Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Collaborative Continuing Education v. Starks Realty Group - Divorce This House Trademark Complaint PDF
Collaborative Continuing Education v. Starks Realty Group - Divorce This House Trademark Complaint PDF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
COLLABORATIVE CONTINUING
EDUCATION COUNCIL, INC., a
Tennessee corporation d/b/a Divorce This
House and DivorceThisHouse.com and
KELLY MURRAY, an unmarried
individual,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Case No.
COMPLAINT
21
22
23
Tennessee corporation d/b/a Divorce This House and DivorceThisHouse.com and Kelly
24
25
26
27
28
{00034295.DOCX; 6 }
1
2
INTRODUCTION
1.
registration and use of nearly identical and confusingly similar domain names, book titles,
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
commercial names, fictitious business names, and website page names and meta data.
2.
THIS HOUSE) and DIVORCE THE HOUSE, NOT JUST YOUR SPOUSE (sometimes
referred to together as Plaintiffs Marks) for their trademarks and divorcethishouse.com
(divorceTHIShouse.com) as their registered domain name predates and thus precludes
under federal and state law Defendants knowing, intentional, and willful use of DIVORCE
THE HOUSE (DIVORCE THE HOUSE) and DIVORCING THE HOUSE
(DIVORCING THE HOUSE) with identical services in the same market and market
15
channels targeting the same classes of professionals and consumers in Arizona, California,
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
3.
corporation organized in 2008 under the laws of the State of Tennessee and has its principal
place of business in Franklin, Tennessee. CCECI is a leading continuing professional
education provider specializing in the niche divorce real estate topic directed to real estate
licensees for continuing education credit hours, CLE directed to lawyers, among other
professions, as well as consumers/divorcing homeowners. In addition to television
24
25
26
27
28
advertising, radio appearances, national professional trade articles and news articles to
promote and market its goods and services, CCECI also conducts business under the name
Divorce This House and markets its services via the Internet at the domain name
divorcethishouse.com (divorceTHIShouse.com).
{00034295.DOCX; 6 }
4.
Williamson County, Tennessee. With degrees from Stanford University (A.B. 1988, Phi
Beta Kappa) and Harvard Law School (J.D. 1991, cum laude), Murray is President of
CCECI and also its primary faculty member for continuing professional education offerings.
Murray has been a member of the faculty of a top 20 law school since 2005 where she
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
teaches legal writing. Murray has held in good standing an Illinois law license since 1991
and Tennessee real estate salesperson license (termed affiliate broker), TREC # 296371,
since February 2, 2005. Regarding divorce real estate, Murray completed Tennessee
Supreme Court Rule 31 family mediation training in 2004 and collaborative law training in
2010.
5.
Upon information and belief, Defendant Starks Realty Group, Inc. (Starks
Realty) is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a corporation organized under the laws of
the State of California with its principal place of business at 8250 White Oak Ave #102,
15
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. Upon information and belief, Starks Realty was
16
17
6.
Upon information and belief, Defendant Laurel Starks (Starks) is, and at all
18
times relevant hereto was, a married individual residing in the State of California, County of
19
San Bernardino. The activities described in this Complaint, upon information and belief,
20
were undertaken on behalf of the marital community, comprised of Starks and her spouse,
21
22
7.
Upon information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, Starks has held a
23
California real estate salesperson license, CA BRE # 01719958 since November 17, 2005.
24
Also upon information and belief, Starks employing real estate broker is Rancho Realty,
25
26
27
Inc., CA BRE License ID # 01527033, a Keller Williams Realty brand licensee. Upon
information and belief, none of the DBA on file with the California Bureau of Real Estate
for Starks employing broker include DIVORCE THE HOUSE. Further upon information
28
{00034295.DOCX; 6 }
and belief, since November 2005 Starks was and has been a member of the National
Association of REALTORS, a private trade group. Also upon information and belief,
Starks is current with that groups quadrennial ethics continuing education requirement for
its members, including but not limited to Standards of Practice and ethics obligations
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
8.
Books), is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Arizona,
with its principal place of business in Scottsdale, Arizona, and formerly known as Family
Law Solutions, LLC. Also upon information and belief, Unhooked Books owns and
operates the unincorporated Unhooked Books as an imprint of the unincorporated High
Conflict Institute Press.
