1

Gregory J. Goodheart, SB# 226501

GOODHEART LAW OFFICES

22736 Vanowen Street, Suite 303

West Hills, CA 91307

coonty

Phone:(818)992-4463
Fax: (818)992-7629
ggoodheartlaw@gmail.com

NOV13 2014
Shorn

\ **ACv^s vena/Oak

_, Deputy

Attorney for Plaintiffs A.V.E.L.A., INC. ^\ OttfKfZ*^

SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

9
10

A.V.E.L.A., INC., a Nevada Corporation,

CASE NO.:

Plaintiffs,

11

BC 6a S 4 9

vs.

COMPLAINT FOR:

12

FLEISCHER STUDIOS, INC., a

13
14
15

California Corporation; ARENT FOX

LLP; MANATT, PHILLIPS & PHELPS
LLP; and DOES 1 THROUGH 50,
Inclusive,

16

1. Malicious Prosecution

2. Interference with a Prospective Business Advantage

(Amount in controversy exceeds $25,000)

Defendants,

17
18

19

20
THE PARTIES

21
22

I.

A.V.E.L.A., Inc. (hereinafter "AVELA" or "Plaintiff') is a corporation duly organ^e^a^d^

rn s m m
'"i C
*""

23

existing under the laws ofthe State ofNevada and maintains its principagp^^ ^^uiln^ss^at J $
to 3> v> m

24

gq

-^ -v.
o o

"O

1135 Terminal Way, #209, Reno, Nevada, 89502.

'u

" S" " ' J ~ 8

t<i ^
x
'-* en

?5

O W

K>

Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Fleischer StudroS; c.
*. -J

....

S
en
ck

<A

--0

*-*

27-

(hereinafter"Defendant FSI" or "FSI") is a corporation organized under the laws oBM State
-J

-fa

* ** <* 04
o
o
o
en

28

COMPLAINT

-o

-*

c> o

ofCalifornia that maintains its principal place ofbusiness at 10160 Cielo Drive, Beverly

Hills, California, 90210.

3.

Plaintiffis informedand believes and thereon allegesthat defendantARENT FOX, LLP.,

(hereinafter ARENT FOX) isa business entity doing business inthe State ofCalifornia, County of

Los Angeles, with a principal place of business located at 555 West Fifth Street, 48th Floor, Los

Angeles, California 90013. Plaintiff isinformed and believes and thereon alleges that defendant
7

MANATT, PHILLIPS & PHELPS LLP (hereinafter MANATT) is a business entity doing

business in the State of California, County of Los Angeles, with a principal place of business

9
10
11

located at 11355 W. Olympic Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90064.

4.

Plaintiffdoes not knowthe true names of defendants DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and therefore

12

sues them by those fictitious names. Plaintiff isinformed and believes, and on the basis ofthat
13
14

information and belief al leges, that each of those defendants were in some manner intentionally,

15

negligently and proximately responsible for the events and happenings alleged in this complaint

16

and for Plaintiffs injuriesand damages.

17

5.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of that informationand belief alleges, that at

18

all times mentioned in thiscomplaint, defendants were theagents andemployees of their co19
20

defendants, and in doing the things alleged in this complaint were acting within the course and

21

scope of that agency and employment.

ii

22-

PRIOR LITIGATION

23"
(--'

A.V.E.L.A. was a nameddefendantand prevailing party in the following actions: Fleischer

24>-

Studios, Inc. v. A. V.E.L.A., Inc., 772 F. Supp. 2d 1135 (CD. Cal. 2008); FleischerStudios, Inc. v.
26-

A.V.E.L.A., Inc., 772 F. Supp. 2d 1155 (CD. Cal. 2009); Fleischer Studios, Inc. v. A.V.EL.A.,

2Zi|

Inc., 636 F.3d 1115 (9* Cir. 2011); Fleischer Studios, Inc. v. A. V.E.L.A., Inc., 654 F.3d 958 (9th

28

COMPLAINT

Cir. 2011); Fleischer Studios, Inc. v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc., 925 F. Supp. 2d 1067 (CD. Cal. 2012)

(hereafter collectively referred toas the "Boop action").

