Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Warm v. Innermost - Complaint
Warm v. Innermost - Complaint
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION
9
10
CORINNA WARM, an individual; and Case No. 2:21-cv-04402 MWF (SHKx)
11 STUDIO WARM LLC, a California
limited liability company. Hon. Michael W. Fitzgerald
12
Plaintiffs, FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
13
v. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
14
INNERMOST LIMITED;
15 LIGHTFORM CANADA INC.; IM
DESIGN CONCEPTS LLC, a Florida
16 limited liability company; Archetype
Lighting Sales, LLC, a California
17 limited liability company; Light Build
Design, Inc., a California corporation;
18 and DOES 1-8, inclusive,
19 Defendants.
20
21
Plaintiffs Corinna Warm (“Ms. Warm”), and Studio Warm LLC, (“Studio
22
Warm” and with Ms. Warm, collectively, “Warm” or “Plaintiffs”) bring this action
23
against Defendants Innermost Limited (“Innermost”), IM Design Concepts LLC
24
(“IMDC”), LightForm Canada Inc. (“LightForm”), Archetype Lighting Sales, LLC
25
(“Archetype”), Light Build Design, Inc. (“LBD”) and Does 1-8 (Innermost, IMDC,
26
LightForm, Archetype, LBD, and Does 1-8, collectively, “Defendants”).
27
28
1 INTRODUCTION
2 1. This action arises from Defendants’ intentional, willful, and continuing
3 creation and exploitation of unauthorized replicas and reproductions of Plaintiffs’
4 original designs and intellectual property, and Defendants’ usurpation and misuse of
5 Ms. Warm’s name and persona in passing off Defendants’ goods as Plaintiffs’ work.
8 attorneys’ fees for Defendants’ copyright and trademark violations and Defendants’
9 misappropriation and unauthorized use of Ms. Warm’s name and likeness, together
10 with remedies for related common law and statutory claims for deceptive practices
15 competition, violations of the right of publicity under California law, and common
16 law claims.
17 3. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over this action and
18 the claims asserted herein, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 (“federal question
20 jurisdiction”) in that this action arises under the laws of the United States and, more
22 competition. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the state law claims
23 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(a) in that they are so related to the federal law
24 intellectual property claims in the action that they form part of the same case or
ERIKSON
28 occurred in this District in that, inter alia, Defendants offer the designs in question for
LAW GROUP
ATTORNEYS
LOS ANGELES CA
2 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:21-cv-04402-MWF-SHK Document 82 Filed 03/26/22 Page 3 of 40 Page ID #:1798
1 sale in this District. Defendants also transact business in this District, including, inter
2 alia, by selling and marketing their products in this District and throughout California.
5 have purposely availed themselves of the privilege of doing business in California and
6 in this District, and because the alleged misconduct was directed to California and this
7 district.
8 THE PARTIES
9
6. Plaintiff Corinna Warm is an individual residing in Los Angeles,
10
California.
11
7. Plaintiff Studio Warm LLC is a California limited liability company,
12
with its principal place of business located in Santa Monica, California. Plaintiff
13
Studio Warm was originally founded in London and operates out of London and Los
14
Angeles.
15
8. Defendant Innermost Limited is a company registered in the United
16
Kingdom and Wales. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that
17
Innermost’s parent company is Innermost Holdings PTY Ltd., a company registered
18
in Hong Kong. According to its United States website, www.innermost.us, Innermost
19
is “a British design brand, founded by Steve Jones and Russell Cameron in London,
20
and working with designers from all over the world.” Innermost states (and Plaintiffs
21
allege) that it operates in the United States, “[w]orking closely with our first-class US
22
representatives, IM Design Concepts.” Innermost sells its products throughout the
23
United States and in California and offers the infringing designs for sale in California.
24
In addition, Innermost consciously and purposefully directs its marketing activity to
25
exploit the California market.
26
9. Defendant IM Design Concepts LLC (“IMDC”) is a Florida limited
27
liability company, with its principal place of business located in Tampa, Florida.
ERIKSON
28
LAW GROUP
ATTORNEYS
LOS ANGELES CA
3 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:21-cv-04402-MWF-SHK Document 82 Filed 03/26/22 Page 4 of 40 Page ID #:1799
1 Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that IMDC was originally
3 January 2020 into a Florida limited liability company. IMDC sells its products
4 throughout the United States and in California and offers the infringing designs for
9 throughout the United States and in California and offers the infringing designs for
14 California and offers the infringing designs for sale in California, including on its
15 website, archetypelighting.com.
19 lightbuilddesign.com.
20 13. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Defendants
21 sued herein as Does 1-8, inclusive, and therefore sues said Defendants by such
22 fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to allege the true names and
23 capacities when the same has been ascertained. On information and belief, each
25 herein alleged, and that Plaintiffs’ damages as herein alleged were proximately caused
26 by their conduct.
27 14. Each of the Defendants acted as an agent for each of the other
ERIKSON
28 Defendants in doing the acts alleged, and each Defendant ratified and otherwise
LAW GROUP
ATTORNEYS
LOS ANGELES CA
4 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:21-cv-04402-MWF-SHK Document 82 Filed 03/26/22 Page 5 of 40 Page ID #:1800
1 adopted the acts and statements performed, made, or carried out by the other
2 Defendants to make them directly and vicariously liable to Plaintiffs for the conduct
3 complained of herein.
4 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
5 A. Studio Warm’s founder, Corinna Warm, is an acclaimed artisan and
6 designer.
7 15. Studio Warm’s founder and creative director, Corinna Warm, is the
8 designer and manufacturer of distinctive high-end furniture and decorative objects.