9.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants, and
each of them, are and were at all times herein mentioned, the agents, servants, employees
15
and/or joint venturers of each of the other Defendants, and at all times herein mentioned
16
were acting within the course and scope of said agency, employment or joint venture.
17
10.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.
18
1125 et seq., 28 U.S.C. 1338(a) and the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
19
(ACPA), 15 U.S.C. 1125(d). This Complaint also alleges violations of state law. This
20
Court has supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1338(b)
21
and 1367(a).
22
11.
23
Unhooked Books has its principal place of business in this district and because a substantial
24
part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this district. Venue also is proper in
25
26
this judicial district because this is a dispute concerning the use of domain names registered
with GoDaddy.com and GoDaddy.coms terms of service require domain name purchasers
27
28
{00034295.DOCX; 6 }
to submit to jurisdiction and venue in this Court. (Productive People, LLC v. Ives Design,
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
12.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Starks and Starks Realty because
said Defendants have availed themselves of the laws of, and directed their activities at,
Arizona, by employing an Arizona company, Go Daddy Group, Inc., having an address of
14455 N. Hayden Rd., Suite 219, Scottsdale, AZ 85260, as their agent to register the
following
domain
names:
divorcethehouse.com
(divorceTHEhouse.com),
15
from the State of Arizona orders by Arizona residents for the Infringing Book Title.
16
Defendants also have availed themselves of the laws of, and directed their activities at,
17
Arizona in 2016 by advertising events and services specifically for Arizona consumers. Said
18
Defendants or their agents, also advertise, offer for sale and sell competing or related
19
services, using the infringing marks DIVORCE THE HOUSE and DIVORCING THE
20
HOUSE across the United States via the internet and in Arizona using the above-listed
21
domain names.
22
23
24
25
26
27
14.
Plaintiffs are the owners of all rights in the trademark DIVORCE THIS
HOUSE. Plaintiffs were first to use DIVORCE THIS HOUSE in commerce, on February
15, 2008. Plaintiffs have used the mark continuously in the United States in connection
with divorce real estate goods and services since February 2008. Plaintiffs also are the
28
{00034295.DOCX; 6 }
owners of all rights in the trademark DIVORCE THE HOUSE, NOT JUST YOUR
2009 brochure used by Plaintiffs demonstrating use of Plaintiffs Marks is attached hereto
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15.
financial/tax, and emotional issues concerning real property matters relating to divorce.
Divorce real estate education services include training on how to provide analysis,
consulting services, and support for alternative dispute resolution and litigation. Platforms
for synchronous and asynchronous delivery of divorce real estate education services include
producing, arranging, conducting, and teaching live event and online seminars, classes,
workshops, conferences, teleseminars, webcasts, and webinars, publication and distribution
of course materials, self-help materials, and marketing solutions that are printed and/or
digital, as well as individual consultations and coaching. Customers include legal (judges,
15
16
17
estate licensees, mortgage, title, house insurance, house condition) professionals as well as
18
divorcing homeowners.
19
16.
20
to present. Plaintiffs designation acronym stands for Real Estate Collaboration Specialist-
21
Divorce. From 2008-09, the designation was Collaborative, and in 2010 Plaintiffs
22
23
24
25
26
27
17.
October 20-21, 2009 by completing the live event course titled Divorce This House
taught by Murray, and passing the required examination. Starks requested and received
from Plaintiffs 12 consumer protection DRE hours approved by the then titled California
Department of Real Estate. As part of the live event course, Murray taught all attendees,
28
{00034295.DOCX; 6 }
including Starks, how to market divorce real estate services and displayed Plaintiffs one-
page brochure for attendees to attach their business cards and use to market their divorce
real estate services to the public and legal professionals, under Plaintiffs DIVORCE THE
HOUSE, NOT JUST YOUR SPOUSE mark. (See Ex. 1.) As an adult learner attending
Plaintiffs Divorce This House titled and branded live event course, Starks received
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
corporate website, complained via email to Murray that she was not listed on Plaintiffs
16
RCS-D designee public directory, and upon information and belief logged in to the
17
18
resources including the DIVORCE THE HOUSE, NOT JUST YOUR SPOUSE branded
19
brochure. (See Ex. 1.) Starks thereafter used RCS-D designation after her name on her
20
October 2009 curriculum vitae as well as in her email signature in fall 2009.
