-
8/10/2019 AVELA v. Fleischer Studios, Arent Fox, Manatt Phelps - Betty Boop malicious prosecution complaint.pdf
1/15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2 0
21
2 2
23
24
?5
27-
2 8
GregoryJ. Goodheart, SB
226501
GOODHEART
L A W
OFFICES
22736 Vanowen Street, Suite 303
West Hills,
CA
91307
Phone:(818)992-4463
Fax: (818)992-7629
Shorn
coonty
NOV13 2014
\ **ACv^s vena/Oak
_
Deputy
Attorney for Plaintiffs A.V.E.L.A. INC. ^ \
OttfKfZ*^
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF
LO S
ANGELES
A.V.E.L.A., INC., a Nevada Corporation,
Plaintiffs,
C A S E
NO.:
BC 6aS49
vs .
COMPLAINT FOR:
FLEISCHER
STUDIOS, INC., a
California Corporation; ARENT FOX
LLP;
MANATT,
PHILLIPS & PHELPS
LLP;
and DOES 1
THROUGH
50,
Inclusive,
1.
Malicious
Prosecution
2. Interference
with
a Prospective Business Advantage
Amount
in controversy exceeds 25,000)
I.
Defendants,
T H E P A RT IE S
A.V.E.L.A.,
Inc.
(hereinafter AVELA or Plaintiff )
is
a
corporation duly organ^e^a^d^
g q
rn s m m -^ -v.
i C * o o
existing under
the laws
of
the
State
of
Nevada
and
maintains
its
principagp^^
^^uiln^ss^at
J $
to 3> v m ' u *
O z x o .
1135 Terminal Way,
209,
Reno,
Nevada,
89502.
S ' J ~8 S
t
-
8/10/2019 AVELA v. Fleischer Studios, Arent Fox, Manatt Phelps - Betty Boop malicious prosecution complaint.pdf
2/15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2
21
ii
22
23
(--
24>-
26
2Zi|
28
ofCalifornia that maintains its principal
place
ofbusiness at 10160
Cielo
Drive,
Beverly
Hills, California,
90210.
3. Plaintiffis informedand believes and thereon allegesthat defendantARENTFOX,
LLP.,
(hereinafter
ARENT
FOX)
isa business entity doing business in the State ofCalifornia, County of
Los Angeles, with a principal place ofbusiness located at 555 West Fifth Street, 48th Floor, Los
Angeles, California
90013. Plaintiff is informed
and
believes
and
thereon
alleges
that defendant
MANATT, PHILLIPS
&
PHELPS LLP (hereinafter MANATT)
is a business entity
doing
business
in the
State
ofCalifornia,
County
of
Los
Angeles, with a principal place of business
located at 11355 W.Olympic Blvd., LosAngeles, CA90064.
4. Plaintiffdoesnot knowthetrue names of defendants
DOES
1 through 50, inclusive, and therefore
sues them
by those
fictitious
names. Plaintiff
is
informed and believes, and on the
basis ofthat
information
and
belief al leges, that each of
those
defendants were in
some
manner intentionally,
negligently and proximately responsible for the events and happenings alleged
in
this complaint
and for Plaintiffs injuriesand
damages.
5. Plaintiff is informedand believes,and on the basis
of
that informationand belief alleges, that at
all
times
mentioned inthiscomplaint, defendants
were
the
agents
andemployees of their co-
defendants, andin
doing
the
things
alleged inthis complaint
were
acting
within
the
course
and
scopeof that agencyand employment.
PRIOR LITIGATION
A.V.E.L.A. wasa nameddefendantandprevailing party in the following actions:Fleischer
Studios
Inc
v. A
V E L A
Inc
772 F. Supp. 2d 1135(CD. Cal. 2008);Fleischer
Studios
Inc
v.
A V E L A Inc 772 F. Supp. 2d 1155(CD. Cal. 2009);Fleischer
Studios
Inc v.
A V EL A
Inc
636
F.3d
1115
(9*
Cir.