9 Ms. Warm is renowned for her works of timeless elegance, often balanced with a
10 sculptural aesthetic. Her work has been presented in exhibitions in New York, Hong
11 Kong, Stockholm, Paris, Milan, and Los Angeles, and has been lauded in the national
12 and international press. Ms. Warm started her studio in 2007—and it has since grown
13 into a boutique design practice working on a diverse mix of projects across disciplines
17 and London before spending three years designing for royal cabinet maker David
18 Linley, where she was exposed to the fundamentals of traditional cabinet making and
19 classical furniture design and production—a turning point in her career that
20 fundamentally changed her focus and design sensibility, instilling a love of natural
24 with some of London’s most creative retail and branding agencies. She founded her
25 studio in 2008, following the successful launch of her brand Warm during the London
27 traditionally crafted to the highest standard, was launched at a time when the designer
ERIKSON
28
LAW GROUP
ATTORNEYS
LOS ANGELES CA
5 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:21-cv-04402-MWF-SHK Document 82 Filed 03/26/22 Page 6 of 40 Page ID #:1801
1 maker/crafts movement was still in its infancy and was lauded by industry experts for
3 18. Warm’s designs have launched at the most important annual trade shows,
4 including Maison & Objet in Paris, Furniture & Light Fair in Stockholm, Euroluce at
5 Salone del Mobile in Milan and ICFF in New York. Ms. Warm’s designs, including
6 the Circus collection of pendant and wall lights and the Glaze lighting line have
10 advertise, sell, market, promote, or otherwise distribute any of Ms. Warm’s designs or
12 20. Ms. Warm’s Circus and Glaze lighting designs gained immense
13 popularity and have been highly sought after for projects across the globe. These
14 lighting fixtures, examples of which are shown below, are creative works of art.
15 Corinna Warm
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ERIKSON
28
LAW GROUP
ATTORNEYS
LOS ANGELES CA
6 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:21-cv-04402-MWF-SHK Document 82 Filed 03/26/22 Page 7 of 40 Page ID #:1802
5 Cameron, even serves on the advisory council of the organization of Anti Copying in
6 Design. And yet Innermost has viciously and willfully copied and infringed Plaintiffs’
7 designs.
8 22. During the parties’ licensing relationship, Ms. Warm’s “Circus” and
9 “Glaze” designs were among Innermost’s most popular products.
12 with the work,” and that “All intellectual property rights, copyright and design right
13 shall remain with Corinna Warm.” In addition, Innermost agreed “that it nor of its
14 subsidiary companies will copy or imitate the designs… Or any distinctive feature of
22 matters far worse, Innermost markets its unauthorized products under the same name
23 “Circus” as does Warm (with respect to both pendants and wall lamps). This of course
24 amounts to nothing less than counterfeiting. For example, the marketing materials
26
27
ERIKSON
28
LAW GROUP
ATTORNEYS
LOS ANGELES CA
7 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:21-cv-04402-MWF-SHK Document 82 Filed 03/26/22 Page 8 of 40 Page ID #:1803
3 26. Innermost has also improperly and similarly continued to exploit Warm’s
4 Glaze designs, as shown in the below images currently displayed on its website.
10
11
12 27. In addition to pendant lights, Innermost has also improperly and similarly
13 continued to exploit Warm’s Circus Wall light design. Innermost’s 2020 brochure
14 features a replica of Warm’s Circus Wall light with a minimal variation to its arm, all
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ERIKSON
28
LAW GROUP
ATTORNEYS
LOS ANGELES CA
8 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:21-cv-04402-MWF-SHK Document 82 Filed 03/26/22 Page 9 of 40 Page ID #:1804
4 29. Ms. Warm’s Circus and Glaze collections are some of Plaintiffs’ most
5 recognized works. Indeed, and as explained in more detail below, the design world
6 and sophisticated buyers and dealers have come to recognize each of the works as
11 Warm’s designs, IMDC and LightForm, working both in conjunction with Innermost
12 and on their own, continue to market, sell, and distribute infringing designs, including
19 continue to market, promote, sell, and distribute infringing goods. This constitutes
20 willful infringement.
25 opening of the show Ms. Warm approached Mr. Fitzgerald and told him that the
26 goods IMDC was showing as Corinna Warm designs were not Ms. Warm’s licensed
27 products. In fact, the products purporting to be Corinna Warm licensed designs were
ERIKSON
28 unlicensed and unauthorized knockoffs and counterfeits. Ms. Warm advised Mr.
LAW GROUP
ATTORNEYS
LOS ANGELES CA
9 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:21-cv-04402-MWF-SHK Document 82 Filed 03/26/22 Page 10 of 40 Page ID #:1805
1 Fitzgerald that Innermost was not licensed or allowed to show, advertise, or sell
2 Plaintiffs’ products and that the infringing products would have to be immediately
3 taken down.
4 33. Mr. Fitzgerald expressed devastation that he could not show Plaintiffs’
5 Circus or Glaze designs and stated that Circus was his bestselling product. It was
6 apparent that Mr. Fitzgerald had not been informed by Innermost that Innermost was
7 not authorized to sell Plaintiffs’ designs. Mr. Fitzgerald confirmed to Ms. Warm that
8 Mr. Fitzgerald would tell anyone inquiring about Circus or Glaze that the product was
9 designed by Corinna Warm and available from Studio Warm rather than Innermost.
10 Mr. Fitzgerald also confirmed that he would share any contacts seeking Ms. Warm’s
11 designs with Ms. Warm after the show, and he would supply Ms. Warm with a
12 statement of any current stock levels of products attributed to Ms. Warm. The reason
13 Mr. Fitzgerald offered to share leads and provide information was because he had
14 proposed to purchase the product from Studio Warm instead of Innermost as Mr.
15 Fitzgerald did not want to lose his bestselling product. Despite these promises,
16 Plaintiffs never received the information from Mr. Fitzgerald, and IMDC has
20 continued to import, sell, promote, and distribute infringing goods in the United
27 Circus and Glaze. These knockoffs, examples of which are pictured above, are
ERIKSON
28 currently offered for sale by Defendants.
LAW GROUP
ATTORNEYS
LOS ANGELES CA
10 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:21-cv-04402-MWF-SHK Document 82 Filed 03/26/22 Page 11 of 40 Page ID #:1806
3 market, advertise, sell, promote, and distribute such works to third parties and to
8 gains.
11 alongside photographs of Ms. Warm and proclaiming Ms. Warm as the designer.
14 merchandising purposes.
20 continue to flout Plaintiffs’ claims and sell the infringing designs internationally and
22 41. Defendant Innermost promotes and sells the infringing pieces mentioned
23 above online via its U.S. website, www.innermost.us, through IMDC, and LightForm;
24 and through other retail shops and partners working in the United States and
25 California. Innermost oversaw the design, distribution, and sale of such pieces,
26 knowingly copying Plaintiffs’ works; directly benefitted financially from their sale;
27 and had the right and practical ability to supervise and approve the misconduct alleged
ERIKSON
28 herein.