21
18.
Plaintiffs have been teaching divorce real estate to real estate licensees in
22
commerce since February 27, 2008 under DIVORCE THIS HOUSE, first taught divorce
23
real estate CLE and CME, continuing mediation education, under DIVORCE THIS
24
HOUSE in commerce in December 2008, and have continually used DIVORCE THIS
25
26
27
28
{00034295.DOCX; 6 }
commercial activities. This includes in print, trade literature, advertising, and on the
Internet, including Plaintiffs website and web pages. This also includes Plaintiffs
trademarked and copyrighted divorce real estate education course materials, which Plaintiffs
publish and distribute under DIVORCE THIS HOUSE in commerce as part of their
continuing professional education goods and services, live and virtual. DIVORCE THIS
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
19.
California using DIVORCE THIS HOUSE to real estate licensees their divorce real estate
course titled Divorce This House. This live event training took place on March 2-3,
2009 in San Jose, California and attendees earned real estate continuing education credit
hours in consumer protection from the California Department of Real Estate, now known as
the California Bureau of Real Estate. On March 9, 2009, Plaintiffs first sold in interstate
commerce and taught to real estate professionals nationally, its live simulcast, synchronous
15
webinars regarding divorce real estate continuing professional education using DIVORCE
16
THIS HOUSE.
20.
17
From 2014 to present, Plaintiffs have invested significant time, effort, and
18
expense in video, audio, software, learning management system, and other technology
19
upgrades to develop and deliver their divorce real estate education services, including
20
courses via an additional platform: online, on demand, under DIVORCE THIS HOUSE
21
and
22
divorceTHIShouse.com.
23
24
25
26
with
21.
membership
services
and
marketing
from
Plaintiffs
website,
Since at least September 13, 2008, Plaintiffs have used the following black
and gray logo for DIVORCE THIS HOUSE (the DIVORCE THIS HOUSE Logo) in the
ordinary course of trade and commerce to identify Plaintiffs goods, services, advertising,
and commercial activities:
27
28
{00034295.DOCX; 6 }
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
22.
From
January
2008
until
July
2014,
Plaintiffs
domain
name
12
optimization.
13
corporate homepage featured at the top Plaintiffs DIVORCE THIS HOUSE Logo. Since
14
July 2014, Plaintiffs website divorceTHIShouse.com has been hosted with managed
15
WordPress hosting. On July 21, 2014, Murray transferred the domain name registrar from
16
17
18
19
20
24.
Plaintiffs operate their business primarily through their corporate web site
21
22
23
24
25
Upon information and belief, at all relevant times hereto, the Starks
Defendants sold and promoted divorce real estate goods and services under the infringing
marks DIVORCE THE HOUSE and DIVORCING THE HOUSE.
27.
26
27
28
provided divorce real estate goods and services under a so-called unincorporated division,
DIVORCE THE HOUSE.
{00034295.DOCX; 6 }
28.
Upon information and belief, because the Starks Defendants are direct
business competitors to Plaintiffs for divorce real estate goods and services, their marketing
and trade channels are identical to Plaintiffs regarding the Internet. Additionally, the
parties have overlapping geographic territories including but not limited to California.
Further, the parties target the same consumers, including but not limited to lawyers,
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs and Defendant Unhooked Books are
direct business competitors for divorce real estate goods and services in the production of
live event and synchronous webcast continuing professional education events and other
online training directed to real estate licensees and CLE for lawyers as well as publication
and distribution of applicable course materials for event attendees, live and virtual.
Unhooked Books Live Seminars & Webcasts http://unhookedbooks.com/live-seminars/.
Unhooked Books Online Training http://unhookedbooks.com/online-training/.
30.
When they first met in 2009, Murray and Starks already were direct business
16
competitors for divorce real estate goods and services as instructors/public speakers,
17
including CLE continuing legal education. Starks knew, via email correspondence with
18
Murray from at least August 2009 through January 2010, that Plaintiffs used DIVORCE
19
THIS HOUSE and from October 2009 DIVORCE THE HOUSE, NOT JUST YOUR
20
SPOUSE in connection with divorce real estate goods and services in commerce, and was
21
22
Murrays book title, Divorce This House, Not Just Your Spouse, which Murray included
23
in her email signature during ongoing email correspondence with Starks from August 2009
24
25
26
27
31.