2011);
Fleischer Studios Inc v. A V E L A Inc 654
F.3d
958
(9th
C O M P L A I N T
-
8/10/2019 AVELA v. Fleischer Studios, Arent Fox, Manatt Phelps - Betty Boop malicious prosecution complaint.pdf
3/15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1 4
15
16
17
18
19
2 0
21
23f
2i
2
25
26i
--
27i|
2 8
Cir.
2011);
Fleischer
Studios Inc
A V E L A Inc 925
F. Supp. 2d 1067
(CD. Cal.
2012)
(hereafter collectively
referred toas the Boop action ).
7. FSI
initiated
the
Boop
action
against
A.V.E.LA.
in
2006.
The
Boop
action
was
finally
determined
on
November
14,2012, in the
form
ofan
order granting
a
motion
for
summary
judgmentin AVELA'sfavor.
8. MANATT andARENT FOX wereat all timescounsel on behalfof FSIin theabovementioned
prioractions.
9. On September 29,2006, FSI, by
and
through its
counsel,
MANATT, filed suit, contending,
among
other
things, that AVELA infringed
FSI s Betty Boop
word mark and sought a
permanent injunction. At some point in
litigation
ARENT FOX took over litigation on behalf
of FSI.
10.
There was
never
a
final judgment
onthe
issue
of
whether
AVELA infringed onFSI s
word
mark until United States District Court Judge Audrey B. Collins
issued
anorderonNovember
14,2012, granting AVELA s motion and denying FSI s motion
as
to the word
mark
trademark infringement
claim.
F A C T S
11.
Plaintiff is in thebusiness ofcreating newartisticworks inprint,
graphic,
and lithographic
media that are based onmaterials found in the publicdomain. Inmanycases, these old
public domain
materials
have
fallen
intodisrepairand
have
losttheir
original
lusteror
attractiveness.
AVELA
registered copyrights withtheUnited States
Copyright Office
forits
artistic works
an d
indicated
these
w or ks a re b as ed on
an d
derivative
of materials
that have
been previously published.
12. Sinceas early as 1989,
AVELA
acquired, restored, and reprinted a number ofpublicitymovie
__3
C O M P L A I N T
-
8/10/2019 AVELA v. Fleischer Studios, Arent Fox, Manatt Phelps - Betty Boop malicious prosecution complaint.pdf
4/15
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1.7
18
19
20
21
2
24
25 ,
261
2
28
posters featuringBetty
Boop
that were originallycreated in the 1930s.
13.
Before modifying and restoring the oldworks,AVELA took meticulous steps to comply with
copyright
law.
AVELA
does not desire to infringe onany copyrights. Inthis regard,
AVELA
conducted considerable research to make sure that there were no recorded copyright
claimants for any of the old movie posters it restored. AVELA obtained actual copyright
reports fromthe U.S. Copyright
Office
whichidentified hundreds ofoldcartoons andmovies
forwhichnocopyrightrenewal had been recorded,and henceentered into the public
domain.
More
than 50 Betty
Boop
cartoons appeared on the list ofcartoons in the public
d o m a i n .
14. In 1998 and 2005,
AVELA
obtained formalwritten search reports from the U.S. Copyright
Office
verifying that there were no registered claimantsor copyrightowners, including
DefendantFSI, forany ofthe oldmovie posters AVELA hadacquired and restored, including
an y Betty Boop movie posters.
15. AVELA obtained registration with the U.S. Copyright
Office
for its own copyrightedworks,
makingclear that AVELA s works are based on and derivative ofmaterials that have been
previously published.
16.
AVELA has sold copies ofthe restored Betty Boopposters for manyyears. Morerecently,
AVELA has licensed third parties to produce and distribute merchandise, which utilizes the
restored Betty Boopposter image.The products licensed by
AVELA
are based on these
restored vintage posters.
AVELA
does not license the production and distribution of
merchandise utilizing anything other materials relating to Betty Boopexcept for the
restored poster artwork.
