Starboy Talasazan Motion to Suspend Opp No

Home , Might Not

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov ESTTA Tracking number: ESTTA935130 Filing date: 11/14/2018

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Proceeding 91239795 Party Defendant Eymun Talasazan Correspondence KIRK EDWARD SCHENCK Address KULIK GOTTESMAN SIEGEL & WARE LLP 15303 VENTURA BOULEVARD 14TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 91403 UNITED STATES [email protected], [email protected] 310-600-3800

Submission Motion to Suspend for Civil Action Filer's Name Kirk Edward Schenck Filer's email [email protected] Signature /Kirk Edward Schenck/ Date 11/14/2018 Attachments Starboy Talasazan Motion to Suspend Opp No. 91239795FinalFiled.pdf(465465 bytes ) IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

XO TRADEMARKS, LLC Opposition No: 91239795

Opposer, Application No: 87383555

Mark: STARBOY vs. Published in the Ofﬁcial Gazette January 30, 2018 EYMUN TALASAZAN,

App. Filing Date: March 23, 2017

Applicant.

APPLICANT/RESPONDENT EYMUN TALASAZAN’S MOTION TO SUSPEND PROCEEDINGS PENDING DISPOSITION OF DISTRICT COURT ACTION TO:

Peter E. Nussbaum Chiesa, Shahinian & Giantomasi, PC One Boland Drive West Orange, New Jersey 07052 Attys for Opposing Party

-! -1 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 2.117(a) and TBMP §

510.02(a), Applicant/Respondent (“Respondent”) Eymun Talasazan, through its counsel, Kirk Edward Schenck, hereby submits the following motion and hereby does move to suspend the above-referenced proceedings (the “TTAB

Proceedings”) pending ﬁnal disposition of federal district court case Respondent

ﬁled on November 14, 2018 in the matter of Eymun Talasazan vs. XO Trademarks,

LLC, et al. (CASE NO: 2:18-cv-09611) in federal district court for the Central

District of California (the “District Court Action”).

Copies of the complaint and civil cover sheet in the District Court Action are attached as Exhibit 1.

The District Court Action complaint seeks a judgment that Petitioner XO

Trademarks, LLC (“Petitioner”) is engaged in trademark infringement and false endorsement, in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, based on its use of the trademark (Serial Number 87/649,533) that is at issue in this TTAB

Proceeding.

When the parties are involved in civil court proceedings concerning the same marks and issues, the “standard procedure” of the Board is to suspend its administrative proceedings pending outcome of the civil litigation. New Orleans

-! -2 Louisiana Saints LLC v. Who Dat? Inc., 99 USPQ2d 1550, 1552 (TTAB 2011) (quoting

6 McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition §32:47 (5th ed. updated

September 2017)). The District Court Action need not even be dispositive of the

Board proceeding to warrant suspension. Rather, it is sufﬁcient that the District

Court Action have bearing on the issues before the Board to justify a suspension.

Id.

Here, the District Court Action involves the same parties, the same marks, and the same services and activities as those at issue in the TTAB Proceedings.

Respondent ﬁled the District Court Action against the Petitioner in this

TTAB Proceedings. Respondent contends he legitimately and exclusively owns and controls the trademarks upon which Petitioners’ claims in the TTAB

Proceedings are based and the marks Petitioner contends are infringing upon its rights in the District Court Action.

Respondent contends in the District Court Action that Petitioner, in violation of Respondent’s rights, uses Respondent’s trademark (Serial Number

87/649,533). This is the very mark that Petitioner is opposing in the TTAB

Proceedings. Petitioner. The parties and marks in the TTAB Proceedings and the

District Court Action are the same or sufﬁciently related, such that the District

-! -3 Court Action will be dispositive of, or at least have a meaningful bearing upon, the issues before this Board.

In addition, the issues before this Board are also at issue in the District

Court Action. Respondent’s infringement claims involve the same issues the

Board will be deciding in these TTAB Proceedings. But, the District Court Action will also involve other matters and broader issues, such as Petitioners’ unauthorized use of other elements of Respondent’s intellectual property without permission.