LAW GROUP
ATTORNEYS
LOS ANGELES CA
11 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:21-cv-04402-MWF-SHK Document 82 Filed 03/26/22 Page 12 of 40 Page ID #:1807
3 and legal rights, or otherwise causing injury; and is despicable conduct that has
6 43. Plaintiffs have sustained and will continue to sustain serious and
7 irreparable injury to their business and reputation as a direct and proximate result of
8 Defendants’ conduct (as described above). Unless Defendants are enjoined by this
9 Court, there is a substantial possibility that they will continue to engage in such
10 unlawful, unfair, and deceptive business practices, for which Plaintiffs are without an
12 injunction and permanent injunction against Defendants and their officers, directors,
14 acting in concert with them, prohibiting them from engaging in further misconduct.
15 First Claim For Relief For Copyright Infringement (re Circus Pendant)
16 (Against All Defendants)
17 44. Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference all other paragraphs in this
18 pleading, as if fully set forth in full in this claim.
21 shown at the SaloneSatellite trade fair in Italy. The work is creative and original,
22 constituting copyrightable subject matter under United States law. Since its creation,
23 Plaintiffs have been and still are the sole proprietor of all rights, title, and interest in
27 which is incorporated in the lighting fixture can be identified and perceived as a three-
ERIKSON
28 dimensional work of art separate from the useful article, and would qualify as a
LAW GROUP
ATTORNEYS
LOS ANGELES CA
12 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:21-cv-04402-MWF-SHK Document 82 Filed 03/26/22 Page 13 of 40 Page ID #:1808
2 other tangible medium of expression—if it were imagined separately from the useful
3 article into which it is incorporated. Put another way, the work would have been
5 originally been fixed in some tangible medium other than a useful article.
6 47. Circus Pendant is physically and conceptually separable from any useful
7 object of furniture or lighting in that the work can be identified separately from, and is
8 capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of any useful object. The
9 lighting element in the Circus Pendant is contained inside a housing, to which the
10 individual elements are affixed. The lighting element could be removed from (or
11 never inserted into) this work, leaving a purely sculptural work. Further, one could
12 easily imagine this work as separate from the housing and light, in that one could
13 conceivably remove the housing and leave the original protected work unchanged.
17 elements do not make the light provided by a Circus Pendant light better in any way,
18 or more interesting; nor are they essential to the use, purpose, cost, or quality of the
19 lights.
20 49. Plaintiffs have complied in all respects with the Copyright Act and all
21 other laws governing copyright. Circus Pendant is exempt from the registration
22 requirement under 17 U.S.C. § 411 because Circus Pendant is not a “United States
23 work,” as that term is defined under 17 U.S.C. § 101. In addition to the Circus
24 Pendant copyright referred to above, Plaintiffs are the owners and proprietors of all
26 derivatives, and further editions of Circus Pendant which are either unpublished or
ERIKSON
28
LAW GROUP
ATTORNEYS
LOS ANGELES CA
13 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:21-cv-04402-MWF-SHK Document 82 Filed 03/26/22 Page 14 of 40 Page ID #:1809
3 marketplace and, for Innermost, through working with Ms. Warm. At all times
7 Pendant” (pictured above), which is a pendant light copied from and substantially
10 websites, through other distributors, and through interior design channels). Defendants
13 Defendants slavishly copied the protectable elements of Circus Pendant; and that the
14 works are substantially similar, indeed strikingly like Plaintiffs’. The infringing pieces
17 52. To make the infringement and intellectual property theft even more
18 damaging, Defendants market and sell the Circus Pendant knockoffs under the same
19 name as Warm’s design – Circus Pendant and attribute the works as Warm products.
20 53. All Defendants are liable for the infringement. On information and belief,
21 all the Defendants worked together to conceive of, copy, produce, and sell
22 unauthorized copies of Plaintiff’s Circus Pendant, which were marketed and offered
23 for sale by all Defendants in the United States including California, and by Innermost
24 and LightForm in the rest of the world. All Defendants directly profited from the
25 infringement and had the practical right to approve or veto the scheme.
26 54. All such acts were performed by Defendants without the permission,
27 license, or consent of Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have notified Defendants in writing of the
ERIKSON
28 infringements. As described above, all Defendants have continued to produce,
LAW GROUP
ATTORNEYS
LOS ANGELES CA
14 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:21-cv-04402-MWF-SHK Document 82 Filed 03/26/22 Page 15 of 40 Page ID #:1810
1 manufacture, promote, and sell the infringing products even after receiving Plaintiffs’
3 55. Defendants continue to infringe and sell the infringing works in violation
4 of Plaintiffs’ copyright, and further have engaged in unfair trade practices and unfair
5 competition in connection with their publication and sale of the infringing works, thus
9 of diversion of trade, loss of profits, and a dilution in the value of Plaintiffs’ rights and
10 reputation, all in amounts that are not yet ascertainable, but not less than the
14 the infringement, and for any profits of Defendants directly or indirectly attributable
15 to such infringement.
16 Second Claim For Relief For Copyright Infringement (re Circus Wall)
17 (Against All Defendants)
18 58. Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference all other paragraphs in this
19 pleading, as if fully set forth in full in this claim.
22 commercially in August 2015 outside the United States. The work is creative and
23 original, constituting copyrightable subject matter under United States law. Since its
24 creation, Plaintiffs have been and still are the sole proprietor of all rights, title, and
ERIKSON
28 which is incorporated in the lighting fixture can be identified and perceived as a three-
LAW GROUP
ATTORNEYS
LOS ANGELES CA
15 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:21-cv-04402-MWF-SHK Document 82 Filed 03/26/22 Page 16 of 40 Page ID #:1811
1 dimensional work of art separate from the useful article, and would qualify as a
3 other tangible medium of expression—if it were imagined separately from the useful
4 article into which it is incorporated. Put another way, the work would have been
6 originally been fixed in some tangible medium other than a useful article.
7 61. Circus Wall is physically and conceptually separable from any useful
8 object of furniture or lighting in that the work can be identified separately from, and is
9 capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of any useful object. The
10 lighting element in the Circus Wall lamp is contained inside a housing, to which the
11 individual elements are affixed. The lighting element could be removed from (or
12 never inserted into) this work, leaving a purely sculptural work. Further, one could
13 easily imagine this work as separate from the housing and light, in that one could
14 conceivably remove the housing and leave the original protected work unchanged.
