Complaint - Ernie Ball v. Thin The Herd Guitars (CDCA 2016)

7/25/2019 Complaint - Ernie Ball v. Thin The Herd Guitars (CDCA 2016)

1/17

Best Best Krieger LLP

G. HENRY WELLES, Bar No. 157193

[email protected]

74 760 Highway 111

Suite 200

Indian Wells, CA 92210

Telephone: (760) 568-2611

Telecopier: (760) 340-6698

Attorneys for Plaintiff

ERNIE BALL, INC., a California

corporation,

ERNIE BALL, INC., a California

corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

THIN THE HERD GUITARS, a

business entity form unknow n

VAUGHAN EDWIN SHANNON,

an individual; and DOES 1-10,

inclusive.

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 5:16-cv-01237

COMPLAINT FOR:

1

Federal Trademark Infringement;

2

Federal Trade Dress Infringement

3

Federal Trademark Dilution

4

Federal Unfair Com petition

5

Common Law Trademark

Infringement

6

California Statutory Unfair

Competition; and

7

Com mon Law Unfair Competition

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

79803 00002\7765800 1

OMPLAINT


2/17

For its Complaint Against Defendants THIN THE HERD GUITARS;

VAUG HAN EDW IN SHANNON; and DOES 1-10 Plaintiff ERNIE BALL INC.

alleges as follows:

JURISDICTION ND VENUE

1

This is an action for pecuniary and injunctive relief from violations of

the Lanham Act, arising under the laws of the United States 15 U.S.C. 1051 et

seq. and for pecuniary and injunctive relief for Trademark infringement under

California Law, Cal. B P Code 14200 et seq. and for unfair competition under

the statutory and common laws of California under Cal. B P Code 17200 et seq.,

B P Code 14402, 14430, and California common law.

2.

This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action as

provided for in 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1337 and 1338; and 15 U.S.C. 1121. This

Court also has jurisdiction under the doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. 1367.

3.

Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this Court because

Plaintiff is informed and believes they transact business in the State of California,

distributing, soliciting sales and selling infringing goods in the state of California,

as well as interstate. Plaintiff is informed and believes that events or omissions

giving rise to the claims occurred within this judicial district. Venue is proper in

this District under 28 U.S.C. 1391. Furthermore, Defendants have received a

cease and desist letter sent by counsel for the Plaintiff which referenced the

trademarks cited herein below and referenced the infringement of those trademark

with specific examples. The Defendants removed a few for sale listings but

otherwise refused to comply with a cease and desist letter and are therefore

intentionally infringing and intentionally causing harm to a California resident

corporation within this judicial district.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

79803 00002\7765800 1

OMPLAINT


3/17

P RTIES

4.

Plaintiff Ernie Ball, Inc. ( Ernie Ball ) is, and at all times herein

mentioned was, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of

California, having its principal place of business in Coachella, Riverside County,

California. Ernie Ball designs, manufactures, distributes, licenses, and sells electric

guitars and basses, and musical equipment and accessories.

5.

Defendant Thin The Herd G uitars is a business entity form unknow n

located in Round Rock, Texas. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Thin The

Herd Guitars is merely a dba for defendant Vaughan Edward Shannon and is not a

separate and distinct entity. Thin The Herd Guitars advertises and sells product in

the United States, including through the Internet, and in California, including Los

Angeles County.

6.

Defendant Vaughan Edwin Shannon is an individual resident in Round

Rock Texas, and Plaintiff is informed and believes that Shannon owns operates and

uses Defendant Thin The Herd Guitars as a dba.

7.

Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and capacities of defendants

sued herein as DOES 1 through 10, and, therefore, sues these defendants by such

fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes that each fictitiously sued

defendant was and is in some way responsible for the acts alleged in the Complaint.

8.

Plaintiff is further informed and believes that at all times herein

mentioned, each of the Defendants was the owner, agent, representative, and joint

venturer of each other, and were acting on behalf of such joint venture and/or

partnership, and within the course and scope of said agency, in performing the acts

as set forth in this Complaint. Plaintiff is informed and believes that, Defendants

and each of their acts as hereinafter referred, were engaged in with the full

authorization and ratification of each other and each of them and were within the

scope and course of such agency, representation and joint venture.

S

T

K

E

G

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

79803 00002\7765800 1

OMPLAINT


4/17

FIRST CL IM FOR RELIEF

Federal Tradem ark Infringement 15 U.S.C.

