One World Lantern Festival v. 1000 Lights - Complaint

Case 1:18-cv-00140-BCW Document 2 Filed 11/01/18 Page 1 of 28
Brandon J. Baxter (9122)

Michael D. Jewell (14380)
PECK HADFIELD BAXTER & MOORE, LLC
399 N. Main Street
Suite 300
Logan, UT 84321
(435) 787-9700
bbaxter@peckhadfield.com
mjewell@peckhadfield.com
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH, NORTHERN DIVISION
ONE WORLD LANTERN FESTIVAL,

LLC, a Utah limited liability company,
and YOLO ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Utah COMPLAINT
limited liability company,
Plaintiffs, Civil No.
vs. Judge
1000 LIGHTS, LLC, a Utah limited

liability company (formerly ANDREW
KENNEY & ASSOCIATES, LLC ),
NICHOLAS MENENDEZ, an individual,
ZACH WERTZ, an individual, and
ANDREW KENNEY, an individual,
Defendants.
Plaintiffs One World Lantern Festival, LLC, a Utah limited liability company doing
business as Water Lantern Festival (“One World”), and YOLO Enterprises, LLC, a Utah limited
liability company (“YOLO”), by and through their legal counsel hereby complain against 1000
Lights, LLC, a Utah limited liability company formerly known as Andrew Kenney & Associates,
1
LLC, (“1000 Lights”), Nicholas Menendez (“Menendez”), Zach Wertz (“Wertz”), and Andrew
Kenney (“Kenney”) (collectively referred to herein as the “Defendants”) and allege as follows:
PARTIES
1. One World is a Utah limited liability company having its principal place of
business in Cache County, Utah.
2. YOLO is a Utah limited liability company having its principal place of business
in Cache County, Utah.
3. 1000 Lights is a Utah limited liability company having its principal place of
business in Salt Lake County, Utah.
4. Upon information and belief, Menendez is either a principal of or a key employee
and/or consultant of, 1000 Lights.
5. Kenney and Wertz are principals of 1000 Lights.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6. This is a civil action for, among other things, trademark dilution and false
advertising brought by Plaintiffs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1125.
7. This court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 15
U.S.C. § 1121, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) and/or (b).
8. Personal jurisdiction in this district is proper inasmuch as 1000 Lights is
headquartered and does business in Utah, its wrongful acts have occurred in Utah, and 1000
Lights has otherwise purposely availed itself of the privileges and benefits of the laws of the
State of Utah and therefore is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.
9. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
2
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
Creation and Operation of Water Lantern Festival
10. One World organizes and conducts floating lantern events across the continental
United States. Participants are instructed to arrive 3-4 hours prior to sunset in order to enjoy
food trucks, games, activities such as a bean-bag toss and a scavenger hunt, and other
entertainment. Each participant is provided with a custom designed floating lantern, which can
be decorated by the participant in any way. Shortly after sunset participants launch their custom
designed lanterns onto a body of water and engage in peaceful reflection.
11. One World’s Water Lantern Festival events join people together in hope, love,
happiness, healing, and connection. The look and feel of each Water Lantern Festival Event is
meticulously crafted toward this end.
12. One World was founded by Michael Schaefer (“Schaefer”) and David Knight
(“Knight”). Schaefer and Knight have owned and operated other companies that organize fun
and uplifting events for large groups of people since 2011.
13. Knight and Schaefer each have a long history of building successful businesses
based on hosting large events. Through their years working in this sphere they have gained
invaluable knowledge and understanding of the elements required for hosting successful events,
including branding, marketing, advertising, customer service, and event execution.
14. Knight and Schaefer have invested millions of dollars into building their event-
based businesses, including advertising, research and development, product testing, and
developing an overall participant experience.
3
15. Through their years of experience, Knight and Schaefer have developed an array
of best practices, policies, and procedures related to hosting successful and meaningful events.
16. Knight and Schaefer have combined to create memorable events for over one
million people at over six hundred events across the United States.
17. Knight and Schaefer specifically designed One World’s Water Lantern Festival
events because the events bring hundreds – and even thousands – of people together with
feelings of love, community togetherness, peace, and happiness. The feedback One World has
received for their Water Lantern Festival events has been incredibly positive and Water Lantern
Festival continues to grow exponentially in order to meet the increasing demand.
18. The ever-increasing demand for Water Lantern Festival events is directly tied to
Knight’s and Schaefer’s extensive experience, as well as One World’s dedication to providing
genuinely meaningful events. One World’s dedication in this regard is the basis of its incredible
goodwill within the event community, which is of utmost importance to One World.
19. Knight and Schaefer designed Water Lantern Festival events to become an entire
experience, consisting of food trucks, games, and entertainment, culminating in launching a
custom designed floating lantern onto a body of water, creating an uplifting and inspiring sight of
hundreds of floating lanterns illuminating the darkness.
20. Prior to One World’s creation of Water Lantern Festival events, no other similar
event that combined all of the elements that Schaefer & Knight designed existed within the
United States.
21. In September 2017, Schaefer and Knight began executing on their business plan,
which consisted of hours of research on market launch strategies, different types of lanterns,
4
distribution and clean up for events, venue research, and vendor contracts. With the plan in
place, One World began reaching out to potential venues to host Water Lantern Festival events.
22. The Water Lantern Festival design mark, below, prominently features a mandala
design.
23. The mandala is a spiritual symbol representing the universe and has a history of
being used as a spiritual guidance tool, for establishing a sacred space, and as an aid to
meditation.
24. The mandala symbol and imagery is prominently displayed as part of One
World’s trade dress at all Water Lantern Festival events, including on table cloths, mats, flags,
banners, merchandise, promotional material.
25. One World provides participants an event guide prior to the event, which features
the Water Lantern Festival Mark and heavily incorporates the mandala design. The event guide
provides information to participants. It includes an “Event Info” page, which includes the
headings “When”, “Where”, “Parking”, “What to Bring”, and “What to Expect”. The next page
is “Parking”, which includes the address for where to park along with a map of the parking area.
The next page is “Lantern Launch”, which includes the headings “Schedule” and “Decorate
Your Lantern”. The final page of the event guide is titled “Food and Vendors”. One World
provides participants with a pre-packaged custom designed floating lantern, an LED candle to
place within the floating lantern, a marker to decorate the floating lantern, and a scavenger hunt
form.
5
26. The floating lanterns provided to participants were custom designed and invented
by Schaefer and Knight. The floating lanterns are the product of months of research and