15 62. The essential creative elements of Circus Wall lamp are non-functional.
16 There is nothing about such elements that improves the functioning of the piece as a
18 elements do not make the light provided by a Circus Wall lamp better in any way, or
19 more interesting; nor are they essential to the use, purpose, cost, or quality of the
20 lights.
21 63. Plaintiffs have complied in all respects with the Copyright Act and all
22 other laws governing copyright. Circus Wall is exempt from the registration
23 requirement under 17 U.S.C. § 411 because Circus Wall is not a “United States
25 64. Defendants had access to Plaintiff’s Circus Wall lamp design including,
26 without limitation, through access to Plaintiffs’ goods sold and displayed in the
27 marketplace and, for Innermost, through working with Ms. Warm. At all times
ERIKSON
28 relevant, Defendants were aware of Plaintiffs’ designs.
LAW GROUP
ATTORNEYS
LOS ANGELES CA
16 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:21-cv-04402-MWF-SHK Document 82 Filed 03/26/22 Page 17 of 40 Page ID #:1812
3 including the “Circus Wall” lamp (pictured above), which is a pendant light copied
4 from and substantially similar to Plaintiff’s Circus Wall design, including through
6 LightForm websites, through other distributors, and through interior design channels).
7 Defendants clearly copied the separable artistic elements of Plaintiff’s work. A side-
8 by-side comparison of Circus Wall with Defendants’ infringing lighting reveals that
9 Defendants slavishly copied the protectable elements of Circus Wall; and that the
10 works are substantially similar, indeed strikingly like Plaintiffs’. The infringing pieces
13 66. All Defendants are liable for the infringement. On information and belief,
14 all the Defendants worked together to conceive of, copy, produce, and sell
15 unauthorized copies of Plaintiff’s Circus Wall lamp, which were marketed and offered
16 for sale by all Defendants in the United States including California, and by Innermost
17 and LightForm in the rest of the world. All Defendants directly profited from the
18 infringement and had the practical right to approve or veto the scheme.
19 67. All such acts were performed by Defendants without the permission,
20 license, or consent of Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have notified Defendants in writing of the
22 promote, distribute, and sell the infringing products even after receiving Plaintiffs’
24 68. Defendants continue to infringe and sell the infringing works in violation
25 of Plaintiffs’ copyright, and further have engaged in unfair trade practices and unfair
26 competition in connection with their publication and sale of the infringing works, thus
ERIKSON
28
LAW GROUP
ATTORNEYS
LOS ANGELES CA
17 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:21-cv-04402-MWF-SHK Document 82 Filed 03/26/22 Page 18 of 40 Page ID #:1813
3 of diversion of trade, loss of profits, and a dilution in the value of Plaintiffs’ rights and
4 reputation, all in amounts that are not yet ascertainable, but not less than the
8 the infringement, and for any profits of Defendants directly or indirectly attributable
9 to such infringement.
10 Third Claim for Relief for Copyright Infringement (re Glaze Pendant)
11 (Against Innermost, IMDC, and LightForm)
12 71. Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference all other paragraphs in this
13 pleading, as if fully set forth in full in this claim.
16 original, constituting copyrightable subject matter under United States law. Since its
17 creation, Plaintiffs have been and still are the sole proprietors of all rights, title, and
21 work gives the impression that precious metals have been merged seemingly invisibly
22 with a fine layer of porcelain. The pendant lamps explore the application of
24 spun) manufacturing process and hand applied finish. The matte shine of the copper or
25 graphite anodized aluminum is complemented by a high gloss finish. The work, which
27 dimensional work of art separate from the useful article, and would qualify as a
ERIKSON
28 protectable pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work—either on its own or fixed in some
LAW GROUP
ATTORNEYS
LOS ANGELES CA
18 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:21-cv-04402-MWF-SHK Document 82 Filed 03/26/22 Page 19 of 40 Page ID #:1814
1 other tangible medium of expression—if it were imagined separately from the useful
2 article into which it is incorporated. Put another way, the work would have been
4 originally been fixed in some tangible medium other than a useful article.
5 74. The Glaze Pendant is physically and conceptually separable from any
6 useful object of furniture or lighting in that the piece can be identified separately
7 from, and is capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of any useful
8 object. The lighting element could be removed from (or never inserted into) this work,
9 leaving a purely sculptural work. Further, one could easily imagine this work as
10 separate from the housing and light, in that one could conceivably remove the housing
15 elements do not make the light provided by a Glaze Pendant better in any way, or
16 more interesting; nor are they essential to the use, purpose, cost, or quality of the
17 lights.
18 76. Plaintiffs have complied in all respects with the Copyright Act and all
19 other laws governing copyright. Glaze Pendant is exempt from the registration
20 requirement under 17 U.S.C. § 411 because it is not a “United States work,” as that
21 term is defined under 17 U.S.C. § 101. In addition to the Glaze Pendant copyright
22 referred to above, Plaintiffs are the owners and proprietors of all right, title and
24 editions of Glaze Pendant which are either unpublished or not United States works.
27 goods sold and displayed in the marketplace, and, for Innermost, through its prior
ERIKSON
28 licensing deals with Ms. Warm.
LAW GROUP
ATTORNEYS
LOS ANGELES CA
19 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:21-cv-04402-MWF-SHK Document 82 Filed 03/26/22 Page 20 of 40 Page ID #:1815
3 promoting, and/or selling its own goods, including the “Glaze Pendant” (pictured
4 above), which is copied from and substantially similar to Plaintiff’s Glaze Pendant
6 channels (including in stores, on those defendants’ websites and through catalogs and
9 of Glaze Pendant with those defendants’ infringing products reveals that Defendants
10 Innermost, IMDC, and LightForm slavishly copied the protectable elements of Glaze
11 Pendant; and that the works are knockoffs and counterfeits of Plaintiffs’ design.
12 79. To make the infringement and intellectual property theft even more
13 damaging, Defendants Innermost, IMDC, and LightForm market and sell the Glaze
14 Pendant knockoffs under the same name as Warm’s design—i.e. Glaze Pendant—and
16 80. Defendants Innermost, IMDC, and LightForm are liable for the
17 infringement. On information and belief, each of those defendants worked together to
18 conceive of, copy, produce and sell unauthorized copies of Plaintiffs’ Glaze Pendant,
19 which were marketed and offered for sale by Defendants Innermost, IMDC, and
20 LightForm in the United States including California, and by Innermost and LightForm
21 in the rest of the world. Defendants Innermost, IMDC, and LightForm directly
22 profited from the infringement and had the practical right to approve or veto the
23 scheme.
