LegalForce RAPC v. TrademarkEngine, Inc. Filed Complaint December26 2017

Case 5:17-cv-07303 Document 1 Filed 12/26/17 Page 1 of 52
RAJ V. ABHYANKER, California SBN 233,284

[email protected]
BATKHAND ZOLJARGAL, California SBN 262,918
[email protected]
LEGALFORCE RAPC WORLDWIDE
1580 W. El Camino Real, Suite 10
Mountain View, California 94040
Telephone: 650.965.8731
Facsimile: 650.989.2131
Attorneys for Plaintiffs,

LegalForce RAPC Worldwide, P.C.
LegalForce Inc., and Raj V. Abhyanker
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
1. LEGALFORCE RAPC Case No. 5:17-cv-7303

WORLDWIDE, P.C.;
2. LEGALFORCE INC.; and
3. RAJ V. ABHYANKER, COMPLAINT FOR:
Plaintiffs, 1. FEDERAL UNFAIR

COMPETITION;
v. 2. CALIFORNIA UNFAIR
1. TRADEMARK ENGINE COMPETITION;
LLC.; 3. CALIFORNIA FALSE AND
2. TRAVIS CRABTREE; AND MISLEADING
3. GRAY REED & MCGRAW ADVERTISING;
P.C., 4. PROFESSIONAL
NEGLIGENCE; AND
Defendants; 5. BREACH OF FIDUCIARY
DUTIES.
AND DOES 1-50.
Unlimited Civil Jurisdiction
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
1
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
1. Plaintiffs LegalForce RAPC Worldwide, P.C., LegalForce, Inc., and Raj
V. Abhyanker (jointly, “LegalForce” or “Plaintiffs”) submit the following
complaint (the “Complaint”) against Trademark Engine LLC (“Trademark
Engine”), and its covert principal owner attorney Travis Crabtree (“Crabtree”),
and Gray Reed & McGraw P.C., a law firm in which Crabtree is simultaneously
an equity Shareholder (collectively referred to as “Defendants” or “Trademark
Engine Entities”).
NATURE OF ACTION
2. This Complaint is brought by Plaintiffs to expose the willful and
systematic acts of unauthorized practice of law and unfair competition by
Trademark Engine Entities with respect to preparation and filing of trademark
applications before the United States Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Through its acts of preparing and filing trademarks, Trademark Engine Entities
harm the “public interest” in that public consumers become susceptible to the
risk of bad legal advice dispensed by unlicensed, un-trained, and uninformed
non-lawyers. The Plaintiffs ask Trademark Engine Entities be enjoined from and
pay damages for its unauthorized practice of law, false advertising, unfair
2
competition and other claims with respect to preparation and filing of trademark
applications before the USPTO.
THE PARTIES
The Plaintiffs
3. Plaintiff LegalForce RAPC Worldwide, P.C. (“LegalForce RAPC
Worldwide”) is a law firm wholly owned by Raj Abhyanker, a member in good
standing of the State Bar of California, and the United States Patent Bar. The
Firm practices patent and trademark law before the USPTO with a principal
place of business at 1580 W. El Camino Real Suite 10, Mountain View
California 94040, and a law office at 446 E. Southern Avenue Tempe Arizona
85282.
4. Plaintiff LegalForce, Inc. is a Delaware corporation offering law firm
automation and free trademark search services through its website
Trademarkia.com with a principal place of business at 1580 W. El Camino Real
Suite 9, Mountain View California 94040.
5. Plaintiff Raj Abhyanker is a California licensed attorney practicing patent
and trademark law before the USPTO with a principal place of business at 1580
W. El Camino Real Suite 10, Mountain View California 94040, is the sole
shareholder of Plaintiff LegalForce RAPC Worldwide and is a CEO of Plaintiff
LegalForce, Inc. Plaintiff Raj Abhyanker is a winner of the 2013 Legal Rebel
3
award by the American Bar Association.
The Defendants
6. Trademark Engine LLC is a Delaware corporation (“Trademark Engine”)
with a principal place of business at 12605 E. Freeway Suite 540, Houston Texas
77014. Trademark Engine LLC is not a law firm in the United States and is not
authorized to practice law in any state. Trademark Engine LLC is not a
registered or bonded legal document assistant under California Business and
Professions Code, sections §6400 et seq.
7. Defendant Travis Crabtree (“Crabtree”) is a covert owner of Trademark
Engine LLC, and a licensed Texas attorney, having a principal place of business
at 1300 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 2000, Houston, TX 77056.
8. Defendant Gray Reed & McGraw P.C. is professional law firm
corporation in Texas in which Crabtree is a Shareholder having a principal place
of business at 1300 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 2000, Houston, TX 77056.
9. DOES 1-50 are entities that participated in the transactions complained
of herein in ways which are unknown to Plaintiffs. The true names, capacities,
nature, and extent of participation in the alleged activities by DOES 1-50,
inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs and therefore Plaintiffs sue these Defendants
by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend the complaint to allege their true
names and capacities when ascertained.
4
BACKGROUND OF THE PARTIES
10. Plaintiff LegalForce RAPC Worldwide is a law firm wholly owned by
Plaintiff Raj Abhyanker, a member in good standing of the State Bar of
California, and the United States Patent Bar. The Firm practices patent and
trademark law before the USPTO with a principal place of business at 1580 W.
El Camino Real Suite 10, Mountain View California 94040, and a law office at
446 E. Southern Avenue Tempe Arizona 85282.
11. The website Trademarkia.com was created by the law firm of LegalForce
RAPC Worldwide in 2009 but was spun off into a separate entity. Plaintiff
LegalForce RAPC Worldwide is the sole provider of legal services through the
website Trademarkia.com with respect to trademark filings before the USPTO.
12. LegalForce RAPC Worldwide employs, full time, more than ten (10)
U.S. licensed trademark attorneys in its California and Arizona offices who
substantially limit their practice to trademark law before the USPTO, and who
are supported by legal support staff globally including in India, China, Poland,
the United Kingdom and South Africa. LegalForce RAPC Worldwide
represents more than 10,000 clients from all over the United States and world,
including over a thousand clients from the State of California, hundreds of
clients in the State of Arizona, and over a thousand clients the State of Texas.
13. LegalForce RAPC Worldwide is the largest law firm filer of trademarks
5
before the USPTO in each of the last five years. The firm maintains interest on
Lawyer Trust Account (IOLTA) trust accounts for all client funds, conducts
robust conflict checks, and currently employs two former USPTO trademark
examining attorneys. It has never been disciplined by the USPTO, the State Bar
of California, the State Bar of Arizona, or the State Bar of Texas. At least two
of its former attorneys are currently hired as USPTO trademark examining
attorneys after leaving LegalForce RAPC, and a number of its former associate
attorneys or legal assistants have been hired in trademark and IP departments of
leading Big Law IP firms including Orrick, Perkins Coie, Pillsbury Winthrop,
DLA Piper, and Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati as well as in legal
departments at leading technology companies, including Google, Inc., Facebook,
Inc., and Apple, Inc.
14. Plaintiff LegalForce, Inc. is a Delaware corporation offering law firm
automation and free trademark search services through its website
Trademarkia.com with a principal place of business at 1580 W. El Camino Real
Suite 9, Mountain View California 94040. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
and co-founder of Plaintiff LegalForce, Inc. is Plaintiff Raj Abhyanker. Plaintiff
LegalForce, Inc. makes no revenue from preparation and filing on U.S.
trademark applications. It receives a flat monthly technology licensing revenue
from Plaintiff LegalForce RAPC Worldwide independent of the legal services
6
revenue secured by the firm LegalForce RAPC Worldwide through the
Trademarkia.com website.
15. Plaintiff Raj Abhyanker is a California licensed attorney practicing
patent & trademark law before the USPTO with a principal place of business at
1580 W. El Camino Real Suite 10, Mountain View California 94040, is the sole
shareholder of Plaintiff LegalForce RAPC Worldwide and is a CEO of Plaintiff
LegalForce, Inc. In 2013, he was named an American Bar Association Journal
"Legal Rebel," an "annual honors program for the change leaders of the legal
1
profession" and a member of the Fastcase 50, an annual award that "recognizes
50 of the smartest, most courageous innovators, techies, visionaries, and leaders