1114

9.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1

through 8 herein.

10.

On or about January 22 1991 U.S. Trademark Registration No.

1632297 was issued for a design trademark for the 4 2 tuner configuration for use

on musical instruments including guitar headstocks. First use in commerce was on

or about 1982. (A copy of the 1632297 trademark registration information is

attached as Exhibit A .) Ernie Ball is the owner of the entire right, title and interest

in and to the registration and trademark for the 4 2 tuner configuration for guitar

headstocks. (The 4+2 Trademark ).

11.

On or about July 13, 2010, U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3816107

was issued for a design trademark for a headstock shape for use on musical

instruments including guitar headstocks. First use in commerce was on or about

1982. (A copy of the 3816107 trademark registration information is attached as

Exhibit B .) Ernie Ball is the owner of the entire right, title and interest in and to

the registration and design trademark for this trademarked headstock design shape.

(The Headstock Trademark ).

12. On or about June 14, 2016, U.S. Trademark Serial Number 86883704

was published for opposition and is expected to issue in due course. The trademark

is the word mark VALENTINE for use on fretted instruments including guitars.

First use in commerce was on or about 2016. (A copy of the 86883704 Trademark

registration application information is attached as Exhibit C .) Ernie Ball is the

licensee and owner of the right to use and protect this trademark. (The Valentine

Trademark ).

13.

On or about June 14, 1977, U.S. Trademark Registration No. 1067654

was issued for the word mark MUSIC MAN for use on fretted instruments

including guitars. First use in commerce was on or about 1975. (A copy of the

79803 00002` 7765800 1

3

OMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


5/17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1067654 trademark registration information is attached as Exhibit D .) Ernie Ball

is the owner of the entire right, title and interest in and to the registration and

trademark for this word mark. (The Music Man Trademark ).

14.

Plaintiff is inform ed and believes that at all times relevant, and prior to

the infringement, Defendants are, and were, on actual notice, or at a minimum

constructive notice, that Plaintiffs above referenced trademarks are registered with

the United States Patent and Trademark Office and so protected, or in the case of

the Valentine mark, is a pending registration.

15.

At all material times herein, Plaintiff has been engaged in the

manufacture and interstate and international wholesale distribution of guitars and

musical instruments, and affiliated products, under the names and marks Ernie

Ball and Music Man, among others. These products feature the 4+2 Trademark,

the Headstock Trademark, the Music Man Trademark, and some of the guitars also

bear the Valentine trademark. Plaintiff has been in continuous use of these marks

since the date of first use alleged hereinabove.

16.

Plaintiff sells its trademarked products throughout the United States,

and overseas. Plaintiff's products are sold through approved dealerships in various

States and through Internet advertising nationally and internationally, and through

Internet websites. Plaintiffs trademarked products have been, and continue to be,

extensively advertised and sold nationally and internationally.

17. Defendants have been and are advertising for sale, and Plaintiff is

informed and believes, selling, infringing products, which are guitars with the name

Custom Build on the headstocks. These include the following:

A.

efendants listed a Valentine type guitar for sale on

Reverb.com

, which infringes upon the Valentine Trademark, the 4+2 Trademark,

and the Headstock Shape Trademark. (Exhibit E ). This same design guitar was

also listed for sale on the Thin The Herd website, with additional reference to and

infringement upon the Music Man Trademark. (Exhibit F ). These particular

79803 00002\7765800 1

4

OMPLAINT


6/17

advertising listings were w ithdrawn a fter a cease and desist letter was sent, but the

infringing items have not been surrendered to the Plaintiff and Plaintiff is informed

and believes this infringing m odel guitar is still offered for sale by som e other

channel in trade. Models in different colors such as trans red and trans black were

also advertised. The Defendants have not accounted for their sales, profits, etc.

B.

efendants have advertised for sale, and continue to advertise

for sale, a guitar identified as Sky Blue PRS/ Telecaster Hybrid with Music Man

Headstock . (Exhibit G ). Notably after receiving a cease and desist letter, the

Defendants removed the two photographs showing the infringing headstock but left

the guitar up for sale with the remaining two photos. (Exhibit H ).

18.

Defendants, and each of them, have infringed, and continue to

infringe; have induced and continue to induce others to infringe; and/or have

committed and continue to commit acts of contributory infringement of the

registered trademarks referenced hereinabove. Plaintiff is informed and believes

that Defendants' infringing activities in the United States and this District include

advertising, use, sale, and/or offer for sale, of guitars using Plaintiff's federally

registered and pending trademarks.

