1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaintiff Tre Milano, LLC (Tre Milano), by and through its undersigned attorneys, alleges upon knowledge as to itself and upon information and belief as to all other matters as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. This case arises from the sale of shoddy and dangerous counterfeit electrical

appliances by and through the Amazon.com website, including both sales through the Amazon Marketplace (which are purportedly guaranteed by Amazon) and sales by Amazon.com as a direct seller. Despite the repeated objection of Plaintiff Tre Milano, Amazon has continuously supported and engaged in such counterfeit sales. In fact, as detailed below, such sales are rampant on the Amazon.com website for the simple reason that Amazon essentially operates as a laundering service for the sale of counterfeit goods. 2. Tre Milano owns and markets the immensely popular InStyler line of rotating hot

hair irons. Like virtually all other commercial intellectual property rights holders, Tre Milano has been hard-hit by the plague of counterfeit and pirated products. 3. Counterfeit goods are typically characterized by shoddy workmanship and inferior

materials and components. This is especially problematic with respect to appliances such as the InStyler, a sophisticated electronic device that can reach 400 degrees Fahrenheit during operation. 4. Accordingly, Tre Milano is engaged in a continuous effort to keep fake and counterfeit

InStyler items from reaching the public. Tre Milano has increasingly been concerned that the counterfeits available through websites like Amazon.com are not only illegal but have the potential to injure or maim customers. 5. Indeed, Tre Milano recently learned that some of its deepest concerns have been

realized. A week and a half after Tre Milano specifically objected to Amazon.com about the sales of counterfeit InStyler products by the Success Store, a consumer purchased a counterfeit InStyler iron from the Success Store on the Amazon.com website, mistakenly believing the product to be an authentic InStyler. After minimal usage, the shoddy wiring in the counterfeit product exploded while the product was in use. 6. Tre Milano brings this action primarily to seek an injunction against any further sales

of counterfeit InStyler products through the Amazon.com website. In addition, Tre Milano seeks 2 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

damages resulting from the Defendants repeated sales of infringing counterfeit InStyler products in violation of Tre Milanos well-established trademark rights. PARTIES 7. Plaintiff Tre Milano, LLC (Tre Milano) is a limited liability company organized and

existing under the laws of the State of California. Tre Milano is registered to do business in California with the California Secretary of State. Tre Milanos principal office is located in Los Angeles County. Tre Milano owns the trademark rights to the InStyler line of hot irons and imports and sells such irons throughout the United States. 8. On information and belief, Defendant Amazon.com, Inc. is a Delaware corporation

with its principal place of business in the State of Washington. On information and belief, Defendant Amazon.com, Inc. is responsible for the operation of the Amazon.com website. 9. On information and belief, Defendant Amazon.com LLC is a Delaware limited

liability company with its principal place of business in the State of Washington. On information and belief, Defendant Amazon.com LLC is responsible for sales on the Amazon.com website of products owned by Amazon.com, Inc. 10. Upon information and belief, Defendant Amazon Services, LLC is a Nevada limited

liability corporation with its principal place of business in the State of Washington. On information and belief, Defendant Amazon Services, LLC operates the Amazon Marketplace services of Amazon.com whereby the Amazon.com website sells products technically owned by third parties rather than by Amazon.com itself. Defendants Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com LLC and Amazon Services, LLC are collectively referred to herein as Amazon or Amazon.com. 11. Upon information and belief, Defendant Success Store is an entity that purports to

sell InStyler products via the Amazon.com website. The exact name and nature of Success Store is not known to Tre Milano and Amazon has refused to release any information about the exact name and nature of Success Store. Upon information and belief, the purported InStyler products sold by the Success Store via the Amazon.com website are counterfeit. 12. Upon information and belief, Defendant Perfectchoice is an entity that purports to

sell InStyler products via the Amazon.com website. The exact name and nature of Perfectchoice 3 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

is not known to Tre Milano and Amazon has refused to release any information about the exact name and nature of Perfectchoice. Upon information and belief, the purported InStyler products sold by Perfectchoice via the Amazon.com website are counterfeit. 13. Upon information and belief, Defendant Pacific Video is an entity that purports to

sell InStyler products via the Amazon.com website. The exact name and nature of Pacific Video is not known to Tre Milano and Amazon has refused to release any information about the exact name and nature of Pacific Video. Upon information and belief, the purported InStyler products sold by Pacific Video via the Amazon.com website are counterfeit. 14. Upon information and belief, Defendant DMSc is an entity that purports to sell