2
in the law.”
16. Trademark Engine LLC is a Delaware corporation (“Trademark
Engine”) with a principal place of business at 12605 E. Freeway Suite 540,
Houston Texas 77014 Trademark Engine LLC is not a law firm in the United
States and is not authorized to practice law in any state. Trademark Engine LLC
is not a registered or bonded legal document assistant under California Business
and Professions Code, sections §6400 et seq.
17.Defendant Travis Crabtree (“Crabtree”) is a covert owner of Trademark
Engine LLC, and a licensed Texas attorney, having a principal place of business
1
http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/2013_legal_rebels_a_banner_year
2
http://www.fastcase.com/fastcase50-winners-2013.
7
at 1300 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 2000, Houston, TX 77056. Crabtree is a covert
owner because he is not listed as an owner of Trademark Engine LLC anywhere
on the TrademarkEngine.com website including the About Us page (Exhibit E),
on Crabtree’s LinkedIn profile (Exhibit G), on Trademark Engine LLC’s
Linkedin Profile (Exhibit K) his Gray Reed profile (Exhibit M). However,
Crabtree is listed as the owner only on the Revoked Better Business Bureau
license page for TrademarkEngine.com (Exhibit N) and on corporate records.
18.The Better Business Bureau (BBB) for Houston lists that the BBB’s
Board of Directors revoked Trademark Engine LLC’s accreditation on February
23, 2017 because the company failed to abide by the following standards of its
code of ethics (Exhibit N) including:
“2. Adhere to established standards of advertising and selling.

2B. Abide by the BBB Code of Advertising, available online at:
http://www.bbb.org/membership/codeofad.asp. Supply, upon
request, substantiation for advertising and selling claims. Correct
advertising and selling practices, when recommended by BBB.
3. Honestly represent products and services, including clear and
adequate disclosures of all material terms.
3A. Make known all material facts in both written and verbal
representations, remembering that misrepresentation may result
not only from direct statements but by omitting or obscuring
relevant facts.
4. Openly identify the nature, location, and ownership of the
8
business, and clearly disclose all policies, guarantees and

