Case 2:20-Cv-05375 Document 1 Filed 06/17/20 Page 1 of 21 Page ID #:1
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Case 2:20-cv-05375 Document 1 Filed 06/17/20 Page 1 of 21 Page ID #:1 1 Gurjit Singh (SBN # 316312) 2 1131 W. 6th St., Suite 227 3 Ontario, CA 91762 4 (818) 396-6841 5 Attorney for Plaintiff, Escobar Inc 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Escobar Inc., a Puerto Rico Corporation Case No. 2:20-cv-5375 12 Plaintiff, 1. Lanham Act - Trademark Infringement/False Designation of 13 v. Origin/Unfair Competition 14 Dillard Hospitality Group, a Georgia 2. Lanham Act – False Advertising Limited Liability Company; Mychel 3. Lanham Act – False Endorsement 15 Dillard “Snoop”, an Individual; Tauheed 4. Lanham Act – Trademark Dilution Epps “2 Chainz”, an Individual; and Does 5. Misappropriation of Right of Publicity 16 1 through 10, inclusive, under California Law 6. Misappropriation of Right of Publicity 17 Defendants. under Georgia Law 18 7. False Advertising Under State Law 8. Trademark Dilution Under State Law 19 9. Unfair Competition Under State Law 10. Trademark Infringement Under State 20 Law 11. Unfair Competition Under State Law 21 12. Accounting 22 13. Unjust Enrichment 23 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 24 25 COMPLAINT 26 COMES NOW Plaintiff Escobar, Inc (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”), by and through its 27 counsel, and files this Complaint against Defendants and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and shows 28 this Court the following 1 Case 2:20-cv-05375 Document 1 Filed 06/17/20 Page 2 of 21 Page ID #:2 1 NATURE OF ACTION 2 1. Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, under 3 state and federal law for Defendants’ unauthorized commercial use of Plaintiff’s intellectual 4 property, including but not limited to the name and trademark “Pablo Escobar” and confusingly 5 similar variants and imitations thereof in violation of Plaintiff’s rights in their famous “Pablo 6 Escobar” and “Escobar” family of registered and common law marks and trade names, and the 7 publicity rights of Pablo Escobar. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful actions, Plaintiff seeks 8 damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. 9 PARTIES & JURISDICTION 10 2. Plaintiff Escobar, Inc. (“Escobar”) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws 11 of the U.S. Territory of Puerto Rico whose principal place of business is 324 South Beverly Dr., 12 Unit 325, Beverly Hills, California 90212. Escobar is engaged in the business of, among other 13 things, marketing various products and services on the internet, including phones, and managing 14 intellectual property. 15 3. At all times pertinent to the acts and events that form the basis of this Complaint, Escobar 16 was a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the U.S. Territory of Puerto Rico and 17 with its principal place of business in the State of California; it is, thus, a citizen of California. 18 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes that, at all relevant times, Defendant Dillard Hospitality 19 Group (“Dillard”) is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the 20 State of Georgia, whose principal place of business is located at 139 Ralph McGill Blvd., Atlanta, 21 GA 30313. Dillard is engaged in the hospitality business, among other things, including the 22 Escobar Restaurant and Tapas and Escobar Restaurant and Tapas South. At all times pertinent to 23 the acts and events that form the basis of this Complaint, Dillard was a limited liability company 24 organized and existing under the laws of the State of Georgia and with its principal place of 25 business in the State of Georgia and conducts business in the State of California; it is, thus, a 26 citizen of Georgia. 27 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes that, and based thereon alleges, that Defendant Mychel 28 Dillard “Snoop” (“Mychel”) is a resident of the State of Georgia. Upon information and belief, 2 Case 2:20-cv-05375 Document 1 Filed 06/17/20 Page 3 of 21 Page ID #:3 1 Mychel owns a controlling interest in Defendant Dillard, and authorized, ratified and participated 2 in each of the acts complained of herein. 3 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes that, and based thereon alleges, that Defendant Tauheed 4 Epps “2 Chainz” (“Tauheed”) is a resident of the State of Georgia, who also maintains a residence 5 in Hollywood Hills, California. Upon information and belief, Tauheed owns a controlling interest 6 in Defendant Dillard, and authorized, ratified and participated in each of the acts complained of 7 herein. 8 7. Plaintiff is informed and believes that, and based thereon alleges, that the factiously- 9 named Defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 10, and each of them, are in some manner 10 responsible or legally liable for the actions, events, transactions and circumstances alleged herein. 