Complaint For Declaratory Judgment_ Injunctive Relief and by linzhengnd

VIEWS: 62 PAGES: 19

									  Case: 2:11-cv-00789-JLG-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/31/11 Page: 1 of 19 PAGEID #: 1



                             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                              SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
                                   EASTERN DIVISION



Liberty Counsel, Inc.,                      )
       a Florida corporation,               )
               Plaintiff,                   )
                                            )
                                            )      Civil Action No.: 2:11-cv-789
                                            )
       v.                                   )
                                            )
                                            )
                                            )
Ohio Liberty Council Corp.,                 )
       an Ohio corporation,                 )
              Defendant.                    )
                     .                      )


       COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, PRELIMINARY AND
             PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

       COMES NOW the Plaintiff, LIBERTY COUNSEL, INC., by and through its

undersigned counsel, and respectfully requests this Court to issue Declaratory Judgment,

Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief and Damages. In support thereof, Plaintiff shows

unto the Court as follows:

       1.      This is a civil action whereby Plaintiff seeks Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

enjoining Defendant, OHIO LIBERTY COUNCIL CORP., its agents, servants and employees

and those acting in concert with them, from using the name “Liberty Council” in a manner that

infringes on any of Plaintiff’s trademarks, or constitutes a deceptive trade practice or unfair

competition.

       2.      This action arises under the Lanham Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. §1051 et seq., Ohio

Rev. Code Ann. § 4165.01 et seq. (Deceptive Trade Practices Act), and common law.



      Complaint For Declaratory Judgment, Injunctive Relief and Damages - Page 1
  Case: 2:11-cv-00789-JLG-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/31/11 Page: 2 of 19 PAGEID #: 2



       3.        This Court has jurisdiction of this claim under, and by virtue of, 28 U.S.C. § 1331

and 15 U.S.C. § 1121.

       4.        This court has supplemental jurisdiction over the Ohio state law claims under 28

U.S.C. § 1367.

       5.        This Court is authorized to grant Declaratory Judgment under the Declaratory

Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02 implemented through Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, and to issue the Permanent Injunctive Relief requested by Plaintiff under Rule 65 of

the Federal Rules of Procedure.

       6.        Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).



                                              PARTIES

       7.        Plaintiff, Liberty Counsel, Inc., was incorporated in December 1989 as a Florida

nonprofit corporation.

       8.        Defendant, Ohio Liberty Council Corp., was incorporated in June 2009 as an

Ohio nonprofit corporation.



                                   GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

       9.        Plaintiff is an education, litigation and policy organization with offices in Florida,

Virginia, Washington, DC, and Texas.

       10.       Plaintiff operates its programs internationally and nationally, including in the

State of Ohio.




      Complaint For Declaratory Judgment, Injunctive Relief and Damages - Page 2
  Case: 2:11-cv-00789-JLG-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/31/11 Page: 3 of 19 PAGEID #: 3



        11.    Plaintiff educates the public about public policy issues, and engages, informs and

prepares grassroots activists who are involved in policy issues and legislation of concern to

American families.

        12.    Plaintiff is known nationally and internationally for its litigation and public policy

activities.

        13.    There are more than 140 cases in the Federal Reporter system and more than 100

cases in state courts where Liberty Counsel is listed as having some involvement.

        14.    Plaintiff has represented national and international clients in court proceedings,

including Focus on the Family, Child Evangelism Fellowship, National House of Hope,

Christian Educators Association International, and candidates and members of Congress.

        15.    Plaintiff’s staff members are involved in numerous media interviews each year

resulting in thousands of printed articles and media broadcasts, and have appeared on most

network and cable TV and on most news programs within each network and cable outlet.

Notable shows include the O’Reilly Factor, Hannity and Colmes, the Alan Colmes Radio Show,

Anderson Cooper 360, the Glenn Beck Show, Good Morning America, the Today Show,

Huckabee, Fox & Friends and Hardball with Chris Matthews. Plaintiff gained international

attention on the award-winning CNN documentary “God’s Warriors” with Christiane Amanpour.

        16.    Plaintiff produces two national daily radio programs, Freedom’s Call® and Faith

& Freedom®, each of which overviews constitutional freedoms, public policy issues and current

events, including the national healthcare issue.