development and are vastly superior for these types of events to any other floating lantern
publicly available. Knight and Schaefer are currently pursuing a design patent for the floating
lantern. The design patent application is currently pending.
27. Along with its unique trade dress, One World markets its services under its “Water
Lantern Festival” service mark (the “Water Lantern Festival Mark”) and its “Light the Water”
service mark (the “Light the Water Mark”) (collectively referred to as the “WLF Marks”).
28. One World has been using the Water Lantern Festival Mark in commerce since at
least November 16, 2017.
29. One World applied for federal trademark registration for the Water Lantern
Festival Mark on March 5, 2018. The federal application for the Water Lantern Festival Mark is
currently pending.
30. One World has been using the Light the Water Mark in commerce since at least
November 16, 2017.
31. One World applied for federal trademark registration for the Light the Water Mark
on July 13, 2018. The federal application for the Light the Water Mark is currently pending.
32. One World has built and maintained impeccable good will associated with the
WLF Marks, building a substantial following throughout the United States.
33. When One World first approached venues about the type of events it wanted to
host, venues did not immediately understand the concept of floating lantern festivals because no
such event existed at the time within the continental United States.
6
34. Prior to the launch of One World and its Water Lantern Festival events, the term
“Water Lantern Festival” meant nothing to people.
35. A search on “Google Insights for Search” shows that prior to the launch of One
World’s events, the term “water lantern festival” had virtually no search traffic throughout the
world, because the term “Water Lantern Festival” had no meaning associated with it.
36. Since One World’s event was so original, One World was required to spend
significant time and money to inform customers about its events.
37. One World promoted its Water Lantern Festival events nationwide through
posting photographs, videos, and social media campaigns on the Internet along with
advertisements on Facebook and other Internet sites, spending in excess of $510,000.00 on
advertising and promotional efforts in 2018.
38. One World created a Facebook page for Water Lantern Festival on Dec 5, 2017.
One World has spent a significant amount of time and money directly and indirectly building
One World’s social media presence and, as of the date of this filing, the Water Lantern Festival
Facebook page has over 26,000 likes and over 1.7 Million people have indicated an “Interested
In” or “Going to the event” response on the Water Lantern Festival Facebook Event pages. Each
“like” and “event response” indicates an interested consumer investigating, following, and
potentially subscribing to Water Lantern Festival events.
39. As One World began marketing its Water Lantern Festival events, consumers
began searching for the term “Water Lantern Festival.” When searches began, it was clear that
consumers were searching for One World’s events since there were no competitors in the market
7
organizing and hosting floating lantern events. One World’s Water Lantern Festival events
remain the premiere and original floating lantern event hosted in the continental United States.
40. By the end of the 2018 calendar year, One World will have hosted over 35 events
with an aggregate of more than 120,000 participants.
41. At least as early as November 16, 2017, One World began using the Light the
Water Mark as a tag line on its website and in conjunction with each participant registration. For
example, after a participant registered for a Water Lantern Festival event, they would receive
confirmation information that included the tagline, “Light the Water”.
42. One World’s success is a result of extensive time, money, research and
development, and original creativity invested in the creation of an event that draws thousands of
participants to each event.
43. As a result of this success, copycat events have begun to emerge.
44. One World has aggressively policed its trademarks and has sent cease and desist
letters to known competitors who have attempted to use any of One World’s trademarks or any
confusingly similar marks or trade dress in connection with their competitive events.
45. Upon discovering 1000 Lights’s use of “Light the Water Lantern Festival,” One
World sent a cease and desist letter to 1000 Lights. However, 1000 Lights refused to comply
with the cease and desist letter.
Relationship With Nick Menendez and Andrew Kenney
46. On January 30, 2017, Menendez was hired by YOLO, an affiliate of Water
Lantern Festival, which is owned and operated by Schaefer and Knight. YOLO’s sole purpose is
to support the event production endeavors of Knight and Schaefer.
8
47. As an employee of YOLO, Menendez’s responsibilities were to research locations
and plan Water Lantern Festival events for One World.
48. Menendez’s employment agreement with YOLO required Menendez to maintain
the confidentiality of YOLO’s confidential information, as well as the confidential information of
YOLO’s customers, including One World.
49. Beginning at least as early as June 2018, while still employed to provide services
to One World, Menendez began using One World’s confidential information for his own gain by
preparing to compete with One World.
50. On June 18, 2018, while at work for One World, Menendez used his work
computer to create an Instagram account for 1000 Lights with a username @lightthewater.
51. From June 13, 2018 until Menendez’s final day of employment on July 12, 2018,
Menendez improperly accessed the email and work accounts of senior employees of One World
numerous times in order to access One World’s confidential information related to vendors,
suppliers, pricing, custom lantern information, contacts, and other business operations.
52. As an Event Coordinator for One World, Menendez was responsible for
researching potential venues. Menendez was supposed to log his research of potential venues in
order to (a) prevent other event coordinators from researching the same venues, and (b) record
and maintain contact information for venue contacts in order to build a network of potential
venues and contacts.
53. From June 13, 2018 until Menendez’s final day of employment on July 12, 2018,
Menendez researched a number of potential venues for Water Lantern Festival events and did not
9
log his research as required by One World. Instead, Menendez used the research to subsequently
book those venues for 1000 Lights.
54. Following Menendez’s final day of employment, One World discovered that
during the course of his employment, Menendez spent a large amount of his time at work
pursuing personal pleasures instead of providing valuable services to his employer.
55. On June 2, 2018 and again on June 30, 2018, Kenney was hired by and performed
services for One World as an independent contractor at the Water Lantern Festival events in
Crestline, California and Colorado Springs, Colorado. Menendez worked for One World as the
Event Coordinator for these events.
56. One of Menendez’s responsibilities as the Event Coordinator for the Crestline,
California and Colorado Springs, Colorado events was to hire independent contractors to work
the event and to ensure that the independent contractors signed One World’s independent
contractor agreement. Included in the independent contractor agreement is a non-compete
provision, restricting the independent contractor’s ability to compete with One World.
57. Menendez failed to secure a signed independent contractor agreement from
Kenney.