11 The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, of 12 Defendants Does 1 through 10, inclusive, are presently unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sued 13 the Doe Defendants by such fictious names. When the true names and capacities of such 14 factiously named defendants have been ascertained, Plaintiff will amend this pleading 15 accordingly. 16 8. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the factiously named 17 defendants are in some manner responsible for the acts, omissions and occurrences hereinafter 18 alleged and actually and proximately caused and contributed to the various injuries and damages 19 referred to herein. 20 9. The defendants identified in paragraphs 4 through 8, above, shall be referred to 21 collectively as “Defendants.” 22 10. Whenever reference is made in this Complaint to any act of any Defendants, such 23 allegation shall mean that each Defendant acted individually and jointly with the other 24 Defendants. 25 11. Plaintiff is informed and believes that any allegation about acts of any corporate or other 26 business defendant means that the corporation or other business did the acts alleged through its 27 officers, directors, employees, agents and/or representatives while they were acting within the 28 actual or ostensible scope of their authority. 3 Case 2:20-cv-05375 Document 1 Filed 06/17/20 Page 4 of 21 Page ID #:4 1 12. Plaintiff is informed and believes that at all relevant times, each Defendant committed the 2 acts, caused or directed others to commit the acts, or permitted others to commit the acts alleged 3 in this Complaint. Additionally, some or all of the Defendants acted as the agent of the other 4 Defendants, and all of the Defendants acted within the scope of their agency as if acting as an 5 agent of another. 6 13. Plaintiff is informed and believes that at all relevant times, each defendant knew or 7 realized that the other Defendants were engaging in or planned to engage in the violations of law 8 alleged in this Complaint. 9 14. Subject-matter jurisdiction of this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 in that 10 there exists complete diversity of citizenship. Plaintiff Escobar is a Puerto Rico corporation and 11 has its principal place of business within the State of California. No officer, director or 12 shareholder of Escobar is a resident of the State of Georgia. Defendant Dillard is organized and 13 existing under the laws of the State of Georgia and its principal place of business in the State of 14 Georgia. Defendant Mychel is a resident of Georgia and Defendant Tauheed is a resident of 15 Georgia, who also maintains a residence in Hollywood Hills, California. The amount in 16 controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. 17 15. This Court also has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 18 § 1331; subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims in this Complaint arising under the Lanham 19 Act pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1121 and 28 U.S.C. § 1338, and various Federal common law 20 principles. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 21 28 U.S.C § 1367(a). 22 16. This Court has personal jurisdiction over each and every one of the Defendants, as each 23 and every one of the Defendants has maintained systemic contact with the State of California, has 24 transacted business within the State of California (e.g., advertised, marketed, sold and shipped its 25 products, including but not limited to the infringing products discussed below, to California 26 residents), and/or has committed acts that have caused tortious injury to Plaintiff in this Judicial 27 District. 28 17. Venue as related to Defendants is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (a) 4 Case 2:20-cv-05375 Document 1 Filed 06/17/20 Page 5 of 21 Page ID #:5 1 and (b). Since each and every one of the Defendants is subject to personal jurisdiction in this 2 Judicial District, Defendants reside in this Judicial District for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1391. 3 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 4 18. Plaintiff owns all of the intellectual property rights, including but not limited to all 5 trademarks and publicity rights, of and associated with the legendary Pablo Emillio Escobar 6 Gaviria (“Pablo Escobar” or “Escobar”), whose name, image, likeness, identity and celebrity 7 persona have tremendous commercial value. 8 19. Plaintiff is informed and believes that at all relevant times Defendants have operated two 9 restaurants in the State of Georgia, Escobar Restaurant and Tapas and Escobar Restaurant and 10 Tapas South (collectively, the “Escobar Restaurants”).