HOUSE continuing education course for REALTORS in Murrieta, California October 2021, 2009.
28
{00034295.DOCX; 6 }
10
32.
In or about January 2016, Starks and Unhooked Books published a book with
the infringing title of Divorcing The House, which they recently changed, upon Starks
receipt of a cease and desist letter from Plaintiffs, to Divorce at your Door. After receipt
by Starks and notwithstanding Plaintiffs February 3, 2016 cease and desist letter,
Defendants and each of them have continued upon information and belief to sell and ship to
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
consumers and libraries and fulfill wholesale orders to brick and mortar retailers and online
retailers such as amazon.com, copies of the infringing book title, even after April 2016 and
the change of title by Defendants to Divorce at your Door. On page 19 of Starks book
with the infringing title, Starks knowingly, intentionally and willfully used and plagiarized
Plaintiffs trademark, DIVORCE THE HOUSE, NOT JUST YOUR SPOUSE, and divorce
real estate course content under DIVORCE THIS HOUSE with the sentence As these
examples illustrate, its not enough to divorce the unwanted spouse; you should also divorce
the house! On the last, About Laurel Starks page of Starks book with the infringing
15
16
contacted for speaking engagements regarding divorce real estate goods and services,
17
directing prospective live event producers and customers to contact Starks via the infringing
18
19
33.
Upon learning of the Starks Defendants infringing book title on January 23,
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{00034295.DOCX; 6 }
11
34.
On January 23, 2016, Murray called the Starks Defendants using their current
business telephone number, left a voicemail message requesting to speak with Starks, and
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
35.
Upon information and belief, until 2016 the Starks Defendants redirected
these Infringing Domain Names and each of them to starksrealestate.com/divorce-thehouse, among other Starks Defendants corporate websites.
36.
Starks also has infringed Plaintiffs Marks, and continues to infringe them to
the present time, notwithstanding the February 3, 2016 cease and desist letter from
Plaintiffs, via the Starks Defendants following web pages: starksrealestate.com/divorcethe-house, laurelstarks.com/divorce-the-house and starksrealtygroup.com/divorce-the-house
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
(Infringing Web Pages) that solicit CLE and divorce real estate referrals from lawyers,
20
21
listings from divorcing homeowners, and featuring infringing web page titles and metadata
22
as well as the following PNG image using DIVORCE THE HOUSE as a source identifier
23
24
StarksRealtyGroupSidebar:
25
26
27
37.
sold tickets online featuring Starks as the instructor for divorce real estate live seminars
DIVORCING THE HOUSE (for realtors) [sic] directed to Arizona real estate licensees
28
{00034295.DOCX; 6 }
12
and DIVORCING THE HOUSE live seminars for continuing professional education
programs directed to Arizona lawyers who could earn CLE continuing legal education for
April 8, 2016 and May 6, 2016, with each live event located in Scottsdale, Arizona along
with synchronous webcast. Also upon information and belief, Defendants included in
marketing and advertising for the April 8, 2016 and May 6, 2016 live event seminars a
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
discounted price for the infringing book title as the text book for the divorce real estate
education live events and synchronous webcasts nationally via the Internet.
38.
Upon information and belief, upon receipt of a cease and desist letter from
Plaintiffs, Defendants subsequently cancelled Starks April 8, 2016 and May 6, 2016
DIVORCING THE HOUSE seminars in Arizona and synchronous webcasts.
39.
Plaintiffs legal rights in DIVORCE THIS HOUSE and of the Starks Defendants
infringement of those rights, and requested they permanently cease use of Plaintiffs Marks
15
in order to avoid likely confusion with Plaintiffs Marks. Plaintiffs also requested the Starks
16
Defendants to cease use and to transfer the Infringing Domain Names to Plaintiffs and
17
18
40.
19
THIS HOUSE and DIVORCE THE HOUSE, NOT JUST YOUR SPOUSE. Plaintiffs
20
continuous use of Plaintiffs Marks for related goods and services long predates the Stark
21
Defendants use of DIVORCE THE HOUSE, DIVORCING THE HOUSE and registration
22
23
24
25
26
41.