58. Upon information and belief, Menendez intentionally failed to secure a signed
independent contractor agreement from Kenney in order to allow Kenney to create a company
that competes with One World.
59. Upon information and belief, Menendez used Kenney as the front-person for their
competing company in order to circumvent any non-compete and/or non-solicitation provisions
of Menendez’s employment agreement with YOLO.
10
1000 Lights Launches its Copycat Event
60. 1000 Lights was formed with the State of Utah on July 10, 2018 as Andrew
Kenney & Associates, LLC, with a registered d/b/a of Light the Water.
61. 1000 Lights offers identical floating lantern events and is a direct competitor of
One World.
62. 1000 Lights began doing business using service marks “Light the Water” (the
“Light the Water Infringing Mark”) and “Light the Water Lantern Festival” (the “Water Lantern
Festival Infringing Mark”) (collectively referred to as the “Infringing Marks”).
63. Upon information and belief, 1000 Lights did not begin using the Infringing
Marks in commerce until July 25, 2018 at the earliest.
64. 1000 Lights registered the Light the Water Infringing Mark with the State of Utah
on July 25, 2018.
65. On 1000 Lights’s website, 1000 Lights has used video and photographs of One
World’s Water Lantern Festival events while giving the impression that the events were hosted
by 1000 Lights. The video and some of the photographs were used without permission from the
copyright holder.
66. One video featured on 1000 Lights’s website was a video taken by Todd Hata at
One World’s Water Lantern Festival event in Crestline, CA (the “Todd Hata Video”). The
copyright associated with the Todd Hata Video was purchased from Todd Hata by One World.
67. Many of the photographs featured on 1000 Lights’s website were taken at One
World’s Water Lantern Festival events.
11
68. One photo used on 1000 Lights's website was taken by Jenna Lee (the “Jenna Lee
Photos”) and has been used by 1000 Lights without permission.
69. 1000 Lights has engaged in social media marketing with an intentional effort to
confuse consumers into believing that Water Lantern Festival events were hosted by 1000 Lights.
70. For example, on July 15, 2018, one Water Lantern Festival customer posted the
following statement on Instagram: “Checked out the Water Lantern Festival yesterday. Pretty
fun but there was a TON ! (sic) of people and not enough food trucks …” 1000 Lights publicly
responded to the post via its Instagram account by commenting, “Such a fun night! Next time
we’ll have more food trucks! Sorry! Follow us @lightthewater for future promotions.”
71. 1000 Lights posted similarly confusing comments on dozens of Instagram
accounts of One World’s customers, giving the impression that 1000 Lights was somehow
affiliated with One World and encouraging One World's customers to follow 1000 Lights
(@lightthewater) on Instagram for “future events and promotions”
72. While 1000 Lights engaged in a marketing campaign meant to deceive and
confuse potential customers, they used the information Menendez had stolen from One World to
prepare to host their own events.
73. On September 29, 2018, 1000 Lights hosted its first floating lantern events in
Lindon, Utah and Burbank, California.
74. 1000 Lights’s events in Lindon and Burbank were carbon copies of Water Lantern
Festival events. For example:
a. 1000 Lights improperly used One World’s proprietary floating lantern design for
the participants in their events.
12
b. The 1000 Lights events include the mandala design featured in the Water Lantern
Festival design logo and incorporated into One World’s trade dress for Water
Lantern Festival events. 1000 Lights used the mandala design identical to the
mandala design used extensively in One World’s trade dress.
c. 1000 Lights provided event guides to its participants that are materially identical
to One World’s event guide. The 1000 Lights event guide begins with an “Event
Information” page, which includes information related to “When”, “Where”,
“What to Bring”, and “What to Expect”. The next page is “Parking”, which
includes directions to, and a map of, the parking area. The next page is “Lantern
Launch”, including “Schedule” and “Decorate Your Lantern”. The first section
under “Decorate Your Lantern” is a word-for-word restatement of the first section
under “Decorate Your Lantern” from One World’s event guide. The last page in
the 1000 Lights event guide is “Vendors”. The information provided in the 1000
Lights event guide contains similar and oftentimes identical information to One
World’s event guide.
d. The 1000 Lights events included games of bean-bag toss, which included the
exact same bean bags and platforms, and a scavenger hunt that was very similar to
the scavenger hunts used at Water Lantern Festival events.
75. 1000 Lights has willfully and intentionally copied the trade dress, as well as the
overall feel and experience, of One World’s Water Lantern Festival events.
76. The floating lanterns provided by 1000 Lights to its event participants is identical
to the floating lanterns designed by Schaefer and Knight. Information regarding the floating
13
lanterns, including the manufacturer’s information, pricing, and design, was improperly
misappropriated by Menendez when he was an employee of One World.
77. As a result of 1000 Lights’s use of the Infringing Marks and 1000 Lights’s willful
efforts to portray an affiliation with One World, a large number of 1000 Lights customers have
expressed confusion regarding whether or not 1000 Lights is affiliated with One World. As of
the date of this filing, One World has received numerous emails and other communications
requesting information about 1000 Lights events.
78. Multiple customers who attended one of the 1000 Lights events reached out to
One World because they believed the 1000 Lights event was sponsored and/or hosted by One
World.
79. Many potential customers have expressed that they believed 1000 Lights events
were actually One World events when they purchased their event tickets.
80. Certain 1000 Lights venues have expressed to Schaefer and Knight that they
agreed to host 1000 Lights events because they believed the events were One World events due
to the photographs and videos of the One World events being used on 1000 Lights's website.
81. Immediately upon discovering 1000 Lights’s use of the Infringing Marks, One
World contacted 1000 Lights to request that they cease and desist the use of the Infringing
Marks.
82. 1000 Lights initially refused to cease and desist its use of the Infringing Marks.
83. On or around September 21, 2018, 1000 Lights agreed to rebrand its name from
“Light the Water” to “1000 Lights”. However, 1000 Lights still has a registered d/b/a of “Light
the Water” and 1000 Lights has continued to use the Internet URL www.lightthewater.com (the
14
“LTW Domain”), which they simply redirected to their new website,
www.1000lightsfestival.com (the “1000 Lights Domain”).
84. The redirection of the LTW Domain to the 1000 Lights Domain continues to
infringe upon One World’s Light the Water Mark by suggesting an association and/or
sponsorship of the new website and brand.
85. On Sept 21, 2018 1000 Lights published a press release acknowledging the
consumer confusion they had created and stated that the change to 1000 Lights was “to help
eliminate customer confusion”, while also continuing to use the website redirection to capitalize
on the confusion.
86. Furthermore, 1000 Lights has continued to use “Light the Water” and “Water
Lantern Festival” on their website and in their printed information.
87. One World has standing to sue 1000 Lights for unlawful use of marks that are
confusingly similar to its marks, as well as the other causes of action described below.
First Cause of Action

