Knowledgenet v. Boone Domain Name & Trademark Complaint


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

No. 94 C 7 1 95

KNOWLEDGENET, INC.,
Plaintiff,

vs.

DAVID L. BOONE,
D.L. BOONE & COMPANY, A Delaware corp
dlb/a KnowledgeNet,
NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC.,
and DIGITAL EXPRESS GROUP, INC.,
Defendants.

Judge: CASTILLO
Magistrate Judge: LEFKOW

JURY DEMANDED

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff KnowledgeNet, Inc., through its attorneys Potter & Thorelli, hereby asserts this AMENDED COMPLAINT against Defendants for: (1) infringement of Plaintiff's federally registered trademark and service mark "KnowledgeNet" [the "Marks"] under Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C $1114(1); (2) unfair competition under $43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. $1125(a); (3) unfair competition under Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 I.L C S 510 $2, (4) dilution and injury to business reputation under The Counterfeit Trademark Act of the State of Illinois, 65 I.L.C.S. 1040 $2; and (5) racketeering activities, including mail and wire fraud, under The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970 ["RICO"], as amended, 18 U.S.C. $1961, et. seq. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and damages against Defendants.

Jurisdiction And Venue

1. This Court has jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. $1961, et. seq., 18 U.S.C. $1964(c), 15U.S.C. $1121 and $1331, $1338(a), and 28 U.S.C. $$1331, 1332, 1338(a), and 1338(b). There is diversity of citizenship between the parties, and the amount in controversy exceeds $50,000 exclusive of interests and costs. Jurisdiction over the state law claims is also appropriate under principles of pendent jurisdiction. The claims asserted herein arose in part, and the damages were suffered by Plaintiff, at least in part, in this judicial district.

2 Venue is proper under 18 U.S.C. $1964(b) and 28 U.S.C. $1391(b) and the Illinois Long Arm Statute, I.L.C.S. S/2-209. A substantial part of the events or ornissions giving rise to the claim occurred, the tortious acts occurred, and a substantial part of the injury took place and continues to take place, in this judicial district. Defendants have purposefully and repeatedly perpetrated their activities within and through this Judicial District, at least in substantial part through interstate wire telecornrnunications and the mail.

The Parties

3. Plaintiff is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Illinois with a principal place of business at 1260 West Northwest Highway, Palatine, Illinois 60067.

4. Defendant David L Boone is an individual residing at 1945 Kennedy Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102.

5. Defendant D.L. Boone & Company is a corporation formed under the laws of the State of Delaware, with a principal place of business at 8000 Towers Crescent Drive, Vienna, Virginia22182. Defendants David L. Boone and D.L. Boone & Company are collectively called "Defendants Boone" from time to time below.

6. Defendant Network Solutions, Incorporated, is a corporation formed under the laws of the State of Virginia, with a principal place of business at 505 Huntmar Park Drive, Hearndon, Virginia 22070.

7. Defendant Network Solutions, Incorporated, and the National Science Foundation ["NSF"] are collectively referred to from time to time as "the Internic."

8. Defendant Digital Express Group, Inc., is a corporation of the State of Maryland, with a principal place of business at 6006 Greenbelt Road #228, Greenbelt, MD 20770.

Plaintiff's Marks

9. Plaintiff is actively engaged in computer consulting services, software development, distribution, support and technology licensing providing computer consulting services and products, including client/server services and products, to clients in the United States and abroad. Plaintiffhas used the name "KnowledgeNet" as the name of their corporation, and has used the Marks in interstate commerce, since at least January 1, 1991. The following federal trademark and service mark registrations for the Marks are owned by Plaintiff Copies of these registrations are annexed hereto as Exhibits A and B, respectively [the"Registrations"].

a) The trademark "KnowledgeNet," United States Patent and Trademark Office registration No. 1,814,768, issued January 4, 1994, for "Computer software for use in connection with computer networking, performance modeling, project management and/or the conduct of feasibility studies"; and b) The service mark "KnowledgeNet," United States Patent and Trademark Office registration No. 1,802,448, issued November 2, 1993, for "Computer Consulting Services."