In the District Court Action, Respondent is seeking, among other remedies, damages and injunctive relief, which are not available to either party in the TTAB

Proceedings. Because the parties, marks, and issues in the District Court Action are the same and because the outcome will be dispositive or at least impact the claims before the Board, suspension of the TTAB Proceedings pending the outcome of the District Court Action between the parties is warranted.

Moreover, judicial economy is served by immediately suspending all activity in the TTAB Proceedings including, without, all pending discovery and motions to compel discovery. See Other Telephone Co. v. Connecticut National

Telephone Co., 181 USPQ 125 (1974). The parties are currently engaged in

-! -4 discovery with outstanding discovery requests and depositions scheduled on both sides. The discovery period is not scheduled to close until November 3,

2017. Because the District Court Action involves not only the issues currently before the Board, but also issues of false endorsement and unfair competition, discovery in the District Court Action will involve documents, depositions, and other information that is not being and will not be gathered or produced in the

TTAB Proceedings. Thus, suspending the TTAB Proceedings as to all outstanding requests would avoid wasted time and expenses for both parties and the Board. See, e.g, Softbelly’s Inc v. Ty, Inc., 2002 WL 1844210, *3 (citing Other

Telephone, 181 USPQ 126-27) (“It would be a waste of the Board’s and the parties’ time and resources to proceed to litigate this case at the Board when the same issues” are pending in court.)

Given the foregoing, an immediate suspension of the proceedings, including all outstanding and pending discovery, is appropriate.

Finally, the Board has reached this conclusion in similar circumstances. In

Other Telephone, the Board stated that “it is clear” that a District Court Action alleging infringement would “directly affect the resolution” of a proceeding

-! -5 before it involving the same trademark claims, which is the very defense

Respondent has offered in its responsive pleadings in this TTAB Proceedings.

In that proceeding, the moving party ﬁled a motion to suspend with only 8 days left in its testimony period. Because suspension is standard practice when a

District Court Action is pending, it did not take any testimony on reliance upon the Board’s eventual suspension of the proceeding. In granting the motion, over objection, the Board reasoned that judicial economy was served by avoiding the time and expense of testimony in a Board proceeding when a pending District

Court Action would impact, or even be dispositive of, the issues before the

Board. Id. Moreover, the Board did not fault the moving party for not taking testimony while awaiting the Board’s suspension of the proceedings. Rather, it held that if the proceedings were resumed, the moving party would not be in default, but would have additional time for the taking of testimony. Id. The same reasoning applies here.

-! -6 For these reasons, Respondent submits that an order from the Board immediately suspending all activity related to the TTAB Proceedings, including all outstanding discovery requests and scheduled depositions, is warranted. The same is respectfully requested.

Dated: November 14, 2018 Law Ofﬁces of Kirk Edward Schenck, PC 15303 Ventura Boulevard, 14th Floor Los Angeles, CA 91403

By: ______Kirk Edward Schenck (Calif. SBN: 173963) [email protected] Direct: 310.600.3800

-! -7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Kirk Edward Schenck, hereby certify that on November 14, 2018, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing APPLICANT/RESPONDENT EYMUN

TALASAZAN’S MOTION TO SUSPEND PROCEEDINGS PENDING

DISPOSITION OF DISTRICT COURT ACTION by electronic mail upon:

PETER NUSSBAUM Chiesa, Shahinian & Giantomasi, PC One Boland Drive West Orange, New Jersey 07052 [email protected]

Dated: November 14, 2018 Law Ofﬁces of Kirk Edward Schenck, PC 15303 Ventura Boulevard, 14th Floor Los Angeles, CA 91403

By: ______Kirk Edward Schenck (Calif. SBN: 173963) [email protected] Direct: 310.600.3800

-! -8 Exhibit 1

1 Kirk Edward Schenck, Esq. (SB# 173963) LAW OFFICES OF KIRK EDWARD SCHENCK, PC 2 15303 Ventura Boulevard, 14th Floor Los Angeles, California 91403 3 t: 310-600-3800 e: [email protected]