(Lanham Act – 15 U.S.C. § 1125)
88. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate herein, as if set forth in full, the foregoing
allegations of the Complaint.
89. 1000 Lights’s wrongful use of the Infringing Marks is likely to cause confusion as
to sponsorship or authorization by One World, or alternatively, destroy the origin-identifying
function of the WLF Marks. 1000 Lights’s actions are in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.
§ 1125(a).
90. As a direct and proximate result of 1000 Lights’s actions, One World has suffered
and will continue to suffer damage to its business, goodwill, reputation, profits, and the strength
15
of its mark. The injury to One World is and continues to be ongoing and irreparable. An award
of monetary damages alone cannot fully compensate One World for its injuries and One World
lacks an adequate remedy at law.
91. One World is entitled to a preliminary and permanent injunction against 1000
Lights, as well as all other remedies available under the Lanham Act, including, but not limited
to, actual damages, costs, attorney fees, 1000 Lights’s profits derived from its infringing
activities, said amounts to be trebled by virtue of 1000 Lights’s knowing and willful behavior.
Second Cause of Action

(Common Law Trademark Infringement)
93. 1000 Lights’s use of the Infringing Marks as described above constitutes
infringement of One World’s common law rights in the WLF Marks.
94. 1000 Lights has been unjustly and improperly enriched through its wrongful use
of the Infringing Marks. One World has been damaged in its business and will continue to be so
damaged and is without an adequate remedy at law unless 1000 Lights is enjoined by the Court.
Further, One World should be awarded punitive damages by reason of 1000 Lights’s willful,
intentional, and unauthorized use of the Infringing Marks as described herein.
Third Cause of Action

