Case 3:15-cv-01945-N Document 15 Filed 07/20/15

Page 1 of 16 PageID 225

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
OPEN SOURCE GROUP, LLC
Plaintiff,
v.
SAAD PATEL,
Defendant.

NO. 3:15-CV-01945-N

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Open Source Group, LLC ("OSG") files this its First Amended
Complaint ("Complaint") and Jury Demand against the Defendants, Saad Patel (referred
to as "Defendant" or Patel) and in support thereof shows as follows:
PARTIES
1.

Plaintiff OSG is a Nevada limited liability company with its principal

place of business in Dallas, Texas.

2.

On information and belief, Defendant Saad Patel is a citizen and resident

of Illinois.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under 15 U.S.C.
1121 and 28 U.S.C. 1331 (Federal Question), 1332 (Diversity), 1338, and has
supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1367(a) over Plaintiffs State law claims.
This is an action for Trademark Infringement, under 15 U.S.C. 1114; unfair
completion under 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(1); and violations of the Anticybersquatting
Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. 1051, et seq.
4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant has
availed himself of Texas law and/or has established minimum contacts with the State
of Texas consistent with requirements set forth under the Texas Long Arm Statute

Case 3:15-cv-01945-N Document 15 Filed 07/20/15

Page 2 of 16 PageID 226

and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. Defendant engaged in
business in Texas as the co-founder of Plaintiff. Additionally, this Court has specific
jurisdiction over Defendants for aiming one or more tortious activities at Plaintiff, a
Texas resident company. (See Veracity Research Company v. Bateman, No. 3:07CV-2158-L , [2008 BL 161313], 2008 WL 2951910 at *5 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 1, 2008)
(Lindsay, J.).
5. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 Defendant is subject
to personal jurisdiction in this district, as a substantial part of the events giving rise to
the claims occurred or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of this
action is situated in Dallas, Texas.
6. Notice of related case: this case is being brought after being dismissed without
prejudice. The prior lawsuit was styled as follows: Open Source Group, LLC v. Saad
Patel; Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-03755-O in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
7. OSG provides training and consulting services for use of enterprise-level software
to a variety of clients, such as online retail stores, credit card companies, and financial
institutions (many of which, are Fortune 500 companies). OSG also re-sells
enterprise-level software.
8. Farhan Hussain (Hussain), Patel, Nida Baweja, (Baweja) (Hussains spouse),
and Quddsia Siddiqui (Siddiqui) (Patels Spouse) (collectively, the Group) have
been involved with two prior similar businesses, starting with the formation of a
general partnership in or around November 2011. Thereafter, the Group caused
OSArchitect, Inc., a Texas Corporation, to be formed to provide many of the same
services offered by OSG today.
9. In or around February 2012, a new investor, Shahryar Gilani (Gilani) joined the
Group. Immediately thereafter, Hussain and Patel founded OSG, a Nevada Limited
Liability Company. At the time of OSGs founding, it was also a software
development company specializing, inter alia, in open source technology and
architecture. Today, however, OSG no longer develops software, but re-sells thirdparty enterprise-level software. This business model change was largely due to the

Case 3:15-cv-01945-N Document 15 Filed 07/20/15

Page 3 of 16 PageID 227

wrongful actions of Patel described in more detail herein. OSG has developed a
strong presence as an expert in "Open Source" technology, providing training and
consulting services to a variety of clients, such as online retail stores, credit card
companies, and financial institutions (many of which, are Fortune 500 companies).
10. On information and belief, in July 2008, Patel purchased the domain,
www.opensourcearchitect.com (the Domain) (See Exhibit 1). The Domain did not
have a website hosted or appearing thereon, until after Patel began doing business
with Hussain, who continues to be a principal for OSG, along with Gilani and
Baweja.
11. In or around December 2011, OSArchitect, Inc. caused a website to be developed
to advertise and communicate with prospective and existing clients (many of whom
are Fortune 500 companies) and this website was live on the Domain in early 2012.
(See Id.) This website was developed largely by Patel in his capacity as an OSG
Founder and Vice President of Technology, and he acknowledged, accepted without
objection and acquiesced to OSGs use and dominion over the Domain for this
website. Patel, on behalf of OSArchitect and subsequently, OSG, established and
actively began using email addresses for its employees using this Domain in or
around August 2011, e.g., farhan@opensourcearchitect.com. Thus, Patel accepted
without objection, acquiesced and acknowledged on numerous occasions that the
registered Domain belonged to OSG along with other domains, including, without
limitation, www.opensourcearchitect.org; and acknowledged, acquiesced and
accepted without objection, the use of the Domain in connection with OSGs email
accounts. Patel, cannot, in good faith claim that the Domain does not rightfully
belong to OSG. Thereafter, OSArchitect transferred all rights to the website and
associated Domain to OSG.
12. On information and belief, in or around August 2011, Patel changed the
webmaster email address used for the primary domain contact with the hosting
company (GoDaddy) associated with the OSG website, to be set as follows:
webmaster@opensourcearchitect.com. Further, on information and belief, Patel
caused the OSArchitect and subsequently, OSG employee emails to be created for use

