grupo miramar trademark

Download Grupo Miramar trademark

Post on 02-Jun-2018

217 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

  • 8/10/2019 Grupo Miramar trademark complaint.pdf

    1/16

    jhi

    s

    f i

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    2 4

    2 5

    2 6

    Steven J. Eyre , CB 1197143550 Wilshire Boul eva r d , Suite 1440Los Angeles , C a l i f o r n i a 90010(213)385-6926

    Fax (213)385-3313stevenjeyre@gmail.com

    Attorney for plaintiff Enrique Carino

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

    312 N. Spring Street, Ld>s

    ENRIQUE CARINO,

    Plaintiff,

    - v s .

    FELIX HILARIO, MARIO HILARIO,P LAYA S L AS T U NA S R E STA UR A N T

    INC., a California corporation, CELSO

    HERNANDEZ, DOES 1-10,

    Defendan t s .

    Plaintiff alleges:

    N o .

    c ?

    o

    , WE ST E RN DI VISI ON

    Angeles, CA 90012

    UCV14-7930Wo(MGtfC O M P L A I N T F O R :

    1 . F E D E R A L T R A D E M A R K

    I N F R I N G E M E N T A N D UNFAIRCOMPETITION;

    2. COMMERCIAL DISPARAGEMENT;3 . S T A T E L A W A N D S TAT U T O R Y

    T R A D E N A M E INF R INGEM ENTAND DILUTION;

    4 . I N T E R F E R E N C E W I T H

    P R O S P E C T I V E B U S I N E S S

    ADVANTAGE;5. ACCOUNTING;6. TEMPORARY, PRELIMINARY AND

    P E R M A N E N T I N J U N C T I V E

    R E L I E F

    J U R Y T R I A L D E M A N D E D

    J U R I S D I C T I O N A ND V EN U E

    1. These claims arise under the laws of the United States, particularly under

    1-

    Car ino vs. Hi lar io C O M P L A I N T

  • 8/10/2019 Grupo Miramar trademark complaint.pdf

    2/16

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    2 0

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    2 6

    27

    28

    the federal Trademark Act, as amended, 15

    17200 and California statutory and common

    1331 and 1138(a). Jurisdiction is also

    jurisdiction as provided under 28 U.S.C.

    2. This Court has specific per

    each has purposefully committed, within

    which these claims arise a nd /o r h as c om m i

    and intending that such acts would cause

    3. Venue is proper in the

    pursuant to 28 U.S. C. 1391(b) and 139

    and this f edera l d is tr ict and/or h av e t he

    federal district through which defendants

    the forum state, the claims herein arise frorji

    jurisdiction over these defendants is

    of fair play and substantial justice.

    T H E

    4. Plaintiff Enrique Carino is

    5. Plaint i ff is informed and

    of Los Angeles County, California.

    6. Plaint i ff is informed and

    of Los Angeles County, California.

    7. Defendant Playas Las Tunak

    o

    U.S.C. 1051 etseq., Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code

    law. Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C.

    pursuant to the Court's supplemental

    1367 .

    onal jurisdiction over all of the defendants as

    state and within this district, the acts from

    ted tortious acts outside California, knowing

    w it hi n t he state.

    Sta tes Dis t ri c t Court f or t he Central District

    (c) in tha t defendants each reside in California

    minimum c o nt a ct s w i t h t hi s s ta te and

    pjirposely availed themselves of the benefits of

    such contacts, an d that th e exercise of

    in that it comports with traditional notions

    p r o f e r

    th e

    in ju ry

    U n i t e d

    requisite

    r ea sonab le

    its principal place of business at 1107 S

    8. Plaint i ff is i nf o rm e d a n d be

    owner of Playas Las Tunas Restaurant Inc.,

    112, Los Angeles, CA 90006.

    9. The true names and capacit

    o f t h e d e fe n d an t s n a m e d herein as Does 1

    Carino vs. Hi lar io

    P A R T I E S

    resident of Los Angeles County, California,

    believes that defendant Felix Hilario is a res ident

    believes that defendant Mario Hilario is a resident

    Restaurant Inc. is a California corporation with

    Al arado 112, LosAngeles, CA 90006.

    ieves that Celso Hernandez is t he P resi den t an d

    wi th hi s b us in es s a dd re ss a t 1107 S. Alvarado

    es, whether individual, corporate or otherwise,

    tlkough 10 are presently unknown to plaintiff,

    C O M P L A I N T

  • 8/10/2019 Grupo Miramar trademark complaint.pdf

    3/16

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    2

    2

    23

    4

    25

    6

    7

    28

    o

    who therefore suessaid defendants bysuch

    this complaint to allege the true names and

    ascertained such information. Plaintiff is

    herein as Does 1through 10 has participatedthis Complaintand is liable to Plaintiff by

    G E N E R A L

    10 .

    fictitious names. Plaintiffwill seek to amend

    capacities o f said defendants when he has

    ihformed and believes that each defendant named

    in some or all of the acts or conduct allegedinReason thereof.

