Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 24

Page 1- COMPLAINT

TRAVIS W. HALL, OSB No. 984513


Email: thallbatemanseidel.com
AMANDA Guile-HINMAN, OSB No. 093706
Email: aguilebatemanseidel.com
BATEMAN SEIDEL MINER BLOMGREN
CHELLIS & GRAM PC
888 SW 5
th
Avenue, Suite 1250
Portland, OR 97204
Phone: 503-972-9920
Facsimile: 503-972-9921

Attorneys Ior Sockeye TimberIraming, LLC



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION

SOCKEYE TIMBERFRAMING, LLC, an
Oregon limited liability company,

PlaintiII,

v.

SURFACE THEORY LLC, a Washington
limited liability company; and Ross Burtness,
an individual,

DeIendants.
CASE NO. 3:14-cv-649
COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT
INFRINGEMENT, WORK
MADE FOR HIRE, LANHAM
ACT VIOLATIONS, BREACH
OF DUTY OF LOYALTY,
TRADE SECRET VIOLATIONS,
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE
WITH ECONOMIC RELATIONS
1URY TRIAL REQUESTED

For its Complaint, PlaintiII Sockeye TimberIraming, LLC ('Sockeye) alleges against
DeIendants SurIace Theory LLC ('SurIace Theory) and Ross Burtness as Iollows:

Case 3:l4-cv-00649-MO Document 2 Filed 04/2l/l4 Page l of 24 Page lD#: 3
Page 2- COMPLAINT
THE PARTIES
1. Sockeye is an Oregon limited liability company having its principal place oI
business in McMinnville, Oregon with a show room in Portland, Oregon.
2. SurIace Theory is a Washington limited liability company having its principal
place oI business at 1106 N Canterbury Drive, Ellensburg, Washington, 98926.
3. Mr. Burtness upon inIormation and belieI resides in Ellensburg, Washington.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4. Under the United States Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. 101, et seq.) (the 'Act) or
the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. 1125, et seq), this court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. 1338(b) and 1367. This court has supplemental jurisdiction as to the pendant state
law claims under 28 U.S.C. 1367(a) because these state claims are so related to the copyright
claim or Lanham Act claim as to Iorm the same case or controversy. Alternatively, this court has
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332 as the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the
controversy is between citizens oI diIIerent states.
5. This court has personal jurisdiction because, upon inIormation and belieI, SurIace
Theory and Mr. Burtness committed copyright or Lanham Act violations within the state oI
Oregon. Additionally, SurIace Theory and Mr. Burtness upon inIormation and belieI solicits
business or has done business within the state oI Oregon. SurIace Theory also with the aid and
assistance oI Mr. Burtness has committed some oI the allegations alleged below within the state
oI Oregon.
6. Venue is proper in this jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1391 because a substantial
part oI the events on which Sockeye`s claims are based occurred in this district.
/ / /
Case 3:l4-cv-00649-MO Document 2 Filed 04/2l/l4 Page 2 of 24 Page lD#: 4
Page 3- COMPLAINT
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Sockeves Business Model
7. Sockeye generally operates under the assumed business names oI Pioneer
Millworks and New Energy Works. Sockeye is a domestic supplier oI recaptured antique wood.
Sockeye acquires recaptured antique wood Irom old barns, buildings, derelict warehouses and
similar structures that have outlived their useIul liIe but were constructed with old growth or
aged lumber. Sockeye then resaws the antique wood and then repurposes the Iresh milled
antique wood into Ilooring and similar building materials.
8. Unlike Iabricated wood products Irom Iresh harvest sources, Sockeye`s
recaptured antique wood products are unique to the source oI the antique wood. Products vary
signiIicantly in color, texture, and grain.
9. Residential and commercial clients oI Sockeye purchase a varietal oI wood based
upon the aesthetic properties and characteristics unique to the source oI the recaptured antique
wood. Sockeye`s products are not only Iunctional; Sockeye`s clients may display the recaptured
wood as a major design Ieature intended to communicate the clients` historical roots to a speciIic
region or period, to blend the transition between the exterior and interior oI a structure, or to
create an illusion oI the structures` integration with nature.
10. Because oI the geographical and historical relationship to Ioresting and nature, a
sizable percentage oI Sockeye`s clients are located in the PaciIic Northwest; speciIically, Oregon
and Washington.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
Case 3:l4-cv-00649-MO Document 2 Filed 04/2l/l4 Page 3 of 24 Page lD#: 5
Page 4- COMPLAINT
Sockeve Hires Mr. Burtness To Its Team
11. Sockeye employs approximately 20 people, located primarily in Oregon;
however, Sockeye employs regional sales staII to work outside oI Oregon in order to develop a
relationship with a speciIic community or market.
12. On or about August 1, 2010, Sockeye hired Mr. Burtness as a member oI its sales
staII as a west coast representative with his territory Iocused on Oregon, Washington and British
Columbia, Canada. Included within Mr. Burtness` job duties was the responsibility to service
Sockeye`s clients in the Washington area and to develop Sockeye`s presence in that market.
13. Sockeye operates a highly ethical business that is socially and environmentally
responsible. Sockeye`s management philosophy is to trust its employees with the expectation
that in return its employees will be responsible and ethical. Sockeye provides its employees
direction and instruction but within that Iramework Employees are encouraged to use initiative
and creativity in perIorming their jobs.
14. As part oI this philosophy, Sockeye granted Mr. Burtness discretion on how to
develop the market Ior Sockeye in Washington and Oregon. Sockeye supported Mr. Burtness by
encouraging his initiative and by providing him the resources necessary to carry out his
responsibilities.
15. The resources Sockeye provided to Mr. Burtness included access to conIidential
business inIormation and trade secrets. This conIidential business inIormation and trade secrets
included, but are not limited to: client lists that Sockeye spent considerable time and eIIort to
develop that otherwise could not be obtained through readily available sources; wholesale price
lists; contact inIormation Ior suppliers oI reclaimed antique wood; business marketing plans;
methods and means oI resawing reclaimed antique wood; and, Sockeye`s Iinancial inIormation.