24 81. All such acts were performed by Defendants Innermost, IMDC, and
25 LightForm without the permission, license, or consent of Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have
ERIKSON
28
LAW GROUP
ATTORNEYS
LOS ANGELES CA
20 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:21-cv-04402-MWF-SHK Document 82 Filed 03/26/22 Page 21 of 40 Page ID #:1816
1 manufacture, promote, and sell the infringing products even after receiving Plaintiffs’
5 engaged in unfair trade practices and unfair competition in connection with their
6 publication and sale of the infringing works, thus causing irreparable damage.
9 form of diversion of trade, loss of profits, and a dilution in the value of Plaintiffs’
10 rights and reputation, all in amounts that are not yet ascertainable, but not less than the
14 damages incurred by Plaintiffs due to the infringement, and for any profits of these
16 Fourth Claim for Relief for Trade Dress Infringement (Circus Pendant Trade
17 Dress) in Violation of The Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. §1125(a)
18 (Against all Defendants)
19 85. Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference all other paragraphs in this
20 pleading, as if fully set forth in full in this cause of action.
23 bearing the signature and recognizable elements of Plaintiffs’ trademarks and trade
24 dress. The public has come to recognize certain signature features as indicating
25 Plaintiffs as the source of those goods. These features are referred to as the “Circus
27 87. Plaintiffs’ pieces incorporating the Circus Pendant Trade Dress have
ERIKSON
28 enjoyed substantial and noteworthy success. The public has come to recognize the
LAW GROUP
ATTORNEYS
LOS ANGELES CA
21 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:21-cv-04402-MWF-SHK Document 82 Filed 03/26/22 Page 22 of 40 Page ID #:1817
2 incorporating them.
3 88. Plaintiffs have invested a substantial amount of time, money, and other
4 resources in establishing the Circus Pendant Trade Dress in the minds of consumers as
5 a source of high quality, stylish, lighting. As a result of Plaintiffs’ substantial use and
6 promotion of the Circus Pendant Trade Dress in connection with lighting, the Circus
7 Pendant Trade Dress has acquired great value as a specific identifier of Plaintiffs’
8 products and serves to distinguish Plaintiffs’ products from those of others. Customers
9 in this Judicial District and elsewhere readily recognize the Circus Pendant Trade
11 Trade Dress is of great value as a symbol of Plaintiffs’ quality products and goodwill.
14 market, and/or sell competing works (i.e., lighting) that bear the Circus Pendant Trade
16 likely led to mistakenly believe that Defendants’ pieces are associated with Plaintiffs.
17 90. The Circus Pendant Trade Dress is depicted in the images of Circus
18 Pendant above.
19 91. The trade dress described above serves a branding function. Customers,
20 including dealers and sophisticated buyers, have come to recognize pieces
21 incorporating the Circus Pendant Trade Dress as having Plaintiffs as their source.
22 Plaintiffs intended to, and continue to intend to, produce this secondary meaning,
24 showing and marketing the pieces as broadly as possible, including by exhibiting the
25 work in galleries and stores, and on the internet—and by attending high-profile design
ERIKSON
28 about the elements of the Circus Pendant Trade Dress that improve the functioning of
LAW GROUP
ATTORNEYS
LOS ANGELES CA
22 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:21-cv-04402-MWF-SHK Document 82 Filed 03/26/22 Page 23 of 40 Page ID #:1818
1 a piece as a light or yield any utilitarian or functional advantage. The Circus Pendant
2 Trade Dress does not make the light provided by a Circus Pendant better in any way,
4 alternatives that would process and diffuse a raw light source in the same way. None
5 of the elements of the Circus Pendant Trade Dress are essential to the use, purpose,
6 cost, or quality of the lights. Plaintiffs’ exclusive use of their trade dress would not put
10 Plaintiffs’ trade dress, thereby falsely designating the source of the origin of
11 Defendants’ goods, and raising a likelihood of confusion among the public as to the
12 source of Defendants’ goods. More specifically, given the broad awareness of Ms.
13 Warm and her work, there is a substantial likelihood that buyers could look at
14 Defendants’ Circus Pendant and mistakenly believe it was the work of Ms. Warm. For
15 clarity, Plaintiffs allege via this claim that Defendants are passing off their products as
16 being associated with or produced by Plaintiffs—not that Defendants are taking credit
18 copyright claims.
19 94. Defendants sell their infringing goods for a fraction of Plaintiffs’ prices.
20 95. Plaintiffs notified Defendants that their use of signature elements and
21 Plaintiffs’ trade dress infringes Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights.
22 96. At all relevant times Defendants have had full knowledge of Plaintiffs’
23 ownership of and exclusive rights in and to the Circus Pendant Trade Dress.
ERIKSON
28 the Circus Pendant Trade Dress in connection with their lighting and furniture designs
LAW GROUP
ATTORNEYS
LOS ANGELES CA
23 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:21-cv-04402-MWF-SHK Document 82 Filed 03/26/22 Page 24 of 40 Page ID #:1819
1 would cause confusion, mistake, or deception among purchasers, users, and the
2 public. Defendants knew of Plaintiffs’ prior use of the Circus Pendant Trade Dress,
3 and by adopting, commencing to use in commerce, and continuing to use the Circus
4 Pendant Trade Dress, Defendants intended to and did induce, and intend to and will
5 induce consumers to purchase its products by trading off the extensive goodwill built
9 §1125(a).
12 confused as to the source of Defendants’ goods and the relationship of those goods to
13 Plaintiffs.
14 101. Defendants have profited from their infringing use of the Circus Pendant
15 Trade Dress.
18 received but for Defendants’ wrongful use of the Circus Pendant Trade Dress.
21 Plaintiffs’ rights.
22 Fifth Claim for Relief for Trade Dress Infringement (Circus Wall Trade Dress) in
23 Violation of The Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. §1125(a)
24 (Against all Defendants)
25 104. Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference all other paragraphs in this
26 pleading, as if fully set forth in full in this cause of action.