Case 3:15-cv-01945-N Document 15 Filed 07/20/15

Page 4 of 16 PageID 228

by their respective employees. Thereafter, OSGs employees and group email

addresses used the emails using the domain, opensourcearchitect.com extension.
13. Patel was responsible for, inter alia, bookkeeping and accounting for the original
General Partnership, OSArchitect and ultimately, OSG (the Entities). During his
time acting in this capacity for OSG, OSG lost money, partly due to Patels continued
accounting issues resulting from Patels lack of due care to OSG. Accounts
receivable, accounts payable, taxes and expense reimbursements were woefully
behind and caused damage to OSG.
14. On January 26, 2012, OSArchitect, Inc. filed an application with the United States
Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for the trademark registration of the service
mark, OPENSOURCEARCHITECT (OPEN SOURCE ARCHITECT Mark or
the Mark). Patel was aware of the filing of the trademark application and never
asserted any objection thereto. Patel acknowledged, accepted without objection and
acquiesced to the ongoing use of and dominion over, the Domain and USPTO service
mark registration, as well as the ongoing use by employees of OSArchitect and
subsequently, OSG.
15. On May 9, 2012, OSArchitect, Inc. caused an Assignment to be filed with the
USPTO for the service mark, OPENSOURCEARCHITECT registration application
to be assigned to OSG. Patel did not object to the filing of this assignment.
16. On or around March 21, 2012, OSGs Founders, Hussain and Patel (Founders)
were voted by a community to become presenters at the Hadoop Summit to be held in
San Jose, California during the first part of June 2012. This Summit represented the
best opportunity for OSG to gain valuable industry exposure for its new tool that it
had been developing and marketing as Rule 1 Analytics (R 1 Analytics). OSG
invested a significant amount of resources and funds to develop R 1 Analytics. The
goal was for this presentation and demonstration of R 1 Analytics to act as a
springboard into Big Data software and product development. Patel agreed to give
the presentation for the R 1 Analytics and Hussain agreed to give the presentation for

Case 3:15-cv-01945-N Document 15 Filed 07/20/15

Page 5 of 16 PageID 229

a separate topic at the Red Hat Summit later in June. Leading up to the Hadoop
Summit, OSG received a great deal of attention from industry leaders concerning
Patels planned presentation.
17. While, preparing for these presentations, the Founders continued to be responsible
for their respective duties. However, in or around April 2012, Patels relatives urged
Hussain to agree to bring in Patels sisters boyfriend, Tim Stokes, who volunteered
to help Patel initially without pay, before beginning to work as an employee for OSG.
Patel represented that he would cause additional new investors to invest a substantial
sum of money into OSG, such that OSG could afford to hire Tim Stokes to take over
Patels bookkeeping and accounting duties and hire a web developer to take over
Patels web development and maintenance duties. OSG agreed to allow Tim Stokes
to start work and hired a web developer to help with ongoing website development
and maintenance.
18. In or around June 11, 2012, days before the much anticipated presentation that
Patel had been working to complete for the R 1 Analytics Tool, Patel notified the
Group and Gilani that he was not going to have time to complete his preparation for
the presentation and that OSG should cancel the presentation. This cancellation was
late and caused OSG to be viewed in a negative light by some of OSGs customers
and prospective customers, including, but not limited to Hortonworks, Inc. A great
deal of money, resources and marketing activity had gone to waste and left OSG in a
position in which it was forced to abandon further development and marketing of the
R 1 Analytics tool, as well as any further software development projects.
19. Around this same time, Patel revealed that the investors that he promised to
produce, along with their substantial contribution to OSG, were not going to invest in
OSG. OSG had relied upon Patels representations regarding bringing in the
substantial contributions from these investors; and caused OSG to incur significant
amounts of debt after hiring a web developer and the prospective
bookkeeper/accountant, Tim Stokes. Thereafter, Tim Stokes demanded payment for
the work he performed, despite his promise as Patels sisters boyfriend, to perform
duties for free initially. Patels actions and omissions caused OSG significant
damage. Shortly after these misrepresentations and breach of Patels duty of care