4 Attorneys for Plaintiff: 5 EYMUN TALASAZAN 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 EYMUN TALASAZAN, an Individual, CASE NO: 2:18-cv-09611 11 COMPLAINT FOR: 12 Plaintiff, 13 (1) FEDERAL TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT [15 U.S.C. 14 vs. §1114/LANHAM ACT §43(a)] (Serial Number 87/383,555) 15 XO TRADEMARKS, LLC, a Delaware

16 Limited Liability Company; ABEL MAKKONEN TESFAYE, professionally (2) FEDERAL TRADEMARK 17 known as “THE WEEKND,” an Individual; INFRINGEMENT [15 U.S.C. and DOES 1-10, Inclusive, §1114/LANHAM ACT §43(a)] 18 (Serial Number 87/649,533) 19 Defendant DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-1! - COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 2 COMES NOW, Plaintiff EYMUN TALASAZAN, who files this Complaint 3 against Defendants XO TRADEMARKS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company 4 (“XO”); ABEL MAKKONEN TESFAYE, professionally known as “The Weeknd” (the 5 “Weeknd”), an Individual; and DOES 1-10 (collectively, “Defendants”). 6 JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS 7 1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under §39 of the Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. 8 §1121, under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) and (b), and under 15 U.S.C. §1051 et seq., 9 in that the case arises out of §43(a) of the Lanham Act for trademark infringement. 10 2. Venue is proper, inter alia, under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) because, on information and 11 belief, a substantial part of the events, acts or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred 12 in this judicial district. 13 3. Personal jurisdiction exists over Defendants because, on information and belief, 14 Defendants each separately conduct business in California and in this judicial district, 15 and/or otherwise avail themselves of the privileges and protections of the laws of the 16 State of California, such that this Court’s assertion of jurisdiction over Defendants does 17 not offend traditional notions of fair play and due process. 18 THE PARTIES 19 4. Plaintiff EYMUN TALASAZAN (“Plaintiff”) is now, and all times relevant hereto, 20 an individual residing, and conducting business, in the State of California, County of Los 21 Angeles. 22 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant XO TRADEMARKS, LLC (“XO”) 23 is, and all all times relevant hereto was, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, 24 conducting business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 25 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant ABEL MAKKONEN TESFAYE, 26 pka “The Weeknd” (“The Weeknd”), is an individual whose primary residence is, and 27 who currently conducts business, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 28

-2! - COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 7. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the defendants sued in this 2 Complaint as Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and therefore sues these defendants by such 3 fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege the true names and 4 capacities of the Doe defendants when ascertained. Each of the fictitiously named 5 defendants is responsible in some manner for the conduct alleged in this Complaint, and 6 Plaintiff’s damages are actually and proximately caused by the conduct of such 7 defendants. 8 8. Plaintiff further alleges on information and belief that each Defendant including 9 those designated as a DOE is, or in some manner or degree was, responsible for 10 Plaintiff’s damages. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that each Defendant is 11 responsible in some manner for the acts and/or occurrences alleged herein. Plaintiff also 12 alleges that his damages were proximately caused by the conduct of all, and/or each, of 13 the Defendants. Unless otherwise specified, all defendants in this action shall be 14 collectively referred to as “Defendants.” 15 9. Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that each Defendant in this action, 16 including those fictitiously named, was the agent, servant, employee, partner, joint 17 venturer, or surety of each and all of the other Defendants. Each Defendant, including 18 those fictitiously named, was acting within the scope of this agency, employment, 19 partnership, joint venture, or suretyship and with the knowledge, consent or ratification of 20 each of the other Defendants in taking the acts or omissions alleged herein. 21 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 22 10. For over 10 years, Plaintiff has been in the business of creating and 23 commercializing film, television and social media projects, and developing, creating and 24 publishing comic book characters and concepts. 25 11. An avid comic book reader and a lifelong so-called “Rap/R&B” music fan, Plaintiff 26 conceived of an original idea to use the vast popularity of Rap/R&B music to launch and 27 promote a new breed of comic book superhero characters centered on the Rap/R&B 28 music industry.