Case 3:l4-cv-00649-MO Document 2 Filed 04/2l/l4 Page 4 of 24 Page lD#: 6
Page 5- COMPLAINT
16. Sockeye also trusted Mr. Burtness by allowing him to use his personal cell phone
as his contract number Ior Sockeye. A consequence oI Sockeye allowing Mr. Burtness to use his
personal cell phone number is that design proIessionals and contractors listed Mr. Burtness`
personal phone number on contracts and plans instead oI Sockeye`s business number.
17. Ultimately, Sockeye`s trust in Mr. Burtness was misplaced. As alleged more Iully
below, Mr. Burtness while an employee oI Sockeye started a competing enterprise and on
company time began marketing his newly Iormed enterprise. Upon inIormation and belieI, Mr.
Burtness diverted Sockeye business to his own enterprise while still employed by Sockeye
Mr. Burtness Competes With Sockeve While In Its Emplov
18. Mr. Burtness while still employed by Sockeye and during company time launched
a social media presence and a website, all under the name 'SurIace Theory. Mr. Burtness did
not inIorm Sockeye that he was competing against Sockeye under the name oI SurIace Theory.
Rather than supporting Sockeye`s internet presence with marketing materials and promotions Ior
his area oI responsibility, Mr. Burtness instead used his SurIace Theory accounts while
employed by Sockeye in order to secretly and directly compete against Sockeye.
19. For example, Mr. Burtness created a Houzz account under the user name SurIace
Theory no later than July 2012. Mr. Burtness on January 28, 2013 responded to a post by a
prospective client inquiring about wood Ilooring by posting a reply saying 'Send me an email at
surIacetheorygmail.com. Mr. Burtness also linked on his Houzz account the SurIace Theory
website no later than April 8, 2013.
20. Mr. Burtness also created a Twitter account Ior SurIace Theory in April 2013 and
'tweeted a link to his Houzz account. Mr. Burtness also tweeted in April 2013 that he had over
200 Iollowers on the SurIace Theory Twitter account.
Case 3:l4-cv-00649-MO Document 2 Filed 04/2l/l4 Page 5 of 24 Page lD#: 7
Page 6- COMPLAINT
21. On Houzz, users can link projects and give reviews about work done by other
Houzz users. H2D Architecture Design ('H2D) posted on Houzz a project called the 'Seattle
Green Custom Home and linked SurIace Theory as the material supplier oI its 'salvaged
hardwood Ilooring. H2D posted on Houzz its Seattle Green Custom Home project on or about
August 2013. H2D on its website Iurther represents that the Seattle Green Custom Home was
completed in the summer oI 2013 and posted a link to a Ieatured article on MSN Real Estate`s
Ieature article 'Amazing Indoor and Outdoor Spaces. The MSN article was published on July
5, 2013. Mr. Burtness diverted the publicity Ior this project Irom Pioneer Millworks to his
competing personal enterprise.
22. In September 2013, Mr. Burtness also created a Facebook page under the user
name 'SurIace Theory and represented that the business was Iounded in 2010. Mr. Burtness
established an Instagram account Ior SurIace Theory in September 2013, which was linked to the
SurIace Theory Facebook page. Mr. Burtness also created a SurIace Theory Pintrest account.
23. Based upon the time and date stamps oI posts to the SurIace Theory social media
accounts, Mr. Burtness updated, posted to, and maintained these various social media accounts
during normal work days and during normal working hours while Sockeye was paying Mr.
Burtness a salary.
24. In addition to leveraging social media in the name oI a competing enterprise, upon
inIormation and belieI Mr. Burtness used his personal cell phone and contact inIormation to
divert business Irom Sockeye to his own enterprise.
25. At all times relevant, Sockeye was unaware that Mr. Burtness was directly
competing against it under the name SurIace Theory while Mr. Burtness was in its employ.
Case 3:l4-cv-00649-MO Document 2 Filed 04/2l/l4 Page 6 of 24 Page lD#: 8
Page 7- COMPLAINT
Sockeye did not give permission to Mr. Burtness to operate a competing business or to use
company time to establish and develop a competing enterprise.
26. Upon inIormation and belieI, Mr. Burtness diverted substantial business
opportunities Irom Sockeye causing Sockeye substantial Iinancial losses as well as a loss to its
reputation in the community.
Mr. Burtness Jiolates Sockeves Copvrights And Unfairlv Competes with Sockeve
27. Sockeye ultimately terminated Mr. Burtness on or about November 22, 2013 as a
consequence oI Mr. Burtness not perIorming his job satisIactorily. As part oI the termination
process, Sockeye demanded that Mr. Burtness return all company property (not including the cell
phone). This property included an Apple iPad and a company supplied laptop computer, which
Mr. Burtness reIused to return. Upon inIormation and belieI, Mr. Burtness had in his possession
and control company conIidential inIormation and trade secrets including but not limited to:
copyrighted photographs (including work made Ior hire); contracts; bids; drawings; plans; client
contact inIormation; email communications; product speciIications; and supplier contact
inIormation.
28. Mr. Burtness Iormally organized SurIace Theory on December 9, 2013 with the
Washington Secretary oI State. Mr. Burtness is a member or manager oI SurIace Theory.
SurIace Theory began competing directly and openly against Sockeye in the same business oI
selling reclaimed antique wood Ilooring and similar building products. On January 11, 2014,
