Reflex Media v. Internet Labz - Travel Trademark Complaint Sugardaddy PDF

Case 2:15-cv-09246 Document 1 Filed 11/30/15 Page 1 of 19 Page ID #:1
Michael N. Cohen (SB# 225348)

1 mcohen@cohenip.com
Joshua H. Eichenstein (SB# 299392)
2 jeichenstein@cohenip.com
COHEN IP LAW GROUP
3 A Professional Corporation
9025 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 301
4 Beverly Hills, California 90211
Phone: (310) 288-4500 Fax: (310) 246-9980
5
Attorneys for Plaintiff
6 REFLEX MEDIA INC. a Nevada Corporation,
7 INFOSTREAM GROUP, a Nevada Corporation
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12 REFLEX MEDIA INC. a Nevada
Corporation and INFOSTREAM
13 GROUP, INC., a Nevada Corporation
Plaintiff,
14
v.
15
INTERNET LABZ, INC., a
16 permanently revoked Nevada
corporation, d/b/a sugardaddy.travel;
17 BOBBY KHALILI, an individual, a/k/a
Rob Rosenthal, a/k/a Robert Shaker;
18 SAMAN MIKE EBRAHIMI, an
individual; and DOES 1-25,
19
Defendants.
20
21
COMPLAINT FOR:
1. COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT,
17 U.S.C. 101 et seq.;
2. CONTRIBUTORY COPYRIGHT
INFRINGEMENT,
17 U.S.C. 101 et seq.;
3. TRADE DRESS INFRINGEMENT,
15 U.S.C. 1125;
4. UNFAIR COMPETITION,
15 U.S.C. 1125;
5. UNFAIR COMPETITION
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200
6. INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE
WITH PROSPECTIVE
ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
22
23
Trial Date:
None Set
24
25
Plaintiffs Reflex Media Inc. (hereinafter Reflex Media) and InfoStream
26 Group, Inc. ("InfoStream") (collectively, "Plaintiffs") hereby alleges against

27 Defendants Internet Labz, Inc., a permanently revoked Nevada corporation, d/b/a
28
-1COMPLAINT
1 sugardaddy.travel; Bobby Khalili, an individual; Saman Mike Ebrahimi, an

2 individual; and DOES 1-25 inclusive (collectively hereinafter as Defendants) as
3 follows:
INTRODUCTION
4
5
1.
This is a case to stop Defendants from running a knockoff of
(hereinafter "Misstravel.com" or Plaintiffs Website).