(Trade Dress Infringement)
16
96. The look and feel of Water Lantern Festival events, along with the use of the WLF
Marks and mandala design constitute unique trade dress to One World.
97. One World’s trade dress is non-functional.
98. 1000 Lights has copied One Worlds trade dress by creating a floating lantern
event that features the mandala design, uses an almost identical event guide, and encourages
participants to participate in nearly identical activities to those offered at Water Lantern Festival
events.
99. 1000 Lights has further copied One World’s trade dress by using the Infringing
Marks in promotional and advertising materials as well as by using videos and photographs of
Water Lantern Festival events in its promotional materials.
100. 1000 Lights’s conduct has created confusion and is likely to continue causing
confusion regarding the source of origin of 1000 Lights events and Water Lantern Festival
events.
101. One World is entitled to damages against 1000 Lights in an amount to be proven
more fully at trial. In addition, One World is entitled to injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants
from engaging in continued infringing activities.
Fourth Cause of Action

(Unfair Competition Act – Utah Code Ann. § 13-5a-101 et seq.)
103. The actions of 1000 Lights as described above constitute intentional business acts
and practices that are unlawful, unfair, and misleading, and have led to a material diminution in
value of One World’s intellectual property.
17
104. Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 13-5a-102, One World is entitled to actual damages
caused by 1000 Lights’s unfair competition, as well as costs, attorney fees, and punitive
damages.
Fifth Cause of Action

(Unfair Competition – Utah Common Law)
106. By its actions, as described above, 1000 Lights has unfairly competed with and
continues to unfairly compete with One World.
107. 1000 Lights has engaged in these activities knowingly, willfully, and, on
information and belief, with actual malice and in bad faith, so as to justify the assessment of
increased, exemplary, and punitive damages against it in an amount to be determined at trial.
108. 1000 Lights’s conduct has caused One World to sustain irreparable harm and
other damages in an amount to be established at trial.
109. 1000 Lights’s actions have caused, and unless enjoined by this Court will
continue to cause, irreparable damage, loss, and injury to One World for which One World has no
adequate remedy at law and which justify entry of a preliminary and permanent injunction.
Sixth Cause of Action

(Interference with Economic Relations)
111. Through the improper means of intentionally infringing upon the WLF Marks,
1000 Lights has interfered with One World’s prospective and actual economic relations,
18
including by confusing One World’s actual and potential customers and venues and by diverting
sales away from One World.
112. The foregoing conduct of 1000 Lights is the result of willful and malicious or
intentionally deceptive conduct, or conduct that manifests a knowing and reckless indifference
toward, and disregard of, the rights of One World.
113. As a direct and proximate result of the intentional and improper acts and conduct
of 1000 Lights, One World has suffered actual and consequential damages and other losses in an
amount to be determined at trial.
Seventh Cause of Action

(Unjust Enrichment)
115. 1000 Lights has benefited from their improper, unfair, and unauthorized use of
One World’s intellectual property.
116. 1000 Lights would be unjustly enriched if permitted to retain the profits and other
gains they have received, and continue to receive, from such actions.
117. Equity and good conscience dictate that 1000 Lights be required to account for
and turn over to One World, or to be deemed to hold in constructive trust for the benefit of One
World, all profits and gains derived and to be derived from the sale by 1000 Lights of any
products and/or services using the Infringing Marks, in an amount to be proven at trial.
19
Eighth Cause of Action

(Breach of Duty of Loyalty – Against Menendez)
119. As an employee of YOLO, Menendez owed YOLO a duty of loyalty.
120. By using work time to prepare to compete with YOLO’s affiliate, One World,
Menendez breached his duty of loyalty.
121. Furthermore, by utilizing his position with YOLO and One World to take potential
One World venues for the benefit of 1000 Lights, Menendez breached his duty of loyalty.
122. Equity and good conscience dictate that Menendez be required to reimburse
YOLO for wages paid to him during the time period in which Menendez was using company
time to prepare to compete with YOLO’s affiliate, One World.
of Menendez, YOLO has suffered actual and consequential damages and other losses in an
amount to be proven at trial.
Ninth Cause of Action

(Misappropriation of Confidential Information – Against Menendez)
125. Menendez willfully and improperly gained access to One World’s confidential
information by logging into accounts owned by his superiors at One World.
126. Menendez used and/or disclosed One World’s confidential information for the
benefit of his competing enterprise, 1000 Lights and to the detriment of One World.
20
Tenth Cause of Action

