UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
                          ATLANTA DIVISI...
INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT

      Lenox Financial is a successful mortgage company founded, organized and

headquartered in th...
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against, and damages resulting from,

the unlawful acts and an unlawful plan b...
Plaintiff Lenox Financial Mortgage, LLC ("Lenox Financial") is a Georgia

    corporation with its principal place of busi...
Defendant Mr. Rob K. Blake is a resident of the State of Colorado. He may

be served at his place of business located at 3...
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction principally under 28 U.S.C.

section 1332 (because all Defendants are citizens ...
court has pendent personal jurisdiction over the Defendants as to the state law

claims noted herein.




      Defendants...
Lenox Financial is a successful mortgage brokering company headquartered

in Georgia that does business in 36 states. Leno...
relationship with such respected national lenders as Chase Manhattan Mortgage

and CitiMortgage.

                        ...
and conspicuously disclosed this pricing differential to their customers as a choice

as compared with the traditional "fu...
and repeatedly made to the cons~mer.~ customer is given the informed option
                                   The

of whi...
occasions. Lenox Financial also enjoys a quality and valuable reputation in the

greater community of Atlanta, Georgia and...
Defendants' False and Disparaging Claims and Statements about Lenox Financial

                                        26....
directly compete against Lenox Financial for mortgage customers and that they

seek to generate mortgage customer prospect...
On numerous occasions, Defendants, acting with malice and with the

malicious intent to discredit Lenox Financial and driv...
Blake, presumptive with the approval of Ms. Ewing, expressly says

     "mortgage companies who advertise on radio and TV ...
deceptive advertising is sitting in his own back yard of Atlanta." The

     article goes on to recommend that consumers f...
Advertisers Prey On Unsophisticated Borrowers"; "Home Mortgage

             Advertisers Lie ... Especially about Closing ...
The aforementioned published statements wrongfully and falsely attack Mr.

Shibley in reference to his trade and professio...
Defendants have made these statements with the malicious intent to discredit

Lenox Financial as an organization and to di...
computer user but cause search engines looking for "Lenox Financial" to list

Defendants' Website with the aforementioned ...
or clients of Lenox Financial, or who are prospective customers or clients of Lenox

Financial, as well as by residents of...
aforementioned false statements that expressly state or otherwise create the

impression that Mr. Shibley is unethical in ...
As a direct consequence, some who have read or otherwise been exposed to

these false, disparaging statements have chosen ...
The name Lenox Financial Mortgage is the subject of a valid and subsisting

trademark registration, U.S. Registration No. ...
customers seeking information on Lenox Financial into Defendant's "mortgage

shopping system", a sub-system within Defenda...
was undertaken by Defendants intentionally, maliciously and in bad faith.

Therefore, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover, ...
characteristics and qualities of Plaintiffs' services, with the malicious intent to

discredit Plaintiffs and drive intern...
Defendants' false and misleading descriptions and misrepresentations

constitute false advertising in violation of the Lan...
resources to address and counter these misstatements and false advertisements.

Further, Defendants have presumptively rea...
The disparaging and defamatory statements noted herein serves to dilute by

tamishment the "famous mark" under the Lanham ...
Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege as if fully set forth herein paragraphs 1

through 74 above.




      In addition to...
COUNT V: DEFAMATION BY DEFENDANTS AGAINST PLAINTIFF
                       MR. SHIBLEY



      Plaintiffs incorporate and...
These false statements concerning Plaintiffs made and published by

Defendants were and are defamatory as to Mr. Shibley, ...
causing and is foreseeably likely to cause hlr. Shibley, so that punitive damages

should be imposed on Defendants.

COUNT...
Plaintiffs fudher have contact with thousands of prospective customers and

clients who are reached by Plaintiffs' adverti...
Defendants' interference with Plaintiffs' business relationships and

prospective relationships has been willful, wanton, ...
overt and wrongful acts to interfere with, and have in fact interfere with, Plaintiffs'

ongoing and prospective business ...
Defendants made either knowing and intentional, or recklessly false

statements and representations of material fact regar...
Defendants' conduct has been motivated by spite, has been willful, wanton

and malicious has been conducted in reckless di...
In furtherance of their conspiracy and sLheme, Defendants, acting in concert

with each other and other persons andlor ent...
COUNT X: VIOLATION OF THE GEORGIA UNIFORM DECEPTIVE TRADE
                       PRACTICES ACT

                          ...
Plaintiffs are also entitled to recover their attorney's fees and costs incurred

in connection with this action and to an...
Defendants have further violated the provisions of O.C.G.A. section 10-1-

393.5 by engaging in internet activities that o...
Defendants' actions constitute false advertising in violation of O.C.G.A.

section 10-1-421.

                            ...
128.

      Defendants actions complained of above constitute acts of unfair

competition and commercial disparagement in ...
Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege as if fully set forth herein paragraphs 1

through 131 above.




      That Defendan...
justifying an award of attorney's fees and costs of this action under O.C.G.A.

section 9-15-14.

             COUNT XVI: ...
Defendants owe Plaintiffs a duty of reasonable care not to publish careless,

false statements about Plaintiffs on their W...
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs humbly and respectfidly request the following

relief:

(a)       pursuant to Rule 38, a trial by ju...
consequential and/or compensatory damages as proved by Plaintiffs at trial in an

amount certainly to exceed $75,000.00;

...
LR 7.1D CERTIFICATION

      In accordance with LR 7. ID, the undersigned counsel certifies that this
Complaint has been p...
LENOX FINANCIAL vs. THE MORTGAGE INSIDER MEDIA, LLC and ROB K. BLAKE and TERRI EWING personally
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

LENOX FINANCIAL vs. THE MORTGAGE INSIDER MEDIA, LLC and ROB K. BLAKE and TERRI EWING personally

1,129

Published on

Complaint filed by LENOX FINANCIAL vs. THE MORTGAGE INSIDER MEDIA, LLC and ROB K. BLAKE and TERRI EWING personally -- Filed August 4, 2010 in the Georgia Northern District Court -- Nature of Suit: Intellectual Property - Trademark -- Jury trial demanded.

