puretek v. Patchwerx - Trademark Complaint PDF

Case 2:15-cv-07044 Document 1 Filed 09/04/15 Page 1 of 21 Page ID #:1
1 Al Mohajerian. Esq. (SBN 182013)
MOHAJERIAN, a Professional Law Corporation
2 al@mohajerian.com
1901 Avenue of the Stars, 11th Floor

3 Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 556-3800
4 Facsimile: (310) 556-3817
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff
6
PURETEK CORPORATION
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION
10
11 PURETEK CORPORATION,
Case No.
12
COMPLAINT FOR:
a California Corporation,
13
14
15
(1)
Plaintiff,
v.
(2)
16
17 PATCHWERX LABS, INC. an Arizona
corporation and PAUL SMITH, an
(3)
(4)
18 individual,
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Defendants.
(5)
(6)
(7)
TRADEMARK
INFRINGEMENT IN
VIOLATION OF LANHAM
ACT;
FALSE DESIGNATION OF
ORIGIN IN VIOLATION OF
LANHAM ACT;
DILUTION OF TRADEMARK
COMMON LAW
TRADEMARK
INFRINGEMENT IN
VIOLATION OF LANHAM
ACT;
UNFAIR BUSINESS
PRACTICES; INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF (CAL. BUS. & PROF.
CODE 17200 ET SEQ.);
COMMON LAW UNFAIR
COMPETITION;
UNJUST ENRICHMENT.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff PURETEK CORPORATION (Plaintiff or PURETEK) complains
27 and alleges as follows against Defendants PATCHWERX LABS, INC. and PAUL
28
-1COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 SMITH (collectively, Defendants).

2
NATURE OF THE ACTION
3
4
1.
This trademark infringement case arises under 15 U.S.C. 1114, including
5 state law claims over which the court has supplemental jurisdiction because
6
7
PATCHWERXs complained of conduct arises out of the same case or controversy.
8 The state law claims include common law trademark infringement, unfair business
9 practices under California Business and Professions Code 17200, et seq., and unjust
10
11
enrichment.
THE PARTIES
12
13
14
15
16
2.
PURETEK is a California corporation with its principal place of business
at 1050 Arroyo Avenue, San Fernando, CA 91340.

3.
On information and belief, defendant PATCHWERX LABS, INC.
17 (PATCHWERX) is an Arizona corporation with its principal place of business at

18
19
20
1351 S. Clearview Ave., Mesa, Arizona 85209.

4.
On information and belief, defendant PAUL SMITH is an individual
21 residing and working in San Francisco, California in his capacity as Vice President of
22
23
Sales in North America for PATCHWERX (MR. SMITH).

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
24
25
26
27
5.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. 1121 (action
arising under the Lanham Act); 28 U.S.C. 1331 (federal question); 17 U.S.C. 501
28 (copyright infringement); 28 U.S.C. 1338(a) (any Act of Congress relating to patents

1 or trademarks); 28 U.S.C. 1338(b) (action asserting claim of unfair competition

2
joined with a substantial and related claim under the trademark laws); and 28 U.S.C.
3
4
5
6
7
1367 (supplemental jurisdiction).

6.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they have
committed or will commit acts of infringement in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1114 and, on
8 information and belief, have or will place infringing products into the stream of
9 commerce, with the knowledge or understanding that such products will be sold in the
10
11
State of California, including in this District. Defendants complained of conduct will
12 cause injury to Plaintiff within this District. Upon information and belief, Defendants
13 have sold or intends to sell their infringing products within this District, expects their
14
15
actions to have consequences within this District, and derive substantial revenue from
16 interstate commerce.
17
18
19
7.
Venue is proper within this District under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and (c)
because Defendants transact business within this district and have offered or intends to
20 offer for sale in this district products that infringe the Plaintiffs Trademarks, including
21 the DERMACINRX and DERMACIN trademarks. In addition, venue is proper because
22
23
a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in this district.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
24
25
26
27
8.
Since 2004, PURETEK has used in commerce its top-quality skin care
products designed to provide relief for irritating inflammatory and pruritic skin
28 conditions caused by numerous etiologies such as eczema, allergic reactions, irritating