InStyler products via the Amazon.com website. The exact name and nature of DMSc is not known to Tre Milano and Amazon has refused to release any information about the exact name and nature of DMSc. Upon information and belief, the purported InStyler products sold by the DMSc via the Amazon.com website are counterfeit. 15. Upon information and belief, Defendant Discount Factory is an entity that purports

to sell InStyler products via the Amazon.com website. The exact name and nature of Discount Factory is not known to Tre Milano and Amazon has refused to release any information about the exact name and nature of Discount Factory. Upon information and belief, the purported InStyler products sold by the Discount Factory via the Amazon.com website are counterfeit. 16. Upon information and belief, Defendant StopNShop2012 is an entity that purports

to sell InStyler products via the Amazon.com website. The exact name and nature of StopNShop2012 is not known to Tre Milano and Amazon has refused to release any information about the exact name and nature of StopNShop2012. Upon information and belief, the purported InStyler products sold by StopNShop2012 via the Amazon.com website are counterfeit. 17. Upon information and belief, Defendant J. Rovida is an entity that purports to sell

InStyler products via the Amazon.com website. The exact name and nature of J. Rovida is not known to Tre Milano and Amazon has refused to release any information about the exact name and nature of J. Rovida. Upon information and belief, the purported InStyler products sold by J. Rovida via the Amazon.com website are counterfeit. 4 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

18.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Masimos is an entity that purports to sell

InStyler products via the Amazon.com website. The exact name and nature of Masimos is not known to Tre Milano and Amazon has refused to release any information about the exact name and nature of Masimos. Upon information and belief, the purported InStyler products sold by Masimos via the Amazon.com website are counterfeit. 19. Upon information and belief, Defendant Kafonika is an entity that purports to sell

InStyler products via the Amazon.com website. The exact name and nature of Kafonika is not known to Tre Milano and Amazon has refused to release any information about the exact name and nature of Kafonika. Upon information and belief, the purported InStyler products sold by Kafonika via the Amazon.com website are counterfeit. 20. Upon information and belief, Defendant Aileen X. Nguyen is an individual, with a

principal place of residence in the County of Orange, California, doing business under the name This Online Store, who purports to sell InStyler products via the Amazon.com website. Upon information and belief, the purported InStyler products sold by Aileen X. Nguyen via the Amazon.com website are counterfeit. 21. Upon information and belief, Defendant Hotsale1010 is an entity that purports to

sell InStyler products via the Amazon.com website. The exact name and nature of Hotsale1010 is not known to Tre Milano and Amazon has refused to release any information about the exact name and nature of Hotsale1010. Upon information and belief, the purported InStyler products sold by Hotsale1010 via the Amazon.com website are counterfeit. 22. Upon information and belief, Defendant Media Liquidations is an entity that

purports to sell InStyler products via the Amazon.com website. The exact name and nature of Media Liquidations is not known to Tre Milano and Amazon has refused to release any information about the exact name and nature of Media Liquidations. Upon information and belief, the purported InStyler products sold by Media Liquidations via the Amazon.com website are counterfeit. 23. Upon information and belief, Defendant Tony,s Loop is an entity that purports to

sell InStyler products via the Amazon.com website. The exact name and nature of Tony,s Loop is not known to Tre Milano and Amazon has refused to release any information about the exact name 5 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

and nature of Tony,s Loop. Upon information and belief, the purported InStyler products sold by Tony,s Loop via the Amazon.com website are counterfeit. 24. Success Store, Perfectchoice, Pacific Video, DMSc, Discount Factory,

StopNShop2012, J. Rovida, Masimos, Kafonika, Aileen X. Nguyen, Hotsale1010, Media Liquidations and Tony,s Loop are hereafter referred to as the Marketplace Defendants. Collectively, the Marketplace Defendants and Amazon are referred to as Defendants. 25. The true names or capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, of

the defendants named herein as Does 1 through 300 inclusive, are unknown to Tre Milano, which therefore sues the Doe Defendants by such fictitious names. Tre Milano will seek leave to amend this Complaint to show their true names and capacities when their identities have been ascertained. 26. Tre Milano is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that each of the