Case 3:15-cv-01945-N Document 15 Filed 07/20/15

Page 6 of 16 PageID 230

relating to the presentation and causing OSG to hire personnel that it could not afford
to pay, along with causing difficulties related to taxes, accounts receivable, accounts
payable and reimbursement for expenditures to personnel, the Group and Gilani
expressed their concern about whether OSG would survive Patels lack of due care.
20. Around June or early July 2012, Patel notified OSG that he would be leaving his
position with OSG and that Friday, July 20, 2012 would be his last day with OSG.
While, Patel was away on a business matter, on or around July 17, 2012, Hussain
changed the password for Patels email associated with OSG. Immediately thereafter,
Patel hacked into OSGs email account and emailed
everyone@opensourcearchitect.com a Farewell email.
21. On July 25, 2012, on information and belief, Patel caused the contact information
for

the

webmaster

of

the

Domain

to

be

changed

from

webmaster@opensourcearchitect.com to webmaster@saadpatel.com
22. On July 26, 2012, the USPTO issued the registration for the Mark Registration
No. 4166079, listing OSG as the Owner thereof.
23. Many of OSGs prospective clients first contact with OSG came as a result of
OSGs website at the Domain. The website at the Domain was OSGs primary
source of marketing and advertising. The website at the Domain featured OSGs
teaching materials, videos, technical write-ups and tutorials. OSGs videos were also
available via its channel on YouTube, which were tied to the Domain. Specifically,
the emails referenced were emails using the Domain extension; and the videos
referenced the Domain for further information, which were no longer available or
accessible when the Domain was hi-jacked by Patel.
24. Defendant acknowledge, accepted without objection and acquiesced to the
transfer of all property used by the Entities that was formerly owned by Patel and/or
Siddiqui, including the copyrights in and to OSG's existing software, all trademark
rights (and goodwill appurtenant thereto), and the Domain owned by Saad Patel
and/or Quddsia Siddiqui prior to the formation of Plaintiff OSG.

Case 3:15-cv-01945-N Document 15 Filed 07/20/15

Page 7 of 16 PageID 231

25. As a result of Plaintiff's continuous and exclusive use of the Mark in commerce
since at least 2011, the Mark has acquired secondary meaning or distinctiveness and
goodwill.
26. In or around May 2013, (approximately one-year after Patel departed from OSG)
OSG had completed updating its website to include an interactive shopping cart for
software products. For security purposes and the sensitive nature of customer data,
OSG requires an SSL Certificate. However, Patel had control over the Domain, as a
result of his earlier change of webmaster contact information; and would not
cooperate to obtain the necessary SSL Certificate for the newly revised website,
despite demands made by OSG. Thus, Patels actions caused a delay in the launching
of OSGs newly revised website costing OSG prospective sales to new and existing
clients.
27. Prior to, and following Patel's resignation from Plaintiff OSG, Plaintiff demanded
on several occasions that Patel transfer the Domain registration to Plaintiff as the
registrant. Defendant Patel did not respond to the requests to transfer the Domain on
each occasion. Thus, after Patel had acknowledged, accepted without objection, and
acquiesced to OSGs use of and dominion over the Domain from the inception of
OSG, he fraudulently caused the Domain webmaster contact information to be
changed to his personal email address and refused to allow the owner of the Domain,
OSG, to access its Domain. Further, on information and belief, Patel has renewed the
registration with Go Daddy, Inc. each year in or around June. In fact, this year, on
information and belief, Patel renewed the registration for a period of two (2) years,
until July 2017, in an apparent effort to continue to wrongfully hold the domain
hostage, or develop his own website on the domain at some future date.
28. On May 4, 2013, Defendant, Patel caused Plaintiff's website to be unavailable
from the .com Domain, where it had consistently been live for approximately two (2)
years, causing tremendous damage and disruption to Plaintiff OSG's business. The
fact that the Domain that was known to be owned by OSG and now, did not have a
website on the Domain, caused concern and confusion among OSGs customers,
employees and prospective customers who attempted to visit OSGs website at the