17. AVELA does no t license to third parties any rights to use the name Betty Boop or any
imagery of Betty Boop other
than
how it is depicted in the poster artwork. The actual
C O M P L A I N T
-
8/10/2019 AVELA v. Fleischer Studios, Arent Fox, Manatt Phelps - Betty Boop malicious prosecution complaint.pdf
5/15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2
23
24 j
2i
26:
I>
27.
28
merchandise licensedby
AVELA
use,as part ofproduct package, onlythe actual Betty
Boop
poster artwork, or a portion thereof.
18.
AVELA
does not license the production and distribution ofmerchandise utilizinganything
other than the poster artwork.
19.
AVELA
does not use the TM symbol next to or in connection with the words Betty Boop.
AVELA
does not label nor has it ever labeled its Betty Boopmerchandise as Official
merchandise or otherwise affirmatively indicate sponsorship.
20.
AVELA
does not use the word Betty
Boop
in connection with the sale ofgoods.The only
time the nameappears as part ofany product iswhen Betty
Boop
appeared as part ofthe
original poster artwork. Oneachof
AVELA s
licensed products, there is a tag,label, or other
textual identification of the source of the product Noneof these labels identify or suggest in
anymanner that
FSI
is the sourceor originof themerchandise.
AVELA s
licensing
agreements also requiretheproducers and/or distributors to identify themselves as the
source o f th e merchandise.
21. Betty Boopis a prominently and centrally displayed feature ofeach item. Boopis the clear
subject matter of each merchandise item, so as to be immediately visible to others when
wor
22. Until the prior actions,
AVELA
never received any complaints or correspondences indicating
that
there has been any consumer confusion in the marketplace as to the source, origin,
affiliation, or sponsorship ofany of
AVELA s
licensed products as it relates to FSI's licensed
products.
23. FSIhas no legal relationship with
an d
is
no t
the same entity as the company named
Fleischer Studios, Inc.,which existed when the BettyBoop character was created in the early
1930s
( Original FSI ). In 1929, Dave
an d
Max Fleischer formed Original FSI. Original FSI
C O M P L A I N T
-
8/10/2019 AVELA v. Fleischer Studios, Arent Fox, Manatt Phelps - Betty Boop malicious prosecution complaint.pdf
6/15
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1 5
16
17
18
19
2 0
21
H
20*
23
2*1
2^
26:
2Zs|
2 8
wasdissolved in1946for failure to paytaxesunder Florida
law.
24.
Between
1929 and
1946,
Original FSI created andproduced various Betty Boop cartoon
films.
Prior
to
its
dissolution,
Original
FSI,
by
agreement dated
May
24,1941, assigned
to
Paramount Pictures all ofits
assets,
including all the rights inall
cartoon
films and all
characters contained therein. Despite the dissolution ofOriginal Fleischer Studios, the
Fleischer brothers, in their
individual
capacities, continued to claim
or
attempt to claim
rights
in
the Betty Boop character. Dave
Fleischer
has gone so far as initiated
dozens
of
lawsuits,
the
ovemhelming majority ofwhich
ended
incrushing defeats.
25. In the
November
14,2012 decision, theCourt found, as a
matter or
law, that AVELA s use ofthe
Betty Boop word mark
is
not
atrademark use. In finding that the
use
ofthe
word mark
Betty
Boop
was an aesthetically
functional use and not
source-identifying trademark
use,
the court
noted
that FSI failed
to present a single
instance
ofaconsumer
who
was
misled about the origin or
sponsorship ofDefendants products. (Fleischer Studios.
Inc.
v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc., (2012) 925
F.Supp.2d1067,1074.)
26. Inthe
November
14,2012 decision,
the Court
found asa
matter
of
law that
AVELA s use ofBetty
Boop was
fair
use and hence could not be
a
trademark violation. The Court
stated
Here,
Defendants
use the
phrase
Betty Boop
in connection with
their
products bearing
the image of
Betty Boop. It is
extremely unlikely that
aprospective customer would understand
those
words as
identifying the source
of
the
goods
rather
than
merely naming the character. (Fleischer Studios.
