Gov Uscourts Cacd 646518 1 0

Case 8:16-cv-00795-JFW-JEM Document 1 Filed 04/27/16 Page 1 of 18 Page ID #:1
1 SMITH CORRELL, LLP

MARK SMITH – California SBN 213829
2 msmith@correllsmith.com
11766 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1670
3 Los Angeles, CA 90025
Tel: (213) 443-6222
4 Fax: (877) 730-5910
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff
REFLEX MEDIA, INC.
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, CENTRAL DISTRICT
10
REFLEX MEDIA, INC., a Nevada ) Case No. 8:16-cv-795
11 corporation, )
) COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK
12 Plaintiff, ) INFRINGEMENT; UNFAIR
) COMPETITION; DILUTION OF
13 vs. ) FAMOUS MARKS; AND NEGLIGENT
) INTERFERENCE WITH
14 GREGORY CHAN; PYLON MEDIA ) PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC
GROUP, INC.; APIRILIACO ) ADVANTAGE.
15 LIMITED d/b/a HoneyDaddy.com; )
EAST FENERIDOU; E.C.A. ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
16 KARTOIR SECRETARIAL LTD.; and )
Does 1-10, inclusive, )
17 )
Defendants. )
18 )
19 COMES NOW Plaintiff Reflex Media, Inc. (“Reflex Media” or “Plaintiff”), and
20 hereby brings this Complaint against Defendants Gregory “Greg” Chan (“Chan”); Pylon
21 Media Group, Inc. (“Pylon Media”); Apiriliaco Limited d/b/a HoneyDaddy.com
22 (“HoneyDaddy”); Aνατολη Φενεριδου (“Aνατολη”),1 E.C.A. Kartoir Secretarial Ltd.
23 (“Kartoir Secretarial,” and together with HoneyDaddy and Aνατολη (the “Offshore
24 Parties”)); and Does 1–10, inclusive, (collectively, “Defendants”), and alleges as follows:
25 ////
26 ////
27 ////
28
1
Defendant’s name has been translated and added to the caption as “East Feneridou” for filing purposes.
1
COMPLAINT
1
2 INTRODUCTION
3 1. Defendants are engaged in an illegal scheme designed to defraud consumers
4 through false advertisements using Plaintiff Reflex Media’s protected trademarks. As
5 further explained below, Defendants’ conduct is causing actual harm to both the
6 recipients of Defendants’ false advertisements and to Reflex Media, whose name, brand
7 and goodwill is suffering irreparable harm by being wrongfully associated with
8 Defendants’ illegal operations.
9 2. Reflex Media operates2 <SeekingArrangement.com> (sometimes referred to
10 herein as “Seeking Arrangement”), an online dating website that is globally recognized in
11 the online “sugar daddy” dating industry.3
12 3. Seeking Arrangement’s brand is the result of substantial investment,
13 innovative sales and marketing techniques, and ethical business practices that distinguish
14 it from its competitors.
15 4. Reflex Media has been diligent in cultivating a reputable brand in the look
16 and feel of <SeekingArrangement.com> and its associated trademarks; a brand that is
17 associated in the minds of the consumers with a high-quality service provider in this
18 niche market.
19 5. Defendants own and/or operate two websites offering competing sugar
20 daddy dating services: <HoneyDaddy.com> and <PartyWithSugar.com> (collectively
21 referred to herein as “Defendants’ Infringing Websites”).
22 6. Without Reflex Media’s consent, Defendants are deliberately using Reflex
23
24
2
Reflex Media operates Seeking Arrangement under a sub-licensing and operating
25 agreement. Under this arrangement, Reflex Media has been assigned the right to sue on
26 behalf of the owners of the intellectual property.
3
“Sugar daddy” dating refers to a unique business model that differentiates its users as
27 either a “sugar daddy” or “sugar momma” who are persons willing to pamper others (a
28 “Benefactor”), on the one hand, and a “sugar baby,” who seeks the companionship of a
Benefactor (a “Member”), on the other hand.
2
COMPLAINT
1 Media’s4 federally registered mark—SEEKING ARRANGEMENT—in the distribution

