Upload
mark-h-jaffe
View
235
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/10/2019 Grupo Miramar trademark complaint.pdf
1/16
jhi
s
f i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2 4
2 5
2 6
Steven J. Eyre , CB 1197143550 Wilshire Boul eva r d , Suite 1440Los Angeles , C a l i f o r n i a 90010(213)385-6926
Fax (213)[email protected]
Attorney for plaintiff Enrique Carino
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
312 N. Spring Street, Ld>s
ENRIQUE CARINO,
Plaintiff,
- v s .
FELIX HILARIO, MARIO HILARIO,P LAYA S L AS T U NA S R E STA UR A N T
INC., a California corporation, CELSO
HERNANDEZ, DOES 1-10,
Defendan t s .
Plaintiff alleges:
N o .
c ?
o
, WE ST E RN DI VISI ON
Angeles, CA 90012
UCV14-7930Wo(MGtfC O M P L A I N T F O R :
1 . F E D E R A L T R A D E M A R K
I N F R I N G E M E N T A N D UNFAIRCOMPETITION;
2. COMMERCIAL DISPARAGEMENT;3 . S T A T E L A W A N D S TAT U T O R Y
T R A D E N A M E INF R INGEM ENTAND DILUTION;
4 . I N T E R F E R E N C E W I T H
P R O S P E C T I V E B U S I N E S S
ADVANTAGE;5. ACCOUNTING;6. TEMPORARY, PRELIMINARY AND
P E R M A N E N T I N J U N C T I V E
R E L I E F
J U R Y T R I A L D E M A N D E D
J U R I S D I C T I O N A ND V EN U E
1. These claims arise under the laws of the United States, particularly under
1-
Car ino vs. Hi lar io C O M P L A I N T
8/10/2019 Grupo Miramar trademark complaint.pdf
2/16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2 0
21
22
23
24
25
2 6
27
28
the federal Trademark Act, as amended, 15
17200 and California statutory and common
1331 and 1138(a). Jurisdiction is also
jurisdiction as provided under 28 U.S.C.
2. This Court has specific per
each has purposefully committed, within
which these claims arise a nd /o r h as c om m i
and intending that such acts would cause
3. Venue is proper in the
pursuant to 28 U.S. C. 1391(b) and 139
and this f edera l d is tr ict and/or h av e t he
federal district through which defendants
the forum state, the claims herein arise frorji
jurisdiction over these defendants is
of fair play and substantial justice.
T H E
4. Plaintiff Enrique Carino is
5. Plaint i ff is informed and
of Los Angeles County, California.
6. Plaint i ff is informed and
of Los Angeles County, California.
7. Defendant Playas Las Tunak
o
U.S.C. 1051 etseq., Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
law. Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C.
pursuant to the Court's supplemental
1367 .
onal jurisdiction over all of the defendants as
state and within this district, the acts from
ted tortious acts outside California, knowing
w it hi n t he state.
Sta tes Dis t ri c t Court f or t he Central District
(c) in tha t defendants each reside in California
minimum c o nt a ct s w i t h t hi s s ta te and
pjirposely availed themselves of the benefits of
such contacts, an d that th e exercise of
in that it comports with traditional notions
p r o f e r
th e
in ju ry
U n i t e d
requisite
r ea sonab le
its principal place of business at 1107 S
8. Plaint i ff is i nf o rm e d a n d be
owner of Playas Las Tunas Restaurant Inc.,
112, Los Angeles, CA 90006.
9. The true names and capacit
o f t h e d e fe n d an t s n a m e d herein as Does 1
Carino vs. Hi lar io
P A R T I E S
resident of Los Angeles County, California,
believes that defendant Felix Hilario is a res ident
believes that defendant Mario Hilario is a resident
Restaurant Inc. is a California corporation with
Al arado 112, LosAngeles, CA 90006.
ieves that Celso Hernandez is t he P resi den t an d
wi th hi s b us in es s a dd re ss a t 1107 S. Alvarado
es, whether individual, corporate or otherwise,
tlkough 10 are presently unknown to plaintiff,
C O M P L A I N T
8/10/2019 Grupo Miramar trademark complaint.pdf
3/16
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
2
23
4
25
6
7
28
o
who therefore suessaid defendants bysuch
this complaint to allege the true names and
ascertained such information. Plaintiff is
herein as Does 1through 10 has participatedthis Complaintand is liable to Plaintiff by
G E N E R A L
10 .
fictitious names. Plaintiffwill seek to amend
capacities o f said defendants when he has
ihformed and believes that each defendant named
in some or all of the acts or conduct allegedinReason thereof.