-3! - COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 12. To this end, in or about 2014, Plaintiff created an original concept, a format and 2 various character arcs and outlines for a series of comic books and/or film and television 3 projects (Plaintiff’s “Original Concepts”) featuring various superhero characters each (a) 4 with distinct personality traits and unique powers, and (b) related in various manners to 5 real-life musicians and “Rap/R&B” stars (collectively, the “Musicians”) and/or elements 6 of their work. Plaintiff set out to build a team of writers and musicians who would work 7 together with graphic artists to bring Plaintiff’s creation to life. 8 13. Commencing in 2014 and continuing to the date this Complaint was filed, Plaintiff 9 painstakingly developed, and began commercially exploiting and marketing to consumers 10 in the business of financing, producing and/or publishing such ventures, a so-called 11 comic book “universe” featuring Plaintiff’s Original Concepts outlining how various 12 comic-book character Musicians and other fictitious characters interacted in an urban 13 setting where they were charged with overcoming evil and otherwise challenging each 14 other and a long list of villains for power in order to implement their own personal 15 variant of justice (Plaintiff’s “Comic Book Universe”). 16 14. Commencing in 2014, Plaintiff began approaching individual Musicians personally, 17 or by and through their agents or representatives, and pitched each of them a potential 18 creative role in Plaintiff’s Comic Book Universe. Plaintiff worked with various 19 established writers and graphic artists in the continued development of his Comic Book 20 Universe, and sought to populate it with real life Musicians, and other fictional characters 21 inspired by the Rap/R&B music industry generally. 22 15. Commencing in or or about late 2015, Plaintiff began developing his Comic Book 23 Universe with several well known Musicians. 24 16. In or about early 2016, Plaintiff began further developing Plaintiff’s Comic Book 25 Universe with several writers, including Tyger Williams, who had previously written the 26 cult classic film“Menace II Society.” In or about late 2016, also Plaintiff began 27 collaborating with world-famous comic book creator Stan Lee (“Lee”) concerning the 28 story arc structure and characters in Plaintiff’s Comic Book Universe.

-4! - COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 17. In the process of developing the Universe, Plaintiff concluded some Musicians 2 might not want to use their actual and/or stage names in referencing their own superhero, 3 so Plaintiff occasionally created original fictional characters whose names and attributes 4 related tangentially to some unique element of the Musician’s music/lyrics and/or their 5 personal or professional lives. 6 18. In or about March of 2017, Plaintiff had multiple confidential conversations and in 7 person meetings with Defendant XO, and/or one or more representatives and agents of 8 Defendant XO and The Weeknd including, without limitation, Tony W. Sal (“Sal”). 9 Plaintiff submitted to Defendants his concept for his Rap/R&B-centric Comic Book 10 Universe and proposed that Defendant The Weeknd join other Musicians on Plaintiff’s 11 creative team. 12 19. Plaintiff confidentially proposed to Defendants, by and through their authorized 13 representatives including, without limitation, Sal, that Defendant The Weeknd’s character 14 in Plaintiff’s Comic Book Universe take the name “Starboy” … a fictional character 15 featured in one of The Weeknd’s songs, but which has no relationship to comic books, 16 super powers, super heros, or any other film or television projects. The “Starboy” 17 referenced in The Weeknd song has no connection to any superhero or comic book 18 character.1 19 20. Despite Plaintiff’s pitching to Defendants the confidential and proprietary details of 20 his proposed Comic Book Universe and various storylines related to the proposed 21 “Starboy” fictional superhero character, Defendants did not respond to Plaintiff’s 22 multiple followup calls. 23 21. In early 2017, despite receiving no response from Defendants, Plaintiff continued to 24 develop the “Starboy” character without any reference to (a) Defendant Weeknd or (b) 25 the lyrical context of this word in Defendant Weeknd’s music, and included it as an 26 integral part in his various third party marketing pitches and development meetings for 27 28 1 According to the Urban Dictionary at www.urbandictionary.com: a “Starboy” is defined as: noun. (slang) a womanizer, a philanderer, a man who has sex with many women. -5! - COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 comic book, film and television series pitches of his Comic Book Universe. Plaintiff 2 intended to use the “Starboy” character in his Comic Book Universe even if Defendant 3 The Weeknd chose not to work with Plaintiff and his currently assembled team of writers, 4 graphic artists and Musicians, as the character was never based on Defendant The 5 Weeknd himself or the fictional “Starboy” character in The Weeknd’s song. 6 22. On or about March 23, 2017, Plaintiff filed a trademark application for use of the 7 word “Starboy” (Serial Number 87/383,555) in International Class 41 for entertainment 8 services namely production and distribution of television programs in the field of drama 9 (the “Class 41 Trademark”). 10 23. On or about October 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed a trademark application for use of the 11 word “Starboy” (Serial Number 87/649,533) in International Class 16 for comic books 12 (the “Class 16 Trademark”). Unless otherwise specified, Plaintiff’s Class 41 and Class 16 13 Trademarks shall be collectively referred to herein as “Plaintiff’s Trademarks." 14 24. Plaintiff’s extensive use of the Trademarks in, and in connection with, his 15 commercial efforts to develop, market, finance and/or sell his own Comic Book Universe 16 and his own comic books, scripts, treatments, formats, superhero character(s) and/or film 17 and television works has created and built up significant good will in the film, television 18 and comic book production industries, and in the general stream of commerce for comic 19 book-related intellectual property. 20 25. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that at no point in time has any 21 Defendant, or any other person or entity associated with them, ever filed a trademark 22 application to use the word “Starboy” in the stream of commerce in any trademark 23 category. 24 26. In or about June of 2018, Defendants published, and/or authorized, encouraged, 25 and/or enabled, various third parties to publish, a comic book series entitled 26 “Starboy” (“Defendants' Starboy Comic Book”) featuring the near identical premise 27 Plaintiff had pitched to Defendants the prior year. Since June of 2018, Defendants and 28 their affiliated parties (a) have sold and continue to sell their Starboy Comic Book and

