q: ?.27 p.28 MA Cg] - Make Him Smile, Inc. . ORDGINAL Kirk Edward Schenck, Esq. State Bar#: 173963 Kulik Gottesman Siegel Ware, LLP ?Imam 3MB ales 15303 Ventura Boulevard, 14th Floor Los Angeles, California 91403 112.01.? tel: 310-600 800 email: com sham E. Gum. an suave organism ARDQ ZS) 35' a3? . SQQER . JZQ H{;s SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNLA Attorneys for FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS AN GELES-CENTRAL DISTRICT MAKE HIM SMILE, INC., a California CorporationCOMPLAINT FOR: Plaintiff, 1. CALIFORNIA COMMON LAW vs. 2. 3. FALSE ENDORSEMENT IN TREK BICYCLE CORPORATION, a U.S.C. 1125(a); and Wisconsin Corporation, and DOES 1 through 4. 1000, inclusive, VIOLATION OF CAL. BUS. AND PROFESSIONS CODE ?17200. Defendants. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 3 '1 a It: Iff-Pq CI '22? IQID CICJ I3 I VIOLATION OF LANHAM ACT, 15 ?Ht-Id 31.50 5% ED (r?l La? Nd VIOLATION OF CIVIL CODE ?3344.1; UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES IN 33 SEE-H 33511 3 33 :aL?38 FFI Plaintiff Make Him Smile, Inc. (?Plaintiff?) alleges as follows: THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a California corporation operating in the County of Los Angeles in the City of Los Angeles, California. Plaintiff is the successor-in-interest to the property rights of Christopher Farley, who died in 1997. Plaintiff?s principle place of business is: 753 North Kings Road, Suite 204, West - Hollywood, California 90069. 2. Defendant Trek Bicycle Corporation (?Defendant Trek?) is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a Wisconsin corporation conducting business throughout the world, but specifically in the County of Los Angeles, California. Defendant Trek?s principal place of business is: 801 West Madison Street, Waterloo, Wisconsin 53594. 3. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, of the Defendants sued herein at DOES 1-1000. Plaintiff believes such Doe Defendants comprise hundreds of bicycle stores conducting business in the State of California that Defendant Trek has authorized to utilize, and that have and are currently utilizing, the name ?Farley" (and the Farley IP, as defined herein) in, and in connection with, the marketing and sale of bicycles and related merchandising. Plaintiff therefore sues these Doe Defendants by such fictitious names and will amend this Complaint when their true names and capacities are ascertained. Unless otherwise specified, the word ?Defendants? herein shall refer to Defendant Trek, and all other defendants named herein as DOES 1-1000. 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, each Defendant in this action, including those fictitiously named, was at all times relevant to the allegations herein jointly, severally and or vicariously liable for the acts of all other Defendants, and is and was at all times relevant hereto the agent, servant, employee, officer, supervisor, alteraego, co-conspirator, representative, partner, joint venturer, or surety of each and all of the other Defendants unless otherwise specified, and/0r acting with the consent and at the direction of each of the other Defendants and within the course . COMPLAINT OR DAMAGES AND UNCTIVE RELIEF 5227 E528 ML rf?r'i .r and scope of this agency, employment, supervision, alter-ego, co-conspirator, representative, partnership, joint venturer, or suretyship, and with the knowledge, consent, approval or ratification of, and at the direction of, each of the other Defendants in taking the acts or omissions alleged herein. Unless otherwise specified, the word ?Defendants? shall be used herein to refer to all Defendants named in this Cross- Complaint jointly and severally. 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes and further alleges each of the fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some manner for the acts or omissions alleged below. Plaintiff also alleges that its damages as described herein were proximately caused by the conduct of each of the Defendants. . JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court as the amount in controversy exceeds $25,000.00. As of the time of filing this Cross-Complaint, Plaintiff believes its damages for the alleged causes of action herein exceed $10 million. 7. Venue is proper in this Court because one or more of the causes of action arose, and Defendants are all conducting ongoing and continuous business, in Los Angeles County, California. Additionally, the alleged wrongdoing referred to in this Complaint includes acts and omissions of Defendants that occurred in Los Angeles County and otherwise in this Judicial District. COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 8. On information and belief, or personal knowledge, Plaintiff makes the following general allegations common to all causes of action. 9. Defendant Trek is based in Waterloo, Wisconsin and is the largest bicycle manufacturer in North America. It is also one of world?s five largest bicycle manufacturers. 10. Defendant Trek designs, builds, markets, sells, advertises, and promotes, and/0r authorizes third parties (including, without limitation, hundreds of bike shops and retailers throughout California and thousands of bike shops and retailers .3- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND UNCTIVE RELIEF OOHQUI-P-UJN . . throughout the world) to design, build, market, sell, advertise, promote, and otherwise commercially exploit various new, distinct and separately numbered models of what Defendant Trek describes in its adverting materials as ?Fat Bikes.? Defendant Trek?s ?Fat Bikes? have design and component attributes that make them more agile and adept at traversing unpaved terrains. Defendant Trek?s Fat Bikes have a wider than average chassis and extraordinarily ?fat? tires, giving them a unique, eye-catching and, relative to most multi-terrain mountain bikes, ?fat? appearance. On its Fat Bike products, Defendant Trek prominently features the name and brand ?Farley.? 11. Defendant Trek designs, builds, markets, sells, advertises, promotes, and otherwise commercially exploits into the stream of commerce throughout the world, and/ or authorizes third parties to so design, build, market, sell, advertise, promote, and otherwise commercially exploit, Farley-branded Fat Bikes as complete operational bicycles, stand alone Farley IP-branded "Frame Sets,? and other products including merchandising bearing the Farley-brand (each and collectively, the ?Farley Branded The Farley Branded Products including, without limitation, their packaging, shipping materials, labels, and marketing and advertising materials, each bear and prominently display the name and brand ?Farley.? 12. Plaintiff is the legal successor-in-interest, as such term in defined under California law, to the estate of, and the property rights formerly owned by, Chris Farley, who his friends and colleagues simply referred to as ?Farley? (?Farley?). 13. Plaintiff has duly registered its claim of rights as successor-in-interest to Farley?s property rights with the California Secretary of State pursuant to California Civil Code ?3344.1. Plaintiff is in the business of, and is currently, exploiting, or licensing to third parties, the right(s) to use and/ or otherwise exploit (the ?Farley IP Rights?), without limitation, Farley?s name, likeness, image, voice, persona, signature, and other intellectual property comprising Farley?s personal attributes (the ?Farley 14. Farley, who died in 1997 native of Madison, Wisconsin. He was a world-famous comedian and actor best known for his portrayal of ?fat? and .4- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND UNCTIVE RELIEF ?loud? characters on Saturday Night Live, and in various successful films such as Tommy Boy, Black Sheep, Beverly Hills Ninja and Almost Heros. At the time of his death, Farley was domiciled in the State of California, County of Los Angeles. Prior and subsequent to Farley?s death, the Farley IP Rights acquired tremendous commercial value due, in part, to Farley?s fame and his one-of-a-kind celebrity and personal persona. 