HOUSE to provide goods and services that are in direct competition to those offered by
Plaintiffs. DIVORCE THE HOUSE and DIVORCING THE HOUSE convey a similar
commercial impression to Plaintiffs DIVORCE THIS HOUSE and DIVORCE THE
27
28
{00034295.DOCX; 6 }
13
HOUSE, NOT JUST YOUR SPOUSE marks, including through similarities in sound,
a.
divorce, with the object, house. Obviously, only lawful marriages (not houses) are subject
to divorce.
6
7
8
b.
sole modification of tense (e.g. divorcing rather than divorce) and/or article (e.g. the
rather than this) with respect to infringement of DIVORCE THIS HOUSE.
c.
10
11
12
YOUR SPOUSE, Defendants use of DIVORCE THE HOUSE directly copies Plaintiffs
mark.
42.
13
14
Additionally, the marks contain the same number of words with the
the Infringing Domain Names and Infringing Web Pages and meta data is without the
15
16
17
18
the Infringing Domain Names and the Infringing Web Pages and meta data is likely to cause
19
consumer confusion. Consumers are likely to believe that Defendants are authorized to use
20
Plaintiffs DIVORCE THIS HOUSE mark, or are affiliated with and have permission to
21
offer Plaintiffs goods and services. Furthermore, consumers are likely to assume that
22
Plaintiffs and Defendants respective goods and services share a common source.
23
24
44.
valuable goodwill they have built in their DIVORCE THIS HOUSE mark.
25
26
27
45.
the
Upon information and belief, in 2016 the Starks Defendants redirected both
divorceTHEhouse.com
and
divorcINGTHEhouse.com
domain
names
to
28
{00034295.DOCX; 6 }
14
from which individuals, including Arizona residents, can purchase books for direct
shipment by Unhooked Books. Also upon information and belief, in addition to changing
the title of the Infringing Book in April 2016, as set forth hereinabove, the Starks
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
2016 the Starks Defendants have parked all of the other Infringing Domain Names with
GoDaddy, notwithstanding the pending trademark and cybersquatting dispute with Plaintiffs
as of their February 3, 2016 cease and desist letter to Starks and in violation of GoDaddy
terms of service for domain name parking. Upon information and belief, at all times
relevant hereto to present, the Starks Defendants continue to host infringing web page titles
and meta data on the Infringing Web Pages that feature the Starks Defendants offer of
divorce real estate goods and services in commerce that require a California real estate
license directed to consumers/divorcing homeowners as well as CLE directed to lawyers.
46.
15
Upon information and belief, from 2006 through approximately December 15,
16
2015, the Starks Defendants have sold over $120,000,000.00 from more than 1,000 divorce
17
real
18
http://www.inman.com/2015/12/15/a-real-estate-agents-guide-to-handling-divorcing-
19
clients/
20
Upon information and belief, from approximately March 2012 through October 2013,
21
Starks sold millions of dollars in divorce real estate transactions regarding Southern
22
California real property under a so-called unincorporated Divorce THE House division and
23
before Starks incorporated Starks Realty, including lawyer referrals and customer leads
24
from the Infringing Domain Names and the Infringing Web Pages and each of them.
25
26
27
estate
transactions
regarding
Southern
California
real
property.
Thereafter, upon information and belief from approximately November 2013 to the present,
the Starks Defendants sold millions of dollars in divorce real estate transactions regarding
Southern California real property under a so-called unincorporated Divorce THE House
28
{00034295.DOCX; 6 }
15
division and after Starks incorporated Starks Realty, including lawyer referrals and
customer leads from the Infringing Domain Names and the Infringing Web Pages.
Trademark Infringement
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in the above
HOUSE, NOT JUST YOUR SPOUSE have become distinctive of Plaintiffs as a source of
quality goods and services, and have acquired secondary meaning. Plaintiffs own common
law trademark rights in DIVORCE THIS HOUSE and DIVORCE THE HOUSE, NOT
JUST YOUR SPOUSE and the marks are protectable under 15 U.S.C. 1125(a) and under
common law.
49.