Defendants designated herein as a Doe is, and at all relevant times was (i) an agent or co-conspirator of Amazon and at all times mentioned herein was acting within the scope of such agency or conspiracy, (ii) a person or entity who owned counterfeit InStyler products sold via one or more Marketplace stores on the Amazon.com website, or (iii) otherwise participated in or is responsible in whole or in part for the acts alleged herein. TRE MILANOS OWNERSHIP AND QUALITY CONTROL FOR THE POPULAR INSTYLER HOT IRON 27. As noted above, Tre Milano is a California limited liability company owning the

trademark rights to the InStyler line of products, including but not limited to California common law trademark rights and Federal Trademark Registration No. 3,496,525. 28. Tre Milano imports, markets, and distributes the InStyler line of products. These

products include the Tre Milanos flagship InStyler hot iron, a revolutionary appliance that curls, straightens and styles hair. 29. Tre Milano has not only invested substantial time and effort in developing consumer

recognition and awareness of its lnStyler mark, but has spent tens of millions of dollars developing, producing and airing television commercials, print ads, and internet advertising. Through this effort (and as a reflection of the innovative nature of the InStyler), Plaintiff has built up and developed 6 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

significant goodwill in the lnStyler marks. Media outlets across the country have featured demonstrations (many with Hollywood celebrities) and reviews of the InStyler, including Redbook, Glamour, Essence, Seventeen, O the Oprah Magazine, The View, Access Hollywood, and E! Entertainment Television. 30. Because the InStyler hot iron is an electrical appliance that can reach temperatures

in excess of 400 degrees Fahrenheit in operation, and because the appliance operates through the calibrated coordination of electrical, electronic and mechanical components, Tre Milano is devoted to the quality and safety of its genuine InStyler products. Tre Milano regularly reviews the design of the InStyler products to determine what possible modifications might improve the operation and safety of the InStyler products and Tre Milano keeps careful control over the manufacture and importation of the InStyler products. Tre Milano has obtained ETL product safety certification 1 for the InStyler rotating hot iron and the product conforms to Underwriters Laboratory (UL) Standard 859. AMAZONS OPERATON AND GUARANTEE OF THE AMAZON MARKETPLACE 31. As part of its Amazon.com website, Amazon not only sells products that it owns itself,

but it also sells products owned by third parties known as Amazon marketplace sellers. Products from the Amazon marketplace sellers are listed on the Amazon website together with Amazons own offerings, and products from the Amazon marketplace sellers are located on Amazons product page for the specific product offered via the Amazon.com website. Consumers pay for the products from the Amazon marketplace sellers via the Amazon.com payments system coordinate through a consumers Amazon.com account. 32. Moreover, Amazon.com not only coordinates the sales and payment of products from

the Amazon marketplace sellers, but Amazon.com frequently fulfills the products by taking the products from Amazon.com warehouses and shipping them in Amazon.com packaging to the consumer.
1

ETL (founded by Thomas Edison as Electrical Testing Laboratories) provides electrical product performance and safety testing, as well as a wide range of certification, for products marketed and sold throughout North America. 7 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

33.

Regardless of whether the products are fulfilled by Amazon or merely purchased on

the Amazon.com website using Amazon.coms payment system, those products are backed by Amazons A-to-z Guarantee. As reflected on the Amazon.com website:

We [Amazon] want you to buy with confidence anytime you purchase products on Amazon.com. That is why we guarantee purchases from Amazon Marketplace, Auctions, zShops, and Merchant sellers. The condition of the item you buy and its timely delivery are guaranteed under the Amazon A-to-z program. 34. To the extent that Amazon is not itself selling or fulfilling the products technically

owned by the marketplace sellers, such a guarantee nevertheless at least implies that Amazon has vetted the quality and genuineness of the products sold on the Amazon.com website. AMAZONS PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT OF ITS OWN KINDLE PRODUCT PROVES THAT IT CAN PREVENT THE SALE OF COUNTERFEIT GOODS IF IT SO DESIRES 35. Amazon maintains that it exercises no control over the sale of counterfeit goods on the

Amazon.com website. These statements are proven false by Amazons treatment of its own product, namely the Amazon Kindle. 36. On the Amazon.com website, Amazon trumpets the sales success and the number of

5-star reviews for its own Kindle product. 37. On information and belief, one important reason for this putative success is that