-6! - COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 related intellectual property and merchandising, and (b) are otherwise using the word and 2 Plaintiff’s trade name “Starboy” in the stream of commerce to identify, sell, market, 3 publicize and/or commercially exploit their Starboy Comic Book. In doing so, as alleged 4 herein, Defendants infringed on Plaintiff’s Trademarks and at trial after discovery 5 Plaintiff expects to prove this damages sustained by virtue of Defendants’ various acts or 6 omissions related to such infringement. 7 27. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have been using, and 8 continue to use, both of Plaintiff’s Trademarks in connection with the sale, marketing and 9 commercial exploitation of (a) Defendant’s comic books, and (b) film and television 10 content and intellectual property derivative of and related to Defendant’s comic books. 11 28. Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, financial injury and damage as a 12 result of the acts alleged herein including, without limitation, the use of the word 13 “Starboy” in, and in connection with, Defendants’ marketing, advertising, and general 14 identification of Defendants’ Starboy Comic Book and other derivative commercial 15 endeavors. 16 29. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ use of Plaintiff’s 17 Trademarks in, and in connection with, Defendants' Starboy Comic Book and related 18 commercial items was willful: it having been adopted with knowledge of Plaintiff’s prior 19 rights in, and to, the Trademarks, and with the specific intent to trade on, and benefit 20 from, the goodwill established by Plaintiff in his pre-existing registered Trademarks. 21 30. Since in or about June of 2018, Defendants have used in commerce a reproduction, 22 counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of Plaintiff’s registered Trademarks in 23 connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of goods or 24 services on, or in connection with which, such use is likely to cause confusion, or to 25 cause mistake, or to deceive. 26 27 28