Published in: Real Estate
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,129
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

LENOX FINANCIAL vs. THE MORTGAGE INSIDER MEDIA, LLC and ROB K. BLAKE and TERRI EWING personally

  1. 1. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION LENOX FINANCIAL 1 MORTGAGE. LLC d/b/a Lenox ~inancial Mortgage 1 and JON SHIBLEY, 1 1 Plaintiffs, " ,S U, vs. ROB K. BLAKE ) TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED and TERW EWING, personally, 1 and THE MORTGAGE INSlDER ) MEDIA, LLC 1 1 Defendants. 1 COMES NOW, LENOX FINANCIAL MORTGAGE, LLC d/b/a Lenox Financial Mortgage ("Lenox Financial") and Mr. JON SHTBLEY ("Mr. Shibley"), or collectively "Plaintiffs", and bring this federal civil action against Mr. ROB K. BLAKE ("'Mr. Blake") and Ms. Terri Ewing ("'Ms. Ewing"), personally and individually, and THE MORTGAGE INSIDER MEDIA, LLC ("Defendant Mortgage Insider LLC"), collectively "Defendants", showing this Honorable Court as follows:
  2. 2. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT Lenox Financial is a successful mortgage company founded, organized and headquartered in the State of Georgia. Over the past fifteen years, Lenox Financial has grown into an industry leader licensed in over 36 states but has maintained its principal business operations in Atlanta, Georgia. Lenox Financial presently has approximately 75 employees here in Atlanta. Mr. Shibley is the President and CEO and resides in Fulton County, Georgia. As such, the Plaintiffs are all residents of Georgia. The Defendants are competitors of Lenox Financial in the national mortgage marketplace and evidently, among other activities in the mortgage industry, recruit prospective mortgage consumers from their website known as "The Mortgage Insider" and sell the information acquired ftom these prospective customers as "leads", including leads from the State of Georgia, to competing mortgage companies. The Defendants are all residents of Colorado. It is alleged that Defendants have made knowingly false and disparaging statements about Lenox Financial and Mr. Shibley on this website and have engaged in a scheme and conspiracy to disparage and discredit Plaintiffs for financial gain. It is alleged that, in violation of the Lanham Act, the Defendants have embedded the Plaintiffs' trademarked business name as invisible "meta tags" within their website so that consumers, when searching for Lenox Financial, are drawn to Defendants' website and the false and disparaging statements contained therein. Plaintiffs seek 2
  3. 3. preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against, and damages resulting from, the unlawful acts and an unlawful plan by Defendants to malign, defame, and discredit Plaintiffs. This Complaint seeks damages for unfair competition, false advertising and dilution through tarnishment of Plaintiffs' marks, as well as damages for malicious injury to Plaintiffs' business reputation and for professional defamation, due to Defendants' statements that repeatedly, intentionally and maliciously seek to portray both Lenox Financial and Mr. Shibley as unethical and dishonest in business dealings, which is utterly and flatly untrue, and for tortious interference with Lenox Financial's present and prospective business relationships. In addition, Defendants, and potentially other co-conspirators, through these acts, have violated a number of state statutes including the Georgia Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act, and the Georgia False I Advertising Act and have maliciously sought to injure Plaintiffs by seeking to obstruct and divert Lenox Financial's sales by use of this wrongful and unlawkl scheme to disparage and discredit. Both Lenox Financial and Mr. Shibley have been significantly damages by these u n l a f i l actions, and these damages have been suffered most tangibly here in the State of Georgia where Lenox Financial is located and where Mr. Shibley resides.
  4. 4. Plaintiff Lenox Financial Mortgage, LLC ("Lenox Financial") is a Georgia corporation with its principal place of business located at 6 Piedmont Center, Suite 500, 3525 Piedmont Road, Atlanta, Georgia 30305. Lenox Financial maintains its I principal offices and houses its employees in Atlanta, Georgia and does not maintain any significant office presence outside the State of Georgia. Lenox Financial Mortgage, LLC commonly does business under the name "Lenox Financial Mortgage" and is the successor entity to Lenox Financial Mortgage Corp., which also did business under the name "Lenox Financial Mortgage". Plaintiff Mr. Jon Shibley is a resident of the State of Georgia, County of Fulton. 4.
  5. 5. Defendant Mr. Rob K. Blake is a resident of the State of Colorado. He may be served at his place of business located at 362 Central Avenue, Brighton, CO 80601. Defendant Ms. Terri Ewing is a resident of the State of Colorado. She may be served at her place of business located at 362 Central Avenue, Brighton, CO 80601. Defendant The Mortgage Insider Media, LLC is a corporate entity properly formed and organized under the laws of the State of Colorado. This is reasonably believed to be the legal entity through which Defendants Blake and Ewing conduct their various mortgage businesses, which is presumed to include mortgage activities and business revenues derived from the web site known and referenced as the "The Mortgage Insider", discussed below. The Mortgage Insider Media LLC may be served by and through its registered agent Defendant Ewing.
  6. 6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction principally under 28 U.S.C. section 1332 (because all Defendants are citizens of states diverse from those of Plaintiffs and the amount in controversy is in excess of $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs) but also under 28 U.S.C. section 1331 (because several of the claims alleged herein arise under the law of the United States and present a federal question) and under 15 U.S.C. sections 1125 (original jurisdiction over the Lanham Act claims). This Court has jurisdiction over the state law claims noted herein principally under 28 U.S.C. section 1332 but also under 28 U.S.C. section 1367 and under 28 U.S.C. section 1338. 8. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants because each of the Defendants has, through its website and internet activity, activity which has been purposefully directed at residents of the State of Georgia, in connection with the factual allegations of this lawsuit (1) have transacted or have sought to transact business in the State of Georgia through the selling of internet mortgage lead involving Georgia property owners, (2) have committed tortious acts or omissions in this state or have committed tortious injury in this state caused by acts or omissions outside this state, and (3) have engaged in a persistent course of conduct and has derived revenues from business transacted in the State of Georgia. This 6
  7. 7. court has pendent personal jurisdiction over the Defendants as to the state law claims noted herein. Defendants are shown in this Complaint to have sufficient minimum contacts with the State of Georgia by and through internet marketing purposefully targeted at Georgia property owners, which marketing is alleged herein to have wrongfully generated "leads", business, and profits for Defendants from Georgia residents, such that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the Defendants does not offend due process or traditional notions of fair play and substantialjustice. As these diverse defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this Court, venue is fair and propekintbe~Northefi District of GeorgiX No other District Court in this State could provide a more appropriate forum. , FACTUAL BACKGROUND Background and Prover Business Practices of Lenox Financial 11.
