Oracle Complaint Against CryptoOracle
Oracle Complaint Against CryptoOracle
21
22 Oracle Corporation and Oracle International Corporation file this complaint to prevent
23 Crypto Oracle, LLC and its owner, Louis Kerner, from using a copy of plaintiffs’ famous ORACLE
24 trademark as the sole distinctive element of Defendants’ CryptoOracle brand, which they use to
25 market a variety of consulting, educational event planning, and related services, all offered to Oracle’s
26 own customers and users who operate or have interest in the cryptocurrency field.
27 Defendants’ mimicry – and their refusal to adopt their own original, non-infringing name –
28 threatens to mislead the public and to deprive Oracle of its right to control its own brand within an
1 important, emerging sector of its technology business. While Oracle would otherwise welcome some
2 of defendants’ endeavors, including events aimed at fostering a community around innovative
3 and curious blockchain-enthusiasts, Oracle cannot tolerate the use of its famous trademark to brand
4 defendants’ business. Despite Oracle’s efforts to resolve this dispute short of litigation, this lawsuit
5 has become necessary to stop Crypto Oracle and Mr. Kerner from trading on the reputation and good-
6 will that Oracle has earned among consumers throughout the technology industry, including in relation
7 to plaintiffs’ own consulting and finance-related services, and solutions for use in blockchain and
8 cryptocurrency applications.
9 NATURE OF ACTION
10 1. Oracle Corporation and Oracle International Corporation seek preliminary and
11 permanent injunctive relief and damages against Defendants Crypto Oracle, LLC d/b/a CryptoOracle
12 (“CryptoOracle”) and Louis Kerner (collectively, “Defendants”) for Defendants’ willful infringement
13 and dilution of the ORACLE trademark, unfair competition under the Lanham Trademark Act of
14 1946, as amended, Title 15, United States Code, § 1051 et seq. (the “Lanham Act”), cybersquatting
15 under the Lanham Act, and for infringement, dilution and unfair competition under California
16 Business & Professions Code §§ 14200 and 17200, et seq. and the common law.
17 2. Plaintiff Oracle Corporation (“OC”), one of the world’s foremost providers of network
18 computing hardware, computing systems, computer software, services and solutions and a leading
19 developer of enterprise and Internet-based products and technologies, is a Delaware corporation
20 having its principal place of business in Redwood City, California. It is a licensee in the United States
21 of the ORACLE marks at issue in this case. OC is also the owner and registrant of the Internet
22 domain name <www.oracle.com>.
23 3. Plaintiff Oracle International Corporation (“OIC”) is a California corporation, having
24 its only place of business in Redwood City, California. OIC is a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of
25 Oracle Corporation and the owner of the ORACLE marks. Plaintiffs OC and OIC are collectively
26 referred to herein as “Oracle.”
27 4. Oracle owns numerous registrations in the United States and worldwide for the
28 ORACLE mark. Oracle uses its ORACLE mark in connection with its wide array of software
1 applications and solutions. Among those offerings, Oracle uses the ORACLE brand to promote and
2 commercialize the Oracle Blockchain Platform, its blockchain platform-as-a-service (PaaS). Oracle
3 also uses its ORACLE mark to brand and promote conferences, seminars, trade shows, and other
4 events, such as its annual conference Oracle OpenWorld, which include informational, educational and
5 networking programming across the spectrum of Oracle’s services and business offerings, including in
6 relation to Oracle’s blockchain services. As a result of its extensive use of the ORACLE mark, Oracle
7 has developed tremendous goodwill in the ORACLE brand. Indeed, Oracle consistently ranks in the
8 top 20 of brand-ranking lists: Oracle ranked #18 in Forbes’ 2019 The World’s Most Valuable Brands
9 Report and #19 in Interbrand’s 2018 Best Global Brands Report.
10 5. On information and belief, Defendant Louis Kerner is an individual domiciled at
11 25 West 39th Street, 10th Floor, New York, New York 10018. On the CryptoOracle website and
12 elsewhere, Mr. Kerner is identified as the CEO and Co-Founder of CryptoOracle, roles that
13 Mr. Kerner has touted when appearing on national television programs and at industry conferences
14 across the country. On December 27, 2018, after receiving a letter from Oracle explaining its con-
15 cerns about CryptoOracle’s misuse and infringement of the ORACLE mark, Mr. Kerner applied, as an
16 individual, to register the CRYPTOORACLE mark at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, covering
17 business and financial consulting services in the field of cryptocurrency (Serial No. 88/242,342).