19.

Plaintiff is informed and believes that the Defendants above alleged

infringing activities are conducted in and through interstate commerce, including

through the Internet, and as such are likely to cause confusion, mistake, or

deception among consumers as to the source, quality, and nature of Defendants'

goods relative to the Plaintiff.

20.

This Complaint is further notice to the Defendants of Plaintiffs

ownership of the above registered marks, and trade dress rights in its instruments,

and of Defendants' unfair competition, and is a notice and demand to Defendants to

immediately cease and desist their unlawful activities. Plaintiff is informed and

believes that Defendants refuse to comply.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

79803.00002 7765800.1 5

OMPLAINT


7/17

21.

Plaintiff is inform ed and be lieves and thereon alleges that, as a direct

and proximate result of the advantage accruing to Defendants business from

Plaintiff's national and international advertising, sales, and consumer recognition,

and as a proximate result of confusion, deception, or mistake caused by Defendants'

wrongful advertising and sales of its infringing goods as alleged hereinabove, that

Defendants have made substantial profits according to proof but which Plaintiff is

informed and believes exceeds $10,000.

22.

Plaintiff is inform ed and believes and thereon a lleges that, as a direct

and proximate result of the advantage accruing to Defendants business from


and as a proximate result of confusion, deception, or mistake, caused by

Defendants' wrongful advertising and sales of its infringing goods as alleged

hereinabove, that Plaintiff has been deprived of substantial sales and/or license fees,

and deprived in some part of the value of its trademarks as a commercial asset, all

in an amount in excess of $10,000 and subject to proof.

23.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that, unless

restrained an enjoined by this Court, that Defendants will continue to infringe upon

Plaintiff's registered trademarks, as and in the manner alleged hereinabove, thus

engendering a multiplicity of judicial proceedings, and pecuniary compensation is

inadequate, and will not afford Plaintiff adequate relief for the ongoing damage to

its trademarks in the public perception. The Court should further order that all

infringing articles and advertising materials shall be delivered up by Defendants

and destroyed.

24.

Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants' infringement is

intentional, willful, and/or deliberate, and this case should be declared an

exceptional case pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117, and that Defendants should be

accordingly ordered to pay Plaintiff's attorney fees and costs, according to proof,

K

E

G

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

79803 00002\7765800 1

OMPLAINT


8/17

but which plaintiff is informed and believe are in excess of 5,000 at the time of

filing of the Complaint.

SECOND CL IM FOR RELIEF

Federal Trade Dress Infringement 15 U S C 1125

25.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges every allegation set forth in paragraphs

through 8, and 10 through 24 herein.

26.

In addition to the Federally Registered Trademarks alleged

hereinabove, Plaintiff has trade dress rights in the design, shape, configuration, and

unique appearance of its guitars. In particular the Valentine Trademark is used on a

signature design guitar made for a famous musician in Maroon 5, and the entire

configuration and appearance of the guitar constitutes particular trade dress. The

guitar designs and elements thereof, such as the headstock shape, are non-

functional.

27.

Plaintiffs trademarks and trade dress in its musical instruments are

famous marks by virtue of the advertising and industry position of Plaintiff Ernie

Ball, and by the use of the products by present and former high profile musicians

such as Eddie Van Halen, John Petrucci, Steve Lukather, Steve LaRue, Randy

Jackson of American Idol, and James Valentine of Maroon 5.

28.

By virtue of extensive advertising and sales over many years, together

with consumer acceptance and recognition, Plaintiff's products have numerous

source indicating features (trade dress), including but not limited to the 4+2 tuner

configurations on the headstocks of the Ernie Ball Music Man guitars and the

headstock shape. Plaintiff's marks have become, and are, valuable assets

symbolizing Plaintiff, the quality of Plaintiff's goods and Plaintiffs goodwill.

Plaintiffs above alleged trade dress is inherently distinctive and/or has acquired

secondary-meaning.

29.

Defendants' guitars referenced hereinabove use the trade dress of the

Plaintiff and are effectively counterfeits emulating every aspect of the product in an

79803 00002\7765800 1

7

OMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


9/17

attempt to be virtually identical but for labeling on the headstock, or at a m inimum

are colorable copies of Plaintiff's trademarks and trade dress.

30.