2 of advertisements intended to sell directly competing dating services to U.S. residents,
3 including customers of Seeking Arrangement. These advertisements are referred to herein
4 as “Defendants’ Illegal Ads.” An exemplar of Defendants’ Illegal Ads is attached hereto
5 as Exhibit 1 and incorporated by reference in its entirety.
6 7. Defendants’ Illegal Ads falsely and misleadingly identify Seeking
7 Arrangement as the originator of an email containing a solicitation for the recipient to
8 visit and subscribe to the services available on Defendants’ Infringing Websites.
9 Defendants accomplished this by using the display name5 “Seeking Arrangement” in the
10 emails sent as part of Defendants’ Illegal Ads.
11 8. Defendants’ fraudulent actions have caused confusion and mistake, leading
12 the unsuspecting recipient consumers to believe that they in fact have been contacted by
13 Seeking Arrangement and that an affiliation, connection, or association exists between
14 Seeking Arrangement and Defendants and/or Defendants’ Infringing Websites.
15 9. Reflex Media never authorized Defendants’ to use its trademark, and would
16 never have done so to assist Defendants’ Infringing Websites, which give no indication of
17 promoting ethical business practices, or providing high-quality, legitimate dating
18 services.
19 10. To bring an end to this deceptive and illegal campaign, to protect its own
20 business and clients, as well as the other recipients of Defendants’ Illegal Ads, Reflex
21
4
22 Reflex Media is not the owner of the SEEKING ARRANGEMENT mark; rather, it is
the entity within its corporate structure responsible for defending the marks at issue in
23 this case. To simply matters, Reflex Media is sometimes referred to in this Complaint as
24 the owner of the SEEKING ARRANGEMENT trademark.
5
A “display name” is the name that is displayed as the sender of an email by an email
25 recipient’s email client. Here, on one email, for example, the display name was “Seeking
26 Arrangement” but the return email address was <noreply@partywithsugar.com>. A
display name is chosen by the sender using their email client and can be any name,
27 including one that deliberately misleads recipients who are not sufficiently
28 technologically savvy to understand the difference between a display name and the actual
identity of the sender. See Exhibit 1 attached hereto.
3
COMPLAINT
1 Media has been forced to bring this action.