Case 3:15-cv-01945-N Document 15 Filed 07/20/15

Page 8 of 16 PageID 232

Domain and likely caused confusion among the purchasing public. Further, this
action tarnished and diluted OSGs Mark.
29. As a result of Defendant, Patel's unlawful conduct, each and every email address
of every single employee of Plaintiff was no longer able to receive incoming emails.
Any and all clients, vendors, and contacts were no longer able to contact or
communicate with the Plaintiff via email as a result of Defendant, Patel's unlawful
conduct. A large part of Plaintiffs business communications were conducted via
email.
30. During Defendant, Patel's work and employment with Plaintiff, he had access to
confidential information and trade secrets belonging to Plaintiff, namely, its client
list, client contact information, accounting, marketing information, past history, and
materials used by Plaintiff in connection with its seminars and lectures.
31. Hussain caused Hortonworks, Inc. to become a customer of OSG. Hortonworks,
Inc. and OSG had an existing enforceable contract under which the Parties had
transacted business and Hortonworks, Inc. had paid numerous invoices thereunder.
Upon Patels departure from OSG, Patel began work for Hortonworks, Inc. after
developing a relationship with Hortonworks, Inc. as a result of his employment with
OSG. On information and belief, Hortonworks hired Patel as an employee, rather than
an independent contractor. Since Patel joined Hortonworks, Inc., Plaintiff was not
tasked to work on any projects from Hortonworks as a result of Defendant, Patel's
actions. Due to this lack of work from Hortonworks, OSG felt compelled to finally
terminate the contract with Hortonworks.
32. Thus, Defendant, Patel's fiduciary breaches as a Co-Founder and Vice-President
of Technology and continued fraudulent hi-jacking of the Domain set forth above
caused OSG significant damage.
COUNT I Cybersquatting under the Anti-Cybersquatting
Consumer Protection Act 15 U.S.C. 1125(d)
33. OSG repeats each and every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein.

Case 3:15-cv-01945-N Document 15 Filed 07/20/15

Page 9 of 16 PageID 233

34. The Mark was distinctive at the time Defendant wrongfully hijacked the domain
and continues to renew registration and control the infringing domain name, and
remain distinctive today.
35. The infringing domain name is identical or confusingly similar, and dilutive, to
the Mark at the time Defendant took dominion and control over the domain in or
around 2012.
36. Defendants continue to register, use and control the infringing domain name with
bad faith intent to profit from the Mark.
37. Defendants continued registration and use of the infringing domain name has
caused and will continue to cause damage to Plaintiff, in an amount to be proven
at trial, and is causing irreparable harm to Plaintiff, for which there is no adequate
remedy at law. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief.
38. Plaintiff is entitled to recover actual damages and costs in an amount to be proven
at trial or statutory damages of up to $100,000 per domain name, treble damages,
attorneys fees and transfer of the infringing domain name to Plaintiff.
COUNT II - CONVERSION
39. OSG repeats each and every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein.
40. Defendant, Patel exercised unauthorized and unlawful assumption, dominion and
control over the Plaintiffs personal property as set forth above, to the exclusion of, or
inconsistent with, the Plaintiffs rights. The Plaintiffs have demanded the return of its
property, but the Defendant refused to return it. Defendant has therefore, converted
Plaintiffs property.
41. Plaintiff hereby seeks to recover from Defendant the fair market value of that
property in actual damages.
42. Defendants conduct was committed willfully. Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks
punitive damages against the Defendant for such willful conversion.

Case 3:15-cv-01945-N Document 15 Filed 07/20/15

Page 10 of 16 PageID 234

COUNT III - TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT AND

BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS
43. OSG repeats each and every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein.
44. Plaintiff had an existing contract with Hortonworks, Inc., (Hortonworks) a
Delaware company as well as business relationships with other customers and
vendors, inter alia, Starwood Hotels.
45. Defendant Patel had knowledge of Plaintiff's existing business relationship with
Hortonworks and Starwood Hotels.
46. Defendant Patels actions intentionally and without justification interfered and
continue to interfere with Plaintiffs business relationship with Hortonworks.
47. As a result of Defendant Patel's tortious interference with Plaintiffs contract and
business relationship with Hortonworks, Plaintiff has lost business with Hortonworks
and suffered damages.
COUNT IV- ADDITIONALLY, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, BREACH OF
FIDUCIARY DUTY OF LOYALTY AND CARE
48. OSG repeats each and every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein.
49. At all times while Patel was employed by Plaintiff, and/or acting in his capacity
as Co-Founder or Vice-President of Technology for OSG, Defendant Patel, owed
the duty of loyalty and care to Plaintiff.
50. Patel breached his duty of loyalty and care to Plaintiff when he committed one or
more of the following:
(a) Defendant hi-jacked the Domain by causing the Domain to be taken from the
dominion and control of OSG and causing Plaintiffs website to no longer appear or
be located at the Domain;
(b) intentionally and without justification, hi-jacked all emails used by OSG that
OSG had been using in the operation of its business;
(b) intentionally and without justification interfered with Plaintiff's business
relationships;
(c) negligent mismanagement of OSGs financial accounts;