ERIKSON
28 promotion, distribution, sale, importation and offering for sale infringing lighting
LAW GROUP
ATTORNEYS
LOS ANGELES CA
24 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:21-cv-04402-MWF-SHK Document 82 Filed 03/26/22 Page 25 of 40 Page ID #:1820
1 bearing the signature and recognizable elements of Plaintiffs’ trademarks and trade
2 dress. The public has come to recognize certain signature features as indicating
3 Plaintiffs as the source of those goods. These features are referred to as the “Circus
5 106. Plaintiffs’ pieces incorporating the Circus Wall Trade Dress have
6 enjoyed substantial and noteworthy success. The public has come to recognize the
7 Circus Wall Trade Dress as indicating Plaintiffs as the source of objects incorporating
8 them.
9 107. Plaintiffs have invested a substantial amount of time, money, and other
10 resources in establishing the Circus Wall Trade Dress in the minds of consumers as a
11 source of high quality, stylish, lighting. As a result of Plaintiffs’ substantial use and
12 promotion of the Circus Wall Trade Dress in connection with lighting, the Circus
13 Wall Trade Dress has acquired great value as a specific identifier of Plaintiffs’
14 products and serves to distinguish Plaintiffs’ products from those of others. Customers
15 in this Judicial District and elsewhere readily recognize the Circus Wall Trade Dress
20 market, and/or sell competing works (i.e., lighting) that bear the Circus Wall Trade
22 likely led to mistakenly believe that Defendants’ pieces are associated with Plaintiffs.
23 109. The Circus Wall Trade Dress is depicted in the images of Plaintiffs’
24 Circus Wall above.
25 110. The trade dress described above serves a branding function. Customers,
26 including dealers and sophisticated buyers, have come to recognize pieces
27 incorporating the Circus Wall Trade Dress as having Plaintiffs as their source.
ERIKSON
28 Plaintiffs intended to, and continue to intend to, produce this secondary meaning,
LAW GROUP
ATTORNEYS
LOS ANGELES CA
25 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:21-cv-04402-MWF-SHK Document 82 Filed 03/26/22 Page 26 of 40 Page ID #:1821
2 showing and marketing the pieces as broadly as possible, including by exhibiting the
3 work in galleries and stores, and on the internet—and by attending high-profile design
5 111. The Circus Wall Trade Dress is non-functional. There is nothing about
6 the elements of the Circus Wall Trade Dress that improve the functioning of a piece as
7 a light or yield any utilitarian or functional advantage. The Circus Wall Trade Dress
8 does not make the light provided by a Circus Wall lamp better in any way, or more
10 would process and diffuse a raw light source in the same way. None of the elements
11 of the Circus Wall Trade Dress are essential to the use, purpose, cost, or quality of the
12 lights. Plaintiffs’ exclusive use of their trade dress would not put competitors at any
13 non-reputation-related disadvantage.
16 Plaintiffs’ trade dress, thereby falsely designating the source of the origin of
17 Defendants’ goods, and raising a likelihood of confusion among the public as to the
18 source of Defendants’ goods. More specifically, given the broad awareness of Ms.
19 Warm and her work, there is a substantial likelihood that buyers could look at
20 Defendants’ Circus Wall lamp and mistakenly believe it was the work of Ms. Warm.
21 For clarity, Plaintiffs allege via this cause of action that Defendants are passing off
23 are taking credit for Plaintiffs’ creativity. The latter misconduct is alleged by way of
25 113. Defendants sell their infringing goods for a fraction of Plaintiffs’ prices.
26 114. Plaintiffs notified Defendants that their use of signature elements and
27 Plaintiffs’ trade dress infringes Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights.
ERIKSON
28
LAW GROUP
ATTORNEYS
LOS ANGELES CA
26 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:21-cv-04402-MWF-SHK Document 82 Filed 03/26/22 Page 27 of 40 Page ID #:1822
1 115. At all relevant times Defendants have had full knowledge of Plaintiffs’
2 ownership of and exclusive rights in and to the Circus Wall Trade Dress.
7 the Circus Wall Trade Dress in connection with their lighting and furniture designs
8 would cause confusion, mistake, or deception among purchasers, users, and the
9 public. Defendants knew of Plaintiffs’ prior use of the Circus Wall Trade Dress, and
10 by adopting, commencing to use in commerce, and continuing to use the Circus Wall
11 Trade Dress, Defendants intended to and did induce, and intend to and will induce
12 consumers to purchase its products by trading off the extensive goodwill built up by
16 §1125(a).
19 confused as to the source of Defendants’ goods and the relationship of those goods to
20 Plaintiffs.
21 120. Defendants have profited from their infringing use of the Circus Wall
22 Trade Dress.
25 received but for Defendants’ wrongful use of the Circus Wall Trade Dress.
ERIKSON
28 Plaintiffs’ rights.
LAW GROUP
ATTORNEYS
LOS ANGELES CA
27 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:21-cv-04402-MWF-SHK Document 82 Filed 03/26/22 Page 28 of 40 Page ID #:1823
1 Sixth Claim for Relief for Trade Dress Infringement (Glaze Trade Dress) in
2 Violation of The Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. §1125(a)
3 (Against Innermost, IMDC, and LightForm)
4 123. Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference all other paragraphs in this
5 pleading, as if fully set forth in full in this cause of action.
6 124. Defendants Innermost, IMDC, and LightForm violated the Lanham Act
7 through their advertising, promotion, distribution, sale, importation and offering for
8 sale infringing lighting bearing the signature and recognizable elements of Plaintiffs’
9 trademarks and trade dress. The public has come to recognize certain signature
10 features as indicating Plaintiffs as the source of those goods. These features are
12 125. Plaintiffs’ pieces incorporating the Glaze Trade Dress have enjoyed
13 substantial and noteworthy success. The public has come to recognize the Glaze Trade
15 126. Plaintiffs have invested a substantial amount of time, money, and other
16 resources in establishing the Glaze Trade Dress in the minds of consumers as a source
18 promotion of the Glaze Trade Dress in connection with lighting, the Glaze Trade
19 Dress has acquired great value as a specific identifier of Plaintiffs’ products and
21 Judicial District and elsewhere readily recognize the Glaze Trade Dress as distinctive
22 designations of origin of Plaintiffs’ products. The Glaze Trade Dress is of great value
26 dress to offer for sale, distribute, market, and/or sell competing works (i.e., lighting)
27 that bear the Glaze Trade Dress. As a result, customers (especially sophisticated
ERIKSON
28
LAW GROUP
ATTORNEYS
LOS ANGELES CA
28 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:21-cv-04402-MWF-SHK Document 82 Filed 03/26/22 Page 29 of 40 Page ID #:1824
1 consumers and dealers) are likely led to mistakenly believe that Defendants’ pieces
3 128. The Glaze Trade Dress is depicted in the images of Glaze Pendant above.