A L L E G AT I O N S
Carino vs. Hilario
PlaintiffEnrique Carino
English, Miramar Group ) in 1976 in Me>
use the Grupo Miramar mark in
performances of his musical group. At
Miramar mark in commerce in the United
and live performances ofhis musical group
11. Plaintiffs use of the Grupp
recordings and live performances of his
beencontinuous since the respective dates
12. In 1991,p laintiff registered
Secretary of State, and in the sameyear
County of Los Angeles for the Grupo
13. In September 2003, plaintiff
GRUPO MIRAMAR w ith the U ni ted States
2,766,548, in international classifications
entertainment services of a musical group
incontestable. Plaintiff renewed the regi
Trademark Office, so that his registration
14 . Plaint iff is informed and
Hilario in 2012 formed a musical group
Miramar ( The International Miramar
word Miramar without authorization or
foiinded the musical group Grupo Miramar (in
ico. At least as early as 1976, plaintiff began towith the sound recordings and live
as earlyas 1982, plaintiffusedthe Grupo
States in connection withthe sound recordings
connec t i Dn
least
Miramar mark in connection with the sound
group in M ex ico and the United States has
first use to the present day.
the Grupo Miramar mark with the California
a fictitious business name statement with the
n m e
registered the service mark and trademark
Patent and Trademark Office, Reg. No.
for sound recordings, and 041, for the live
Plaintiffs registration is current and
w it h t he U ni te d States P a ten t an d
in 2 02 3.
that defendants Felix Hilario an d Mario
they style as El Internacional Grupo
) as well as other names that include the
of plaintiff.
musica l
o f
filed
M i n m a r
0 d 9
istrc t i on
ex p i r es
be l i eves
w h i c h
Groilp
cc n s e n t
C O M P L A I N T
8/10/2019 Grupo Miramar trademark complaint.pdf
4/16
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
22
23
4
25
6
7
8
Mm up'
Miramar,
b e l iev es
Miramar,
Playas
Carino vs. Hilario C O M P L A I N T
8/10/2019 Grupo Miramar trademark complaint.pdf
5/16
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
23
4
25
6
27
28
plaintiffs music musical grouphas been
21 . Plaintiff is informed and
andemployees of defendant Playas Las Tubas
that the use o f the Miramar moniker in
group of defendants Felix Hilario and Marjo
MIRAMAR mark,given the fact that plain
the Playas Las Tunas Restaurant and has
ownership of the GRUPO MIRAMAR
constitutes infringementof plaintiffs right^22 . Plaint iff is informed and
officer of Playas Las Tunas Restaurant Inc.
Miramar moniker in connect ion wi th the
Felix Hilario and MarioHilario infringes
the fact that plaintiffhas advised defendant
GRUPO MIRAMAR mark a nd t ha t t he u se
infringement of plaintiffs rights.
23. Plaintiff is also informed ari
Mario Hilario have engaged in other perft
October 17 and 18, 2014 in which they hav^ Miramar n a me .
24. Plaint i ff is also informed
MarioHilariohave booked other engagements
Miramar and that those engagements will
25. The actions o f defendants
confusion generated by defendants' actions
f ro m l o st r ev e nu e .
26. The actions o f defendants
unless and until this Courtprovides injunctive
U>
djstributedthroughout the area.
that the officers, shareholders, servants
Restaurant Inc. k no w o r h as r ea so n to know
connectionwith the advertising of the musicalHilario infringes on plaintiffs GRUPO
:iffperformed orhasbeen booked to perform at
advised the proprietors of the restaurant of hisand that the use of the nameby otherparties
be l i eves
m a i k
Car ino vs. Hila r io
bqlieves that defendantCelso Hernandez, as an
knows or has reason to know that the use of the
advertising of the musical groupof defendants
plaintiffs GRUPO MIRAMAR mark, given
Celso Hernandez of his ownership of the
of the name by other parties constitutes
d believes that defendan ts Felix Hilario an d
ortnances prior to the events scheduled for
been booked and advertisedusing the
o n
a n d believes that defendan ts Felix Hilario an d
for the servicesof their group using the
be advertised using the Miramar name,
caused plaintiff irreparable harm due to the
as well as the economicharm causedto plaintiff
-5 -
h i v e
a n d each of them can be expected to continue
relief prohibiting defendants from engaging
C O M P L A I N T
8/10/2019 Grupo Miramar trademark complaint.pdf
6/16
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
22
23
4
25
26
7
28
^ ^ k
o
in their infringing activities.
F I R S T C L A M F O R R ELIEF
FEDERAL TRADEMARK
UNFAIR COMPETITION
27. Plaintiff realleges and i
paragraphs of this complaint.
28. This c laim for relief arises
alleged against all defendants.