Mr. Burtness tweeted on the SurIace Theory Twitter account, 'We just went live with our
updated website!
29. Sockeye ultimately discovered the SurIace Theory website. Sockeye learned that
SurIace Theory is using approximately 35 oI Sockeye`s photographs. Sockeye in searching
Case 3:l4-cv-00649-MO Document 2 Filed 04/2l/l4 Page 7 of 24 Page lD#: 9
Page 8- COMPLAINT
through SurIace Theory`s social media accounts linked on its website discovered that SurIace
Theory posted approximately 25 additional photographs that are Sockeye`s photographs.
Sockeye also learned Ior the Iirst time that Mr. Burtness had been maintaining SurIace Theory`s
social media accounts while still employed by Sockeye.
30. Generally, Sockeye`s copyrighted photographs publically displayed on SurIace
Theory`s website and social media accounts are photographs oI Sockeye`s work Ior clients or oI
materials supplied by Sockeye to its clients.
31. Sockeye is the exclusive rights holder with respect to the reproduction and
distribution oI these copyrighted photographs. To the extent that Mr. Burtness claims to be the
original author oI some oI the photographs, the photographs remain the exclusive rights oI
Sockeye through the doctrine oI 'work made Ior hire.
32. Upon inIormation and belieI, two oI the photographs published on SurIace
Theory`s website are copyrighted photos by Andrew Buchanan oI Subtle Light Photographs.
Sockeye purchased a license to use these photographs Irom Mr. Buchanan
33. Upon discovery oI SurIace Theory`s unlawIul reproduction, distribution and
display oI Sockeye`s published but unregistered photographs, Sockeye on April 17, 2014 and
April 18, 2014 Iiled Ior registration with the United States Copyright OIIice two photographs as
application numbers 1-1371042069 and 1-1368745871. Sockeye reserves the right to amend this
complaint to allege the registration number oI these photographs upon acceptance by the United
States Copyright OIIice as well as the right to amend this complaint to include any additional
Iuture registered photographs by Sockeye.
34. In addition to its inIringement oI Sockeye`s copyrighted photographs, SurIace
Theory also published a list oI clients and projects on its website. However, at least 25 oI the
Case 3:l4-cv-00649-MO Document 2 Filed 04/2l/l4 Page 8 of 24 Page lD#: l0
Page 9- COMPLAINT
represented clients and projects are in Iact Sockeye clients and projects. SurIace Theory in some
instances linked Sockeye`s copyrighted photographs to clients and projects SurIace Theory
represents as its own clients and projects. AIter Sockeye demanded that SurIace Theory cease
using its photographs and listing its clients and projects as the clients and projects oI SurIace
Theory, SurIace Theory placed the list oI represented clients and projects behind a password
protected link Ior 'designer only.
35. As alleged above, Sockeye had allowed Mr. Burtness to use his own cell phone
Ior Sockeye business; thereIore, Sockeye clients that worked primarily through Mr. Burtness had
his personal cell phone as the contact number Ior Sockeye. Sockeye clients attempted to
communicate with Sockeye by calling Mr. Burtness unaware oI Mr. Burtness` termination.
Upon inIormation and belieI, Mr. Burtness oIIered bids to and negotiated contracts with Sockeye
clients without Iirst disclosing that he no longer was employed by Sockeye. Sockeye clients
would only learn that Mr. Burtness was an employee oI SurIace Theory and not Sockeye upon
receiving a contract Irom SurIace Theory.
36. In some situations, Sockeye clients upon discovering Mr. Burtness` termination
would open bids to both SurIace Theory and Sockeye. Because Mr. Burtness had
misappropriated Sockeye`s trade secrets, Mr. Burtness used these trade secrets to unIairly obtain
a competitive advantage by bidding under what he knew to be Sockeye`s price points.
37. As oI the date oI this Complaint, SurIace Theory and Mr. Burtness reIuse to cease
using Sockeye copyrighted photographs, reIuse to cease misrepresenting Sockeye projects and
clients as its own, and reIuse to return all property, including Sockeye`s copyrighted photographs
and trade secrets, to Sockeye.
Case 3:l4-cv-00649-MO Document 2 Filed 04/2l/l4 Page 9 of 24 Page lD#: ll
Page 10- COMPLAINT
38. At all times relevant, SurIace Theory and Mr. Burtness committed a civil
conspiracy by acting in concert or by providing substantial aid and assistance to the other in the
commission oI the unlawIul acts alleged below. Except as speciIically alleged, DeIendants are
jointly and severally liable to Sockeye Ior all damages to be proven at trial.
COUNT I
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT - REPRODUCTION (17 U.S.C. 106(1))
39. Sockeye incorporates by reIerence the allegations contained in the preceding
paragraphs as though Iully alleged herein.
40. Sockeye is the sole owner oI all exclusive rights under the Act in the published
photographs that Sockeye Iiled Ior registration with the United States Copyright OIIice prior to
Iiling this Complaint. Further, Sockeye is the sole owner oI all exclusive rights under the Act oI
its unpublished and unregistered photographs.
41. DeIendants without authorization unlawIully made and reproduced copies oI
Sockeye`s copyrighted photographs. Mr. Burtness made digital copies oI the photographs prior
to Sockeye terminating Mr. Burtness` employment. DeIendants then reproduced the
photographs by storing the images on a server hosting SurIace Theory`s website or by uploading