6 misstravel.com
7 Sugardaddy.travel (hereinafter Defendants Infringing Website) was launched over
8 a year after the debut of Plaintiffs Website, and was built by slavishly copying its
9 graphics, text, look, feel, features, and services. A great deal, if not all of
10 Defendants profits are due to its copying and misuse of Plaintiffs' intellectual
11 property. Plaintiffs are concerned that because Defendants Infringing Website
12 copied Plaintiffs' intellectual property, the general public has and will continue to
13 incorrectly believe that Plaintiffs and Defendants are associates. Defendants do not
14 and cannot provide the same level of quality of user experience as Plaintiffs, and
15 Plaintiffs have no ability to control the user experience on Defendants Infringing
16 Website.
2.
17
Plaintiffs suspect that Defendants unlawful conduct does not begin and
18 end with intellectual property violations. Plaintiffs do not want the goodwill it has
19 worked so hard to build to suffer because its intellectual property was high-jacked
20 by Defendants. Plaintiffs, therefore, seeks to end Defendants illegal activity by
21 enforcing its available rights and remedies under the law.
PARTIES
22
23
3.
Plaintiff Reflex Media is now, and was at the time of the filing of this
24 Complaint and at all intervening times, a private limited corporation duly organized
25 and existing under the laws of Nevada, with its principal place of business in Las
26 Vegas, Nevada. Reflex Media is the exclusive licensee of and operates
27 misstravel.com
28
-2COMPLAINT
4.
Plaintiff InfoStream Group, inc. is, and at all material times hereto was
2 a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Nevada, with its
3 principal place of business in Las Vegas, Nevada. Infostream controlled
4 misstravelc.om prior to Reflex Media.
5.
Plaintiffs are informed and believes that Defendant INTERNET LABZ,
5
6 INC. is a permanently revoked corporation duly organized and existing under the
7 laws of Nevada, with its registered service address located at 3395 S. Jones Blvd.
8 Las Vegas, NV 89146. Upon information and belief, INTERNET LABZ, INC.
9 maintains continuous and systematic contact with the State of California with a
10 mailbox believed to be located at 9903 Santa Monica Blvd, STE 961, Beverly Hills,
11 CA 90212. Further, INTERNET LABZ listed its registered address for
12 internetlabz.com as 1719 Ashway Drive, Santa Monica, CA 90401.
6.
Upon information and belief, Defendant Bobby Khalili a/k/a Robert
13
14 Rosenthal, a/k/a Robert Shaker ("KHALILI"), is an individual maintaining
15 continuous and systematic contact with the State of California with a mailbox
16 located at 9903 Santa Monica Blvd., #961, Beverly Hills, California.
7.
Upon information and belief, KHALILI is an officer and/or shareholder
17
18 of INTERNET LABZ, INC., d/b/a sugardaddy.travel. Furthermore, Plaintiffs are
19 informed and believes and thereupon alleges that KHALILI has been acting as a
20 partner, contractor, joint venturer or agent of one or more of the other named
21 Defendants and that each is jointly and severally responsible for the acts and
22 omissions complained herein.
8.
Upon information and belief, Defendant Saman Mike Ebrahimi, an is
23
24 maintaining continuous and systematic contact with the State of California with a
25 mailbox at 9903 Santa Monica Blvd., #961, Beverly Hills, California.
26
9.
Upon information and belief, Mr. Ebrahimi is an officer and/or
27 shareholder of INTERNET LABZ, INC., d/b/a sugardaddy.travel. Furthermore,

28
-3COMPLAINT
1 Plaintiffs are informed and believes and thereupon alleges that Mr. Rosenthal has
2 been acting as a partner, contractor, joint venturer or agent of one or more of the
3 other named Defendants and that each is jointly and severally responsible for the
4 acts and omissions complained herein.
5
10.
Plaintiffs have yet fully and independently identified the true names
6 and capacities of the Defendants sued herein as Does 1-25, inclusive, and therefore
7 sues those Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend
8 this complaint to allege such Defendants true names and capacities when they are
9 ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believes and thereupon alleges that each of
10 the fictitiously designated Defendants has been acting as a partner, contractor, joint
11 venturer, agent, or employee of one or more of the named Defendants and that each
12 is jointly or severally responsible for the acts and omissions complained of herein.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
13
14
11.
This is a civil action arising under the Copyright Act of 1976, as
15 amended, 17. U.S.C. 101 et seq., the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125 et seq., the
16 California Business and Professions Code 17200 et seq., and common law claims.
17 This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' federal claims pursuant to
18 15 U.S.C. 1121 and 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1338(a), 1338(b). This Court also has
19 supplemental subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claims pursuant to
20 28 U.S.C. 1367(a).
21
12.
Personal jurisdiction exists over each Defendant because each
22 Defendant has purposefully committed, within the state, the acts from which these
23 claims arise and/or has committed tortuous acts outside California knowing and/or
24 intending that such acts would cause injury within this state. In addition, on
25 information and belief, personal jurisdiction in this District is proper because
26 Defendants, and each of them, without the consent or permission of Plaintiffs,
27 distributed and/or publicly displayed over the Internet copyrighted works controlled
28
-4COMPLAINT
1 by Plaintiffs. On information and belief, such illegal dissemination occurred in

2 every jurisdiction in the United States, including this one.
3
13.
Alternatively, The Court has personal jurisdiction over all the
4 Defendants pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 410.10. Plaintiffs are

5 informed and believes and thereon alleges that the Defendants have engaged in
6 business activities in California, and the unlawful acts of Defendants complained of
7 in this Complaint have been committed within this judicial district.
8
14.
Further, venue is properly laid in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
9 1400(a), 1391(b) and (c).