procedures that bear on a customer's decision to buy.
4A. Upon request, provide BBB with all information required to
evaluate compliance with BBB standards. This may include, but is
not limited to business name, address and contact information;
names and background of principals; business and banking
references; licensing and/or professional accreditation; and a
complete description of the nature of the business.
8. Approach all business dealings, marketplace transactions and
commitments with integrity.
8A. Avoid involvement, by the business or its principals, in
activities that reflect unfavorably on, or otherwise adversely affect
the public image of BBB or its accredited businesses.”3
19.Defendant Gray Reed & McGraw P.C. is a professional law firm
corporation in Texas in which Crabtree is a Shareholder4, having a principal
place of business at 1300 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 2000, Houston, TX 77056.
Upon reason and belief, the law firm Gray Reed & McGraw does not conduct
conflict checks for customers provided legal advice by non-attorneys employed
by shareholder Crabtree through his separately owned by Trademark Engine
LLC.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3
See Exhibit N, and Revoked BBB accreditation page,
https://www.bbb.org/houston/business-reviews/trademark-agents-and-consultants/trademark-engine-llc-in-housto
n-tx-90044544/bbb-accreditation last checked December 24, 2017.
4
See Exhibit M, Gray Reed & McGraw is proud to announce the election of three new shareholders. Attorneys
elected include Travis Crabtree, Preston Kamin and Gabe Vick,
http://m.grayreed.com/NewsResources/Press-Releases/101704/Gray-Reed-Elects-New-Shareholders, last
checked December 24, 2017.
9
20. This Complaint arises under the laws of the United States, 15 U.S.C.
§1125 et seq. This Court has original jurisdiction of this action under 28 U.S.C.
§1331 because at least some of the claims alleged herein arise under federal law.
This Court has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1367 over any
non-federal claims because such claims are so related as to form part of the same
case or controversy. Moreover, Plaintiffs have standing to their California state
claims under the California Business and Professions Code in accordance to