7.

3
4

FSI initiated theBoop action against A.V.E.LA. in2006. The Boop action was finally
determined on November 14,2012, in the form of anorder granting a motion for summary

judgmentin AVELA'sfavor.

8.

MANATT and ARENT FOX wereat all timescounsel on behalfof FSI in the abovementioned

prior actions.

9.

10

On September 29,2006, FSI, by and through its counsel, MANATT, filed suit, contending,
among other things, that AVELA infringed FSI's Betty Boop word mark and sought a

11

permanent injunction. At some point in litigation ARENT FOX took over litigation on behalf

12

of FSI.
13
14

10.

There was never a final judgment ontheissue ofwhether AVELA infringed on FSI's word

15

mark until United States District Court Judge Audrey B. Collins issued an orderon November

16

14,2012, granting AVELA's motion and denying FSI's motion as to the word mark

17

trademark infringement claim.

18

19
FACTS

20
21

11.

23f

Plaintiff is in the business ofcreating newartisticworks in print,graphic, and lithographic

media that are based on materials found in the public domain. In many cases, these old

2i

public domain materials have fallen intodisrepairand have lost their original luster or

2#

attractiveness. AVELA registered copyrights withthe United States Copyright Office for its

25,"

artistic works and indicated these works are based on and derivative of materials that have

26i
(--

27i|
28

been previously published.

12.

Sinceas early as 1989, AVELA acquired, restored, and reprinted a number of publicity movie
__3
COMPLAINT

posters featuring Betty Boop that were originallycreated in the 1930s.

13.

Before modifying and restoring the old works,AVELA took meticulous steps to comply with

copyrightlaw. AVELA does not desire to infringe on any copyrights. In this regard, AVELA

conducted considerable research to make sure that there were no recorded copyright

claimants for any of the old movie posters it restored. AVELA obtained actual copyright

reports from the U.S. Copyright Office whichidentified hundreds of old cartoons and movies
7

for which no copyrightrenewal had been recorded,and hence entered into the public

domain. More than 50 Betty Boop cartoons appeared on the list of cartoons in the public

10
11

domain.

14.

In 1998 and 2005, AVELA obtained formal written search reports from the U.S. Copyright

12

Office verifying that there were no registered claimantsor copyrightowners, including

13
14

Defendant FSI, for any of the old movie posters AVELA had acquired and restored, including

15

any Betty Boop movie posters.

16

15.

1.7

AVELA obtained registration with the U.S. Copyright Office for its own copyrighted works,
making clear that AVELA's works are based on and derivative of materials that have been

18

previously published.
19
20

16.

AVELA has sold copies of the restored Betty Boop posters for many years. More recently,

21

AVELA has licensed third parties to produce and distribute merchandise, which utilizes the

2&-

restored Betty Boop poster image.The products licensed by AVELA are based on these
restored vintage posters. AVELA does not license the production and distribution of

24'

merchandise utilizing anything other materials relating to Betty Boop except for the
25,

restored poster artwork.

261,
2
28

17.

AVELA does not license to third parties any rights to use the name "Betty Boop" or any
imagery of Betty Boop other than how it is depicted in the poster artwork. The actual

COMPLAINT

merchandise licensed by AVELA use, as part of product package, only the actual Betty Boop

poster artwork, or a portion thereof.

18.

AVELA does not license the production and distribution of merchandise utilizinganything
other than the poster artwork.

19.

AVELA does not use the TM symbol next to or in connection with the words "Betty Boop."

AVELA does not label nor has it ever labeled its Betty Boop merchandise as "Official"
7

merchandise or otherwise affirmatively indicate sponsorship.

8
9

20.