4 129. The trade dress described above serves a branding function. Customers,
5 including dealers and sophisticated buyers, have come to recognize pieces
6 incorporating the Glaze Trade Dress as having Plaintiffs as their source. Plaintiffs
7 intended to, and continue to intend to, produce this secondary meaning, which is
10 galleries and stores, and on the internet—and by attending high-profile design fairs to
12 130. The Glaze Trade Dress is non-functional. There is nothing about the
13 elements of the Glaze Trade Dress that improve the functioning of a piece as a light or
14 yield any utilitarian or functional advantage. The Glaze Trade Dress does not make
15 the light provided by a Glaze Pendant better in any way, or more interesting—
16 especially given the almost unlimited number of design alternatives that would
17 process and diffuse a raw light source in the same way. None of the elements of the
18 Glaze Trade Dress are essential to the use, purpose, cost, or quality of the lights.
19 Plaintiffs’ exclusive use of their trade dress would not put competitors at any non-
20 reputation-related disadvantage.
23 these defendants are knowingly using Plaintiffs’ trade dress, thereby falsely
24 designating the source of the origin of these defendants’ goods, and raising a
25 likelihood of confusion among the public as to the source of these defendants’ goods.
26 More specifically, given the broad awareness of Ms. Warm and her work, there is a
27 substantial likelihood that buyers could look at these defendants’ Glaze Pendant, and
ERIKSON
28 mistakenly believe it was the work of Ms. Warm. For clarity, Plaintiffs allege via this
LAW GROUP
ATTORNEYS
LOS ANGELES CA
29 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:21-cv-04402-MWF-SHK Document 82 Filed 03/26/22 Page 30 of 40 Page ID #:1825
1 cause of action that Defendants Innermost, IMDC, and LightForm are passing off
3 defendants are taking credit for Plaintiffs’ creativity. The latter misconduct is alleged
5 132. Defendants Innermost, IMDC, and LightForm sell their infringing goods
6 for a fraction of Plaintiffs’ prices.
9 exclusive rights.
10 134. At all relevant times Defendants Innermost, IMDC, and LightForm have
11 had full knowledge of Plaintiffs’ ownership of and exclusive rights in and to the Glaze
12 Trade Dress.
15 irreparable injury.
18 commerce, and continuing use of the Glaze Trade Dress in connection with their
19 lighting and furniture designs would cause confusion, mistake, or deception among
20 purchasers, users, and the public. Defendants Innermost, IMDC, and LightForm knew
21 of Plaintiffs’ prior use of the Glaze Trade Dress, and by adopting, commencing to use
22 in commerce, and continuing to use the Glaze Trade Dress, Defendants Innermost,
23 IMDC, and LightForm intended to and did induce, and intend to and will induce
24 consumers to purchase its products by trading off the extensive goodwill built up by
ERIKSON
28 the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125(a).
LAW GROUP
ATTORNEYS
LOS ANGELES CA
30 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:21-cv-04402-MWF-SHK Document 82 Filed 03/26/22 Page 31 of 40 Page ID #:1826
3 potential customers have been confused as to the source of these defendants’ goods
5 139. Defendants Innermost, IMDC, and LightForm have profited from their
6 infringing use of the Glaze Trade Dress.
9 loss of sales and profits that it would have received but for these defendants’ wrongful
14 Seventh Claim for Relief for False Endorsement in Violation of The Lanham Act
15 15 U.S.C. §1125(a)
16 (By Corinna Warm Against all Defendants)
17 142. Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference all other paragraphs of this
18 pleading as if set forth in full in this cause of action.
19 143. Ms. Warm’s name has secondary meaning, as that term is understood in
20 trademark law. Members of the public have come to recognize Ms. Warm’s name as
21 belonging to her. As described above, Defendants have falsely used Ms. Warm’s
23 impression that Ms. Warm endorses Defendants. This was done to promote and attract
24 customers to Defendants’ websites and businesses, and thereby generate revenue for
26 Ms. Warm is in the business of commercializing her identity and selling her designs to
27 the public for profit. By virtue of Ms. Warm’s use of her name and identity to build
ERIKSON
28 her brand, her name has acquired a distinctiveness through secondary meaning.
LAW GROUP
ATTORNEYS
LOS ANGELES CA
31 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:21-cv-04402-MWF-SHK Document 82 Filed 03/26/22 Page 32 of 40 Page ID #:1827
1 144. The goodwill and reputation associated with Ms. Warm’s name has
2 continuously grown among the general public. Ms. Warm’s name is now known
3 throughout the United States, the State of California, and the world, as a source of
5 145. Defendants’ use of Ms. Warm’s name and identity is designed to create
6 and does create the false and deceptive commercial impression that Defendants and
7 their products are associated with and/or endorsed by Ms. Warm. The use by
14 Defendants’ conduct will damage Ms. Warm’s ability to enjoy, maintain and exploit
19 Warm and that Ms. Warm has invested time, money, and energy in developing.
22 in the form of diversion of trade, loss of profits, and a dilution in the value of her
23 rights and reputation, all in amounts which are not yet ascertainable, but which are
ERIKSON
28 150. Defendants’ acts of unfair competition in violation of 15 U.S.C. §
LAW GROUP
ATTORNEYS
LOS ANGELES CA
32 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:21-cv-04402-MWF-SHK Document 82 Filed 03/26/22 Page 33 of 40 Page ID #:1828
1 1125(a) have caused, and will continue to cause, damage and irreparable harm to Ms.
2 Warm (as described above) and are likely to continue unabated, thereby causing
3 further damage and irreparable harm to Ms. Warm, and to the goodwill associated
4 with Ms. Warm’s valuable and well-known name; and Ms. Warm’s business
6 Court.
7 151. Ms. Warm has no adequate remedy at law and will suffer irreparable
8 injury if Defendants are allowed to continue to engage in the wrongful conduct herein
9 described.