5
California appellate case law in Higbee v. Expungement Assistance Services.
21. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Trademark Engine Entities
because the defendants solicit, transact and does business in California and this
District via its website and at least one toll-free telephone number, a substantial
part of the wrongful acts or omissions complained of herein occurred in this
District, and the Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this District.
Trademark Engine Entities purposefully directed its activities toward this
District when it willfully and specifically targeted consumers here and a
substantial part of the harm was felt in this District.
22. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Northern
5
214 Cal. App. 4th 544 *; 153 Cal. Rptr. 3d 865 **; 2013 Cal. App, in which the court concluded that the
attorney alleged an identifiable trifle of injury sufficient to withstand a demurrer. The attorney alleged that he
suffered losses in revenue and asset value and was required to pay increased advertising costs specifically
because of the provider's unlawful business practices. To have standing under the UCL, the attorney was not
required to have engaged in business dealings with the provider. The court saw no reason why the alleged
violation of statutes concerning the unauthorized practice of law could not serve as a predicate for the attorney's
UCL action. According to the attorney, the provider's unlawful business practices had taken customers away
from him.
10
District of California under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 (b) and (c).
HARM TO PUBLIC INTEREST
23.Through its acts of preparing and filing trademarks, Trademark Engine
Entities harm the “public interest” in that public consumers become susceptible
to the risk of bad legal advice dispensed by unlicensed, un-trained, and
uninformed non-lawyers.
24.Since Trademark Engine LLC is not a “law firm”, then it is necessarily a
non-lawyer that operates beyond the reach of protections built into the legal
profession. Because regulatory protections are built into the legal profession, but
no regulatory protections are in place for online legal services, consumers are
worse off getting bad legal advice from Trademark Engine LLC than from
Plaintiff.
ETHICS RULES RELEVANT TO ALL CLAIMS
I. USPTO’S DEFINITION OF UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW FOR
TRADEMARK MATTERS BEFORE THE USPTO.
25. Consulting with or giving advice to an applicant or registrant in
contemplation of filing a trademark application or application-related document.
(Exhibit A).
26. Preparing or prosecuting an application, response, post-registration
maintenance document, or other related document. (Exhibit A).
11
II. USPTO’S DEFINITION OF LEGAL ADVICE FOR TRADEMARK
MATTERS BEFORE THE USPTO.
27. Conducting pre-filing searches for potentially conflicting trademarks.
(Exhibit B).
28. Analyzing or pre-approving documents before filing. (Exhibit B).
29. Advising applicants on substantive examination issues, such as the
acceptability of specimens and classification of goods and services. (Exhibit B).
III. APPLICABLE RULES AND REGULATIONS ON THE PRACTICE OF
LAW BEFORE THE USPTO.
USPTO RULES
30. 37 CFR §11.503 – Duty to supervise non-lawyers. With respect to a
non-practitioner assistant employed or retained by or associated with a
practitioner: (b) A practitioner having direct supervisory authority over the
non-practitioner assistant shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the
person's conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the
practitioner; and (c) A practitioner shall be responsible for conduct of such a
person that would be a violation of the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct if
engaged in by a practitioner if: (1) The practitioner orders or, with the
knowledge of the specific conduct, ratifies the conduct involved.
31. 37 CFR §11.505 – Unauthorized Practice of Law. A practitioner shall
12
not practice law in a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the legal
profession in that jurisdiction, or assist another in doing so.
32. 37 CFR §11.107 – Conflict of interest. (a) Except as provided in
paragraph (b) of this section, a practitioner shall not represent a client if the
representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of
interest exists if: (1) The representation of one client will be directly adverse to
another client; or (2) There is a significant risk that the representation of one or
more clients will be materially limited by the practitioner's responsibilities to
another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the
practitioner.
33. 37 CFR §11.115 - IOLTA trust account. A practitioner shall hold
property of clients or third persons that is in a practitioner's possession in
connection with a representation separate from the practitioner's own property.
Funds shall be kept in a separate account maintained in the state where the
practitioner's office is situated, or elsewhere with the consent of the client or
third person.
34. 37 CFR §11.18 – Signature and certification for correspondence filed
in the Office. (a) For all documents filed in the Office in patent, trademark, and
other non-patent matters, and all documents filed with a hearing officer in a
disciplinary proceeding, except for correspondence that is required to be signed
13
by the applicant or party, each piece of correspondence filed by a practitioner in
the Office must bear a signature, personally signed or inserted by such
practitioner, in compliance with § 1.4(d) or § 2.193(a) of this chapter.
35. There are other counterpart state court rules in before the California State
Bar and State Bar of Texas, not reprinted here, with largely similar restrictions.
///
CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE
36. California Business and Profession §6125 – Unlawful Practice of
Law. No person shall practice law in California unless the person is an active
member of the State Bar.
IV. TRADEMARK ENGINE ENTITIES VIOLATE UNAUTHORIZED
PRACTICE OF LAW RULES OF THE USPTO AND PROVIDES LEGAL
ADVICE TO CUSTOMERS FOR UNITED STATES TRADEMARKS.
37. Plaintiffs requested the filing of a trademark application through the
TrademarkEngine.com website. Email addresses of [email protected] for
customer RAJ ABHYANKER was used.
38. A real trademark related to business of Plaintiffs was used for EVEREST
CLAY REALTORS was applied for federal registration through the Trademark
Engine website. Everest Clay Realtors is trade name of a real estate brokerage
and investment firm started by Plaintiff Raj Abhyanker.6 The conversations with
6
Plaintiff Raj Abhyanker is also a licensed California Real Estate Broker.
14
Trademark Engine’s non-attorney Trademark Document Specialists were audio
recorded. Both Texas and Arizona (from where calls were made) are one party
recording states, as is federal law for interstate calls. A transcripts of these
recordings are found in Exhibit D.
39. For the prospective trademark, EVEREST CLAY REALTORS,
Trademark Engine provided legal advice to Plaintiffs by selecting classification
and modifying the goods and services description from the template thereby
applying specific law to facts. Specifically, Trademark Engine’s non-attorney
representative “Jake” suggested class 36 to the Plaintiff and suggested a
modified description in a chat session (Exhibit O). In addition, Trademark
Engine’s non attorney staff modified the written goods and description provided
by the Plaintiffs on the online site and memorialized this modification in an
email to the Plaintiff on December 13, 2017 (See Exhibit P). Specifically,
Trademark Engine modified the original description provided by the Plaintiffs
from :
“Everest Clay is a real estate brokerage in California that will also do property
management and create a website to help them find their real house as well as
find their own real estate investments. We will also self manage my properties.”
to:
“Real estate brokerage; Real estate service, namely, rental property
15
management; Providing an internet website portal offering information in the
field of real estate concerning the purchase and sale of new and resale homes
and condos; Real estate investment services; Real estate investment services in
the nature of purchasing and selling of real estate for others; Financial
investment in the field of {real estate}; Real estate management services”
40.Upon reason and belief, the modification did picked descriptions for class
36 from the ID manual and modified the template description by adding {real
estate}. In addition, Trademark Engine prepared a the search report may
conflict with the EVEREST CLAY REALTORS trademark (Exhibit Q).
41. Although Trademark Engine represents on its website that it does not
practice law, this representation is false and/or misleading. Trademark Engine
collects both its services fee for a non-attorney filing and $275 in government
fees in advance of filing. (Exhibit P). Moreover, after a trademark filing request
is made on the Trademark Engine website, Trademark Engine practices law per
the USPTO definition in critical steps in which classification of trademarks are
determined, the description of goods and services are adjusted, and search results
are reviewed with customers.
42.Trademark Engine admits this in an email during a critical step of “class
selection and description modification step” (Exhibit P) as well on the recorded
audio conversation where agent “Michelle” admits “our processors changed the
16
description to make it more acceptable to the USPTO”. (Exhibit D).
43. Trademark Engine violates a number of clear boundaries for practice of
law, including:
a. Consulting with or giving advice to an applicant or registrant in
contemplation of filing a trademark application or application-related
document and Advising applicants on substantive examination issues, such
as the acceptability of specimens and classification of goods and services.
(Exhibits A and B)
i. With respect to the EVEREST CLAY REALTORS mark, the
non-lawyer trademark document assistant named “Jake” provided legal
advice to the applicant Plaintiff Raj Abhyanker who was contemplating
filing a trademark application for EVEREST CLAY REALTORS.
Trademark Engine representative “Jake” provided the legal advice when
suggested class 36 (Exhibit O). Jake also represented that Trademark
Engine would modify the description after fees are paid. Id. Trademark
Engine did in fact modify the provided description by selecting items
from the ID Manual of the USPTO and modifying them based on the form
filled by Plaintiff Raj Abhyanker.
ii. Trademark Engine admits it practiced law in an email during a
critical step of “class selection and description modification step”
17
(Exhibit P) as well on the recorded audio conversation where agent
“Michelle” admits “our processors changed the description to make it
more acceptable to the USPTO” (Exhibit D).
iii. In addition, Trademark Engine’s representative “Aaron” admitted
that “Our processor, once they ran that search, the next thing they’re going
to do is make sure that the class that you’ve selected lines up with the
description as you’ve written it. They’ll also make some suggestions
about improving the wording of the description to make it a little better for
the application, make it more likely to be approved.” (Exhibit D). Aaron
goes on to admit that this work is performed by non-lawyer staff when he
admits “we are not attorneys, but we file the application on your behalf.
So we’ve done thousands of these and so we know what the government’s
looking for and is going to expect to see.” (Exhibit D).
iv. In addition, Trademark Engine practiced law when it signed the
USPTO form to proceed with the filing on behalf of Raj Abhyanker.
While Trademark Engine requested Raj Abhyanker signature on its own
website (Exhibit R), it did not do so, and signed on behalf of Plaintiff Raj
Abhyanker directly on the USPTO website without an attorney appointed.
Moreover, Trademark Engine unilaterally waive Plaintiffs Raj
Abhyanker’s right to privacy with respect to the EVEREST CLAY
18
REALTORS trademark by having non-attorney staff sign off rights while
paying government fees by check box clicking off the following on the
USPTO government fee form shown in Exhibit W including : (1)
Waiving Plaintiffs Raj Abhyanker’s right to cancel the filing or refund the
government fee paid on their behalf; (2) Waiving right to confidentiality
of name, phone number, e-mail address, and street address of Plaintiff Raj
Abhyanker with respect to their trademarks; and (3) Representing to the
federal government, without checking with Plaintiff Raj Abhyanker has
the authority to grant, and is granting, the USPTO permission to make the
information available in its on-line database and in copies of the
application or registration record. (Exhibit W).
b. Preparing or prosecuting an application, response,
post-registration maintenance document, or other related document.
(Exhibit A).
Particularly, non-lawyer assistants at Trademark Engine prepared and filed
the trademark application for EVEREST CLAY REALTORS for filing
without attorney review. (Exhibit S).
c. Conducting pre-filing searches for potentially conflicting
trademarks. (Exhibit B).
Particularly, non-lawyer assistants at Trademark Engine prepared pre-filing
19
searches for potentially conflicting marks for EVEREST CLAY
REALTORS without attorney review. (Exhibit Q).
d. Analyzing or pre-approving documents before filing. (Exhibit
B).
Trademark Engine admits it analyzed and pre-approved in an email during a
critical step of “class selection and description modification step” (Exhibit
P) as well on the recorded audio conversation where agents “Michelle”
admits “our processors changed the description to make it more acceptable
to the USPTO” (Exhibit D).
In addition, non-lawyer assistants at Trademark Engine prepared and filed
the trademark application for EVEREST CLAY REALTORS for filing
without attorney review. (Exhibit S).
40. Upon reason and belief, Trademark Engine performs the “Modification
Step” to ensure that it does not file ineffectual trademark applications that are
highly likely to get rejected by the USPTO. It seems, upon reason and belief,
Trademark Engine’s non-lawyer staff are not well trained to provide this legal
advice.
44. Upon reason and belief, after Trademark Engine’s Trademark Document
Specialists provide critical legal advice during this Modification Step, the mark
proceeds to the “trademark search” phase. This “trademark search” phase is
20
again performed non-lawyer staff without review by licensed attorneys in
violation of the USPTO’s practice of law definition in Exhibits A and B. After
the search is delivered by non-attorney staff to the customer (Exhibit Q), the
phone support of Trademark Engine in the post trademark search step sometimes
provide legal advice by advising customers by giving them advice as to which
specific trademarks in the search report are more likely to block a registration
upon reason and belief.
45. After the customer approves the search report, Trademark Engine enters
the customer’s information directly into the USPTO website and requests a link
from the USPTO to the signature form using an internal Trademark Engine
non-attorney staff’s email ID. (Exhibit F). Trademark Direct does not share
this USPTO link to the customer to sign, and accordingly did not share it with
Plaintiff Abhyanker for the EVEREST CLAY REALTORS trademark
application.
46.In contrast, Trademark Direct signs the USPTO link approving the
trademark using non-attorney staff based on the partial customer’s approval on
the TrademarkEngine.com website (Exhibit R), upon reason and belief. The
reason that the approval is partial is because the TrademarkEngine.com website
does not ask the customer to waive their privacy protections. Trademark
Engine unilaterally waives privacy protections and underlying copyright
21
publication rights to the USPTO. Specifically, Trademark Engine’s
non-lawyer staff again go to a different USPTO link emailed to Trademark
Engine by the USPTO which expressly waives each customer’s right to privacy
and has Trademark Engine attest that Trademark Engine has the authority to
grant the USPTO permission to make information submitted available on its
online database regardless of the underlying copyrights (Exhibit W). On this
same form, Trademark Engine pays the government fee to the USPTO on its
own Trademark Engine credit card and/or deposit account with the USPTO.
Upon reason and belief, Trademark Engine does not refund $50 of the collected
$275 government fee collected through its website if the non-lawyer staff at
Trademark Engine determine that the trademark qualifies as a TEAS Plus
application with the lower filing fee of $225.
47. Moreover, upon reason and belief, Trademark Engine maintains no client
trust account (IOLTA account) for trademark matters, uses non-lawyer assistants
to evaluate specimens of use in commerce for authenticity, and performs no
conflict checks against other customers.
48. In contrast, as a law firm, Plaintiff LegalForce RAPC Worldwide and its
licensed attorneys must conduct conflict checks with existing clients prior to
7
taking on representation of prospective clients. It must place client funds in an
7
37 CFR §11.107 – Conflict of interest. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a practitioner
shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of
interest exists if: (1) The representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or (2) There is a
22
8
IOLTA trust account prior to work being started. It must hire U.S. licensed
attorneys to counsel clients on trademark classification selection, modifying
description of goods and services, and reviewing specimens provided by its