18 6. On information and belief, Defendant CryptoOracle is a Delaware limited liability
19 company founded in 2017 with its principal place of business in New York, New York. CryptoOracle
20 purports to be a venture capital (“VC”) firm focused on supporting and advising companies building
21 distributed ledger technologies. CryptoOracle promotes its services on the World Wide Web at
22 <http://www.cryptooracle.io>, <http://www.cryptooracle.co>, <http://www.cryptooracle.fund>,
23 and <http://www.cryptooraclefund.com>.
24 7. Defendants use the ORACLE mark in the CryptoOracle business name, domain
25 names, and social media account usernames for services that overlap with and are related to goods and
26 services offered by Oracle. Specifically, Defendants are using, without authorization, Oracle’s famous
27 ORACLE mark to brand their own services. Defendants’ addition of the descriptive term “crypto”
28 does nothing to distinguish the marks, but rather suggests that Defendants are an affiliate of Oracle
1 or otherwise are endorsed by Oracle. Defendants’ copying of the ORACLE mark is likely to confuse
2 consumers as to the source of Defendants’ services and dilute Oracle’s famous ORACLE brand.
3 Unless Defendants are enjoined from continuing to use Oracle’s marks to promote Defendants’
4 services, the ORACLE mark will continue to be infringed and the ORACLE mark will continue to be
5 diluted, thereby eroding the distinctive quality of marks that Oracle has developed for over forty years.
6 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7 8. This is a civil action arising under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125(a), (c),
8 and (d) et seq., and related claims under California statutory and common law. This Court has subject
9 matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1338(a) and 1338(b) (trademark and unfair competition),
10 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), and 15 U.S.C. § 1121 (Lanham Act). This Court has
11 supplemental jurisdiction over the state law issues pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
12 9. This Court has personal jurisdiction over CryptoOracle because it conducts business
13 in and directs acts toward California and within this District. For example, CryptoOracle promotes,
14 organizes and runs events – including “Fireside chat” informational events and “CryptoMonday”
15 educational and networking events – within this District, including in San Francisco. The
16 CryptoMonday events that CryptoOracle holds throughout this District are promoted as “powered
17 by CryptoOracle.” Recent examples of such events follow.
18 / / /
19 / / /
20 / / /
21 / / /
22 / / /
23 / / /
24 / / /
25 / / /
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /
2
3
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 / / /
28 / / /
2
3
7
8
10
11
12 CryptoOracle also owns and operates a series of interactive websites, each of which displays and
13 uses the infringing mark, and allows visitors – including those in this District – to sign up for
14 CryptoOracle’s consulting services and join CryptoOracle’s “community.” On information and
15 belief, CryptoOracle targets individuals in this District – renowned as the home of some of the most
16 innovative and important technology companies, their founders and employees – for inclusion in its
17 community. CryptoOracle’s conduct within or directed toward California and this District have
18 caused Oracle’s injuries in this District.
19 10. The Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over Mr. Kerner because of Mr. Kerner’s
20 position as the CEO and Founder of CryptoOracle, and his acts within and directed toward this
21 District. Mr. Kerner travels to California to speak at various industry conferences and events in this
22 District and elsewhere in the state, all under the infringing CryptoOracle mark and brand. On
23 information and belief, in 2018 alone, he appeared at five or more industry events in California
24 about cryptocurrency and related subjects. Mr. Kerner is also active online and publishes content on
25 websites including Medium, YouTube and Twitter while using and displaying the infringing mark,
26 marketing CryptoOracle, and interacting with others online. Examples of Mr. Kerner’s online
27 accounts with evidence of infringing use and acts directed to California and this District are shown
28 below. Further, Mr. Kerner, with knowledge of Oracle’s rights in its ORACLE trademark and
1 concerns about the inevitable confusion and dilution that will result from use of the CryptoOracle
2 mark, applied to register CRYPTOORACLE. Mr. Kerner’s continued acts directed toward and within
3 California have caused and will continue to cause Oracle harm in this District.
4
Twitter YouTube
5
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /
2
3
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 11. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
19 California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c) as the claims arise in this District and Defendants
21 INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
22 12. Intradistrict assignment to any division of the Northern District is proper under Local