1 keloid and hypertrophic scars, psoriasis, and allergic reactions under the
2
DERMACINRX and DERMACIN trademarks, including DermacinRx SilaPak
3
4
(triamcinolone acetonide cream kit), DermacinRx Sila Pak (triamcinolone acetone
5 cream, dimethiocne cream kit), DermacinRx Penetral Cream and Penetral Cream,
6
7
DermacinRx Inflammatral Pak, DermacinRx Surgical ComboPak and
8 DermacinRx Surgical Pharma Pak, as shown by the DERMASILKRX lettering in its

9 labels
10
11
and packing (the DERMACINMRX Family of Trademarks or
DERMACINRX Family of Products):
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Figure 1 DermacinRx Infammatral Pak
Figure 2 Dermacin Rx SilaPak
22
23
24
9.
Since September 18, 2007, Plaintiff PURTEK has been the owner of the
25 United States federal trademark registration for DERMACIN, in STANDARD

26 CHARACTER MARK, U.S. Registration No. 3, 294, 679, under International Classes
27
28
003. US 001 004 006 050 051 052 for the [n]onmedicated cosmetic preparation based
1 on peptides sold as an integral component of cosmetics, specifically, lotions, gels, oils,

2
creams to reduce the appearance of wrinkles, fine lines, stretch marks and skin
3
4
5
6
7
8
blemishes. FIRST USE: 20040913. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20040913.

10.
Today, the DERMACINRX Family of Products is distributed in 42 states
throughout the United States.

11.
At all relevant times, Defendants were without authorization to market,
9 sell or distribute any of the DERMACINRX Family of Products.

10
11
12.
At no time, did Plaintiff grant permission, license and/or authorization to
12 PATCHWERX and/or MR. SMITH to market, sell, distribute or in any way use any the
13 DERMACINMRX Family of Products.
14
15
13.
On or about August 1, 2015, Plaintiff learned that Defendant
16 PATCHWERX LABS, INC., without authorization, permission or license from

17 Plaintiff, purported to market products under the name DERMASILKRX, with the false
18
19
representation that such infringing DERMASILKRX products contained Plaintiffs
20 proprietary DERMACINRX ingredients. Defendant PATCHWERX, LABS, INC.s

21 proposed packaging and design for its infringing DERMASILKRX products, including
22
23
DermasilkRX DicloPak (diclofenac sodium delayed release tablets, ranitidine
24 tablets, capsaicin cream), Dermasilk RX DiscloPak (diclofenac sodium delayed

25
26
release tablets, capsaicin cream) and DermasilkRX SDS Pak (Triamcinolone
27 Acetonide Cream, Dimethicone Cream) (the Infringing DERMASILKRX Products)

28
1 are shown as follows:

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Figure 3 DermaSilkRx SDS Pak
Figure 4 DermaSilk RX DicloPak
17
18
19
20
14.
On or about August 1, 2015, Plaintiff learned that PAUL SMITH,
identifying himself as Vice President of Sales in North America for Defendant
21 PATCHWERX, had been marketing the Infringing DERMASILKRX Product to

22 Plaintiffs customers and buyers.
23
24
15.
On or about August 1, 2015, Plaintiff learned that Defendants were falsely
25 representing to the public that its Infringing DERMASILKRX Products contain

26 "Penetral Cream" without authorization or license from Plaintiff as to this proprietary
27
28
formulation. At the same time, Plaintiff learned that Defendant falsely and without
1 authorization used the DermacinRx trademark in Defendants Federal Drug

2
Adminstration application.
3
4
16.
DEFENDANTS, none of them, had any reasonable grounds for believing
5 that they had authorization to market the distinctive DERMACINRX Family of

6
7
8
Products.
17.
By their misrepresentation of fact and false affiliation between
9 Defendants Infringing DERMASILKRX Products and Plaintiffs distinctive