10

Case 3:15-cv-01945-N Document 15 Filed 07/20/15

Page 11 of 16 PageID 235

(d) misrepresentation as to the availability of funds from investors that resulted

in OSGs reliance on such representations to its detriment; and
(e) failure to produce the valuable presentation and demonstration of OSGs
pre-production prototype product, R 1 Analytics, at the Hadoop Summit, which resulted
in significant damage to Plaintiff OSG.
51.

Patel acted willfully and knowingly.

52. As a proximate result of Patels breach of his duty of loyalty and care to Plaintiff,
Plaintiff has suffered extensive damages.
53. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to actual and punitive damages against the
Defendant for his wrongful acts.
COUNT V ADDITIONALLY, OR IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, FEDERAL MARK INFRINGEMENT
54. OSG repeats each and every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein.
55. In view of the nature of Patels infringement, this is an exceptional case within the
meaning of 15 U.S.C. 1117(a).
56. Defendant, Patels use of the OPEN SOURCE ARCHITECT Mark
as a domain in connection with a non-operating website is likely to cause
consumer confusion, mistake or deception as to the source or origin of products
and/or services. Patel's unauthorized use of the OPEN SOURCE ARCHITECT
Mark, therefore, infringes OSGs exclusive rights in its federally registered mark,
in violation of 32(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1114(1).
57. Defendant, Patels aforesaid conduct has caused and, unless enjoined, will
continue to cause irreparable injury to both OSG and the goodwill associated with the
OPEN SOURCE ARCHITECT Mark.
COUNT VI Use of False Designations of Origin, False Descriptions and False
Representations and Unfair Competition

11

Case 3:15-cv-01945-N Document 15 Filed 07/20/15

Page 12 of 16 PageID 236

58. OSG repeats each and every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth
herein.
59.The OPEN SOURCE ARCHITECT Mark serves to identify the services and/or
products offered by OSG. Accordingly, services and/or products offered in
connection with the OPEN SOURCE ARCHITECT Mark are regarded by the
public as being sponsored by, approved by, authorized by, associated with or
affiliated with OSG.
60.Defendant, Patels wrongful conversion of the OPEN SOURCE ARCHITECT
Mark as a domain has caused confusion or mistake among the public as to the true
origin, source, sponsorship, approval, authorization, association or affiliation of the
Domain.
61. The Defendants aforesaid use of the OPEN SOURCE ARCHITECT Mark as a
domain constitutes use of false designations of origin, false descriptions and false
representations in interstate commerce in violation of 43(a) of the Lanham Act,
15 U.S.C. 1125(a), as a result of which OSG will continue to be irreparably
injured unless and until Defendants conduct is enjoined by this Court.
62. The foregoing acts of trademark infringement have been, and continue to be,
deliberate, willful and wanton, making this an exceptional case within the meaning
of 15 U.S.C. 1117.
63. The injury to Plaintiff is and continues to be ongoing and irreparable. Plaintiff
lacks an adequate remedy at law.
64. Plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction against the Defendant, his heirs,
representatives, employers, as well as all other remedies available under the

12

Case 3:15-cv-01945-N Document 15 Filed 07/20/15

Page 13 of 16 PageID 237

Lanham Act, including, without limitation, compensatory damages; treble

damages; disgorgement of profits; and costs and attorneys fees.
COUNT VII Common Law Trademark Infringement
65. OSG repeats each and every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein.
66. OSG, by virtue of its prior adoption and use in interstate commerce of the OPEN
SOURCE ARCHITECT Mark, in this judicial district and elsewhere, has acquired,
established and owns valuable common law rights in the OPEN SOURCE
ARCHITECT Mark.
67. Defendant's use of the OPEN SOURCE ARCHITECT Mark as a domain in the
Accused Domain Names constitutes copying and limitation by Patel of the OPEN
SOURCE ARCHITECT Mark, falsely designates the origin of Patels services, is
likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception and, therefore, infringes OSGs
common law rights in the OPEN SOURCE ARCHITECT Mark, in violation of the
common law of Texas.
68. Defendant Patels actions complained of herein, unless enjoined by this Court,
will (1) result in the likelihood of confusion, mistake and deception by the public
concerning the source or origin of services offered by Patel, and (2) produce attendant
irreparable injury and damage to OSG and its business reputation.
COUNT VIII Common Law Unfair Competition
69. OSG repeats each and every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein.
70. By virtue of its prior use of the distinctive OPEN SOURCE ARCHITECT Mark
in interstate commerce throughout the country, the OPEN SOURCE ARCHITECT