23 Rule 3-2(c) and the Assignment Plan of this Court as an “Intellectual Property Action.”
26 more than $39.5 billion. Oracle offers and sells a variety of technology products and services under
27 Oracle’s famous ORACLE mark and large family of ORACLE-formative marks. Oracle designs,
28 develops, markets and supports computer software products with a wide breadth of uses, including
1
Reg. No. / Date of
2 Trademark Date Class / Products First Use
3 ORACLE 2,107,556 / Class 35: Analysis and consulting services June 1986
Oct. 21, 1997 in the field of business information manage-
4 ment, namely business analysis, business
enterprise modeling, and business informa-
5 tion organization; licensing software.
1
Reg. No. / Date of
2 Trademark Date Class / Products First Use
1
Reg. No. / Date of
2 Trademark Date Class / Products First Use
1
Reg. No. / Date of
2 Trademark Date Class / Products First Use
6 ORACLE 4,363,243 / Classes 9: cases and stands for laptop, note- 1984
July 9, 2013 book and tablet computers, music players,
7 and cell phones; computer mouse pads.
23
ORACLE 2,997,144 / Class 9: A full line of computer software 1984
24 (Stylized) Logo Sept. 20, 2005 to manage, analyze, retrieve, monitor, main-
tain, report on, structure, model, forecast,
25 present and display data and information
from computer databases and the internet,
26 and for the development, analysis, manage-
ment, integration, deployment and mainte-
27 nance of computer software; web services
software, application server software, data-
28 base software, business intelligence soft-
ware, internet and intranet portal software,
1
Reg. No. / Date of
2 Trademark Date Class / Products First Use
1
Reg. No. / Date of
2 Trademark Date Class / Products First Use
1
Reg. No. / Date of
2 Trademark Date Class / Products First Use
28
1
Reg. No. / Date of
2 Trademark Date Class / Products First Use
3 ORACLE 3,031543 / Class 35: Conducting trade shows and Sept. 1997
OPENWORLD Dec. 20, 2005 exhibitions in the fields of computers,
4 computer software, computer peripherals,
computer networking, technology planning,
5 business management, and product
demonstrations.
6 Class 41: Conducting educational
conferences, seminars, speeches, and
7 entertainment, namely live and audio-visual
presentations, all in the fields of computers,
8 computer software, computer peripherals,
computer networking, technology planning,
9 and business management.
10
11 A number of the ORACLE marks identified above, including U.S. Registration Nos. 2,107,556
12 (registered October 21, 1997); 2,997,144 (registered September 30, 2005); 3,115,749 (registered
13 July 18, 2006); 4,102,532 (registered February 21, 2012); and 4,870,864 (registered December 15,
14 2015), cover analysis and/or consulting services related to financial transactions. Many of these
15 registrations have become incontestable. Attached hereto as Exhibit A are true and correct copies of
16 the federal trademark registrations issued for these and the other trademarks listed in the chart above,
17 all of which are in full force and effect. Together, these registered rights and Oracle’s common law
18 rights in its family of ORACLE-formative marks are referenced in this Complaint as the “ORACLE
19 marks.”
20 16. Oracle has been using the ORACLE trademark continuously for decades in connection
21 with goods and services that are identical or substantially similar to services offered by Defendants,
22 namely financial and business consulting services related to financial transactions. Moreover, Oracle
23 has used its ORACLE and ORACLE OPENWORLD trademarks for more than a decade to brand
24 educational services, seminars, courses, workshops and other programming that provides networking
25 opportunities to the technology field.
26 17. As a worldwide leader in technology solutions, Oracle’s resources, infrastructure, tech-
27 nology, and expertise allowed Oracle to become an early adopter and provider of blockchain solutions
28 and products to its customers, including those customers in the banking, technology, and finance
1 and services under the ORACLE marks. Oracle has spent millions of dollars marketing its goods and
2 services under the ORACLE marks in a variety of media, including but not limited to television, a
3 wide variety of both general circulation and specialized print media, billboards, trade shows and via
4 the Internet. In that time, the goods and services offered by Oracle under the ORACLE marks have
5 been the subject of numerous articles in general circulation newspapers and magazines, as well as
6 radio, television and Internet broadcasts.