29. Plaintiff is the owner of the
the registration of the mark GRUPO
Trademark Office, Reg. No. 2,766,548, in
recordings, and 041, for the liveperformances
is current and incontestable.
30. Plaintiff is the senior user o
which he operates, which is the market for
recordings amongstthe Spanish-speaking
31. Plaintiffs mark is a strong
entitled to the greatest levelof protection.
32. The actions of defendants,
taken place in the same market in which
locations whereplaintiffperforms withhis
33. The dominant e lement in
defendants in each instance have appropriated
MIRAMAR in engaging in the conduct
34. The addition by defendants
Internacional ( International ) to plaintiff
Carino vs. Hilario
INFRINGEMENT AND
, A G AI NS T A L L
DEFENDANTS)
inco porates in this cause of action all previous
jnder 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(1)(A) andis
musical group Grupo Miramar as well as
MIRAMAR with the United States Patent and
international classifications009, for sound
of a musical group. Plaintiffs registration
the mark Grupo Miramar in the market in
lv e enter tainment serv ices and sound
ations of M ex ico and the United States,
lbark, and is fanciful and arbitrary, and is
-6 -
a n d each of them, complained of herein have
plafntiffoperates, that is the and in geographical
ihusical group Grupo Miramar.
plaintiffs markis Miramar, althoughthe whole of plaintiffs mark GRUPO
comjplained of herein.
?elix Hilario and Mario Hilario of the word
s GRUPOMIRAMARregistered mark, thus
C O M P L A I N T
8/10/2019 Grupo Miramar trademark complaint.pdf
7/16
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
2
23
4
25
6
7
28
resulting in the name Internacional Grupo
of the tag del Senor to the same mark, is
confusion as to plaintiffs association with
performance of defendants' musical group35. The use of the above infriii
Restaurant Inc. and CelsoHernandez maks
activity complained of herein.
36. There is a likelihood of
andplaintiffs registered GRUPO MIRAMAR
37. Plaintiff alleges on informition
led to instances of actual confusionby38. Defendants' actions
43(a) ofthe Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 112f
39. Th e actions of defendants
damage to plaintiffs reputation and mark.
40. The actions of defendants
are intended to cause confusion, have caused
confusion unless enjoined.
41. For e ac h a ct o f unfair
damages as well as defendants' profits front
42. Plaintiff is entit led to treble
U.S.C. 11117.
43. Plaintiff is informed and be
of herein were undertaken willfullyand
or deception. Plaintiff is entitled to the
act ion.
44. Monetary relief alone is not
injury that defendants' illegal actions have
o
Miramar usedby defendants, or the addition
insufficient to prevent a likelihoodof
affiliation with, or sponsorshipof the
ging marksby defendants PlayasLas Tunas
each suchdefendant liablefor the infringing
con fus ion between the marks used by defendantsm a r k .
and belief that defendants' actions have
, v en ue o w ne rs and consumers,
unfair competition in violation of section
Carino vs. Hilario
promote r s
cons t i i u te
(a).
as alleged herein, have cause substantial
n d each of themas herein alleged were and
confusion, and will continue to cause
competition, plaintiff is entitled to recover actual
such infringement,
damages andprejudgment interest under 15
ieves that the acts of defendants complained
the intention of causing confusion,mistake
recovery of attorney's fees and costs of this
W l t l
adequate to address fully the irreparable
daused and will continue to cause plaintiffif
C O M P L A I N T
8/10/2019 Grupo Miramar trademark complaint.pdf
8/16
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
2
23
4
25
26
7
28
\mmwr
defendants' actions are not enjoined. Plaihtiff thereforepermanentinjunctiverelief to stopdefendants
is also entitled to preliminaryandongoing actsof unfair competition.
SECOND CLAIM F OR R EL IE F
COMMERCIALDISPARAGEMENT,AGAINST ALL
DEFENDANTS)
45. Plaintiff realleges and
paragraphs of this complaint.
46. This c laim for relief arises
against all defendants.
47. Defendants and their cohoifts
characteristicsand qualities of defendants
and is likely to continue to cause, damage
48. In engaging in the actions
them willfully intended and continue to intfend
musical group and sound recordings.
49 . For each ac t o f unfair
damages as well as defendants' profits front
50. Plaintiff is entitled to treble
U.S.C. 11117.