Inc.
v.A.V.E.L.A..
Inc.. (2012) 925
F.Supp.2d
1067,
1076.)
27.
In ruling in
favor
ofAVELA, Judge Collins found that as a
matter
of
law that
AVELA s use ofthe
word
Betty Boop does not indicate a source ororigin ofthe products, and is
therefore
not a
trademark use. The finaldetermination of the issueof trademarkviolationwasdetermined in
favor
o f AVELA on November
14, 2012.
6
C O M P L A I N T
-
8/10/2019 AVELA v. Fleischer Studios, Arent Fox, Manatt Phelps - Betty Boop malicious prosecution complaint.pdf
7/15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22>
23 ,
24,
2^
26:
21
28
28.
Defendants FSI,
MANATT
and ARENT FOX
didnotactona
good faith
belief
when
filing
and
prosecuting the underlying action. FSI's purpose for filing the unsupportable lawsuit described
herein
was
to
interfere
with business
relationships
AVELA
hadwithretailers
who
were
selling
AVELA's BettyBoopmerchandise. The lawsuitwasmade for thepurpose
of
scaringand
intimidating retailers who would like to do business with FSI.
29. Therewas no probablecausefor the prior actionin regards to the allegations regarding
infringement of theBettyBoopword
mark.
The nameddefendants, and eachof them,had no
reasonable beliefas to the validityof theprior action. Therewereno groundsuponwhicha
reasonable attorneywouldbelievethereis a meritorious claimas to theallegedwordmark
infringement. TheCourtmadea simplefinding that the phraseBettyBoopdescribesor
identifies by namethe characterDefendants depicton theproducts, that is, that this use is
'otherwise than a mark,' descriptive,and not in bad faith. (FleischerStudios. Inc. v. A.V.E.L.A..
Inc.. (2012) 925 F.Supp.2d 1067,1076.) No reasonable attorney could believe that use of the
wordBettyBoop,as usedbyAVELAindescribingthe characterBetty Boop,was in anywayan
infringement
of
FSI's alleged trademark.
30. Therewas
malice
on the partof the named defendants, andeachof them,in that the
underlying
actionwas filedforan improper purposeof harassing the
AVELA
and AVELA'S clients. FSI,
withtheaidof
MANATT
and
ARENT
FOX,
made
a decision to goafterAVELA and threaten
AVELA's customers withthreats of
lawsuits
which had no reasonable degree of success asto
trademarkclaims. In fact, the allegationsregardingtrademarkinfringementwere decided in
AVELA's favor asa matterof law in theNovember 14,2012 rulingonAVELA'smotionfor
summary judgment on that issue.
31. FSI,MANATT andARENT FOX
threatened
and
brought
the
underlying
actionfor
trademark
infringement
inanattemptto
illegally
and improperly monopolize the useofanything
7
C O M P L A I N T
-
8/10/2019 AVELA v. Fleischer Studios, Arent Fox, Manatt Phelps - Betty Boop malicious prosecution complaint.pdf
8/15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 j
2l
26H
H
27j
28
related to Betty
Boop.
The veiled threatwas sent to AVELA and any client of
AVELA
that if
you dare use anything related to Betty Boop,you will be sued unless you pay off FSI.
FSI
MANATT
and
ARENT
FOX
knew that
AVELA
in no way violated the Betty Boopword mark
an d nonetheless brought an d maintained the underlying
lawsuit
32.
FSI
engages in the perverse practice of using or threatening to use the court system to
threaten its competitors into submission. Through the years, FSI has sent hundreds, if not
thousands, of cease and desist letters to competitors. The cease and desist letters have no
substantive value and are simply meant to intimidate and scare offlegitimate competitors.
33.