2 PARTIES
3 11. Plaintiff Reflex Media is, and at all material times hereto was, a corporation
4 duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Nevada, with its principal place
5 of business in Las Vegas, Nevada. Among other things, Reflex Media operates several
6 online dating websites.6
7 12. Upon information and belief, Defendant Gregory “Greg” Chan is a resident
8 of the State of California.
9 13. Upon information and belief, after purchasing the
10 <www.HoneyDaddy.com> URL7 on or about February 26, 2016, Chan owns, maintains
11 and/or operates the Infringing Websites. Upon information and belief, Chan is also the
12 owner of Defendant Pylon Media Group.
13 14. Upon information and belief, Defendant Pylon Media Group, Inc. (“Pylon
14 Media”), is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Irvine,
15 California.
16 15. Upon information and belief, Defendant Pylon Media owns, maintains
17 and/or operates the Infringing Websites.
18 16. Upon information and belief, Defendant Apiriliaco (sometimes referred to
19 herein as “HoneyDaddy”) is a company organized in Nicosia, Cyprus, with its principal
20 place of business at Souliou, Vamiko 5, Flat 14, 2018 Strovolos, Nicosia, Cyprus.
21 17. Upon information and belief, Defendant HoneyDaddy owns, maintains,
22 and/or operates the infringing website, <www.HoneyDaddy.com>.
23 18. Upon information and belief, Defendant Aνατολη is an individual that
24 resides in or around Nicosia, Cyprus.
25
6
26 Reflex Media operates the following websites: <SeekingArrangement.com>,
<SeekingMillionaire.com>, <MissTravel.com>, <WhatsYourPrice.com>,
27 <OpenMinded.com>, <PairMeUp.com>, and <PerfectArrangement.com>.
7
28 URL is an acronym for Uniform Resource Locator, a device used to identify web
addressed on the World Wide Web.
4
COMPLAINT
1 19. Upon information and belief, Defendant Aνατολη is the registered director,
2 and an agent, owner and/or employee of Apiriliaco, the owner and/or operator of the
3 infringing website, <www.HoneyDaddy.com>.
4 20. Upon information and belief, Defendant Kartoir Secretarial is a company
5 based in Nicosia, Cyprus, with its principal place of business in Nicosia, Cyprus.
6 21. Upon information and belief, Defendant Kartoir Secretarial is the registered
7 secretary, and an agent, owner and/or employee of Apiriliaco, the owner and/or operator
8 of the infringing website, <www.HoneyDaddy.com>.
9 22. Upon information and belief, Doe No. 1 d/b/a PartyWithSugar.com is a
10 company based in Nicosia, Cyprus.
11 23. Upon information and belief, Doe No. 1 owns, maintains, and/or operates
12 the infringing website <www.PartyWithSugar.com>.
13 24. Reflex Media does not presently know the true names and capacities of the
14 defendants named herein as Does 1 through 10, inclusive. Reflex Media will seek leave
15 to amend this Complaint to allege these defendants’ true names and capacities as soon as
16 they are ascertained. Reflex Media is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges,
17 that each of the fictitiously named defendants, Does 1 through 10, participated in, and in
18 some manner are responsible for, the acts alleged in this Complaint and the damages
19 resulting therefrom.
20 25. Reflex Media is informed and believes that at all times referenced herein,
21 each Defendant was or is the agent, employee, partner, co-venturer, joint venture,
22 successor-in-interest, alter ego, and/or co-conspirator of each and all of the other
23 Defendants, and was acting within the course and scope of said agency, employment,
24 partnership, co-venture, joint venture, relationship and/or conspiracy. Reflex Media is
25 informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that each Defendant acted in concert
26 with, and with the consent of, each of the other Defendants, and that each Defendant
27 ratified or agreed to accept the benefits of the conduct of each of the other Defendants.
28 Reflex Media is further informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that each
5
COMPLAINT
1 Defendant actively and knowingly participated in the furtherance of the wrongful acts
2 alleged herein, directed the wrongful acts alleged herein, benefitted from the wrongful
3 acts alleged herein, and/or used the entity-defendants in a willful and intentional manner
4 to carry out the wrongful acts alleged herein.
5 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6 26. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,
7 1338, where Reflex Media’s claims arise under the Lanham Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §
8 1051, et seq., and further present a claim of unfair competition joined with a substantial
9 and related claim under the trademark laws.
10 27. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Reflex Media’s state law
11 claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, where said claims are integrally interrelated with
12 the federal questions and arise from a common nucleus of operative facts such that
13 supplemental review furthers the interest of judicial economy.
14 28. In addition, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims in this
15 Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) because the matter in controversy exceeds the
16 sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of
17 different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties,
18 namely, the Offshore Parties.
19 29. Personal jurisdiction exists over Defendants Chan, Pylon Media, and
20 HoneyDaddy as the owners and/or operators of <HoneyDaddy.com>; the website through
21 which Defendants engage in interactive and commercial conduct, which, upon
22 information and belief, involves soliciting and/or otherwise actively seeking to transact
23 business with residents of the U.S, including residents of the Central District of
24 California.
25 30. Information from Who Is records, other registration records, Defendants’
26 communications with Seeking Arrangement’s members and Defendants’ sites show that
27 Defendant HoneyDaddy is publicly associated with a telephone number containing a 310
28 area code: a Los Angeles County area code. Moreover, this LA county number is the only
6
COMPLAINT
1 U.S. contact information publicly available for Defendant HoneyDaddy, at present.