51. Plaintiff is informedand believes
of herein were undertaken willfullyand
52. Monetary relief alone is not
injury that defendants' illegal actions have
not enjoined. Plaintiff therefore is also enti
relief to stop defendants' ongoingunfair competition
Carino vs. Hilario
incorporates in this cause of action all previous
under 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(1)(B) and is alleged
have misrepresented the nature,
musical groups in a manner that has caused,plaintiff.
mplained of above, defendants and each of
to tradeon the reputation of plaintiff s
competition, plaintiff is entitled to recover actual
such infringement,
damages and prejudgment interest under 15
thatthe acts of defendants complainedintentionally by defendants.
adequate to address fully the irreparable
(taused and will continue to cause plaintiff if
led to preliminary and permanent injunctive
t o
O
COMPLAINT
8/10/2019 Grupo Miramar trademark complaint.pdf
9/16
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
23
4
25
6
27
28
{*C 3
T HI RD C LA IM F OR R EL IE F
53.
STATE LAW COMMON LAW AND STATUTORY
TRADENAMEINFRINGEMENT ANDDILUTION,AGAINSTALL DEFENDANTS)
Plaintiffreallegesandinccrporatesin thiscauseofactionallpreviousparagraphs of this complaint.
54. This claim for reliefarises under the laws ofthe State ofCaliforniaand isalleged against all defendants.
55. By their acts alleged hereir, defendants have engaged in trade nameinfringementanddilution,CaliforniaBus. &Prof.Code 14330et seq.,and 14402et seq.
56 . Defendantshaveintentionallydeceived thepublicbymisrepresentingthattheir servicesare connected withplaintiffs musical groupand sound recordings.
57. Plaintiffis informedand believes that the acts ofdefendants describedhereinwereundertaken willfullyandwithtie intentionofcausing confusion,mistakeordeception.
58 . Monetary relief alone is noi adequate to address fully the irreparableinjury thatdefendantsillegalactionshavecausedandwillcontinueto causeplaintiffifdefendantsconductis notenjoined.Plaintff thereforeis alsoentitledtopreliminaryandpermanentinjunctive reliefto stopdefendants' ongoingactsofunfair competition.
F OU RT H C LA IM F OR R EL IE F
INTERFERENCE WITH
ADVANTAGE, AGAINST
59. Plaintiff realleges and
paragraphs of this complaint.
60. This claim for relief arises
and is alleged against all defendants.
ROSPECTIVE BUSINESS
ALL DEFENDANTS)
incorporatesin this causeofactionall previous
under the common law of the State of California
Carino vs. Hilario-9 -
COMPLAINT
8/10/2019 Grupo Miramar trademark complaint.pdf
10/16
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
22
23
24
5
6
7
28
g ^
61 . Defendan ts and each o f thdm
prospective business advantage of plaintiffby
exploit and benefit commerciallyfrom plaihti
the business of plaintiffs musical group an|d
62. Plaintiff has beendamaged
each of them with plaintiffs economic rela
to this complaint.
63 . The aforement ioned acts of
malicious. Plaintifftherefore should be awarded
alleged by amendment to this complaint
FIFTH CLAIM F O R R EL IE F
ACCOUNTING, AGAINST
64. Plaintiff realleges and incorporatesparagraphs of this complaint.
65. T hi s c la im fo r rel ief arises
and is alleged against all defendants.
66. Defendantsare in possession
defendants from their misleading and decept
represents a misappropriation of monies
ledgers, etc. which will provide this information
each of them. The amount of damages, pro
defendants cannot be ascert a ined wi thou t ar
67. Defendants and each of theip
usurpation of plaintiff s trade name and
and profits realized by defendants and each
68. Plaintiff hereby demands
received by defendants and each of them
through their actions, have interfered with the
interferingwith the right of plaintiffto
if f s trade name and markandthe goodwill of
sound recordings,
by the tortious interference by defendants and
ions in an amount to be alleged by amendment
defendants were and are willful, oppressive and
punitive damages in an amount to be
AL L DEFENDANTS)
in this cause of action all previous
iknder the common law of the State of California
of information relating to monies paid to
ive practices described herein, which
plaintiff. The books, accounts, records,
are in the possession of defendants and
its and interest owing to plaintiff from
accounting by defendants and each of them,
have also benefited economically from the
without accounting to plaintiff for the income
of them as a result o f such activities.
is entitled to, an accounting of all monies
their use of plaintiff s mark and trade name.
m a i k
an d
f rcm
Carino vs. Hi lar io C O M P L A I N T
8/10/2019 Grupo Miramar trademark complaint.pdf
11/16
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
22
23
4
25
26
7
8
C 3
S IXTH C L A M F OR R EL IE F
TEMPORARY,
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF,
69. Plaintiff realleges and
paragraphs of this complaint.
70. The continuingwrongful
continue to harm the interest of plaintiff in
MIRAMAR. I f this co ur t d oes not issue a
injunction against defendants and each of
MIRAMAR, in connection with the goods
plaintiffwill suffer irreparable harm for
PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
inco -porates inthis cause of action all previous
a c t s of defendants herein have harmed an d
the use of th e name an d mark GRUPO
temporary, preliminary and permanent
them prohibiting the use of the name GRUPO
md services of defendants' musical groups,
which there is no adequate remedy at law.