10
11
DERMACINRX Family of Products, Defendants intend to induce buyers, the Food and
12 Drug Administration, the National Institute of Health and members of the public to rely
13 on Defendants referenced false representation.
14
15
18.
On or about August 1, 2015, Plaintiff learned that Defendants were
16 contacting Plaintiffs clients falsely claiming to be DermacinRx and offering

17 Plaintiffs products (not theirs) at a lower price. However, when the customer indicated
18
19
readiness to place an order, Defendants switched the order to their Infringing
20 DERMASILKRX Products.
21
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
22
(Federal Trademark Infringement 15 U.S.C. 1114, 1116)
23
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
24
25
26
27
28
19.
Plaintiff incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 17 of this
Complaint.
20.
As early as August 9, 2004, Plaintiff has offered their DERMACINRX

1 family of nonmedicated cosmetic preparation in International Classes 003. US 001 004

2
006 050 051 and 052 throughout the United States depicted in Reg. No. 3, 294, 679. A
3
4
true and correct copy of USPTO Remigration Certificate for the DERMACIN mark
5 is attached hereto as Exhibit A;

6
7
21.
Specifically, on August 9, 2004, Plaintiff PURETEK filed a United States
8 Service Mark Application in the United States Patent and Trademark Office
9 (USPTO) for the mark DERMACIN (Serial No. 78/464248) covering Nonmedicated
10
11
cosmetic preparation based on peptides sold as an integral component of cosmetics,
12 specifically, lotions, gels, oils, creams to reduce the appearance of wrinkles, fine lines,
13 stretch marks and skin blemishes. FIRST USE: 20040913. FIRST USE IN
14
15
COMMERCE: 20040913, in Classes IC 003. US 001 004 006 050 051 and 052. (the
16 DERMACIN Application). A true and correct copy of the TESS record page for
17 the DERMACIN Application is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
18
19
22.
The similarity between Plaintiffs distinctive DERMACINRX Family of
20 Trademarks, on the one hand, and Defendants Infringing DERMASILKRX Products,

21 on the other hand, will create confusion among consumers as to the origin of the
22
23
product name given that both names are substantially similar and even the product logo
24 designs for DERMACINRX and DERMASILKRX, as follows:

25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
Figure 5 Plaintiffs DERMACIN Logo
Figure 6 - DEFENDANTS Infringing

DERMASILK Logo
7
8
9
10
11
23.
Defendants Infringing DERMASILKRX Products conduct is likely to
cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive the consumer as to the affiliation, connection
12 or association with the DERMACINRX Family of Trademarks of Defendants goods,

13
14
15
services or commercial activities.

24.
Defendants use of the Infringing DERMASILKRX Products enables
16 Defendants to benefit unfairly from Plaintiffs reputation and success, thereby giving
17
Defendants infringing products sales for the Infringing name and commercial value
18
19
20
21
they would not have otherwise.

25.
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that
Defendants intend to gain profits by virtue of its infringement of the
22
23
DERMACINRX Family of Trademarks, including but not limited to the federally
24 registered DERMACIN trademark (U.S. Reg. No. 3, 294, 679).

25
26.
Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm from Defendants infringement of
26
27
the DERMACINRX Family of Trademarks insofar as Plaintiffs invaluable
28 goodwill will be eroded by Defendants continuing infringement.

1
2
27.
Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law to compensate it for the loss of
business reputation, customers, market position, confusion of potential customers
3
4
5
6
7
and goodwill flowing from Defendants infringing activities.

28.
Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1116, Defendants are entitled to an injunction
against Defendants continuing infringement of the DERMACINRX Family of
8 Trademarks. Unless enjoined, Defendants will continue its infringing conduct.