15. Farley?s name, identity and persona, and all of the other Farley 1P, are recognized instantly by the general public throughout the world and have substantial commercial value due to Farley?s carefully crafting his identity as a comedian when he was alive, and the third parties? and Plaintiff?s posthumous authorized publication, marketing, and other exploitation of Farley IP. 16. For his entire adult life, Farley was overweight. When he died on December '18, 1997, he was five feet nine inches tall, and weighed approximately 400 pounds. Farley spent his entire career building, then capitalizing on, his unique brand of ?fat guy? humor and acting style. 17. During his life, Farley developed a very powerful brand recognized by millions around the world. This brand is embodied by the Farley IP in various forms. Farley?s brand of comedy and acting, and his significant and unique celebrity status, became associated with his appearance as a fat, loud and crazy character, both on and off-screen. The name ?Farley? is now, and has been for nearly three decades, linked and associated with his Farley?s persona and his identity as a fat comic actor willing to go into comic territories others would not seek to traverse. 18. Farley valued his name, likeness and image brand and the other Farley IP Rights and limited use of the Farley 1P Rights to either commercial endeavors of which he was an integral part. During his lifetime, Farley carefully guarded and policed his brand. and the Farley 1P Rights by, without limitation, seeking to stop any unauthorized uses of his name, likeness and image. 19. Farley, and his business managers, agents, friends and lawyers, were -5- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND RELIEF concerned that third parties may attempt to misappropriate his name and likeness for commercial purposes. Farley felt it was important to cultivate and grow his Farley brand and otherwise exploit the Farley IP Rights carefully and profitably. He often rejected overtures from companies or organizations seeking to associate his valuable Farley IP Rights with one or more goods or services, or other commercial brands, if he did not feel his potential financial upside warranted it. Farley developed and refined an unapologetic Midwestern ?fat-guy? persona. When advised by doctors to lose weight throughout the last years of his life, he had legitimate concerns that doing so could jeOpardize his ability to get roles and dilute his brand as a comedian. 20. Since Farley?s death, the word ?Farley? has become iconic and narrowly associated with Farley?s individual identity, comedic brand, and his loud, Midwestern, ?fat-guy" common man roots in Madison, Wisconsin. 21. Farley, during his life, and Plaintiff, since his death, have both taken precautions to only associate the Farley IP with high quality products, entertainment, services and or commercial and charitable endeavors. Each carefully selected any third party licensees so as to not diminish the value of the Farley IP Rights by an association with goods, services or entities Farley and or Plaintiff did not wish to support, or whose use would in any way diminish or dilute in value, taint, over-saturate, demean, mock, or paint in a negative light, either Farley or the Farley IP Rights. 22. Plaintiff has in fact licensed the Farley IP to third parties and generated commercial profits from such activities. Neither Farley during his lifetime, nor Plaintiff since Farley?s death, has authorized, licensed or otherwise exploited the Farley IP Rights for commercial or charitable purposes without first carefully selecting the goods or services, and negotiating significant compensation to be paid in consideration of such use. Farley and Plaintiff always intended to take act or omissions designed to increase the value of the Farley IP Rights. 23. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendant Trek?s CEO and majority shareholder, John Burke currently lives in the .6- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND UNCTIVE RELIEF ?3 <3 39:71.91 Madison, Wisconsin-adjacent Village of Maple Bluff Farley was born and raised in the Village of Maple. Bluff 24. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that the Farley family and the Burke family have known, and socialized, with one another over many decades, and both families simultaneously belonged to the same Maple Blujjf Country Club. 25. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Burke and multiple senior executives at Defendant Trek sought a clever, memorable and loud advertising and branding ?hook? to help launch and promote sales of each of its various Fat Bike products, and they chose the brand name ?Farley? to welcome and encourage potential customers and the bike industry generally to immediately associate Defendant Trek?s Fat Bikes with one of their favorite famous ?fat? and ?loud? comedians. Defendant Trek?s executives and owners knew what they were doing when they elected to use the name Farley (and the related Farley IP) to launch, and propel ongoing marketing for, their Farley Branded Products. Bicycle consumer and the industry as a whole immediately associated its Madison, Wisconsin built, fat, loud, sturdy. rugged, and outlandish Midwestern Fat Bikes, with Farley?s world-famous image as fat, loud, sturdy, rugged Midwesterner who is arguably the most famous person to have been born in Madison, Wisconsin. 'And the price was right. Defendant Trek paid nothing for the significant good will, and advertising and marketing advantage, it obtained by associating their Fat Bike products with Farley. Defendant Trek never sought to contact Plaintiff regarding its use of the Farley IP. At no point in time did Farley, Plaintiff, or any other person or entity associated with them, expressly or impliedly authorize, consent to, or otherwise approve of Defendants? use or exploitation of the Farley IP in, and/ or in connection with, any good or service including, without limitation, the Farley-Branded Products. 26. It turns out that the Defendant Trek executives and Burke were right to chose the name Farley to launch and market their Fat Bike products. Customers around the . COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 21:27 :28 1-2-2: m1, world (as well as bicycle industry professionals, enthusiasts and journalists) immediately picked up on Defendant Trek?s (not so subtle) reference to, and association with, Farley. Sales for Defendant Trek?s Farley Branded Products were strong from day one. To this day, the Farley Branded Products comprise the most recognized and profitable brand of "Fat Bikes? for sale anywhere in the world. 27. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendant Trek has based its marketing plan for the Farley Branded IP on creating an association with Farley by utilizing Plaintiff?s Farley IP Rights in packaging, labeling, shipping, advertising and promotional materials, in websites (including at the ?Website?)), on associated trade dress, and on the Fat Bike products themselves all of which prominently bear the label ?Farley.? Defendant Trek has simultaneously authorized and enabled other Defendants, including third party vendors such as local and chain retail ?bike stores,? to do the same. Defendant Trek has taken each of the acts alleged herein with the specific intent to promote, market and advertise, and to generate income from the sales of, the various Farley Branded Products. 28. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that all Defendants intentionally and knowingly elected to, and do, use the Farley IP on, and in connection with, the advertising, marketing and promotion of, the Farley Branded Products specifically to create a fraudulent and misleading association between Farley and the Farley IP, on the one hand, and the Farley Branded Products and Defendants, 0n the other hand. Defendants did in fact create instant name recognition when they associated the Farley Branded Products with Farley. Defendants succeeded in their goal of increasing sales, and reaping a greater profit from the Farley Branded Products than they would have otherwise realized had they not employed the Farley IP to launch and facilitate ongoing advertising, marketing, promotion and sales. 29. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that all Defendants intentionally and knowingly elected to, and do currently, use the Farley IP on, and in connection with the advertising and marketing of, the Farley Branded .3- COMPLAWT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF :37 :28 ?.253. he. ??91 Products specifically because they know Farley was well known to the specific and targeted generation of consumers that tend to purchase Fat Bikes, and that by creating an association between the ?loud,??fat," ?Midwestern? Farley and the Farley Branded ?Fat Bike? Products, they would be able to attract the attention of such consumers who immediately recognized the Farley name and its association with ?fat,? ?loud? ?wide? and ?Midwestern? goods and services. 30. Defendants have, without any right, title or authorization, misappropriated and/ or violated Plaintiff?s exclusive ownership interest in the Farley IP and Farley IP Rights. Defendants have unlawfully used the Farley IP Rights to market, sell, advertise, promote the Farley Branded Products to consumers who Defendants knew would, or be highly likely to, associate the name "Farley" and Farley IP with the Farley Branded Products. Defendants knew and calculated this association would draw attention to, encourage interest and curiosity in, and ultimately procure sales of, the Farley Branded Products. 31. At no point did Farley, Plaintiff, or any other person or entity associated with them, ever receive any compensation or other consideration from any Defendant (or any other party) as a result of Defendants' use of the Farley IP in, and in connection with, the Farley Branded Products. 32. Defendants have marketed and sold various different, separate, and distinct Farley Branded Products, each with separate and distinct branding, packing, names, specifications, and technical capabilities to different consumers with different uses for the new and distinct product lines comprising the Farley Branded Products. In doing so, Defendants have used new and well delineated numerical references to categories and bifurcate separate Farley Branded Products. Each Farley Branded Product was marketed and sold as a separate and distinct product into the stream of commerce when launched and in all going forward advertising. For instance, since October of 2015, Defendant Trek has launched and commenced marketing (with the aid and assistance of the other Defendants) various different bicycles and other goods including, without .9- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND UNCTIVE RELIEF 2:7 7.33316 be?. $52 ?91* limitation, the Farley 5, Farley 7, the Farley 9, the Farley EX 8, the Farley EX 9.8, the Farley 9.6, the Farley 9.8, the Farley 9.9, the Farley 24, the Farley Carbon Frameset, and the Farley Alloy Frameset. Defendants are employing the Farley IP to sell various separate products having specific and unique characteristics, and are promoting and marketing each individual Farley Branded Product as a new product. 33. Defendant Trek knowingly and intentionally authorized, consented to, and encouraged third parties, including the other Defendants, to sell, market, distribute, advertise and promote the various Farley Branded Products each separately utilizing the Farley IP. Additionally, bicycle trade articles and reviews of the various Farley Branded Products have appeared in popular bike and outdoor magazines, internet sites, and other media. Defendant Trek?s top level executives, including Burke and those from its public relations department, have spoken and cooperated with the writers of these articles and reviews, which routinely include statements that the Farley Branded Products were, in fact, inspired by, and named after, Farley. No one at Defendant Trek, including Burke, has ever sought to correct the record or a retraction of these statements. 34. Defendant Trek knowingly and intentionally (albeit falsely) indicated to third parties, including the other Defendants, that Defendant Trek did, in fact, have the legal right to utilize and exploit the Farley IP in, and in connection with, the Farley Branded Products? design, manufacture, marketing, sales, advertising, promotion, and other commercial exploitation and distribution into the stream of commerce. 35. In or about 2016, Plaintiff notified Burke, and Defendant Trek?s General Counsel, of the Defendant Treks? unauthorized use of the Farley IP. At that time, Burke and Defendant Trek?s General Counsel both acknowledged in writing Defendant Trek?s intentional use of the Farley 1P, but indicated they would not stop such use despite Plaintiff?s having made it clear in writing that such use was a violation of Plaintiff?s exclusive rights in, and to, the Farley IP. In 2013, Defendant Trek recalled about 2,600 Trek Farley bicycles and framesets because the fork would separate from the steer tube, -10- COMPLAINT OR DAMAGES AND UNCTIVE RELIEF a; g: :8 l: j? i? posing a fall hazard to the rider (the ?Farley Recall?). Consumers were warned to immediately stop using the recalled bicycles and framesets and return the bicycles to a Trek retailer for a inspection and repair. This Farley Recall has damaged, and will continue to damage, Plaintiff by devaluing and tarnishing the Farley IP. 36. As of the date of this Complaint, Defendants are knowingly and intentionally continuing to design, build, market, sell, advertise, promote, and otherwise commercially exploit the Farley IP Rights around the world in connection with various separate Farley Branded Products in the manners alleged herein even though they have been made aware such use violates Plaintiff?s exclusive, worldwide rights to exploit the Farley IP Rights. 37. Plaintiff therefore seeks monetary damages, statutory damages, attorneys fees, punitive damages, and an injunction and other equitable relief to permanently enjoin each Defendant from any and all future uses of the Farley IP. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Common Law Misappropriation Against all Defendants) 38. Plaintiff realleges, repleads, and incorporates as though fully set forth herein, each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 37 of this Complaint. 39. Farley and Plaintiff invested significant time, money, resources and good will in the creation, management and popularization of the Farley IP. 40. Plaintiff is the successor-in-interest to Farley?s property rights including, without limitation, the Farley IP Rights. Plaintiff is the current owner of the Farley IP Rights. Defendants knowingly used the Farley IP including, without limitation, Farley?s name and identity, and exploited the Farley IP Rights for commercial purposes in and in connection with the sales of Farley Branded Products. Defendants did so without compensating Plaintiff, and without Plaintiff?s consent or agreement. 41. The name ?Farley? and the other elements of the Farley IP are readily identifiable in the name of, and packaging and advertising materials for, each -11- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND RELIEF 00?4mewa individual Farley Branded Product. Any person can reasonably determine the Farley name on the bicycles depicts, refers to, or otherwise identifies Farley and the Farley IP, and creates an association between Farley and Defendants, and the Farley Branded Products. 42. This misappropriation was for Defendants? commercial advantage in that Defendants sold, and continue to sell, each Farley Branded Product featuring and/ or referencing the Farley name and other elements of the Farley IP for the specific purpose of generating a monetary profit. 43. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants? misappropriation of the Farley IP, Defendants have illicitly generated gross revenues and profits in an amount to be established a trial, but which is believed to exceed $10,000,000. 44. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants' misappropriation of the Farley IF, the value of the Farley IP has been diluted and irreparably damaged, and Plaintiff has incurred damages in an amount to be established at trial but which is believed to exceed $10,000,000. 45. At the time Defendants made commercial use of the Farley IP to sell the Farley Branded Products, Defendants knew the Farley IP referred to, and otherwise depicted, Farley, and knew neither Farley nor Plaintiff authorized or consented to this use at any time, in any manner. 46. Despite that knowledge, Defendants knowingly and intentionally misappropriated the Farley IP for their own financial gain in Conscious disregard of Plaintiff?s rights, and of the damages Plaintiff would suffer as a result of such misappropriation. 47. The acts of Defendants were committed intentionally, maliciously, oppressively, and in bad faith, such that Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages pursuant to California Civil Code ?3294. 48. Plaintiff is further entitled to injunctive relief as a result of Defendants? intentional acts as alleged herein. If Defendants are not restrained from continuing to -12- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND RELIEF $1127 :28 E3 "-31 make unauthorized uses of the Farley IP in connection with the various Farley Branded Products, Plaintiff will continue to suffer damages. Defendants' actions have caused, and will cause, Plaintiff irreparable injury for which monetary damages will not fully compensate Plaintiff. Plaintiff therefore seeks immediate injunctive relief including, without limitation, an order, or orders, requiring Defendants to forthwith cease and desist from any use of the Farley IP, including the name ?Farley,? in connection with any sale, marketing, promotion, distribution, or advertising, of any good or service including, without limitation, in connection with any edition(s), version(s) or model(s) of any Farley Branded Product, an order, or orders, requiring Defendants to forthwith cease and desist from any commercial use or other exploitation of the Farley IP, including the name ?Farley,? in connection with any sale, marketing, promotion, distribution, or advertising, of any good or service including, without limitation, in connection with any edition(s), version(s) or model(s) of any Farley Branded Product, an order, or orders, requiring Defendants forthwith cease and desist referencing any association with Farley, the Farley IP, or Plaintiff, an order, or orders, disgorging from each Defendant all forms of profits or consideration derived by each Defendant as a result of each and all of their misappropriation of the Farley IP, an order, or orders, requiring Defendants forthwith deliver, and otherwise turn over possession, to Plaintiff all offending Farley Branded Products and any other item, or packaging or marketing material, that features the name ?Farley,? that otherwise references any element of the Farley IP, or that states or implies an association with Plaintiff or Farley, and any other order(s) the Court in its discretion deems just. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation of Civil Code ?3344.1 Against all Defendants) 49. Plaintiff realleges, repleads and incorporates as though fully set forth herein each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 37 of this Complaint. 50. Plaintiff is the successor-in-interest to Farley?s property rights including, -13- COMPLAINT OR DAMAGES AND UNCTIVE RELIEF bu.) L22. without limitation, the Farley IP Rights. Plaintiff is the current owner of the Farley IP Rights. As described herein, Defendants have-knowingly and intentionally used the I Farley IP, without Plaintiff or Farley?s consent or authorization, and without compensating either Farley or Plaintiff, in and in connection with the sale, marketing, promotion, distribution, or advertising, of various goods or services including, without limitation, in connection with each of the Farley Branded Products in violation of California Civil Code ?3344.1. 51. The Farley IP, including without limitation, Farley?s name, is readily identifiable on labeling and packaging materials for, and in connection with Defendants? sale and marketing of, the Farley Branded Products. A person can reasonably determine the name of the Farley Branded Products is derived from, or intentionally draws an association with, Farley and the Farley IP. 52. This misappropriation was for Defendants? commercial or other advantage in that Defendants sold each and all of the Farley Branded Products featuring and or referencing the Farley IP for the specific purpose of generating a monetary profit from product sales, and to enhance the value of each Defendant. As alleged herein, there was and continues to be a direct connection between Defendants' alleged use of the Farley IP and the commercial purpose selling and generating profits from the Farley Branded Products. 53. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants? misappropriation of the Farley IP, Defendants illicitly generated gross revenues and profits, or enhanced the value of their own companies, in an amount to be established a trial but which is believed to exceed $10,000,000. 54. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants' misappropriation of the Farley IP, Plaintiff has incurred actual damages in an amount to be established at trial but which is believed to exceed $10,000,000, and is entitled to statutory damages. 55. At the time Defendants made unauthorized commercial use of the Farley IP to sell the Farley Branded Products, Defendants knew the Farley IP referred to and -14- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND RELIEF 4:9: otherwise depicted Farley, and knew neither Farley nor Plaintiff authorized or consented to this use at any time, in any manner. Despite that knowledge, Defendants knowingly and intentionally misappropriated the Farley IP for their own financial gain in conscious disregard of Plaintiff?s rights and of the damages Plaintiff would suffer as a result of such misappropriation. The acts of Defendants were committed intentionally, maliciously, oppressively, and in bad faith, such that Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages pursuant to California Civil Code ?3294. 56. Plaintiff is further entitled to injunctive relief as a result of Defendants? intentional acts as alleged herein. If Defendants are not restrained from continuing to make unauthorized uses of the Farley IP in connection with the various Farley Branded Products, Plaintiff will continue to suffer damages. Defendants' actions have caused, and will cause, Plaintiff irreparable injury for which monetary damages will not fully compensate Plaintiff. Plaintiff therefore seeks immediate injunctive relief including, without limitation, an order, or orders, requiring Defendants to forthwith cease and desist from any use of the Farley IP, including the name ?Farley,? in connection with any sale, marketing, promotion, distribution, or advertising, of any good or service including, without limitation, in connection with any edition(s), version(s) or model(s) of any Farley Branded Product, an order, or orders, requiring Defendants to forthwith cease and desist from any commercial use or other exploitation of the Farley IP, including the name ?Farley,? in connection with any sale, marketing, promotion, distribution, or advertising, of any good or service including, without limitation, in connection with any edition(s), version(s) or model(s) of any Farley Branded Product, an order, or orders, requiring Defendants forthwith cease and desist referencing any association with Farley, the Farley IP, or Plaintiff, an order, or orders, disgorging from each Defendant all forms of profits or consideration derived by each Defendant as a result of each and all of their misappropriation of the Farley IP, an order, or orders, requiring Defendants forthwith deliver, and otherwise turn over possession, to Plaintiff all offending Farley Branded Products and any other item, or packaging or marketing -15- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND RELIEF material, that features the name ?Farley," that otherwise references any element of the Farley IP, or that states or implies an association with Plaintiff or Farley, and any other order(s) the Court in its discretion deems just. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (False Endorsement in Violation of Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a) Against all Defendants) 57. Plaintiff realleges, repleads and incorporates as though fully set forth herein each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 37 of this Complaint. 58. Farley was an internationally recognized celebrity, comedian, actor and spokeSperson during his lifetime. Each element of the Farley IP including, without limitation, the name ?Farley? is, and has been, well-recognized, distinctive and unique and singularly associated with Farley. The "Farley? name is recognized throughout worldwide trading areas and channels of trade as a famous and distinctive mark which identifies the source of the entertainment and related services of Farley. The name ?Farley? and the other Farley 11? are famous and distinctive within the meaning of U.S. trademark law, including 15 U.S.C. ??1125 and 1127. 59. Defendants, in connection with selling their products, disseminated false and misleading descriptions and representations of fact regarding Farley?s and Plaintiff?s association with, and endorsement of, the Farley Branded Products and related commercial activities. Without limitation, Defendants have affixed labels featuring the name ?Farley? on the Farley Branded Products and all related packaging. Defendants? use of the Farley IP and the false and misleading statements related thereto are material to both Defendant?s illicit profits, and Plaintiff's damages, from the marketing and sale of the Farley Branded Products. 60. The use of the Farley IP in connection with the sale of Defendants' products has caused, and is likely to cause, confusion, cause mistake, or deceive consumers as to Plaintiff's association with, and endorsement of, Defendants? products, commercial COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF $327 so. WES ?31. endeavors and other business activities including, Without limitation, the Farley Branded Products. Defendants? use, and continuing use today, in interstate commerce of the name and name and mark "Farley? in connection with the marketing and sale of the various Farley Branded Products constitutes a violation of 15 U.S.C. ?1125(a) in that it creates a false designation of origin as to the goods and services advertised, distributed, offered and provided by Defendants, which is likely to confuse, mislead, or deceive the consuming public and trade by creating the false impression that Defendants? products were approved, sponsored, endorsed, guaranteed by and/ or are in some way affiliated with, Farley and or Plaintiff. 61. Defendants? use. in interstate commerce on labels and packaging, and in Website content, national advertising, nationally distributed magazines and press releases of the name and mark ?Farley? in connection with the commercial exploitation of the Farley Branded Products also constitutes a false or misleading description or representation in interstate commerce, in violation of 15 U.S.C. ?1125(a) in that it creates a false association between Farley and Plaintiff, on the one hand, and the Farley Branded Products, on the other hand. 62. Plaintiff has been damaged by the confusion, mistake, and deception created as a result of Defendants?, and each of their, commercial use of the Farley IP. Additionally, the Farley IP has been tarnished and devalued by virtue of its false association with, and the negative publicity related to, the Farley Branded Products associated with the 2013 Farley Recall. 63. At the time Defendants made unauthorized commercial use of Plaintiff?s Farley IP to promote, market, advertise and otherwise commercially exploit the Farley Branded Products, Defendants knew the Farley IP belonged exclusively to Plaintiff, Plaintiff had not authorized or consented to Defendants? use, and neither Farley or Plaintiff had endorsed the Farley Branded Products or any Defendant. 64. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that since Defendants have committed the acts alleged above with knowledge of Plaintiff?s prior -17- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 9-27 .4278 by?. right to and use of the subject marks, and with the willful intent to trade on Farley?s goodwill and reputation, this case is exceptional under 15 U.S.C. ?1117(a), entitling Plaintiff to treble damages, and also the recovery of its attorneys? fees and costs of filing this lawsuit. Additionally, as a proximate result of Defendants' widespread, unauthorized, commercial use of Plaintiff?s Farley IP, Plaintiff is entitled to recover: Defendants' profits from selling the Farley Branded Products; and any additional amounts the COurt determines in its discretion is just. 65. Additionally, as a direct and proximate result Defendants? acts and omissions as alleged herein, Plaintiff is entitled pursuant to 15 U.S.C. ?1117(a) to the recovery of: Defendants? profits related to Defendants? sale of Farley Branded Products and unauthorized use of the Farley any damages sustained by Plaintiff (or its predecessors in interest) as a result of Defendants' conduct, including but not limited to the fair market value of Plaintiff?s intellectual property misappropriated by Defendants, the precise amount of which shall be established by Plaintiff at trial; and Plaintiff?s costs of suit. 66. Plaintiff is further entitled to injunctive relief as a result of Defendants? intentional acts as alleged herein. If Defendants are not restrained from continuing to make unauthorized uses of the Farley IP in connection with the various Farley Branded Products, Plaintiff will continue to suffer damages. Defendants' actions have caused, and will cause, Plaintiff irreparable injury for which monetary damages will not fully compensate Plaintiff. Plaintiff therefore seeks immediate injunctive relief including, without limitation, an order, or orders, requiring Defendants to forthwith cease and desist from any use of the Farley IP, including the name ?Farley,? in connection with any sale, marketing, promotion, distribution, or advertising, of any good or service including, without limitation, in connection with any edition(s), version(s) or model(s) of any Farley Branded Product, an order, or orders, requiring Defendants to forthwith cease and desist from any commercial use or other exploitation of the Farley IP, including the name ?Farley,? in connection with any sale, marketing, promotion, -18- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ?$527 an W2 8 m4. 4351' ?at distribution, or advertising, of any good or service including, without limitation, in connection with any edition(s), version(s) or model(s) of any Farley Branded Product, an order, or orders, requiring Defendants forthwith cease and desist referencing any association with Farley, the Farley IP, or Plaintiff, an order, or orders, disgorging from each Defendant all forms of profits or consideration derived by each Defendant as a result of each and all of their misappropriation of the Farley IP, an order, or orders, requiring Defendants forthwith deliver, and otherwise turn over possession, to Plaintiff all offending Farley Branded Products and any other item, or packaging or marketing material, that features the name ?Farley,? that otherwise references any element of the Farley IP, or that states or implies an association with Plaintiff or Farley, and any other order(s) the Court in its discretion deems just. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Unlawful Business Practices in Violation of California Business and Professions Code ?17200 Against all Defendants) 67. Plaintiff realleges, repleads and incorporates as though fully set forth herein each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 37 of this Complaint. 