P R A Y E R
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for
1. For an order requiring defendants
should not be enjoined as set forth below
2. For a temporary restraining ord
injunction, all enjoining defendants and
employeesand co-venturers,and all person^
who receive actual notice o f th e court's ordfer
engaging in or performing any of the follow
(a) Using the name GRUPO
colorable imitation of the name, including
or Grupo Miramar, in connection with
the goods or services of defendants or any
(b) Using the name GRUPO
colorable imitationof the name, including
or Grupo Miramar, in any manner for the
- 11 -
Carino vs. Hi lar io
re l i e f ia s f o ll o ws :
to show cause, if they have any, whythey
dbringthe pendency of this action.
2r, a preliminary injunction, and a permanent
of them and their agents, servants,
in active concert or participationwith them
by personal service or otherwise, from
in g acts:
MIRAMAR or any confusingly similar or
n am e w h ic h i nc lu des t he words Miramar '
advertising in any form, or in connection with
o|fthem;
MIRAMAR or any confusingly similar or
n am e w h ic h includes t he w o rd s Miramar
purpose of enhancing the commercial value
a n y :
a i y
C O M P L A I N T
8/10/2019 Grupo Miramar trademark complaint.pdf
12/16
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
23
4
25
6
27
28
^y^tt iqggW
of the goods or services of defendants;
(c) Otherwise infringing or diluting the distinctivequality of plaintiffs
service mark and trademark GRUPO MIRAMAR
(d) Causing a likelihood of confusion, deception or mistake as to the
makeup, source, natureor quality of plaint f f s or defendants' services;
(e) Contacting promoters, advertisers or other businesses for the purpose
of offering the services of defendants as GIUPO MIRAMAR or any confusingly similaror colorable imitation of the name;
(f) Uploading or maintainir g videos onthe internet, including without
limitation YouTube, in which the name GE.UPO MIRAMAR, or any confusingly similar
or colorable imitation of the name, including any name which includes the words
Mirmar or GrupoMiramar, is displayed, spoken or other used in the video or inthe
description or title of the video.
3. For an order requiring defenda:itsto deliver upand destroy all promotional
literature, advertising, goods and other material bearingthe infringing, diluting orinjurious designations.
4. For actual damages.
5. For three times the amount ofplaintiffs actual damages suffered by reason of
defendants' infringement of plaintiffs marc and trade name.
6. For three times the amount of cefendants' profits derived from infringementof plaintiff s mark and trade name.
7. For punitive damages in an amount to be proved at trial.
8. For prejudgment interest.
9. For an accounting of all monies received by defendants from their activities
in connection with the infringement of plaintiffs registered mark GRUPO MIRAMAR.
10 . F o r cos t s o f suit.
11. For reasonable attorneys fees.
12. For such other relief as the couit may deem appropriate.
-1 2 -Car ino vs. Hi lar io C O M P L A I N T
8/10/2019 Grupo Miramar trademark complaint.pdf
13/16
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
22
23
24
25
26
7
28
Dated: October 13, 2014
0 3
Steven J. EyreAttorney for plaintiff
D EM AN D F OR J U RY T R I A L
Plaintiff demands a trial of this action by a jury
Dated: October 13,2014
13-Carino vs. Hi lar io
Steven J. EyreiAttorney for plaintiff
C O M P L A I N T
8/10/2019 Grupo Miramar trademark complaint.pdf
14/16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAC I V IL C OV E F S H EET
I. a) PLAINTIFFS ( Check box ifyou are representing yourself Q
ENRIQUE CARINO
(b) Countyof Residence of First Listed Plaintiff LOS ANGELES(EXCEPT INU.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
(c)Attorneys (Firm Name, Address and Telephone Number) Ifyou are
representing yourself, provide t he same information.STEVENJ. EYRE,ATTORNEYAT LAW3550WILSHIREBLVDSTE 1 4 4 0
LOS ANGELES,CA 90010213 .385 .6926
Dl IFENDANTS (Check box ifyou are representingyourself Q )
FE.IX HILARIO,MARIO HILARIO,PLAYASLAS TUNAS RESTAURANT INC.,a Californi aco-poration, CELSOHERNANDEZ
Cc unty of Residence of First Listed Defendant LOS ANGELES(INU.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
Attorneys {Firm Name, Address and Telephone Number) Ifyou are
representing yourself, provide th e same information.