At all relevant times hereto, the Starks Defendants used and/or are using
17
DIVORCE THE HOUSE, DIVORCING THE HOUSE, the Infringing Domain Names, the
18
Infringing Web Pages and meta data in competition with Plaintiffs in commerce, and such
19
20
Books has actively aided and abetted the Starks Defendants in the adoption and use of the
21
confusingly similar marks and Infringing Domain Names, including but not limited to the
22
23
Books website.
24
25
26
27
50.
of Plaintiffs Marks and have been willful, deliberate and in bad faith.
51.
to Plaintiffs.
28
{00034295.DOCX; 6 }
16
52.
consisting of Defendants unlawful profits from use of Plaintiffs Marks and, unless enjoined
by the Court, will cause Plaintiffs to continue to suffer, damage to its operations, reputation
and goodwill.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
53.
Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in the above
HOUSE and the Infringing Domain Names, as well as the Infringing Web Pages and meta
data in connection with their sale, offer for sale and advertising of divorce real estate
services.
Domain Names, Infringing Web Pages and meta data are identical or confusingly similar to
Plaintiffs Marks.
55.
21
the Infringing Domain Names, Infringing Web Pages and meta data constitutes a false
22
23
24
25
26
27
57.
THE HOUSE, the Infringing Domain Names, Infringing Web Pages and meta data in
28
{00034295.DOCX; 6 }
17
to divert, and likely will divert, potential customers away from Plaintiffs.
3
4
58.
5
6
7
59.
10
11
12
Plaintiffs Marks.
60.
the Infringing Domain Names, Infringing Web Pages and meta data in connection with their
sale, offer for sale and advertising of competing goods and services with knowledge of
Plaintiffs trademark rights renders Defendants trademark infringement willful.
61.
13
14
goods and services identical to those of Plaintiffs core business, dilutes and devalues
8
9
Plaintiffs have no control over the nature and quality of the goods and/or
15
Plaintiffs Marks and, unless enjoined by the Court, will cause Plaintiffs to continue to
16
17
18
Cybersquatting
19
20
21
22
62.
23
24
25
26
Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in the above
63.
Plaintiffs are the owners of all right, title, and interest in and to DIVORCE
THIS HOUSE and DIVORCE THE HOUSE, NOT JUST YOUR SPOUSE. Plaintiff Kelly
Murray also owns and has used the divorceTHIShouse.com domain name since January 9,
2008.
27
28
{00034295.DOCX; 6 }
18
64.
Plaintiffs Marks.
65.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Plaintiffs Marks are distinctive and were distinctive at the time Defendant
5
6
66.
Defendant Starks use of the Infringing Domain Names has, at all times, been
an intentional and willful attempt to profit, in bad faith, from Plaintiffs Marks. Among
other things, (a) Defendant Starks has no trademark or other intellectual property rights in
Plaintiffs Marks or the Infringing Domain Names; (b) in or before August 2009, Defendant
Starks legal name was never DIVORCE THE HOUSE or DIVORCING THE HOUSE,
nor did she use
otherwise to commonly identify Starks (c) in or before August 2009, Defendant Starks
never registered nor did she have prior use of the Infringing Domain Names with a bona
fide offering of goods and services, including divorce real estate goods and services; (d)
15
Defendant Starks knowingly and intentionally registered multiple domain names, i.e. the
16
Infringing Domain Names, that all are identical or confusingly similar to Plaintiffs Marks;
17
(e) Starks 2012-13 registration and ongoing use of the Infringing Domain Names was and
18
continues to be in direct business competition with Plaintiffs, Starks knew such conduct was
19
in direct business competition with Plaintiffs, and was not fair use nor otherwise lawful (f)
20
Defendant Starks intentionally diverted consumers from Plaintiffs online location for
21
commercial gain and for the purpose of creating initial interest confusion; (d) Defendant
22
23
24
25
26
27
67.
from
Plaintiffs
mark
by
deliberately
redirecting
divorcINGTHEhouse.com
to
28
{00034295.DOCX; 6 }
19
profit from Plaintiffs Marks by utilizing an infringing domain name to promote her new
68.