2 31. As such, personal jurisdiction exists over Defendants because they promote
3 their business in, and derive material benefits from, the State of California and this
4 judicial district, or otherwise purposefully avail themselves of the privileges and
5 protections of the laws of the State of California, such that traditional notions of fair play
6 and due process are not offended by this Court’s exercise of jurisdiction over them.
7 32. Personal jurisdiction exists over Defendants Aνατολη and Kartoir Secretarial
8 because, based upon information and belief, they are agents, owners and/or employees of
9 Defendants Chan, Pylon Media, and/or HoneyDaddy , and the acts giving rise to this
10 action arise from the promotion and furtherance of their business—which, as described
11 above, has sufficient ties to this judicial district.
12 33. As such, this Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendants
13 Aνατολη and Kartoir Secretarial without offending traditional notions of fair play and
14 substantial justice.
15 34. Personal jurisdiction exists over Defendant Doe 1 d/b/a PartyWithSugar.com
16 because, upon information and belief, it is associated and/or affiliated with HoneyDaddy,
17 which, as described above, has sufficient ties to this judicial district. As such, this Court
18 may exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant Doe 1 d/b/a PartyWithSugar.com
19 without offending traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
20 35. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) given that
21 Defendants’ conduct is believed to be directed at residents of this forum, and given the
22 association between HoneyDaddy and the Los Angeles County telephone number, the
23 only U.S. contact information publicly available for Defendant HoneyDaddy.
24 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
25 REFLEX MEDIA HAS OBTAINED FEDERAL REGISTRATION AND INCONTESTABLE LEGAL
26 PROTECTION FOR TRADEMARKS ASSOCIATED WITH SEEKINGARRANGEMENT.COM
27 36. Since 2006, Reflex Media and its predecessor in interest, InfoStream Group,
28 Inc. (“InfoStream”), have used the mark, SEEKING ARRANGEMENT, in commerce
7
COMPLAINT
1 and in connection with the online sugar daddy dating services available at
2 <SeekingArrangement.com>.
3 37. On May 25, 2007, Reflex Media’s predecessor, InfoStream, applied for
4 federal registration of the SEEKING ARRANGEMENT trademark. United States
5 Trademark Registration No. 3,377,772 was issued on February 5, 2008. A copy of
6 Registration No. 3,377,772 is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
7 38. On February 5, 2013, the SEEKING ARRANGEMENT trademark became
8 incontestable.
9 39. Reflex Media’s SEEKING ARRANGEMENT trademark has acquired
10 secondary meaning and inherent distinctiveness.
11 40. Reflex Media and its predecessor have invested millions of dollars to
12 promote and establish the look and feel of <SeekingArrangement.com> and its associated
13 trademarks and to promote the trademarks in the market. As a result, the website and its
14 use of the mark SEEKING ARRANGEMENT has become synonymous with Reflex
15 Media’s business and the high quality product that <www.SeekingArrangement.com>
16 provides.
17 DEFENDANTS’ TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AND UNFAIR COMPETITION
18 41. Reflex Media has expended substantial time and resources building a high
19 quality product in an industry that has attracted countless unethical, fraudulent service
20 providers, but its efforts have paid off in Reflex Media’s acquisition of valuable goodwill
21 in connection with its services, as well as the SEEKING ARRANGEMENT trademark
22 and overall brand.
23 42. Defendants who own and/or operate the subject competing websites,
24 <HoneyDaddy.com> and <PartyWithSugar.com>, launched years after Reflex Media’s
25 well-developed Seeking Arrangement brand.8
26
8
HoneyDaddy first registered its business on November 27, 2014.
27 <PartyWithSugar.com> provides no information as to its owner(s) and/or operator(s), or
28 any registration details; it serves only as an alternative domain name, inviting users to
join <HoneyDaddy.com.>
8
COMPLAINT
1 43. On or about March 31, 2016, Defendants began disseminating Defendants’