9
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
10
(False Designation Of Origin - 15 U.S.C. SECTION 1125)
11
12
13
14
15
16
29.
Complaint.
30.
The distribution, display and sale of Defendants Infringing
17 DERMASILKRX Products by PATCHWERX and MR. SMITH that are virtually

18
19
indistinguishable from authentic DERMACINRX products constitutes a false
20 designation of origin, false description and a false representation that Defendants

21 infringing products originate from, or are sponsored or authorized by PURETEK.
22
23
31.
Defendants activities in advertising, marketing and selling counterfeit
24 products with PURETEKs trademarks constitute violation of section 43 (a) of the

25 Landham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125 (a).
26
27
32.
As a result of Defendants distribution, display and sale of counterfeit
28 DERMACINRX products, PURETEK has lost sales and profits and has suffered and
1 will continue to suffer irreparable injury to its business reputation and good will.
2
33.
By reason of Defendants acts of false designation, false description and
3
4
false representation as alleged above, PURETEK has suffered and will continue to
5 suffer, substantial damage to its business reputation and good will, as well as diversion
6
7
8
of trade and loss of profits in an amount not yet ascertained.

34.
Defendants acts of false designation, false description and false
9 representation as alleged above have caused PURETEK irreparable injury and

10
11
Defendants' threaten to continue to commit such acts, and unless restrained and
12 enjoined, will continue to do so, all to PURETEK's irreparable injury.

13
14
15
35.
PURETEK 's remedy at law is not adequate to compensate it for injuries
inflicted and threatened.
16
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
17
(Dilution of Trademark - 15 U.S.C. SECTION 1125)

18
19
20
36.
21 Complaint.
22
23
37.
As previously set forth herein, Plaintiffs DERMACINRX Family of
24 Trademarks are distinctive and famous within the meaning of section 43 (c) of the
25 Landham Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1125 (c).
26
27
38.
After Plaintiff's DERMACINRX Family of Trademarks became famous,
28 Defendants distributed and/or sold counterfeit DERMACINRX products bearing

1 counterfeit copies of one or more of the DERMACINRX Family of Trademarks.

2
39.
Defendants acts tend to and do falsely create the impression with
3
4
consumers that the counterfeit DERMACINRX products sold by
retailers are
5 authorized or affiliated with Plaintiff, and are of the same high quality and come with
6
7
the same guarantees as genuine Plaintiffs products, when they do not. The aforesaid
8 acts are likely to dilute the distinctive quality of Plaintiff's trademarks in violation of
9 the Landham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125 (c).
10
11
40.
Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants committed these acts
12 with the intent to trade on Plaintiff's famous reputation and/or to cause dilution of
13 Plaintiffs DERMACINRX Family of Trademarks.
14
15
41.
As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law and is
16 suffering irreparable harm. Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief and all other
17 appropriate remedies under this statute.
18
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
19
(Common Law Trademark Infringement)
20
21
22
23
42.
24 Complaint.
25
26
27
43.
Plaintiff has prior rights in the DERMACIN mark (U.S. Trademark,
Reg. No. 3, 294, 679), as well as its unregistered trademarks in the DERMACINRX
28 proprietary name.
1
2
44.
Defendants Infringing DERMASILKRX Products have infringed or will
infringe the Plaintiffs DERMACINRX Family of Trademarks by using identical or
3
4
similar logos and artwork in the DERMSILKRXs products, specifically the
5 Defendants false and misleading reference to the DERMCINRX in their National

6
7
Institute of Health (NIH) filings. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and accurate
8 copy of Defendants NIH filing for its DermasilkRX product which makes reference,
9 without authorization from Plaintiff to use Plaintiffs DERMACINRX propriety name.
10
11
45.
Defendants use of its infringing logos and artwork is likely to cause
12 confusion or mistake, or to deceive the consumer as to the affiliation, connection or

13 association of Defendants with Plaintiff, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval by
14
15
16
Plaintiff of Defendants goods, services or commercial activities.

46.
Prior to Defendants first use of the infringing logos and artwork,
17 Defendants were aware of Plaintiffs business and had either actual notice and
18
19
20
knowledge, or constructive notice of the DERMACINRX Family of Trademarks.