7 22. Oracle has invested considerable resources advertising the ORACLE marks nationwide
8 and worldwide for more than three decades. As a result of this continuous and substantial effort and
9 expense, and due to the quality of its goods and services, Oracle enjoys a reputation as one of the best-
10 known and most innovative technology companies in the world.
11 23. As a result of the use and advertising described in the foregoing paragraphs, the
12 ORACLE marks possess secondary meaning in the minds of the consuming public nationwide and
13 worldwide as identifying Oracle’s goods and services and being associated with Oracle exclusively.
14 24. The ORACLE trademark became famous and distinctive well before Defendants began
15 using the copycat CryptoOracle brand and mark. It is well known and among Oracle’s most valuable
16 assets.
17 DEFENDANTS’ WRONGFUL ACTS
18 25. Long after the ORACLE trademark became famous, and after Oracle established
19 rights at common law and through registrations covering its ORACLE marks, Defendants adopted
20 the infringing CryptoOracle trademark as a business name and brand, and registered a set of domain
21 names containing the mark. On information and belief, Defendants intentionally incorporated the
22 ORACLE trademark in the CryptoOracle business name and brand in order to trade on Oracle’s repu-
23 tation as an innovator and leader within the technology industry, and to evoke among consumers the
24 goodwill that Oracle has built in its own famous brand.
25 26. Defendants’ use of the CryptoOracle name incorporates the ORACLE trademark in its
26 entirety, adding only the descriptive term “crypto.” The CryptoOracle name is therefore highly similar
27 in appearance, sound and commercial impression to Oracle’s ORACLE marks.
28 / / /
1 27. Defendants use the CryptoOracle name to advertise, market, offer and sell services that
2 are identical to or closely related to the goods and services that Oracle offers and has offered under its
3 ORACLE marks continuously for many years.
4 28. Defendants market their services to similar customer groups and through the same or
5 related channels of trade as those through which Oracle offers and sells its goods and services.
6 29. Defendants use a set of domain names that incorporate the infringing and diluting
7 CryptoOracle mark, each of which is also likely to cause or fuel confusion among consumers,
8 including <www.cryptooracle.io>; <www.cryptooracle.co>; <www.cryptooracle.fund>; and
9 <www.cryptooraclefund.com> (“the Domain Names”). Defendants registered and use the Domain
10 Names in bad faith, with the intent, on information and belief, to lead the public to the erroneous con-
11 clusion that the Domain Names and the corresponding websites offer services that originated with,
12 and/or are sponsored by, and/or authorized by Oracle.
13 30. In addition to confusing and misleading consumers and the public, Defendants’ use of
14 the CryptoOracle name and mark, if left unchecked, will inevitably dilute the distinctive quality of the
15 famous ORACLE trademark, impairing Oracle’s ability to use its mark to inform consumers that it is
16 the source of its goods and services, and otherwise injuring Oracle’s reputation and that of the
17 ORACLE trademark.
18 31. Promptly upon learning of Defendants’ conduct described in this Complaint, Oracle
19 notified Defendants, through cease and desist correspondence, that the CryptoOracle mark violates
20 Oracle’s intellectual property rights, and explained Oracle’s concerns about inevitable confusion and
21 dilution, and the impact on Oracle’s brand. Oracle requested that Defendants cease use of the
22 CryptoOracle name and any other names that reproduce the ORACLE mark. Defendants’ response –
23 including Mr. Kerner’s application to register CRYPTOORACLE despite actual notice of Oracle’s
24 registered and common law trademark rights – necessitated this action.
25 32. Defendants’ conduct constitutes an ongoing threat to Oracle and the public. Unless
26 Defendants are restrained and enjoined from engaging in this infringing and diluting conduct, Oracle
27 will suffer irreparable injury. It would be difficult to ascertain the amount of compensation that could
28 / / /
1 afford Oracle adequate relief for the acts of Defendants, present and threatened, and Oracle’s remedy
2 at law is not adequate in and of itself to compensate them for said harm and damage.
3 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
INFRINGEMENT OF REGISTERED TRADEMARK
4 (15 U.S.C. § 1114; Lanham Act § 32)
5 33. Oracle incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 32 above,
6 as though they were fully set forth in this Claim.
7 34. Defendants’ use of CryptoOracle and the Domain Names and any other terms, marks
8 and domain names that are confusingly similar to the ORACLE marks, constitute trademark infringe-
9 ment in violation of Section 32 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114.