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
10
11
15.
Plaintiffs are a well known company that operates various online dating
12 websites. In this particular case, Plaintiffs operate a highly successful travel dating
13 website <misstravel.com> where individuals can meet, converse, arrange trips, or
14 just chat. Plaintiffs' website has garnered a high degree of fame due to its originality
15 and extensive marketing and advertising efforts, and as such has been the subject
16 matter of several television and print features such as but not limited to, ABC 20/20,
17 LIVE WITH KELLY, ANDERSON LIVE, DR. DREW, GOOD MORNING
18 AMERICA, CNN, THE HUFFINGTON POST, LA TIMES, USA TODAY,
19 FODORS, LONDON EVENING STANDARD, FOX BUSINESS, BUSINESS
20 INSIDER, COSMOPOLITAN, THE DAILY BEAST. Plaintiffs have been
21 continuously operating this website continuously since 2012. Reflex Media is the
22 exclusive licensee and InfoStream is the exclusive owner of all right, title, and
23 interest in and to the copyrights for MISS TRAVEL, and has registered the same
24 with the United States Copyright Office as follows:
25
Registration No.
Date
TITLE OF WORK
26
VA 1-916-366
10/24/13
MISS TRAVEL
27
TX0007903270
10/24/13
MISS TRAVEL
28
-5COMPLAINT
1
2
16.
The copyrighted work includes text, photographs, and 2-D artwork
3 published on Plaintiffs' Website.

17.
Plaintiffs spent substantial sums and years of effort in advertising,
4
5 promotion and developing Plaintiffs' Website and its intellectual property,
6 throughout the United States and internationally. As a result of such advertising and
7 expenditures, Plaintiffs' Website and its intellectual property has become famous
8 and is recognized throughout this industry. Plaintiffs have established considerable
9 goodwill in the industry and online dating community.
18. Plaintiffs' Website contains copyright notification to notify the public
10
11 of its authorship and ownership of the material, images, text, illustrations,
12 photographs, designs, graphics and logos contained therein. Furthermore, the
13 Terms and Conditions on Plaintiffs' Website contain notifications to the public
14 that the website contains copyrighted material and other proprietary information
15 which may not be copied.
DEFENDANTS CREATED AN IDENTICAL COUNTERFEIT
16
WEBSITE
17
18
19.
Plaintiffs' success has given rise to efforts by others to capitalize on its
19 significant investment. The Defendants have acted in bad faith and seek to
20 inappropriately associate themselves with Plaintiffs and its substantial global
21 goodwill. Defendants operate such a copycat website.
20. Upon information and belief, on April 4, 2013 Defendants launched
22
23 <sugardaddy.travel> using Plaintiffs' previously published and copyrighted content.
24 Defendants egregiously copied, transformed, modified, adapted and/or displayed,
25 among other thing, the text, photographs, selection, arrangement and compilation of
26 the Plaintiffs' Website. The Defendants' Infringing Website not only bears a striking
27 and confusingly similarity to the distinctive trade dress in the Plaintiffs' Website, but
28
-6COMPLAINT
1 has brazenly made an identical duplicate of all of the images, video, and text, and
2 has simply change the words "Misstravel.com" for "sugardaddy.travel". A side by
3 side comparison shows the identical copying made by Defendants:
4
5
Plaintiffs' Website on April 15, 2012:
6
7
21.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Defendants Infringing Website on April 4, 2013:
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
22.
Plaintiffs have never granted to any of the Defendants individually or
collectively, any form of right in its lawfully registered copyrights, trademark, trade
dress, or other rights.
28
-7COMPLAINT
23.
Plaintiffs became aware of Defendants Infringing Website in and
2 around October 2013. On or around October 2013, Plaintiff began investigating the
3 parties behind the infringing website. While a WHOIS search lists the owner of
4 Defendants Infringing Website as Jamie Simons located in the Philippines, Plaintiffs
5 believe this is a false identity in an attempt to hide their true identities.
6
24.
On or around October 2013, Plaintiffs' counsel submitted a copyright
7 takedown notice through Facebook in order to remove infringing content. A person