Amazon maintains iron-fisted control over the Amazon.com website to prevent the trafficking of counterfeit Kindles on the site. Because Amazon.com does not sell counterfeit Kindle products, the customer feedback is not dragged down by negative reviews resulting from consumers who were disappointed by second-rate counterfeit products. 38. Tellingly, as of the date of this First Amended Complaint, the Amazon.com website

does not show a single seller of new Kindles, other than Amazon. Zero. Zilch. Nada. 39. By means of comparison, the Amazon.com website shows over 100 new sellers of 8 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

the lowest-priced competing tablet by Amazon rival Apple, the iPad 2. 2 40. Amazon.com benefits from the advantage of ensuring that its own products are

genuine while allowing sales of counterfeits of other products. AMAZON AS A LAUNDERING SERVICE FOR THE SALE OF COUNTERFEIT GOODS 41. Moreover, Amazon maintains a number of policies that not only promote the sale of

counterfeit goods such as fake InStylers, but effectively serve to launder the sale of such goods with the imprimatur of the Amazon name. To name but a few: Amazon furnishes marketplace sellers with an email system and payment system that anonymizes the sellers such that the buyer never knows the real identity of the marketplace seller. Unlike eBay, Amazon steadfastly refuses to release any contact information for any of its marketplace sellers alleged by rights-holders to be selling counterfeit goods. Naturally (and with Amazons full knowledge), counterfeit sellers happily take advantage of this policy and provide no contact information whatsoever on their Amazon profiles or even in the return addresses of the goods that they send. As a result, even after making numerous controlled purchases of counterfeit InStylers from Amazon marketplace sellers, Tre Milano has only been able to definitively identify one such seller as of the date of this First Amended Complaint. Unlike eBay, Amazon has refused to implement an API (application programming interface) to allow rights-holders like Tre Milano to flag counterfeit goods for immediate de-listing. As a result, whereas a sworn takedown request from a verified rights-holder results in de-listing within a matter of minutes on eBay, a notice sent to Amazon is only acted upon (if at all) days or weeks later. Unlike eBay, which requires sellers to provide their own photographs in connection with each sale (thus allowing rights-holders to readily identify counterfeit goods or

At any given time, there are typically as many as two dozen new sellers of purported InStylers on the Amazon.com website, many selling counterfeit versions of the product. 9 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

send copyright infringement notices for misuse of their images), Amazon requires that sellers link their listings to images provided by Amazon. Moreover, at least with respect to the InStyler, many of these images are not of authentic InStylers, but of counterfeit InStylers (with the result that many unwitting consumers are lead to believe that counterfeit InStylers obtained by and through the Amazon.com website are in fact authentic since the counterfeits look just like the items on the Amazon.com website). 42. For a typical purchase of counterfeit goods from a marketplace seller, a consumer

accesses the Amazon.com website, selects the product from what appears to be authentic goods, places the product in the consumers personal Amazon shopping cart, selects a shipping address from the consumers Amazon address book, renders payment to Amazon, obtains purchase confirmation and shipping information from Amazon then receives the order with an Amazon packing slip. The customer is advised to direct questions to the seller through the anonymous Amazon email system and to contact Amazons customer service representatives for any problems with the order. As set forth above, such sales are guaranteed not by the nominal seller, but by the Amazon Defendants through the Amazon.com A-z Guarantee. Nowhere on the Amazon website is the consumer given the ability to learn the actual identity of the nominal seller and Amazon refuses to disclose such information. 43. Moreover, Tre Milano has documented purchases of counterfeit InStyler products

that are fulfilled by Amazon.com, with such sales continuing even after commencement of this litigation. In other words, not only is Amazon.com providing the sales platform and payment processing for the counterfeit product, but Amazon.com is actually delivering that product directly to the unwitting consumer. 44. In short, every material aspect of the transaction is performed by the Amazon

Defendants. To the extent that such sales involve a nominal seller, the customer never even learns the actual name and contact information for that nominal seller (which Amazon.com specifically hides so that the consumer believes that the only point of contact is Amazon.com itself).