10. The Registrations are valid and in full force and effect. They serve as prima facie evidence of (1) the validity of the Marks, and (2) Plaintiff's exclusive rights to use the Marks in connection with its goods and services.

11. Plaintiff's computer consulting services, software development, distribution, support and licensing are advertised in magazines, at trade shows, and by way of other advertising media. The Marks are prominently shown in its advertisements.

12. Plaintiff has spent a substantial portion of its sales income over the last four years in advertising and promoting computer-related services and goods using the Marks.

13. Plaintiff's goods and services, and the Marks themselves, enjoy an excellent reputation. The Marks now designate excellent computer consulting services, software development, distribution, support and licensing, and have gained great value in the marketplace. Plaintiff's extensive use and promotion of the Marks have made the Marks well known, identifying and distinguishing goods and services emanating from, symbolizing, or authorized by Plaintiff.

14 For nearly two years, Plaintiff has been communicating with selected clients, prospects and business associates through the computer on-line service Compuserve(R) to transact business, and to market its products.

15. Defendants are not and have never been authorized by Plaintiff, and are not and have never been entitled, to use the Marks in connection with any business or service.

Defendants' Unlawful Use Of Plaintiff's Marks

16. In early June 1994, Plaintiff first learned that Defendants Boone were using "knowledgenet.com" in transacting business on the Intemet. On information and belief, the Internet is an international computer "super-network" of over 15,000 computer networks which is used by 30 million or more individuals, corporations and educational institutions worldwide. Defendants Boone are and have also been using the Marks to identify and market computer consulting and other computer-related services on the Intemet, including using as their on-line Internet computer address the domain name "knowledgenet . com" .

17. On or about June 16, 1994, Defendants Boone were advised that Defendants must cease and desist any infringing use of the Marks. Defendants Boone at this time became evasive concerning the scope of their uses of the Marks and their consulting services.

18. On or about July 7, 1994, Plaintiff sent a second written notice by telecopier and certified mail to Defendants Boone again demanding that Defendants immediately cease and desist all infringing use of the Marks.

19. On or about July 14, 1994, Defendants Boone contacted Plaintiff stating that Defendants would not voluntarily cease and desist use of the Marks, but would do so upon pavment to David L. Boone of an unspecified amount of money since the Marks "have value."

20. Despite being placed on notice of their violations of Plaintiff's rights, Defendants Boone have used the Marks extensively, including even licensing of the Marks in the United States and abroad. Thus, Defendant David L. Boone has transacted business as "KnowledgeNet." Defendant D.L. Boone & Company also transacted business as "KnowledgeNet." Defendants Boone, individually and in concert with each other and with identified and unidentified "co- participants," has provided information, services and consultancies relating to computer industries under the names "KnowledgeNet," "knowledgenet," and "Knowledge_Net," all without Plaintiff's authorization or consent.

21. Defendants' use and unauthorized and illegal transmissions have coincided with Plaintiff's expansion of its operations inside and outside of the United States. Thus, according to a newspaper article which appeared in the July 29, 1994, issue of THE TIMES of London, England, Defendants Boone and those others working in concert and forming one or more criminal enterprises (hereafter "the Enterprise") have expanded the scope of their infringements, using in their own words the "international trademark" "KnowledgeNet" to win business and work on assignments brought in by other associates. Defendants Boone have solicited and have made agreements with others over the wires and through the mail to join in their unlawful Enterprise involving the unauthorized use of the Marks. In fact, Defendants Boone have licensed the use of the Marks in return for money and other valuable consideration.

22. Defendants Boone are therefore actively engaged in the unlawful, willful and malicious, use and licensing to others of the Marks. Other unauthorized persons have been offered and granted such "licenses" of the Marks, joining in this scheme and criminal Enterprise.