2 Illegal Ads. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a copy of one of Defendants’ Illegal Ads. The
3 email lists “Seeking Arrangement” both as the display name of the sender of the email
4 and the display name of the “reply to” recipient.
5 44. Defendants did not have permission to use Reflex Media’s SEEKING
6 ARRANGEMENT trademark for this purpose, or any other purpose.
7 45. Defendants’ infringed on the SEEKING ARRANGEMENT trademark by
8 using the mark in connection with the Infringing Websites, without authorization and in a
9 deceptive and confusing manner.
10 46. Defendants’ unlawful use of the SEEKING ARRANGEMENT trademark is
11 likely to deceive or confuse consumers into believing that an affiliation, association,
12 sponsorship or connection exists between Reflex Media’s <SeekingArrangement.com>
13 website and Defendants’ Infringing Websites.
14 47. Upon information and belief, Defendants acted with willful intent when they
15 disseminated the Illegal Ads—including the advertisement described above—which
16 fraudulently identified Seeking Arrangement as the display name of the sender and “reply
17 to recipient,” with the intention of using the goodwill and notoriety of the trademark,
18 SEEKING ARRANGEMENT, and in a manner likely to cause confusion and deception.
19 48. Furthermore, Defendants’ websites <HoneyDaddy.com> and
20 <PartyWithSugar.com> do not have Seeking Arrangement’s notoriety, positive reviews,
21 market leader status, substantial membership, or lengthy history. In fact, Google searches
22 of Defendants Aνατολη and Kartoir Secretarial associate them with scam companies.
23 (http://scamcreditcardabuse.blogspot.com/2015/08/enormous-scam-organization.html.)
24 49. Thus, any association with Defendants and/or their websites has, and will
25 continue to, result in a dilution of reputation, goodwill, and notoriety of Reflex Media’s
26 websites, the SEEKING ARRANGEMENT trademark and related brands.
27 50. To further perpetuate the false and deceptive affiliation between Reflex
28 Media’s website and Defendants’ Infringing Websites, Defendants have taken a number
9
COMPLAINT
1 of news articles related to Seeking Arrangement and posted them prominently on the
2 homepage of <HoneyDaddy.com>.
3 51. Specifically, the first in a line of three quotes at the bottom of the
4 <HoneyDaddy.com> homepage is the following: “There's nothing wrong with entering
5 into a consensual, reciprocal relationship in which ‘love’ is exchanged for material gain.”
6 Following the quote, is a citation to “Bustle.”
7 52. The quote that Defendants’ reprinted was extracted from an article titled,
8 “18 Things I Learned About Being a Sugar Baby from Seeking Arrangement’s Summit
9 on Dating Rich Older Men.”
10 53. The second referenced article states: “The upfront nature of being able to lay
11 out exactly the type of person and relationship you want, without fear of judgment or
12 stigma from potential partners is empowering.” Again, Defendants merely identify the
13 newspaper publisher, Daily Mail.
14 54. In fact, the person who made that statement when interviewed by the Daily
15 Mail was Angela Jacob Bermudo, who is employed by and a Public Relations Manager
16 for Reflex Media.
17 55. The final quoted article reads: “With annual university costs where they are
18 how do students these days make ends meet? I’m here to help,” citing The Daily Beast.
19 56. The above-statement came from a post by member of
20 <SeekingArangement.com>.
21 57. Demonstrating the intent and thoroughness with which Defendants have
22 attempted to improperly copy Seeking Arrangement’s business, initial research indicates
23 that Defendants are using many of the same vendors used by Seeking Arrangement to
24 operate its website, including the same service Seeking Arrangement uses to send emails
25 to its customers.
26 58. These facts demonstrate that Defendants are intentionally attempting to
27 confuse Seeking Arrangement’s consumers and illegally gain market share by posing as a
28 Seeking Arrangement affiliate.
10
COMPLAINT
1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

2 (Federal Trademark Infringement, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1))
3 59. Reflex Media incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained
4 in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
5 60. As alleged herein, Reflex Media has an exclusive license to use protectable
6 trademarks and has been assigned the right to protect those trademarks by, among other
7 things, suing parties infringing on the trademarks.
8 61. Without Reflex Media’s consent, Defendants have used in commerce, in
9 connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution or advertising of Defendants’
10 goods and services, marks identical to or confusingly similar to Reflex Media’s
11 SEEKING ARRANGEMENT mark in a manner that is likely to cause confusion, mistake
12 and/or deception with consumers that Defendants’ goods and services are the same as
13 those of Reflex Media, and/or that Defendants’ goods and services are somehow
14 associated, affiliated, connected, approved, authorized or sponsored by Reflex Media.
15 62. Defendants acted with the intent to cause confusion, mistake, or deception
16 with consumers.
17 63. Defendants’ continued use of marks identical or confusingly similar to
18 Reflex Media’s mark has caused, and will continue to cause, irreparable harm and injury
19 to Reflex Media and to Reflex Media’s reputation and goodwill for which Reflex Media
20 has no adequate remedy at law. The threat of future injury to consumers and to Reflex
21 Media’s business, identity, goodwill and reputation necessitates the award of injunctive
22 relief to prevent Defendants’ continued infringement of Reflex Media’s valuable marks.
23 64. Defendants have unjustly profited from their infringement of Reflex Media’s
24 marks.
25 65. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ infringing activities as
26 alleged herein, Reflex Media has suffered substantial damage in an amount to be proven
27 at trial, but estimated to exceed $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
28
11
COMPLAINT
1 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