FSI
abuses the legal system by indiscriminately filing lawsuits to see what willeventually
stick. It is essentially a continuous, sustained, and aggressive fishing expedition the purpose
ofwhich is not to protect any alleged trademark, but rather to try to scare off competitors
and their client's by threat of lawsuits and actual lawsuits.
MANATT
and ARENTFOXare
awareof and helpadvancethis improper use of the legal system.
34. FSI'sheavy handed and litigious behavior has the effect of exhorting money from its
competitors, who are conducting business lawfully. FSI,MANATT andARENT FOXforced
AVELA to spend years in litigation at significant cost to defend a claim of trademark
infringementwhich hadno likelihoodof successand was brought inan attempt to try to bleed
AVELA dry.
35. Since the early 1990s, FSI has initiated over thirty-eight lawsuits in federal court The bulk
of these lawsuits allege copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and unfair
competition. The vast
an d
overwhelming majority of these cases
ended
in voluntary
dismissal of the case or, at the very least, voluntary dismissal ofmultiple defendants within
the case. The vast remainder of the cases ended in court ordered default judgments.
36.
MANATT
and ARENTFOXwereawareof thispast litigation historyof FSI and chose to help
8
COMPLAINT
-
8/10/2019 AVELA v. Fleischer Studios, Arent Fox, Manatt Phelps - Betty Boop malicious prosecution complaint.pdf
9/15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2
24-1
2l
2
2J,
28
FSI in its
attempt
to intimidate and
improperly
file
claims which
had
no
likelihood ofsuccess.
MANATrand
ARENT
FOX didinfact file, maintain and argue the
underlying matter
onbehalf
of
FSI,
which
upon
review
of
the facts,
a
reasonable law
firm
should
know had
no
chance
of
success
on itsmerits.
ARENT FOX, MANATT
andFSIhadnoconcern withthe
merits
ofthe
underlying case and instead chose to attempt to game the system and use lawsuits, such as the one
filed
against AVELA,
asaweapon and
warning
toothers that if they dare use Betty Boop,
properly
or not,
they
will be
tied
upinyears of
costly litigation.
37.
The
extreme
and
outrageous behavior
of
FSI
has
continued
since court
rulings decided
that
FSI
had
no trademark protection asit related
to
AVELA s use ofBetty
Boop.
FSI
has
continued its
malicious behavior by erecting billboards
which
claim exclusive rights of
Betty
Boop and intimate
that
any use ofBetty Boop not
authorized
by FSI isa
trademark
violation and
such
use
will be
challenged
in
a
court
of
law. The
threats
are directly meant to hurt
AVELA
and intimate
businesses whowouldotherwise do businesswith
AVELA.
FSI is aware that the threatsmadeon
thebillboards, andelsewhere, arenot true but theypersist
anyway.
38.
After FSI
hadbecome
aware
of the limitations of its
alleged trademark
a billboard surfaced in
Brazil
which stated
that theBetty Boop character andworldwide trademarkis the exclusive
property ofFSI andthatanymisuse ofthecharacter isa
serious
violation.
The
billboard
went on to claim, All violatorswillbe pursued to the fullest extent of the law. Thepurpose
of this untruthful Billboard wa s to intimidate
those businesses
wh o would otherwise engage
in c o m m er c e w i th AVELA.
39. Defendant FSI is not a successor in anyway to the 1930s company. Bytaking the exact name
as the original FSI, Defendant FSI sought tocreatethe impression that itwasin fact the
same FSI that existingwhenBetty Boop andotherwell-known characterswere created.
Defendant has a known habit ofmanipulating facts to exaggerate the extent of its rights. The
9
C O M P L A I N T
-
8/10/2019 AVELA v. Fleischer Studios, Arent Fox, Manatt Phelps - Betty Boop malicious prosecution complaint.pdf
10/15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23-
24 J
25 .
26?
2
28
following footnote illustrates this point.