8 identifying themselves as Robert Shaker responded to takedown notice. They
9 refused to admit the theft of Plaintiffs' work, and continued to continuously violate
10 Plaintiffs' intellectual property rights.
11
25.
Plaintiffs investigated Robert Shaker and found a Robert Shaker
12 profile on LinkedIn identifying himself as

13 sugardaddy.travel and located in Beverly Hills.
14
26.
business
development
for
However, a Google-image search of the headshot used for the Robert
15 Shaker profile reveals that it is of a male model by the name of Danny Schwarz.
16 As such, Plaintiffs have no reason to suspect Danny Schwarz, and believes that the
17 profile and identity of Robert Shaker is one of many alias of Defendant .
27. Plaintiffs' further investigation revealed that named Defendant, Internet
18
19 Labz, Inc., a permanently revoked Nevada corporation listed <sugardaddy.travel>
20 on its corporate website as one of its companies.
21
28.
Plaintiffs are informed and believes that Defendants Infringing Website
22 continues to use Plaintiffs' copyrighted works without authorization at the time of

23 this filing.
24
29.
Plaintiffs are informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants
25 intentionally copied, modified, transformed and adapted the copyrights comprising

26 of and not limited to the text, photos, selection, arrangement and compilation of the
27 Plaintiffs' Website, all with knowledge of Plaintiffs' copyrights.
28
-8COMPLAINT
30.
Defendants have made commercial use of the copyrighted material
2 therein. Plaintiffs are informed and believes, and thereon alleges that Defendants
3 together willfully, deliberately, knowingly, aided, contributed to, and/or assisted
4 each other in using Plaintiffs' copyrighted works for the purpose of promoting its
5 business and attracting new business, in competition with Plaintiffs and/or to
6 confuse customers as to the source of its goods.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
7
(Copyright Infringement under 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq.)
8
9
31.
Plaintiffs reallege and
incorporates the allegations contained in
10 paragraphs 1 through 30 of this Complaint as through fully and completely set forth
11 herein.
12
32.
Plaintiffs are the exclusive owner of all right, title, and interest in and to
13 the copyrights for Plaintiffs' Website, <misstravel.com>, Reg. No. VA 1-916-366.

14 The copyright registration is valid and includes but is not limited to original work
15 such as text, photographs, and 2-D artwork published on Plaintiffs' Website.
33. Reflex Media holds an exclusive license to use, distribute, and publicly
16
17 display the Work.
34. Plaintiffs are informed and believes, and thereon alleges that
18
19 Defendants have infringed Plaintiffs' copyrighted works in violation of exclusive
20 rights contained in 17 U.S.C. 106 by slavishly copying, distributing, creating
21 derivative works, and publicly displaying works that were copied or caused to be
22 copied from every portion of Plaintiffs' Website that are substantially and/or
23 strikingly similar to those copyrighted works.
35. Plaintiffs are informed and believes that Defendants have willfully
24
25 infringed Plaintiffs' copyrights by viewing Plaintiffs' Website and slavishly copied
26 its original and protected elements in order to repurpose and republish such works
27 on Defendants Infringing Website. Unless enjoined, Defendants will continue to
28
-9COMPLAINT
1 willfully infringe Plaintiffs' registered copyrights by reproducing, copying, adapting,

2 duplicating, displaying, distributing and utilizing for the purposes of trade
3 unauthorized versions of Plaintiffs' copyrighted works. Defendants committed each
4 act of infringement with the knowledge that the work they were copying and
5 publicly displaying were subject to United States copyright protection and with the
6 knowledge that they were not authorized to do so. These are willful violations
7 within the meaning of 17 U.S.C. 501 et seq.
36. Plaintiffs are informed and believes that every single page of
8
9 Defendants Infringing Website is infringing and slavishly copied from Plaintiffs.
10 Defendants only made changes to the logos and company names.
11
37.
Plaintiffs are informed and believes that Defendants have received
12 money through user memberships on Defendants Infringing Website.