the photographs to the servers hosting its social media accounts.
42. DeIendants` actions constitute inIringement oI Sockeye`s copyrighted
photographs.
43. DeIendants knew or had constructive knowledge that their acts constitute
inIringement oI Sockeye`s copyrighted photographs; Iurther, their conduct was willIul in that
their conduct was intentional and with indiIIerence to Sockeye`s rights.
44. DeIendants` conduct inIringed on Sockeye`s exclusive rights oI reproduction oI
the photographs that are protected under the Act.
Case 3:l4-cv-00649-MO Document 2 Filed 04/2l/l4 Page l0 of 24 Page lD#: l2
Page 11- COMPLAINT
45. Sockeye has suIIered monetary damages and damages to its reputation and
continues to be damaged by DeIendants` conduct. There is no adequate remedy at law to
compensate Sockeye Iully Ior all damages arising Irom DeIendants` conduct. As DeIendants`
inIringement was intentional and willIul, Sockeye is entitled at its election to an award oI actual
damages or statutory damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 504(c), exemplary damages, injunctive
relieI, attorney Iees, and costs.
COUNT II
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT - DISTRIBUTION (17 U.S.C. 106(3))
46. Sockeye incorporates by reIerence the allegations contained in the preceding
paragraphs as though Iully alleged herein.
47. Sockeye holds the exclusive rights under the Act to distribute the photographs.
48. Mr. Burtness as the Iounder and as a member or manager oI SurIace Theory
unlawIully distributed Sockeye`s photographs to SurIace Theory Ior its use on the SurIace
Theory website.
49. Mr. Burtness did not have permission to distribute a reproduction oI Sockeye`s
photographs to SurIace Theory. Mr. Burtness` actions inIringe on Sockeye`s copyrights and
exclusive rights under 17 U.S.C. 106(3).
50. Mr. Burtness knew or had constructive knowledge that his acts inIringed on
Sockeye`s copyright. Because SurIace Theory can only act through its agents, Mr. Burtness`
knowledge is imputed upon SurIace Theory in receiving an unlawIul reproduction oI Sockeye`s
copyrighted photographs. DeIendants` conduct was willIul in that their conduct was intentional
and with indiIIerence to Sockeye`s rights.
51. DeIendants` conduct inIringed on Sockeye`s exclusive rights oI distribution oI the
photographs that are protected under the Act.
Case 3:l4-cv-00649-MO Document 2 Filed 04/2l/l4 Page ll of 24 Page lD#: l3
Page 12- COMPLAINT
52. Sockeye has suIIered monetary damages and damages to its reputation and
continues to be damaged by DeIendants` conduct. There is no adequate remedy at law to
compensate Sockeye Iully Ior all damages arising Irom DeIendants` conduct. As DeIendants`
inIringement was intentional and willIul, Sockeye is entitled at its election to an award oI actual
damages or statutory damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 504(c), exemplary damages, injunctive
relieI, attorney Iees, and costs.
COUNT III
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT - DISPLAY (17 U.S.C. 106(5))
53. Sockeye incorporates by reIerence the allegations contained in the preceding
paragraphs as though Iully alleged herein.
54. Sockeye holds the exclusive rights under the Act to publically display the
photographs.
55. DeIendants unlawIully publically displayed Sockeye`s photographs by storing
unlawIully reproduced copies oI Sockeye`s photographs on the server hosting SurIace Theory`s
website and then transmitting over the internet images oI the photographs to users viewing
SurIace Theory`s website or social media accounts.
56. DeIendants did not have and do not have permission to publically display
Sockeye`s photographs on SurIace Theory`s website. DeIendants` actions inIringe on Sockeye`s
copyrights and exclusive rights under 17 U.S.C. 106(5).
57. DeIendants knew or had constructive knowledge that his acts inIringed on
Sockeye`s copyright. DeIendants` conduct was willIul in that their conduct was intentional and
with indiIIerence to Sockeye`s rights.
58. DeIendants` conduct inIringed on Sockeye`s exclusive rights oI public display oI
the photographs that are protected under the United States Copyright Act.
Case 3:l4-cv-00649-MO Document 2 Filed 04/2l/l4 Page l2 of 24 Page lD#: l4
Page 13- COMPLAINT
59. Sockeye has suIIered monetary damages and damages to its reputation and
continues to be damaged by DeIendants` conduct. There is no adequate remedy at law to
compensate Sockeye Iully Ior all damages arising Irom DeIendants` conduct. As DeIendants`
inIringement was intentional and willIul, Sockeye is entitled at its election to an award oI actual
damages or statutory damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 504(c), exemplary damages, injunctive
relieI, attorney Iees, and costs.
COUNT IV
WORK MADE FOR HIRE (17 U.S.C. 201(b))
60. Sockeye incorporates by reIerence the allegations contained in the preceding
paragraphs as though Iully alleged herein.
61. Sockeye employed Mr. Burtness to promote and sell its reclaimed antique wood
Ilooring and building products as well as develop Sockeye`s presence in the market, especially in
the states oI Oregon and Washington. Mr. Burtness` scope oI employment included client and
end user relations.
62. Taking photographs oI completed Sockeye projects or photographs oI the use oI
Sockeye`s materials in Iinished construction Ialls within Mr. Burtness` scope oI employment
with Sockeye.