    A L L E G AT I O N S

    Carino vs. Hilario

    PlaintiffEnrique Carino

    English, Miramar Group ) in 1976 in Me>

    use the Grupo Miramar mark in

    performances of his musical group. At

    Miramar mark in commerce in the United

    and live performances ofhis musical group

    11. Plaintiffs use of the Grupp

    recordings and live performances of his

    beencontinuous since the respective dates

    12. In 1991,p laintiff registered

    Secretary of State, and in the sameyear

    County of Los Angeles for the Grupo

    13. In September 2003, plaintiff

    GRUPO MIRAMAR w ith the U ni ted States

    2,766,548, in international classifications

    entertainment services of a musical group

    incontestable. Plaintiff renewed the regi

    Trademark Office, so that his registration

    14 . Plaint iff is informed and

    Hilario in 2012 formed a musical group

    Miramar ( The International Miramar

    word Miramar without authorization or

    foiinded the musical group Grupo Miramar (in

    ico. At least as early as 1976, plaintiff began towith the sound recordings and live

    as earlyas 1982, plaintiffusedthe Grupo

    States in connection withthe sound recordings

    connec t i Dn

    least

    Miramar mark in connection with the sound

    group in M ex ico and the United States has

    first use to the present day.

    the Grupo Miramar mark with the California

    a fictitious business name statement with the

    n m e

    registered the service mark and trademark

    Patent and Trademark Office, Reg. No.

    for sound recordings, and 041, for the live

    Plaintiffs registration is current and

    w it h t he U ni te d States P a ten t an d

    in 2 02 3.

    that defendants Felix Hilario an d Mario

    they style as El Internacional Grupo

    ) as well as other names that include the

    of plaintiff.

    musica l

    o f

    filed

    M i n m a r

    0 d 9

    istrc t i on

    ex p i r es

    be l i eves

    w h i c h

    Groilp

    cc n s e n t

    C O M P L A I N T

  • 8/10/2019 Grupo Miramar trademark complaint.pdf

    4/16

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    2

    22

    23

    4

    25

    6

    7

    8

    Mm up'

    Miramar,

    b e l iev es

    Miramar,

    Playas

    Carino vs. Hilario C O M P L A I N T

  • 8/10/2019 Grupo Miramar trademark complaint.pdf

    5/16

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    2

    23

    4

    25

    6

    27

    28

    plaintiffs music musical grouphas been

    21 . Plaintiff is informed and

    andemployees of defendant Playas Las Tubas

    that the use o f the Miramar moniker in

    group of defendants Felix Hilario and Marjo

    MIRAMAR mark,given the fact that plain

    the Playas Las Tunas Restaurant and has

    ownership of the GRUPO MIRAMAR

    constitutes infringementof plaintiffs right^22 . Plaint iff is informed and

    officer of Playas Las Tunas Restaurant Inc.

    Miramar moniker in connect ion wi th the

    Felix Hilario and MarioHilario infringes

    the fact that plaintiffhas advised defendant

    GRUPO MIRAMAR mark a nd t ha t t he u se

    infringement of plaintiffs rights.

    23. Plaintiff is also informed ari

    Mario Hilario have engaged in other perft

    October 17 and 18, 2014 in which they hav^ Miramar n a me .

    24. Plaint i ff is also informed

    MarioHilariohave booked other engagements

    Miramar and that those engagements will

    25. The actions o f defendants

    confusion generated by defendants' actions

    f ro m l o st r ev e nu e .

    26. The actions o f defendants

    unless and until this Courtprovides injunctive

    U>

    djstributedthroughout the area.

    that the officers, shareholders, servants

    Restaurant Inc. k no w o r h as r ea so n to know

    connectionwith the advertising of the musicalHilario infringes on plaintiffs GRUPO

    :iffperformed orhasbeen booked to perform at

    advised the proprietors of the restaurant of hisand that the use of the nameby otherparties

    be l i eves

    m a i k

    Car ino vs. Hila r io

    bqlieves that defendantCelso Hernandez, as an

    knows or has reason to know that the use of the

    advertising of the musical groupof defendants

    plaint