38. All of Defendants acts were and are performed without the permission,
13
14 license or consent of Plaintiffs.
39. Defendants infringement has adversely affected the potential market
15
16 for and value of Plaintiffs' copyrighted works. An unaffiliated website
17 <datingwebsitereview.net> stated in a negative review SugarDaddy.travel which is
18 the same site that MissTravel.com but under a different URL.
40. Furthermore, the wrongful acts of Defendants have caused, and are
19
20 causing great injury to Plaintiffs which damages cannot be accurately computed
41. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants acts of willful
21
22 infringement, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages under 17 U.S.C. 504, as
23 well as costs and attorneys fees under 17 U.S.C. 505.
24
42.
Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and pursuant to 17 U.S.C.
25 502, Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting

26 further infringements of its copyrights and exclusive rights under copyright.
27
28
-10COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Contributory Copyright Infringement under 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq.)
43.
Plaintiffs realleges and
8 herein.
9
44.
At all relevant times, each Defendant has engaged and, on information
10 and belief, continues to engage in the business of knowingly and systematically

11 participating in, facilitating, materially contributing to, and encouraging the above12 described unauthorized copying, distribution and public displays of the Plaintiffs'
13 Work and thus infringement of Plaintiffs' exclusive copyright rights in the Works by
14 each other defendant. Defendants together and each of them have actual and
15 constructive knowledge of the infringements.
16
45.
At all relevant times, each Defendant has had the right and ability to
17 supervise and/or control the infringing conduct of each other defendant.

46. Defendants through (a) their active participation in the unauthorized
18
19 copying, distribution, and public display of Plaintiffs' copyrighted Works, (b) their
20 provision and the means and facilities for unauthorized copying, distribution, and
21 public display, (c) their encouragement of and assistance to each other defendant to
22 engage in these unauthorized acts and their material contribution to each other
23 defendants acts, (d) their control over the means and facilities by which such
24 unauthorized copying, distributions, public display are effected, and (e) the benefits
25 that Defendants derive from all of the aforesaid acts, all with the full knowledge of
26 their illegal consequences, have committed, and/re are contributory liable for the
27 vast number of copyright infringements.
28
-11COMPLAINT
47.
The foregoing acts of infringement by Defendants have been willful,
2 intentional, and purposeful, in disregard of and with indifference to Plaintiffs' rights.

48. As a direct and proximate results of Defendants infringement of
3
4 Plaintiffs' exclusive rights under copyright, Plaintiffs are entitled to damages as well
5 as Defendants profits pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 504(b) for each infringement, as well
6 as costs and attorneys fees under 17 U.S.C. 505.
49. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and pursuant to 17 U.S.C.
7
8 502, Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting
9 further infringements of its copyrights and exclusive rights under copyright.
10
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
11
(Trade Dress Infringement,15 U.S.C. 1125)
12
13
50.
15 herein.
16
51.
The unique look and feel of Plaintiffs' Website and services, including
17 its interface, page layout, and graphics, is nonfunctional and constitute protectable
18 trade dress.
19
52.
Plaintiffs' Website is unique, recognizable, and not merely functional.
20
53.
Defendants have copied Plaintiffs' trade dress in connection with goods
21 or services in commerce in a manner has caused confusion, and likely to continue to

22 cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive users as to the affiliation, connection, or
23 association of the Defendants website with Plaintiffs', or as to deceive users as to
24 the origin, sponsorship, or approval of the Defendants Infringing Website, services
25 or commercial activities.
26
27
28
-12COMPLAINT
54.
Actual confusion has taken place as shown by a review by an
2 unaffiliated website <datingwebsitereview.net> stating: SugarDaddy.travel which

3 is the same site that MissTravel.com but under a different URL.
4
55.
Plaintiffs have been adversely affected by Defendants violations. As a
5 direct and proximate cause of Defendants conduct, Plaintiffs sustained damages in