23. Defendants Boone have unlawfully and willfully and maliciously used the Marks to the economic detriment of Plaintiff, including the misrepresentation of the source of the goods and services offered under the Marks, the dilution of the distinctive nature of the Marks, and the unauthorized licensing of Plaintiff's Marks.

24. Defendants Boone, despite being placed repeatedly on notice of their violation of Plaintiff' s rights, continue to offer services under the names "KnowledgeNet" Knowledge_Net and in connection with the use of"knowledgenet.com." They have therefore stolen Plaintif~s Marks and corporate identity and made them their own. In fact, one of their newest business names, "D.L. Boone & Co./Knowledge_Net," suggests that Defendants Boone have acquired or are engaged in a joint venture with Plaintiff.

Defendants' Unlawful Internet Activities

25. Over the past year, Plaintiff has explored opportunities to develop an on-line service on the Internet under its "KnowledgeNet" trading name.

26. Users of the Internet can access each other's computers, can communicate directly with each other (by means of electronic mail or "e- mail"), and can access various types of data and information. Each Internet user has an e-mail address, consisting of one or more address components, which e-mail address is otherwise commonly referred to within the Internet as a "domain" or "domain name." The entry and/or change of addressee data for an Internet on-line computer address is an activity that tal~es little time or effort and which can currently be effected merely upon written request to the Internic.

27. Common practice for the formulation of Intemet domain names for commercial users is that the prefix of its domain name is such user's commercial trading name and the suffix is the designation ".com" as a common term used to identify one's service as commercial in nature.

28. For example, The General Electric Company has established and operates an on- line service under the Internet address "ge.com" for various corporate commercial purposes. Likewise, the IBM Corporation has established and operates an on-line service under the Internet address "ibm.com" for various corporate commercial purposes.

29. In March 1994, Defendants Boone first induced a Massachusetts corporation, The Internet Company, to obtain the "knowledgenet.com" domain name under D.L. Boone & Company in the Internic's address database upon application to Defendant Network Solutions, Inc.. 30. On information and belief, Defendant Network Solutions, Inc., accepted The Internet Company's application and listed the "knowledgenet.com" domain under "D.L. Boone & Company" in March 1994. On information and belief, Defendants Boone requested the Internic at some time thereafter to transfer routing of all messages addressed to the knowledgenet.com domain address to Defendants Boone via Defendant's Boone Internet account with Defendant Digital Express Group, Inc.

31. Defendants Boone have provided computer consulting and other business services and/or are offering such services to others from time to time, using the"knowledgenet.com" domain and, more recently, claiming ownership of and threatening to continue to use the "knowledgenet. com" domain, pending an Intemet server re- assignment. The Intemet domain name has been used by Defendants Boone and others to indicate: (1) the Enterprise providing services and materials, (2) the source of the service or information being provided, and (3) the Mark purportedly owned by Defendants Boone.

32. Plaintiff KnowledgeNet is on-line with an Intemet service at this time but, because of Defendants' umawful activities, Plaintiff has been wrongfully and maliciously prevented from establishing such on-line services under the "knowledgenet.com" domain as its Intemet trading name.

33. Defendant Network Solutions, Incorporated, is in the business of providing services relating to the assignment, cataloging and maintenance of Intemet domain addresses. Under the direction of Donald Mitchell, the NSF is the party to a Cooperative Agreement with Defendant Network Solutions, Inc., under which agreement services relating to the assignment, cataloging and maintenance of Intemet domain addresses are provided. Defendant Network Solutions, Incorporated, and NSF therefore cooperate in the administration of the Intemet, and together are othelwise commonly known as "the InterNic." In that capacity, the Internic has assisted, aided and abetted Defendants Boone in the publication and use of Plaintiff's Marks on the Intemet and public telephone systems in this Judicial District and those of the various states and foreign countries notwithstanding actual knowledge of Plaintiff's Marks and Plaintiff's demands to both the Internic and Defendants Boone to cease and desist the use of the Marks.