-7! - COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 2 Federal Trademark Infringement Against Defendants 3 Relating To Plaintiff’s Class 16 Trademark 4 15 U.S.C. 1114/Lanham Act §43(a) 5 31. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all prior paragraphs in this Complaint as 6 though fully set forth herein. 7 32. As alleged herein, Plaintiff has been, and is currently, utilizing his “Starboy” Class 8 16 Trademark in the stream of commerce in connection with the sale, advertising, 9 marketing, and the seeking of publishers and financing for comic books. Defendants are 10 actually aware that Plaintiff had applied for the “Starboy” Class 16 Trademark. Further, 11 Plaintiff’s registration of the Class 16 Trademark on the Principal Register gave 12 constructive notice to Defendants of Plaintiff’s ownership rights in and to the Class 16 13 Trademark. 14 33. Defendants did not at any time seek or obtain written, verbal or implied consent or 15 authorization from Plaintiff as the registered owner of the Class 16 Trademark to 16 commercially distribute and market a comic book bearing Plaintiff’s Class 16 Trademark 17 into the stream of commerce. 18 34. As alleged herein, Defendants intentionally and knowingly used in the stream of 19 commerce Plaintiff’s Class 16 Trademark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, 20 distribution, marketing, promotion, publicity, and/or advertising of Defendants’ Starboy 21 Comic Book and related intellectual property. 22 35. Defendants’ egregious and intentional use, and sale, of their own Starboy Comic 23 Book bearing Plaintiff’s Class 16 Trademark is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or 24 deception as to the origin of Defendants’ comic book and its affiliation with Plaintiff’s 25 own original version of the Starboy superhero character and related comic book 26 intellectual property. 27 36. Defendants’ continued and knowing use of Plaintiff’s Class 16 Trademark in the 28 stream of commerce in the United States and internationally without Plaintiff’s consent or

-8! - COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 authorization constitutes an intentional infringement of Plaintiff’s federally registered 2 Class 16 Trademark in violation of Section 32 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1114. 3 Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, monetary and other damages as a result, 4 subject to proof at trial. 5 6 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 7 Federal Trademark Infringement Against Defendants 8 Relating To Plaintiff’s Class 41 Trademark 9 15 U.S.C. 1114/Lanham Act §43(a) 10 37. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all prior paragraphs in this Complaint as 11 though fully set forth herein. 12 38. As alleged herein, Plaintiff has been, and is currently, utilizing his “Starboy” Class 13 16 Trademark in the stream of commerce in connection with the sale, advertising, 14 marketing, and the seeking of financing for various film and television projects utilizing 15 his “Starboy” Class 16 Trademark. Defendants are actually aware that Plaintiff had 16 applied for the “Starboy” Class 41 Trademark. Further, Plaintiff’s registration of the Class 17 41 Trademark on the Principal Register gave constructive notice to Defendants of 18 Plaintiff’s ownership rights in and to the Class 41 Trademark. 19 39. Defendants did not at any time seek or obtain written, verbal or implied consent or 20 authorization from Plaintiff as the registered owner of the Class 41 Trademark to 21 commercially distribute and market a comic book bearing Plaintiff’s Class 41 Trademark 22 into the stream of commerce. 23 40. As alleged herein, Defendants intentionally and knowingly used in the stream of 24 commerce Plaintiff’s Class 41 Trademark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, 25 distribution, marketing, promotion, publicity, and/or advertising of Defendants’ Starboy 26 Comic Book and related intellectual property as a television and/or film derivative project 27 based on the underlying intellectual property contained in Defendants’ Starboy Comic 28 Book.

-9! - COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 41. Defendants’ egregious and intentional use, and sale, of their own Starboy Comic 2 Book and derivative film and television intellectual property bearing Plaintiff’s Class 41 3 Trademark is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception as to the origin of 4 Defendants’ derivative film and television projects and its affiliation with Plaintiff’s own 5 original version of the Starboy superhero character and related comic book and film and 6 television-based intellectual property. 7 42. Defendants’ continued and knowing use of Plaintiff’s Class 41 Trademark in the 8 stream of commerce in the United States and internationally without Plaintiff’s consent or 9 authorization constitutes an intentional infringement of Plaintiff’s federally registered 10 Class 41 Trademark in violation of Section 32 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1114. 11 Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, monetary and other damages as a result, 12 subject to proof at trial. 13 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 14 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that: 15 1. Defendants, and all of their agents, officers, employees, representatives, 16 successors, assigns, attorneys, and all other persons acting for, with, by, through or under 17 authority from Defendants, or in concert or participation with Defendants, and each of 18 them, be enjoined from: 19 a. advertising, marketing, promoting, offering for sale, distributing, or 20 selling Defendants' Starboy Comic Book and any derivative commercial goods or 21 services based thereon; 22 b. using the Trademarks on or in connection with any of Defendants' or any 23 other entity’s goods or services; 24 c. using the Trademarks or any other copy, reproduction, colorable 25 imitation, or simulation of the Trademarks on, or in connection with, Defendants' goods; 26 and 27 d. using any trademark, name, logo, design, or source designation of any 28 kind on or in connection with Defendants' goods or services that is a copy, reproduction,