13

Case 3:15-cv-01945-N Document 15 Filed 07/20/15

Page 14 of 16 PageID 238

Mark has come to be associated exclusively with OSG and its federally registered,
distinctive OPEN SOURCE ARCHITECT Mark.
71. Defendant Patels wrongful conversion and unauthorized use in interstate
commerce of the OPEN SOURCE ARCHITECT Mark as a domain directly competes
with OSG's services, especially given that the OPEN SOURCE ARCHITECT Mark
continues to appear in the domain name portion of the user's address bar regardless of
what links a user selects, is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source or
sponsorship of Defendant Patels services.
72. Upon information and belief, Defendant Patel has used the OPEN SOURCE
ARCHITECT Mark in the manner identified herein with the intent of trading
unlawfully upon OSG's established goodwill in that mark. Defendant Patels actions,
therefore, constitute unfair competition with OSG, in violation of the common law of
Texas, and Defendant Patels actions have irreparably injured and will continue to
irreparably injure OSG unless and until such conduct is enjoined temporarily,
preliminarily and thereafter permanently by this Court.
73. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant, Quddsia Siddiqui supported,
encouraged, assisted, and/or participated in Saad Patels aforementioned unlawful
actions.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, for the above-stated reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests the
Court issue a judgment against Defendant Saad Patel as follows:

14

Case 3:15-cv-01945-N Document 15 Filed 07/20/15

Page 15 of 16 PageID 239

1) Upon final trial, judgment against the Defendant for full permanent injunctive relief,
and for the full amount of the Plaintiffs actual damages, including, but not limited to,
lost profits as found by the trier of fact, as a consequence of the Defendants conduct.
The prompt and immediate Order to transfer the registration of the domain,
www.opensourcearchitect.com to Plaintiff. Additionally, as follows:
2) A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, his representatives,
agents, heirs, relatives, employees, agents, attorneys and all other persons in active
concert or participation with any of them, from:
a.

using, reproducing, advertising or promoting the trademark or Domain

bearing the trademark, OPENSOURCEARCHITECT, or any designation

confusingly similar therewith, in connection with the offer or sale of any goods or
services, the use of any domain name, the rendering of any service or any
commercial activity;
b.

using, reproducing, advertising, or promoting any mark or name that may

be calculated to represent or that has the effect of representing that the products or
services of Defendant or any other person sponsored by, or in some way
associated with Plaintiff OSG;
c.

injuring the commercial reputation, and goodwill of OSG or its Mark

OPENSOURCEARCHITECT; and
d.

otherwise, unfairly competing with OSG;

3) an award of compensatory damages arising out of Defendants infringement and

trebled as provided by 15 U.S.C. 1117;
4) an award of OSGs costs of this action and the reasonable attorneys fees OSG has
incurred in connection with this action, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117(a), in light of
the exceptional nature of this action;
5) Punitive, statutory or additional damages as provided by law;
6) Prejudgment interest as provided by law;
7) Post-judgment interest as provided by law;
8) The Plaintiffs reasonable and necessary attorneys fees in prosecuting its claim(s)
through trial and, if necessary, through appeal;
9) All costs of suit; and

15

Case 3:15-cv-01945-N Document 15 Filed 07/20/15

Page 16 of 16 PageID 240

10) Such other and further relief, at law or in equity, to which Plaintiff may be justly
entitled.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues presented herein.

Dated: July 20, 2015

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Wendy B. Mills
Wendy B. Mills
Texas Bar No. 24032861
KENNEDY LAW, P.C.
1445 Ross Ave.
Suite 4950
Dallas, Texas 75202
Telephone: (214) 716-4343
Email: wmills@saklaw.net
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF
OPEN SOURCE GROUP, LLC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On July 20, 2015, I Wendy B. Mills electronically submitted the foregoing
document with the clerk of court for the U.S. District Court, Northern
District of Texas using the electronic case filing system of the court. I
hereby certify that I have served all counsel of record electronically.
_/s/ Wendy B. Mills_____

16