  8. 8. Lenox Financial is a successful mortgage brokering company headquartered in Georgia that does business in 36 states. Lenox Financial has been in the mortgage business since 1994. The Lenox Financial name was marked in May of 2005. To provide some idea of the scope of its success, skill and expertise, since only 2004, in only the last five (5) years, Lenox Financial has brokered approximately 45,000 mortgage transactions totaling over 10 billion dollars in gross loan value. Lenox Financial has been in business for over ten (10) years. Over the past ten years, Lenox Financial has spent millions of dollars advertising its good name not only throughout the State of Georgia but also in others states in which it does business. Presently, Lenox Financial is an approved broker for numerous local and national lenders, including the leading national lenders Bank of America and Wells Fargo. Before the collapse of the mortgage lending market, Lenox Financial was approved with nearly every significant national lender and enjoyed a close working 8
  9. 9. relationship with such respected national lenders as Chase Manhattan Mortgage and CitiMortgage. 15. Mr. Jon Shibley is the President and CEO of Lenox Financial. Mr. Shibley first started working in the mortgage business in 1994. 16. Starting in 1994, Mr. Shibley recognized a market and prospective benefit to mortgage consumers for "no closing cost" mortgage products as a financial for those who wished to refmance loans or purchase property but who did not wish to pay thousands of dollars in closing costs as either an out of pocket expense or as financed in a higher loan amount or as financed in a higher purchase price for the Of course, "no closing cost" products carry a marginally higher annual interest and a marginally higher corresponding monthly payment than 'Yradition" or "par priced" mortgages.' However, Plaintiffs have always clearly, repeatedly '"Traditional" or "par price" mortgages are those whose rate is established by the daily fluctuation of the mortgage and bond markets and which rate is the lowest possible on that day the loan is locked without the customer having to "pay down" the rate with what is known in the industry as a "discount point" or 9
  10. 10. and conspicuously disclosed this pricing differential to their customers as a choice as compared with the traditional "full cost" mortgage product with a marginally lower rate. To ensure this option and choice is property presented on each and every transaction, Mr. Shibley has developed sophisticated, proprietary technology and has implements procedures to ensure both options are presented clearly to each and every cu~tomer.~ As a matter of company policy, on every transaction in which Lenox Financial is involved, this choice between the "traditional mortgage" with full closings costs but amarginally lower rate and the "no closing cost" mortgage with a marginally higher rate but with significant transactional costs savings is clearly "discount fee". Although the rate is attractive, these products require the customer to pay "points" or "origination fees", closing costs to the mortgage broker for his or her compensation, offen 1% ofthe loan amount or more, as well as appraisal, lender, title or attorney fees, title insurance premiums, recording fees and recording taxes, which all can amount to thousands of dollars in expense. 'n most cases, customers balance time in home, equity levels, project rate increases or decreases, and I closing costs previously invested before making a decision.
  11. 11. and repeatedly made to the cons~mer.~ customer is given the informed option The of which product to chose, the traditional mortgage or the "no closing cost". Because of its size, and its corresponding negotiating power with its lenders, Lenox Financial has a decided competitive advantage on the pricing of "no cost" products over smaller, competing mortgage brokers and can offer its customers "no closing cost" mortgage products at rates that compare favorably with "traditional" or "par priced" mortgage products offered by smaller, competing brokers. In addition, unlike any other mortgage broker known to Plaintiffs, Lenox Financial accepts a fiduciary duty to its customers to operate with the highest degree of integrity possible in the mortgage industry. Lenox Financial enjoys a quality and valuable reputation with its customers and has many customers who have used their services on numerous repeated On the "no closing cost" product, LenoxFinancial is paid a yield spread premium by the lender, with which Lenox is able to pay all the closing costs on behalf of the customer and sill make a reasonable profit for its services. This is disclosed both on the Good Faith Estimate and on the HUD-I Closing Statement on each and every transaction.
  12. 12. occasions. Lenox Financial also enjoys a quality and valuable reputation in the greater community of Atlanta, Georgia and in the greater communities of the out of state markets that it serves. To promote and grow its business, Lenox financial has been heavily involved in radio advertising but also relies on its website - www.LenoxFinancial.com - to provide credible information about its business and business practices to consumers. To protect its business name, on or about March 30,2004, Mr. Shibley filed for trademark protection for the name Lenox Financial. A mark was issued for "Lenox Financial Mortgage Corp." on or about may 3 la,2005 and for the "Lenox" on or about February 19,2008. These marks serve to protect against the improper use any part of the mark and serve to fully protect the name "Lenox Financial" in any and all respects. Plaintiffs have not authorized any other individual or entity to make use of any of their valid marks.
  13. 13. Defendants' False and Disparaging Claims and Statements about Lenox Financial 26. Defendants Mr. Blake and Ms. Ewing, own and operate a web site called The Mortgage Insider. The URl, for this site is http://themortgapeinsider.net. This website is referenced herein and below as "this or the Website", "the Defendants' Website" or "The Mortgage Insider" Website. On this Website, Mr. Blake holds himself out as an objective "mortgage insider" who purports to have the "truth" and intimates he has inside information about or special insight into other mortgage companies, including Plaintiffs. 28. However, Defendants have never made any credible investigation of Lenox Financial and have never inquired of or spoken to Mr. Shibley about his company or his business practices. Although it is unclear whether Mr. Blake or Ms. Ewing have any direct interest in any competing mortgage company, which they may, it is clear that they 13
  14. 14. directly compete against Lenox Financial for mortgage customers and that they seek to generate mortgage customer prospects or "leads" from those who visit this Website. It is alleged that Defendants have sold mortgage customer prospects or "leads" generated from this Website, including leads generated from the State of Georgia, to direct competitors of Lenox Financial for profit. It is expressly alleged that Defendants have intentionally solicited mortgage customers and "leads" through this Website for mortgage customers and prospective mortgage customers living in and for loans to be originated in the State of Georgia. In addition, and more broadly, it is alleged that the Defendants compete with Plaintiffs in the national information marketplace for mortgage consumers, using both radio and internet mediums, a marketplace where credibility is of the utmost importance.
