Forwarded from an IP attorney who's a "friend of the case" (however that works).
....Plaintiff's lawyer is a walking malpractice case. The complaint betrays complete and utter ignorance of the law and the most basic standards of pleading.
1. The fact that there is no copyright infringement claim is odd because the trademark infringement claim alleges that "each act in which defendants used the name "Company" or any other copyrighted materials without permission is a separate wrongful act." The use of copyrighted materials is not trademark infringement -- it is copyright infringement. He apparently knows he doesn't have a copyright infringement claim because he doesn't have a copyright, or can't register the copyright because he doesn't have a copy of the work to deposit with the Copyright Office along with his application for registration (a necessary prelude to filing a copyright infringement claim). But I may be giving the lawyer too much credit. Maybe, like most of the lay population, he doesn't know the difference between trademark and copyright infringement.
2. There is no such animal as Count I -- "Injunction." An injunction is a remedy, not a claim or a count.
3. Count II: The use of the trademark is not trademark infringement if its use is not confusing. In other words, reproduction and distribution of a portfolio of the work you did for Comnpany as work-for-hire might be copyright infringement; but if it was a work for hire, then identifying it as a Company product is accurate and not confusing, and isn't trademark infringement. Moreover, the complaint never actually alleges that Company (or anything else) is a registered trademark. A trademark search at uspto.gov turns up a single cancelled registration (my comments: for a company that creates something in manufacturing). In short, the complaint fails to allege two essential elements of trademark infringement -- ownership of the mark, and market confusion.
4. Count III might state a claim for trade secret misappropriation, but it doesn't state a claim for tortious interference with a contract, which requires: (1) The existence of contract to which plaintiff is a party;
(2) Defendant's knowledge of the contract;
(3) Defendant's intentional procurement of the contract's breach;
(4) The absence of justification or privilege; and
(5) Plaintiff suffered damages resulting from the breach. The complaint doesn't allege a single one of those elements.
5. Count IV alleges a violation of Florida's Unfair Trade Practices Act. There might be a violation of the Unfair Competition chapter of that Act if there is a trademark infringement claim or some other anticompetitive trade practice, but there is no violation of the Consumer Protection chapter (ch. 501) as claimed. Company might be somebody's "consumer" as defined in Sec. 501.203, and as alleged in para. 39 of the complaint, but Company is not a consumer that engaged in a consumer transaction with the defendants.
If I was going to spend any money on this case that I didn't have to spend to make it go away, I would spend it looking into the possibility of recovering attorney's fees and costs under the Florida equivalent of Rule 11, which authorizes courts to sanction frivolous and vexatious pleadings under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Every state has its own Rule 11. If Company's lawyer served you with a complaint but no summons, and sent you a letter telling you that you had 20 days to send **him ** your answer instead of filing one with the court, he has engaged in an egregious abuse of process. My guess is that he's not unfamiliar with court sanctions and State bar disciplinary proceedings.
(emphasis added)
To help: www.inkworkswell.com/ppal.cfm