6 an amount to be determined at trial.
7
56.
By reason of Defendants conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered, is suffering,
8 and will continue to suffer irreparable harm, and unless Defendants are enjoined, the
9 irreparable harm to Plaintiffs will continue. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at
10 law.
11
57.
Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Defendants damages sustained
12 by it as a result of Defendants wrongful acts as alleged herein. Plaintiffs are further

13 entitled to recover from Defendants the gains, profits, and advantages they have
14 obtained as a result of their wrongful acts as alleged in this Complaint. Plaintiffs are
15 unable to ascertain the full extent of these gains, profits, and advantages at this time.
16 Plaintiffs are further entitled to treble damages as a result of Defendants willful bad
17 faith.
18
58.
Plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction restraining Defendants and their
19 agents from engaging in further unlawful acts and from reaping any additional
20 commercial advantage from their trade dress infringement, false representations and
21 false designations of origin.
59. Plaintiffs are informed and believes and thereon alleges that
22
23 Defendants breach of the Lanham Act was willful, malicious, oppressive and
24 fraudulent, justifying an award of attorneys fees.
25
26
27
28
-13COMPLAINT
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(UNFAIR COMPETITION 15 USC 1125a)
60.
5 herein.
6
61.
Defendants actions described above and specifically, without
7 limitation, Defendants use of Plaintiffs' copyrighted works, protectable trade dress,

8 and confusingly similar variations thereof, in commerce to advertise, market, and
9 sell Defendants Infringing Website throughout the United States including
10 California; their use of misleading publicity on ABC Good Morning America,
11 CNN, Huffington Post, Today taken from Plaintiffs' Website constitute unfair
12 competition and false advertising violation of 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).
13
62.
Consumers have been and are likely to be mislead and deceived by
14 Defendants online representations regarding its source of origin; its publicity since
15 Plaintiffs' officer and founder, Brandon Wade was featured on said media outlets16 not Defendants.
63. Defendants knew or should have known that their statements were false
17
18 and or likely to mislead.
64. An Actual and proximate result of Defendants willful and intentional
19
20 actions, Plaintiffs have suffered damages in an amount to be determined at trial, and
21 unless Defendants are enjoined, Plaintiffs will continue to suffer irreparable harm
22 and damage to its business, reputation, and goodwill.
65. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117, Plaintiffs are entitled to damages for
23
24 Defendants Lanham Act violations, an account for profits made by Defendants
25 Infringing Website, as well as recovery of the costs of this action. Furthermore,
26 Plaintiffs are informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants
27 conduct was undertaken willfully and with an intention of causing confusion,
28
-14COMPLAINT
1 mistake or deception, making this an exceptional case entitling Plaintiffs to recover

2 additional damages and attorney fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(UNFAIR COMPETITION - Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200)
4
5
66.
7 herein.
8
67.
Defendants actions described above and specifically, without
9 limitation, Defendants use of Plaintiffs' copyrighted works, protectable trade dress,

10 and confusingly similar variations thereof, in commerce to advertise, market, and
11 sell Defendants Infringing Website throughout the United States including
12 California; their use of misleading publicity on ABC Good Morning America,
13 CNN, Huffington Post, Today taken from Plaintiffs' Website constitute unfair
14 competition and false advertising violation of the laws of the State of California.
15
68.
By these actions, Defendants have engaged in false advertising and
16 unfair competition in violation of the California Business and Professions Code

17 17200 and 17500 et seq.
18
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
19
(Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage)
20
69.
22 herein.
23
70.
As economic relationship exists between Plaintiffs and its customers
24 and prospect, containing probable future economic benefit or advantage to Plaintiffs.

25
26
27
28
-15COMPLAINT
71.
The Defendants knew or should have known of the existence of the
2 relationship between Plaintiffs and its customers and prospective customers.