10 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

SALES OF COUNTERFEIT INSTYLER PRODUCTS ON AMAZON.COM OVER TRE MILANOS REPEATED OBJECTIONS 45. Over a considerable period of time, Amazon has supported the sales of counterfeit

InStyler products on the Amazon.com website. 46. Tre Milano has repeatedly notified Amazon of counterfeit InStyler products being

sold on Amazons website. Nevertheless, Amazon has frequently either failed to address the specific counterfeit products or done so only in the slowest and most delinquent fashion possible. 47. Amazons foot-dragging serves its business interests, allowing it to poach sales of

legitimate products by consistently listing artificially low prices for purported (but fake) InStylers and other counterfeit goods. 48. The counterfeiters selling on the Amazon marketplace know full-well how to take

advantage of Amazons wink and nod approach. Many establish new Amazon seller accounts and list relatively small quantities of counterfeit goods such as fake InStylers, selling out in the days or weeks that Amazon takes to respond to take down requests. 49. Moreover, despite repeated notifications of sales of counterfeit InStyler products

and despite the clear safety risk posed by counterfeit appliances of this nature, Amazon has apparently taken no affirmative action to attempt to avoid any future sales of counterfeit InStyler products. AMAZON CAUGHT RED-HANDED DIRECTLY SELLING COUNTERFEIT INSTYLER PRODUCTS TO THE PUBLIC 50. Tre Milano has documented the sale of counterfeit InStyler products on the Amazon

website not simply by marketplace sellers, but by the Amazon Defendants themselves. 51. On at least one occasion, following repeated complaints by Tre Milano to Amazon

about the sale of counterfeit InStylers by and through the Amazon.com website, a private investigator retained by Tre Milano made a controlled purchase of a purported InStyler directly from Amazon.com. 52. The product was sold by Defendant Amazon.com LLC and shipped by Defendant

Amazon.com LLC to Tre Milanos private investigator. 53. Tre Milano then examined the product and determined that it was, in fact, a counterfeit 11 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

InStyler. 54. Tre Milano immediately complained to the Amazon Defendants informally, then

followed-up with a formal cease and desist letter from its legal counsel. 55. A representative in Amazons Legal Department acknowledged to Tre Milanos legal

counsel that Amazon was having problems with its inventory being mixed with that of third parties at Amazon facilities. 56. Shortly thereafter, a second representative in Amazons Legal Department explained

to Tre Milanos legal counsel that Amazon.com did not maintain its own inventory of InStylers and that Amazon.com was selling InStylers from the inventories of Amazon Marketplace and Merchant sellers who maintained such inventories at Amazon facilities. The Amazon representative conceded that Amazon did not control the supply chains of these third parties and had no way of definitively ascertaining whether or not purported InStylers being sold and shipped by these third parties, or being sold and shipped directly by Amazon from these third-party inventories were authentic or counterfeit. 57. InStylers. 58. Moreover, as noted above, Tre Milano has documented sales of counterfeit InStylers On information and belief, Amazon has continued in the direct sale of counterfeit

through the Amazon.com website and fulfilled by Amazon.com itself even after the filing of this lawsuit. In other words, even after being repeatedly informed of the counterfeit nature of the products sold and the dangers to the public and even after being sued for the same Amazon.com has not only facilitated the counterfeit sales by Amazon marketplace sellers but has actively fulfilled such counterfeit sales. THE INSTYLERS REPUTATION HAS SUFFERED FROM THE FALSE ASSOCIATION WITH SHODDY AMAZON COUNTERFEITS 59. In addition to the known customer injury described below, Tre Milano is informed and

believes that numerous other customers have also suffered various harms from counterfeit products sold through Amazon.com. 60. In addition, Tre Milano has suffered serious harm to its reputation and lost sales as a 12 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

result of the counterfeit products being sold through Amazon.com. 61. Time and again, frustrated consumers have contacted Tre Milanos customer service

to demand refunds due to the inferior quality of fake InStylers purchased by and through the Amazon.com website. Time and again, these consumers respond with incredulity that counterfeit goods are sold by and through the Amazon.com website. Time and again, these consumers have voiced their misperceptions about the quality of the InStyler to audiences on consumer websites (including reviews on the Amazon.com website) and boards, and through social media. 62. Even professional consumer reviewers have fallen for Amazons deception. For

example, in late 2010, Tre Milano learned of a critical review of the InStyler product posted by AOL on one of the principal AOL web pages, which was posted after the reviewer had purchased a purported InStyler product through Amazon.com. The AOL review concluded that the product she purchased was unsafe and even attributed specific physical injuries sustained from the use of the purported InStyler to supposed design flaws with the InStyler products. 63. Tre Milano promptly contacted the reviewer and determined that the reviewer had

purchased a counterfeit InStyler product sold by the Amazon.com website. In other words, this review and the entirely unjustified negative publicity for Tre Milanos InStyler products resulted from the sale of counterfeit products on Amazon.com. AT LEAST ONE CONSUMER HAS BEEN LITERALLY BURNED BY AMAZON.COMS COUNTERFEIT INSTYLER PRODUCTS 64. Among the various objections from Tre Milano arising from the sale of counterfeit