2 (Federal False Designations, False Descriptions, and False Advertising, 15 U.S.C. §
3 1125(a))
4 66. Reflex Media incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth
6 67. Defendants’ misuse of Reflex Media’s marks in commerce in connection
7 with the goods and services offered on Defendants’ Infringing Websites—including
8 commercial advertising and promotion of Defendants’ Infringing Websites—constitutes a
9 false designation of origin and/or a false or misleading representation that is likely to
10 cause confusion, mistake and/or deception with consumers that Defendants’ goods and/or
11 services are associated, affiliated, connected, approved, authorized or sponsored by
12 Reflex Media.
13 68. Specifically, without Reflex Media’s consent, Defendants have disseminated
14 email advertisements—namely, Defendants’ Illegal Ads—that contain the SEEKING
15 ARRANGEMENT trademark in the header contents.
16 69. The email advertisement, which contained content promoting Defendants’
17 competing sugar daddy dating services offered through <HoneyDaddy.com> and
18 <PartyWithSugar.com>, gave the false and misleading impression that Seeking
19 Arrangement was the sender of the email, containing promotional material for its
20 competitors.
21 70. Furthermore, Defendants’ false and deceptive email display name further
22 gave the wrongful impression of an association, affiliation, connection, approval,
23 authorization or sponsorship by, between, and among Seeking Arrangement and
24 <HoneyDaddy.com> and/or <PartyWithSugar.com>.
25 71. Defendants’ conduct constitutes a false designation of origin and/or false or
26 misleading representation that (1) is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception with
27 the public and/or consumers as to the affiliation, connection, or association between
28 Defendants’ and Seeking Arrangement; (2) is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or
12
COMPLAINT
1 deception with the public and/or consumers as to the original sender of the email, as the
2 origin of the services being provided, and/or (3) is intended to misrepresent the nature,
3 characteristics, and/or qualities of the goods and services offered by Defendants by
4 usurping Seeking Arrangement’s respected brand name.
5 72. Defendants have unjustly profited from their foregoing conduct.
6 73. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ foregoing conduct, Reflex
7 Media has suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but estimated to exceed
8 $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
9 74. Defendants’ foregoing acts constitute an exceptional case and are
10 intentional, entitling Reflex Media to treble their actual damages and to an award of
11 attorneys’ fees.
12 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
13 (Dilution of Famous Marks, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c))
16 76. Reflex Media, through its predecessor InfoStream, was the first to actually
17 use the registered trademark described herein in commerce.
18 77. The SEEKING ARRANGEMENT trademark is distinctive and famous
19 within the meaning of the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c),
20 for the following reasons:
21 a. The mark is distinctive and represents a provocative phrases that is not
22 merely descriptive;
23 b. The mark is used extensively in connection with advertising for Reflex
24 Media’s goods and services;
25 c. The mark is recognized widely among the general consuming public
26 because of the unsolicited attention given by news media to Reflex
27 Media’s business associated with the marks;
28 d. Prior to Defendants’ infringing conduct, no other party used a mark
13
COMPLAINT
1 similar to Reflex Media’s SEEKING ARRANGEMENT mark; and