Starks also has demonstrated bad faith intent to profit from Plaintiffs Marks
by deliberately violating real estate licensee advertising regulations of the California Bureau
of Real Estate and statutes of the State of California. Before incorporating Starks Realty,
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
upon information and belief, starting in or about March 2012 Starks apparently provided
divorce real estate goods and services under a so-called unincorporated division, DIVORCE
THE HOUSE. Upon information and belief, Starks knowing, intentional, and willful use of
DIVORCE THE HOUSE in the provision of divorce real estate goods and services that also
require a California real estate license violated, and continues to violate to the present,
regulations of the California Bureau of Real Estate and statutes of the State of California
regarding advertising, demonstrating Starks bad faith intent to profit from Plaintiffs mark.
Starks further has demonstrated bad faith intent to profit from the Plaintiffs mark by
15
registering and using the Infringing Domain Names, and using the Infringing Web Page
16
Names, in knowing, intentional, and willful bad faith violation of the National Association
17
of REALTORS mandatory ethics and Standards of Practice, including but not limited to
18
Standards
19
(http://www.realtor.org/sites/default/files/policies/2007/code-of-ethics-article-12-2007-11-
20
02.pdf)
21
69.
of
Practice
12-10
and
12-12.
22
entitled to the following relief: (a) transfer of the Infringing Domain Names to Plaintiffs;
23
24
trial, which currently are not ascertainable; and (c) maximum statutory damages of
25
26
27
$100,000.00 for each of the Infringing Domain Names, for a total amount up to
$500,000.00. Plaintiffs also seek an award of their reasonable attorneys fees and costs
under the exceptional case provision of the Lanham Act, 28 U.S.C. 1117(a).
28
{00034295.DOCX; 6 }
20
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
70.
Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in the above
common law, in that DIVORCE THE HOUSE and DIVORCING THE HOUSE, as well as
the Infringing Domain Names, Infringing Web Pages and meta data, are deceptively similar
to Plaintiffs Marks and domain names and Defendants use of DIVORCE THE HOUSE,
DIVORCING THE HOUSE, the Infringing Domain Names, Infringing Web Pages and
meta data is creating or increasing confusion between goods and services provided by
Plaintiffs and Defendants, to the detriment of Plaintiffs and the public.
72.
15
the Infringing Domain Names, Infringing Web Pages and meta data is likely to mislead
16
consumers as to the separate origin of related goods and services and to damage Plaintiffs
17
18
73.
19
enjoyed, will continue to cause irreparable harm to Plaintiffs that cannot adequately be
20
21
at law. Plaintiffs therefore are entitled to permanent injunctive relief preventing Defendants
22
23
24
25
74.
26
27
28
{00034295.DOCX; 6 }
21
A.
Defendants, their agents, representatives, employees, assigns and suppliers, and all persons
acting in concert or privity with them, from using DIVORCE THE HOUSE, DIVORCING
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
THE HOUSE, the Infringing Domain Names, Infringing Web Pages and meta data or any
other name or mark or domain name that is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to
deceive with respect to Plaintiffs DIVORCE THIS HOUSE and/or DIVORCE THE
HOUSE, NOT JUST YOUR SPOUSE trademarks, or from otherwise competing unfairly
with Plaintiffs;
B.
registrations for the Infringing Domains, including but not limited to the following domain
names:
15
divorceTHEhouse.com;
16
divorcINGTHEhouse.com;
17
divorceTHEhouse.info;
18
divorceTHEhouse.net; and
19
divorceTHEhouse.org.
20
C.
21
22
damages;
23
24
25
26
27
D.
Such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
28
{00034295.DOCX; 6 }
22
1
2
3
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs respectfully demand a jury trial on all appropriate issues pursuant to Rule
38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{00034295.DOCX; 6 }
23
Exhibit 1
TM
SM
to protect your post-divorce credit score and your family's financial future.
...Whether you keep the house or sell it.
DURING divorce is the best time to prevent real estatetriggered: damaged credit, foreclosure or even bankruptcy
from joint mortgage debt or undiscovered liens from joint title
that cannot be fixed AFTER divorce.
Although the marital home generally accounts for 60%
of a family's net worth, there is nearly no state-prescribed
guidance for divorce real estate - often the most valuable
marital asset.
Because "Appraisal Minus Mortgage" does NOT equal
house equity, learn essential real estate due diligence you need
now to easily supplement evidence of your house value with no extra attorney time and little-to-no extra
homeowner cost/effort.