(Civil Conspiracy)
129. As illustrated above, Menendez, Wertz, Kenney, and 1000 Lights conspired
together to misappropriate One World’s confidential information, bypass non-compete
agreements, willfully infringe upon the WLF Marks, and improperly interfere with One World’s
economic relationships.
Eleventh Cause of Action

(Copyright Infringement)
132. The Todd Hata Video is an original work of authorship owned by One World.
133. The Jenna Lee Photos are original works of authorship owned by Jenna Lee.
Jenna Lee has assigned her copyright infringement claims associated with 1000 Lights’s
improper use of the Jenna Lee Photos to One World.
21
134. Defendants, directly and/or indirectly, have reproduced or permitted to be
reproduced the Todd Hata Video and the Jenna Lee Photos.
135. Defendants have thereby violated the exclusive rights provided by 17 U.S.C. §
106 and has thus infringed One World’s copyrights as provided in 17 U.S.C. § 501.
136. On information and belief, Defendants’ misconduct is knowing, willful, and
malicious, with full knowledge of the copyright holders’ rights.
137. Defendants’ aforesaid infringement of one or more claims of copyright is
continuing and may continue unless enjoined.
138. As a result of the foregoing misconduct, One World has been damaged and is
entitled to recover damages as a result of Defendants’ infringement in an amount to be proven at
trial.
139. As a result of the foregoing misconduct, One World is entitled to recover actual
damages, costs, and attorney fees.
140. One World is also entitled to a permanent injunction preventing further
infringement by Defendants of One World’s rights.
Twelfth Cause of Action

(False Advertising by Defendants in Violation
of Section 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act)
142. Section 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B), prohibits
Defendants from using a false or misleading description of fact or representation of fact in
interstate commerce and in connection with the sale of goods or services, in commercial
22
advertising or promotion, when the description or representation misrepresents the nature,
qualities, or geographic origin of goods, services, or commercial activities or the goods, services,
or commercial activities of another person, and the other person has been or is likely to be
damaged by those acts.
143. Defendants have knowingly and willfully marketing their services in a way that
conveys connection and/or sponsorship of their services by One World.
144. Defendants’ conduct, as alleged herein, constitutes false or misleading
descriptions of fact or representations of fact regarding the nature, characteristics, and/or
qualities of Defendants’ services and commercial activities within the meaning of Section
43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B).
145. As a result of Defendants’ conduct as alleged herein, One World has suffered
irreparable harm and other damages, including, without limitation, loss of goodwill, damage to
reputation, and losses and damages arising from lost sales and lost revenue, and will continue to
do so unless Defendants are restrained and enjoined by this Court from engaging in further
violations of Section 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B).
146. One World has no adequate remedy at law.
147. As a result of Defendants’ conduct as alleged herein, One World is entitled to the
entry by the Court of a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent
injunction, restraining and enjoining Defendants from engaging in any further violations of
Section 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B), and ordering corrective
advertising.
23
148. Pursuant to Section 35 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117, in addition to
injunctive relief, One World is entitled to recover Defendants’ profits and treble the damages
sustained by One World that were caused by Defendants’ conduct in violation of Section
43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B).
Thirteenth Cause of Action

(Violation by Defendants of Utah Truth in Advertising Act’s
Prohibition against Deceptive Trade Practices)
150. A deceptive trade practice under Section 13-11a-3(1) of the Utah Truth in
Advertising Act occurs when, in the course of a person’s business, that person (a) passes off
goods or services as those of another, (b) causes likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding
as to the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services, or (c) causes
likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to affiliation, connection, association with, or
certification by another.
151. Defendants has knowingly and willfully (a) passed off its services as those of One
World, (b) caused likelihood of confusion regarding the source, sponsorship, and/or approval of
Defendants’ services by One World, and (c) caused likelihood of confusion or of
misunderstanding as to 1000 Lights’s affiliation, connection, and/or association with One World.
152. Defendants are continuing to engage in the wrongful conduct alleged above in
violation of Section 13-11a-3(1) of the Utah Truth in Advertising Act.
153. As a result of Defendants’ conduct as alleged herein, One World has suffered
irreparable harm to its goodwill and reputation, as well as losses and damages arising from lost
24
sales and lost revenue, and will continue to do so unless Defendants are restrained and enjoined
by this Court from engaging in further deceptive trade practices in violation of the Utah Truth in
Advertising Act.
154. One World has no adequate remedy at law.
155. Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 13-11a-4(2)(b), in addition to injunctive relief, One
World is entitled to recover from Defendants the amount of actual damages sustained by One
World as a result of Defendants’ violation of the Utah Truth in Advertising Act or $2,000.00 for
each violation, whichever is greater.
156. Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 13-11a-4(2)(c), One World is entitled to recover
from Defendants its attorney fees and costs incurred herein.
Fourteenth Cause of Action