2 e. The SEEKING ARRANGEMENT mark is protected by incontestable
3 federal trademark registration.
4 78. Defendants have used marks identical or confusingly similar to Reflex
5 Media’s SEEKING ARRANGEMENT trademark in commerce in connection with the
6 selling and offering for sale services that compete directly with Reflex Media’s business.
7 79. On information and belief, Defendants’ use of this trademark occurred after
8 Reflex Media’s trademark became famous and distinctive.
9 80. Defendants’ use of identical or confusingly similar trademarks dilutes the
10 distinctive quality of Reflex Media’s SEEKING ARRANGEMENT trademark as it
11 causes and can cause confusion among consumers and potential customers of Seeking
12 Arrangement.
13 81. Defendants’ use of identical or confusingly similar trademarks also tarnishes
14 Reflex Media’s marks by harming the reputation of its famous mark, especially where, as
15 here, the owners of Defendants’ Infringing Websites are associated with scam companies.
16 (See http://scamcreditcardabuse.blogspot.com/2015/08/enormous-scam-
17 organization.html.).
18 82. Defendants willfully intended to trade on the recognition of Reflex Media’s
19 famous marks and willfully intended to harm the reputation of that mark and Reflex
20 Media’s brand generally.
21 83. Defendants’ use of marks identical or confusingly similar to Reflex Media’s
22 trademark has caused, and will continue to cause, irreparable harm and injury to Reflex
23 Media and its trademarks, reputation and goodwill for which there is no adequate remedy
24 at law. The threat of future injury to Reflex Media’s trademarks, business, identity,
25 goodwill and reputation necessitates the award of injunctive relief to prevent Defendants’
26 continued misuse of Reflex Media’s mark.
27 84. Defendants have unjustly profited from their foregoing conduct.
28 85. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Reflex Media has
14
COMPLAINT
1 been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial, but estimated to exceed $75,000,

2 exclusive of interest and costs.
3 86. Defendants’ foregoing conduct constitutes an exceptional case and is
4 intentional, entitling Reflex Media to treble its actual damages and to an award of
5 attorneys’ fees.
6 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
7 (Unfair Competition, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code. § 17200 et seq.)
10 88. Defendants have falsely represented an affiliation, connection, and/or
11 association between Defendants’ infringing website, <HonneyDaddy.com> and
12 <SeekingArrangement.com> through the dissemination of an email promoting their
13 competing sugar daddy dating services, and fraudulently identifying Seeking
14 Arrangement as the sender. (See Ex. 1.)
15 89. Reflex Media requests that that this Court enjoin Defendants from further
16 engaging in consumer fraud by stating or implying that there is any affiliation,
17 connection, or association between/among <HonneyDaddy.com>,
18 <PartyWithSugar.com>, and <SeekingArrangement.com>.
19 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
20 (Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage)
23 91. At all times relevant to this action, Reflex Media had a prospective
24 contractual relationship with the customers of its website, <SeekingArrangement.com>,
25 and a reasonable probability in the continuation of those business relations.
26 92. Defendants intentionally, or with substantial certainty, sought to interfere
27 with the relationship between Reflex Media and its customers through its unauthorized
28 use of the SEEKING ARRANGEMENT trademark with the intent to deceive customers
15
COMPLAINT
1 into believing that Seeking Arrangement and <HoneyDaddy.com> and/or