Defendants have infringed, and co ntinue to infringe; have induced and

continue to induce others to infringe; and/or have committed and continue to

commit acts of contributory infringement of the trade dress of Plaintiff's above

referenced musical instruments. Defendants' infringing activities in the United

States and this District include use, sale, and/or offer for sale, and/or licensing for

sale, of products that include and feature counterfeits, copies, and/or colorable

copies of instruments with the trade dress of the Plaintiff. This is misappropriation

and infringement of Plaintiff's trade-dress.

31.

Plaintiff is informed an d believes that the D efendants above alleged

infringing activities are conducted in and through interstate commerce, and as such

are likely to cause confusion, mistake, and/or deception among consumers as to the

source, quality, and nature of Defendants' goods, and is likely to lead to confusion

with the Plaintiff and its goods and licensees.

32. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, as a direct

and proximate result of the advantage accruing to Defendants' business from

Plaintiffs national and international advertising, sales, and consumer recognition,



hereinabove, that Defendants have made substantial profits, in an amount in excess

of 10,000, and subject to proof.

33.

Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, as a direct






79803 00002\7765800 1 8

OMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


10/17

and deprived in some part of the value of its trademarks as com mercial assets, all in

an amount in excess of $10,000, subject to proof.

34.


restrained and enjoined by this Court Defendants will continue to infringe upon

Plaintiffs trade dress in the above-referenced musical instruments, in the manner

alleged hereinabove, thus engendering a multiplicity of judicial proceedings, and

pecuniary compensation is inadequate, and will not afford Plaintiff adequate relief

for the ongoing damage to its trade dress in the public perception. The Court should

further order that all infringing articles and advertising materials shall be delivered

up by Defendants and destroyed.

35.

Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants infringement is


exceptional case pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117, and that Defendants be ordered to

pay Plaintiffs attorney fees and costs, according to proof.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Federal Trademark Dilution 15 U S C 4 1125

36.


through 8, 10 through 24, and 26 through 35 herein.

37. Plaintiffs registered trademarks and trade dress, as alleged

hereinabove, are famous under the definition of 15 U.S.C. 1125.

38. Defendants' use of the trademarks and trade dress of Plaintiffs musical

instruments as alleged hereinabove began after Plaintiffs marks and trade dress

became famous. Defendants' actions blur and tarnish the distinctive qualities of

Plaintiff's famous marks and trade dress. Defendants' have intentionally copied, and

continue to copy, Plaintiff's marks and trade dress by selling, distributing,

advertising, and offering for sale instruments with Plaintiff's trademarked 4+2 tuner

configurations on the headstocks and using the Plaintiff's trademarked headstock

shape, and use of the other trademarks and trade dress. Defendants' actions impugn

79803 00002\7765800 1

9

OMPLAINT

T

T

K

E

G

L

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


11/17

the Plaintiffs reputation for excellence symbolized by Plaintiffs marks and trade

dress. Plaintiff is deprived of its lawful right to control the reputation fo r excellence

and high quality symbolized by its marks and trade dress by Defendants actions.

39. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the Defendants above alleged

infringing activities are conducted in and through interstate commerce, and that

Defendants conduct is causing the confusion and/or deception of the public that

Defendants products are in some way spon sored by, affiliated with, or approved by

Plaintiff when they are not. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants'

actions have resulted in actual harm to the Plaintiff.

40.


and proximate result of Defendants' actions in misappropriating and diluting

Plaintiffs marks and trade dress, and the resulting advantage accruing to

Defendants' business from Plaintiffs national and international advertising, sales,

and consumer recognition, and as a proximate result of confusion, deception, or

mistake, caused thereby, that Defendants have made substantial profits, in an

amount in excess of 10,000, and subject to proof.

41.

Plaintiff is informed and be lieves and thereon alleges that, as a direct

and proximate result of Defendants' actions in misappropriating and diluting

Plaintiffs marks and trade dress, and the resulting advantage accruing to

Defendants' business from Plaintiffs national and international advertising, sales,

and consumer recognition, and as a proximate result of confusion, deception, or

mistake, caused thereby, that Plaintiff has been deprived of substantial sales and/or

license fees, and deprived in som e part of the value o f its trademarks as comm ercial

assets, all in an amount in excess of 10,000, and subject to proof.