        17.     Plaintiff’s radio programs are available online via YouTube and other websites

for listeners all over the world to access, and are available on local radio stations in many states,

including Ohio.




       Complaint For Declaratory Judgment, Injunctive Relief and Damages - Page 3
  Case: 2:11-cv-00789-JLG-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/31/11 Page: 4 of 19 PAGEID #: 4



       18.     Plaintiff’s Founder and Chairman, Mathew Staver, has testified before

Congressional committees on public policy issues of national significance, such as religious

expression, immigration and employment discrimination.

       19.     Mathew Staver serves as Legal Commentator for SRN News, part of the Salem

Radio Network, a publicly-traded company serving more than 1,500 radio stations, including

stations that operate in Ohio.

       20.     Plaintiff has exhibited at many national events attended by conservatives from

across America, including from Ohio, such as the Conservative Political Action Conference

(CPAC) and the National Religious Broadcaster’s Convention (NRB).

       21.     Plaintiff, as a founding member of the Freedom Federation™, organizes an annual

event, the Awakening®, featuring national and international political and public policy leaders

and organizations gathering to discuss topics such as the economy, national defense, health care,

social justice, empowering youth, new media, and public policy issues. The event was viewed by

thousands live over the Internet, including viewers in Ohio. In 2011, the Awakening® featured

more than 70 speakers.

       22.     Plaintiff is a cosponsor of the annual Values Voter Summit in Washington, DC,

an annual conservative event of grassroots activists, including activists from Ohio, who are

preparing to impact their states and communities.

       23.     Plaintiff sponsors state-specific “AWAKE” events where it brings speakers to

inform and educate the invited public about foundational principles of American law,

constitutional rights and limited government, and encourages attendees to become involved in

state and national issues that affect them, their families and communities. Plaintiff has scheduled




      Complaint For Declaratory Judgment, Injunctive Relief and Damages - Page 4
  Case: 2:11-cv-00789-JLG-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/31/11 Page: 5 of 19 PAGEID #: 5



these events in Florida, Texas and South Carolina, and plans to expand and host these events in

other states, including Ohio.

        24.     Plaintiff has been invited to exhibit in at least one conference in Ohio.

        25.     Plaintiff has promoted events on its website that deal with freedom and

constitutional rights.

        26.     Plaintiff sends informational Liberty Alert® emails to individuals throughout the

United States, including Ohio.

        27.     Plaintiff originated the annual Day of Purity, which Ohio Governor Bob Taft

proclaimed in 2005 as a day to “encourage all of Ohio’s youth to show their support for

abstinence and promote healthy and happy lifestyles.” [Exhibit 1].

        28.     Plaintiff offers Day of Purity™ T-shirts, wristbands and printed materials on its

website to donors throughout the country, including in Ohio.

        29.     Plaintiff has represented organizations in Ohio and its actions regarding political

and social issues in Ohio have been reported in the media. [Exhibit 2].

        30.     In 2005, Plaintiff applied to hold a meeting in a public library community room in

Youngstown, Ohio about the biblical perspective on marriage. [Exhibit 3].

        31.     Plaintiff intervened in a case on behalf of Ohio “Choose Life” license plate

owners and adoption service providers. [Exhibit 4].

        32.     Plaintiff filed an amicus brief in a matter recently decided by the Ohio Supreme

Court, In re Mullen, No. 2010-0276, 2011 WL 2732258 (Ohio, July 12, 2011). [Exhibit 5].

        33.     Plaintiff issues nationwide press releases highlighting its activities. A 2007 press

release highlighted its work involvement in situations involving Christmas displays in Ohio state

parks and in the City of Whitehall. [Exhibit 6].




      Complaint For Declaratory Judgment, Injunctive Relief and Damages - Page 5
  Case: 2:11-cv-00789-JLG-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/31/11 Page: 6 of 19 PAGEID #: 6



       34.       An article mentioning Plaintiff’s activities has been posted on the Portage County

Ohio Tea Party website. [Exhibit 7].

       35.       An article about Plaintiff’s Healthcare lawsuit appears on the Cleveland Tea Party

Patriots’ website. [Exhibit 8].

       36.       Plaintiff employs at least one full time attorney, the undersigned counsel, who is

licensed to practice law in the State of Ohio, and who is a member in good standing of the Ohio

Bar.