10 35. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ conduct, Oracle is entitled to monetary
11 damages. 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). Oracle is also entitled to injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from
12 using any marks, tradenames, domain names or other identifiers that contain the ORACLE marks or
13 any other terms that are likely to be confused with the ORACLE marks under 15 U.S.C § 1116(a).
14 Without injunctive relief, Oracle has no means by which to prevent the continuing injury to its reputa-
15 tion and goodwill. Oracle has been and will continue to be irreparably harmed. No amount of money
16 damages can adequately compensate Oracle if it loses the ability to control the use of the ORACLE
17 marks, and its reputation and associated goodwill is damaged through the false and unauthorized use
18 of its marks.
19 36. Because Defendants’ actions have been willful, malicious and intentional, this is an
20 exceptional case and Oracle is entitled to recover Defendants’ profits together with Oracle’s damages,
21 trebled, costs of the action, and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to Section 35(a) of the Lanham
22 Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a).
23 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
UNFAIR COMPETITION UNDER FEDERAL LAW
24 (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); Lanham Act § 43(a))
25 37. Oracle incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 36, above,
26 as though they were fully set forth in this Claim.
27 38. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ CryptoOracle name and the Domain Names
28 were deliberately chosen to be confusingly similar to the ORACLE marks and, as such, their use in
1 commerce constitutes a willful and deliberate false designation of origin and false deception, as well
2 as unfair competition with Oracle and an attempt to palm off or permit others to palm off Defendants’
3 services as those of Oracle.
4 39. Defendants’ use of the CryptoOracle name and Domain Names is likely to cause con-
5 fusion, mistake, and deception to the public, and to lead consumers to the erroneous impression that
6 Defendants or their services originate with, or are endorsed or sponsored by, or affiliated with Oracle,
7 or that there is some association between Oracle and its goods and services and Defendants and their
8 services.
9 40. Defendants’ conduct constitutes trademark infringement and unfair competition in
10 violation of Section 43(a) of the Trademark Act (15 U.S.C. 1125(a)).
11 41. Defendants’ acts have caused, are causing, and—unless enjoined—will likely continue
12 to cause, irreparable harm and injury to Oracle’s business, reputation, and good will. Such acts are
13 and have been willful and malicious, carried out with full knowledge that such acts are in violation
14 of the law and will irreparably harm Oracle.
15 42. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ conduct, Oracle is entitled to monetary
16 damages. 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). Oracle is also entitled to injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from
17 using any marks, tradenames, domain names or other identifiers that contain the ORACLE marks or
18 any other terms that are likely to be confused with the ORACLE marks under 15 U.S.C § 1116(a).
19 Without injunctive relief, Oracle has no means by which to control the continuing injury to its reputa-
20 tion and goodwill and that of its ORACLE marks. Oracle has been and will continue to be irreparably
21 harmed. No amount of money damages can adequately compensate Oracle if it loses the ability to
22 control the use of the ORACLE mark, and its reputation and associated goodwill is damaged through
23 the false and unauthorized use of its marks.
24 43. Because Defendants’ actions have been willful, malicious and intentional, this is an
25 exceptional case and Oracle is entitled to recover Defendants’ profits together with Oracle’s damages,
26 trebled, costs of the action, and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to Section 35(a) of the Lanham
27 Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a).
28 / / /
5 45. Oracle’s ORACLE trademark is distinctive and famous within the meaning of the
6 Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c) and became famous before Defendants’
7 first use of CryptoOracle, which incorporates the ORACLE trademark in its entirety.
8 46. Defendants’ conduct is likely to cause dilution of the ORACLE trademark by diminish-
9 ing its distinctiveness and/or tarnishing its reputation in violation of the Trademark Dilution Revision
11 47. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ conduct, Oracle is entitled to monetary
12 damages. 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). Oracle is also entitled to injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from
13 using any marks, tradenames, domain names or other identifiers that contain the ORACLE trademark
14 or any other terms that are substantially similar to the ORACLE trademark under 15 U.S.C § 1116(a).
15 Without injunctive relief, Oracle has no means by which to control the continuing injury to its reputa-
16 tion and goodwill or of the continuing dilution of the ORACLE trademark. Oracle has been and will
17 continue to be irreparably harmed. No amount of money damages can adequately compensate Oracle
18 if it loses the ability to control the use of the ORACLE trademark, and its reputation and associated
19 goodwill is damaged through the false and unauthorized use of its mark.