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Placean Xin on e box only.) III. CITIZENSHIPOF PRINCIPAL PARTIES-For Diversity Cases OnlyanXin on e box for plaintiff an d on e for defendant)
isStstp II 1 II1 Incorporated or Principal Place(Plac
Cit izen
Cit izen of
| 11. U.S. GovernmentPlaintiff
| 3.Federal Question (U.S.Government Not a Party)
o M hof Business in this S tate
Incorporated an d Principal Placeof Business in An o t h e r State
PT F
4
I I 2. U.S. G o v e r n m e n t
D e f e n d a n t
I 14. Diversity (Indicate Citizenshipof Parties in Item III)
/>n o t h e r State
Subject of aitizen orForeignCobntry
2 2
| | 3 r~\ 3 ForeignNation
5
6
DE F
IV. ORIGIN (Place an Xin on e box only.rrri 1. Original ii 2. Removed from^ Proceeding StateCourt
3. R e m a n d e d f rom
Appella teCourt4. Re in st; te d or
Reopened5. Tr a n s f e rr e d f r o m A n o t h e r
District (Specify)
6 . M u lt i-
I I District Litigation
V. REQUESTEDIN COMPLAINT: JURY DEMAND: [x] Yes No
CLASSACTIONunder F.R.Cv.P. 23: [ J Yes [x] No [x
Check Yes only if demanded in complaint.)
MONEY DEMANDED IN COMPLAINT: $ UNSPECIFIED
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (Cite the U.S. Civil Statuteunder which youare filing and wriIS U.S.C. sec. 1051 , TRADEMARKINFRINGEMENT
;ea brief statement ofcause. Donot cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity.)
VII. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an Xin on e bo x only).
/.OTHERSTATVJES-;
375 False Claims Act|i 400 StateI Reapportionment
410 Antitrust[~1 430 Banks and Banking
45 0 C o m m er ce / I C CRates/Etc.
460 Deportation47 0 Racketeer Influenced &Corrupt Org.
[ J 480 Consumer Credit
490 Cable/SatTV
85 0 Securi t ies/Commodities/Exchange
iI 890 Other StatutoryIJ Actions
891 Agricultural Acts89 3 E n v i r o n m en t a lM a t t e r s
89 5 Freedom of Info.Ac t
896 Arbitration
89 9 A d m i n . P r o c e d u r e s|~1 Act/Review of Appealof
Agency Decision
950 Cons ti tu tional ityofS t a t e S t a t u te s
CONTRACT
f l 110 Insurance
120 Marine
130 Miller Act140 NegotiableI n s t r u m e n t
150 Recovery of| | Overpayments Enforcement of
Judgment
151 Medicare Act
152 Recovery ofDefaulted StudentLoan (Excl. Vet.)
153 Recovery ofI | Overpaymento f
Vet . Benefi ts
16 0 S t o c k h o l d e r s 'Su its
r~ \ 19 0 O t h e r C o n t r a c t
19 5 C o n t r a c tProduct Liability
196 FranchiseI'TtEAL PROPERTY
[ J 210LandC o n d e m n a t i o n
I | 220 Fo re cl os ure
23 0 R e n t L e a se &
Ejectment
REAL PROPERTYCONT;
D
D
2 4 0 To r ts to L an d
2 4 5 To r t P r o d u c tLiability29 0 All O t h e r RealProperty
IM MIGRATION
4 62
Apr.INatura l i za t ionicat ion
n 4651' Im mO t h e r
gration Actions
jpHtfd.Uirpjffiqw370
371
38 5
O t h e r Fraud
Truth in Lending
380|OtherPersonalPro jer ty Damage
Property DamageProqiuct Liability
BANKRUPTCY,Jn 422L-l use
n 423L-l use
Appeal 2815 8
W i t h d ra w a l 2 8
15 7
C I M . I
440441
442
Other CivilRights
Voting
4 43
44 5
Disajl
n 446iL-1 Disa448
Employment
Housing/Ac e > m m o d a t i o n s
Amer ican wi thbilities-
EmbloymentA m e ri c a n w i t hb i l i t ies-Other
E d u c a t i o n
PRISONER PETITIONS
Habeas Corpus:
I | 463 Alien D et ai ne eII 510 Motions to Vacate'' Sentence
530 General535 Death Penalty
MOther*'\ K.