2 <PartyWithSugar.com> are affiliated, associated or otherwise connected.
3 93. Defendants’ knew or should have been aware that their failure to act with
4 due care would result in the interference with Reflex Media’s business relationships.
5 94. Defendants’ acted negligently, at best, by misrepresenting the sender of an
6 email advertisement as Seeking Arrangement, when the contents of same encouraged the
7 email recipients to join competing dating sites.
8 95. Defendants’ above-described conduct has caused actual disruption to the
9 relationship between Reflex Media and its customers.
10 96. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants foregoing conduct, Reflex
11 Media has suffered damages and losses in an amount to be determined at trial, but
12 estimated to exceed $75,000.
13 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
14 WHEREFORE, Reflex Media prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:
15 1. Adjudge that Reflex Media’s SEEKING ARRANGEMENT trademark has
16 been infringed by Defendants in violation of Reflex Media’s rights under 15 U.S.C. §
17 1114;
18 2. Adjudge that Defendants have competed unfairly with Reflex Media in
19 violation of Reflex Media’s rights under 15 U.S.C. § 1125;
20 3. Adjudge that Defendants’ activities are likely to, or have, diluted Reflex
21 Media’s famous trademark in violation of Reflex Media’s rights under 15 U.S.C. §
22 1125(c);
23 4. Adjudge that Defendants have negligently interfered with Reflex Media’s
24 prospective economic advantages;
25 5. Adjudge that Defendants and each of their agents, employees, attorneys,
26 successors, assigns, affiliates, and joint ventures and any person(s) in active concert or
27 participation with them, and/or person(s) acting for, with, by, through or under them, be
28 enjoined and restrained at first during the pendency of this action and thereafter
16
COMPLAINT
1 permanently from:
2 a. Selling, offering for sale distributing, advertising, or promoting any goods or
3 services that display any words or symbols that so resemble or are
4 confusingly similar to the SEEKING ARRANGEMENT trademark, or the
5 look and feel of <SeekingArrangement.com>, as to be likely to cause
6 confusion, mistake or deception, on or in connection with any goods or
7 services that are not authorized by or for Reflex Media;
8 b. Using the SEEKING ARRANGEMENT trademark, any other marks or
9 domain names confusingly similar to those marks alone or in combination
10 with any other letters, words, letter strings, phases or designs, or the look and
11 feel of <SeekingArrangement.com> in commerce or in connection with any
12 goods or services;
13 c. Using any word, term, name, symbol, or device or combination thereof that
14 causes or is likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception as to the
15 affiliation or association of Defendants’ or their goods with Reflex Media or
16 as to the origin of Defendants’ goods or services, or any false designation of
17 origin, false or misleading description or representation of fact;
18 d. Further infringing on the rights of Reflex Media in and to any of its
19 trademarks, trade dress, products and services or otherwise damaging Reflex
20 Media’s goodwill or business reputation;
21 e. Using any of Reflex Media’s confidential information in connection with
22 any product or service, in any medium, including future contact or business
23 with Seeking Arrangement’s members;
24 f. Otherwise competing unfairly with Reflex Media in any manner; and
25 g. Continuing to perform in any manner whatsoever any of the other acts
26 complained of in the Complaint;
27 6. Adjudge that Defendants, within thirty (30) days after service of the
28 judgment demanded herein, be required to file with this Court and serve upon Reflex
17
COMPLAINT
1 Media’s counsel a written report under oath setting forth in detail the manner in which it
2 has complied with the judgment;
3 7. Adjudge that Reflex Media recover from Defendants their actual damages
4 and lost profits in an amount to be determined at trial, but estimated to exceed $75,000,
5 for Defendants’ violations of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114 and 1125; that Defendants be required to
6 account for any profits that are attributable to its illegal acts; and that Reflex Media be
7 awarded the greater of (1) three times Defendants’ profits or (2) three times any damages
8 sustained by Reflex Media under 15 U.S.C. § 1117, plus prejudgment interest;
9 8. Adjudge that Reflex Media recover from Defendants the damages caused by
10 Defendants, as well as punitive and/or treble damages and attorneys’ fees;
11 9. Adjudge that Reflex Media be awarded its costs incurred in connection with
12 this action, including its reasonable attorneys’ fees and investigative expenses;
13 10. Impose a constructive trust on all of Defendants’ funds and assets that arise
14 out of Defendants’ infringing activities; and
15 11. Adjudge that all such other relief be awarded to Reflex Media as this Court
16 deems just and proper.
17 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
18 Reflex Media hereby requests a jury trial in this matter.
19
Dated: April 27, 2016 SMITH CORRELL, LLP.
20
21
By: /s/ Mark L. Smith
22 Mark L. Smith
Attorneys for Plaintiff
23 REFLEX MEDIA, INC.
24
25
26
27
28
18
COMPLAINT

Gov Uscourts Cacd 646518 1 0

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

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

Gov Uscourts Cacd 646518 1 0

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Case 8:16-cv-00795-JFW-JEM Document 1 Filed 04/27/16 Page 1 of 18 Page ID #:1

1 SMITH CORRELL, LLP

1 Media’s4 federally registered mark—SEEKING ARRANGEMENT—in the distribution

1 Media has been forced to bring this action.

1 U.S. contact information publicly available for Defendant HoneyDaddy, at present.

1 43. On or about March 31, 2016, Defendants began disseminating Defendants’

1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

1 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

1 similar to Reflex Media’s SEEKING ARRANGEMENT mark; and

1 been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial, but estimated to exceed $75,000,

1 into believing that Seeking Arrangement and <HoneyDaddy.com> and/or

Potrebbero piacerti anche