Notables.

News.

Archive.

California Homebuilder Wrongfully Served With Lawsuit Intended for Texas Impostors.

HOUSTON, April 15, 2009 -- Residential home developer K. HOV IP, Inc. has filed a federal trademark infringement suit after being served with a state lawsuit meant for impostors.

K. HOV IP, Inc. is a California based real estate developer and contractor that operates under the brand BRIGHTON and BRIGHTON HOMES at least as early as December 31, 1995. Both marks were federally registered.

Approximately a year ago K. HOV IP, Inc. became aware of Texas homebuilders using the BRIGHTON and BRIGHTON HOMES marks. Upon discovery, HOV IP, Inc. responded by sending cease and desist letters on February 1, 2008, March 4, 2008, May 1, 2008, and July 22, 2008 to Azali Enterprises, LLC, Staples Development, LLC, Ata O. Azali LLC, and Ata O. Azali.

Despite the aforementioned demands, the Texas developers continued to use the registered marks BRIGHTON and BRIGHTON HOMES.

On March 22, 2009, the registered agent for K. HOV IP, Inc. was served with a lawsuit naming Azali enterprises, LLC, trading as Brighton Homes, as a defendant in a lawsuit filed with the Nueces County Court in Texas. The state lawsuit cites claims for breach of contract, misrepresentation, nelgogent misrepresentation, negligence, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, a cause of action under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

K. HOV IP, Inc. filed a trademark infringement lawsuit today against Azali Enterprises, LLC, Staples Development, LLC, Ata O. Azali LLC, and Ata O. Azal. In addition to a federal claim for trademark infringement, K. HOV IP, Inc. has also pled federal and state claims for unfair competition and trademark dilution.

K. HOV IP, Inc. is seeking compensatory and punitive damages in addition to injunctive relief and attorneys fees.

Pursuant to the Lanham Act, K. HOV IP, Inc. could recover defendants' profits and any damages sustained by the plaintiff. In assessing damages the court may enter judgment for any sum above the amount found as actual damages, up to three times. When a court finds a defendant intentionally counterfeited a registered trademark, the court must, unless the court finds extenuating circumstances, enter judgment for three times such profits or damages, whichever is greater, together with a reasonable attorney’s fee unless the Plaintiff elects for statutory damages up to $1,000,000 per counterfeit mark per type of goods or services sold, offered for sale, or distributed.