       37.       Based on its nationwide presence and Ohio activities, Plaintiff has penetrated the

market in Ohio for its goods and services.

       38.       The purpose of Defendant is stated on its website: “To unite conservative

grassroots organizations for greater effectiveness in the state and nation, and to provide resources

for member organizations to strengthen their own groups.” [Exhibit 9].

       39.       Defendant’s stated purpose indicates that it intends for its impact to extend

throughout Ohio and across the nation.

       40.       Defendant explains its history on its website as follows: “The Ohio Liberty

Council was initiated by members of local Tea Party groups, 912 groups, the Ohio Freedom

Alliance, and the Campaign for Liberty in June 09. It was conceived as a way to get all liberty

minded groups and individuals in Ohio connected and communicating on issues and activities.

But more importantly we seek to create concerted action among all of these groups in Ohio. By

working together we can be more successful and achieve real results to protect and promote

liberty in Ohio.” [Exhibit 10].

       41.       Defendant is providing association services by uniting and mobilizing grassroots

organizations.




       Complaint For Declaratory Judgment, Injunctive Relief and Damages - Page 6
  Case: 2:11-cv-00789-JLG-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/31/11 Page: 7 of 19 PAGEID #: 7



        42.     Liberty-minded groups and individuals include those interested in civil liberties.

        43.     Plaintiff has posted a “Declaration of American Values” on its website.

        44.     Defendant has posted a “Declaration of American Principles” on its website.

        45.     Plaintiff offers nonpartisan voter guides on its website.

        46.     Defendant offers voter guides on its website.

        47.     Plaintiff offers, on its website and elsewhere, a yellow “Don’t Tread on Me”

bumper sticker with a coiled snake on it.

        48.     Defendant uses the words “Don’t Tread on Us” with a coiled snake on a yellow

background for its logo, which it offers for sale on T-shirts and window clings.

        49.     Defendant has created an “Ohio Liberty Council Bookstore” on Amazon.com,

where it sells books on public policy topics, including topics which relate to Plaintiff’s goods and

services.

        50.     Plaintiff distributes books on public policy topics at events and in its online store.

        51.     Plaintiff filed a federal lawsuit challenging the national healthcare bill and has an

online petition of support for the lawsuit, Liberty University, et al. v. Geithner, et al.

        52.     Plaintiff’s Founder and Chairman, Mathew Staver argued the healthcare case

before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on May 10, 2011.

        53.     Plaintiff distributes its news releases to national media, including the Associated

Press (AP), and its representatives have spoken to the AP on numerous occasions.

        54.     Defendant’s co-founder, Mr. Littleton, spoke about the federal healthcare law at a

press conference on July 6, 2011, which was attended by AP.

        55.     Defendant issued a press release regarding its petition drive for a “Health Care

Freedom Amendment.”




      Complaint For Declaratory Judgment, Injunctive Relief and Damages - Page 7
  Case: 2:11-cv-00789-JLG-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/31/11 Page: 8 of 19 PAGEID #: 8



       56.      Defendant has 17 videos on the www.vimeo.com website including videos on the

Health Care issue. [Exhibit 11].

       57.     Defendant has been called “a coalition of tea party groups” by the media.

       58.     Plaintiff is not a coalition and does not want to be known as “a coalition of tea

party groups,” and such reports give the public a false impression about Plaintiff because of the

name confusion caused by Defendant.

       59.     Media reports and online sources routinely refer to Plaintiff as “Liberty Council.”

       60.     Some of Plaintiff’s supporters send donation checks to Plaintiff written to

“Liberty Council,” which plaintiff successfully deposits in its bank account.

       61.     Plaintiff receives emails and correspondence addressing Plaintiff as “Liberty

Council.”

       62.     There has been actual confusion between Plaintiff’s mark and Defendant’s use of

“Liberty Council.”

       63.     Search analytics indicate that Plaintiff’s website, www.LC.org, received the

highest percentage (31%) of the traffic from the search term “liberty council,” while Defendant’s

website received the second highest percentage (13.86%), between November 23, 2010 and

February 21, 2011. [Exhibit 12].

       64.     As of February 22, 2011, the top four search results on the search engine Google

for “Liberty Council” referenced Plaintiff’s website, while the seventh search result was

Defendant’s website. As of July 13, 2011, Defendant’s website had moved up to number five in

rank. [Exhibit 13].