42.


restrained an enjoined by this Court, that Defendants will continue to

misappropriate and dilute Plaintiffs trademarks and trade dress referenced

hereinabove, in the manner alleged hereinabove, thus engendering a multiplicity of

79803 00002\7765800 1

10 -

OMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1 7

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

2 6

2 7

28


12/17

judicial proceedings, and pecuniary compensation is inadequate, and will not afford

Plaintiff adequate relief for the ongoing damage to its trade dress in the public

perception. The Court should further order that all infringing articles and

advertising materials shall be delivered up by Defendants and destroyed.

43.

Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants misappropriation

and dilution of Plaintiff's trademarks, and Defendants' trade dress infringement is


exceptional case pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117, and that Defendants should be

ordered to pay Plaintiff's attorney fees and costs, according to proof.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Federal Unfair Competition 15 U S C 1125

44.


through 8, 10 through 24, 26 through 35, and 37 through 44 herein.

45.

By the acts described hereinabove, Defendants have engaged in

ongoing unlawful and unfair business practices, in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1125.

46.

As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants' unlawful and unfair

business practices, Plaintiff is informed and believes it has suffered damages in

excess of $10,000 and subject to proof at trial, and that Defendants have made

substantial profits, in an amount in excess of $10,000, and subject to proof, which

Plaintiff is entitled to recover.

47.


restrained and enjoined by this Court, that Defendants will continue to engage in

unfair business practices as alleged hereinabove, thus engendering a multiplicity of


Plaintiff adequate relief for the ongoing damage. The Court should further order

that all infringing articles and advertising materials used in connection with the

herein alleged unfair competition shall be delivered up by Defendants and

destroyed.

79803 00002\7765800 1

11

OMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


13/17

48.

Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defen dants unfair competition

is intentional, willful, and/or deliberate, and this case shou ld be declared an

exceptional case pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117, and that Defendants be ordered to

pay Plaintiff's attorney fees and costs, according to proof.

FIFTH CL IM FOR RELIEF

Common Law Trademark Infringement

49.


through 8, 10 through 24, 26 through 34, 36 through 43, and 45 through 48 herein.

50.

By the acts described hereinabove, Defendants have engaged in

ongoing trademark infringement, in violation of common law.

51.

Plaintiff is informed and b elieves that the Defendants above alleged

infringing activities are likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception among

consumers as to the source, quality, and nature of Defendants' goods, and is likely

to lead to consumer confusion with the Plaintiff and its goods and licensees.

52.






hereinabove, that Defendants have made substantial profits, in an amount in excess

of $10,000, and subject to proof.

53.



Plaintiffs national and international advertising, sales, and consumer recognition,




S

T

E

G

E

P

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

79803 00002\7765800 1

12

OMPLAINT


14/17

and deprived in some part of the value of its trademarks as comm ercial assets all in

an amount believed to be in excess of 10,000, and subject to proof.

54. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that unless

restrained and enjoined by this Court that Defendants will continue to infringe

upon Plaintiffs trademarks and trade dress in the above referenced musical

instruments, in the manner alleged hereinabove, thus engendering a multiplicity of


Plaintiff adequate relief for the ongoing damage to its trade dress in the public

perception. The Court should further order that all infringing articles and

advertising materials shall be delivered up by Defendants and destroyed.

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

California Statutory Unfair Competition B P Code 17000, et seq.

55.


through 8, 10 through 24, 26 through 34, 36 through 43, 45 through 48, and 50

through 54 herein.

56.

By the acts described hereinabove, Defendants have engaged and are

engaging in ongoing activities which are an unfair competition against Plaintiff

under B&P Code 17000 et seq.

57.

Defendants' actions herein alleged are willful, intentional, malicious,

and designed to harm Plaintiff. As such, Plaintiff is entitled to the remedy of treble

damages pursuant to Cal. B&P Code 17082.

58.

Plaintiff is entitled to the remedy of recovery of attorney fees and costs

in this action pursuant to Cal. B&P Code 17082.

59.

Plaintiff is entitled to the remedy of an injunction and/or restitution

under Cal. B&P Code 17000 et. seq.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

79803.00002\7765800.1

13

OMPLAINT


15/17

SEVENTH CL IM FOR RELIEF

Com mon Law Unfair Competition

60.


through 8 10 through 24 26 through 34 36 through 43 45 through 48 50 through

54, and 56 through 59.

61.

Defendants' actions as alleged hereinabove constitute unfair

competition at comm on law as a result of which Plaintiff has suffered and will

continue to suffer damages, in excess of 20,000 and according to proof, as well as

irreparable injury.

