CV Collection, LLC v. Weworewhat LLC

Case 2:20-cv-10290 Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 1 of 14 Page ID #:1
1 GLUCK LAW FIRM P.C.

Jeffrey S. Gluck (SBN 304555)
2 2125 S. Beverly Drive
Los Angeles, California 90034
3 Telephone: 310.776.7413
4 ERIKSON LAW GROUP

David Alden Erikson (SBN 189838)
5 Antoinette Waller (SBN 152895)
200 North Larchmont Boulevard
6 Los Angeles, California 90004
Telephone: 323.465.3100
7 Facsimile: 323.465.3177
8 Attorneys for Plaintiff
9
10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION
12
13 CV COLLECTION, LLC, a New York

limited liability company, d/b/a The COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT
14 Great Eros; AND TRADEMARK
INFRINGEMENT
15 Plaintiff,
16 v. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
17 WEWOREWHAT, LLC, a New York
limited liability company; ONIA, LLC
18 D/B/A WWW APPAREL, a New York
limited liability company; DANIELLE
19 BERNSTEIN, an individual; SAKS
FIFTH AVENUE, INC., a New York
20 corporation; BOP, LLC, a Wisconsin
limited liability company; CARBON
21 38, INC., a Delaware corporation; and
DOES 1-10 inclusive.
22
Defendants.
23
24 Plaintiff CV Collection, LLC d/b/a The Great Eros (“CV”) hereby complains
25 against Defendants Weworewhat LLC (“WWW”), Onia, LLC d/b/a Www Apparel
26 (“Onia”), Danielle Bernstein (“Bernstein”), Saks Fifth Avenue, Inc. (“Saks”), Bop
27 LLC (“Shop Bop”), Carbon 38, Inc. (“Carbon”); and Does 1-10 inclusive as follows.
28
1 COMPLAINT
1 SUMMARY OF THE CASE

2 1. CV Collection, LLC owns and operates The Great Eros, an acclaimed
3 fashion label founded by designer Christina Viviana. Since its inception, CV has
4 wrapped its products in tissue paper bearing a signature design (the “CV Design”).
5 As shown in the images below, the CV Design consists of a pattern of simple, yet
6 sensual illustrations of female figures in various states of repose.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 2. Defendant Weworewhat LLC is an upstart “fast-fashion” label founded

17 (on information and belief) as a collaboration between blogger and social media
18 “influencer” Defendant Danielle Bernstein and Defendant Onia LLC. Ms. Bernstein
19 (and her label) has a history of copying others’ designs and passing them off as her
20 own. In 2018, prior to the launch of the WWW label, Ms. Bernstein was accused of
21 copying the designs of a specialty jewelry line after she visited their studio. While
22 Ms. Bernstein apologized for that misappropriation in a tearful post to her Instagram
23 account, her infringing design practices have continued. Indeed, just this past July,
24 Defendants were called out for selling facemasks that were nearly identical to a
25 patent pending design that Ms. Bernstein had used her status as an “influencer” to
26 obtain for free from an independent designer. Ms. Bernstein, now an owner of the
27 WWW label, denied copying the facemask design, but nevertheless appears to have
28 removed them from the marketplace.
2 COMPLAINT
1 3. Subsequently, Bernstein and WWW entered into a joint venture with

2 Defendant Onia to produce and distribute swimwear and other products that
3 prominently featured the CV Design. Their knock-off proved to be so popular that
4 Bernstein, Onia, and WWW chose to produce and sell other goods bearing the same
5 infringing design—including scarves, yoga mats, and even wallpaper—which were
6 sold by Defendants Saks, Shop Bop and Carbon. Below are a few images of
7 Defendants’ goods bearing copies of the CV Design (the “Infringing Goods”):
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 4. Defendants have arrogantly rebuffed CV’s demand that they cease use
18 of its work, implausibly claiming they had not copied the work, that the CV Design
19 reflected no appreciable creativity, and that neither Ms. Bernstein, nor anyone
20 associated with WWW had even heard of The Great Eros, let alone purchased any
21 of their goods. Indeed, Defendants inexplicably stepped up their use of the CV
22 Design after receiving Plaintiff’s protests.
23 5. In fact, Ms. Bernstein had visited the showroom of Plaintiff’s sales

24 representative prior to producing the Infringing Goods, and inquired about obtaining
25 Plaintiff’s products in exchange for promoting The Great Eros through her social
26 media channels. Based on, inter alia, her reputation for infringement, Plaintiff
27 declined Ms. Bernstein’s offer. Nevertheless, Plaintiff is informed and believes that
28 Ms. Bernstein, WWW, and/or Onia subsequently purchased products from Plaintiff
3 COMPLAINT
1 that were wrapped in CV’s trademark tissue paper, bearing the CV Design; and
2 instructed their pattern makers to copy the CV Design for use on the Infringing
3 Goods.
4 6. Plaintiff brings this straightforward copyright infringement claim for

5 misappropriation of its original graphic expression. Because the CV Design
6 functions as a source-identifier for Plaintiff’s goods, Plaintiff also brings trademark
7 claims.
8 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9 7. Plaintiff brings this action for copyright infringement (17 U.S.C.
10 Section 101 et seq.), unfair competition under the Lanham Act, and related claims.
11 8. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over this action and
12 the claims asserted herein, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 (“federal question
13 jurisdiction”) and 1338(a)-(b) (“patent, copyright, trademark and unfair competition
14 jurisdiction”) in that this action arises under the laws of the United States and, more
15 specifically, Acts of Congress relating to patents, copyrights, trademarks, and unfair
16 competition. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the state law claims
17 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(a) (“supplemental jurisdiction”) in that they are
18 so related to the federal law intellectual property claims in the action that they form
19 part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States
20 Constitution.
21 9. Defendants are subject to the personal jurisdiction of the Court because

22 they do or transact business in, have agents in, or are otherwise found in and have
23 purposely availed themselves of the privilege of doing business in California and in
24 this District, and because the alleged misconduct was directed to California and this
25 district. Further, the alleged misconduct was directed to California and this district,
26 and Defendant’s marketing activities at issue in this case were expressly aimed at
27 California residents.
28
4 COMPLAINT
1 10. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section

2 1391(b)(1)-(3) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to
3 the claims occurred in this District in that, inter alia, the infringing products were
4 sold here.
5 THE PARTIES
6 11. Plaintiff CV Collection, LLC is and at all times relevant herein was a
7 New York limited liability company.
8 12. Defendant We Wore What is a New York limited liability company

9 that transacts business in this District, including, inter alia, by selling and marketing
10 its products to consumers in this District and throughout California.
11 13. Defendant Onia, LLC is a New York limited liability company that
12 transacts business in this District, including, inter alia, by importing goods to an
13 address in this District; and selling and marketing its products to consumers in this
14 District and throughout California. On information and belief, Defendant Onia, LLC
15 is a co-owner of the brand We Wore What and does business under the fictitious
16 business name Www Apparel.
17 14. On information and belief, Defendant Danielle Bernstein is a resident

18 of New York. Ms. Bernstein is the co-founder and co-owner of Defendant
19 Weworewhat, LLC.
20 15. Defendant Saks Fifth Avenue, Inc. is a New York corporation that
21 owns and operates the ecommerce website www.saksfifthavenue.com, as well as
22 brick and mortar department stores. On information and belief, Saks sold the
23 Infringing Goods to consumers in this District through its ecommerce website and at
24 its brick and mortar department stores.
25 16. Defendant Bop, LLC is a Wisconsin limited liability company that

26 owns and operates the ecommerce website www.shopbop.com. On information and
27 belief, Shop Bop sold the Infringing Goods to consumers in this District through its
28 ecommerce website.
5 COMPLAINT
1 17. Defendant Carbon 38, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
2 office located in this District. Carbon owns and operates the ecommerce website
3 www.carbon38.com, as well as brick and mortar retail stores. On information and
4 belief, Carbon sold the Infringing Goods to consumers in this District through its
5 ecommerce website and its brick and mortar retail store located in Pacific Palisades,
6 California.
7 18. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Defendants
8 sued herein as Does 1-10, inclusive, and therefore sues said Defendants by such
9 fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege the true names and
10 capacities when the same has been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes,
11 and thereon alleges, that each fictitiously-named Defendant is responsible in some
12 manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that Plaintiff’s damages as herein
13 alleged were proximately caused by their conduct.
14 19. Each of the Defendants acted as an agent for each of the other
15 Defendants in doing the acts alleged and each Defendant ratified and otherwise
16 adopted the acts and statements performed, made or carried out by the other
17 Defendants so as to make them directly and vicariously liable to the Plaintiff for the
18 conduct complained of herein.
19 First Claim For Relief For Copyright Infringement

20 (Against All Defendants)
21 20. Plaintiff incorporates by this reference all prior paragraphs as if set
22 forth in full in this cause of action.
23 21. The CV Design was created in 2017. The CV Design is an original

24 work that may be copyrighted under United States law. Plaintiff applied to the
25 copyright office and received a certificate of registration for the Design, dated
26 October 13, 2020 and identified as United States Copyright Registration Number
27 VA 2-220-984.
28
6 COMPLAINT
1 22. The work is one of graphic art. It features an arrangement of many

2 individual elements, of a certain narrow range of shapes, subjects, sizes, and
3 orientations. The work is the overall effect and impression of such conformation of
4 elements.
5 23. Defendants infringed the copyright in the CV Design by copying and

6 reproducing the CV Design on the Infringing Goods, as described above. All of
7 Defendants’ acts were performed without the permission, license or consent of
8 Plaintiff; and (on information and belief) willfully, with full knowledge of Plaintiff’s
9 rights in and to the CV Design.

10 24. Defendants continue to infringe Plaintiff’s copyright by continuing to
11 produce and sell the Infringing Goods in violation of the copyright, and further have
12 engaged in unfair trade practices and unfair competition in connection with the
13 production and sale of the Infringing Goods, thus causing irreparable damage.
14 25. As a result of Defendants’ infringement, Plaintiff has suffered and will

15 continue to suffer substantial damage to Plaintiff’s business in the form of diversion
16 of trade, loss of profits, and a diminishment in the value of Plaintiff’s goods and
17 reputation; all in amounts that are not yet ascertainable but not less than the
18 jurisdictional minimum of this court. As a result of Defendants’ misconduct as
19 alleged herein, Plaintiff’s reputation has been irreparably tarnished, diminishing the
20 value of Plaintiff’s goods, and decreasing revenue derived from its designs.
21 26. By reason of their infringement of Plaintiff’s copyright as alleged

22 herein, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for the actual damages incurred by Plaintiff
23 as a result of the infringement, and for any profits of Defendants directly or
24 indirectly attributable to such infringement.
25
26
27
28
7 COMPLAINT
1 Second Claim for Relief for Unfair Competition Under Section 43(a) of
2 The Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a))
6 28. The CV Design functions in part as Plaintiff’s brand identity, and acts
7 as a source identifier in that consumers have come to recognize the CV Design as
8 being associated with and a source identifier and signature of, Plaintiff, and
9 indicating Plaintiff as the source of the associated goods. The goodwill and
10 reputation associated with the CV Design is significant.
11 29. The CV Design, as an indicator of source, is strong, fanciful, non-

12 functional, distinctive, and inherently distinctive. Through Plaintiff’s efforts in
13 marketing, promoting, and selling its products, the CV Design has become
14 distinctive of Plaintiff’s brand and products, and has acquired secondary meaning
15 among relevant consumers and the public generally.
16 30. As alleged above, Defendants’ design, marketing, merchandising and

17 promotion of the Infringing Goods improperly incorporates the CV Design, which is
18 likely to cause consumers to mistakenly believe that Defendants and their products
19 are associated with Plaintiff. Defendants use of the CV Design is likely to cause
20 confusion or mistake or deception of purchasers as to the source of Defendants’
21 goods. Defendants’ conduct will damage Plaintiff’s ability to enjoy, maintain and
22 exploit its hard-won brand-recognition.
23 31. Although it maintains the highest standards of quality, Plaintiff has no

24 control over the type or quality of the goods produced by Defendants. Goods of low
25 quality or “fast-fashion” appeal, if associated with Plaintiff, could damage its
26 reputation. Further, such loss of goodwill with respect to customers and retailers has
27 caused and will cause decreased revenues and decreased profits for Plaintiff. In
28 addition, Defendants’ use of the CV Design diminishes the distinctiveness of
8 COMPLAINT
1 Plaintiff’s work and brand, negatively affecting its ability to connote a single source
2 of Plaintiff’s products and the CV Design.
3 32. By reason of Defendants’ acts of unfair competition as alleged herein,

4 Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer substantial damage to its business
5 in the form of diversion of trade, loss of profits, and a dilution in the value of his
6 rights and reputation, all in amounts which are not yet ascertainable but which are
7 estimated to be not less than the jurisdictional minimum of this court. As a result of
8 Defendants’ misconduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff’s reputation has been irreparably
9 tarnished, diminishing the value of Plaintiff’s brand, and decreasing revenue derived
10 from its products.
11 33. By their unauthorized use of the CV Design, Defendants have

12 committed, and continue to commit, violations of, inter alia, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
13 Defendants have wrongfully appropriated for themselves business, revenue, and
14 goodwill value that properly belongs to Plaintiff, and that Plaintiff has invested time,
15 money, skill, and energy in developing. Defendants have intentionally traded, and
16 infringed upon Plaintiff’s work, and the CV Design.
17 34. Defendants’ acts of unfair competition in violation of 15 U.S.C. §

18 1125(a) have caused, and will continue to cause, damage and irreparable harm to
19 Plaintiff and are likely to continue unabated, thereby causing further damage and
20 irreparable harm to Plaintiff, and to the goodwill associated with the valuable and
21 well-known CV Design, and Plaintiff’s business relationships, unless preliminarily
22 and permanently enjoined and restrained by the Court. Plaintiff has no adequate
23 remedy at law and will suffer irreparable injury if Defendants are allowed to
24 continue their wrongful conduct.
25 35. In committing these acts of unfair competition, Defendants acted

26 willfully, wantonly, and recklessly; and with conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s
27 rights. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive damages.
28 36. Plaintiff is entitled to all remedies available under the Lanham Act,
9 COMPLAINT
1 including, but not limited to, preliminary and permanent injunctions, compensatory
2 damages, treble damages, disgorgement of profits, costs and attorneys’ fees.
4 Third Claim for Relief for Unfair Business Practices Under

5 California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq.
9 38. Defendants, by means of the conduct above, have engaged in, and are
10 engaging in, unlawful, unfair, fraudulent and deceptive business practices under
11 California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq. These acts and practices
12 undertaken by Defendants violate California Business & Professions Code §17200
13 in that they are—as described above—unfair, fraudulent, and/or unlawful.
14 Specifically, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, such acts and practices
15 constitute violations of the Lanham Act, and are and were fraudulent in that: (a)
16 Defendants seek to deceive consumers regarding the source, quality and origin of
17 Defendants’ goods and Defendants’ association with Plaintiff; and (b) the general
18 public and trade is likely to be confused regarding the business relationship between
19 Plaintiff and Defendants. Further, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
20 the harm to Plaintiff and to members of the general public far outweighs the utility
21 of Defendants’ practices and, consequently, Defendants’ practices constitute an
22 unfair business act or practice within the meaning of Business and Professions Code
23 § 17200.
24 39. Plaintiff has sustained, and will continue to sustain, serious and
25 irreparable injury to its business and reputation as a direct and proximate result of
26 Defendants’ conduct. Unless Defendants are enjoined by this Court, there is a
27 substantial possibility that they will continue to engage in such unlawful, unfair, and
28 deceptive business practices; for which Plaintiff is without an adequate remedy at
10 COMPLAINT
1 law. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary injunction and permanent
2 injunction against Defendants and their officers, directors, employees, agents,
3 representatives, affiliates, subsidiaries, distributors, and all persons acting in concert
4 with them; prohibiting them from engaging in further unlawful, unfair and/or
5 fraudulent business practices.
6 40. As a direct result of Defendants’ unlawful, unfair, fraudulent, and

7 deceptive business practices, Defendants have received, and continue to receive,
8 income and profits that they would not have earned but for their unlawful, unfair,
9 and deceptive conduct; and Plaintiff is entitled to disgorgement of such funds

10 wrongfully obtained.
11 41. By reason of Defendants’ acts of unfair competition as alleged herein,

12 Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer substantial damage to Plaintiff’s
13 business in the form of diversion of trade, loss of profits, and a dilution in the value
14 of its rights and reputation, all in amounts which are not yet ascertainable but which
15 are estimated to be not less than the jurisdictional minimum of this court.
16 42. Plaintiff is also entitled under the provisions of Business and

17 Professions Code §17208 to an injunction prohibiting Defendants, and each of them,
18 from engaging in any acts, directly or indirectly, which constitute unlawful, unfair,
19 and deceptive business practices.
20 43. In committing these acts of unfair competition, Defendants acted

21 willfully, wantonly, and recklessly; and with conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s
22 rights. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive damages.
23 44. Defendants’ conduct, if allowed to proceed and continue and/or let

24 stand, will cause irreparable damage to Plaintiff’s valuable business relationships
25 and consumer relations; and will require Plaintiff to undertake efforts to mitigate
26 damage to such relations, all to Plaintiff’s detriment. Further, such mitigation costs
27 will require substantial time, effort, and expenditures by Plaintiff, all to Plaintiff’s
28 detriment.
11 COMPLAINT
1 Fourth Claim for Relief for Unfair Competition Under

2 California Common Law
6 46. The above-described conduct of Defendants constitutes unfair

7 competition under the common law of the State of California.
8 47. As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has been damaged in an

9 amount to be proven at trial.
10
11 PRAYER
12 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment against Defendants as follows:
13 1. That Plaintiff is awarded all damages, including Defendants’ profits
14 and/or statutory damages, and future damages, that Plaintiff has sustained, or will
15 sustain, as a result of the acts complained of herein, subject to proof at trial;
16 2. That Plaintiff is awarded its costs, attorneys’ fees and expenses in this
17 action;
18 3. That Plaintiff is awarded pre-judgment interest;

19 4. For an order permanently enjoining Defendants and their employees,
20 agents, servants, attorneys, representatives, successors, and assigns, and any and all
21 persons in active concert or participation with any of them, from engaging in the
22 misconduct referenced herein;
23 5. That Defendants be ordered to immediately recall and remove any and

24 all infringing products from the marketplace;
25 6. That Defendants be ordered to file with this Court and serve upon
26 Plaintiff’s counsel within thirty (30) days after services of the judgment demanded
27 herein, a written report submitted under oath setting forth in detail the manner in
28 which they have complied with the judgment;
12 COMPLAINT
1 7. That Defendants be adjudged to have engaged in unlawful, unfair

2 and/or fraudulent business practices and unfair competition in violation of California
3 Business and Profession Code §§ 17200 et seq.;
4 8. For disgorgement of all proceeds, and restitution of the monies

5 wrongfully received by Defendants as the result of their wrongful conduct;
6 9. For punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter Defendants, and

7 each of them, from their wrongful conduct; and
8 10. For further relief, as the Court may deem appropriate.

9
10
DATED: November 10, 2020 GLUCK LAW FIRM P.C.
11 By: /s/
12 Jeffrey S. Gluck
Attorney for Plaintiff
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13 COMPLAINT
1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2 Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial on its claims on all issues triable by a
3 jury.
5
DATED: November 10, 2020 GLUCK LAW FIRM P.C.
6 By: /s/
7 Jeffrey S. Gluck
Attorneys for Plaintiff
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14 COMPLAINT

CV Collection, LLC v. Weworewhat LLC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CV Collection, LLC v. Weworewhat LLC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:20-cv-10290 Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 1 of 14 Page ID #:1

1 GLUCK LAW FIRM P.C.

4 ERIKSON LAW GROUP

8 Attorneys for Plaintiff

13 CV COLLECTION, LLC, a New York

1 SUMMARY OF THE CASE

6 sensual illustrations of female figures in various states of repose.

16 2. Defendant Weworewhat LLC is an upstart “fast-fashion” label founded

28 removed them from the marketplace.

1 3. Subsequently, Bernstein and WWW entered into a joint venture with

3 prominently featured the CV Design. Their knock-off proved to be so popular that

5 infringing design—including scarves, yoga mats, and even wallpaper—which were

7 Defendants’ goods bearing copies of the CV Design (the “Infringing Goods”):

21 of their goods. Indeed, Defendants inexplicably stepped up their use of the CV

22 Design after receiving Plaintiff’s protests.

23 5. In fact, Ms. Bernstein had visited the showroom of Plaintiff’s sales

4 6. Plaintiff brings this straightforward copyright infringement claim for

6 functions as a source-identifier for Plaintiff’s goods, Plaintiff also brings trademark

8 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

13 jurisdiction”) and 1338(a)-(b) (“patent, copyright, trademark and unfair competition

15 specifically, Acts of Congress relating to patents, copyrights, trademarks, and unfair

17 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(a) (“supplemental jurisdiction”) in that they are

21 9. Defendants are subject to the personal jurisdiction of the Court because

23 purposely availed themselves of the privilege of doing business in California and in

1 10. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section

8 12. Defendant We Wore What is a New York limited liability company

16 business name Www Apparel.

17 14. On information and belief, Defendant Danielle Bernstein is a resident

24 its brick and mortar department stores.

25 16. Defendant Bop, LLC is a Wisconsin limited liability company that

3 www.carbon38.com, as well as brick and mortar retail stores. On information and

11 and thereon alleges, that each fictitiously-named Defendant is responsible in some

13 alleged were proximately caused by their conduct.

18 conduct complained of herein.

19 First Claim For Relief For Copyright Infringement

23 21. The CV Design was created in 2017. The CV Design is an original

1 22. The work is one of graphic art. It features an arrangement of many

5 23. Defendants infringed the copyright in the CV Design by copying and

7 Defendants’ acts were performed without the permission, license or consent of

9 rights in and to the CV Design.

14 25. As a result of Defendants’ infringement, Plaintiff has suffered and will

18 jurisdictional minimum of this court. As a result of Defendants’ misconduct as

21 26. By reason of their infringement of Plaintiff’s copyright as alleged

23 as a result of the infringement, and for any profits of Defendants directly or

24 indirectly attributable to such infringement.

11 29. The CV Design, as an indicator of source, is strong, fanciful, non-

15 among relevant consumers and the public generally.

16 30. As alleged above, Defendants’ design, marketing, merchandising and

20 confusion or mistake or deception of purchasers as to the source of Defendants’

22 exploit its hard-won brand-recognition.

23 31. Although it maintains the highest standards of quality, Plaintiff has no

25 quality or “fast-fashion” appeal, if associated with Plaintiff, could damage its

28 addition, Defendants’ use of the CV Design diminishes the distinctiveness of

2 of Plaintiff’s products and the CV Design.

3 32. By reason of Defendants’ acts of unfair competition as alleged herein,

8 Defendants’ misconduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff’s reputation has been irreparably

11 33. By their unauthorized use of the CV Design, Defendants have

13 Defendants have wrongfully appropriated for themselves business, revenue, and

16 infringed upon Plaintiff’s work, and the CV Design.

17 34. Defendants’ acts of unfair competition in violation of 15 U.S.C. §

21 well-known CV Design, and Plaintiff’s business relationships, unless preliminarily

24 continue their wrongful conduct.

25 35. In committing these acts of unfair competition, Defendants acted