10

AVELA does not use the word "Betty Boop" in connection with the sale of goods. The only

time the name appears as part ofany product is when "BettyBoop" appeared as part of the

11

original poster artwork. Oneach ofAVELA's licensed products, there is a tag,label, or other

12

textual identification of the source of the product None of these labels identify or suggest in
13
14

any manner that FSI is the source or originof the merchandise. AVELA's licensing

15

agreements also requirethe producers and/or distributors to identify themselves as the

16

source of the merchandise.

17

21.

Betty Boop is a prominently and centrally displayed feature of each item. Boop is the clear

18

subject matter of each merchandise item, so as to be immediately visible to others when

19
worn.

20
21

22.

2&

23"

24-j
2i
26: 23.

Until the prior actions, AVELA never received any complaints or correspondences indicating
that there has been any consumer confusion in the marketplace as to the source, origin,
affiliation, or sponsorship of any of AVELA's licensed products as it relates to FSI's licensed
products.
FSIhas no legal relationship with and is not the same entity as the company named

I>

27.

Fleischer Studios, Inc., which existed when the Betty Boop character was created in the early

28

1930s ("Original FSI"). In 1929, Dave and Max Fleischer formed Original FSI. Original FSI

COMPLAINT

was dissolved in 1946 for failure to pay taxes under Florida law.

24.

Between 1929 and 1946, Original FSI created andproduced various Betty Boop cartoon

films. Prior toits dissolution, Original FSI, by agreement dated May 24,1941, assigned to

Paramount Pictures all ofits assets, including all the rights inallcartoon films and all

characters contained therein. Despite the dissolution ofOriginal Fleischer Studios, the

Fleischer brothers, in their individual capacities, continued to claim or attempt to claim rights in
7

the Betty Boop character. Dave Fleischer has gone so far as initiated dozens oflawsuits, the

ovemhelming majority ofwhich ended incrushing defeats.

9
10

25.

11

In the November 14,2012 decision, the Court found, as a matter or law, that AVELA's use ofthe

Betty Boop word mark is not atrademark use. In finding that the use ofthe word mark Betty

12

Boop was an aesthetically functional use and not source-identifying trademark use, the court noted
13

that FSI failed to present "a single instance ofaconsumer who was misled about the origin or

14

sponsorship of Defendants' products." (Fleischer Studios. Inc. v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc., (2012) 925

15

16
17

F.Supp.2d 1067,1074.)

26.

Inthe November 14,2012 decision, the Court found asa matter oflaw that AVELA's use ofBetty

18

Boop was "fair use" and hence could not be atrademark violation. The Court stated "Here,
19
20

Defendants use the phrase Betty Boop in connection with their products bearing the image of

21

Betty Boop. It is extremely unlikely that a prospective customer would understand those words as

identifying the source ofthe goods rather than merely naming the character." (Fleischer Studios.

20*

23"

Inc. v. A.V.E.L.A.. Inc.. (2012) 925 F.Supp.2d 1067, 1076.)

2*1

2^

27.

In ruling in favor ofAVELA, Judge Collins found that as a matter oflaw that AVELA's use ofthe

26:

word Betty Boop does not indicate a source ororigin ofthe products, and is therefore not a

2Zs|

trademark use. The final determination of the issue of trademarkviolationwas determined in

28

favor of AVELA on November 14, 2012.

6
COMPLAINT

28.

Defendants FSI, MANATT and ARENT FOX didnot acton a good faith beliefwhen filing and

prosecuting the underlying action. FSI's purpose for filing the unsupportable lawsuit described

herein was to interfere with business relationships AVELA had withretailers who were selling

AVELA's Betty Boop merchandise. The lawsuitwas made for the purposeof scaringand

intimidating retailers who would like to do business with FSI.

6
7

29.