34. Defendant Digital Express Group, Inc., is in the business of providing services relating to the interconnection of telecommunications means of individuals and others to the Internet. Defendant Digital Express has assisted, aided and abetted Defendants Boone in the publication and use of Plaintiff's Marks on the Internet and public telephone systems in this Judicial District and those of the various states and foreign countries notwithstanding actual knowledge of Plaintiff's Marks and the demands that such activity cease.

35. Defendant Digital Express has provided such interconnections for Defendants Boone over the past several months. Defendants Boone and Digital Express Group, Inc., are or have been providing one or more on- line service(s) with the use of Plaintiff's Marks on the Internet with the knowledge, assistance and approval of the Internic. Defendant Digital Express therefore has actively assisted Defendants Boone and others in publishing and stealing the Marks.

36. Defendants Boone also have solicited others to engage with Defendants in providing computer consulting and other business services by offering such services by using "KnowledgeNet" and from time to time, the "knowledgenet.com" domain.

37. Defendants' service on the Internet appears to be sponsored or authorized by Plaintiff. However, none of the information or material provided by Defendants through Defendants' service or in connection with the "knowledgenet.com" domain is authorized by Plaintiff, nor has Plaintiff ever given permission to the Defendants to provide any of this material or information on the Internet or to use the Marks.

38. Over the past months, on numerous occasions, Plaintiff has contacted defendant Network Solutions, Inc. and NSF to advise them concerning Plaintifl's ownership of the Marks and Defendants' infringements. Defendant Digital Express Group, Inc., has also been notified by Plaintiff and others of the infringements of the Marks.

39. Plaintiff has demanded that NSF and Network Solutions, Inc., as controlling entities of the Internic, cease and desist all infringing use of the Marks and reassign the domain name "knowledgenet.com" to Plaintiff as lawful owner of the Marks. They have refused.

40. Defendants are distinct persons, associated with and/or acting to aid and abet the illegal Enterprise, and facilitating the unauthorized use of the Marks, via telecommunications and other means throughout the United States and abroad.

41. Defendants' unauthorized use of the Marks constitutes a continuing pattem of unlawful activities, which activities Defendants Boone, with the full knowledge of and aided by the facilities and Internet resources of the remaining Defendants, have publicly proclaimed are not isolated incidents or events but rather a part of the commencement of a world- wide venture to claim an interest in the Marks as their own trademark.

42. Defendants have established a mechanism allowing monthly "status reports", Compuserve(R) business forum discussion groups, and other means of communicating with others desiring to use, using or being solicited to use the Marks. Defendants Boone have used the United States Postal Service for this purpose, and all Defendants have used the Internet to make fraudulent interstate wire transmissions, falsely asserting through the use of the Internet and other means that Defendants Boone are the true owners of the Marks.

43. Each of the Defendants' positions in this racketeering Enterprise.has in one or more ways facilitated the comrnission of the pattern of unlawful activities. Each transmission, use and other publication of Plaintiff's Marks on the Internet, through the United States Mail and through other interstate transmissions is unlawful, without approval, and constitutes a separate infringement of those Marks. Each action taken with respect to the Marks is taken in furtherance of the Enterprise to assume and misappropriate the rights to the Marks in the United States and around the world. Such persons include all persons engaged in the telephonic and data transmission of the Marks on the Internet, including common carriers and private networks.

44. The Internic has facilitated the illegal use of the Marks by first allowing, and then refusing to reassign the domain name, "knowledgenet.com."

45. Defendant Digital Express Group, Inc., has knowingly facilitated the unauthorized use of the Marks by enabling the Defendants to connect to each other via a link from the public telephone system into the Internet, and by providing one or more computer storage media on or from which Defendants Boone, from time to time, store, retrieve, and transmit the Marks, claims of ownership thereof, all without authorization of Plaintiff, as well as claims of ownership of and threats to use the "knowledgenet. com" domain.