20 48. Because Defendants’ actions have been willful, malicious and intentional, this is an
21 exceptional case and Oracle is entitled to recover Defendants’ profits together with Oracle’s damages,
22 trebled, costs of the action, and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to Section 35(a) of the Lanham
28 / / /
1 50. Oracle is the owner of the famous ORACLE trademark and the owner of incontestable
2 trademark registrations for the ORACLE marks.
3 51. The ORACLE marks are distinctive and have become associated indelibly with Oracle
4 as a result of Oracle’s extensive advertising, promotion, use, and sale of goods and services under the
5 ORACLE marks, and their widespread recognition by the public.
6 52. On information and belief, Defendants are the registered owner(s) and the user(s) of
7 the Domain Names which are substantially identical and confusingly similar to the ORACLE marks.
8 53. Defendants registered the Domain Names with a bad faith intent to profit from them,
9 in violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d).
10 54. Oracle is entitled to monetary damages, including statutory damages, and injunctive
11 relief prohibiting Defendants from using “Oracle” in any domain name. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1117(a) and (d).
12 Without preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, Oracle has no means by which to control the
13 continuing injury to its reputation and goodwill or of the continuing dilution of the ORACLE mark.
14 Oracle has been and will continue to be irreparably harmed. No amount of money damages can
15 adequately compensate Oracle if it loses the ability to control the use of the ORACLE mark, and its
16 reputation and associated goodwill is damaged through the false and unauthorized use of its mark.
17 Oracle is entitled to injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from using any domain names containing
18 “Oracle” or any other terms that are likely to be confused with or to dilute the ORACLE mark and
19 requiring Defendants to transfer the Domain Names to Oracle.
20 55. Because Defendants’ actions have been willful, malicious and intentional, this is an
21 exceptional case and Oracle is entitled to recover Defendants’ profits together with Oracle’s damages,
22 trebled, costs of the action, and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to Section 35(a) of the Lanham
23 Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a).
24 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AND UNFAIR COMPETITION
25 UNDER CALIFORNIA STATUTORY LAW
(Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 14200 and 17200 et seq.)
26
1 57. Oracle is the owner of numerous registrations for the ORACLE marks.
2 58. Oracle is the owner of common law rights for the ORACLE marks.
3 59. Defendants are using – and Mr. Kerner is seeking to register – the CryptoOracle name
4 and mark without the consent of Oracle in connection with the sale of services related to the goods and
5 services of Oracle.
6 60. Defendants’ use of and application to register the CryptoOracle name, which incor-
7 porates the ORACLE trademark in its entirety, is likely to cause confusion, mistake, and deception
8 as to the source of origin of those services.
9 61. Defendants are using the ORACLE marks to enhance the commercial value of their
10 services.
11 62. Defendants’ acts violate Oracle’s trademark rights under California Business &
12 Professions Code §§ 14200 et seq.
13 63. Defendants’ conduct as alleged in this Complaint also constitutes “unlawful, unfair or
14 fraudulent business act[s] or practice[s] and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising” within
15 the meaning of California Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.
16 64. Oracle is entitled to monetary damages and injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants
17 from using and seeking registration of any marks, tradenames, domain names or other identifiers that
18 contain the ORACLE marks or any other terms that are likely to be confused with the ORACLE mark.
19 Without injunctive relief, Oracle has no means by which to control the continuing injury to its reputa-
20 tion and goodwill or that of the ORACLE marks. Oracle has been and will continue to be irreparably
21 harmed. No amount of money damages can adequately compensate Oracle if it loses the ability to
22 control the use of the ORACLE marks, and its reputation and associated goodwill is damaged through
23 the false and unauthorized use of its mark.
24 65. Because Defendants’ actions are willful, malicious and intentional, Oracle is entitled to
25 recover lost profits together and trebled damages pursuant to California Business & Professions Code
26 § 14250.
27 / / /
28 / / /
5 67. Oracle owns valid and protectable rights in its registered ORACLE trademark, which
6 became famous long before Defendants adopted or used the CryptoOracle name and mark.
7 68. Defendants’ use of the CryptoOracle name and mark – which incorporates the famous
8 ORACLE trademark in its entirety – is likely to dilute the distinctive quality of Oracle’s ORACLE
9 trademark.