There was no probablecause for the prior action in regards to the allegations regarding

infringement of the Betty Boop word mark. The named defendants, and each of them, had no

reasonable belief as to the validityof the prior action. There were no grounds upon which a

10

reasonable attorneywould believethere is a meritorious claim as to the alleged word mark

11

infringement. The Court made a simple finding that "the phrase Betty Boop describesor
12

identifies by name the characterDefendants depict on the products, that is, that this use is

13
14

'otherwise than a mark,' descriptive, and not in bad faith." (Fleischer Studios. Inc. v. A.V.E.L.A..

15

Inc.. (2012) 925 F.Supp.2d 1067,1076.) No reasonable attorney could believe that use of the

16

word Betty Boop, as used by AVELA in describing the character Betty Boop, was in any way an

17

infringementof FSI's alleged trademark.

18

19

30.

There was malice on the part of the named defendants, and each of them, in that the underlying

20

action was filed for an improper purposeof harassing the AVELA and AVELA'S clients. FSI,

21

with the aid of MANATT and ARENT FOX,made a decision to go after AVELA and threaten

22>

AVELA's customers withthreats of lawsuits which had no reasonable degree of success as to

23'",
trademark claims. In fact, the allegations regarding trademark infringementwere decided in
24,

2^

AVELA's favor as a matter of law in the November 14,2012 ruling on AVELA's motion for

26:

summary judgment on that issue.

21 31.

FSI, MANATT and ARENT FOX threatened and brought the underlying actionfor trademark

28

infringement in an attemptto illegally and improperly monopolize the useofanything

7
COMPLAINT

related to Betty Boop. The veiled threat was sent to AVELA and any client of AVELA that if

you dare use anything related to Betty Boop, you will be sued unless you pay off FSI. FSI

MANATT and ARENT FOX knew that AVELA in no way violated the Betty Boop word mark

and nonetheless brought and maintained the underlying lawsuit

32.

FSI engages in the perverse practice of using or threatening to use the court system to

threaten its competitors into submission. Through the years, FSI has sent hundreds, if not
7

thousands, of cease and desist letters to competitors. The cease and desist letters have no

substantive value and are simply meant to intimidate and scare off legitimate competitors.

10

33.

11

FSI abuses the legal system by indiscriminately filing lawsuits to see what will eventually
stick. It is essentially a continuous, sustained, and aggressive fishing expedition the purpose

12

of which is not to protect any alleged trademark, but rather to try to scare off competitors
13
14

and their client's by threat of lawsuits and actual lawsuits. MANATT and ARENT FOX are

15

aware of and help advancethis improper use of the legal system.

16

34.

FSI's heavy handed and litigious behavior has the effect of exhorting money from its

17

competitors, who are conducting business lawfully. FSI, MANATT and ARENT FOXforced
18

AVELA to spend years in litigation at significant cost to defend a claim of trademark

19

20

infringementwhich had no likelihoodof success and was brought in an attempt to try to bleed

21

AVELA dry.

22-

35.

Since the early 1990s, FSI has initiated over thirty-eight lawsuits in federal court The bulk

23"'

of these lawsuits allege copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and unfair

24-j

competition. The vast and overwhelming majority of these cases ended in voluntary

2l

dismissal of the case or, at the very least, voluntary dismissal of multiple defendants within

26H
H

27j
28

the case. The vast remainder of the cases ended in court ordered default judgments.

36.

MANATT and ARENT FOX were awareof this past litigation historyof FSI and chose to help
8
COMPLAINT

FSI in its attempt to intimidate and improperly file claims which had no likelihood ofsuccess.

MANATr and ARENT FOX did in fact file, maintain and argue the underlying matter on behalf

ofFSI, which upon review ofthe facts, a reasonable law firm should know had no chance of

success on its merits. ARENT FOX, MANATT and FSIhadno concern withthe merits of the

underlying case and instead chose to attempt to game the system and use lawsuits, such as the one

filed against AVELA, asa weapon and warning to others that if they dare use Betty Boop,
7

properly or not, they will be tied up in years of costly litigation.