      Complaint For Declaratory Judgment, Injunctive Relief and Damages - Page 8
  Case: 2:11-cv-00789-JLG-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/31/11 Page: 9 of 19 PAGEID #: 9



        65.     Defendant’s increasing presence online as “Liberty Council” is having a negative

impact on Plaintiff’s publicity by diverting traffic to Defendant’s website and diminishing the

strength of Plaintiff’s public image and reputation.

        66.     There is a substantial likelihood that Defendant’s activities are being confused by

the public with Plaintiff’s activities.

        67.     Defendant accepts donations online, in person and by mail.

        68.     Defendant’s infringement of Plaintiff’s mark is likely to cause donors or potential

donors confusion regarding whether Defendant and Plaintiff are related organizations.

        69.     Plaintiff has been instrumental in the development of a social networking portal

that allows individuals and groups to create an online presence in any state or locale, including

event posting and blogging. Plaintiff is in the process of organizing affiliated groups in all 50

states, including Ohio, and is starting a group called Liberty Counsel Action – Ohio.

        70.     Plaintiff has approved the start of an affiliated Liberty Counsel student group that

has plans to expand to law schools and universities nationwide.

        71.     Defendant has a map on its website of related groups referred to as “local patriot

groups that are members of the Ohio Liberty Council.”

        72.     Defendant posts events of its member groups and allows members to post

comments or blogs on policy issues.

        73.     Defendant has posted an article on its website titled “OLC Garners Local and

National Attention Over Submission of Health Care Freedom Amendment to Ohio Attorney

General. [Exhibit 14].

        74.     Defendant was recently mentioned in an article in the magazine, The American

Spectator, a magazine that is available to the general public on the Internet. [Exhibit 15].




       Complaint For Declaratory Judgment, Injunctive Relief and Damages - Page 9
Case: 2:11-cv-00789-JLG-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/31/11 Page: 10 of 19 PAGEID #: 10



        75.    Defendant is increasing its efforts to gain statewide and national attention.

        76.    Defendant’s increasing activity is causing irreparable harm to Plaintiff because of

the likelihood of confusion regarding the source of the goods or services to the target audience.

        77.    Plaintiff learned about Defendant’s website through online reports about the

Defendant, while monitoring online reports about its own activities.

        78.    Plaintiff sent a letter on September 4, 2009 to Mr. Chris Littleton, Co-founder, of

Defendant’s organization, demanding that Defendant cease and desist the infringement of

Plaintiff’s trademark. [Exhibit 16].

        79.    Defendant refused to stop its infringement of Plaintiff’s trademark rights.

        80.    As a result of Defendant’s continued infringement, Plaintiff retained a trademark

attorney who sent a letter dated March 8, 2010 to Mr. Chris Littleton, demanding that Defendant

cease and desist the violation of Plaintiff’s trademark. [Exhibit 17].

        81.    The letter explained some similarities between Defendant’s name and Plaintiff’s

name.

        82.    The letter stated in part, “Your continued use of the mark after having received

actual notice is now a willful choice to continue to violate Liberty Counsel’s rights.”

        83.    The letter warned Defendant that Plaintiff intends to seek legal recourse if

Defendant continued the trademark violation.

        84.     Defendant neither responded to this second letter nor stopped its infringement of

Plaintiff’s trademark rights.

        85.     Plaintiff’s President, Anita Staver, sent an email on June 30, 2010 to Mr.

Littleton and other agents or representatives of Defendant organization demanding that

Defendant cease and desist infringement of Plaintiff’s trademark property rights. [Exhibit 18].




      Complaint For Declaratory Judgment, Injunctive Relief and Damages - Page 10
Case: 2:11-cv-00789-JLG-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/31/11 Page: 11 of 19 PAGEID #: 11



         86.    Neither Mr. Littleton nor any other representative of Defendant responded to the

email.

         87.    Defendant was warned that Plaintiff intended to pursue further legal action if

Defendant persisted in using the name “Ohio Liberty Council.”

         88.    Defendant persists in its violation and infringement of Plaintiff’s trademark rights.

         89.    Plaintiff has diverted some of its legal staff, who would otherwise be working on

federal civil rights lawsuits where attorneys fees are available under 42 U.S.C. §1988, to prepare

this action.