46. Defendants are continuing to use, reproduce, distribute and offer third parties the opportunity to use, reproduce and distribute the Marks. They are facilitating the fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions of Defendants Boone that they own the Marks, and/or that their services are in some way authorized by or affiliated with Plaintiff, including assisting in and carrying numerous wire and mail transmissions making this assertion and illegally using the Marks.

Count I Racketeering Activities

47. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1. through 46. as though they are set forth fully

48. Defendants have engaged in and have formed one or more enterprises, engaged in a pattern of unlawful activities to acquire, maintain or control an interest in the Enterprise, to use income derived therefrom in furtherance thereof, and to unlawfully use the Marks. The Enterprise affects interstate or foreign commerce.

49. Defendants and others conduct, control and/or participate in the Enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activities within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. $1962(c).

50. Defendants' use, firom time to time, threatened future use, and claim of ownership, within this Judicial District, the various States and throughout the world, of the Internet domain name "knowledgenet. com", their use of the Marks in Internet and other transmissions, and the provision of computer consulting services unconnected to that of Plaintiff, without the authorization of Plaintiff, all involve multiple instances of: (I) trademark infringement in violation of $32(1) ofthe Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. $1114(1) and $43(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. $1125(a); (2) wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. $1343; and (3) mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. $1341, including conducting, controlling andlor participating in the Enterprise by use of the United States Postal Service.

51. Defendants' collective participation in a pattern of illegal activity has been willful and deliberate.

52. Defendants' use, from time to time, threatened future use, and claim of ownership, of the domain name "knowledgenet.com" is causing actual confusion, fraud and deception to the customers and potential customers of the goods and services of Plaintiff as well as the public at large.

53. The aforesaid conduct of Defendants has caused Plaintiff immediate and irreparable injury. Plaintiffhas no adequate remedy at law.

Count II Federal Trademark Infringement

54. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1. through 53 as though they are set forth fully herein.

55. Defendants' continued use, from time to time, threatened future use, and claim of ownership of the domain name "knowledgenet.com" and their use of the Marks in connection with a computer service unconnected to that of Plaintiff and without the authorization of Plaintiff infringes Plaintiff's exclusive rights in its federally registered trademark in violation of $32(1) of the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U. S.C. $1 1 14(1), in that the public is likely to be confused, deceived or mistaken regarding the source or sponsorship of Defendants' services, offered under the KnowledgeNet name or "knowledgenet.com" Internet address, or to erroneously believe that Defendants' services emanate from or are authorized by Plaintiff, or to believe that Plaintiff is the author of or has otherwise provided the information supplied by Defendants through their service.

56. Defendants' infringements of Plaintiff's trademark are willful and deliberate and with an intent to reap the benefit of Plaintiff's goodwill.

57. The aforesaid conduct of Defendants is causing Plaintiff immediate and irreparable injury. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.

Count III Federal Unfair Competition

58. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1. through 57. as though they are set forth fully herein.

59. Defendants Boone's use and claim of ownership of "KnowledgeNet" and their use, from time to time, threatened future use, and claim of ownership of "knowledgenet.com" with the full knowledge, consent and aided by the use of the facilities of the remaining Defendants, for their personal and commercial activities constitutes a false designation of origin or description and misrepresents the nature of their activities in that it erroneously and explicitly designates Defendants' services as coming from or connected with Plaintiff.

60. Defendants' use of "knowledgenet.com" and/or "KnowledgeNet," constitute a false designation of origin or false misrepresentation that is likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of Defendants with Plaintiff or as to whether Plaintiff has sponsored, approved or authorized Defendants' goods or services or is otherwise connected to them.

61. Defendants' acts are in violation of $43(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 USC $ 1125 (a).

62. Defendant's acts of unfair competition are willful and deliberate and with an intent to reap the benefit of the Plaintiff's name, goodwill and repution.

63. The aforesaid conduct of Defendants are causing Plaintiff imrnediate and irreparable injury. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.

Count IV State and Common Law Unfair Competition

64. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1. through 63. as though they are set forth fully herein.