TheCourt is troubled by Plaintiffs casual conflation in its submissions of itself and the
unrelated, long-defunctOriginalFleischer that initiallyowned the rights in Betty
Boop...As
this Court a nd t he Ninth Circuit have noted, the present Fleischer Studios is legally
unrelated to the original 1930s Fleischer Studios. Evidently,Plaintiff used this sleight-of-
hand attempt to persuade the reader that its legal interest in Betty Boopis oflonger
standing than it actually is.The Court is not persuaded or favorably impressed by this
tactic. Fleischer Studios. Inc.v.
A.V.E.L.A..
Inc. 925 F.Supp. 2d 1067,1070
n. l
(CD.
Cal.
2012).
40.
Defendants
FSI,MANATTand ARENT FOX
knew or s ho ul d h av e k n ow n that
FSI
lacked
exclusive rights to the Betty Boopname. Defendant
FSI,
MANATT and ARENT
FOX
knew or
should have known there was no continuity of trademark rights from the Original FSI.
41. With all intellectual property rights, to the extent they still exist, having been long since
transferred to others, and with the knowledge that others held such rights, FSI nevertheless
decided to create a new company, taking the exact name as the Original FSI, and apparently
began to license Betty Boopmerchandise. Despite losingat every stage in the prior
litigation, Defendant FSI nonethelesscontinuesto threaten AVELA with legal actionover the
alleged copyright and trademark infringement of Betty
Boop.
42. Notwithstanding the judgments stating the contrary,
FSI
nonetheless continues to threaten
AVELA,
its licensees,
an d
potential licensees with legal action
an d
accuse
AVELA,
without
merit or justification, of breaking the law.
43. With
legal
defeats in theU.S.,
Defendant
FSIshifted its attention
towards
interferingwith
AVELA s domestic and international business relations.
With
this goalinmind, Defendant FSI
sent threatening letters to AVELA's clients, licensees andpotential licensees, inwhich
they
10
C O M P L A I N T
-
8/10/2019 AVELA v. Fleischer Studios, Arent Fox, Manatt Phelps - Betty Boop malicious prosecution complaint.pdf
11/15
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22J
23
24.
|
26
i-1
n
2 8
mislead readers as to FSI's copyright and trademark rights.
44. Defendant FSI did not stopat sendingmisleadingletters.Rather, Defendant initiated additional
lawsuits,
throughout
the
world,
based
onthe
already
litigated
issues
of
copyright
and
trademark
infringement of the BettyBoopcharacterrights. These suits were initiated internationally
despite all of
AVELA s
contracts being signed in the UnitedStates.
45. After the district court granted summaryjudgment in favor of AVELAon the trademarkmatter,
Plaintiff receivednoticefromItalythat itwas to bejoined as a party in a BettyBoop trademark
infringement suit in the courtof Bari,
Italy.
A fewmonths aftertheNinthCircuit's favorable
ruling, Defendant FSIandHearst Holdings, Inc. ( Hearst ) filedan actionfor copyright
infringement against
AVELA
beforetheHighCourtof Justice,Chancery Division, in theUnited
Kingdom. The actionalsoallegedtrademark infringement arisingout of BettyBoop imagery, an
issuethatFSIalready litigated and lost in theU.S. AVELA has further beendragged into
litigation in Brazil overits
alleged
infringement of the
Betty Boop character
copyrights and
trademarks.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Malicious
Prosecution
Against FSI,MANATT
and
ARENT FOXand DOES1
through
50)
46. Plaintiffsre-allege and incorporate herein by reference each and every allegation contained
in
the preceding paragraphs
as though fully se t forth.
47. On November 14,2012, the underlying action was concluded and resulted in a ruling in
favorofAVELA. TheCourt ruled on summary judgment that AVELA did not infringeon any
alleged word mark FSImay have had as a matter of law. The court found there was no
grounds upon which FSI's trademark violation allegations could proceed.
n
C O M P L A I N T
-
8/10/2019 AVELA v. Fleischer Studios, Arent Fox, Manatt Phelps - Betty Boop malicious prosecution complaint.pdf
12/15
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1 2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2 0
21
h
22,
23
H I
24J|
25'
2
H
lj|
28
48. There was no probable cause inbringing
the
trademark
infringement claim
inthe
underlying lawsuit There
was no reasonable
belief
as
to
the
validity of
the prior action and
claim by
FSI, MANATT
or
ARENT
FOX.