InStyler products on Amazon.com, Tre Milano on March 2, 2011 notified Amazon about at least ten different marketplace sellers who had placed counterfeit InStyler products on Amazon.com for sale through Amazon.com. Among these ten marketplace sellers was a seller identified as SUCCESS STORE. 65. website. 66. On or about March 13, 2011, an Amazon.com customer purchased a purported Nevertheless, Amazon did not remove those products for sale from the Amazon.com

InStyler product on the Amazon.com website. The consumer paid Amazon for the purported 13 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

InStyler product. The purported InStyler product was shipped from the SUCCESS STORE. 67. 68. The purported InStyler product was in fact a counterfeit. On only the fourth usage of the counterfeit InStyler product, the wiring of the

counterfeit product from Amazon exploded in the customers hand while she was using the product. The result was that counterfeit product from Amazon.com literally burned the customers hand, as illustrated by the photo below:

ADDITIONAL DAMAGES SUFFERED BY TRE MILANO 69. In addition, sales of counterfeit InStyler products detract from the sale of genuine

products to consumers who are seeking to purchase the legitimate (and justifiably popular) InStyler products. 70. Tre Milano is currently unaware of the exact amount of the harm to its reputation and

its lost sales, but Tre Milano is informed and believes an on that basis alleges that such lost sales exceed the jurisdictional minimum of this Court. 71. This Court has jurisdiction over Tre Milanos federal trademark claims by virtue of the

concurrent jurisdiction conveyed by 28 U.S.C. 1338(a). /// /// 14 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Federal Trademark Infringement Against All Defendants) [15 U.S.C. 1114, Lanham Act 43(a)] 72. 73. Tre Milano repeats and re-alleges every allegation set forth in Paragraphs 1-70. Defendants are actually aware that Tre Milano is the registered trademark holder of

the lnStyler mark and designs. 74. Without Tre Milanos consent, Defendants have intentionally and knowingly used in

commerce reproductions, counterfeits, copies and/or colorable imitations of Tre Milanos federally registered InStyler mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive. 75. Additionally, without Tre Milanos consent, Defendants have intentionally and

knowingly reproduced, counterfeited, copied and/or colorably imitated Tre Milanos federally registered InStyler mark and applied such reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used in commerce upon or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive. 76. Defendants egregious and intentional use and sale of counterfeit items bearing Tre

Milanos trademark is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive, mislead, betray, and defraud the consumer who believe that the items are authentic lnStyler rotating hot iron manufactured by Tre Milano. 77. Defendants continued and knowing use of Tre Milanos trade name and mark without

Tre Milanos consent or authorization constitutes intentional infringement of Tre Milanos federally registered trademarks in violation of 32 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1114. /// /// ///

15 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (False Designation of Origin & Unfair Competition Against All Defendants) [15 U.S.C. 1125(a)] 78. 79. Tre Milano repeats and re-alleges every allegation set forth in Paragraphs 1-77. By the conduct described above, Defendants have violated the Lanham Act, have

unfairly competed with and injured and, unless immediately restrained, will continue to injure Tre Milano, causing damage to Tre Milano in an amount to be determined at trial, and will cause irreparable injury to Tre Milanos goodwill and reputation associated with the value of Tre Milanos InStyler mark. 80. Defendants have the legal obligation and responsibility to conduct a search before

utilizing a trademark so as not to confuse or deceive consumers as to the origin of its name and mark. 81. Tre Milanos InStyler mark is distinctive by virtue of its substantial inherent and

acquired distinctiveness, extensive use, and the extensive advertising and publicity of the mark. 82. Defendants egregious and intentional use and sale of counterfeit items bearing Tre

