A Chattanooga law firm said a law firm in Georgia is using its name and service mark to trick clients away.
The suit was filed by the firm of Warren & Griffin and attorneys C. Mark Warren and John Mark Griffin against Monge & Associates.
It says the Georgia firm "purchased the individual plaintiffs’ last names—which, combined, constitute the essence of Warren & Griffin’s name and service mark—as AdWords for use in Internet searches from a mobile telephone."
The suit, which asks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, was filed by attorney Steve Duggins.
Here is the lawsuit:
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND
OTHER RELIEF FOR WRONGFUL MISAPPROPRIATION,
USE AND INFRINGEMENT OF NAMES AND MARK
Plaintiffs Warren & Griffin, P.C. (“Warren & Griffin”), C. Mark Warren, and John Mark Griffin state the following as their complaint against Defendant Monge & Associates, P.C. (“Monge”).
INTRODUCTION AND NATURE OF ACTION
1. This action arises out of a Georgia law firm’s attempt—in Chattanooga—to deceptively divert clients or potential clients from a Chattanooga law firm to the Georgia law firm. More specifically, the Georgia law firm—Monge—has misappropriated and used Plaintiffs’ names and Warren & Griffin’s service mark to trick potential clients into contacting and then retaining the Georgia law firm. Monge has perpetuated its trickery and deceit upon unsuspecting accident or injury victims while such victims were attempting and intending to contact or obtain information from Warren & Griffin, the Chattanooga law firm. Monge’s scheme involves diverting clients or potential clients to itself from Warren & Griffin by purchasing the individual plaintiffs’ last names—which, combined, constitute the essence of Warren & Griffin’s name and service mark—as AdWords for use in Internet searches from a mobile telephone.
2. As a result of Monge’s misappropriation and use of C. Mark Warren’s name, of John Mark Griffin’s name, and Warren & Griffin’s name and service mark, when a potential client searches for “Warren Griffin,” “Warren & Griffin,” or “Warren and Griffin” on the Internet through his or her mobile telephone, the top result that appears on the mobile telephone screen presents a telephone number for Monge, but in a context in which the client or potential client can naturally assume that the telephone number is Warren & Griffin’s telephone number. A client or potential client wanting to call that number only may do so simply by clicking that number. And having specifically searched for “Warren & Griffin,” “Warren and Griffin,” or “Warren Griffin,” it is natural for the potential client to assume that the telephone number appearing on his or her mobile telephone screen in response to that search is indeed Warren & Griffin’s telephone number, but it isn’t.
3. Furthermore, the Monge telephone number that appears on the mobile telephone screen in response to a search for “Warren & Griffin,” “Warren and Griffin,” or “Warren Griffin” has a 423 area code, thereby suggesting to the reader that the telephone is a “local” number when it really isn’t.
4. Monge’s use of a telephone number with a 423 area code—despite not having an office within the geographical territory which has the 423 area code—is part of Monge’s deceptive scheme aimed at diverting Warren & Griffin’s clients or potential clients to Monge by causing them to call a Monge telephone number when they thought they were trying to call a Warren & Griffin number.
5. To make matters worse, if a Warren & Griffin client or potential client hangs up after calling the Monge number, Monge calls the client or potential client back from a number that both: (a) begins with a 423 area code, and (b) ends with the same last four digits of Warren & Griffin’s telephone number—4878 (which can also spell “hurt” as featured in Warren & Griffin’s advertising).
6. Monge’s actions constitute (a) a violation of the Personal Rights Protection Act of 1984; (b) trademark infringement and unfair competition in violation of the Tennessee Trade Mark Act of 2000; (c) unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act; and (d) intentional interference with prospective business relationships.
PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7. Plaintiff Warren & Griffin, P.C. is a Tennessee professional corporation with its principal office and place of business in Chattanooga, Hamilton County, Tennessee.
8. Plaintiff C. Mark Warren is an individual, a resident of Hamilton County, Tennessee, and a principal of Warren & Griffin, P.C.
9. Plaintiff John Mark Griffin is an individual, a resident of Hamilton County, Tennessee, and a principal of Warren & Griffin, P.C.
10. Defendant Monge & Associates, P.C. is a Georgia professional corporation with its principal office and place of business in Atlanta, Georgia.
11. Despite being a corporation that practices law in Tennessee, Monge has not qualified to do business in Tennessee.
12. Despite being a corporation that practices law in Tennessee, Monge has not established, reported or registered a registered agent for service of process in Tennessee.
13. Monge has reported for public record that it may be served through its registered agent, Corporate Creations Network Inc., 2985 Gordy Parkway, 1st Floor, Marietta, GA, 30066.
14. Upon information and belief, Monge does not maintain any office in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
15. Upon information and belief, Monge does not maintain any office in Tennessee.
16. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case because it involves a claim for violation of the Personal Rights Protection Act of 1984, of the Tennessee Trade Mark Act of 2000, of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and for intentional interference with prospective business relationships.
17. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Monge because this action arises out of Monge’s wrongful use and misappropriation of Plaintiffs’ names and of Warren & Griffin’s service mark in Hamilton County, Tennessee.
18. This Court further has personal jurisdiction over Monge because this action arises out of Monge’s wrongful diversion of Warren & Griffin’s potential clients who live in Hamilton County, Tennessee. More specifically, this action arises from Monge deceitfully misdirecting Hamilton County residents and other persons to Monge when such persons are attempting to contact or obtain information from Warren & Griffin in Hamilton County, Tennessee.
19. This Court also has personal jurisdiction over Monge because it conducts business in Hamilton County, Tennessee.
20. Venue is proper in this Court because this case arises out of Defendant’s actions in Hamilton County, Tennessee and because Plaintiff’s cause of action arose in Hamilton County, Tennessee. Facts described in preceding paragraphs further establish that venue is proper in this Court.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
21. Warren & Griffin, P.C. was formally established as a professional corporation in the State of Tennessee in 2008 although the principals of the firm—C. Mark Warren and John Mark Griffin—practiced together in a partnership known as Warren & Griffin many years before the formal founding of the professional corporation.
22. Warren & Griffin is one of the largest personal injury law firms in the region.
23. Warren & Griffin’s principal office is located in downtown Chattanooga, Tennessee, essentially across the street from Hamilton County Courthouse.
24. Since its founding in 2008, Warren & Griffin has continuously used the “Warren & Griffin” name and service mark in connection with the offering and provision of personal injury legal services.
25. Since the firm’s founding in 2008, the “Warren & Griffin” name and mark has been associated continuously with the legal services offered and provided by the Warren & Griffin law firm.
26. The “Warren & Griffin” name and mark consist primarily of the last names of the two principals of Warren & Griffin—C. Mark Warren and John Mark Griffin.
27. C. Mark Warren and John Mark Griffin initially used their last names to identify and advertise their personal injury law practice that operated as a partnership for many years prior to February of 2008 when they converted their partnership into a professional corporation.
28. Upon converting their partnership into a professional corporation in 2008, C. Mark Warren and John Mark Griffin continued to use their last names—combined—as the primary identifier of their law practice and legal services.
29. Warren & Griffin has extensively advertised and promoted the “Warren & Griffin” name and mark in Hamilton County, Tennessee and the surrounding region.
30. The “Warren & Griffin” name and mark are inherently distinctive.
31. As a result of its long-standing, exclusive and continuing use of the “Warren & Griffin” mark, the Warren & Griffin law firm has achieved and obtained substantial goodwill in connection with the mark.
32. Warren & Griffin has an established and well-known presence in the community.
33. Warren & Griffin is one of the most well-known, respected and sought-after personal injury law firms in the region.
34. The “Warren & Griffin” name and service mark has come to represent the valuable reputation and goodwill of the Warren & Griffin law firm as a law firm focused on personal injury law and with extensive personal injury law experience.
35. The “Warren & Griffin” name and service mark has come to represent the valuable reputation and goodwill of the Warren & Griffin law firm as a law firm that provides high-quality legal representation to persons who have been injured.
36. The Warren & Griffin law firm’s use of the “Warren & Griffin” name and service mark has been continuous, open, well-publicized and well-known.
37. Monge is also a personal injury law firm but is based in Atlanta, Georgia.
38. Monge has no ownership rights in the “Warren & Griffin” mark and name.
39. Monge is familiar with Warren & Griffin.
40. Monge is a direct competitor of Warren & Griffin.
41. Monge is familiar with Warren & Griffin’s ownership and use of the “Warren & Griffin” mark and name.
42. Monge is familiar with the fact that the “Warren & Griffin” mark is associated with the personal injury legal services offered and provided by the Warren & Griffin law firm.
43. Monge is familiar with the fact that injured victims in the Chattanooga region may use the “Warren” and “Griffin” names and the “Warren & Griffin” name or mark when using their mobile telephones to seek legal representation.
44. Monge is familiar with the fact that “Warren” and “Griffin” are the last names of the two principals of Warren & Griffin.
45. Intending to use and trade off of the “Warren” and “Griffin” names and the “Warren & Griffin” name and mark as well as the reputation and goodwill associated with those names and mark, Monge has purchased “Warren” and “Griffin” as AdWords for searches on mobile devices.
46. As a result of Monge’s use of the “Warren” and “Griffin” names and “Warren & Griffin” name or mark (or close variations of that name and mark) in its advertising, persons searching for “Warren Griffin,” “Warren and Griffin,” or “Warren & Griffin” from their mobile telephone are first presented with a link to a Monge telephone number that deceptively appears to be a local number for Chattanooga and surrounding areas in Tennessee.
47. In other words, a search for “Warren Griffin,” “Warren and Griffin,” or “Warren & Griffin” initially directs the user and potential client to call Monge and thereby directs the user and potential client toward a competitor of Warren & Griffin.
48. Likewise, a search for “Warren Griffin,” “Warren and Griffin,” or “Warren & Griffin” initially directs the user and potential client to call Monge and thereby directs the user and potential client toward services that compete with the services offered by Warren & Griffin.
49. Monge’s use of the “Warren” and “Griffin” names and the “Warren & Griffin” name and mark for its advertising naturally tends to cause confusion and mistake in the marketplace for persons seeking legal representation for a personal injury.
50. Any further use of the “Warren” and “Griffin” names and the “Warren & Griffin” name and mark by Monge for its advertising is likely to continue to cause confusion or mistake.
51. Monge’s further use of the “Warren” and “Griffin” names and the “Warren & Griffin” name and mark for its advertising would be likely to deceive consumers as to the origin, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Monge’s services.
52. Monge’s competitive services are targeted toward essentially the same potential client base as are Warren & Griffin’s services.
53. Mr. Warren, Mr. Griffin, and Warren & Griffin have not authorized Monge to use the “Warren” and “Griffin” names or the “Warren & Griffin” name or mark in any way, form or variation.
54. Clients or potential clients looking for Warren & Griffin’s services—or for the services of Mr. Warren or Mr. Griffin—would likely believe, at least initially, that the search results they receive upon searching for “Warren Griffin,” “Warren and Griffin,” or “Warren & Griffin” will lead them—upon clicking a telephone number produced in response to the search—to the Warren & Griffin law firm.
55. Monge’s offering of services in connection with the “Warren” and “Griffin” names or the “Warren & Griffin” name and mark improperly trade off of the goodwill that Mr. Warren, Mr. Griffin, and the Warren & Griffin law firm have established in the “Warren” and “Griffin” names and the “Warren & Griffin” name and mark.
56. Monge is trading off the “Warren” and “Griffin” names and the “Warren & Griffin” name and mark in order to improperly attract clients to Monge’s competitive services.
57. Once a client or potential client clicks or calls the Monge telephone number, the client or potential client may continue communicating with Monge representatives even if and when the client or potential client eventually discovers that he or she is dealing with Monge rather than Warren & Griffin as originally intended.
58. As a result, the client or potential client may also end up retaining Monge’s services rather than Warren & Griffin’s services as initially intended.
59. Consequently, the initial confusion and misdirection caused by Monge’s use of the “Warren” and “Griffin” names and the “Warren & Griffin” name and mark causes harm to Mr. Warren, Mr. Griffin and the Warren & Griffin law firm even if the consumer eventually discovers the misdirection.
60. Through these same acts of deceit and misdirection, Monge has also weakened the association of the “Warren & Griffin” mark with the Warren & Griffin law firm and the legal services they provide.
61. Despite having knowledge of Warren & Griffin’s mark, Monge has offered services through the use of the “Warren & Griffin” name and mark (or a very similar derivative) in direct, complete and willful disregard of Warren & Griffin’s rights and through direct attempts to mislead, deceive and misdirect the consuming public.
62. Monge has intentionally sought to deceive consumers and to cause confusion among consumers for the purpose of misappropriating and benefiting from the goodwill and public recognition associated with the “Warren & Griffin” name and mark.
63. Likewise, Monge has intentionally sought to deceive consumers and to cause confusion among consumers for the purpose of misappropriating and benefitting from the goodwill and public recognition associated with the “Warren” and “Griffin” names.
64. Monge has intentionally sought to deceive consumers and to cause confusion among consumers for the purpose of diverting consumers from Warren & Griffin to Monge.
65. Monge has intentionally sought to deceive consumers and to cause confusion among consumers for the purpose of diverting consumers from the legal services offered by Mr. Warren and Mr. Griffin.
66. Monge’s actions as described above have caused harm to Warren & Griffin, to Mr. Warren, and to Mr. Griffin.
67. Unless restrained and enjoined, Monge will continue to cause irreparable harm to Warren & Griffin, to Mr. Warren, and to Mr. Griffin.
COUNT 1 – VIOLATION OF PERSONAL RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT
68. All preceding allegations are adopted and incorporated by reference as if fully restated herein.
69. Pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1103, Mr. Warren has a property right in the use of his name.
70. Pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1103, Mr. Griffin has a property right in the use of his name.
71. Pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1103, Mr. Warren and Mr. Griffin have a property right in their ability to use their names together to promote and publicize their legal services.
72. Pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1105, “[a]ny person who knowingly uses or infringes upon the use of another individual's name . . . in any manner directed to any person other than such individual, as an item of commerce for purposes of advertising . . . services, or for purposes of . . . solicitation of . . . services, without such individual's prior consent, shall be liable to a civil action.”
73. Pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1105, any person who commits unauthorized use of another individual’s name in violation Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1105 commits a Class A misdemeanor.
74. Pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1102(4), a law firm can be considered a “person” for purposes of Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1105 and can therefore be liable for unauthorized use of another individual’s name.
75. Monge is a person as that term is defined in Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1102(4).
76. Monge is a person as that term is used in Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1105.
77. Monge has knowingly used, and unless enjoined, will continue to use Mr. Warren’s name in a manner directed to persons other than Mr. Warren and as an item of commerce for purposes of advertising or soliciting services without Mr. Warren’s consent.
78. Monge has knowingly used, and unless enjoined, will continue to use Mr. Griffin’s name in a manner directed to persons other than Mr. Griffin and as an item of commerce for purposes of advertising or soliciting services without Mr. Griffin’s consent.
79. Monge has knowingly infringed, and unless enjoined, will continue to infringe upon the use of Mr. Warren’s name in a manner directed to persons other than Mr. Warren and as an item of commerce for purposes of advertising or soliciting services without Mr. Warren’s consent.
80. Monge has knowingly infringed, and unless enjoined, will continue to infringe upon the use of Mr. Griffin’s name in a manner directed to persons other than Mr. Griffin and as an item of commerce for purposes of advertising or soliciting services without Mr. Griffin’s consent.
81. Monge has knowingly used, and unless enjoined, will continue to use Mr. Warren and Mr. Griffin’s names together and in a manner directed to persons other than Mr. Warren and Mr. Griffin and as an item of commerce for purposes of advertising or soliciting services without Mr. Warren’s and Mr. Griffin’s consent.
82. Monge has knowingly infringed, and unless enjoined, will continue to infringe upon the use of Mr. Warren and Mr. Griffin’s names together and in a manner directed to persons other than Mr. Warren and Mr. Griffin and as an item of commerce for purposes of advertising or soliciting services without Mr. Warren’s and Mr. Griffin’s consent.
83. Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1106 expressly authorizes courts to grant injunctions on such terms as it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain the unauthorized use of an individual's name.
84. Mr. Warren and Mr. Griffin are entitled to an injunction preventing and restraining Monge from using Mr. Warren’s and Mr. Griffin’s names.
85. Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1106 further provides that an “individual is entitled to recover the actual damages suffered as a result of the knowing use or infringement of such individual's rights and any profits that are attributable to such use or infringement which are not taken into account in computing the actual damages.”
86. Mr. Warren and Mr. Griffin are entitled to recover damages from Monge pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1106.
87. Mr. Warren and Mr. Griffin are entitled to recover any profits that are attributable to Monge’s use of and infringement upon Mr. Warren’s and Mr. Griffin’s names.
COUNT 2 – STATE SERVICE MARK AND TRADE NAME INFRINGEMENT
88. All preceding allegations are adopted and incorporated by reference as if fully restated herein.
89. Warren & Griffin has registered the “Warren & Griffin” service mark with the State of Tennessee.
90. Prior to formal registration of the mark, Warren & Griffin had common law service mark rights in the “Warren & Griffin” mark.
91. The Warren & Griffin mark is famous within the meaning of Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-513.
92. “Warren & Griffin” is also the trade name by which Warren & Griffin identifies its business and services as well as the vocation of its attorneys.
93. Monge’s use of the Warren & Griffin service mark and trade name infringes upon Warren & Griffin’s rights under the Tennessee Trade Mark Act of 2000, Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-501 et seq.
94. The conduct described above in Count 1 and the Introduction and Factual Background sections of this Complaint constitutes conduct in violation of Warren & Griffin’s rights under the Tennessee Trade Mark Act of 2000.
95. Monge has used Warren & Griffin’s mark and name in connection with the sale, offering for sale, and advertising of services in a manner likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception as to the source of origin of such goods and services.
96. Such use has been without Warren & Griffin’s consent.
97. Monge has reproduced, copied or imitated Warren & Griffin’s mark and applied it to advertisements intended to be used in connection with services in the State of Tennessee.
98. Monge’s actions have been and, unless enjoined, will continue to be a willful and bad faith intent to benefit and profit from the “Warren & Griffin” mark and name.
99. Monge has acted with intent to cause confusion, mistake or deception.
100. Monge’s infringement has damaged, and unless enjoined, will continue to damage Warren & Griffin.
101. Pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-512 and § 47-25-515, Monge is liable to Warren & Griffin for the damages Warren & Griffin has sustained.
102. Pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-514, Warren & Griffin is entitled to an award of damages and of all profits derived from Monge through its use of Warren & Griffin’s mark.
103. Pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-514, Warren & Griffin is entitled to an award of its reasonable attorney’s fees.
104. .Monge committed its wrongful acts with knowledge and in bad faith as referenced in Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-514.
105. Pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-514, Warren & Griffin is entitled to a judgment three times the amount of Warren & Griffin’s damages, Monge’s profits, and Warren & Griffin’s reasonable attorney’s fees.
106. Unless restrained and enjoined by this Court, Monge will continue to infringe upon Warren & Griffin’s rights.
107. Unless restrained and enjoined by this Court, Monge will continue to inflict irreparable harm upon Warren & Griffin for which Warren & Griffin may not have an adequate remedy at law.
108. Pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-513 and § 47-25-514, Warren & Griffin is entitled to temporary, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against Monge’s use of Warren & Griffin’s name and mark.
COUNT 3 – VIOLATION OF TENNESSEE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
109. All preceding allegations are adopted and incorporated by reference as if fully restated herein.
110. Monge’s actions as described above constitute a false and deceptive business practice in violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-101, et. seq.
111. By taking action to cause Monge’s telephone number to be the first or most prominent information displayed in response to a person searching on a mobile telephone for “Warren and Griffin,” “Warren & Griffin,” or “Warren Griffin,” Monge’s actions are causing a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to the source or sponsorship of services in violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-104(b)(2).
112. By taking action to cause Monge’s telephone number to be the first or most prominent information a person sees when searching for “Warren and Griffin,” “Warren & Griffin,” or “Warren Griffin” on a mobile telephone, Monge’s actions are causing a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding as to affiliation, connection or association with another in violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-104(b)(3).
113. The above-referenced confusion and misunderstanding is exacerbated by Monge’s additional use of a telephone number that appears to be “local” despite Monge not having a local office.
114. The above-referenced confusion and misunderstanding is further exacerbated by Monge’s use of a telephone number that begins with the Chattanooga area code and ends with the same four digits with which Warren & Griffin’s number ends.
115. The above-referenced unfair and deceptive acts and practices are causing Warren & Griffin to suffer loss and damages.
116. Monge has also unjustly derived profits from the above-referenced unfair and deceptive acts and practices.
117. Pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-109(a)(1), Monge is liable to Warren & Griffin for the losses and damages Warren & Griffin sustained.
118. Monge’s actions are willful and knowing.
119. Monge is liable to Warren & Griffin for treble damages pursuant to Tenn. Code. Ann. § 47-18-109(a)(3).
120. Monge is liable to Warren & Griffin for its reasonable attorney fees pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-109(e)(1).
121. Unless restrained and enjoined by this Court, Monge will continue to engage in unfair and deceptive business practices which deceive the public and infringe upon Warren & Griffin’s rights.
122. Unless restrained and enjoined by this Court, Monge will continue to inflict irreparable harm upon Warren & Griffin for which Warren & Griffin may not have an adequate remedy at law.
COUNT 4 – INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH
PROSPECTIVE BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS
123. All preceding allegations are adopted and incorporated by reference as if fully restated herein.
124. Warren & Griffin has existing or prospective business relationships with injury victims who are seeking to contact the Warren & Griffin law firm by searching for “Warren Griffin” or “Warren & Griffin” on their mobile telephone.
125. Monge knows that people contacting Monge by calling or clicking on a telephone number prominently displayed because of searching for “Warren Griffin” or “Warren & Griffin” on a mobile telephone have an existing or prospective business relationship with Warren & Griffin.
126. Monge has intentionally interfered with and attempted to prevent those business relationships between Warren & Griffin and the persons who get misdirected to Monge after searching for “Warren Griffin” or “Warren & Griffin.”
127. Monge has used improper means to interfere with or preclude the business relationships between Warren & Griffin and persons who get misdirected to Monge after searching for “Warren Griffin” or “Warren & Griffin.”
128. Monge’s improper means included wrongfully using the “Warren & Griffin” name and service mark or a close variation of such mark.
129. Monge’s improper means also included wrongfully appropriating and using C. Mark Warren’s last name and John Mark Griffin’s last name.
130. Monge has acted with improper motive.
131. Warren & Griffin has suffered damages as a result of the Defendant’s actions.
132. Monge is liable to Warren & Griffin for the damages it has sustained as a result of the Defendants’ interference with contract.
133. Monge is further liable to Warren & Griffin for punitive damages because of the intentional and malicious nature of the Defendant’s acts.
134. Unless restrained and enjoined by this Court, Monge will continue to interfere with Warren & Griffin’s existing and prospective business relationships.
135. Unless restrained and enjoined by this Court, Monge will continue to inflict irreparable harm upon Warren & Griffin for which Warren & Griffin may not have an adequate remedy at law.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Warren & Griffin, P.C., C. Mark Warren, and John Mark Griffin pray as follows:
A. That process issue and that the Defendant be required to answer this complaint within the time provided by law;
B. That a temporary restraining order, temporary injunction and permanent injunction be entered, restraining and enjoining Monge and all of its agents from using Mr. Warren’s name, Mr. Griffin’s name, the “Warren & Griffin” mark or any variation of that mark in advertising, including restraining and enjoining Monge and all of its agents from using the words “Warren” and “Griffin” as AdWords for Google or other Internet searches;
C. That Plaintiffs be awarded a judgment against Monge for compensatory damages and for a disgorging of profits in an amount to be proven at trial;
D. That Plaintiffs be awarded punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial;
E. That Plaintiffs be awarded treble damages pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-50-109;
F. That Plaintiffs be awarded their reasonable attorney fees;
G. That Plaintiffs be awarded pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;
H. That all costs be taxed to the Defendant; and
I. That this Court provide the Plaintiffs with such other legal and equitable relief as it deems proper and appropriate.
This the ___ day of February, 2020.
Respectfully Submitted,
Law Office of Stephen S. Duggins
______________________________
(Stephen S. Duggins, #13222) 8052 Standifer Gap Road, Suite B
Chattanooga, TN 37421
423/635-7113 (t)
423/635-7114 (f)
Steve@sdugginslaw.com