9
clients for completeness and applicability to the selected classification.
49. If Plaintiff LegalForce RAPC Worldwide and its licensed attorneys were
to adopt a similar model as Trademark Engine, it is very likely that the firm and
its licensed attorneys would be disbarred and/or excluded from practicing law by
the USPTO, any state in which they are licensed by a State Bar.
50. This is a real threat. Recently, Matthew Swyers (“Swyers”), a former
USPTO trademark examining attorney in private practice and founder of The
Trademark Company, was excluded for practice by the USPTO for the conduct
similar to Trademark Engine’s (Exhibit H). In addition, another attorney
Tracy W. Druce (“Druce”) was suspended for failure to supervise assistants even
though the lawyer did not know of the conduct of his assistants signing
documents on his behalf (Exhibit I). Moreover, the USPTO also excluded
from practice Leonard Tachner (“Tachner”), who, was a suspended attorney
significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the practitioner's
responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the practitioner.
8
37 CFR §11.115 - IOLTA trust account. A practitioner shall hold property of clients or third persons that is in
a practitioner's possession in connection with a representation separate from the practitioner's own property.
Funds shall be kept in a separate account maintained in the state where the practitioner's office is situated, or
elsewhere with the consent of the client or third person.
9
California Business and Profession §6125 – Unlawful Practice of Law. No person shall practice law in
California unless the person is an active member of the State Bar. 37 CFR §11.505 – Unauthorized Practice of
Law. A practitioner shall not practice law in a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in
that jurisdiction, or assist another in doing so.
23
whose corporation prepared and filed trademark applications while he was
suspended on the grounds of unauthorized practice of law. (Exhibit J).
51. Unlike Swyers, Druce, and Tachner, upon reason and belief, the USPTO
and State Bars take no similar action against Trademark Engine Entities. This
double standard is a great injustice that harms both attorneys and the public at
large. Attorneys who have spent years going through law school, taking a
difficult bar exam, maintaining an IOLTA trust account, and performing conflict
checks cannot effectively compete against non-law firm competitors like
Trademark Engine on an even playing field. It also lowers the standard of
service to the public because Trademark Engine customers rely on the legal
advice given by non-attorneys. For these reasons, an injunction and damages
false advertising, unfair competition, malpractice, and other causes of action are
sought.
V. TRADEMARK ENGINE ENTITIES’ MISLEADING GOOGLE, BING,
AND OTHER ONLINE ADVERTISING IS DAMAGING TO PLAINTIFFS’
GOODWILL AND MISLEADING TO THE PUBLIC WITH FALSE
COMPARISONS TO ATTORNEY LED SERVICES, AS SUCH ACTIONS
CAUSING IRREPARABLE HARM TO PLAINTIFFS.
52. Plaintiff LegalForce RAPC Worldwide and Defendant Trademark Engine
are among the largest purchasers of online advertising including on Google and
24
Bing per month for “trademark filing” (Exhibit T) and “trademark registration”
(Exhibit U) related search terms.
53. Upon reason and belief, Trademark Engine’s non-attorney trademark
filing service has threatened, and continues to threaten, Plaintiff LegalForce
RAPC’s business directly by competitively bidding against Plaintiff LegalForce
RAPC Worldwide on Google and Bing for the keywords during the year 2017
through deceptive advertising which are predicated on the unauthorized practice
of law. (Exhibit L).
54. Trademark Engine is not a law firm or authorized to practice law in any
state. Moreover, upon reason and belief, Trademark Engine is not a registered
or bonded legal document assistant under California Business and Professions
Code, sections §6400 et seq.
55. Despite not being a law firm and despite not hiring any attorneys
representing external clients, Trademark Engine purchases advertisements
whenever consumers search terms related to the practice of trademark law
including “trademark filing” (Exhibit T) and “trademark registration” (Exhibit
U). The advertising copy in the resulting advertisements is highly misleading,
leading a consumer to believe that he or she will be represented by an attorney.
56. In contrast, rules for mandatory conflict checks, attorney client privilege,
and storing client funds in IOLTA accounts have been adopted by every State
25
Bar, for the explicit purpose of protecting clients. Trademark Engine boasts
about eschewing these long standing client protections. While not having power
of attorney, not holding attorney client privilege, and not conducting conflict
checks, yet still providing legal advice, Trademark Engine’s advertising copy is
explicitly designed to wrongfully imply that avoiding conflict checks is a benefit
to clients.
CAUSES OF ACTION
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