37.

10

The extreme and outrageous behavior ofFSI has continued since court rulings decided that FSI
had no trademark protection asit related to AVELA's use ofBetty Boop. FSI has continued its

11

malicious behavior by erecting billboards which claim exclusive rights ofBetty Boop and intimate

12

that any use ofBetty Boop not authorized by FSI isa trademark violation and such use will be
13
14

challenged in a court oflaw. The threats are directly meant to hurt AVELA and intimate

15

businesses who would otherwise do businesswith AVELA. FSI is aware that the threats made on

16

the billboards, and elsewhere, are not true but they persist anyway.

17

38.

After FSI had become aware of the limitations of its alleged trademark a billboard surfaced in

18

Brazil which stated that the Betty Boop character and worldwide trademarkis the exclusive
19
20

property ofFSI and that anymisuse ofthe character is a serious violation. The billboard

21

went on to claim, "All violatorswillbe pursued to the fullest extent of the law." The purpose

22-

of this untruthful Billboard was to intimidate those businesses who would otherwise engage

in commerce with AVELA.

24-1

2l

39.

Defendant FSI is not a successor in any way to the 1930s company. Bytaking the exact name

2&

as the original FSI, Defendant FSI sought to create the impression that it was in fact the

2J,

same FSI that existing when Betty Boop and other well-known characters were created.

28

Defendant has a known habit of manipulating facts to exaggerate the extent of its rights. The

9
COMPLAINT

following footnote illustrates this point.

"The Court is troubled by Plaintiffs casual conflation in its submissions of itself and the

unrelated, long-defunct Original Fleischer that initially owned the rights in Betty Boop...As

this Court and the Ninth Circuit have noted, the present Fleischer Studios is legally

unrelated to the original 1930s Fleischer Studios. Evidently, Plaintiff used this sleight-of6

hand attempt to persuade the reader that its legal interest in Betty Boop is of longer
7

standing than it actually is. The Court is not persuaded or favorably impressed by this

tactic." Fleischer Studios. Inc.v. A.V.E.L.A.. Inc. 925 F.Supp. 2d 1067,1070 n.l (CD. Cal.

10

2012).

11

40.

Defendants FSI, MANATT and ARENT FOX knew or should have known that FSI lacked

12

exclusive rights to the Betty Boop name. Defendant FSI, MANATT and ARENT FOX knew or
13

should have known there was no continuity of trademark rights from the Original FSI.

14
15

41.

16

With all intellectual property rights, to the extent they still exist, having been long since

transferred to others, and with the knowledge that others held such rights, FSI nevertheless

17

decided to create a new company, taking the exact name as the Original FSI, and apparently

18

began to license Betty Boop merchandise. Despite losing at every stage in the prior
19

20

litigation, Defendant FSI nonetheless continues to threaten AVELA with legal action over the

21

alleged copyright and trademark infringement of Betty Boop.

22,

42.

23-

Notwithstanding the judgments stating the contrary, FSI nonetheless continues to threaten
AVELA, its licensees, and potential licensees with legal action and accuse AVELA, without

24..J
merit or justification, of breaking the law.
25".
26?

43.

With legal defeats in the U.S., Defendant FSI shifted its attention towards interfering with

AVELA's domestic and international business relations. With this goal in mind, Defendant FSI

28

sent threatening letters to AVELA's clients, licensees and potential licensees, in which they
10
COMPLAINT

mislead readers as to FSI's copyright and trademark rights.

2

44.

Defendant FSI did not stop at sending misleading letters. Rather, Defendant initiated additional

lawsuits, throughout the world, based on the already litigated issues of copyright and trademark

infringement of the Betty Boop characterrights. These suits were initiated internationally

despite all of AVELA's contracts being signed in the United States.

6

45.