63. Because any photographs taken by Mr. Burtness while employed by Sockeye Iall
within the scope oI his employment, Sockeye is deemed to be the author oI the photographs
under 17 U.S.C. 201(b). ThereIore, Sockeye enjoys the exclusive rights oI use oI the
copyrighted work under the provisions oI 17 U.S.C. 106.
64. Further, since Mr. Burtness was tasked by Sockeye to develop and promote
Sockeye`s market presence, Mr. Burtness` social media activities under the user name 'SurIace
Theory through November 22, 2013 Iall within the scope oI his employment to the extent that
Case 3:l4-cv-00649-MO Document 2 Filed 04/2l/l4 Page l3 of 24 Page lD#: l5
Page 14- COMPLAINT
these social media activities marketed Sockeye projects, displayed Sockeye copyrighted
photographs, reIerenced Sockeye clients, or promoted applications or use oI reclaimed antique
wood as design elements.
65. A review oI the publically available social media content Mr. Burtness posted
under the name SurIace Theory shows that up to the date oI his termination Mr. Burtness posted
or 'tweeted social media content during normal work days and during normal work hours.
Upon inIormation and belieI, Mr. Burtness used the company iPad or laptop to update SurIace
Theory`s social media accounts.
66. The terms oI usage oI social media sites such as Instagram, Twitter, Facebook,
Pintrest, and Houzz are generally consistent as to the ownership oI content and copyrighted
works. According to the terms oI usage Ior these social media sites, the user owns all the content
posted to that social media site, including copyrighted works. The user oI the social media
account grants the social media host through his or her use a non-exclusive license to the content
and copyrighted works.
67. Because the social media content posted by Mr. Burtness under the name SurIace
Theory while employed by Sockeye Ialls within the scope oI his employment, Sockeye is
deemed to be the author oI the content. For that content that Ialls within the deIinition oI
original works oI authorship under 17 U.S.C. 102(a), Sockeye enjoys the exclusive rights oI
use oI the copyrighted work under the provisions oI 17 U.S.C. 106, 201(b).
68. Sockeye has suIIered monetary damages and damages to its reputation and
continues to be damaged by DeIendants` conduct to the extent DeIendants claim any right oI
ownership to Sockeye`s copyrighted works. There is no adequate remedy at law to compensate
Sockeye Iully Ior all damages arising Irom DeIendants` conduct.
Case 3:l4-cv-00649-MO Document 2 Filed 04/2l/l4 Page l4 of 24 Page lD#: l6
Page 15- COMPLAINT
69. Sockeye is entitled to a judgment Ior declaratory relieI declaring that Sockeye
through the doctrine oI work made Ior hire is the author oI copyrighted works that may be
claimed by Burtness as his own copyrighted works, including but not limited to any photographs
taken by Mr. Burtness during the scope oI his employment and that social media content posted
by Mr. Burtness during the scope oI his employment to the extent the social media content is
original works oI authorship under 17 U.S.C. 102(a).
70. Sockeye also seeks injunctive relieI pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 502, 503 protecting
Sockeye Irom DeIendants` Iuture inIringement oI Sockeye`s exclusive rights under 17 U.S.C.
106 to any copyrighted works through the doctrine oI work made Ior hire.
COUNT V
LANHAM ACT VIOLATIONS - 15 U.S.C. 1125
71. Sockeye incorporates by reIerence the allegations contained in the preceding
paragraphs as though Iully alleged herein.
72. DeIendants made Ialse or misleading statements oI Iact in a commercial
advertisement about SurIace Theory`s product by representing on its website a list oI customers
and clients that were not clients or customers oI Mr. Burtness but rather oI Sockeye; Iurther,
DeIendants made Ialse or misleading statements oI Iact by representing photographs oI
Sockeye`s product and services as the product and services oI SurIace Theory.
73. DeIendants` Ialse statements either deceived or had the capacity to deceive a
substantial segment oI potential customers since the SurIace Theory website is viewable to the
general public and Iails to disclose the proper origin oI the projects and photographs as being the
projects and photographs oI its competitor, Sockeye.
74. DeIendants` deception is material as it is likely to inIluence a consumer`s decision
to use SurIace Theory`s services or product rather than the services or product oI Sockeye.
Case 3:l4-cv-00649-MO Document 2 Filed 04/2l/l4 Page l5 of 24 Page lD#: l7
Page 16- COMPLAINT
75. Since DeIendants` website is available to customers on the internet regardless oI
state residence and SurIace Theory speciIically markets its product anywhere in the United
States, the product is in interstate commerce.
76. Sockeye has been directly injured as a result oI DeIendants` Ialse or misleading
statements or is likely to be injured as a result.
77. Under 15 U.S.C. 1117(a) Sockeye is entitled to recover SurIace Theory`s proIits
in an amount to be proved at trial as well as actual damages suIIered by Sockeye, including
costs, disbursements, and post-judgment interest at the statutory rate.
78. Sockeye is also entitled under 15 U.S.C. 1116 to injunctive relieI ordering
DeIendants to cease its Ialse or misleading advertising and Iurther ordering DeIendants to
undertake corrective advertising to remedy its Ialse or misleading statements.
79. Sockeye is entitled to its attorney Iees under 15 U.S.C. 1117(a).