(Breach of Contract – Against Menendez)
158. Menendez and YOLO executed an employment agreement, attached hereto as
Exhibit A (the “Employment Agreement”).
159. The Employment Agreement is a valid contract between Menendez and YOLO.
160. The Employment Agreement required Menendez to maintain the confidentiality
of YOLO’s and One World’s confidential information.
161. Menendez knowingly, intentionally, and improperly breached the Employment
Agreement by using One World’s confidential information for the benefit of his competing
company, 1000 Lights.
25
of Menendez, Plaintiffs have suffered actual and consequential damages and other losses in an
amount to be determined at trial
Relief Requested
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against 1000 Lights as follows:
1. For an injunction against 1000 Lights, as well as against its officer, agents,
servants, and employees, as well as those persons in active concert or participation with any of
them, including their customers and vendors who receive actual notice of the Order by personal
service or otherwise, be preliminarily and permanently enjoined from:
a. Using the Infringing Marks or any variation thereof in connection with
services related to event and/or festival hosting;
b. Using the Infringing Marks or any variation thereof as any part of a
thematic marketing concept in connection with services related event and/or festival
hosting;
c. Diluting, blurring, passing off or falsely designating the origin of the WLF
Marks and thereby injuring One World’s goodwill and reputation;
d. Doing any other act or thing likely to induce the belief that 1000 Lights’s
business, services, or products are in any way connected with, sponsored, affiliated,
licensed, or endorsed by One World; and
e. Requiring 1000 Lights to immediately destroy any and all promotional or
sales materials that refer to or use the Infringing Marks;
26
2. That 1000 Lights be directed to file with this Court and serve upon counsel for
Plaintiffs within thirty days after service of the permanent injunction a report in writing under
oath, setting forth in detail the manner and form in which 1000 Lights has complied with the
permanent injunction;
3. That 1000 Lights be directed to publish, with the approval of One World, a
statement that 1000 Lights is not connected with, sponsored by, affiliated with, licensed by, or
endorsed by One World in any way.
4. That Plaintiffs be awarded their actual damages sustained as a result of
Defendants’ wrongful actions;
5. That One World recover 1000 Lights’s profits made as a result of 1000 Lights’s
wrongful actions;
6. That One World recover three times 1000 Lights’s profits made as a result of 1000
Lights’s wrongful actions or three times One World’s damages, whichever is greater.
7. That One World recover its actual damages or $2,000 for each instance of 1000
Lights’s breach of the Utah Truth in Advertising Act, whichever is greater.
8. That 1000 Lights be deemed liable for and ordered to reimburse Plaintiffs for their
reasonable attorneys’ fees;
9. That Plaintiffs be awarded exemplary damages in their favor and against
Defendants as a result of Defendants’ willful and intentional acts;
10. That Plaintiffs recover their costs; and
11. That Plaintiffs receive such other and further relief to which it may be entitled as
the Court deems appropriate.
27
DATED this 1st day of November 2018.
PECK HADFIELD BAXTER & MOORE, LLC
/s/ Michael D. Jewell

Michael D. Jewell
Brandon J. Baxter
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
28
Case 1:18-cv-00140-BCW Document 2-1 Filed 11/01/18 Page 1 of 2
JS 44 (Rev. 08/18) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

One World Lantern Festival, LLC, and YOLO Enterprises, LLC. 1000 Lights, LLC, Nicholas Menendez, Zach Wertz, and Andrew
Kenney
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Cache County County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Salt Lake County
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Brandon J. Baxter, Michael D. Jewell Spencer Phillips
Peck Hadfield Baxter & Moore, LLC Employer-Lawyer, PLLC
399 N Main Street, Suite 300, Logan, UT 84321, (435) 787-9700 3450 N. Triumph Blvd., Suite 102, Lehi, UT 84043, (801) 874-4964
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
’ 1 U.S. Government ’ 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State ’ 1 ’ 1 Incorporated or Principal Place ’ 4 ’ 4
of Business In This State
’ 2 U.S. Government ’ 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State ’ 2 ’ 2 Incorporated and Principal Place ’ 5 ’ 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a ’ 3 ’ 3 Foreign Nation ’ 6 ’ 6

Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
’ 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY ’ 625 Drug Related Seizure ’ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 ’ 375 False Claims Act
’ 120 Marine ’ 310 Airplane ’ 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 ’ 423 Withdrawal ’ 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
’ 130 Miller Act ’ 315 Airplane Product Product Liability ’ 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
’ 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability ’ 367 Health Care/ ’ 400 State Reapportionment
’ 150 Recovery of Overpayment ’ 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS ’ 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury ’ 820 Copyrights ’ 430 Banks and Banking
’ 151 Medicare Act ’ 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability ’ 830 Patent ’ 450 Commerce
’ 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability ’ 368 Asbestos Personal ’ 835 Patent - Abbreviated ’ 460 Deportation
Student Loans ’ 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application ’ 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) ’ 345 Marine Product Liability ’ 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
’ 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY ’ 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits ’ 350 Motor Vehicle ’ 370 Other Fraud ’ 710 Fair Labor Standards ’ 861 HIA (1395ff) ’ 485 Telephone Consumer
’ 160 Stockholders’ Suits ’ 355 Motor Vehicle ’ 371 Truth in Lending Act ’ 862 Black Lung (923) Protection Act
’ 190 Other Contract Product Liability ’ 380 Other Personal ’ 720 Labor/Management ’ 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) ’ 490 Cable/Sat TV
’ 195 Contract Product Liability ’ 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations ’ 864 SSID Title XVI ’ 850 Securities/Commodities/
’ 196 Franchise Injury ’ 385 Property Damage ’ 740 Railway Labor Act ’ 865 RSI (405(g)) Exchange
’ 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability ’ 751 Family and Medical ’ 890 Other Statutory Actions
Medical Malpractice Leave Act ’ 891 Agricultural Acts
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS ’ 790 Other Labor Litigation FEDERAL TAX SUITS ’ 893 Environmental Matters
’ 210 Land Condemnation ’ 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: ’ 791 Employee Retirement ’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff ’ 895 Freedom of Information
’ 220 Foreclosure ’ 441 Voting ’ 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act or Defendant) Act
’ 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment ’ 442 Employment ’ 510 Motions to Vacate ’ 871 IRS—Third Party ’ 896 Arbitration
’ 240 Torts to Land ’ 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 ’ 899 Administrative Procedure
’ 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations ’ 530 General Act/Review or Appeal of
’ 290 All Other Real Property ’ 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION Agency Decision
Employment Other: ’ 462 Naturalization Application ’ 950 Constitutionality of
’ 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 540 Mandamus & Other ’ 465 Other Immigration State Statutes
Other ’ 550 Civil Rights Actions
’ 448 Education ’ 555 Prison Condition
’ 560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
’ 1 Original ’ 2 Removed from ’ 3 Remanded from ’ 4 Reinstated or ’ 5 Transferred from ’ 6 Multidistrict ’ 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(specify) Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
15 U.S.C. 1125
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Trademark dilution
VII. REQUESTED IN ’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. JURY DEMAND: ’ Yes ’ No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
11/01/2018
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE
Print Save As... Reset

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 08/18) Case 1:18-cv-00140-BCW Document 2-1 Filed 11/01/18 Page 2 of 2
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44
Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".
II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)
III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.
IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code
that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation – Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407.
Multidistrict Litigation – Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket. PLEASE
NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to changes in
statue.
VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service
VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

One World Lantern Festival v. 1000 Lights - Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

One World Lantern Festival v. 1000 Lights - Complaint

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

One World Lantern Festival v. 1000 Lights - Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:18-cv-00140-BCW Document 2 Filed 11/01/18 Page 1 of 28

Brandon J. Baxter (9122)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF UTAH, NORTHERN DIVISION

ONE WORLD LANTERN FESTIVAL,

Plaintiffs, Civil No.

1000 LIGHTS, LLC, a Utah limited

business in Cache County, Utah.

in Cache County, Utah.

business in Salt Lake County, Utah.

4. Upon information and belief, Menendez is either a principal of or a key employee

and/or consultant of, 1000 Lights.

5. Kenney and Wertz are principals of 1000 Lights.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

advertising brought by Plaintiffs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1125.

U.S.C. § 1121, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) and/or (b).

8. Personal jurisdiction in this district is proper inasmuch as 1000 Lights is

State of Utah and therefore is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.

9. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

Creation and Operation of Water Lantern Festival

designed lanterns onto a body of water and engage in peaceful reflection.

meticulously crafted toward this end.

and uplifting events for large groups of people since 2011.

including branding, marketing, advertising, customer service, and event execution.

developing an overall participant experience.

Festival continues to grow exponentially in order to meet the increasing demand.

experience, consisting of food trucks, games, and entertainment, culminating in launching a

hundreds of floating lanterns illuminating the darkness.

banners, merchandise, promotional material.

lantern. The design patent application is currently pending.

least November 16, 2017.

November 16, 2017.

WLF Marks, building a substantial following throughout the United States.

“Water Lantern Festival” meant nothing to people.

significant time and money to inform customers about its events.

advertisements on Facebook and other Internet sites, spending in excess of $510,000.00 on

advertising and promotional efforts in 2018.

potentially subscribing to Water Lantern Festival events.

with an aggregate of more than 120,000 participants.

confirmation information that included the tagline, “Light the Water”.

participants to each event.

43. As a result of this success, copycat events have begun to emerge.

with the cease and desist letter.

Relationship With Nick Menendez and Andrew Kenney

to support the event production endeavors of Knight and Schaefer.

47. As an employee of YOLO, Menendez’s responsibilities were to research locations

and plan Water Lantern Festival events for One World.

48. Menendez’s employment agreement with YOLO required Menendez to maintain

the confidentiality of YOLO’s confidential information, as well as the confidential information of

YOLO’s customers, including One World.

preparing to compete with One World.

venues and contacts.

book those venues for 1000 Lights.

pursuing personal pleasures instead of providing valuable services to his employer.

Event Coordinator for these events.

contractor agreement. Included in the independent contractor agreement is a non-compete

57. Menendez failed to secure a signed independent contractor agreement from

that competes with One World.

competing company in order to circumvent any non-compete and/or non-solicitation provisions