After the district court granted summaryjudgment in favor of AVELA on the trademark matter,

7
8

Plaintiff receivednotice from Italythat it was to be joined as a party in a Betty Boop trademark

infringement suit in the courtof Bari, Italy. A few months afterthe Ninth Circuit's favorable

10

ruling, Defendant FSI and Hearst Holdings, Inc. ("Hearst") filedan actionfor copyright

11

infringement against AVELA before the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, in the United
12

Kingdom. The action also alleged trademark infringement arisingout of BettyBoop imagery, an

13
14

issuethat FSI already litigated and lost in the U.S. AVELA has further beendragged into

15

litigation in Brazil overits alleged infringement of the Betty Boop character copyrights and

16

trademarks.

17

18

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

19
20

Malicious Prosecution

21

(Against FSI, MANATT and ARENT FOXand DOES 1 through 50)

22J

46.

Plaintiffsre-allege and incorporate herein by reference each and every allegation contained

23*

in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth.

24.

2| 47.

On November 14,2012, the underlying action was concluded and resulted in a ruling in

26"

favor of AVELA. The Court ruled on summary judgment that AVELA did not infringe on any

i-1

n.
28

alleged word mark FSImay have had as a matter of law. The court found there was no
grounds upon which FSI's trademark violation allegations could proceed.

n
COMPLAINT

48.

There was no probable cause inbringing the trademark infringement claim inthe

underlying lawsuit There was no reasonable belief as to the validity of the prior action and

claim by FSI, MANATT orARENT FOX. There is no conceivable way a reasonable attorney

would believe there was a meritorious claim fortrademark violations in the underlying

action. The lawwas clearand welldefined that use ofa word mark, such as the use by

AVELA ofBetty Boop, isdescriptive, fair use and not a trademark violation. FSI isa
7

sophisticated entity who is very litigious and knew that the use ofBetty Boop by AVELA did

not infringe on anyalleged trademark.

9
10

49.

11

FSI MANATT and ARENT FOX did nothave probable cause to instigate and/or continue the

Boop litigation once itwas underway. Defendants knew orreasonably should have know

12

that the Boop litigation was without merit from the moment the original Complaint had

13

beenfile and at all times while the action was pending. Furthermore, Defendants pursued

14
15

the action even though they knew or reasonably shown have know the claims they were

16

advancing were meritless and based on no evidence or rights.

17

18

50.

FSI acted primarily for a purpose other than securing a proper adjudication. That purpose
included, but was not limited to,actual hostility or ill will towards AVELA, and the desireto

19
20
21

unjustly exclude AVELA from the market and ruin the finances and reputation ofLeo
Valencia, AVELA's owner. The underlying actionwas broughtwith malice in that FSI

22,

sought, in bring the action, to threaten AVELA and any businesses doing business with or

23''

wanting to do business with AVELA ARENT FOX and FSI knew that theclaim oftrademark

HI

24J|

infringement was notsupportable but brought it anyway because the purpose wasnot to

25'

2$

winin courtand seekto righta legal wrong but rather to cause damage to AVELA and ruin

2lj|

AVELA's relationship with other businesses. The malice is further shown by FSI continuing

28

to threaten and bring lawsuits on matters alreadyadjudicated in other jurisdictions.

12
COMPLAINT

51.

The actions of FSI MANATT and ARENT FOX in bringing the meritless and unsupportable

underlying claim for trademark infringement was malicious, intentional and oppressive

conduct and was a substantial factor and proximate cause in bringing about AVELA's harm.

AVELA was damaged by having to pay great sums to defend meritless claims brought by the

named defendants and lost business as a result of the threatened claims. Defendants intent
6

in bringing the underlying lawsuit was to bleed AVELA of funds and to intimidate anyone

wising to do business with AVELA AVELA was damaged bythe named defendants as a

result ofthe bringing ofthe underlying claim in a sum tobe proved at trial.

10

52.