COUNT VI
BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
80. Sockeye incorporates by reIerence the allegations contained in the preceding
paragraphs as though Iully alleged herein.
81. During Mr. Burtness` employment with Sockeye, Mr. Burtness owed Sockeye a
Iiduciary duty oI loyalty.
82. Mr. Burtness breached this duty oI loyalty by diverting Sockeye business to
SurIace Theory while employed by Sockeye. Mr. Burtness diverted business away Irom
Sockeye by maintaining social media accounts and a website in the name oI SurIace Theory
promoting substantially the same business as Sockeye, and by reIerencing Sockeye projects on
Case 3:l4-cv-00649-MO Document 2 Filed 04/2l/l4 Page l6 of 24 Page lD#: l8
Page 17- COMPLAINT
social media accounts and its website as its work rather than properly attributing the work to his
employer.
83. Mr. Burtness knew or should have known that his conduct violated his duty oI
loyalty to Sockeye.
84. As a result oI Mr. Burtness` breach oI the duty oI loyalty, Sockeye suIIered
economic damages in wages paid to Mr. Burtness Ior work or services perIormed by Mr.
Burtness in the name SurIace Theory, lost proIits Irom work diverted by Mr. Burtness Irom
Sockeye to SurIace Theory, and reputation losses as a consequence oI Mr. Burtness promoting
SurIace Theory rather than Sockeye in its social media accounts and on its website.
85. The amount oI damages suIIered by Sockeye will be proven at trial but Sockeye
estimates that its losses are no less than $150,000.
COUNT VII
TRADE SECRET VIOLATIONS - ORS 646.461, !" $!%&
86. Sockeye incorporates by reIerence the allegations contained in the preceding
paragraphs as though Iully alleged herein.
87. Sockeye along with its aIIiliated companies are the largest domestic supplier oI
reclaimed antique wood and has been in business since 1988. As a pioneer in the reclaimed and
sustainable wood industry, Sockeye has acquired inIormation over the years that is generally not
available to the public. This inIormation includes, but is not limited to: sources oI raw antique
wood; techniques and processes Ior repurposing antique wood into useable building materials
suitable Ior modern use and design; client lists not readily available to the public that Sockeye
developed over time and at substantial costs; cost data oI its products; and its methods Ior
bidding contracts as a material supplier.
Case 3:l4-cv-00649-MO Document 2 Filed 04/2l/l4 Page l7 of 24 Page lD#: l9
Page 18- COMPLAINT
88. As a consequence oI the unique industry oI reclaimed and sustainable wood
products and its rapid recent growth in the PaciIic Northwest due to an increase in consumer
demand Ior recycled or reclaimed building materials that are sustainable and environmentally
responsible, Sockeye`s inIormation derives actual and potential independent economic value.
89. Sockeye has taken reasonable eIIorts under the circumstances to maintain the
secrecy oI its inIormation.
90. Upon inIormation and belieI, Mr. Burtness misappropriated Sockeye`s trade
secrets through improper means by taking Sockeye`s trade secrets Ior the beneIit oI SurIace
Theory in order to compete directly against Sockeye in the same industry. Upon inIormation and
belieI, Mr. Burtness copied electronic data containing Sockeye`s trade secrets to the company
issued iPad or laptop that he reIused to return or alternatively copied electronic data oI the trade
secrets to another storage device or the cloud. Mr. Burtness acquired Sockeye`s trade secrets
without Sockeye`s permission or consent and reIused to return the iPad, laptop or the trade
secrets when demand was made by Sockeye Ior its return.
91. Since SurIace Theory can only operate through its agents, SurIace Theory
acquired the trade secrets Irom Mr. Burtness and SurIace Theory is imputed to know through Mr.
Burtness that the trade secrets were acquired by improper means.
92. Sockeye has suIIered losses caused by DeIendants` misappropriation and
continues to be damaged by DeIendants` conduct. Further, Sockeye is entitled to losses Ior the
unjust enrichment resulting Irom DeIendants` misappropriation equal to a reasonable royalty Ior
DeIendants` use oI Sockeye`s trade secrets. There is no adequate remedy at law to compensate
Sockeye Iully Ior all damages arising Irom DeIendants` conduct so PlaintiII is entitled to
injunctive relieI under ORS 646.463(1).
Case 3:l4-cv-00649-MO Document 2 Filed 04/2l/l4 Page l8 of 24 Page lD#: 20
Page 19- COMPLAINT
93. The amount oI damages Ior Sockeye`s actual loss and the unjust enrichment will
be proven at trial but Sockeye estimates that its losses are no less than $150,000.
94. DeIendants` misappropriation oI Sockeye`s trade secrets was willIul and thereIore
Sockeye is entitled to its attorney Iees under ORS 646.467 and punitive damages under ORS
646.465(3).
COUNT VIII
INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH ECONOMIC RELATIONS
95. Sockeye incorporates by reIerence the allegations contained in the preceding
paragraphs as though Iully alleged herein.
96. Sockeye over a period oI time has developed business relationships with its
clients by providing its clients unique and quality reclaimed antique wood and building
materials. Through these existing relationships, Sockeye has developed a prospective business
advantage.
97. DeIendants intentionally interIered with Sockeye`s business relationships through
improper means by receiving calls Irom Sockeye`s business relations when these business
relations believed they were calling Mr. Burtness as an employee oI Sockeye. Upon inIormation
and belieI, Mr. Burtness Iailed to disclose that he no longer was employed by Sockeye but
instead was operating a competing enterprise. Mr. Burtness then would do business with
Sockeye`s business relationships as though he was working on behalI oI Sockeye by accepting
scopes oI work, oIIering bids, and otherwise selling products substantially similar to Sockeye`s
products. Upon inIormation and belieI, Sockeye`s business relationships would work with Mr.
Burtness unaware he was doing so on behalI oI SurIace Theory until Mr. Burtness would present
a contract on behalI oI SurIace Theory rather than Sockeye. Because oI the work and eIIort put
Case 3:l4-cv-00649-MO Document 2 Filed 04/2l/l4 Page l9 of 24 Page lD#: 2l
Page 20- COMPLAINT
into negotiating a contract, Sockeye`s business relationships would be reluctant to back out oI
the prospective agreement at a late date and start the process over with Sockeye.
98. DeIendants Iurther used improper means by representing Sockeye clients as its
clients on the SurIace Theory website and additionally by inIringing on Sockeye`s copyrighted
photographs on SurIace Theory`s website and social media. DeIendants also took credit Ior
projects, such as the Seattle Green Custom Home, which project received an MSN review.
99. DeIendants Iurther used improper means by using misappropriated trade secrets to