72. The Defendants intentionally and knowingly engaged in wrongful
3
4 conduct including but limited to creating a copycat website by copying and using
5 Plaintiffs' copyrighted works and protectable trade dress in order to interfere with or
6 disrupt the relationship between Plaintiffs and its customers and prospective
7 customers.
8
73.
The Defendants actually interfered with the economic relationship
9 between Plaintiffs and its customers and prospective customers.

74. As a proximate result of the wrongful acts of Defendants, Plaintiffs
10
11 have suffered and will continue to suffer substantial damages. The precise nature
12 and amount of such accrued and continuing damages is not known to Plaintiffs and
13 cannot be ascertained by it at the present time, but such damages are on information
14 and belief substantial and in an amount to be proven at trial.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
15
16
1.
For a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants and
17
their agents, servants, employees, officers, attorneys, and all persons
18
acting in concert or participation with each or any of them, from (a)
19
directly or indirectly infringing in any manner on any of Plaintiffs'
20
respective exclusive rights (whether not in existence or hereafter
21
created), including without limitation, copyrights, trade dress, or any
22
other rights; (b) causing, contributing to, enabling, facilitating or
23
participating in the infringement of Plaintiffs' respective exclusive
24
rights (whether not in existence or hereafter created), including without
25
limitation, copyrights, trade dress, or any other rights; (c) using or
26
employing any of the copyrighted works; (d) unfairly competing with
27
28
-16COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs; from continued misappropriate of the Plaintiffs Website and
copyrighted works;
2.
That Defendants Infringing Website <sugardaddy.travel> and material
stolen from Plaintiffs be taken down, destroyed, or otherwise
appropriately disposed of, and that all storage devices, computers,
computer servers, all hardware and software pertaining or connected
thereto, and all other devices by which defendants have copied,
unlawfully modified or publicly displayed be seized from Defendants
and destroyed, or otherwise appropriately disposed of, pursuant to 17

U.S.C. 503;
10
11
3.
That Defendants be required to pay to Plaintiffs the actual damages
12
suffered by Plaintiffs as a result of the infringement and any profits of
13
Defendants attributable to the infringement of Plaintiffs' exclusive
14
rights under copyright and to pay such damages to Plaintiffs as this
15
Court shall deem to be just and proper within the provisions of the
16
Copyright Act;
17
4.
That Defendants be required to account for all gains, profits and
18
advantages derived from their acts of infringement and for their other
19
wrongful conduct and violations of law;
20
5.
For restitution of benefits unjustly received or retained by Defendants

not heretofore claimed
21
22
6.
For punitive damages otherwise available and not elsewhere sought;
23
7.
For in the alternative, statutory damages for copyright infringement in
24
the amount of $150,000.00 for each work infringed as against each
25
Defendant;
26
27
8.
That Plaintiffs recover its attorneys fees reasonably incurred in this

action to the extent permitted by law;
28
-17COMPLAINT
9.
For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
2
3 Dated: November 30, 2015
COHEN IP LAW GROUP, P.C.
4
5
6
7
8
By:
/s/Michael N. Cohen/
Michael N. Cohen
Joshua H. Eichenstein
Attorneys for Plaintiff. REFLEX MEDIA
INC. a Nevada Corporation, InfoStream
Group, a Nevada Corporation
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-18COMPLAINT
1
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
2
3
Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, REFLEX
4 MEDIA INC. a Nevada Corporation. respectfully requests a trial by jury of any and
5 all issues on which a trial by jury is available under applicable law.
6
7
8 Dated: November 30, 2015
Michael N. Cohen,
COHEN IP LAW GROUP, P.C.
9
10
11
12
13
By:
/s/Michael N. Cohen/
Michael N. Cohen
Joshua H. Eichenstein
Attorneys for Plaintiff, REFLEX MEDIA
INC. a Nevada Corporation
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-19COMPLAINT

Reflex Media v. Internet Labz - Travel Trademark Complaint Sugardaddy PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reflex Media v. Internet Labz - Travel Trademark Complaint Sugardaddy PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:15-cv-09246 Document 1 Filed 11/30/15 Page 1 of 19 Page ID #:1

Michael N. Cohen (SB# 225348)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiffs Reflex Media Inc. (hereinafter Reflex Media) and InfoStream

26 Group, Inc. ("InfoStream") (collectively, "Plaintiffs") hereby alleges against

Case 2:15-cv-09246 Document 1 Filed 11/30/15 Page 2 of 19 Page ID #:2

1 sugardaddy.travel; Bobby Khalili, an individual; Saman Mike Ebrahimi, an

This is a case to stop Defendants from running a knockoff of

(hereinafter "Misstravel.com" or Plaintiffs Website).