10 69. Defendants’ acts constitute trademark dilution under California Business & Professions
11 Code § 14247.
12 70. Oracle is entitled to monetary damages and injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants
13 from using any marks, tradenames, domain names or other identifiers that contain the ORACLE
14 trademark or any other terms that are likely to be confused with the ORACLE trademark. Without
15 injunctive relief, Oracle has no means by which to control the continuing injury to its reputation and
16 goodwill or of the continuing dilution of the ORACLE trademark. Oracle has been and will continue
17 to be irreparably harmed. No amount of money damages can adequately compensate Oracle if it loses
18 the ability to control the use of the ORACLE trademark, and its reputation and associated goodwill is
20 71. Because Defendants’ actions are willful, malicious and intentional, Oracle is entitled to
21 recover lost profits together and trebled damages pursuant to California Business & Professions Code
22 § 14250.
27 73. Oracle owns valid and protectable rights in its ORACLE marks at common law.
28 / / /
1 2. Adjudge that Defendants have competed unfairly with Oracle in violation of Oracle’s
2 rights under common law, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and/or California law;
3 3. Adjudge that Defendants’ activities are likely to dilute Oracle’s famous ORACLE
4 trademark in violation of Oracle’s rights under common law, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c), and/or California
5 law;
6 4. Adjudge that Defendants, their agents, employees, attorneys, successors, assigns,
7 affiliates, and joint venturers, and any person(s) in active concert or participation with them, and/or
8 any person(s) acting for, with, by, through, or under them, be enjoined and restrained at first during
9 the pendency of this action and thereafter permanently from:
10 a. Producing, sourcing, importing, selling, offering, distributing, advertising,
11 or promoting any goods or services in connection with the CryptoOracle mark, or in connection with
12 any other reproductions of Oracle’s ORACLE marks, or any trademarks that are substantially similar
13 to the Oracle marks;
14 b. Producing, sourcing, importing, selling, offering, distributing, advertising,
15 or promoting any goods in connection any words or symbols that so resemble Oracle’s ORACLE
16 marks as to be likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception, on or in connection with any good or
17 service that is not authorized by or for Oracle, including, without limitation, any good or service that
18 is offered under the CryptoOracle mark which is the subject of this Complaint and for which
19 Defendants are responsible, or any other approximation of the ORACLE marks;
20 c. Using any word, term, name, symbol, device, or combination thereof that
21 causes or is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception as to the affiliation or association of
22 Defendants or their products with Oracle, or as to the origin of Defendant’s goods or services, or any
23 false designation of origin, false or misleading description or representation of fact, or any false or
24 misleading advertising;
25 d. Further infringing the rights of Oracle in and to any of its trademarks in or
26 otherwise damaging Oracle’s goodwill or business reputation;
27 e. Further diluting the ORACLE trademark;
28 f. Otherwise competing unfairly with Oracle in any manner; and
1 under oath, setting forth in detail, the manner in which Defendants has complied with this Court’s
2 order;
3 11. Adjudge that Oracle recover from Defendants statutory damages for Defendants’
4 registration, trafficking, and/or use of Domain Names that reproduce Oracle’s federally registered
5 trademarks, and that Oracle recover its damages and lost profits from Defendants, as well as
6 Defendants’ profits, in an amount to be proven at trial, as well as punitive damages under California
7 law;
8 12. Adjudge that Defendants be required to account for any profits that are attributable to
9 their illegal acts, and that Oracle be awarded (1) Defendants’ profits and (2) all damages sustained
10 by Oracle, under 15 U.S.C. § 1117, plus prejudgment interest;
11 13. Adjudge that the amounts awarded to Oracle pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117 shall be
12 trebled;
13 14. Order an accounting of and impose a constructive trust on all of Defendants’ funds
14 and assets that arise out of Defendants’ infringing activities;
15 15. Adjudge that Oracle be awarded its costs and disbursements incurred in connection
16 with this action, including Oracle’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and investigative expenses; and
17 16. Adjudge that all such other relief be awarded to Oracle as this Court deems just and
18 proper.
19
20 Dated: August 15, 2019 Respectfully submitted,
21 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
22
27
28
1 JURY DEMAND
2 Plaintiffs hereby demand that this action be tried to a jury.
3
11
12
13 72245975V.1 | 1109316
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28