47.
Defendants unauthorized use of the infringing logos and artwork is likely,
21 if not certain, to deceive or to cause confusion or mistake among consumers as to the

22
23
origin, sponsorship or approval of the Defendants infringing DERMASKILKRX
24 line of products and/or to cause confusion or mistake as to any affiliation, connection or

25 association between DERMACINRX and DERMASILKRX, in violation of 15
26
27
U.S.C. 1114(a). Plaintiff is informed and believe, and on that basis alleges, that
28 Defendants infringement of the DERMACINRX Family of Trademarks as described

1 herein has been and continues to be intentional, willful and without regard to Plaintiffs
2
rights in the DERMACINRX Family of Trademarks.
3
4
48.
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis allege, that Defendants
5 will gain profits by virtue of its infringement of the DERMACINRX Family of

6
7
8
Trademarks.
49.
Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm from Defendants infringement of the
9 DERMACINRX Family of Trademarks insofar as its invaluable goodwill is being

10
11
eroded by Defendants continuing infringement. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at
12 law to compensate it for the loss of business reputation, customers, market position,
13 confusion of potential customers and goodwill flowing from Defendants infringing
14
15
activities. Plaintiff is entitled to an injunction against Defendants infringement of the
16 DERMACINRX Family of Trademarks.

17
18
19
20
50.
Unless enjoined, Defendants will continue the infringing conduct.
51.
Because Defendants actions have been committed with intent to damage
Plaintiff and to confuse and deceive the public, Plaintiff is entitled to treble its actual
21 damages or Defendants profits, whichever is greater, and to an award of costs and, this
22
23
being an exceptional case, reasonable attorneys fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117(a)
24 and 1117(b).
25
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
26
(Unfair Business Practices Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200, et seq.)
27
28
1
2
3
52.
Complaint.
4
5
53.
The acts of Defendants described above constitute unfair competition
6 through unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practices and/or unfair, deceptive,

7
8
untrue or misleading advertising, as defined by California Business & Professions Code
9 17200, et seq.
10
11
12
54.
Plaintiff has valid and protectable prior rights in the DERMACINRX
Family of Trademarks. Plaintiffs DERMACINRX Family of Trademarks do not serve
13 any function other than to identify DERMACINRX, as the source of its FDA approved
14 products. The DERMACINRX Family of Trademarks are inherently distinctive, and,
15
16
through Plaintiffs long use, have come to be associated solely with Plaintiff
17 PURETEK as the source of the product(s) on which they are used.

18
19
20
55.
Defendant PATCHWERXs and Defendant PAUL SMITHs use of its
infringing DERMASILKRX logo and design is likely to cause confusion as to the
21 source of PURETEKs DERMACINRX Family of Products and is likely to cause

22 others to be confused or mistaken into believing that there is a relationship between
23
24
Defendants on the one hand, and PURETEK or DERMACINRX on the other hand, or
25 that DERMASILKRX products are affiliated with or sponsored by Plaintiff.

26
27
28
56.
The above-described acts and practices by DEFENDANTS are likely to
mislead or deceive the general public and therefore constitute unfair competition in
1 violation of California Business & Professions Code 17200, et seq.

2
57.
The above-described acts constitute trademark infringement under Section
3
4
32 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1114, and are, therefore, unlawful acts in violation
5 of California Business & Professions Code 17200, et seq.

6
7
58.
Defendants acted willfully and intentionally in designing the infringing
8 trademarks, with full knowledge of Plaintiffs prior rights in the distinctive

9 DERMACINRX Family of Trademarks and with intent to cause confusion or mistake
10
11
or to deceive customers into believing that there is an affiliation between PURETEK
12 and PATCHWERX or between Plaintiffs DERMACINRX Family of Products and

13 Defendants Infringing DERMASILKRX Products.
14
15
59.
The unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices of Defendants
16 described above present a continuing threat to, and are meant to deceive members of,
17 the public in that Defendants will promote the Infringing DERMASILRX Products by
18
19
20
wrongfully trading on the goodwill of the DERMACINRX Family of Trademarks.

60.
As a direct and proximate result of these acts, Defendants will profit from
21 the strength of the DERMACINRX Family of Trademarks.

22
23
61.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants wrongful conduct,
24 Plaintiff will be injured in fact and will lose market share, money, and profits, and such
25 harm will continue unless Defendants acts are enjoined by the Court. Plaintiff has no
26
27
28
adequate remedy at law for Defendants violation of Plaintiffs rights.

