Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
ENTRUSTED COUNSEL, LLC,
Defendant.
COMPLAINT
Trusted Counsel Ashley, LLC, Plaintiff herein, files this Complaint stating
as follows:
I.
Introduction
1.
3.
Because the Parties respective services are both identical and closely related
and because their trademarks are nearly identical (i.e., TRUSTED COUNSEL and
ENTRUSTED COUNSEL), Trusted Counsel is being damaged and will continue
to be damaged by Defendants continued use of ENTRUSTED COUNSEL.
4.
Trusted Counsel has insisted that Defendant not use ENTRUSTED
COUNSEL as a trademark, but Defendant has nevertheless persisted.
5.
Trusted Counsel is compelled to file this lawsuit to prevent suffering further
damage by Defendants infringement.
II.
Parties
6.
Trusted Counsel Ashley, LLC is a limited liability formed under the laws of
the State of Georgia and having a principal place of business at 1201 Peachtree St.
NE, Suite 500, Atlanta, Georgia 30361.
7.
Entrusted Counsel, LLC is a limited liability formed under the laws of the
State of Georgia and having a principal place of business at 3200 Cobb Galleria
Parkway, Suite 200, Atlanta, Georgia 30339.
III.
Personal Jurisdiction
8.
Venue
9.
Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 1121, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction
over the claims herein, which are for declaratory relief and for infringement of
Trusted Counsels federal trademark registration.
VI.
a.
Factual Background
12.
Trusted Counsel began rendering legal services under TRUSTED
COUNSEL in interstate commerce as early as August 27, 2003.
13.
Trusted Counsel has used and invested extensively in its TRUSTED
COUNSEL trademark.
14.
Trusted Counsel has accumulated significant goodwill in TRUSTED
COUNSEL.
b.
Defendant was formed on March 7, 2016 and, like Trusted Counsel, is based
in Atlanta.
16.
Defendant promotes itself, among other things, as A trusted legal services
partner. (Exhibit B).
17.
Defendant uses ENTRUSTED COUNSEL to offer its services both on the
Internet and in the real world. For example, Trusted Counsel is aware that
Defendant promotes its services:
a.
b.
c.
d.
through
the
Atlanta
Volunteer
Lawyers
Foundation,
where
20.
Certain of Defendants other services, such as legal staffing, are closely
related to Trusted Counsels services.
21.
Making the Parties respective marks even more similar, some of
Defendants displays of ENTRUSTED COUNSEL emphasize the word TRUST,
as shown in Exhibit D.
22.
The likelihood of confusion is also enhanced because Defendant is based in
Atlanta, which has been Trusted Counsels home city since it started in 2003. The
likelihood of confusion is further enhanced by the fact that both Trusted Counsel
and Defendant are woman-owned businesses and occasionally market themselves
as such.
23.
In terms of length, appearance, phonetics and meaning, TRUSTED
COUNSEL and ENTRUSTED COUNSEL are nearly identical.
24.
Trusted Counsel has repeatedly asked Defendant to stop using
ENTRUSTED COUNSEL, but Defendant has not.
VII. Counts
Count One - Declaratory Judgment of Trademark infringement
25.
Trusted Counsel incorporates into Count One, Paragraphs 1 through 24,
above.
26.
An actual controversy exists between Trusted Counsel and Defendant in that
Defendants ongoing use of ENTRUSTED COUNSEL creates a likelihood of
confusion between it and TRUSTED COUNSEL and otherwise infringes Trusted
Counsels Registration.
27.
Despite that, Defendant has refused to stop using ENTRUSTED COUNSEL
and maintained that it has a right to use that mark and that such use does not
infringe Trusted Counsels Registration.
28.
Trusted Counsel requests a judicial declaration that Defendants use of
ENTRUSTED COUNSEL infringes Trusted Counsels Registration.
29.
Such a declaration is necessary to determine the respective rights of the
Parties.
35.
Defendant has a bad faith intent to profit from registration and use of
entrustedcounsel.com by creating the illusion of an affiliation with Trusted
Counsel.
36.
Trusted Counsel has been damaged by Defendants registration and use of
the entrustedcounsel.com domain name and will continue to suffer irreparable
harm if such registration and use are not curtailed.
37.
This conduct by Defendant violates the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer
Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 1125(d)).
Count Four - Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief
38.
Trusted Counsel incorporates into Count Four, Paragraphs 1 through 37,
above.
39.
Trusted Counsel has been and continues to be damaged in a manner that
cannot be fully measured or compensated monetarily, and for which there is no
adequate remedy at law.
40.
Defendants use of ENTRUSTED COUNSEL have damaged and will
continue to damage Trusted Counsels rights, reputation and the goodwill in
TRUSTED COUNSEL.
41.
Such irreparable harm will continue unless Defendant is forced by the Court
to stop using ENTRUSTED COUNSEL.
VIII. Jury Demand
42.
Trusted Counsel requests a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
IX.
b.
c.
an
order
directing
Defendant
transfer
registration
of
the
d.
e.
f.
David M. Lilenfeld
Georgia Bar # 452399
Buckhead Centre
2970 Peachtree Road N.W., Suite 530
Atlanta, Georgia 30305
Telephone: (404) 201-2520
Facsimile: (404) 393-9710
David@LilenfeldPC.com
Attorney for Plaintiff