540Mandamus/Other550 Civil Rights
I| 555 Prison Condition56 0 Civil Det a i n ee
LJ ConditionsofConfinement
FORFEITURE/PENALTY
j-. 625 Drug RelatedI I Seizure of Property 21
USC 88 1
690Other 'B,- , labor; , g v y ;7 10 Fa i r L ab o r S t a n d a r d sAc t
720 Labor/Mgmt.Relat ions
740 Railway Labor Act
751 Family an d MedicalL e a ve A c t
79 0 O t h e r L a b o rLitigation791 Employee Ret. Inc.Security Act
FO R O F F I CE U S E ONLY: C a s e N u m b e r :
CV-71 06/14)
310Airplane
31 5 AirplaneProduct Liability32 0 Assau lt , Libel&S l a n d e r
330 Fed. Employers'Liability
3 4 0 M ar i n e
3 4 5 M a r i ne P r o d u c tLiability
3 5 0 M o t o r Vehic le
3 5 5 M o to r Vehicle
Product Liability36 0 O t h e r P er so n a lInjury362 Personal Injury-Med Malpratice
365 Personal Injury-Product Liability36 7 Heal th Care/P h a r m a c e u t i c a lPersonal InjuryProduct Liability3 6 8 A s b e s to sPersonal InjuryProduct Liability
LACV14-C IV IL COVER
7 3 HSHEET
PRpPERTY RIGHTS
820 Copyrights
830 Patent
[x] 840 Trademark^.ijtPJCi^ECURITY
861 HIA(1395ff)
862 Black Lung (923)
863 DIWC/DIWW(405 (g))864 SSID Title XVI
865 RSI(405 (g))
I; ,F|OpRAL1TAXSWTS,fii 87 0 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff orII Defendant)i- i 871 IRS-ThirdParty 26 USCll 7609
Page 1 of 3
8/10/2019 Grupo Miramar trademark complaint.pdf
15/16
UNITEDSTATESDISTRICT COURT,CENTRALDISTRICTOFCALIFORNIACIVIL COVER SHEET
VIII. VENUE: Youranswers tothe questionsbelow willdetermine thedivisionof thetochange, in accordancewith theCourt's General Orders,upon review by theCourtof
Court towhich this case willbe initiallyassigned. ThisinitialassignmentissubjeComplaint or Notice of Removal.oi r
QUESTION A: Wa s t h is case re mo v e dfrom s tate court?
Yes [x] No
If no, skipto Question B. If yes, checkthebox to the right that applies,enter the
corresponding divisionin response toQuestion E,below, and continue from there.
STATECASEWAS.PENDINGllilTHECOUNTYQF:^ ~.V
LosAngeles, Ventura,Santa Barbara,or SanLuisObispo
, : /lNI DIVONf|NCACdils:' 1
We s t e r n
Orange
mmmkiit^ miii^m^i^(P:i\\Q RiversideorSan Bernardino
QUESTION B: Is th e United States, orone of its agencies oremployees, aPLAINTIFF in t h i s act ion?
Yes \x\ No
1'i.tf'r ' . ' '
B.1. Do 50% or more of th e defendants whcthe district residein Orange Co.?
checkoneofthe boxesto the right ^H
If no, skipto Question C. If yes, answerQuestion B.I,at right.
f^&cfe '4f j{ i j^vaa^f^ . . ,QUESTIONC: Is th e United States, orone of its agencies oremployees, aDEFENDANT in t h i s ac t ion?
Yes [x] No
If no, skipto Question D. If yes, answerQuestion C.1,at right.
B.2. Do 50%or more of th e defendants who reside inth e district reside in Riverside and/or San BernardinoCounties? (Consider the two countiestogetl er.)
check oneofthe boxes tothe righ t
C.1. Do50%or moreof the plaintiffswho reside inthedistrict reside in Orange Co.?
checkoneofthe boxesto the right ^ ^
C.2. Do 50 ormore ofthe plaintiffs whoresjidein thedistrict reside in Riverside and/or San Bernarc inoCounties? (Consider the two countiestogether.)
check oneof the boxes to the right ^ 1
OT^OTffiaRj^lqflfh nddefend nts
Indicate the location(s) in which 50%or more of plaintiffs who reside in this districtreside. (Check uptotwo boxes, or leave blank ifnoneofthese choices apply.)Indicatethe location(s)in which50%or more of defendants who reside in thisdistrict reside. (Check up to two boxes,or leave blank ifnone ofthese choicesgpp'y-r,,
HWW /b r i^
D.I. Is t h er e a t least o ne answer in Column A?
Yes [X] No
If yes, yourcase will initially be assigned to the
SOUTHERN DIVISION.
Enter Southern in response to Question E, below, an d continue from there.
If no, goto question D2 tothe right. ^ ^
S o u t h e r n
Eastern
.. --. ',j----',,-J,.H..4^ai'^fe-;l.>r e s i d e in
YES. Your case will initially beassigned to the Southern DivisioEnter Southern in response to Question E below, andcontinufrom there .
NO. Continueto Question B.2.