62.
Defendants should be required to restore to Plaintiff any and all profits

1 earned as a result of their unlawful and fraudulent actions, or to provide Plaintiff with
2
any other restitution as the Court deems appropriate.
3
4
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Common Law Unfair Competition)
63.
8 Complaint.
9
10
64.
Defendants PATCHWERXs and MR. SMITHs actions with respect to
11 unauthorized use of Plaintiffs DERMACINRX Family of Trademarks constitute

12 common law unfair competition.
13
14
65.
Defendants, each of them, have been, and will continue to be, seriously
15 and irreparably damaged unless Defendants, each of them, are preliminarily and
16 permanently enjoined from using the DERMACINRX Family of Trademarks.
17
18
66.
By reason of Defendants' actions, Defendants, each of them, have
19 unlawfully profited, and Plaintiff has been damaged in amounts which have not yet
20 been fully determined.
21
22
67.
Plaintiff is entitled to Defendants profits and to recover its damages, its
23 attorney's fees and costs and disbursements incidental to its claim of common law
24 unfair competition.
25
26
27
28
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Unjust Enrichment)
1
2
3
68.
Complaint.
4
5
69.
As a result of the conduct alleged herein, Defendants PATCHWERX and
6 MR. SMITH, each of them, will be unjustly enriched to Plaintiffs detriment.

7
8
70.
Plaintiff seeks a worldwide accounting and disgorgement of any and all
9 ill-gotten gains and profits that result from Defendants inequitable activities.
10
11
12
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
13
14
15
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff PURETEK CORPORATION prays for relief, as
16 follows:
17
18
1.
An order preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendant
19 PATCHWERX LABS, INC., and its officers, directors, agents, servants, employees,
20 affiliates, attorneys, and all others acting in privity or in concert with them, and their
21
22
parents, subsidiaries, divisions, successors and assigns, including but not limited to
23 Defendant PAUL SMITH, from directly or indirectly infringing the DERMACINRX

24 brand, or using any other product or packaging design or designations similar to or
25
26
likely to cause confusion with the Plaintiffs DERMACINRX Family of Products,
27 including but not limited to the infringing DERMASILKRX name, from passing off
28
1 Plaintiffs products as being associated with and/or sponsored or affiliated with

2
DERMACINRX, from committing any other unfair business practices directed toward
3
4
obtaining for themselves the business and customers of DERMACINRX, and from
5 committing any other unfair business practices directed toward devaluing or

6
7
8
diminishing the brand or business of Plaintiffs DERMACINRX Family of Products;

2.
Actual damages suffered by Plaintiff as a result of Defendants unlawful
9 conduct, in an amount to be proven at trial, as well as prejudgment interest as

10
11
authorized by law;
12
3.
Reasonable funds for future corrective advertising;
13
4.
An accounting of Defendants profits from the complained of conduct
14
15
pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117;
16
5.
A judgment trebling any damages award pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117;
17
6.
Punitive damages pursuant to California Civil Code 3294;
7.
Restitution against Defendants and in favor of Plaintiff, including
18
19
20 disgorgement of wrongfully obtained profits and any other appropriate relief;

21
22
23
8.
Costs of suit and reasonable attorneys fees;
9.
Any other remedy to which Plaintiff may be entitled, including all
24 remedies provided for in 15 U.S.C. 1116, 1117, Cal. Bus. & Prof Code 17200, et
25 seq., 17500, et seq., and under any other California law.
26
27
28
1 DATED: September 1, 2015
MOHAJERIAN, a Professional Law Corp.
2
3
4
5
6
7
By:
Al Mohajerian
AL MOHAJERIAN, ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
PURETEK CORPORATION
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff
PURETEK hereby demand trial by jury on all issues raised by the Complaint.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 DATED: September 1, 2015
MOHAJERIAN, a Professional Law Corp.
2
3
4
5
6
7
By:
Al Mohajerian
AL MOHAJERIAN, ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
PURETEK CORPORATION
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Puretek v. Patchwerx - Trademark Complaint PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Puretek v. Patchwerx - Trademark Complaint PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Case 2:15-cv-07044 Document 1 Filed 09/04/15 Page 1 of 21 Page ID #:1

1 Al Mohajerian. Esq. (SBN 182013)

MOHAJERIAN, a Professional Law Corporation

1901 Avenue of the Stars, 11th Floor

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION

corporation and PAUL SMITH, an

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 2:15-cv-07044 Document 1 Filed 09/04/15 Page 2 of 21 Page ID #:2

1 SMITH (collectively, Defendants).

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This trademark infringement case arises under 15 U.S.C. 1114, including

PATCHWERXs complained of conduct arises out of the same case or controversy.