65. Defendants' continued use, from time to time, threatened future use, and claim of ownership of "knowledgenet.com" and their use of the Marks on or in connection with a service that is not affiliated with or connected to Plaintiff but which name and marks are used in connection with purposes substantially identical to that provided by Plaintiff on the Internet under the Marks, is likely to confuse the public as to the origin, source, or sponsorship of Defendants' services or to cause mistake or to deceive the public into believing that Defendants' services are authorized by or affiliated with Plaintiff in violation of Plaintiff's rights in their servicemark and trademark under the common law of the Stateof Illinois.

66. Defendants are using the Marks with full knowledge of Plaintiff's prior use there of and with full knowledge that Defendants have no authority to use the Marks in connection with a business or service not associated with Plaintiff

67. Defendants' conduct is for the willful and calculated purpose of misappropriating and trading upon Plaintiff's goodwill and business reputation at Plaintiff's expense and at no expense to Defendants. By wrongly appropriating the Marks, Defendants have been and continue to be unjustly enriched and Plaintiff has been damaged.

68. The aforementioned conduct of Defendants constitutes common law unfair competition which has irreparably damaged and will continue to damage Plaintiff unless enjoined by this Court. Plaintiffhas no adequate remedy at law.

Count V Trademark Dilution And Injurv To Business Reputation

69. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1. through 68. as though they are set forth fully herein.

70. The Marks have become popular, recognized marks in the United States, and by reason of Plaintiff's extensive advertising and use thereof, the Marks are highly distinctive of Plaintiff's goods and services.

71. Defendants' use of the Marks in connection with their commercial activities that are unconnected to Plaintiff and which are neither sponsored by Plaintiff, nor within Plaintiff's control, is likely to dilute the distinctive quality of the Marks and cause injury to Plaintiff's business reputation in violation ofthe Counterfeit Trademark Act ofthe State of Illinois, 765 I.L.C.S. 1040 $2.

72. The foregoing conduct of Defendants are causing Plaintiff irreparable injury. Plaintiff lacks an adequate remedy at law.

Count VI For Deceptive Trade Practices 73. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1. through 72. as though they are set forth fully herein.

74. By reason of the acts and practices set forth above, Defendants have been and are engaged in deceptive- trade practices or acts in the conduct of a business, trade or commerce, or in the fumishing of services, in violation of the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act ofthe State of Illinois, 815 I.L.C.S. 510 $2.

75. Defendants' use, from time to time, threatened future use, and claim of ownership of "knowledgenet.com" on the Intemet for services unconnected to Plaintiff, are holding themselves out as authorized users of the Marks when they are not, and are holding their service out as an authorized service of Plaintiff which it is not.

76. The public is likely to be damaged as a result of the deceptive trade practices or acts engaged in by Defendants.

77. Unless enjoined by the Court under the provisions of Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act of the- State of Illinois, 815 I.L.C.S. 510 $3, Defendants will continue said deceptive trade practices or acts, thereby deceiving the public and causing immediate irreparable damage to Plaintiff. Plaintiffhas no adequate remedy at law.

Count VII Usurpation Of Propertv, Business and Opportunity

78. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1. through 77. as though they are set forth fully herein.

79. The Intemet address for Plaintiff as.an addressee on the Intemet should be "knowledgenet.com." No other person or entity should be entitled to use that address.

80. By reason of taking the Internet address properly useable only by Plaintiff, and using Plaintiff's corporate name, Marks, business identity, property and opportunities, Defendants have usurped Plaintiff's property, business, and opportunities, including its right and opportunity to use its established name as a trading name and address on the Internet.

81. As a result of Defendants' wrongful usurpation of Plaintiff's property, business and opportunity, Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

Count VIII Negligent Misrepresentation

82. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1. through 81. as though they are set forth fully herein.

83. Defendants negligently represented the ownership of the Marks during the period of time they may have had no notice of or sufficient reason to inquire about (in no way conceding that such a duty does not always exist for those engaged in offering or facilitating transmission services) Plaintif's ownership ofthe Marks.