11

As a result oftheaforementioned conduct, AVELA suffered damages in anamount tobe

proved at trial. AVELA's suffered damages include, but are not limited to: out ofpocket

12

expenditures, including attorney's fee and other legal fees, business losses, general harm to

13
14

good will reputation and credit, and mental anguish. The aforementioned conduct was

15

oppressive, malicious, duplicitous, and performed with willful and conscious disregard ofthe

16

multiple court decision with the intent to deprive AVELA ofits rights. Accordingly, AVELA is

17

entitled to an award ofpunitive and exemplary damages.

18
19

20

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

21 |

Interference With a Prospective Economic Advantage

22,

(Against FSI and DOES 1 through 50)

23!H

24-J
25V

53.

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate herein by reference each and every allegation contained

is.

26"

in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth.

t-

2l
28

13
COMPLAINT

54.

AVELA and anexpansive network ofdomestic and international licensing agencies and

retailers were in an economic relationship that would have resulted in an economicbenefit

to AVELA.

55.

AVELA is informed and believes and thereon alleges that FSI knew ofthe relationship

between AVELA and the aforementioned licensing agencies and retailers.

6

56.
7

AVELA and its business partners inan attemptto disruptthis relationship.

8
9

FSI intended todisrupt this relationship by threatening unsupported legal actions against

57.

10

FSI engaged in and continues to engage inwrongful conduct by threatening tosue and bring
lawsuits based on an allegedclaimof trademark violations when FSI knows such claims to

11

be unfounded. FSI's purpose inthreatening lawsuits andbringing lawsuits based on

12

trademark infringement claims is for the purpose ofintimidating those businesses that

13
14

would otherwise engage in commerce with AVELA and to run costsup for AVELA. FSI

15

knows these other businesses do notwant to getembroiled in litigation and therefore

16

would likelyshy away from doing business with AVELA even if the claims are meritless.

17

58.

The relationship between AVELA andmany ofits licensing partners and retailers has been

18

disrupted asa result ofthe wrongful conduct ofFSI. The treatoflitigation stresses and often

19
20

breaks the relationship AVELA has formed with these other businesses. FSI misrepresents

21

that AVELA is infringing on FSI's trademark as it relates to Betty Boop even though they

2l\

know such claims are not true and have already been adjudicated and the rulings were in

23-

AVELA's favor.

24,

25' I
26^

2l

59.

FSI intended to and has in fact harmed the name and reputation ofAVELA by repeatedly
alleging that AVELA is infringing on FSI's trademark when FSI knows that AVELA's use does
not infringe on any such word mark trademark.

28

14
COMPLAINT

60.

The wrongful conduct of FSI in alleging trademark infringement as itrelates to AVELA's use

of Betty Boop is asubstantial factor in causing harm to AVELA. AVELA has lost business,

sales and contacts as a result fo the threats and unfounded allegations of FSI.

61.

As aresult ofthe aforementioned conduct, AVELA suffered damages in an amount to be proved

at trial, but which includes the loss ofcustomers, licensing agreements, royalties, and good will
6

reputation. Moreover, Defendant's misconduct will continue unabated barring relief, and AVELA

is therefore entitled to injunctive relief to prevent further such misconduct.

9
10

62.

The aforementioned conduct was oppressive, malicious, duplicitous, and performed with willful
and conscious disregard ofthe multiple court decision with the intent to deprive AVELA ofits

11

rights. Accordingly, AVELA is entitled to an aware ofpunitive and exemplary damages.

12

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

13
14
15

16

Wherefore, Plaintiff prayforjudgment as follows:

1. For General Damages according to proof;

2. Forspecial damages according to proof;

17

3. For Punitive / Exemplary damages according to proof;

18

19

4. For an award of attorneys fees;

20

5. Forthe cost ofthe suit herein incurred; and

21

6. For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper.

2l

Dated: November 13, 2014

GOODHEART LAW OFFICES

23-

24v

2l
26:1

Gregory J. Goodheart, Esq.

2i

Attorneys for AVELA

28

15
COMPLAINT