FEDERAL FALSE & MISLEADING ADVERTISING AND UNFAIR
COMPETITION IN VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION ACT, 15 U.S.C. § 45, 15 U.S.C. § 52, 15 U.S.C. § 53
(Against all Defendants and DOES 1-50)
57. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1-56 above.
58. Through its acts of preparing and filing trademarks, Trademark Engine
harms the “public interest” in that public consumers become susceptible to the
risk of bad legal advice dispensed by unlicensed, un-trained, and uninformed
non-lawyers.
59. Since Trademark Engine is not a “law firm”, then it is necessarily a
non-lawyer that operates beyond the reach of protections built into the legal
profession. Because regulatory protections are built into the legal profession, but
no regulatory protections are in place for online legal services, consumers are
26
worse off getting bad legal advice from Trademark Engine than from Plaintiff.
60. The Plaintiffs are bound to the rules governing the legal profession and
USPTO, and that those rules are designed to protect consumers. If it in fact
achieves what it sets out to disclaim, Trademark Engine’s disclaimer and terms
of use demonstrate that there is some merit to the argument that limiting the
practice of law to lawyers benefits consumers by guaranteeing protections built
into the legal profession.
61. Consider the following excerpt directly from the home page of
Trademark Engine’s website (Exhibit C) or on the Terms and Conditions page
(Exhibit V):
a. “Trademark Engine is not a "lawyer referral service" and does not
provide legal advice or participate in any legal representation. Use of Trademark
Engine is subject to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.” (Exhibit C).
b. We are not a law firm. We do not provide and cannot provide legal advice
to you. (Exhibit V).
c. This Agreement, Below, Contains A Binding Arbitration Provision
Governed By The Federal Arbitration Act And A Waiver Of Class Actions.
(Exhibit V).
d. We are a technology platform that helps create forms and we are not a law
firm or legal service provider. (Exhibit V).
27
e. We are not a substitute for an attorney and we cannot provide you any
legal advice. Our customer service representatives cannot answer legal questions
and because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, any communications
with our customer service representatives are not privileged and you should not
share confidential information with them. (Exhibit V).
f. We may, but are not authorized to, review the information you provide to
us for completeness, inconsistencies or other administerial errors. At no time do
we review your answers for legal sufficiency, draw legal conclusions, provide
legal advice, opinions or recommendations about your legal rights, remedies,
defenses, options, selection of forms, or strategies, or apply the law to the facts
of your particular situation. If you believe you have received any legal services
or advice from us, you will not make your purchase. (Exhibit V).
62. By renouncing the attorney-client relationship and purporting to provide
legal information rather than legal advice, Trademark Engine hopes to achieve
two business advantages at the expense of consumers: (1) sidestepping
professional responsibilities governing the legal profession and (2) avoiding
liability. Inconsistently, it says “If you believe you have received any legal
services or advice from us, you will not make your purchase”, despite providing
legal advice only after making a purchase on its website.(Exhibit V).
63. The Plaintiffs’ emphasize that Trademark Engine avoids the
28
responsibilities of law practice by characterizing its services as “self-help” for
pro se litigants and maintaining that the website cannot substitute for an
attorney, without regard to any understandable assumptions otherwise.
Trademark Engine’s employees are trained to disseminate legal “advice.”
Despite this, if taken at face value, Trademark Engine’s disclaimer and terms of
use allow it to operate “free from the confines of ethical rules enforceable upon
attorneys.
64. Plaintiffs further argue that by falling outside the existing regulatory
space for legal services—where regulations are designed by and applied to
licensed lawyers—Trademark Engine Entities deny consumers redress that they
would otherwise have for faulty legal advice.
65. For example, communications with the Trademark Engine’s website are
protected only by the company’s Privacy Policy, not the attorney-client privilege
or work product doctrine of Plaintiff LegalForce RAPC Worldwide. Trademark
Engine has no duty of confidentiality, which would otherwise prevent an
attorney from revealing information relating to the representation. Under the
existing regulatory structure, Trademark Engine also operates beyond the reach
of comparable disciplinary authorities for charging an unreasonable fee1 or
obtaining consent for representing clients with conflicts of interest.
66. Deceptive advertising is another particularly relevant problem for many
29
customers using Trademark Engine. Plaintiffs’ argue that if Trademark Engine
were a law firm, its practices would be disciplined by potential violations for
communicating false or misleading information about its services.
67. Moreover, Plaintiffs points out that Trademark Engine limits its own
liability for problems arising from its services in ways impermissible for
practicing lawyers. By operating outside the professional rules, Trademark
Engine bypasses the duties of competence and diligence required of all lawyers
practicing law—duties which, if violated, could give teeth to malpractice
actions. A comprehensive liability limitation clause requires that customers
hold Trademark Engine and its officers, directors, employees, and agents
harmless for any indirect, punitive, special, incidental, or consequential damage,
except as prohibited by law. Without a lawyer to fall back on, customers
relying on Trademark Engine may sometimes fail to comply with
jurisdiction-specific requirements, resulting in an increase of reliance on lawyers
conducting post-mortem fixes to remedy problems. Though the disclaimer is not
guaranteed to waive Trademark Engine of all liability, it makes it more difficult
for clients to avoid shouldering liability for costly errors in legal documentation.
68. The Federal Trade Commission Act prohibits any unfair methods of
competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices
in or affecting commerce, and declares such acts or practices unlawful.
30
69. Trademark Engine is not a law firm in the United States and is not
authorized to practice law in any state. Trademark Engine is not a registered or
bonded legal document assistant under California Business and Professions
70. The Federal Trade Commission Act prohibits false and misleading
advertising and prohibits advertisers like Trademark Engine from making any
claim, and directly or indirectly, in words or in substance, qualified or
unqualified, that contain express or implied falsehoods.
71. Trademark Engine has threatened Plaintiff LegalForce RAPC
Worldwide’s business directly by misleading consumers and unfairly competing
with Plaintiffs for the keywords “trademark filing”, “trademark registration”
among hundreds of other keywords. The conduct is unfair and unethical
because Trademark Engine makes a number of false and misleading statements
in its advertising copy.
72. As described above, Trademark Engine has made false and/or misleading
statements of fact concerning the non-attorney nature of its services and products
in its online advertising and promotion, while giving legal advice through
non-attorneys and covertly hiding the identity of its owner attorney Crabtree.
Moreover, Trademark Engine had misled consumers by :
A. R
epresenting that customers can “Let the Professionals File Your Trademark
31
Today” while bidding on keywords including “trademark filing”, “trademark
registration”, and misdirecting users to their $69 or $198 non-attorney guided
trademark filing service. In fact, none of Trademark Engine’s employees
preparing trademark filings are licensed trademark professionals of any
kind, much less attorneys.
B. Representing that customers “protect their identity” through Trademark