obtain an unIair competitive advantage with Sockeye`s business relations.
100. DeIendants` improper means caused damage to Sockeye`s economic
relationships.
101. Sockeye has suIIered losses caused by DeIendants` tortious interIerence with its
economic relations. There is no adequate remedy at law to compensate Sockeye Iully Ior all
damages arising Irom DeIendants` conduct.
102. The amount oI Sockeye`s damages will be proven at trial but Sockeye estimates
that its losses are no less than $150,000.
1URY DEMAND
103. Sockeye hereby demands a trial by jury oI all issues triable by jury.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Sockeye TimberIraming, LLC prays Ior judgment and relieI as Iollows:
1) On Counts I, II, and III, a judgment in Iavor oI PlaintiII and against DeIendants
that:
Case 3:l4-cv-00649-MO Document 2 Filed 04/2l/l4 Page 20 of 24 Page lD#: 22
Page 21- COMPLAINT
a. declares that DeIendants willIully inIringed upon PlaintiII`s rights in
Iederally registered copyrights pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 501 and injured PlaintiII`s business and
its reputation;
b. enjoins and restrains DeIendants permanently Irom inIringing upon
PlaintiII`s exclusive rights oI its copyrighted works, whether registered or unregistered, and
whether published or unpublished, including but not limited to, PlaintiII`s exclusive rights oI
reproduction, distribution, and public display;
c. orders DeIendants to Iile a report under oath with the Court within thirty
days oI entry oI the injunction issued above that explains in detail the manner in which
DeIendants have complied with the injunction;
d. issues an order oI impoundment under 17 U.S.C. 503, 509(a)
impounding all inIringing copies oI PlaintiII`s copyrighted photographs in DeIendant`s
possession and control; and,
e. orders that the injunction above extend to DeIendants` members,
managers, employees, agents, and all other persons acting Ior, with or through them.
2) On Counts I, II, and III, a judgment in Iavor oI PlaintiII and against DeIendants:
a. Ior statutory damages or actual damages in an amount to be proved at trial,
at the election oI PlaintiII, Ior DeIendants` willIul inIringement oI PlaintiII`s exclusive use oI
copyrighted works registered beIore DeIendants` inIringement; and,
b. actual damages in an amount to be proven at trial Ior DeIendants` willIul
inIringement oI PlaintiII`s exclusive use oI its copyrighted works registered aIter DeIendants`
inIringement.
3) On Count IV, a judgment in Iavor oI PlaintiII and against DeIendants:
Case 3:l4-cv-00649-MO Document 2 Filed 04/2l/l4 Page 2l of 24 Page lD#: 23
Page 22- COMPLAINT
a. declaring under 17 U.S.C. 201(b) that any claim by DeIendants to
photographic works authored during DeIendant Ross Burtness` employment with Sockeye is
work made Ior hire and that PlaintiII enjoys the rights oI authorship and is entitled to exclusive
use oI the copyrighted works under 17 U.S.C. 106;
b. declaring under 17 U.S.C. 201(b) that DeIendant Ross Burtness` social
media content and SurIace Theory website content published beIore November 22, 2013 is work
made Ior hire and that PlaintiII enjoys the rights oI authorship to that content that the Court
determines to be original works oI authorship under 17 U.S.C. 102(a) and entitled to the
protections oI the United States Copyright Act; and,
c. to the extent not enjoined under 1.b. above, an order enjoining and
restraining DeIendants permanently Irom inIringing upon PlaintiII`s exclusive rights oI its
copyrighted works, whether registered or unregistered, whether published or unpublished,
including but not limited to, PlaintiII`s exclusive rights oI reproduction, distribution, and public
display.
4) On Count V, a judgment in Iavor oI PlaintiII and against DeIendants Ior:
a. damages in an amount to proved at trial Ior recovery oI SurIace Theory`s
proIits and PlaintiII`s actual damages;
b. an order enjoining and restraining DeIendants and their members,
managers, employees, agents, and all other persons acting Ior, with or through them Irom making
Ialse or misleading statements in advertising claiming Sockeye products, clients, projects,
through word or photograph, as DeIendants` products, clients or projects;
c. an order requiring SurIace Theory to undertake corrective advertising to
remedy its Ialse advertising; and,
Case 3:l4-cv-00649-MO Document 2 Filed 04/2l/l4 Page 22 of 24 Page lD#: 24
Page 23- COMPLAINT
d. an order Ior DeIendants to Iile a report under oath with the Court within
thirty days oI entry oI the injunction issued above that explains in detail the manner in which
DeIendants have complied with the injunction.
5) On Count VI, a judgment in Iavor oI PlaintiII and against DeIendant Ross
Burtness Ior damages to be proven at trial.
6) On Count VII, a judgment in Iavor oI PlaintiII and against DeIendants Ior:
a. damages in an amount to be proven at trial Ior PlaintiII`s actual losses and
its losses as a consequence oI DeIendants` unjust enrichment;
b. a declaration declaring DeIendants willIully misappropriated Sockeye`s
trade secrets and awarding PlaintiII punitive damages under ORS 646.465(3);
c. an order enjoining and restraining DeIendants and their members,
managers, employees, agents, and all other persons acting Ior, with or through them Irom using
and disclosing PlaintiII`s trade secrets;
d. an order Ior DeIendants to Iile a report under oath with the Court within
thirty days oI entry oI the injunction issued above that explains in detail the manner in which
DeIendants have complied with the injunction; and,
e. issuance oI an order oI impoundment impounding all oI Sockeye`s trade
secrets in DeIendant`s possession and control.
7) On Count VIII, a judgment in Iavor oI PlaintiII and against DeIendants Ior:
a. PlaintiII`s damages in an amount to be proven at trial; and,
b. an order enjoining and restraining DeIendants and their members,
managers, employees, agents, and all other persons acting Ior, with or through them Irom
Case 3:l4-cv-00649-MO Document 2 Filed 04/2l/l4 Page 23 of 24 Page lD#: 25
Page 24- COMPLAINT
publically displaying PlaintiII`s copyrighted works and misrepresenting Sockeye clients and
projects as the clients and projects oI SurIace Theory on its website and social media accounts.
8) For all monetary damages awarded above, PlaintiII prays Ior pre-judgment
interest and post-judgment interest as the law may allow.
9) An award Ior PlaintiII`s Iees, costs, disbursements and its reasonable attorney Iees
as the law may allow.
10) All other general equitable relieI as the Court deems just and proper under the
circumstances.
DATED this 18th day oI April, 2014.
BATEMAN SEIDEL MINER BLOMGREN
CHELLIS & GRAM



s/ Travis W. Hall
Travis W. Hall, OSB 98451
Of Attornevs for Plaintiff
Sockeve Timberframing, LLC

Case 3:l4-cv-00649-MO Document 2 Filed 04/2l/l4 Page 24 of 24 Page lD#: 26