68. As alleged herein, Plaintiff is in the business of commercially exploiting, and in fact does commercially currently exploit, the Farley IP. Defendants consciously, deliberately, fraudulently and in bad faith misappropriated Plaintiff?s Farley IP and disseminated, and consented to third parties? dissemination of, false and misleading descriptions and representations of fact regarding Plaintiff?s association with, and endorsement of, both Defendants and the Farley Branded Products. As alleged above, these acts constitute wrongful conduct and unlawful business practices, including? conduct that violates California Civil Code ?3344.1. 69. Plaintiff has suffered a loss or deprivation of money or property, and direct economic injury in fact, in that it has lost license fees and/ or profits and licensing opportunities as a result of, and caused by, Defendant?s unfair competition acts or -19- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND UNCTIVE RELIEF 00?4th 1:317 $10. ,28 m! as: "ml omissions as alleged herein. 70. Defendants' wrongful conduct, unless enjoined by court order, will cause continued and ongoing harm to Plaintiff as Defendants will continue to engage in these unfair business practices, and engage in conduct otherwise prohibited by California Business and Professions ?12700 et seq. 71. Plaintiff is entitled to Plaintiff?s attorneys? fees pursuant to California Code of ?1021.5, and injunctive relief as a result of Defendants? intentional acts as alleged herein. If Defendants are not restrained from continuing to make unauthorized uses of the Farley IP in connection with the various Farley Branded Products, Plaintiff will continue to suffer damages. Defendants' actions have caused, and will cause, Plaintiff irreparable injury for which monetary damages will not fully compensate Plaintiff. Plaintiff therefore seeks immediate injunctive relief including, without limitation, an order, or orders, requiring Defendants to forthwith cease and desist from any use of the Farley 1P, including the name "Farley,? in connection with any sale, marketing, promotion, distribution, or advertising, of any good or service including, without limitation, in connection With any edition(s), version(s) or model(s) of any Farley Branded Product, an order, or orders, requiring Defendants to forthwith cease and desist from any commercial use or other exploitation of the Farley IP, including the name "Farley,? in connection with any sale, marketing, promotion, distribution, or advertising, of any good or service including, Without limitation, in connection with any edition(s), version(s) or model(s) of any Farley Branded Product, an order, or orders, requiring Defendants forthwith cease and desist referencing any association with Farley, the Farley IP, or Plaintiff, an order, or orders, disgorging from each Defendant all forms of profits or consideration derived by each Defendant as a result of each and all of their misappropriation of the Farley 1P, an order, or orders, requiring Defendants forthwith deliver, and otherwiseturn over possession, to Plaintiff all offending Farley Branded Products and any other. item, or packaging or marketing material, that features the name ?Farley,? that otherwise references any element of the Farley IP, or that states -20- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND UNCTIVE RELIEF ?ak/1428: h?l 5?5" "ml or implies an association with Plaintiff or Farley, and any other order(s) the Court in its discretion deems just. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, jointly and severally, as follows: 1. For damages in such amount as may be found, or as otherwise permitted by law, which are believed as of the date of this Complaint to exceed $10 million; 2. For injunctive and other appropriate equitable relief; 3. For prejudgment interest according to law; 4. For Plaintiff?s attorney?s fees, costs, and disbursements in this action; 5. For punitive and exemplary damages; 6. For statutory damages; and 7. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Dated: September 8, 2017 KULIK GOTTESMAN SIEGEL WARE, LLP BY: Kdeard Schenck Attorneys for Plaintiff, Make Him Smile, Inc. -21- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND RELIEF BY FAX - I CM-010 ATTORNEY 5R PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name. State Bar number. and address): ONLY Kirk Edward Esq. State Bar #1 173963 Kurlik Coucsman Sicgcl Ware, LLP, 15303 Ventura Boulevard, Mill Floor Los California 91403 . a) ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Make Him Smile, 111C. County OtLonAngoI es SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Los Angeles Lentrat Ulsma STREET ADDRESS: . - . 1 th H11 MAILING ADDRESS2911 Los Angeles, CA 90012 CITY AND ZIP CODE: BRANCH NAME, Stanley Mosk Courthouse Sherri a. climax aim calm/Clerk . 13 9% i, ?rm: CASE Make Him Smile, Inc. v. Trek Bicycle Corporation, Inc. . c?imn ?aputy CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation CASE ?Unlimited Limited El l:l (Amount (Amount Counter Jomder demanded demanded is Filed with ?rst appearance by defendant exceeds $25,000) $25,000 or less) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) DEPT: Items 1-?6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2). 1. Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case: Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation Auto (22) Breach of contract/warranty (05) (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3400?1403) Uninsured motorist (46) Rule 3.740 collections (09) CI Antitrust/Trade regulation (03) Other PIIPDIWD (Personal Other collections (09) El Construction defect (10) Damage/Wrongful Death) Tort Asbestos (04) Product liability (24) Medical malpractice (45) Insurance coverage (18) Mass tort (40) Other contract (37) Securities litigation (28) aProperty Environmentalffoxic tort (30) l:l Eminent domainl Inverse Insurance coverage claims arising from the DE DE DEUCE l:l Other (23) condemnation (14) above listed provisionally complex case (Other) Tort Wrongful eviction (33) types Business torti'unfair business practice (07) Other real property (26) Enforcement of Judgment I: Civil rights (03) Unlawful Detainer Enforcement ofjudgment (20) El Defamation (13) I: Commercral (31) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint Fraud (16) El Residential (32) El RICO (27) I: Intellectual property (19) El Drugs (38) El Other complaint (not Speci?ed above) (42) I: Professional negligence (25) Judicial Review Miscellaneous Civil Petition El Other tort (35) I: Asset forfeiture (05) Partnership and corporate governance (21) Employment Petition re: arbitration award (11) El Other petition (not specified above) (43) Wrongful termination (36) El Writ of mandate (02) CI Other employment (15) El Other judicial review (39) 2. This case Cl is is not complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark the factors requiring exceptional judicial management: a. CI Large number of separately represented parties d. Large number Of witnesses b. Extensive motion practice raising dif?cult or novel e. I: Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts issues that will be time-consuming to resolve in other counties, states. or countries, or in a federal court c. l:l Substantial amount of dowmentary evidence f. Substantial postjudgmentjudicial supervision Remedies sought (check all that apply): al2 monetary nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief C. punitive Number of causes Of action (specify): This case I: is - -is not a class action suit. If there are any known related cases, ?le and serve a notice of related case Date SeptemberS, 2017 5.) (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY FOR PARTY) NOTICE . Plaintiff must ?le this cover sheet with the ?rst paperl ?led in the action or proceeding (ex ept small claims cases or cases ?led quer the Probate Code, Family Code or Welfare and Institutions Code) (Cal Rules Of Court, rule 3 220 Failure to ?le may result inrsanctions. File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule. 0 If?this case is complex under rule 3 400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy Of this cover sheet on all other parties to the action or proceeding. 0 Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes onl?ya?.3 :n 1of2 Form Adopted for Mandatory Use CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Cal. Rules of Court, rules 2.30, 3.220, 3400?3403, 3.740; Judicial Council of California Cal. Standards of Judicial Administration, std. 3.10 CM 0 "?biRev. July1, 2007] CM-010 INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET To Plaintiffs and Others Filing First Papers. If you are ?ling a ?rst paper (for example, a complaint) in a civil case, you must complete and ?le, along with your ?rst paper, the Civil Case Cover Sheet contained on page 1. This information will be used to compile statistics about the types and numbers of cases ?led. You must complete items 1 through 6 on the sheet. In item 1, you must check one box for the case type that best describes the case. If the case ?ts both a general and a more speci?c type of case listed in item 1, check the more speci?c one. If the case has multiple causes of action, check the box that best indicates the primary cause of action. To assist you in completing the sheet, examples of the cases that belong under each case type in item 1 are provided below. A cover sheet must be ?led only with your initial paper. Failure to ?le a cover sheet with the ?rst paper ?led in a civil case may subject a party, its counsel, or both to sanctions under rules 2.30 and 3.220 of the California Rules of Court. To Parties in Rule 3.740 Collections Cases. A "collections case" under rule 3.740 is de?ned as an action for recovery of money owed in a sum stated to be certain that is not more than $25,000, exclusive of interest and attorney's fees, arising from a transaction in which property. services, or money was acquired on credit. A collections case does not include an action seeking the following: (1) tort damages, (2) punitive damages, (3) recovery of real property, (4) recovery of personal property, or (5) a prejudgment writ of attachment. The identi?cation of a case as a rule 3.740 collections case on this form means that it will be exempt from the general time-for-service requirements and case management rules. unless a defendant files a responsive pleading. A rule 3.740 collections case will be subject to the requirements for service and obtaining a judgment in rule 3.740. To Parties in Complex Cases. In complex cases only, parties must also use the Civil Case Cover Sheet to designate whether the case is complex. If a plaintiff believes the case is complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court, this must be indicated by completing the appropriate boxes in items 1 and 2. If a plaintiff designates a case as complex, the cover sheet must be served with the complaint on all parties to the action. A defendant may file and serve no later than the time of its ?rst appearance a joinder in the plaintiff?s designation, a counter-designation that the case is not complex, or, if the plaintiff has made no designation, a designation that the case is complex. Auto Tort Auto (22)?Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death Uninsured Motorist (46) (if the case involves an uninsured motorist claim subject to arbitration, check this item instead of Auto) Other (Personal injury! Property Damage/Wrongful Death) Tort Asbestos (04) Asbestos Property Damage Asbestos Personal Injury/ Wrongful Death Product Liability (not asbestos or toxic/environmental) (24) Medical Malpractice (45) Medical Malpractice? Physicians 8. Surgeons Other Professional Health Care Malpractice Other (23) Premises Liability slip and fall) Intentional Bodily assault, vandalism) Intentional In?iction of Emotional Distress Negligent In?iction of Emotional Distress Other (Other) Tort Business TortlUnfair Business Practice (07) Civil Rights discrimination, false arrest) (not civil harassment) (08) Defamation slander, libel) (13) Fraud (16) Intellectual Property (19) Professional Negligence (25) Legal Malpractice Other Professional Malpractice (not medical or legal) Ottier Tort (35) Employment W?angful Termination (35) Other Employment (15) h-i CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES Contract Breach of Contract/Warranty (06) Breach of Rental/Lease Contract (not unlawful detainer or wrongful eviction) Contract/Warranty Breach-Seller Plaintiff (not fraud or negligence) Negligent Breach of Contract! Warranty Other Breach of Contractharranty Collections money owed, open book accounts) (09) Collection Case?Seller Plaintiff Other Promissory Note/Collections Case Insurance Coverage (not provisionally complex) (18) Auto Subrogation Other Coverage Other Contract (37) Contractual Fraud Other Contract Dispute Real Property Eminent Domain/Inverse Condemnation (14) Wrongful Eviction (33) Other Real Property quiet title) (26) Writ of Possession of Real Property Mortgage Foreclosure Quiet Title Other Real Property (not eminent domain, landlord/tenant, or foreclosure) Unlawful Detainer Commercial (31) Residential (32) Drugs (38) (if the case involves illegal drugs, check this item; othemise, report as Commercial or Residential) Judicial Review Asset Forfeiture (05) Petition Re: Arbitration Award (11) Writ of Mandate (02) Writ?Administrative Mandamus Writ?Mandamus on Limited Court Case Matter Writ?Other Limited Court Case Review Other Judicial Review (39) Review of Health Of?cer Order Notice of Appeal?Labor Commissioner Appeals Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation (Cal. Rules of Court Rules Antitrust/Trade Regulation (03) Construction Defect (10) Claims Involving Mass Tort (40) Securities Litigation (28) Environmental/Toxic Tort (30) Insurance Coverage Claims (arising from provisionally complex case type listed above) (41) Enforcement of Judgment Enforcement of Judgment (20) Abstract of Judgment (Out of County) Confession of Judgment (non- domestic relations) Sister State Judgment Administrative Agency Award (not unpaid taxes) Petition/Certi?cation of Entry of Judgment on Unpaid Taxes Other Enforcement of Judgment Miscellaneous Civil Complaint RICO (27) Other Complaint (not speci?ed above) (42) Declaratory Relief Only Injunctive Relief Only (non- harassment) Mechanics Lien Other Commercial Complaint Case (non-tort/non-complex) Other Civil Complaint (non-tort/non-complex) Miscellaneous Civil Petition Partnership and Corporate Governance (21) Other Petition (not speci?ed above) (43) Civil Harassment Workplace Violence EIderiDependent Adult Abuse Election Contest Petition for Name Change Petition for Relief From Late Claim Other Civil Petition July 1. 2007] he ?at, CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Page 2 of 2 BY FAX OREINIAL I SHORT TITLE: Make Him Smile, Inc. v. Trek Bicycle Corporation, Inc. CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION (CERTIFICATE OF GROUNDS FOR ASSIGNMENT TO COURTHOUSE LOCATION) This form is required pursuant to Local Rule 2.3 in all new civil case filings in the Los Angeles Superior Court. I 07 Step 1: After completing the Civil Case Cover Sheet (Judicial Council form find the exact case type in Column A that corresponds to the case type indicated in the Civil Case Cover Sheet. Step 2: In Column B, check the box for the type of action that best describes the nature of the case. Step 3: In Column C, circle the number which explains the reason for the court filing location you have chosen. Applicable Reasons for Choosing Court Filing Location (Column C) . Permissive ?ling in central district. . Location where cause of action arose. . Mandatory personal injury ?ling in North District. . Location where performance required or defendant resides. . Location of property or permanently garaged vehicle. . Class actions must be ?led in the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Central District. 7- Location where petitioner resides. 8. Location wherein defendantr?respondent functions wholly. 9. Location where one or more of the parties reside. 10. Location of Labor Commissioner Office. 