PURETEK is a California corporation with its principal place of business

at 1050 Arroyo Avenue, San Fernando, CA 91340.

On information and belief, defendant PATCHWERX LABS, INC.

17 (PATCHWERX) is an Arizona corporation with its principal place of business at

1351 S. Clearview Ave., Mesa, Arizona 85209.

On information and belief, defendant PAUL SMITH is an individual

Sales in North America for PATCHWERX (MR. SMITH).

28 (copyright infringement); 28 U.S.C. 1338(a) (any Act of Congress relating to patents

Case 2:15-cv-07044 Document 1 Filed 09/04/15 Page 3 of 21 Page ID #:3

1 or trademarks); 28 U.S.C. 1338(b) (action asserting claim of unfair competition

1367 (supplemental jurisdiction).

committed or will commit acts of infringement in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1114 and, on

State of California, including in this District. Defendants complained of conduct will

28 conditions caused by numerous etiologies such as eczema, allergic reactions, irritating

Case 2:15-cv-07044 Document 1 Filed 09/04/15 Page 4 of 21 Page ID #:4

DERMACINRX and DERMACIN trademarks, including DermacinRx SilaPak

(triamcinolone acetonide cream kit), DermacinRx Sila Pak (triamcinolone acetone

DermacinRx Inflammatral Pak, DermacinRx Surgical ComboPak and

8 DermacinRx Surgical Pharma Pak, as shown by the DERMASILKRX lettering in its

and packing (the DERMACINMRX Family of Trademarks or

DERMACINRX Family of Products):

Figure 1 DermacinRx Infammatral Pak

Figure 2 Dermacin Rx SilaPak

25 United States federal trademark registration for DERMACIN, in STANDARD

Case 2:15-cv-07044 Document 1 Filed 09/04/15 Page 5 of 21 Page ID #:5

1 on peptides sold as an integral component of cosmetics, specifically, lotions, gels, oils,

blemishes. FIRST USE: 20040913. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20040913.

Today, the DERMACINRX Family of Products is distributed in 42 states

throughout the United States.

At all relevant times, Defendants were without authorization to market,

9 sell or distribute any of the DERMACINRX Family of Products.

At no time, did Plaintiff grant permission, license and/or authorization to

On or about August 1, 2015, Plaintiff learned that Defendant

16 PATCHWERX LABS, INC., without authorization, permission or license from

representation that such infringing DERMASILKRX products contained Plaintiffs

20 proprietary DERMACINRX ingredients. Defendant PATCHWERX, LABS, INC.s

DermasilkRX DicloPak (diclofenac sodium delayed release tablets, ranitidine

24 tablets, capsaicin cream), Dermasilk RX DiscloPak (diclofenac sodium delayed

release tablets, capsaicin cream) and DermasilkRX SDS Pak (Triamcinolone

27 Acetonide Cream, Dimethicone Cream) (the Infringing DERMASILKRX Products)

Case 2:15-cv-07044 Document 1 Filed 09/04/15 Page 6 of 21 Page ID #:6

1 are shown as follows:

Figure 3 DermaSilkRx SDS Pak

Figure 4 DermaSilk RX DicloPak

On or about August 1, 2015, Plaintiff learned that PAUL SMITH,

identifying himself as Vice President of Sales in North America for Defendant

21 PATCHWERX, had been marketing the Infringing DERMASILKRX Product to

On or about August 1, 2015, Plaintiff learned that Defendants were falsely

25 representing to the public that its Infringing DERMASILKRX Products contain