13 Eighth Claim for Relief for Trademark Infringement - Violation of The Lanham
14 Act 15 U.S.C. §1125(a)
15 (By Studio Warm Against all Defendants)
16 153. Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference all other paragraphs in this
17 pleading, as if fully set forth in full in this cause of action.
20 Defendants have knowingly used the “Circus” and “Glaze” names (the “Warm
21 Trademarks”) in promoting and selling goods that are similar in nature to Plaintiffs’,
22 thereby falsely designating the source of the origin of such goods and raising a
26 as to the source of Defendants’ goods and the relationship of those goods to Studio
27 Warm.
ERIKSON
28
LAW GROUP
ATTORNEYS
LOS ANGELES CA
33 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:21-cv-04402-MWF-SHK Document 82 Filed 03/26/22 Page 34 of 40 Page ID #:1829
1 156. Defendants have profited from their infringing use of the Warm
2 Trademarks.
8 trademark rights.
9 Ninth Claim for Relief for Statutory Unfair Competition under California Law
10 (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§17200 et seq.)
11 (Against All Defendants)
12 159. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by this reference all other paragraphs in this
13 pleading as if set forth in full in this cause of action.
16 California Business and Professions Code. These acts and practices undertaken by
17 Defendants violate California Business & Professions Code §17200 in that they are––
19 161. Further, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the harm to
20 Plaintiffs and to members of the general public far outweighs the utility of
22 business act or practice within the meaning of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200.
23 162. Further, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, such acts by
24 Defendants are unlawful in that they violate, inter alia, the Lanham Act.
27 income and profits that they would not have earned but for their unlawful, unfair, and
ERIKSON
28
LAW GROUP
ATTORNEYS
LOS ANGELES CA
34 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:21-cv-04402-MWF-SHK Document 82 Filed 03/26/22 Page 35 of 40 Page ID #:1830
2 obtained funds.
5 diversion of trade, loss of profits, and a dilution in the value of their rights, all in
6 amounts which are not yet ascertainable, but which are estimated to be not less than
8 Tenth Claim for Relief for Unfair Competition under California Common Law
9 (Against All Defendants)
10 165. Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference all other paragraphs in this
11 pleading, as if fully set forth in full in this cause of action.
24 from the illegal reproduction and/or subsequent sales of the infringing goods.
25 170. Each Defendant is vicariously liable for the infringement alleged herein
26 because it had the right and ability to supervise the infringing conduct, including the
27 practical ability to do so, and because it had a direct financial interest in the infringing
ERIKSON
28 conduct.
LAW GROUP
ATTORNEYS
LOS ANGELES CA
35 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:21-cv-04402-MWF-SHK Document 82 Filed 03/26/22 Page 36 of 40 Page ID #:1831
1 Twelfth Claim for Relief for Violation of California Civil Code § 3344
2 (By Ms. Warm against Innermost, IMDC, and LightForm)
3 171. Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference all paragraphs of this Complaint
4 as if set forth in full in this cause of action.
17 Innermost, IMDC, and LightForm knowingly used Ms. Warm’s name and likeness for
19 174. Each such use was unequivocally and directly for purposes of advertising
20 or selling, or soliciting purchases of products, merchandise, goods, or services by
21 Innermost, IMDC, and LightForm, such that prior consent was required.
24 fully ascertainable, but which exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of this court.
25 176. Ms. Warm is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that
26 Innermost, IMDC, and LightForm in committing the above-described actions, acted
27 willfully, maliciously, and oppressively, and with full knowledge of the adverse
ERIKSON
28 effects of their actions on Ms. Warm, and with willful and deliberate disregard for the
LAW GROUP
ATTORNEYS
LOS ANGELES CA
36 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:21-cv-04402-MWF-SHK Document 82 Filed 03/26/22 Page 37 of 40 Page ID #:1832
2 punitive and exemplary damages from Innermost, IMDC and LightForm in an amount
4 177. Ms. Warm also seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction to prohibit
5 Defendants from any further use of Ms. Warm’s name or likeness for Defendants’
6 advantage.
14 used Ms. Warm’s name and likeness for their advantage and without authorization.
15 180. Ms. Warm is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that
16 Defendants in committing the above-described actions, acted willfully, maliciously,
17 and oppressively, and with full knowledge of the adverse effects of their actions on
18 Ms. Warm, and with willful and deliberate disregard for the consequences to Ms.
19 Warm. By reason thereof, Ms. Warm is entitled to recover punitive and exemplary
21 181. Ms. Warm also seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction to prohibit
22 Defendants from any further use of her name and likeness for Defendants’ advantage.
23
24 PRAYER
25 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray judgment against Defendants as follows:
26 1. That Plaintiffs are awarded all damages, including future damages, that
27 Plaintiffs have sustained, or will sustain, as a result of the acts complained of herein,
ERIKSON
28 subject to proof at trial;
LAW GROUP
ATTORNEYS
LOS ANGELES CA
37 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:21-cv-04402-MWF-SHK Document 82 Filed 03/26/22 Page 38 of 40 Page ID #:1833
1 2. That Plaintiffs are awarded their costs, attorneys’ fees and expenses in
2 this action;
6 persons in active concert or participation with any of them, from engaging in the
10 counsel;
13 7. That Defendants be ordered to file with this Court and serve upon
14 Plaintiffs’ counsel within thirty (30) days after service of the judgment demanded
15 herein, a written report submitted under oath setting forth in detail the manner in
21 10. Such other Damages and further relief as the Court may deem
22 appropriate.
23
24
25
26
27
ERIKSON
28
LAW GROUP
ATTORNEYS
LOS ANGELES CA
38 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:21-cv-04402-MWF-SHK Document 82 Filed 03/26/22 Page 39 of 40 Page ID #:1834
2
By: /s/David Erikson______
3 DAVID ERIKSON
4
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
ERIKSON
28
LAW GROUP
ATTORNEYS
LOS ANGELES CA
39 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:21-cv-04402-MWF-SHK Document 82 Filed 03/26/22 Page 40 of 40 Page ID #:1835
5
By: /s/David Erikson .
6 DAVID ERIKSON
7
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
ERIKSON
28
LAW GROUP
ATTORNEYS
LOS ANGELES CA
40 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT