Case 0:15-cv-60407-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2015 Page 1 of 24

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
SPRINT SOLUTIONS, INC., SPRINT
COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY L.P. and
BOOST WORLDWIDE, INC.
Plaintiffs,
v.
WIRELESS WORKSHOP LLC and
CHRISTOPHER A. FOX
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No: ______________

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiffs Sprint Solutions, Inc., Sprint Communications Company L.P., and Boost
Worldwide, Inc. (collectively Sprint or Plaintiffs) hereby file this Complaint for Damages
and Injunctive Relief against Wireless Workshop LLC and Christopher A. Fox (collectively,
Defendants), and state:
INTRODUCTION
1.

Sprint sells wireless handsets (Sprint Phones or Phones) under the brands

Sprint, Boost Mobile, Virgin Mobile, payLo, and Assurance Wireless for use on Sprints
wireless network at prices significantly below the wholesale price of the Phones to make their
service more widely accessible to consumers.
2.

Defendants engage in various illegal activities for the purpose of profiting from

Sprints discounted Phones, including the illegal appropriation and use of Sprints trademarks
and copyrights in their business of unlocking and reflashing new Sprint handsets for use on other
networks, and improperly obtaining and selling electronic serial numbers (or ESNs) to be used to
create counterfeit Sprint Phones from Phones that have been flagged as lost or stolen.
100212328.6

Case 0:15-cv-60407-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2015 Page 2 of 24

3.

Defendants activities cause tremendous harm to Sprint and to consumers. In

addition to willful infringement of Sprints trademarks and copyrights, Defendants misconduct,

which includes, inter alia, violations of the Wireless Telephone Protection Act of 1998, the
Copyright Act, the Lanham Act and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, has
harmed Sprints relationships with its customers, dealers, retailers, and others. Defendants have
caused substantial damage to Sprints brand, image, and reputation.
4.

Sprint seeks to recover damages for the harm caused by Defendants actions and

to obtain an injunction prohibiting Defendants from continuing to engage in these activities.

5.

All conditions precedent to filing this action have been performed, waived or

excused.
6.

Sprint has retained the undersigned attorneys to represent it in this action and has

agreed to pay its attorneys a reasonable fee for their services.

PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE
7.

This is an action for damages in excess of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest,

costs, and attorneys fees.

8.

Sprint Solutions, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of

business in Reston, Virginia.

9.

Sprint Communications Company L.P. is a Delaware limited partnership, with its

principal place of business in Overland Park, Kansas.

10.

Boost Worldwide, Inc. (Boost Worldwide) is an indirect wholly-owned

subsidiary of Sprint Communications, Inc., and is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business in Overland Park, Kansas.

100212328.6

Case 0:15-cv-60407-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2015 Page 3 of 24

11.

Defendant Wireless Workshop LLC (Wireless Workshop) is a Wyoming

limited liability company with its principal place of business at 1621 Central Avenue, Cheyenne,
Wyoming 82001. Wireless Workshop also conducts business at 3800 Amalfi Drive, Hollywood,
Florida 33021 and through its website: wirelessworkshop.com. Defendant Christopher A. Fox is
the CEO and President of Wireless Workshop.
12.

Defendant Christopher A. Fox (Fox) is an individual and a resident of

Hollywood, Florida and is personally engaged in, and helped facilitate, the improper conduct
described herein. Upon information and belief, Fox resides at 3800 Amalfi Drive, Hollywood,
Florida 33021. Fox is the CEO and President of Defendant Wireless Workshop.
13.

Jurisdiction in this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1332, and 1338

and 17 U.S.C. 1203 because Sprints claims for violation of the United States Trademark Act,
Title 15 of the United States Code, and United States Copyright Act, Title 17 of the United
States Code, arise under federal law and because diversity exists between the parties and the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00 exclusive of costs, fees, and interest. This Court has
supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367 over Sprints state law claims because
those claims are so related to the federal claims that they form part of the same case or
controversy.
14.

Defendant Fox is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court because he is a

resident of Broward County, Florida. Defendant Wireless Workshop is subject to the personal
jurisdiction of this Court because it does business in Florida and has offices located in Broward
County, Florida.
15.

All Defendants are subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court because they

have conducted, engaged in and carried out business ventures within the State of Florida; they

100212328.6

Case 0:15-cv-60407-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2015 Page 4 of 24

have committed tortious acts within the State of Florida; and they have engaged in substantial
and not isolated activity within the State of Florida.
16.

Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) because the Defendants either

reside in this district or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims
occurred in this judicial district.
SPRINTS BUSINESS MODEL
17.

Sprint and its affiliates offer a comprehensive range of telecommunications

services to consumers, businesses, and government users. Sprint currently serves more than 56
million customers nationwide, and is widely recognized for developing, engineering and
deploying innovative technologies.

The Sprint companies and affiliates highly value the

outstanding business reputation they have worked hard to develop.

18.

Sprints wireless program enables Sprint customers to choose from a variety of

monthly voice and data plans for use on cutting edge devices on the Sprint wireless network. In
addition to being available through Sprint online, over the phone with authorized Sprint service
representatives, and in its stores, Sprint Phones and wireless service are sold through authorized
Sprint dealers and retailers around the country, with whom Sprint has contractual relationships.
19.

Sprints business model is based upon Sprints ability to deliver affordable,

innovative, and desirable products and services to consumers.

Therefore, Sprint assists its

customers in their acquisition of Sprint Phones for use exclusively on the Sprint network by selling
the Phones for substantially less than what Sprint pays to the manufacturers for the Phones. Sprint
recoups the money it loses on the Phones through revenue earned on the sale of Sprint service,
which customers must use to transmit and receive voice, text, and data on the Sprint Phones. In
addition to subsidizing Sprint Phones, Sprint also offers its customers the option of paying off the

100212328.6

Case 0:15-cv-60407-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2015 Page 5 of 24

Phone in installments or leasing a Phone from Sprint, as well as providing discounts, rebates, and
other incentive programs by which Sprint heavily invests in the Phones to the benefit of its
customers.
20.

Sprint is able to offer its Phones to customers at reduced prices only if the

Phones are used as intended on the Sprint wireless network.

Manufacturers that produce

wireless phones for Sprint install proprietary software, requested and paid for by Sprint, on the
Sprint Phones. Among other things, this software is intended to prevent the Phones from being
used outside the Sprint network. Defendants develop and sell software and usage subscriptions
for software that hacks the proprietary software installed by the Phone manufacturers so that the
new Sprint Phones can be used on other wireless networks. The purpose of this hacking, known
as flashing/reflashing or unlocking, is to erase, remove and/or disable the proprietary
software installed in the new Phones, preventing Sprint from recouping its substantial investment
in the Phones.
21.

Every Sprint Phone is uniquely identified by its Electronic Serial Number

(ESN). This number is assigned to the Phone during the manufacturing process and is used for
identification, verification, and authentication, as well as storing the history of the device,
throughout the life of the Phone. Misuse of ESNs is prohibited under 18 U.S.C. 1029, Fraud
and related activity in connection with access devices, which provides, inter alia, that trafficking
in counterfeit or unauthorized ESNs is punishable by a fine, imprisonment of up to twenty (20)
years or both, and may be subject to a civil forfeiture action. See 18 U.S.C. 1029(c). Sprint
Phones are identified in the Sprint system and activated, deactivated, and billed to a specific
account based on their ESN.

100212328.6

Case 0:15-cv-60407-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2015 Page 6 of 24

22.

If Sprint identifies a Phone as connected with theft, fraud, or other loss, the ESN

is logged into Sprints system as such and the Phone can no longer be used on the Sprint
network. This is done to protect Sprint from further harm and in attempt to deter criminal
activity. The Phone is thereafter referred to in the handset trafficking community as having a
Bad ESN. The Clean ESNs sold by Defendants are used by criminals to illegally replace the
Bad ESNs in lost, stolen, or fraudulently obtained Phones in order to create a counterfeit phone
that can be resold and activated.
SPRINTS FEDERALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS
23.

Sprint Communications Company L.P. owns federal trademark registrations for

the standard character and stylized Sprint marks (collectively, the Sprint Communications
Marks). Sprint Solutions, Inc. has been assigned the right to use and enforce the Sprint
Communications Marks. Copies of the certificates of registration issued by the United States
Patent and Trademark Office are attached hereto as Composite Exhibit A. The stylized Sprint
Communications Marks are depicted below:

24.

Boost Worldwide, Inc. owns federal trademark registrations for the standard

character and stylized Boost marks (collectively, the Boost Marks). Sprint Solutions, Inc.
has been assigned the right to use and enforce the Boost Marks. Copies of the certificates of
registration issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office are attached hereto as
Composite Exhibit B. The stylized Boost Marks are depicted below:

100212328.6

Case 0:15-cv-60407-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2015 Page 7 of 24

25.

Sprint Communications Company L.P. and Sprint Solutions, Inc. have been

assigned the right to use and enforce the standard character and stylized Virgin Mobile, payLo,
Assurance Wireless and Boost Mobile trademarks (collectively, the Assigned Marks), which
are depicted below:

The Sprint Communication Marks, Boost Marks, and Assigned Marks will collectively be
referred to as the Sprint Marks.
26.

Sprint uses the Sprint Marks on and in connection with its telecommunications

products and services.

27.

Sprint Marks have become an intrinsic and essential part of the valuable

goodwill and property of Sprint, who protects the Sprint Marks. The Sprint Marks are well
established and well known to customers and the trade as symbols identifying and distinguishing
Sprints products and services, and signifying distinctive products and services of high quality.
Only Sprint and its expressly authorized, affiliated agents are permitted to use the Sprint Marks.
The Sprint Marks are valid, distinctive, protectable, famous, have acquired secondary meaning,
and are associated exclusively with Sprint.
28.

Sprint Communications Company L.P. owns a valid copyright registration, VA

1-336-124, for the Sprint Going Forward Design. A copy of the certificate of registration is
attached as Exhibit C. Pursuant to the copyright registration, the design was created in 2005 and
first published in the United States on or around June 22, 2005. Id. The application for

100212328.6

Case 0:15-cv-60407-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2015 Page 8 of 24

registration was filed with the Library of Congress on September 20, 2005. Id. The effective
date of registration is September 20, 2005. Id.
29.

Boost Worldwide, Inc. owns a valid copyright registration, VA 1-738-903, for

the Orange Ramp Logo. A copy of the certificate of registration is attached as Exhibit D.
Pursuant to the copyright registration, the logo was created in 2008 and first published in the
United States on or around February 22, 2008. Id. The application for registration was filed
with the Library of Congress on or around August 2010. Id. The effective date of registration is
August 26, 2010. Id. The Sprint Going Forward Design and Orange Ramp Logo copyrights will
collectively be referred to as the Sprint Copyrights.
DEFENDANTS MISCONDUCT
30.

Defendants are not authorized Sprint dealers or retailers.

31.

Defendants have no legitimate connection to Sprint and are not licensed or

authorized to use the Sprint Marks or Sprint Copyrights.

32.

Sprint has discovered that, although large quantities of its Phones are being

purchased throughout the United States, a significant number of these Phones are not being used
on the Sprint network. Instead, the Phones are unlocked in large numbers by Defendants or
Defendants customers using Defendants unlocking/flashing software, to raise their value and
prepare them for use on other carriers. Defendants undertake these actions for their own profit.
Once a Sprint Phone is unlocked or reflashed for use on another carrier, Sprint no longer has a
revenue source to recoup its substantial investment in that Phone.
33.

Defendants are a self-described CDMA Phone Flashing Software Provider. A

copy of Defendant Foxs LinkedIn profile is attached hereto as Exhibit E.

100212328.6

Case 0:15-cv-60407-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2015 Page 9 of 24

34.

As part of their reflashing business, Defendants offer Sprint MVNO and Boost

Clean MEIDs1 for sale. A sample of Defendants infringing website content is attached hereto
as Exhibit F. These numbers provide a way to bypass Sprints security and allow bad ESN
Phones, or Phones connected with theft, fraud or other loss, to be activated despite their bad ESN
status. Defendants are selling only serial numbers, not the Phones. On information and belief,
Defendants collect some and clone other real Sprint customer ESNs based on sequencing,
without the knowledge and consent of Sprint or its customers. Not only is this practice a
criminal violation of the federal Wireless Telephone Protection Act of 1998 (18 U.S.C. 1029),
but it also interferes with Sprints ability to provide service to the legitimate Phones of Sprint
customers.
35.

Defendants website advertises flashing and unlocking services for Sprint and

Boost and illegally displays the Sprint Marks and Sprint Copyrights to advance their business by
creating the impression of legitimacy and an authorized connection to Sprint, such as in the
Supported Carriers section of the website. See Exhibit F.
36.

Defendants online customer service representative specifically identified

Defendant Chris Fox as Wireless Workshops point of contact for further information about
Defendants services. A copy of the live chat between Sprints undercover investigator and
Defendants customer service representative is attached hereto as Exhibit G.
37.

Defendants website makes clear that they are encouraging Sprint customers,

dealers, and MVNOs (Mobile Virtual Network Operators) to violate the terms of their
agreements with Sprint regarding the sourcing, terms, and restrictions related to the acquisition,
access, and use of the Sprint network and its Phones; as well as the assigning of fraudulent ESNs
to Sprint Phones to attempt to bypass Sprints security. See Exhibit F.
1

MEID is a Mobile Equipment Identifier number and is synonymous with ESN.

100212328.6

Case 0:15-cv-60407-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2015 Page 10 of 24

38.

A January 27, 2015 post in the News section of Defendants website states that

Boost Mobile & Sprint MVNO Full Flashing Fully Automated. No donor phone. Fast & Easy!
which is accompanied by a full color Boost logo. Id. Defendants January 15, 2015 news post
states New Full Flashes and identifies four Sprint model Phones, also accompanied by a full
color Sprint logo. Id.
39.

Upon information and belief, this is only a portion of Defendants misuse of the

Sprint Marks and Sprint Copyrights and interference with Sprints business relationships.
SUBSTANTIAL HARM CAUSED BY DEFENDANTS MISCONDUCT
40.

Defendants actions substantially harm Sprint in several ways, including inter

alia: (1) Defendants actions seriously and irreparably interfere with Sprints relationships with
its customers, dealers, and MVNOs; and (2) Defendants infringement of the Sprint Marks and
Sprint Copyrights causes significant ongoing and irreparable losses and harm to Sprints brand,
image, and reputation. These factors undermine Sprints competitive edge in the cellular phone
industry.
41.

Sprint suffers additional, irreparable harm when the proprietary software installed in

the Phones is tampered with in that Sprint is deprived of the means to control the quality of its
product. This becomes especially damaging where a potential legitimate Sprint customer within the
United States acquires an illegitimate Sprint ESN from Defendant or Phone that has been reflashed
as the customer believes it is a genuine Sprint product, with all of the attendant benefits, and is later
disappointed in Sprint because the Phone does not work as intended because the software is no
longer functioning properly as a result of the unlocking or the improper ESN is discovered and the
Phone is shut down. Furthermore, the process of unlocking or reflashing voids the manufacturers
warranty on the device. Both consumers and Sprint are harmed when a Sprint Phone that has been

100212328.6

10

Case 0:15-cv-60407-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2015 Page 11 of 24

altered by Defendants is submitted for warranty repair. Under these circumstances, consumers are
unable to obtain warranty service in the event they experience problems with their Phones. As a
result, Sprints reputation suffers further.
42.

Additionally, confused customers look to Sprint to resolve their problems with

the Phones reflashed and assigned an illegal ESN by Defendants. Sprint incurs substantial costs
associated with calls to its customer service department to resolve the issues created by
Defendants.
43.

Defendants conduct, done while prominently displaying the Sprint Marks and

Sprint Copyrights, has resulted in the dilution of the Marks and Copyrights; substantial harm to
Sprints business reputation and goodwill; a greater likelihood of confusion, mistake, and
deception as to the source of origin of Sprint products unlawfully sold by the Defendants and
confusion as to what if any relationship exists between Sprint and Defendants.
COUNT ONE
UNFAIR COMPETITION
44.

Sprint reasserts the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 43 above as

though fully set forth herein.

45.

Defendants and their co-conspirators conduct in disabling, unlocking or reflashing,

and selling software and services to disable, unlock or reflash Sprint Phones, as well as illegal Sprint
ESNs, and assisting others to resell Sprint Phones as new for activation on other wireless networks
constitutes unfair competition under the common law of the State of Florida.
46.

Defendants use of at least one of the Sprint Marks and Copyrights in connection

with the sale of unlocking and reflashing services as well as illicit Sprint ESNs has caused, and
will further cause, a likelihood of confusion, mistake and deception as to the source of origin of

100212328.6

11

Case 0:15-cv-60407-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2015 Page 12 of 24

Defendants and their co-conspirators counterfeit products and services, and the relationship
between Sprint and Defendants. Thus, Defendants have also engaged in unfair competition with
Sprint in violation of the common law of Florida by illegally using the Sprint Marks and Sprint
Copyrights to advertise and sell their products and services. Defendants use the Sprint Marks
and Copyrights with the intention of trading upon the goodwill established by Sprint and are
thereby misappropriating the benefits of substantial effort and money expended by Sprint in
establishing its rights in and to the Sprint Marks and Sprint Copyrights.
47.

Defendants actions were done in bad faith; they were intentional, malicious, and

willful, and have caused substantial harm to Sprint.

48.

Sprint is entitled to appropriate relief as prayed for hereinafter, including

injunctive relief.
COUNT TWO
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS
RELATIONSHIPS AND PROSPECTIVE ADVANTAGE
49.

Sprint reasserts the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 43 above as

though fully set forth herein.

50.

A business relationship, and an expectancy of business relationships, exists

between Sprint and authorized dealers of Sprint Phones and service.

51.

A business relationship, and an expectancy of business relationships, exists

between Sprint and authorized MVNOs of Sprint service.

52.

A business relationship, and an expectancy of business relationships, exists

between Sprint and Sprint customers and prospective Sprint customers.

53.

There is a high probability of future economic benefit to Sprint as a result of these

current and prospective business relationships.

100212328.6

12

Case 0:15-cv-60407-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2015 Page 13 of 24

54.

Defendants have knowledge of and have intentionally and unjustifiably interfered

with, and/or have knowingly facilitated a conspiracy to interfere with, these current and
prospective business relationships between Sprint, authorized dealers and MVNOs who sell
Sprint products and services, as well as legitimate Sprint customers or prospective customers.
55.

Specifically, but without limitation, Defendants, who blatantly display the Sprint

Marks on their webpage, knew that Sprint has business relationships, and an expectancy of
business relationships, with legitimate consumers of Sprint Phones and wireless service.
Defendants interfered with these relationships by unlocking and reflashing new Sprint Phones in
volume and causing Sprint customers to violate the terms of their agreements with Sprint.
Defendants also interfered with the contractual relationships that existed between Sprint and its
potential customers by selling illicit Sprint ESNs to mask the true identity of phones being
activated on Sprints network thereby interfering with service to the legitimate account holder
and attempting to circumvent Sprints security to prevent fraudulent or stolen handsets from
accessing its network.
56.

Defendants also knew that Sprint has business relationships with authorized

dealers and MVNOs of Sprint Phones and services to provide said dealers with authentic Sprint
Phones with genuine ESNs for their legitimate consumers use exclusively on Sprints wireless
network. Defendants activities have resulted in substantial numbers of new Sprint Phones that
are not activated on Sprint service. Further, Defendants sale of illicit Sprint ESNs from ghost or
cloned phones to Sprint dealers and MVNOs to bypass security and activate phones on Sprints
network is a violation of their agreements with Sprint.
57.

Defendants are intentionally interfering with Sprints business relationships and

prospective advantages through improper means and in violation of the law.

100212328.6

13

Case 0:15-cv-60407-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2015 Page 14 of 24

58.

Defendants engaged in the acts of interference set forth herein with a conscious

desire to prevent the relationships from occurring or continuing, or Defendants knew that the
interference was certain or substantially certain to occur as a result of their conduct.
59.

Sprint has been proximately damaged and continues to be damaged as a result of

Defendants interference.
60.

There is no adequate remedy at law to fully compensate Sprint for the harm

caused by Defendants tortious interference.

COUNT THREE
FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT (FDUTPA)
Fla. Stat. 501.201, et seq.
61.

Sprint reasserts the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 43 above as

though fully set forth herein.

62.

Defendants sale of illegal Sprint ESNs as a means to launder phones for

unauthorized use on the Sprint network is not only a violation of federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1029,
but is a deceptive act and unfair practice that dupes both Sprint and its unsuspecting customers
who acquire the Phones believing they are legitimate Phones authorized for use on the Sprint
network.
63.

In selling Sprint ESNs taken from Sprint Phones or creating valid Sprint ESNs

based on sequencing that are assigned to other Sprint Phones, Defendants are engaged in exactly
the acts prohibited under 18 U.S.C. 1029. Defendants are causing illegal access to Sprints
protected telecommunications network under an assumed number and confusion and damage to
existing customer accounts, bypassing Sprints security, and violation of agreements with
Sprints customers as well as its dealers and MVNOs.

100212328.6

14

Case 0:15-cv-60407-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2015 Page 15 of 24

64.

Sprint has been damaged by Defendants sale of illegal Sprint ESNs in that

because its protected computer system has been breached, Sprint must locate and remedy all of
the breaches; on information and belief legitimate Sprint customers accounts are negatively
impacted by Defendants infringing Sprint ESNs; Sprints relationships with its MVNOs,
dealers, and customers are injured by the fraud, which results in violations of their agreements
with Sprint and misplaced blame on Sprint for Phones that are subject to being shut down for
fraudulent ESNs and/or service issues. This further damages Sprints reputation.
65.

Defendants use of at least one of the Sprint Marks in connection with the sale of

unlocking and reflashing services as well as illicit Sprint ESNs has caused, and will further
cause, a likelihood of confusion, mistake and deception as to the source of origin of Defendants
and their co-conspirators counterfeit products and services, and the relationship between Sprint
and Defendants.

Thus, Defendants have also engaged in unfair methods of competition,

unconscionable acts or practices and/or unfair or deceptive acts or practices by illegally using the
Sprint Marks and Sprint Copyrights to advertise and sell their products and services. Defendants
use the Sprint Marks and Copyrights with the intention of trading upon the goodwill established
by Sprint and are thereby misappropriating the benefits of substantial effort and money expended
by Sprint in establishing its rights in and to the Sprint Marks and Sprint Copyrights.
66.

Defendants conduct is willful and constitutes unfair methods of competition,

unconscionable acts or practices, and/or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of

501.204, Fla. Stat.
67.

Sprint has suffered damage as a direct and proximate result of Defendants

conduct. Pursuant to 501.211, Fla. Stat., Sprint is entitled to entry of an injunction enjoining
Defendants from any further violations of the statute. Florida Statute 501.211 and 501.2105

100212328.6

15

Case 0:15-cv-60407-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2015 Page 16 of 24

further provide that Sprint is entitled to recover its actual damages, plus attorneys fees and court
costs.
COUNT FOUR
FEDERAL TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
15 U.S.C. 1114 [ 32(1) of the Lanham Act]
68.

Sprint reasserts the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 43 above as

though fully set forth herein.

69.

Defendants aforementioned conduct constitutes use of certain federally-

registered Sprint Communications Marks and/or Boost Marks without authorization in

connection with their sale and offer for sale of unlocking and reflashing services and products
targeting Sprint Phones, as well as ESNs for use in laundering phones for use on the Sprint
network. Downstream customers may discover these Sprint Phones are unauthorized, have been
altered from their original state, are materially different from legitimate Sprint products and
services, are inoperable or have diminished operability on the Sprint network, and do not carry a
warranty.
70.

Defendants use of certain federally-registered Sprint Communications Marks

and/or Boost Marks in connection with the sale of counterfeit Sprint ESNs and their unlocking
and reflashing services has caused, and will further cause, a likelihood of confusion, mistake and
deception as to the source of origin and legitimacy of the Sprint ESNs and services that
Defendants are selling, and the relationship between Sprint Communications and Defendants.
71.

Defendants

unauthorized

use

of

certain

federally-registered

Sprint

Communications Marks and/or Boost Marks in connection with their activities is likely to
continue in the future, all to the great and irreparable damage to the business, reputation and
goodwill of Sprint Communications and Boost Worldwide.
100212328.6

16

Case 0:15-cv-60407-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2015 Page 17 of 24

72.

Defendants use of certain federally-registered Sprint Communications Marks

and/or Boost Marks in connection with the unlocking and reflashing of new Sprint Phones and
the sale of counterfeit Sprint ESNs for unauthorized activation on the Sprint network, constitutes
a misappropriation of Sprint Communications and Boost Worldwides distinguishing and
identifying federally-registered trademarks that were created as a result of significant effort and
expense by Sprint Communications and Boost Worldwide over a long period of time.
73.

Defendants use of certain federally-registered Sprint Communications Marks

and/or Boost Marks evokes an immediate, favorable impression or association and constitutes a
false representation that the products, services, and business of Defendants have some
connection, association or affiliation with Sprint Communications and/or Boost Worldwide, and
is likely to mislead the trade and public into believing that Defendants products and services
originate from, are affiliated with, or are sponsored, authorized, approved or sanctioned by Sprint
Communications and/or Boost Worldwide.
74.

Defendants, in committing the foregoing acts in commerce, have damaged, and

will continue to damage, Sprint Communications and Boost Worldwide and the reputation and
goodwill of Sprint Communications and Boost Worldwide, and have been unjustly enriched and
will continue to unjustly enrich themselves at the expense of Sprint Communications and Boost
Worldwide.
75.

Sprint Communications and Boost Worldwide are without an adequate remedy at

law to redress such acts, and will be irreparably damaged unless Defendants are enjoined from
committing and continuing to commit such acts.

100212328.6

17

Case 0:15-cv-60407-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2015 Page 18 of 24

76.

Defendants

aforesaid

acts

constitute

willful

infringement

of

Sprint

Communications and Boost Worldwides aforementioned federally-registered trademarks in

violation of 15 U.S.C. 1114.
COUNT FIVE
FEDERAL COMMON LAW TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
AND FALSE ADVERTISING
15 U.S.C. 1125 (a)(1)(A) and (B) [ 43(a) of the Lanham Act]

77.

Sprint reasserts the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 43 above as

though fully set forth herein.

78.

Defendants aforementioned conduct constitutes use of at least one of the Sprint

Marks without authorization in connection with their sale and offer for sale of unlocking and
reflashing services and products targeting Sprint Phones, as well as ESNs for use in laundering
phones for use on the Sprint network, which downstream customers will discover are
unauthorized, have been altered from their original state, are materially different from legitimate
Sprint products and services, are inoperable or have diminished operability on the Sprint
network, and do not carry a warranty.
79.

Defendants use of at least one of the Sprint Marks in connection with the sale of

Sprint ESNs and their unlocking and reflashing services has caused, and will further cause, a
likelihood of confusion, mistake and deception as to the source of origin and legitimacy of the
counterfeit Sprint ESNs and services that Defendants are selling, and the relationship between
Sprint Communications and Defendants.
80.

Defendants unauthorized use of at least one of the Sprint Marks is likely to

continue in the future, all to the great and irreparable damage to the business, reputation, and
goodwill of Sprint.
100212328.6

18

Case 0:15-cv-60407-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2015 Page 19 of 24

81.

Defendants use of at least one of the Sprint Marks in connection with the

unlocking and reflashing of new Sprint Phones, which no longer carry warranties, and the sale of
counterfeit Sprint ESNs for unauthorized activation on the Sprint network, constitutes a
misappropriation of at least one of the distinguishing and identifying Sprint Marks that were
created as a result of significant effort and expense.
82.

Defendants use of at least one of the Sprint Marks evokes an immediate,

favorable impression or association and constitutes a false representation that the products,
services, and business that Defendants have some connection, association or affiliation with
Sprint, and thus constitutes false designation of origin and is likely to mislead the trade and
public into believing that Defendants products and services originate from, are affiliated with, or
are sponsored, authorized, approved or sanctioned by Sprint. Defendants are not affiliated with
Sprint in any way.
83.

Defendants, in committing the foregoing acts in commerce, have damaged, and

will continue to damage, Sprint and the reputation and goodwill of Sprint, and have been
unjustly enriched and will continue to unjustly enrich themselves at the expense of Sprint.
84.

Sprint is without an adequate remedy at law to redress such acts, and will be

irreparably damaged unless Defendants are enjoined from committing and continuing to commit
such acts.
85.

Defendants use of at least one of the Sprint Marks in commercial advertising or

promotion misrepresents the nature, characteristics, and/or qualities of their infringing products and
services. Defendants advertising and promotion is false or misleading. Defendants advertising
and promotion deceives or has the capacity to deceive consumers.

100212328.6

19

The deception and

Case 0:15-cv-60407-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2015 Page 20 of 24

misrepresentations have a material effect on the purchasing decisions and affect interstate
commerce.
86.

Defendants activities constitute false designation of origin, false descriptions

and representations, and false advertising in commerce in violation of 43(a) of the Lanham
Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(1)(A) and (B).
87.

Sprint is entitled to appropriate relief as prayed for hereinafter, including

preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.

88.

Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiffs are the owners and/or

authorized licensees of the Sprint Marks and that Defendants have no legal right to use any of the
Sprint Marks on their infringing products.
89.

Defendants are engaged in and continue to engage in the alleged activities

knowingly, willfully and deliberately, so as to justify the assessment of exemplary damages and
an award of Plaintiffs lost profits, Defendants profits, and Plaintiffs attorneys fees.
COUNT SIX
CONTRIBUTORY TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
90.

Sprint reasserts the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 43 above as

though fully set forth herein.

91.

By misappropriating and using Sprint Marks in connection with their sale of

Sprint ESNs for use in disguising the identity of Phones to be activated on Sprints network as
well as reflashing new Sprint Phones, thereby voiding the warranty and disrupting their
performance on the Sprint network, Defendants knowingly aided and enabled distributors and/or
sellers of the products to market them to members of the general public in a way that infringes at

100212328.6

20

Case 0:15-cv-60407-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2015 Page 21 of 24

least one of the Sprint Marks by placing in the hands of distributors and/or sellers an instrument
of consumer deception.
92.

Defendants unlawful, unauthorized, and unlicensed sale of Sprint ESNs, as well

as selling software and services to unlock new Sprint Phones and in so doing materially altering
the Phones, has contributed to the creation of express and implied misrepresentations that the
Sprint products, as sold by Defendants, were created, authorized or approved by Sprint, may be
activated on the Sprint network, and include warranties.
93.

Upon information and belief, Defendants conduct leads to post-sale confusion

by causing consumers who purchase Phones with improperly assigned Sprint ESNs sold by
Defendants or reflashed Sprint Phones to believe that they are purchasing handsets approved by
Sprint that can be activated on the Sprint network and containing original warranties.
94.

Defendants conduct constitutes contributory infringement in violation of the

Trademark Act. Defendants conduct is intentional, malicious and willful.

95.

Sprint has been damaged and continues to suffer damages as a result of

Defendants actions.
96.

There is no adequate remedy at law to fully compensate Sprint for the harm

caused by Defendants actions.

COUNT SIX
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
97.

Sprint reasserts the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 43 above as

though fully set forth herein.

98.

Sprint Communications has the exclusive right to reproduce and prepare

derivative works of its federally copyrighted design pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 106.

100212328.6

21

Case 0:15-cv-60407-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2015 Page 22 of 24

99.

Boost Worldwide has the exclusive right to reproduce and prepare derivative

works of its federally copyrighted logo pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 106.

100.

Defendants, without Sprint Communications and Boost Worldwides authority or

consent, copied and continue to copy the Sprint Copyrights.

101.

Defendants, without Sprint Communications and Boost Worldwides authority or

consent, created and continue to create unauthorized derivate works and/or reproductions of the
Sprint Copyrights.
102.

Defendants have willfully, wantonly, and in conscious and intentional disregard

of and indifference to the rights of Sprint Communications and Boost Worldwide, reproduced
and displayed in the United States, caused to be reproduced and displayed in the United States,
and aided, abetted, contributed to, and participated in the unauthorized reproduction and display
of the copyrighted works of Sprint Communications and Boost Worldwide, which Defendants
knew or should reasonably have known were protected by copyright. Defendants infringement
and related violations continue to and through the date of the filing of this Complaint.
103.

As a direct and proximate result of their wrongful conduct, Defendants have

realized and continue to realize profits and other benefits rightfully belonging to Sprint
Communications and Boost Worldwide. Accordingly, Sprint Communications and Boost
Worldwide seek an award of damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 504 and 505.
104.

Defendants infringing conduct has caused and is causing substantial and

irreparable injury and damage to Sprint Communications and Boost Worldwide in an amount
not capable of determination, and, unless restrained, will cause further irreparable injury,
leaving Sprint Communications and Boost Worldwide with no adequate remedy at law.

100212328.6

22

Case 0:15-cv-60407-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2015 Page 23 of 24

105.

Defendants have willfully engaged in, and are willfully engaged in, the acts

complained of with oppression, fraud, and malice, and in conscious disregard of the rights of
Sprint Communications and Boost Worldwide, which are accordingly entitled to the maximum
statutory damages allowable pursuant to 17 U.S.C 504(c). Defendants knew or should have
known their conduct constituted copyright infringement under Title 17 of the United States
Code.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all triable issues.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Sprint Solutions, Inc., Sprint Communications Company L.P.
and Boost Worldwide, Inc., respectfully request that this Court enter final judgment and
permanent injunctive relief in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants, as follows:
(a) awarding Plaintiffs their compensatory, consequential, statutory and special
damages including, without limitation, lost profits, Defendants profits, loss of
goodwill and damage to its reputation, as well as exemplary damages,
together with pre and post judgment interest, as provided by law;
(b) awarding Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys fees and costs associated with
this action;
(c) granting permanent injunctive relief in favor of Plaintiffs and against
Defendants enjoining Defendants from engaging in the unlawful practices
described in this Complaint; and
(e) granting such further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

100212328.6

23

Case 0:15-cv-60407-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2015 Page 24 of 24

Respectfully submitted this 27th day of February, 2015.

By: /s/ Stacey K. Sutton
James B. Baldinger
Florida Bar No. 869899
Email: jbaldinger@CFJBLaw.com
Stacey K. Sutton
Florida Bar No. 0289530
Email: ssutton@CFJBLaw.com
CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, P.A.
525 Okeechobee Boulevard, Suite 1200
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Phone: (561) 659-7070
Fax: (561) 659-7368
Gail E. Podolsky
Georgia Bar No. 142021
Email: gpodolsky@CFJBLaw.com
To be admitted pro hac vice
CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, P.A.
One Atlantic Center
1201 West Peachtree Street, Suite 3000
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Phone: (404) 815-2714
Fax: (404) 815-3415
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Sprint Solutions, Inc.,
Sprint Communications Company L.P. and Boost
Worldwide, Inc.

100212328.6

24