There
is
no
conceivable way
a
reasonable
attorney
would believe therewasa meritorious claim fortrademarkviolations in the underlying
action.
Thelawwasclearandwelldefined that useofa word
mark,
suchas the use by
AVELA
ofBetty Boop, isdescriptive,
fair
use and
not
a
trademark
violation. FSI isa
sophisticated entity who
is very litigious and
knew that
the use of
Betty
Boop
by
AVELA
did
not infringe onanyalleged trademark.
49. FSI MANATT and
ARENT FOX
didnothave probable
cause
to instigate and/or continue the
Boop litigation once
it
was underway. Defendants knew
orreasonably should
have know
that the Boop litigation
was
without merit
from the
moment
the
original Complaint had
been file andat all times
while
the action was
pending.
Furthermore, Defendants pursued
the action even though they
knew
or
reasonably
shown
have
know the claims they were
advancing were
meritless
andbased onnoevidence or rights.
50.
FSI acted primarily
for
a purpose
other than
securing a
proper
adjudication. That purpose
included, butwasnot limited to,actual hostility or ill will towards
AVELA,
and thedesireto
unjustly exclude AVELA
from
the
market
and ruin the
finances
and reputation ofLeo
Valencia, AVELA s
owner. Theunderlyingactionwasbroughtwithmalice in that FSI
sought, in bring the action,
to
threaten AVELA
and
any
businesses
doing
business
with
or
wanting
to
do
business
with
AVELA ARENT
FOX
and
FSI
knew
thatthe
claim
of
trademark
infringementwasnotsupportable butbrought it anyway because thepurpose wasnotto
winincourtandseekto righta legal wrong but rather to cause damage toAVELA andruin
AVELA s
relationshipwith other businesses. Themalice is further shown byFSI continuing
to threaten and bringlawsuits onmattersalreadyadjudicated inother jurisdictions.
12
C O M P L A I N T
-
8/10/2019 AVELA v. Fleischer Studios, Arent Fox, Manatt Phelps - Betty Boop malicious prosecution complaint.pdf
13/15
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2 0
|
H
22,
23 -
H
24-J
25V
is .
26
t -
l
2 8
51 .
52.
5 3 .
The
actions of
FSI MANATT and ARENT FOX in
bringing the
meritless
and
unsupportable
underlying
claim
for
trademark
infringementwas
malicious, intentional
and oppressive
conduct and
was
a
substantial
factor and proximate cause
in
bringing
about
AVELA s
harm.
AVELA
was
damaged by
having to pay great sums to
defend
meritless claims
brought
by the
nameddefendantsand lost businessas a result ofthe threatened claims. Defendants intent
in bringing
the underlying lawsuitwas to bleed AVELA of funds and
to
intimidate anyone
wising todo
business with AVELA AVELA
was
damaged
bythe
named
defendants asa
result
ofthe bringing of
the
underlying
claim in
a
sum
to
be
proved at trial.
As
a
result
oftheaforementioned
conduct,
AVELA suffered
damages in
anamount tobe
proved at trial. AVELA s suffered
damages
include, but are not limited to: out ofpocket
expenditures, including attorney s fee and other
legal
fees, business
losses,
general harm
to
good
will reputation andcredit, andmental anguish. The aforementioned conduct was
oppressive,
malicious,
duplicitous, and
performed with willful
and
conscious
disregard
ofthe
multiple court decision with the intent to deprive AVELA ofits
rights.
Accordingly, AVELA is
entitled to
an award
ofpunitive and exemplary
damages.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Interference With
aProspective
Economic Advantage
(Against
FSI
and
DOES
1 through50)
Plaintiffs
re-allege and incorporate herein
by
reference each
and
every allegation contained
in the preceding paragraphs as though
fully
set
forth.