Case 2:15-cv-09246 Document 1 Filed 11/30/15 Page 3 of 19 Page ID #:3

Upon information and belief, Mr. Ebrahimi is an officer and/or

27 shareholder of INTERNET LABZ, INC., d/b/a sugardaddy.travel. Furthermore,

Case 2:15-cv-09246 Document 1 Filed 11/30/15 Page 4 of 19 Page ID #:4

This is a civil action arising under the Copyright Act of 1976, as

Personal jurisdiction exists over each Defendant because each

Case 2:15-cv-09246 Document 1 Filed 11/30/15 Page 5 of 19 Page ID #:5

1 by Plaintiffs. On information and belief, such illegal dissemination occurred in

Alternatively, The Court has personal jurisdiction over all the

4 Defendants pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 410.10. Plaintiffs are

Further, venue is properly laid in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

9 1400(a), 1391(b) and (c).

Case 2:15-cv-09246 Document 1 Filed 11/30/15 Page 6 of 19 Page ID #:6

The copyrighted work includes text, photographs, and 2-D artwork

3 published on Plaintiffs' Website.

Plaintiffs' success has given rise to efforts by others to capitalize on its

Case 2:15-cv-09246 Document 1 Filed 11/30/15 Page 7 of 19 Page ID #:7

Plaintiffs' Website on April 15, 2012:

Defendants Infringing Website on April 4, 2013:

Plaintiffs have never granted to any of the Defendants individually or

Case 2:15-cv-09246 Document 1 Filed 11/30/15 Page 8 of 19 Page ID #:8

Plaintiffs became aware of Defendants Infringing Website in and

On or around October 2013, Plaintiffs' counsel submitted a copyright

7 takedown notice through Facebook in order to remove infringing content. A person

Plaintiffs investigated Robert Shaker and found a Robert Shaker

12 profile on LinkedIn identifying himself as

However, a Google-image search of the headshot used for the Robert

Plaintiffs are informed and believes that Defendants Infringing Website

22 continues to use Plaintiffs' copyrighted works without authorization at the time of

25 intentionally copied, modified, transformed and adapted the copyrights comprising

Case 2:15-cv-09246 Document 1 Filed 11/30/15 Page 9 of 19 Page ID #:9

Defendants have made commercial use of the copyrighted material

Plaintiffs reallege and

incorporates the allegations contained in

13 the copyrights for Plaintiffs' Website, <misstravel.com>, Reg. No. VA 1-916-366.

Case 2:15-cv-09246 Document 1 Filed 11/30/15 Page 10 of 19 Page ID #:10

1 willfully infringe Plaintiffs' registered copyrights by reproducing, copying, adapting,

Plaintiffs are informed and believes that Defendants have received

12 money through user memberships on Defendants Infringing Website.

Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and pursuant to 17 U.S.C.

25 502, Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting

Case 2:15-cv-09246 Document 1 Filed 11/30/15 Page 11 of 19 Page ID #:11

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Contributory Copyright Infringement under 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq.)

Plaintiffs realleges and

incorporates the allegations contained in

At all relevant times, each Defendant has engaged and, on information

10 and belief, continues to engage in the business of knowingly and systematically

17 supervise and/or control the infringing conduct of each other defendant.

Case 2:15-cv-09246 Document 1 Filed 11/30/15 Page 12 of 19 Page ID #:12

The foregoing acts of infringement by Defendants have been willful,

2 intentional, and purposeful, in disregard of and with indifference to Plaintiffs' rights.