YES. Yourcase will initially be assigned to the Eastern Division.Enter Eastern in responseto Question E, below, andcontinuef ro m t h e re .
NO. Your case will initially be assignedto the Western DivisionEnter Western in responseto Question E, below, and continuf rom there .
ft .K ft *
YES. Your case will initially be assignedto the Southern DivisioEnter Southern in response to Question E, below, andcontinuf rom there .
NO. ContinuetoQuestion C.2.
YES. Your case will initially beassignedto the Eastern Division.Enter Eastern in responseto Question E, below, and continuefrom there .
NO. Yourcase will initially be assigned to the Western Division.Enter Western in response to Question E, below, and continuef rom there .
A .
'.Orange County' Riverside or Sa n
BernardlfidCounfy 1 ? -. '-j
C.Iqs Angeles, yentura
ISanta^irbara /or Sari'H.uls;0blspoCounty
S
s
D.2 . Is t h e re a t least one answer in Column B?
Yes \X\ No
If yes, yourcase will initiallybe assigned to the
EASTERN DIVISION.Enter Eastern inresponse to Question E, below.
If no, yourcase will be assigned to the WESTERN DIVISION.
Enter Western inresponse to Question E,below.
Enterthe initialdivisiondetermined by Question A, B, C,or Dabove::-V '- > * * ^ M M m M M w ^ L .:: *
WESTERN
y i i im MSMtKm r< r
Do50 or moreofplaintiffs ordefendantsin thisdistrict resideinVentura,Santafiarbara, orSanLuisObispo counties? [H Yesm M ^ ^ ^ m m M d m
No
CV-71 06/14) CIVIL COVER SK EE T Page 2 of 3
8/10/2019 Grupo Miramar trademark complaint.pdf
16/16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIACIVIL C O VE R S H EE T
IX(a). IDENTICALCASES: Hasthisaction been previously filed inthis court?
Ifyes, listcase number(s): CV12-08492DMG(MANx)(judgment entered as todefendants not includedin this filing)
IX b). RELATEDCASES: Is this case related (asdefined below) toanycases previouslyfiled in this court?
Ifyes,listcase number(s): CV12-08492 DMG (MANx) (two defendants identical)
Civil cases are related when they:
NO YES
NO IU YES
\X\ A. Arise from the same or closely related transactions, happeni
[x] B. Call fordetermination ofthe sameor substantially related or
[x] C. For other reasonswouldentailsubstantialduplication of la
in g, o r e v e nt ;
^imilar questions of law and fact; or
ifheard by different judges.c r
Checkallboxes that apply. That cases may involve th e same patent,re la ted .
X . S IG NATU RE OF AT TO RN E Y
(OR SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANT): f tqj3f
trademark, or copyright isnot, in itself, sufficient to deem cases
DATE: October 14 ,2014
Notice to Counsel/Parties: The submission of this Civil Cover Sheet isrequiredneither replaces norsupplementsthe filing and service of pleadingsorother papersmore detailed instructions, see separate instruction sheet (CV-071 A).
)y Local Rule 3-1. This Form CV-71 an d th e information contained hereinas required by law,except as provided by local rules of court. For
Keyto Statistical codes relating to Social Security Cases:
Nat u r e o f S u i t C o d e A b b r e v i a t i o n
86 1 HIA
Substantive Statement of Ca(ise of ActionAll c l a i m s fo r h ea l t h i n su r an ce b en e f it sinclude claims by hospitals, skilled nursinc(42U.S.C 1935FF(b))
8 62 BL
8 63 DIWC
8 63 DIWW
8 64 SSID
86 5 RSI
CV-71 06/14)
; (Msdi icare) underTitle 18, Part A,of the SocialSecurity Act,as amended. Also,facilities, etc.,for certificationas providersof servicesunder the program.
All claimsfor Black Lung benefits under Title 4, Part B, of the FederalCoalMineHealth and SafetyActof 1969.(30 U.S.C.923)
All claimsfiled by insured workers for disabiliall claims fi led f o r ch il d 's insurance benef i s
ity insurance benefits under Title 2 ofthe SocialSecurityAct,as amended; plusbased on disability. (42 U.S.C. 405 (g))
All c la ims filed fo r w i d o w s o r w i d ow e r s inamended. (42 U.S.C. 405(g))
;urance benefits based on disability under Title2 ofthe SocialSecurityAct,as
All claims for supplemental security incorrle payments basedupon disability filed under Title 16ofthe Social SecurityAct,a m e n d e d .
All claimsforretirement (oldage)and survivors benefitsunder Title 2ofthe Social Security Act, asamended.(42 U.S.C.405 (g))
CIVIL C O V E R S H E E T Page 3 o f3