                                     COUNT I
                         FEDERAL TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

         90.    Plaintiff hereby incorporates and adopts each and every allegation in the

preceding paragraphs.

         91.    Plaintiff owns several federal trademarks, including some incontestable marks.

         92.    Plaintiff owns the mark “LIBERTY COUNSEL,” which is registered with the

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for “public policy research services” and “litigation services.”

[Exhibit 19].

         93.    Plaintiff owns the mark “LIBERTYCOUNCIL,” which is registered with the U.S.

Patent and Trademark Office for the services: “providing a website featuring information about

political issues.” [Exhibit 20].

         94.    The mark LIBERTYCOUNCIL is inherently distinctive.

         95.    Plaintiff owns the mark “LIBERTY COUNSEL,” which was granted registration

on November 23, 1999 by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for the services “association




      Complaint For Declaratory Judgment, Injunctive Relief and Damages - Page 11
Case: 2:11-cv-00789-JLG-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/31/11 Page: 12 of 19 PAGEID #: 12



services, namely, promoting the interests of individuals who have had their religious civil

liberties violated.” [Exhibit 21].

        96.     Plaintiff owns the mark “LIBERTY COUNSEL,” which was granted registration

on October 19, 1999 by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, for the goods: “educational

materials, namely, books, brochures and informational fliers featuring information on religion,

civil liberties, religious freedom and the importance of education as it relates to religion, civil

liberties, religious freedom.” [Exhibit 22].

        97.     Plaintiff owns the mark “LIBERTY COUNSEL THE LIBERATOR,” which was

granted registration on December 7, 1999 by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for the

goods: “Newsletter published by the Corporation for supporters and other interested individuals

providing information regarding current religious civil liberties issues.” [Exhibit 23].

        98.     The marks represented by the words “Liberty Counsel” are valid and legally

protectable by Plaintiff.

        99.     Liberty Council is identical or substantially similar to one or more of the

trademarks owned by Plaintiff.

        100.    Defendant’s activities are similar to some of the activities of Plaintiff.

        101.    Some of Defendant’s activities are related to legal issues.

        102.    Some of Defendant’s activities are related to public policy issues.

        103.    The goods offered by Defendant are related in some manner to the goods offered

by Plaintiff.

        104.    The services offered by Defendant are related in some manner to the services

offered by Plaintiff.




      Complaint For Declaratory Judgment, Injunctive Relief and Damages - Page 12
Case: 2:11-cv-00789-JLG-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/31/11 Page: 13 of 19 PAGEID #: 13



       105.    The conditions and activities surrounding the marketing of Defendant’s goods are

such that they could be encountered by individuals under conditions that could give rise to the

mistaken belief that they come from the same source as goods provided by Plaintiff.

       106.    The conditions and activities surrounding the marketing of Defendant’s services

are such that they could be encountered by individuals under conditions that could give rise to

the mistaken belief that they come from the same source as the services provided by Plaintiff.

       107.    The use and manner of marketing the goods and services provided by Plaintiff

and Defendant are similar enough to cause the likelihood of confusion among the consumers

who are Plaintiff’s target audience.

       108.    Relevant consumers of goods and/or services of both Plaintiff and Defendant are

likely to believe that Defendant is affiliated with Plaintiff in some manner.

       109.    There is a substantial likelihood of confusion between the sponsorship,

ownership, and representation of documents, products, services, and events of Plaintiff and

Defendant.

       110.    There is a significant crossover between the target audience for both Defendant’s

and Plaintiff’s goods and services.

       111.    Defendant’s goods and services are within the zone of likely future expansion of

Plaintiff’s goods and services registered under Plaintiff’s trademarks.

       112.    Plaintiff has notified Defendant in writing of its infringement, but Defendant has

willfully persisted in using the name “Liberty Council.”

       113.    Defendant’s use of the name “Liberty Council” is likely to create confusion as to

the origin of goods and/or services provided by Defendant.

       114.    The name “Liberty Council” sounds identical to the name “Liberty Counsel.”




      Complaint For Declaratory Judgment, Injunctive Relief and Damages - Page 13
Case: 2:11-cv-00789-JLG-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/31/11 Page: 14 of 19 PAGEID #: 14



        115.    Representatives of both Plaintiff and Defendant appear on radio and television

under their corporate names, which sound identical.