-!10- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 colorable imitation, or simulation of, or confusingly similar to any of Plaintiff’s various 2 trademarks, trade dresses, names, or logos. 3 2. Defendants be ordered to recall all of Defendants’ Starboy Comic Books, or 4 any other goods bearing Plaintiff’s Trademarks, or any other confusingly similar 5 imitation of Plaintiff’s Trademark that are in Defendants' possession or have been shipped 6 by Defendants or under its authority, to any customer, including, but not limited to, any 7 wholesaler, distributor, retailer, consignor, or marketer, and also to deliver to each such 8 store or customer a copy of this Court’s order as it relates to said injunctive relief against 9 Defendants; 10 3. Defendants be ordered to deliver up for impoundment and for destruction, all 11 comic books, bags, boxes, labels, tags, signs, packages, receptacles, advertising, 12 marketing materials, sample books, promotional materials, stationery, or other materials 13 in the possession, custody or under the control of Defendants that are found to adopt, 14 infringe, or dilute, or infringe on, any of Plaintiff’s trademarks; 15 4. Defendants be ordered to account to Plaintiff for any and all profits derived by 16 Defendants from the sale or distribution of their Star Boy Comic Book using Plaintiff’s 17 Class 16 Trademark; 18 5. Plaintiff be awarded all damages caused by the acts forming the basis of this 19 Complaint; 20 6. Based on Defendants' knowing and intentional use of an identical imitation or 21 copy of Plaintiff’s Class 16 Trademark, Defendants be ordered to pay treble damages 22 based on the award of Defendants' profits pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a); 23 7. Defendants be required to pay to Plaintiff the costs and reasonable attorneys’ 24 fees incurred by Plaintiff in this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a); 25 8. Based on Defendants' willful and deliberate infringement and/or dilution of 26 Plaintiff’s Class 16 Trademark, and to deter such conduct in the future, Plaintiff be 27 awarded punitive damages; 28

-11! - COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 9. Plaintiff be awarded prejudgment and post-judgment interest on all monetary 2 awards; and 3 10. Plaintiff be granted such other and further relief as the Court may deem just. 4 5 JURY TRIAL DEMAND 6 7 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury of all 8 issues so triable that are raised herein or which hereinafter may be raised in this action. 9 10 Dated: November 13, 2018 LAW OFFICES OF KIRK EDWARD SCHENCK, PC 11 12

13 By: ______14 Kirk Edward Schenck 15 Attorney for Plaintiff Eymun Talasazan 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-!12- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES JS 44 (Rev. 06/17) CIVIL COVER SHEET The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.) I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS XO TRADEMARKS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; Eymun Talasazan, an Individual ABEL TESFAYE pka “THE WEEKND,” an Individual; and DOES 1-10, Inclusive. (b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Los Angeles, CA County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Los Angeles, CA (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known) Kirk Edward Schenck, Esq. (SB# 173963) c/o Peter Nussbaum, Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC, Law Ofﬁces of Kirk Edward Schenck, PC One Boland Drive, West Orange, NJ 07052 * 15303 Ventura Boulevard, 14th Floor Los Angeles, California 91403 Has not agreed to accept service of process at this time t: 310-600-3800 e: [email protected] II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff (For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant) ’ 1 U.S. Government ’ 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State ’ 1 ’ 1 Incorporated or Principal Place ’ 4 ’ 4 of Business In This State