Milanos InStyler trademark unfairly competes with Tre Milano and is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or to deceive, mislead, betray, and defraud consumers to believe that the substandard imitations are genuine lnStyler rotating hot irons. 83. Defendants continuing and knowing use of Tre Milanos InStyler mark constitutes

willful infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition in violation of 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a). THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Dilution by Tarnishment Against All Defendants) [15 U.S.C. 1125(c)] 84. 85. Tre Milano repeats and re-alleges every allegation set forth in Paragraphs 1-83. Tre Milanos InStyler mark is famous within the meaning of the Lanham Act and

is distinctive by virtue of the substantial inherent and acquired distinctiveness of the InStyler mark, its extensive use across the United States, and the extensive, nationwide advertising and publicity of Tre Milanos goods bearing the InStyler mark. 86. As a result of the substantial inherent and acquired distinctiveness in Tre Milanos 16 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

InStyler mark, its extensive use across the United States, and the wide advertising and publicity of the mark, Tre Milanos InStyler mark has become strong and is widely identified and respected by the general consuming public of the United States. 87. Upon information and belief, Defendants unlawful actions began long after Tre

Milanos InStyler mark became famous, and Defendants acted knowingly, deliberately and willfully with the intent to trade on Tre Milanos reputation and to dilute Tre Milanos InStyler mark. Defendants conduct is willful, wanton and egregious. 88. The actions of Defendants complained of herein are likely to injure the business

reputation of Tre Milano and its InStyler mark. 89. Defendants intentional sale of counterfeit items bearing Tre Milanos InStyler mark

unfairly competes with Tre Milano and is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or to deceive, mislead, betray, and defraud consumers to believe that the substandard imitations are genuine lnStyler rotating hot irons. 90. Defendants unauthorized and counterfeit use of Tre Milanos famous InStyler mark

has diluted and will continue to dilute and tarnish Tre Milanos name and mark, and is likely to detract from the distinctiveness of Tre Milanos InStyler mark. 91. Defendants conduct is intended to trade on Tre Milanos reputation and goodwill and

the quality and high standards of Tre Milanos products. Defendants failure to meet Tre Milanos strict regulations of quality and design has and will continue to mar the perception among consumers regarding Tre Milanos products, has and will continue to tarnish and dilute the strength and value of Tre Milanos InStyler mark, and has and will continue to saturate the market with substandard and counterfeit merchandise. 92. Defendants egregious and intentional use and sale of counterfeit items bearing Tre

Milanos InStyler trademark is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive, mislead, betray, and defraud the consumer who believe that the items are authentic lnStyler rotating hot irons manufactured by Tre Milano. 93. Defendants continuing and knowing use of lnStyler constitutes intentional

infringement of Tre Milanos common law trademarks in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1125(c). 17 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

94.

Tre Milano has no adequate remedy at law to compensate it fully for the damages that

have been caused and which will continue to be caused by Defendants unlawful acts, unless they are enjoined by this Court.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Common Law False Advertising Against All Defendants) 95. 96. Tre Milano repeats and re-alleges every allegation set forth in Paragraphs 1-94. As detailed above, Defendants have made statements to consumers identifying their

products as purportedly being InStyler products. However, as detailed above, numerous of the purported InStyler products sold through Amazon.com are counterfeit. 97. 98. Consumers have been misled by Defendants statements. As a result of Defendants false and/or misleading statements to consumers, Tre

Milano has suffered financial harm, through the loss of sales, business, reputation and customers, in an amount to be determined at trial, but reasonably believed to be in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court. 99. Defendants took the aforementioned actions with the deliberate intention to deprive

Tre Milano of its property or legal rights, or otherwise to cause injury, and was despicable conduct that subjected Tre Milano to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard for its rights, so as to justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Common Law Trademark Infringement Against All Defendants) 100. 101. Tre Milano repeats and re-alleges every allegation set forth in Paragraphs 1-99. Tre Milano has used the InStyler mark since at least 2008, well before any

Defendant in this matter began to use the InStyler mark. As such, the consuming public has come to associate the InStyler mark with Tre Milanos products and Tre Milano has developed extensive good will in the InStyler mark. 102. Defendants use of the InStyler mark to sell products that neither originated from

18 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

nor were approved by Tre Milano has created a likelihood that the products sold by the Defendants in connection with the InStyler mark will confuse the consuming public. 103. As a result of Defendants use of Tre Milanos pre-existing InStyler mark, Tre

Milano has suffered financial harm, through the loss of sales, business, reputation and customers, in an amount to be determined at trial, but reasonably believed to be in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court. 104. Defendants took the aforementioned actions with the deliberate intention to deprive