Engine’s “Identity Protection Program” (Exhibit Y) when, in fact, it waives the
right of confidentiality unilaterally for all its customers including those that
purchase this recurring service including the Plaintiff Raj Abhyanker (Exhibit
W).
73. Trademark Engine uses the search terms “trademark filing”, “trademark
registration” to redirect customers to Trademark Engine’s false and misleading
advertisements and to disseminate such false and misleading advertisements in
interstate commerce. As a result, Trademark Engine has widely disseminated
such false and misleading advertisements via the internet to relevant purchasing
public so as to sufficiently constitute commercial advertising under the Federal
Trade Commission Act.
74.Trademark Engine’s non-attorney, unlicensed trademark document
specialists unlawfully assist customers with modifying goods and services
descriptions, selecting classifications of trademarks to be filed before the United
32
States Patent & Trademark Office, and filing trademarks before the United
States Patent & Trademark Office.
75. Trademark Engine’s false and misleading advertisements have deceived a
substantial segment of the audience exposed to it, or have the capacity for such
deception, and have influenced, or are likely to influence, consumer purchasing
decisions.
76. Trademark Engine sells, offers for sale, distributes, and/or advertises
goods and services to consumers that directly compete with Plaintiffs’ sales of
their own services and products.
77. Trademark Engine’s conduct demonstrates an intentional, willful, and
malicious intent to deceive consumers and unfairly compete with Plaintiffs.
78. Trademark Engine’s false and misleading advertisements have caused
and, unless enjoined, will continue to cause immediate and irreparable harm to
Plaintiffs for which there is no adequate remedy at law. In addition, as a result
of Trademark Engine’s false and misleading advertisements, Plaintiffs have been
injured, including but not limited to, decline in sales and market share, loss of
goodwill, and additional losses and damages. Furthermore, Trademark Engine
has been unjustly enriched at the expense of Plaintiffs as a consequence of
Trademark Engine’s false and misleading advertising. Accordingly, Plaintiffs
are entitled to injunctive relief and to recover actual damages, enhanced profits
33
and damages, costs, Trademark Engine’s profits, and reasonable attorneys’ fees
under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1116, and 1117.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