84. Defendants acts at that time constituted negligent misrepresentation.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment as follows: a) That Defendants, their agents, franchisees, licensees, servants, representatives, employees, attorneys, successors and assigns, and all those in active concert or participation with any of them who receive notice of such judgment directly or otherwise, be preliminarily and permanently enjoined from infringing the Marks, whether or not registered, from falsely designating the origin, sponsorship of or affiliation of their business or services, from unfairly competing with Plaintiff, from diluting the distinctive quality of the Marks and specifically

(i) Imitating, copying, using, reproducing, displaying, maintaining on any database or computer, or authorizing or permitting any third party to imitate, copy, use, reproduce, display download by computer or maintain by computer or otherwise, the Marks or any copies, simulations, variations or colorable imitations thereof on or in connection with the offering of any goods, service, inforrnation or data via computer network or otherwise, including making any use, threatening to use, claiming ownership of or registering or procuring "knowledgenet.com" as an address or using it on the Internet, or otherwise;

(ii) Using, authorizing, maintaining or making available for use or aiding in any way any third party to use or copy the Marks, or from otherwise infringing the Marks;

(iii) Using any trademark, trade name, logo, business name, computer address or other identifier or acting in any fashion which may be calculated to falsely represent that the services provided, promoted or offered by Defendants are sponsored by, authorized by, licensed by, or in any other way associated with Plaintiff;

(iv) Diluting the distinctive quality of the Marks, including the unauthorized licensing thereof;

(v) Aiding, assisting or abetting any other party in doing any act prohibited by sub-paragraphs 'i' through 'iv' above.

(b) Directing that Defendants de]ete from their computer files, menus, hard drives, diskettes and backups, and deliver up to Plaintiff all materials incorporating or bearing the Marks or the mark or name "knowledgenet.com" or any copies, simulation, variation or colorable imitations thereof.

(c) Directing that Defendants immediately cease use, from time to time, threatening to use, and claiming ownership of the "knowledgenet.com" domain on the Internet and that they forfeit or otherwise give up any registrations, claims and any other interests allowing Defendants to use or claim rights to use the "knowledgenet.com" address or any other address incorporating "knowledgenet" or otherwise assign or turn such address or registrations therefor over to Plaintiff.

(d) Directing that Defendants file with the Court and serve upon Plaintiff's counsel within thirty (30) days after entry of Judgment a report in writing under Oath setting forth in detail the manner and form in which the Defendants have complied with the requirements of the Injunction and Order.

e) Directing such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate to prevent the public from deriving the erroneous impression that any goods or services provided by or promoted by Defendants are authorized by Plaintiff or related in any way to Plaintiff, its products or their services.

(f) Awarding Plaintiff:(i) All of the Defendants' profits, gains and advantages derived from the unauthorized use of the Marks or any imitation or simulation thereof and that such sums be trebled pursuant to 15 U.S.C. $1117;

(ii) All damages sustained by Plaintiff by reason of Defendants' acts of trademark infringement and unfair competition and that such damages be trebled pursuant to 15 U.S.C. $1 1 17;

(iii) All damages sustained by Plaintiff, by reason of Defendants' usurpation of Plaintiffs corporate opportunity, (iv) Exemplary and punitive damages as the court finds appropriate to deter any future willfill conduct, and (v) Interest, including prejudgment interest, on the foregoing sums.

(g) Awarding to Plaintiff its attorneys fees and costs incurred by reason of Defendants' violations;

(h) Directing such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate to prevent the Defendants from participating in this or other patterns of racketeering activities.

Jury Demand

Plaintiff requests that this case be tried by jury.

Respectfully Submitted,

KNOWLEDGENET, INC.,
By John M Stec

R Clifford Potter, John M. Stec
Potter & Thorelli
Suite 7100 Sears Tower
233 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60606-6446
312/258-5820

-----
Brought to you by - The 'Lectric Law Library
The Net's Finest Legal Resource For Legal Pros & Laypeople Alike.
http://www.lectlaw.com

Google+