        116.    Plaintiff engages in commerce online by offering items in return for a suggested

donation and accepts additional donations at its website, www.LC.org, to support its work.

        117.    Plaintiff purchased and uses additional URLs, including libertycounsel.com,

libertycounsel.info, libertycounsel.mobi, libertycounsel.net, libertycounsel.org, libertycounsel.us,

libertycouncil.com,      libertycouncil.info,    libertycouncil.mobi,     libertycouncil.net,    and

libertycouncil.us, which are redirected to www.LC.org so that consumers will be able to find

Plaintiff’s website even without knowing how to spell Plaintiff’s corporate name.

        118.    The name of Defendant’s website, “OhioLibertyCouncil.com” is substantially

similar to the name of Plaintiff’s website, “LibertyCouncil.com.”

        119.    Defendant engages in commerce online by offering items for sale and solicits

donations at its website, OhioLibertyCouncil.com.

        120.    Defendant’s use of Plaintiff’s trademark is deceptively similar to Plaintiff’s use.

        121.    Defendant is infringing on the trademark rights of Liberty Counsel by its past and

continuing use of the name “Liberty Council.”

        122.    Defendant knowingly used the name “Liberty Council” after knowing that

Plaintiff objected to its use.

        123.    Defendant’s use of Plaintiff’s trademark is flagrant and willful.

        124.    Defendant’s continued use of “Liberty Council” constitutes fraud on the public,

who often fail to distinguish between Defendant’s name and “Liberty Counsel.”

        125.    Due to the publicity that Defendant has willfully pursued and obtained since

knowing about Plaintiff’s trademark rights, the harm to Plaintiff’s trademark rights is widespread




      Complaint For Declaratory Judgment, Injunctive Relief and Damages - Page 14
Case: 2:11-cv-00789-JLG-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/31/11 Page: 15 of 19 PAGEID #: 15



and will be difficult to reverse.

        126.    By using the name “Liberty Council,” Defendant’s actions violate Plaintiff’s

federal trademark rights and in doing so have caused and are continuing to cause Plaintiff

irreparable harm.


                                  COUNT II
                     COMMON LAW TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

        127.    Plaintiff hereby incorporates and adopts each and every allegation in the

preceding paragraphs.

        128.    Plaintiff has common law rights to the name “LIBERTY COUNSEL” which are

protectable under Ohio law.

        129.    By using the name “Liberty Council,” Defendant has created and is likely to

continue to create confusion as to the source of the goods or services to the target audience, and

as to the relationship between Defendant and Plaintiff, violating Plaintiff’s common law

trademark rights and causing Plaintiff irreparable harm.



                                       COUNT III
                               DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES

        130.    Plaintiff hereby incorporates and adopts each and every allegation set forth in the

preceding paragraphs.

        131.    Defendant operates in Ohio and offers some services or goods that are similar to

those offered by Plaintiff in Ohio.

        132.    Defendant’s use and registration of the name “Ohio Liberty Council” is likely to

cause confusion or misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of




      Complaint For Declaratory Judgment, Injunctive Relief and Damages - Page 15
Case: 2:11-cv-00789-JLG-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/31/11 Page: 16 of 19 PAGEID #: 16



its goods and services because “Liberty Council” is indistinguishable in sound and phonetics

from Plaintiff’s mark, “Liberty Counsel.”

        133.   Defendant’s actions have caused or are likely to cause confusion or

misunderstanding as to source, sponsorship, approval or certification of goods and services, and

constitute deceptive trade practices under Ohio Rev. Code § 4165.02(A)(2).

        134.   Defendant actions have caused or are likely to cause confusion or

misunderstanding as to affiliation, connection, or association with Plaintiff, and constitute

deceptive trade practices under under Ohio Rev. Code § 4165.02(A)(3).

        135.   Defendant has engaged in deceptive trade practice in the course of its business

and is therefore liable to Plaintiff for violating Ohio’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act under Ohio

Rev. Code Ann. § 4165.01 et seq.

        136.   By using the name “Liberty Council,” Defendant’s actions have caused and are

continuing to cause Plaintiff irreparable harm, for which there is no adequate remedy at law.