Tre Milano of its property or legal rights, or otherwise to cause injury, and was despicable conduct that subjected Tre Milano to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard for its rights, so as to justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (California Anti-Dilution Against All Defendants) [California Business & Professions Code 14247] 105. 106. Tre Milano repeats and re-alleges every allegation set forth in Paragraphs 1-104. Tre Milano has used the InStyler mark since at least 2008, well before any

Defendant in this matter began to use the InStyler mark. As such, the consuming public has come to associate the InStyler mark with Tre Milanos products and Tre Milano has developed extensive good will in the InStyler mark. 107. Indeed, as a result of Tre Milanos advertising and promotional efforts (and publicity

about the revolutionary form of the InStyler products), the InStyler mark has become famous and distinctive within the State of California. 108. As such, pursuant to California Business & Professions Code 14247, Tre Milano is

entitled to an injunction prohibiting Defendants from using the famous InStyler mark in California. 109. Moreover, because Defendants have willfully taken the acts identified above, Tre

Milano is entitled to all damage remedies provided by California Business and Professions Code 12450, including treble damages. /// /// 19 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Unfair Competition Against All Defendants) [California Business & Professions Code 17200, et seq.] 110. 111. Tre Milano repeats and re-alleges every allegation set forth in Paragraphs 1-109. Defendants conduct is patently fraudulent within the meaning of California Business

& Professions Code 17200 in that Defendants have identified products as genuine InStyler products when such products are not genuine InStyler products. Such statements were intended to lead consumers to believe that the products were genuine InStyler products, and such statements would tend to do so. Tre Milano is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that consumers have been misled by such false statements, and that consumers have been harmed both physically and by the fact that the products they purchased were not the products they believed they were purchasing. 112. Defendants conduct is also illegal under various California and Federal laws that

prohibit sale of products under infringing trademarks, including but not limited to California Penal Code Section 350 (criminalizing sale of counterfeit goods). 113. For all of reasons stated above, Defendants have engaged in unfair competition under

California Business and Professions Code 17200. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Unjust Enrichment Against All Defendants) 114. 115. Tre Milano repeats and re-alleges every allegation set forth in Paragraphs 1-113. Defendants have benefited and/or been enriched by their improper and unlawful

conduct toward Tre Milano as described above, and at Tre Milanos expense. 116. The circumstances are such that equity and good conscience dictate that Defendants

should compensate Tre Milano for any revenue of Defendants that is attributable to its improper and unlawful conduct described above. 117. enrichment. /// /// Accordingly, Tre Milano is entitled to disgorgement of Defendants unjust

20 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Tre Milano respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment against Defendants as follows: 1. On its First, Second and Third Causes of Action (Federal Trademark), for damages in

an amount to be established at trial or, upon election prior to final judgment, for statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117(c); 2. On its First, Second and Third Causes of Action (Federal Trademark), for

disgorgement of Defendants profits under 15 U.S.C. 1117(a); 3. On its First, Second and Third Causes of Action (Federal Trademark), for Plaintiffs

reasonable attorney fees under 15 U.S.C. 1117(a); 4. On its First, Second and Third Causes of Action (Federal Trademark), for treble

damages suffered by Plaintiff as a result of the willful and intentional infringements and acts of counterfeiting engaged in by Defendants, under 15 U.S.C. 1117(b); 5. On its First, Second and Third Causes of Action (Federal Trademark), for destruction

of the infringing goods in Defendants possession under 15 U.S.C. 1118; 6. On its Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action (False Advertising and California Common

Law Trademark Infringement), for damages in an amount to be established at trial; 7. On its Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action (False Advertising and California Common

Law Trademark Infringement), punitive and exemplary damages in an amount appropriate to discourage Defendants and others from engaging in similar conduct. 8. On its Sixth Cause of Action, to the extent that Defendants (or any of them) are found

to have willfully infringed Tre Milanos famous InStyler mark, an award of treble damages pursuant to California Business and Professions Code 14247 and 14250. 9. On its Sixth and Seventh Causes of Action, permanent injunctive relief against

Defendants pursuant to California Business & Professions Code 17200, et seq. and/or Business and Professions Code 14247 precluding Defendants and anyone acting in concert with Defendants from selling, offering for sale, or advertising any purported InStyler products in California, or in the alternative, an injunction precluding Defendants and anyone acting in concert with Defendants 21 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT