SAN FRANCISCO – A Santa Clara security and end user productivity company claims a San Francisco business uses a confusingly similar mark.
Centrify Corp. filed a complaint on Nov. 7 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Centify Inc., Matt Bullock and Does 1-10 alleging trademark infringement, unfair competition, violation of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and other counts.
According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that it has been its Centrify marks in commerce continuously since 2004. It alleges the defendants' infringing mark is a close imitation of the trademark used by plaintiff, and is used in connection with products that are related to those offered by plaintiff and in markets that are the same as markets served by the plaintiff, thereby causing plaintiff to suffer injuries to its goodwill and reputation.
The plaintiff holds Centify Inc., Matt Bullock and Does 1-10 responsible because the defendants allegedly used the infringing mark with the intent of causing confusion and deceiving the general public into believing that their products and services are associated with or endorsed by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment against defendants, preliminary and permanent injunctions, account for and pay plaintiff all gains, profits, and advantages derived from infringement, damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and further relief as the court deems just. It is represented by Edward V. Anderson, James M. Chadwick and Tenaya Rodewald of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP in Palo Alto.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Case number 3:16-cv-06482