  15. 15. On numerous occasions, Defendants, acting with malice and with the malicious intent to discredit Lenox Financial and drive customers away from their organization, have announced, written and published utterly false and disparaging statements about Plaintiffs on this Website. These include the following (the underlined portion has been added for emphasis in this Complaint): a) On January 8,2007, Defendants published an article an article styled 'Wo Cost Mortgage Advertisers prey on Unsophisticated Borrowers" Mr. Blake, presumptively with the approval of Ms. Ewing, expressly says ''the no cost mortcraae is a scam requiring great salesmanship, some misdirection, and an unsophisticated client." Mr. Ewing then goes on to reference the "unethical behavior" of Lenox Financial management, obviously directed at Mr. Shibley, and claims that Lenox Management is&" &b to its loan officers and using the loan officers to "l&"to the consumers. As of the time of the filing of this Complaint, these false, disparaging statements continue to be announced and published. b) On July 15'2007, Defendants published an article styled "Home . Mortgage Advertisers Lie . . Especially about Closing Costs". Mr. 15
  16. 16. Blake, presumptive with the approval of Ms. Ewing, expressly says "mortgage companies who advertise on radio and TV about "no closing costs" ... are simplv lying." This article expressly identifies Lenox Financial as one of these "liars". It goes on to quote from the Lenox Financial web site and states "the lie continues." Later in the article, Mr. Blake makes reference to Lenox - presumptively Mr. Shibley - as a "&' accusing him and Lenox of "deceptive advertising': of delivering "su~er inflated rates", of makiig huge undisclosed vrofits, and he claims that "in many cases, it is not disclosed to the borrower". In concluding, Mr. Blake writes "I hope this helps you separate the honest form the dishonest" -again clearly referring to Plaintiffs. As of the time of the filing of this Complaint, these false, disparaging statements continue to be announced and published. c) On Monday November 12,2007, Defendants published an article titled "The Mortgage Insider Interviewed for Article Critical of No Cost Mortgage Advertisers" where Defendants reference a purported article published in the Atlanta Journal and Constitution and state "the premier perpetrator - referring to Lenox Financial - of this
  17. 17. deceptive advertising is sitting in his own back yard of Atlanta." The article goes on to recommend that consumers find an "ethical", clearly intimating that Plaintiffs are "unethical", mortgage provider and then promotes his "mortgage shopping system." As of the time of the filing of this Complaint, these false, disparaging statements continue to be announced and published. d) On Wednesday December 12', 2007, Defendants published an article titled "No Cost Refinance Fantasyy'where they stated 'Wo Cost Refinance Loans are a Myth" and "anyone attempting to get your business claiming the opposite is playing word games and by definition, &liar." This article was clearly referring to Plaintiffs. As of the date of the filing of this Complaint, these false, disparaging statements continue to be announced and published. e) On January 14,2008, Defendants purported to conduct an objective "review" of Lenox Financial" styled "Lenox Financial Mortgage Review". Under this ostensibly fair review, Defendants published links to the aforementioned false, disparaging, and defamatory articles, namely "T%eMortgage Insider Interviewed for Article Critical of No Cost Mortgage Advertisers", 'No Cost Mortgage 17
  18. 18. Advertisers Prey On Unsophisticated Borrowers"; "Home Mortgage Advertisers Lie ... Especially about Closing Costs"; ' T o Cost Refinance Fantasy" ; "Mortgage Help Lacking from CPAs" f) On October 10,2008, Mr. Blake, on a blog portion of his site, makes reference to Mr. Shibley as a "dork". As of the time of the filing of the Complaint, Defendants continue to announce and publish these false, disparaging statements regarding both Plaintiffs on their Website. It is alleged that thousands of individuals both in the State of Georgia and in other states have read or otherwise been exposed to these false and. disparaging statements just in the last year. The aforementioned published statements wrongfully and falsely make reference to or otherwise create the wrongful and false impression that Plaintiff Lenox Financial is an unethical organization that routinely lies to and deceives it customers and own loan officers.
  19. 19. The aforementioned published statements wrongfully and falsely attack Mr. Shibley in reference to his trade and profession and falsely accuse Mr. Shibley of being or otherwise create the wrongful and false impression that Mr. Shibley is an unethical business owner, a crook, and a liar. It is reasonably believed that Defendants have made further false and defamato~y statements about Plaintiffs in writing, on their radio program, and to other persons directly. Prior to making these wrongful, false, and disparaging statements and accusations, Defendants did not conduct any credible investigation or diligence of Lenox Financial, of its internal workings or business practices, of its disclosure practices, of its investor or lender relationships, of its customer relationships, of its internal quality control mechanism, or of its proprietary internet based internal management and interface programs. All these statements were made either knowing that they were false or were made with a reckless disregard for their accuracy. 19
  20. 20. Defendants have made these statements with the malicious intent to discredit Lenox Financial as an organization and to discredit Mr. Shibley personally in his trade and profession and with the malicious intent to profit off this denigration. Further, in order to obtain commercial advantage and financial gain, Defendants did deliberately make such misrepresentations in an attempt to discourage customers from using or engaging Lenox Financial and to divert prospective customers away from Lenox Financial's website and to Defendants' Website and its web based "mortgage shopping system" operated within the Defendants' Website, which is alleged to be a "lead" and profit generator. To accomplish this scheme to discredit Plaintiffs, and drive internet traffic and prospective customers away from Lenox Financial and into Defendants' !'mortgage shopping system", it is alleged that Defendants, and potentially others working in conjunction with Defendants, have embedded Lenox Financial's marked and trademarked business and trade name as "meta tags" within the computer code in their Website. The meta tags are not visible to a typical 20
  21. 21. computer user but cause search engines looking for "Lenox Financial" to list Defendants' Website with the aforementioned disparaging and defamatory "review" in the search results. As a consequence, when prospective Lenox Financial customers are searching for information on "Lenox Financial" on Google the disparaging and defamatory "review" of Lenox Financial by Defendants appears on the same page as the main Lenox Financial web site referenced above. This "review" contains links to all of the aforementioned disparaging articles noted in paragraph 33 above. It is expressly alleged that Defendants have purposefully directed these wrongful efforts at residents and property owners in the State of Georgia and have in fact derived profits from business dealings with residents and property owners in the State of Georgia by and through their Website. It is expressly alleged that these false and disparaging statements have been read and reviewed by potentially thousands of residents of Georgia, residents of Georgia who are former customers or clients of Lenox Financial, current customers 21