13
COMPLAINT
-
8/10/2019 AVELA v. Fleischer Studios, Arent Fox, Manatt Phelps - Betty Boop malicious prosecution complaint.pdf
14/15
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
1 2
13
1 4
15
16
17
18
19
2 0
21
2l\
23
H
24,
25' I
26^
l
2 8
54. AVELA and anexpansive
network
ofdomestic and
international
licensing agencies and
retailers were inan economicrelationship that would have resulted inan economicbenefit
t o
AVELA.
AVELA is informed andbelieves andthereon alleges that FSI knew ofthe relationship
between
AVELA andthe aforementioned licensing
agencies
and retailers.
FSI
intended to
disrupt this
relationship by
threatening unsupported legal
actions against
AVELA andits business partnersinanattempttodisruptthis relationship.
FSI engaged in
and continues to engage in
wrongful
conduct by
threatening
tosue and bring
lawsuits based on an allegedclaimof trademark violationswhen
FSI
knowssuch claimsto
beunfounded. FSI s purpose inthreatening
lawsuits
andbringing lawsuits based on
trademark infringement
claims
is for the purpose of intimidating those
businesses
that
would otherwise
engage
incommerce with
AVELA
and to run costsup for
AVELA.
FSI
knows these otherbusinesses donotwanttogetembroiled in litigation and therefore
would likelyshy away fromdoingbusiness withAVELA even ifthe claimsare meritless.
58. The relationship between AVELA and
many
ofits licensing partners andretailers has
been
disrupted
asa
result
ofthe
wrongful conduct
ofFSI.
The
treatof
litigation
stresses
and
often
breaks the relationship AVELA has formed with these other businesses.
FSI
misrepresents
that
AVELA is infringing on FSI s trademark as
it
relates to Betty Boop even
though
they
know such claims are
not
true and have
already been
adjudicated and
the rulings
were in
AVELA s
favor.
59. FSI intended to and
has
in fact harmed the name
and
reputation ofAVELA by repeatedly
alleging that
AVELA
is infringing on
FSI s
trademarkwhen FSI knowsthat
AVELA s
use does
not infringe on any such word mark trademark.
55 .
56 .
57 .
14
C O M P L A I N T
-
8/10/2019 AVELA v. Fleischer Studios, Arent Fox, Manatt Phelps - Betty Boop malicious prosecution complaint.pdf
15/15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2l
23 -
24v
2l
26:1
2i
28
60. The wrongful
conduct
of
FSI in
alleging trademark
infringement
as itrelates to AVELA s use
of
Betty
Boop
is
asubstantial factor
in
causing harm
to AVELA.
AVELA has lost business,
sales and
contacts
as
a
result
fo
the
threats
and unfounded
allegations
of
FSI.
61. As
a
result of
the aforementioned
conduct, AVELA suffered damages in
an amount
to be proved
at
trial, but which
includes the loss of customers,
licensing
agreements,
royalties, and good will
reputation. Moreover,
Defendant s
misconduct will continue unabated barring relief,
and
AVELA
is therefore
entitled to
injunctive
relief
to
prevent
further such
misconduct.
62.
The aforementioned conduct was oppressive, malicious, duplicitous,
and
performed with
willful
and
conscious
disregard
of
the multiple
court decision with the intent
to
deprive
AVELA
ofits
rights. Accordingly, AVELA
is
entitled to an
aware
ofpunitive and
exemplary damages.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, Plaintiffprayforjudgment as
follows:
1. ForGeneral Damages according to
proof;
2.
For
special
damages
according
to proof;
3. For Punitive
/ Exemplary damages according to
proof;
4. Foran award ofattorneys
fees;
5. Forthe costofthesuit hereinincurred; and
6. For
such
other and further reliefas the court may
deem
proper.
Dated: November 13, 2014 GOODHEART LAW OFFICES
Gregory
J. Goodheart,
Esq.
Attorneys for AVELA