11. Mandatory filing location (Hub Cases unlawful detainer, limited non?collection, limited collection, or personal injury). A Civil Case Cover Sheet Type of Action . Applicable Reasons - Category No. (Check only one) See Step 3 Above Auto (22) Cl A7100 Motor Vehicle - Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death Uninsured Motorist (46) El A7110 Personal Injury/Property DamagelWrongful Death Uninsured Motorist 1, 4, 11 Cl A6070 Asbestos Property Damage 1, 11 Asbestos (04) A7221 Asbestos- Personal Injury/Wrongful Death 1, 11 l- 1: Product Liability (24) El A7260 Product Liability (not asbestos or toxic/environmental) 1, 4, 11 El A7210 Medical Malpractice- Physicians& Surgeons 1. 4. 11 a Medical Malpractice (45) . 1 4 11 2' A7240 Other Professional Health Care Malpractice . - . 9 -. A7250 Premises Liability slip and fall) . a: 3, Other Personal 1? 4' 11 Injury Property A7230 Intentional Bodily Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death 1 4 11 5 3 Damage Wrongful assault, vandalism, etc.) 0 Death (23) El A7270 Intentional ln?iction of Emotional Distress 1'4' 11 El A7220 Other Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death 1' 4? 11 (3:31 ?It EEX rm. l?vu. cacrv 109 (Rev 2716) CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM Local Rule 2.3 IEASC Approved 03-04 AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION Page 1 of4 ?24 "all '7 SHORT TITLE: Make Him Smile, Inc. v. Trek Bicycle Corporation, Inc. CASE NUMBER A Applicable Civil Case Cover Sheet Type of Action Reasons - See Step 3 Category No. (Check only one) Above Business Tort (07) A6029 Other Commercial/Business Tort (not fraud/breach of contract) 1,2,3 1: . ,2 Civil Rights (08) El A6005 Civil Rights/Discrimination 1, 2, 3 5? 5 Defamation (13) El A6010 Defamation (slander/libel) 1, 2, 3 :2 Fraud (16) Cl A6013 Fraud (no contract) 1, 2, 3 9 A6017 Legal Malpractice 1, 2, 3 cu Professional Negligence (25) a} A6050 Other Professional Malpractice (not medical or legal) 1, 2, 3 2 Other (35) El A6025 Other Non-Personal Injury/Property Damage tort 1, 2, 3 Wrongful Termination (36) El A6037 Wrongful Termination A6024 Other Employment Complaint Case 1, 2, 3 Other Employment (15) E: El A6109 Labor Commissioner Appeals 10 El A6004 Breach of Rental/Lease Contract (not unlawful detainer or wrongful 2 5 eviction) Breach of Contract! Warrant (05) 13 A6008 Contract/Warranty Breach -Seller Plaintiff (no fraud/negligence) 2? 5 insurance) Cl A6019 NegligentBreach of Contract/Warranty (no fraud) 1? 2' 5 CI A6028 Other Breach of Contract/Warranty (not fraud or negligence) 1? 2' 5 A6002 Collections Case-Seller Plaintiff 5, 6, 11 :3 Collections (09) 5 A6012 Other Promissory NotelCollectrons Case 5, 11 0 El A6034 Collections Case?Purchased Debt (Charged Off Consumer Debt 5, 6, 11 Purchased on or after January 1, 2014) insurance Coverage (18) El A6015 Insurance Coverage (not complex) 1, 2, 5, 8 El A6009 Contractual Fraud 1, 2, 3. 5 Other Contract (37) El A6031 Tortious Interference . 1, 2, 3, 5 El A6027 Other Contract Dispute(not 1, 2, 3, 8. 9 Emlnent Domaln/Inverse El A7300 Eminent Domain/Condemnation Number of parcels 2, 6 Condemnatlon (14) . 1: Wrongful Eviction (33) El A6023 Wrongful Eviction Case 2, 6 it 25-; El A6018 Mortgage Foreclosure 2, 6 o: Other Real Property (26) El A6032 Quiet Title 2, 6 El A6060 Other Real Property (not eminent domain, landlord/tenant, foreclosure) 2, 6 .. Unlawful Det?l?r-Commercial El A6021 Unlawful Detainer?Commercial (not drugs or wrongful eviction) 6, 11 In *3 Unlawful Detazlarlzrir-ReSIdentlal E1 A6020 Unlawful Detainer-Residential (not drugs or wrongful eviction) 6, 11 5 Unlawful Detainer- . [j A6020F Unlawful Detalner-Post-Foreclosure 2, 6, 11 Post-Foreclosure (34) Unlawful Detainer?Drugs (38) CI A6022 Unlawful Detainer?Dmgs 109 (Rev 2/15) CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM Local Rule 2.3 Approved 03-04 AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION Page 2 of 4 pal: ?at SHORT TITLE: Make Him Smile, Inc. v. Trek Bicycle Corporation, Inc. CASE NUM 8 ER A Applicable Civil Case Cover Sheet Type of Action Reasons - See Step 3 Category No. (Check only one) Above Asset Forfeiture (05) Cl A6108 Asset Forfeiture Case 2, 3, 6 3 Petition re Arbitration (11) CI A61 15 Petition to CompellCon?rmNacate Arbitration 2, 5 '5 A6151 Writ-Administrative Mandamus 2, 8 5% Writ of Mandate (02) El A6152 Writ - Mandamus on Limited Court Case Matter 2 A6153 Writ - Other Limited Court Case Review 2 Other Judicial Review (39) El A6150 Other Writ [Judicial Review 2, 8 Antitrust/Trade Regulation (03) El A6003 Antitrust/Trade Regulation 1, 2. 8 ?3 Construction Detect (10) El A6007 Construction Defect 1, 2, 3 Claims Mass Tort El A6006 Claims Involving Mass Tort 1, 2, 8 a. 8 Securities Litigation (28) El A6035 Securities Litigation Case 1, 2, 8 Toxic Tort . . Environmental (30) CI A6036 Toxrc Tort/Envrronrnental 1. 2_ 3' 3 '5 9 Insurance Covera Claims . n. from Complex Case (41) A6014 Insurance Coverage/Subrogatron (complex case only) 1, 2, 5, 8 El A6141 SisterState Judgment 2.5.11 El A6160 Abstract ofJudgment 2, 6 as?, Enforcement El A6107 Confession ofJudgment (non-domestic relations) 2, 9 2 '3 Of Judgment (20) El A6140 Administrative Agency Award (not unpaid taxes) 2, 8 a 11:1 ?5 Cl A6114 Petition/Certi?cate for Entry of Judgment on Unpaid Tax 2, 8 El A6112 Other Enforcement of Judgment Case 2,8,9 RICO (27) A6033 Racketeen?ng (RICO) Case A6030 Declaratory Relief Only 1, 2, 8 a. Other Complaints l3 A6040 Injunctive Relief Only (not domestic/harassment) 2, 8 (Not Specr?ed Above) (42) A6011 Other Commercial Complaint Case 1, 2, 8 5 El A6000 Other Civil Complaint (non-tortlnon-complex) 1, 2, 8 Partnership Corporation . Governance (21) Cl A6113 Partnership and Corporate Governance Case 2, 8 A6121 Civil Harassment 2, 3, 9 A6123 Workplace Harassment 2, 3, 9 23.. . El A6124 EIder/DependentAdult Abuse Case 2. 3. 9 and Other Petitions (Not 8 Speci?ed Above) (43) El A6190 Election Contest 2 2 0 El A6110 Petition for Change of Name/Change of Gender 2 7 A6170 Petition for Relief from Late Claim Law 2 3 8 Cl A6100 Other Civil Petition 2 9 ??51 (Rev 2/16) CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM Local Rule 2.3 Ase Approved 03-04 AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION rt'r?l? '74. SHORT TITLE: Make Him Smile, Inc. v. Trek Bicycle Corporation, Inc. CASE NUMBER Step 4: Statement of Reason and Address: Check the appropriate boxes for the numbers shown under Column for the type of action that you have selected. Enter the address which is the basis for the filing location, including zip code. (No address required for class action cases). REASON: 753 N. KINGS RD. #204 9:10.211. WEST HOLLYWOOD CA 90069 West Hollywood CA 9069 Step 5: Certification of Assignment: I certify that this case is properly filed in the CENTRAL District of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles [Code Civ. Proc., ?392 et seq., and Local Rule (SIGNATURE OF ATNORWING PARTY) PLEASE HAVE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS COMPLETED AND READY TO BE FILED IN ORDER TO PROPERLY COMMENCE YOUR NEW COURT CASE: 1. Original Complaint or Petition. If filing a Complaint, a completed Summons form for issuance by the Clerk. 2 3. Civil Case Cover Sheet. Judicial Council form CM-O10. 4 Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum and Statement of Location form, LACIV 109, LASC Approved 03-04 (Rev. 0 2116). Payment in full of the filing fee, unless there is court order for waiver, partial or scheduled payments. 6. A signed order appointing the Guardian ad Litem. Judicial Council form if the plaintiff or petitioner is a minor under 18 years of age will be required by Court in order to issue a summons. 7. Additional copies of documents to be conformed by the Clerk. Copies of the cover sheet and this addendum must be served along with the summons and complaint. or other initiating pleading in the case. Flu- ice?J. ?451. 'Qicw 109 (Rev 2116) Approved 03-04 CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM Local Rule 2.3 AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION Page 4 of4