  22. 22. or clients of Lenox Financial, or who are prospective customers or clients of Lenox Financial, as well as by residents of Georgia who may simply desire to have more information about Lenox Financial. It is further alleged that these false and disparaging statements have been read and reviewed by potentially thousands of residents of other states, residents who may be former customers, current customers, or prospective customers of Lenox Financial. In truth, Lenox Financial is a highly ethical organization that tangibly demonstrates its commitment to integrity by voluntarily undertaking a fiduciary obligation to its customers. The aforementioned false statements that expressly state or otherwise create the impression that Lenox Financial is an unethical organization are utterly and unequivocally untrue. In truth, Mr. Shibley is highly ethical in his business and professional dealings. He has never knowingly made any false statement to a customer, has never deceived any customer into selecting a "no closing cost" mortgage product, has never authorized any loan officer to do so, nor has he ever tolerated any such conduct from any loan officer or representative of Lenox Financial. The
  23. 23. aforementioned false statements that expressly state or otherwise create the impression that Mr. Shibley is unethical in his business dealings are utterly and unequivocally untrue. In truth, as a matter of company policy, the comparative benefits of "no closing cost" products as compared to "traditional" products are fully disclosed to each and every consumer. As a matter of corporate policy, the details of every transaction are klly disclosed by each loan officer verbally, on every Good Faith Estimate, and at every closing. Additionally, Lenox Financial makes use of proprietary, state of the art technology to ensure that each loan officer has the most up to date market information with which to inform the customer. It is alleged that every Georgia resident and every person who has read or otherwise been exposed to these false, disparaging statements has been confused, negatively impacted, and lead astray as to the true nature, characteristics and qualities of the business practices and commercial activity of Lenox Financial and as to the integrity of the services and products offered by Lenox Financial.
  24. 24. As a direct consequence, some who have read or otherwise been exposed to these false, disparaging statements have chosen not to do business with Lenox Financial, thereby depriving Lenox Financial of sales and revenues, and some have been wrongfully enticed to do business with Defendants. It is alleged that, as a result of these false and disparaging statements, Plaintiffs' good name and reputation has been tarnished and Plaintiffs' have been financially damaged in an amount greatly in excess of seventy five thousand dollars ($75,000.00) and that, in addition, Defendants have derived wrongful profits from residents of and property owners in the State of Georgia as well as in other states in which Plaintiffs do business. COUNT I: TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT UNDER LANHAM ACT Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege as if fully set forth herein paragraphs 1 through 5 1 above.
  25. 25. The name Lenox Financial Mortgage is the subject of a valid and subsisting trademark registration, U.S. Registration No. 2,957,239. This mark was registered on May 3 1,2005. Although the full reading of the trademark is "Lenox Financial Mortgage Corp.", it is clearly encompasses the name "Lenox Financial Mortgage", and selves to protect variations of the entities operating with this name, including Plaintiff Lenox Financial Mortgage, LLC. Further, name "Lenox" is the subject of a valid and subsisting trademark registration, U.S. Registration No. 3,384,161. This mark was registered on February 19,2008. Likewise, this mark serves to protect the entities operating with this name, including Plaintiff Lenox Financial Mortgage, LLC. Without permission, Defendants' have used, and continue to use, this mark in commerce as "meta tags" within the Defendants' Website. Defendants' use of Plaintiffs registered marks as meta tags on its Website was intentional and was for the purpose of misleading and confusing consumers and for the purpose of discrediting Lenox Financial and wrongfully diverting 25
  26. 26. customers seeking information on Lenox Financial into Defendant's "mortgage shopping system", a sub-system within Defendant's Website designed to generate mortgage leads which are reasonably believed to have been sold to competing mortgage companies. Defendants' use of these registered trademarks as meta tags in its Website constitutes infringement of Lenox Financial's trademark in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. sections 1114. As a result of Defendants' infringement, consumers have been and continue to be confused and mistaken as to the integrity of Lenox Financial, it's products, it's owner, and it's operations, and in particular confused and mistaken with the comparison made to companies, products or individual "mortgage experts" promoted by Defendants. Plaintiffs have been damaged by fie aforementioned acts in an amount to be determined a trial but unquestionably in excess of seventy five ($75,000.00). Defendant's use of Lenox Financial's registered marks and trademark as meta tags 26
  27. 27. was undertaken by Defendants intentionally, maliciously and in bad faith. Therefore, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover, in addition to actual damages, treble damages as authorized by the Lanham Act, exemplary damages and attorney's fees. In addition, Defendant's conduct, if it continues unchecked, will result in irreparable harm to Plaintiffs and, specifically, to the goodwill associated with Lenox Financial's registered marks. Therefore, this court should temporarily, preliminary and permanent enjoin Defendant from using any of Plaintiffs registered marks as meta tags in their Website. COUNT 1 : FALSE PROMOTION AND ADVERTISING UNDER 1 THE LAM-IAM ACT 61. Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege as if fully set forth herein paragraphs 1 through 60 above. In furtherance of their plan to promote and advertise their own services and businesses, Defendants have made utterly false, disparaging and defamatory statements about Plaintiffs, statements which misrepresent the nature, 27
  28. 28. characteristics and qualities of Plaintiffs' services, with the malicious intent to discredit Plaintiffs and drive internet traffic into their lead generator. While so doing, Defendants have mislead and deceived consumers by making these false and disparaging statements about Plaintiffs and, furfher, by holding themselves out as presumptively objective "truth" seekers and "insiders" when, in fact, they have made no credible investigation of Plaintiffs, have no "inside" information or perspective on Lenox Financial, and have no intention of providing objective information, but rather seek to disparage and discredit Plaintiffs, confuse consumers, engender mistake so as to generate profits from this deception by wrongfully luring consumers to their Website. The false andmisleading statements made about Plaintiffs are intentionally used to persuade customers and potential customers of Lenox Financial not to trust or associate with LenoxFinancial and wrongfully entice them, instead, to trust and associate with Defendants and utilize the "mortgage shopping system" promoted on their Website.
  29. 29. Defendants' false and misleading descriptions and misrepresentations constitute false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. section 1i25(a)(l)(b) as they misrepresent the nature, characteristics and qualities of the services offered by and commercial activities of Plaintiffs. Defendants have caused their false and deceptive promotional scheme to enter into interstate commerce in the State of Georgia and this District, as well as in other states, which has had a material effect on the purchasing decisions of mortgage consumers in the State of Georgia and this District, as well as in other states, which, in turn, has affected interstate commerce. It is understood and believed that Plaintiffs have been damaged by the reliance of mortgage consumers and prospective consumers in the State of Georgia and elsewhere upon Defendants' false, misleading and disparaging statements and false advertising and promotions noted herein. It is understood and believed that Plaintiffs have also been damaged because they have lost sales, suffered a loss of goodwill, and have been required to spend 29
  30. 30. resources to address and counter these misstatements and false advertisements. Further, Defendants have presumptively reaped unjustified profits by their misstatements and false advertisements. Defendants' false advertising, if allowed to go unchecked, will irreparably damage Plaintiffs. Therefore, in additional to causing damages and lost profits, this Court should temporarily, preliminarily, and permanently enjoin Defendants from false advertising and continuing its campaign to seek to profit from wrongfully disparaging Plaintiffs. COUNT 1 1 TRADEMARK DILUTION BY TARNISHMENT UNDER 1: FEDERAL TRADEMARK DILUTION ACT 70. Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege as if fully set forth herein paragraphs 1 through 69 above. Given the success and reach of Lenox Financial, in particular in the State of Georgia and the Northern District, the trade name and mark "Lenox Financial" may properly be considered a "famous mark" under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1125(c)(2)(a). 30
  31. 31. The disparaging and defamatory statements noted herein serves to dilute by tamishment the "famous mark" under the Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. section 1125(c)(2)(c) and serve to erode and lessen the power of the famous mark to provide assurances to customers of the quality and integrity they should expect in dealing with Lenox Financial. Due to the unlawful acts of Defendants, there has been actual injury to the economic value of Plaintiffs' famous mark. Plaintiffs are entitled to such injunctive relief and, due to the fact that Defendants have willfully and maliciously intended to cause dilution by and through their campaign of disparagement, damages as authorized by the Lanham Act for the tarnishment to Plaintiffs' famous mark. COUNT IV:COMMON LAW INFRINGEMENT 75.
  32. 32. Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege as if fully set forth herein paragraphs 1 through 74 above. In addition to the formal registered marks noted above, Plaintiffs have common law interests and intellectual property rights in their business and trade names and the variations used. Without permission, Defendants' have used, and continue to use, Plaintiffs' business name and trade names in commerce as meta tags in Defendants' Website, which constitutes common law infringement of Plaintiffs' interests and intellectual property rights as well as other potential infringements. Plaintiffs have been damaged by this common law infringement in an amount to be determined a trial but certainly in excess of seventy five thousand dollars ($75,000.00). Defendants' use of Plaintiffs' business and trade names as meta tags in this Website was undertaken by Defendants intentionally, maliciously and in bad faith. Therefore, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover, in addition to actual damages, exemplary damages and attorney's fees. 32
  33. 33. COUNT V: DEFAMATION BY DEFENDANTS AGAINST PLAINTIFF MR. SHIBLEY Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege as if filly set forth herein paragraphs 1 through 78 above. In connection with their competition against Plaintiffs, and in furtherance of Defendants' business and with the intent to secure a commercial advantage and financial gain, Defendants have, without privilege, intentionally made and published false statements and charges concerning Mr. Shibley in reference to his trade, office and profession, statements and charges calculated to injure him therein. These false statements noted herein and potentially others have been made and published and, up to the date and time of the fining of this Complaint, continue to be made and published by Defendants without privilege and with malice calculated to injure.
  34. 34. These false statements concerning Plaintiffs made and published by Defendants were and are defamatory as to Mr. Shibley, were and are directly defamatory as to the commercial reputation and standing of Plaintiffs in their business, and further cast Plaintiffs in a negative and false light to their customers and others. Because Defendants have attacked Mr. Shibley in reference to his trade, office or profession, under O.C.G.A. section 51-5-4, damage is inferred and proof of special damages is not required to support this claim. Nonetheless, as a direct and proximate result of these false and malicious statements by Defendants, Mr. Shibley has in fact suffered damages to his professional reputation and has suffered damages relative to his interest in Lenox Financial. 85. The conduct of Defendants is willful, wanton, malicious and taken in reckless disregard of Plaintiffs' rights, as well as in disregard of the harm it is
  35. 35. causing and is foreseeably likely to cause hlr. Shibley, so that punitive damages should be imposed on Defendants. COUNT VI: TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONS 86. Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege as if fully set forth herein paragraphs 1 through 85 above. Plaintiffs have originated loans and handled mortgage transactions for thousands of customers in the State of Georgia and in other states. Plaintiffs maintain advantageous business relations with these former customers and clients. Plaintiffs' business relations are ongoing relationships wherein Plaintiffs will often engaging in subsequent transactions, sometimes several subsequent transactions, with these customers and clients with whom Plaintiffs have done business.
  36. 36. Plaintiffs fudher have contact with thousands of prospective customers and clients who are reached by Plaintiffs' advertising in Georgia and various other states, who search for Lenox Financial on Google or various other search engines, who visit Plaintiffs' web site, and who contact and consider contacting Lenox Financial here in Georgia for information and assistance with potential business transactions. Acting improperly and without privilege, and purposely and with malice with the intent to injure, the Defendants have wrongfully interfered with these relationships and have induced third parties, namely prospective mortgage customers, both in the State of Georgia and other states, not to enter into or continue a business relationship with Lenox Financial. Through their wrongfid acts of interference, Defendants have caused financial injury to Plaintiffs.
  37. 37. Defendants' interference with Plaintiffs' business relationships and prospective relationships has been willful, wanton, malicious and in reckless disregard of Plaintiffs' rights, as well as in disregard of the harm that they have caused and are foreseeably likely to cause Plaintiffs, so that punitive damages should be imposed. COUNT VII: DAMAGES FOR CIVIL CONSPIRACY TO TORTIOUSLY INTERFERE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONS 94. Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege as if fully set forth herein paragraphs I through 93 above. Defendants, acting in concert with each other and other persons and/or entities, agreed to take collective action to interfere with Plaintiffs' ongoing and prospective business relationships. In furtherance of their conspiracy and scheme, Defendants, acting in concert with each other and other persons and/or entities, and acting improperly and without privilege, and purposely and with malice with intent to injure, have taken
  38. 38. overt and wrongful acts to interfere with, and have in fact interfere with, Plaintiffs' ongoing and prospective business relationships. 97. Defendants' conspiratorial acts are designed to maliciously disparage and discredit Plaintiffs, are calculated to injure Plaintiffs' business, and allow Defendants to compete unfairly with Plaintiffs' in the mortgage information marketplace. 98. Through their conspiratorial acts, Defendants have caused financial injury to Plaintiffs. 99. Defendants' conspiracy to interfere with Plaintiffs business relationships has been carried out in a willful, wanton, malicious and reckless disregard of Plaintiffs' rights, such that punitive damages should be imposed. COUNT W I : MALICIOUS INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS' BUSINESS 100. Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege as if fully set forth herein paragraphs 1 through 99 above. 101. 38
  39. 39. Defendants made either knowing and intentional, or recklessly false statements and representations of material fact regarding Plaintiffs' business and business practices, and Defendants' wrongful conduct described above has been made and undertaken with the knowledge of Plaintiffs' rights and interests and with the malicious intent to discredit Plaintiffs and with the calculated intent to drive customers who search for Lenox Financial online through Google or other search engines away from Lenox Financial and into Defendants' "mortgage shopping system". 102. Defendants have acted with malice and without privilege. Defendants' calculated disparagements, described above, were known to be false when made or were made with a reckless disregard for their truth, were intended to be relied upon, and were made without reasonable justification, and have been relied upon by Plaintiffs' customers and prospects to the detriment of Plaintiffs. 103. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conducts, Plaintiffs are entitled to and have suffered damages, including without limitation, loss of goodwill, loss of revenue from customers and prospective customers, and the costs associated with the litigation. 104. 39
  40. 40. Defendants' conduct has been motivated by spite, has been willful, wanton and malicious has been conducted in reckless disregard of Plaintiffs' rights and interests, as well as for the harm they have caused and were foreseeably likely to cause Plaintiffs and, therefore, punitive damages should be imposed to deter such conduct in the future. COUNT IX: DAMAGES FOR CIVIL CONSPIRACY TO MALICIOUSLY INJURE PLAINTIFF'S BUSINESS Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege as if fully set forth herein paragraphs 1 through 104 above. Defendants, acting in concert with each other and potentially other persons andlor entities, agreed to take collective actions to malign, disparage and discredit Plaintiffs and to drive internet traffic and current and prospective customers of Lenox Financial away from Lenox Financial and into Defendants' "mortgage shopping system", a lead and profit generator for Defendants, contained in their Website.
  41. 41. In furtherance of their conspiracy and sLheme, Defendants, acting in concert with each other and other persons andlor entities, have taken overt and wrongful acts intended to malign, disparage and discredit Plaintiffs and to drive internet traffic and current and prospective customers of Lenox Financial away from Lenox Financial and into Defendants' "mortgage shopping system", a lead and profit generator for Defendants, contained in their Website. 108. Defendants' conspiratorial acts are designed to disparage and discredit Plaintiffs, injure Plaintiffs' business, and allow them wrongfully to siphon mortgage prospects who conduct internet research internet from Lenox Financial for Defendants' financial gain. 109. Through their conspiratorial acts, Defendants have proximately caused injury to Plaintiffs. 110. Defendants' conspiracy to disparage and discredit Plaintiffs and to profit wrongfully therefrom has been carried out in a willful, wanton, malicious and reckless disregard of Plaintiffs' rights and interests, such that punitive damages should be imposed.
  42. 42. COUNT X: VIOLATION OF THE GEORGIA UNIFORM DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT 111. Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege as if fully set forth herein paragraphs 1 through 110 above. 112. Through wrongful use of Plaintiffs' trademarks and trade name, fkrther through the wrongful and false statements noted above, Defendants have created a likelihood of confbsion and misunderstanding regarding Plaintiffs and their business practices. Among other actions, Defendants have engaged in deceptive trade practices by disparaging the business, services, and business practices of Plaintiffs by false and misleading misrepresentations of fact. 113. As such, Defendants have violated the provision of O.C.G.A. section 10-1- 372(a)(8), among other provisions of the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. 114. As a result of Defendants' ongoing deceptive trade practices, Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief to remedy these violations. 11s.
  43. 43. Plaintiffs are also entitled to recover their attorney's fees and costs incurred in connection with this action and to any and all damages authorized by this statute. COUNT XI: VIOLATION OF THE GEORGIA FAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT OF 1975 Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege as if fully set forth herein paragraphs 1 through 115 above. 117, Through wrongful use of Plaintiffs' trademarks and trade name, further through the wrongful and false statements noted above, Defendants have created a likelihood of confusion and misunderstanding regarding Plaintiffs and their business practices. Among other actions, Defendants have engaged in unfair business practices by disparaging the business, services, and business practices of Plaintiffs by false and misleading misrepresentations of fact. 118. As such, Defendants have violated the provision of O.C.G.A. section 10-1- 393(b)(8), among other provisions of the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act of 1975.
  44. 44. Defendants have further violated the provisions of O.C.G.A. section 10-1- 393.5 by engaging in internet activities that operate as a fraud and deceit upon Plaintiffs and upon those customers, clients, and members of the general public who are wrongfully influenced by Defendants' false and misleading representations. 120. As a result of Defendants' ongoing unfair practices, Plaintiffs are entitled to those remedies authorized in O.C.G.A. section 10-1-399 including, without limitation, injunctive relief, actual damages, treble damages, and attorney's fees. COUNT XZT: VIOLATION OF THE GEORGIA F&SE ADVERTISING ACT 121. Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege as if fully set forth herein paragraphs 1 through 120 above. 122. Defendants' advertisements and representations reference above contain untrue statements of fact, either known by Defendants to be untrue, or made with a reckless disregard as to their accuracy and integrity, that directly relate to the qualities and characteristics of Defendants' services promoted. 123.
  45. 45. Defendants' actions constitute false advertising in violation of O.C.G.A. section 10-1-421. 124. As a result of Defendants' unlawful acts, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer damages. In addition, Defendants have reaped unjustified profits as a result of the conduct. 125. Plaintiffs are also entitled to recover their attorney's fees and costs incurred in connection with this action. 126. Defendants' false advertising has caused, and will continue to cause, irreparable harm to Plaintiffs unless enjoined. Hence in addition to charges and profits, this Honorable Court should award temporary, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against Defendants and, in addition, should order the Defendants to undertake corrective advertising. COUNT XIII: UNFAIR COMPETITION AND COMMERCIAL DISPARAGEMENT 127. Plaintiffs incorporates and alleges as if fully set forth herein paragraphs 1 through 126 above.
  46. 46. 128. Defendants actions complained of above constitute acts of unfair competition and commercial disparagement in violation of the common law of the State of Georgia and other states. 129. Defendants either knew their above described false, disparaging, and misleading statements were false or have made these with a reckless disregard for their accuracy and integrity, intended for the above described statement and actions to result in harm to the business and property interest of Plaintiffs, or should have recognized that should reckless statements and actions would have this result. 130. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and misrepresentations, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer damages and Defendants have evidently reaped unjustified profits. Defendants' commercial disparagement has caused, and will continue to cause harm to Plaintiffs unless enjoined. Hence, in addition to damages and profits as authorized by statute, this Court should award temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief against Defendants. COUNT XIV: PUNITIVE DAMAGES 46
  47. 47. Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege as if fully set forth herein paragraphs 1 through 131 above. That Defendants will be shown to have engaged in tortious conduct which amounts to willful misconduct, malice, wantonness, and that entire want of care that raises the presumption of a conscious indifference to the consequences according to O.C.G.A. section 51-12-5.1(b) and thereby justifying an award of punitive damages in favor of Plaintiffs in an amount sufficient to penalize and punish Defendants. COUNT X V : ATTORNEY'S FEES 134. The aforementioned paragraphs are hereby incorporated into this Count. That Defendants have engaged in tortious conduct, have acted in bad faith, have forced this action, and have forced Plaintiffs to incur attorney's fees and costs of prosecuting his action in addition to unnecessary trouble and expense thereby
  48. 48. justifying an award of attorney's fees and costs of this action under O.C.G.A. section 9-15-14. COUNT XVI: IN THE ALTERNATIVE. NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION 136. Plaintiffs hereby reference in this count paragraphs 1 through 5 1 and re- alleges and re-asserts the factual assertions and averments made therein expressly omitting, however, any reference to any knowing misstatement, bad faith motive, malicious intent or reckless disregard on behalf of the Defendants, which has been plead above in the first alternative. In the second alternative, Plaintiffs plead that, if said false statements and misrepresentations were not make knowingly, with malicious intent, or with a reckless disregard as to their accuracy, which Plaintiffs assert in the first alternative, then they were made with a negligent disregard as to their accuracy. Notwithstanding, the statements are still utterly false and damaging.
  49. 49. Defendants owe Plaintiffs a duty of reasonable care not to publish careless, false statements about Plaintiffs on their Website or to otherwise improperly or negligently disparage or damage Plaintiffs. Defendants have breached this duty by making the false statements noted herein in a careless and negligent manner without first properly investigating the business practices and integrity of Plaintiffs or otherwise securing sufficient evidence to justify Defendants' outrageous public references to Plaintiffs as professionally unethical and corrupt. The Defendants motives notwithstanding, the Defendant have proximately caused Plaintiffs significant damages, and the Defendants are still liable to Plaintiffs for all damages derived from for these false statements, which damages are well in excess of seventy five thousand dollars ($75,000.00), even if Defendants did not act knowingly, in bad faith, or in reckless disregard of the accuracy of their statements and the truth. RELIEF REOUESTED
  50. 50. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs humbly and respectfidly request the following relief: (a) pursuant to Rule 38, a trial by jury on all issues and matters upon which a jury may render judgment; (b) a temporary and preliminary injunction preventing and enjoining Defendants from: (1) using any of Plaintiffs' trademarks or trade names, or any part of Plaintiffs' trademarks or trade names, as "meta tags" or as any part of the "meta data" on Defendants' Website or on any of website owned or operated by Defendants; (2) making any false or wrongfully disparaging statements about Plaintiffs' on any of Defendants' Website or on any of their other publications; (3) engaging in any acts of false advertising; (4) violating the Georgia Uniform Deceptive Practices Act; (5) violating the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act; and (6) violating the Georgia False Advertising Act; (c) granting judgment in favor of all Defendants as authorized by law and on each and every court of the Complaint, as applicable, and awarding all actual,
  51. 51. consequential and/or compensatory damages as proved by Plaintiffs at trial in an amount certainly to exceed $75,000.00; (d) awarding treble damages as authorized by law in an amount certainly to exceed $75,000.00; (e) awarding punitive damages as authorized by law; (f) awarding all costs of this action including reasonable attorney's fees; (g) ordering an accounting of any and all profits derived from any wronghl diversion of internet traffic away from Plaintiffs' website and into Defendants' "mortgage shopping system"; (h) grant such other and further relief as this Honorable Court deems appropriate, just and equitable. This 4th day of August, 2010. Respecply Submitted, - - Russell H. Hippe, I11 The Law Office of Russell H. Hippe, 11 LLC 1, One Midtown Plaza 1360 Peachtree Street, Suite 1205 Atlanta, Georgia 30309 (404) 898-1246 -office (404) 550-2942 - cell
  52. 52. LR 7.1D CERTIFICATION In accordance with LR 7. ID, the undersigned counsel certifies that this Complaint has been prepared with of the font and point selections approved by the Court in said rule. This 4th day of August, 2010. . dd Respectfu y Submitted, k L 4 Russell H. Hivve, 1 1 - 1 A - The Law Office of Russell H. Hippe, 1 1 LLC 1, One Midtown Plaza 1360 Peachtree Street, Suite 1205 Atlanta, Georgia 30309 (404) 898-1246 - office (404) 550-2942 - cell (404) 898-1241 -fax rhippe@,rh3law.com -

×