62.

Defendants conduct is believed to be willful and intentional and

malicious, and designed to harm Plaintiff, thus justifying an award of punitive

damages at trial, in an amount according to proof. Plaintiff is also entitled to

recover reasonable attorney fees and costs.

REQUESTE RELIEF

WH ERE FOR E Plaintiff Ernie Ball prays for judgmen t against Defendants

and each of them, jointly and severally:

A.

hat Defendants and their owners, officers, agents, servants,

employees, attorneys, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, successors, and all others in

active concert or participation with them or acting on their behalf, be preliminarily

and permanently enjoined from importing, manufacturing, producing, distributing,

selling, advertising, or in any way dealing with musical instruments, including

guitars and bass guitars, that use any of the trademarks or trade dress of the Plaintiff

as set forth hereinabove; that they be enjoined from further infringement of

Plaintiffs registered and pending registration trademarks, trade dress, and common

law trademarks; that they be preliminarily and permanently enjoined from passing

off, palming off, or assisting in passing or palming off Defendants' goods as those

of the Plaintiff; and counterfeiting or assisting in counterfeiting of Plaintiffs goods;

and otherwise prohibited from pursuing or assisting with any and all acts of unfair

79803 00002\7765800 1

14

OMPLAINT

T

T

K

E

G

R

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


16/17

I

N

W

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

competition and trademark and trade dress infringement, as alleged in this

Complaint.

B

hat the Court Order that Defendants be required to:

1

Provide P laintiff with a com plete inventory list of all colorable

products of Defendants using Plaintiff s trademarks and/or trade dress, including

the examples referenced herein and on the attached exhibits and such product that

Defendants have ever dealt with in any way, and account to Plaintiff as trustee ex

maleficio for the entire production import distribution and sales and all profits

derived therefrom by the Defendants;

2.

Provide P laintiff with a com plete inventory list of all colorable

products of Defendants using Plaintiff s trademarks and/or trade dress, including

the examples referenced herein and on the attached exhibits, whether already sold,

or on order, or in inventory, and such product that Defendants have ever dealt with

in any way, and account to Plaintiff as trustee ex maleficio for the entire

production, import, distribution, and sales, and all profits derived therefrom by the

Defendants;

3.

Use their best efforts to recall from trade any and all infringing

goods, and deliver up to Plaintiff for destruction all colorable copy guitars, product,

packages, literature, labels, advertising, and other materials of an infringing, false,

misleading, or unfair nature, as well as such product in Defendants possession or

control; and

4.

File with this Court and serve on Plaintiff a report in writing

within three months from the date of judgment, under oath, setting forth in detail

the manner and form in which Defendants have complied with the terms of any

injunction entered by this Court.

C.

hat Defendants be ordered to account for and disgorge and pay to

Plaintiff all profits derived by Defendants from their aforesaid acts, including acts

79803 00002\7765800 1

15

OMPLAINT


17/17

BEST

G

A Pliprfr

NRY WELLES

Attorneys for Plaintiff

ERN IE BAL L, INC., a California

corporation,

Dated: June 22, 2016

By:

of infringement, dilution, and un fair competition, in an am ount in excess of $10,000

and according to proof;

D.

That D efendants be ordered to pay damages resulting to Plaintiff by

the above alleged activities of infringement dilution and unfair competition in an

amount in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court, and according to

proof in excess of 10,000 and according to proof;

E.

That Damages on the Sixth Cause of Action should be trebled pursuant

to B&P Code 17000 et seq.;

F.

That this case be declared an exceptional case' pursuant to 15 U.S.C.

1117, given Defendants' willful and deliberate infringement and unfair

competition, and that Defendants be ordered to pay Plaintiffs attorney fees and

costs, according to proof, but in excess of 5,000 at the time of filing the

Complaint;

G.

That Plaintiff be awarded punitive damages as and where warranted by

law;

H.

That Plaintiff be awarded pre and post judgment interest as and where

authorized by law; and

I.

That Plaintiff be granted such other and further relief, Including

injunctive relief, where and as the case may require, and the Court may deem just

and proper.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

79803 00002 7765800 1

16

COMPLAINT

Complaint - Ernie Ball v. Thin The Herd Guitars (CDCA 2016)

Documents

Transcript of Complaint - Ernie Ball v. Thin The Herd Guitars (CDCA 2016)