’ 2 U.S. Government ’ 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State ’ 2 ’ 2 Incorporated and Principal Place ’ 5 ’ 5 Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a ’ 3 ’ 3 Foreign Nation ’ 6 ’ 6 Foreign Country IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions. CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES ’ 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY ’ 625 Drug Related Seizure ’ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 ’ 375 False Claims Act ’ 120 Marine ’ 310 Airplane ’ 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 ’ 423 Withdrawal ’ 376 Qui Tam (31 USC ’ 130 Miller Act ’ 315 Airplane Product Product Liability ’ 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a)) ’ 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability ’ 367 Health Care/ ’ 400 State Reapportionment ’ 150 Recovery of Overpayment ’ 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS ’ 410 Antitrust & Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury ’ 820 Copyrights ’ 430 Banks and Banking ’ 151 Medicare Act ’ 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability ’ 830 Patent ’ 450 Commerce ’ 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability ’ 368 Asbestos Personal ’ 835 Patent - Abbreviated ’ 460 Deportation Student Loans ’ 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application ’ 470 Racketeer Influenced and (Excludes Veterans) ’ 345 Marine Product Liability ’ 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations ’ 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY ’ 480 Consumer Credit of Veteran’s Benefits ’ 350 Motor Vehicle ’ 370 Other Fraud ’ 710 Fair Labor Standards ’ 861 HIA (1395ff) ’ 490 Cable/Sat TV ’ 160 Stockholders’ Suits ’ 355 Motor Vehicle ’ 371 Truth in Lending Act ’ 862 Black Lung (923) ’ 850 Securities/Commodities/ ’ 190 Other Contract Product Liability ’ 380 Other Personal ’ 720 Labor/Management ’ 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange ’ 195 Contract Product Liability ’ 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations ’ 864 SSID Title XVI ’ 890 Other Statutory Actions ’ 196 Franchise Injury ’ 385 Property Damage ’ 740 Railway Labor Act ’ 865 RSI (405(g)) ’ 891 Agricultural Acts ’ 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability ’ 751 Family and Medical ’ 893 Environmental Matters Medical Malpractice Leave Act ’ 895 Freedom of Information REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS ’ 790 Other Labor Litigation FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act ’ 210 Land Condemnation ’ 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: ’ 791 Employee Retirement ’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff ’ 896 Arbitration ’ 220 Foreclosure ’ 441 Voting ’ 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act or Defendant) ’ 899 Administrative Procedure ’ 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment ’ 442 Employment ’ 510 Motions to Vacate ’ 871 IRS—Third Party Act/Review or Appeal of ’ 240 Torts to Land ’ 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 Agency Decision ’ 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations ’ 530 General ’ 950 Constitutionality of ’ 290 All Other Real Property ’ 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION State Statutes Employment Other: ’ 462 Naturalization Application §39 of the Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. §1121, under’ 446 28 Amer.U.S.C. w/Disabilities - ’ 540 Mandamus & Other ’ 465 Other Immigration Other ’ 550 Civil Rights Actions ’ 448 Education ’ 555 Prison Condition ’ 560 Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only) ’ 1Original ’ 2Removed from ’ 3 Remanded from ’ 4Reinstated or ’ 5 Transferred from ’ 6 Multidistrict ’ 8 Multidistrict Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation - (specify) Transfer Direct File Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity): §39 of the Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. §1121, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) and (b), and under 15 U.S.C. §1051 et seq.. The case arises out of §43(a) of the Lanham Act for trademark infringement. VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause: Plaintiff alleges Defendants have infringed on Plaintiff’s Trademark Serial Number 87/649,533 and 87/383,555 VII. REQUESTED IN ’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. no speciﬁc sum requested JURY DEMAND: ’ Yes ’ No VIII. RELATED CASE(S) (See instructions): IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD November 13, 2018 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 06/17)

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44 Authority For Civil Cover Sheet

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:

I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then the official, giving both name and title. (b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.) (c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting in this section "(see attachment)".

II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X" in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below. United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here. United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box. Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked. Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.)

III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this section for each principal party.

IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.

V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes. Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts. Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441. When the petition for removal is granted, check this box. Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing date. Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date. Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or multidistrict litigation transfers. Multidistrict Litigation – Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. Multidistrict Litigation – Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket. PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to changes in statue.

VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service

VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P. Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction. Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.

VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.

Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.