                                   COUNT IV
                         COMMON LAW UNFAIR COMPETITION

         137. Plaintiff hereby incorporates and adopts each and every allegation set forth in the

preceding paragraphs.

         138. Defendant’s willful use of the name “Liberty Council” to describe its goods and

services after learning about Plaintiff’s similar goods and services constitutes unfair competition.

         139. Defendant’s continued use of the name “Liberty Council” to describe its goods

and services has deceived the public into believing that Defendant is affiliated or related to

Plaintiff.




      Complaint For Declaratory Judgment, Injunctive Relief and Damages - Page 16
Case: 2:11-cv-00789-JLG-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/31/11 Page: 17 of 19 PAGEID #: 17



         140. By using the name “Liberty Council,” Defendant has obtained benefits from the

more than 20 years of effort that Plaintiff has spent developing its goodwill in Ohio and around

the world.

         141. By using the name “Liberty Council,” Defendant’s actions have caused and are

continuing to cause Plaintiff irreparable harm, for which there is no adequate remedy at law.



                                    PRAYER FOR RELIEF

         WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:

         A.    That this Court issue a Preliminary Injunction to restrain the Defendant, their

officers, agents, employees and all other persons acting in active concert with them from

infringing on Plaintiff’s federal and common law trademark rights by using the name “Liberty

Council.”

         B.    That this Court issue a Permanent Injunction to restrain the Defendant, its

officers, agents, employees and all other persons acting in active concert with them from

infringing on Plaintiff’s trademark rights by using the name “Liberty Council.”

         C.    That this Court enter Declaratory Judgment declaring that Plaintiff is the

prevailing party on all Counts and that Defendant has infringed Plaintiff’s trademark rights by

using the name “Liberty Council.”

         D.    That this Court order Defendant to immediately transfer to Plaintiff any and all

URLs that it owns containing Plaintiff’s mark, libertycouncil, or that sound like any of Plaintiff’s

marks.




      Complaint For Declaratory Judgment, Injunctive Relief and Damages - Page 17
Case: 2:11-cv-00789-JLG-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/31/11 Page: 18 of 19 PAGEID #: 18



       E.        That this Court order Defendant to deliver up for destruction any printed and

online materials in its possession that infringe on Plaintiff’s mark by using the name “Liberty

Council.”

       F.        That this Court order Defendant to immediately withdraw, cancel and/or delete

any corporate names, trademark applications and/or trademark registrations for or including the

“Liberty Council” trademark.

       G.        That this Court order Defendant to immediately file documents dissolving any

corporation using the “Liberty Council” trademark so that anyone performing corporation

searches will not be misled into thinking that Plaintiff is or was ever incorporated in Ohio.

       H.        That this Court award compensation to Plaintiff equal to three times the Plaintiff’s

actual damages, plus the amount of Defendant’s profits, plus Plaintiff’s costs of this action, and

an additional amount that is determined equitable under the circumstances, based on Defendant’s

violation of the Plaintiff’s trademarks, in accordance with 15 U.S.C. §1117.

       I.        That this Court award Plaintiff attorney’s fees as provided in 15 U.S.C. §1117.

       J.        That this Court award Plaintiff damages, costs and expenses of this action,

including attorney’s fees, in accordance with the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Ohio Rev.

Code Ann. § 4165.03.

       K.        That this Court adjudge, decree, and declare the rights and other legal relations

with the subject matter here in controversy, in order that such declaration shall have the force

and effect of final judgment;

       L.        That this Court retain jurisdiction of this matter for the purpose of enforcing this

Court’s order;




      Complaint For Declaratory Judgment, Injunctive Relief and Damages - Page 18
Case: 2:11-cv-00789-JLG-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/31/11 Page: 19 of 19 PAGEID #: 19



       M.     That this Court grant such other and further relief as this Court deems equitable

and just under the circumstances.




                                           Respectfully Submitted,

                                           /s/ Horatio G. Mihet________________________
                                           Horatio G. Mihet
                                               Ohio Bar No. 0075518
                                           LIBERTY COUNSEL
                                           1055 Maitland Center Commons Blvd.
                                           Maitland, FL 32751
                                           Tel: 800-671-1776
                                           Fax: 407-875-0770
                                           Email: hmihet@LC.org




     Complaint For Declaratory Judgment, Injunctive Relief and Damages - Page 19

								
To top