CALIFORNIA UNFAIR COMPETITION IN VIOLATION OF
CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17200 ET SEQ.
80. Trademark Engine’s false comparisons with Plaintiffs’ attorney managed
U.S. trademark service as being comparable to Trademark Engine’s non-attorney
service through misleading advertising, as alleged above, constitute unfair
competition in violation of Section §17200 et seq. of the California Business and
Professions Code.
81.Trademark Engine falsely represents that customers can “Let the
Professionals File Your Trademark Today” while bidding on keywords
including “trademark filing” when no licensed professional is involved. (Exhibit
T) In fact, none of Trademark Engine’s employees preparing trademark filings
are licensed trademark professionals of any kind, much less attorneys.
B. Representing that customers “protect their identity” through Trademark

right of confidentiality unilaterally for all its customers, even the Plaintiff Raj
Abhyanker that purchased this plan by signing away rights on the government
34
form (Exhibit W).
public so as to sufficiently constitute commercial advertising under the Section
§17200 et seq. of the California Business and Professions Code.
83. Trademark Engine’s non-attorney trademark document specialists
unlawfully assist customers with modifying goods and services descriptions,
selecting classifications of trademarks to be filed before the United States Patent
& Trademark Office, and filing trademarks before the United States Patent &
Trademark Office.
84. As a result of Trademark Engine’s wrongful acts, Plaintiffs have suffered
and will continue to suffer loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars of income,
profits and valuable business opportunities and if not preliminarily or
permanently enjoined, Trademark Engine will have unfairly derived and will
continue to derive income, profits and business opportunities as a result of its
wrongful acts.
85. Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code Section §17200 et
35
seq., Plaintiffs seek an order of this Court preliminarily and permanently
enjoining Trademark Engine from continuing to engage in the unlawful, unfair
and fraudulent acts or practices set forth herein, as well as compensatory
damages and restitution.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
CALIFORNIA FALSE & MISLEADING ADVERTISING IN VIOLATION OF

CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17500 ET SEQ. and § 17600 ET SEQ.
87.Trademark Engine’s false comparisons with Plaintiffs’ attorney managed
U.S. trademark service as being comparable to Trademark Engine’s non-attorney
service through misleading advertising, as alleged above, constitute unfair
competition in violation of Section §17200 et seq. of the California Business and
Professions Code.
88.Beginning on a date unknown to Plaintiffs but likely within at least the
last year preceding the filing of the Complaint, Trademark Engine, acting
directly or indirectly with the intent to induce members of the public to engage
Trademark Engine’s services and purchase Trademark Engine’s products, made
or caused to be made, in violation of Business and Professions Code Section
§17500, untrue or misleading statements in the state of California via its website,
that include, but are not limited to, the following:
36
89.Representing that customers can “Let the Professionals File Your
Trademark Today” while bidding on keywords including “trademark filing”,
“trademark registration”, and misdirecting users to their $69 or $198
non-attorney guided trademark filing service. In fact, none of Trademark
Engine’s employees preparing trademark filings are licensed trademark
professionals of any kind, much less attorneys.
90.Representing that customers “protect their identity” through Trademark
right of confidentiality unilaterally for all its customers, even the Plaintiff Raj
Abhyanker that purchased this plan by signing away rights on the government
form (Exhibit W).
91. Falsely implying that Trademark Engine is trustworthy because it was
covered in leading news publications, when in fact it never was. Exhibit C is a
view of the TrademarkEngine.com home page10, showing prominently logos of
the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, the Huffington Post, CNN, and Mashable,
leading a reasonable consumer to believe that Trademark Engine has been
written up by editorials of these publications. Upon reason and belief,
Trademark Engine has never been featured in these publications either in print or
online.
92.Falsely implying that Trademark Engine is trustworthy because it assisted
10
TrademarkEngine.com homepage, last checked December 24, 2017.
37
with the protection of famous trademarks. Exhibit C shows a rotating collection
of recently trademarked companies under the heading “Recently Trademarked
Companies” including “threadless”, “slack”, “stripe”, and “soundcloud” leading
a reasonable consumer to believe that Trademark Engine has been involved in
the protection of trademarks for leading Internet companies. In fact, upon
reason and belief, and upon search of USPTO records, Trademark Engine
Entities were never involved in the protection of trademarks for these prominent
brands.
public so as to sufficiently constitute commercial advertising under the Section
§17200 et seq. of the California Business and Professions Code.
94.Trademark Engine’s non-attorney trademark document specialists
selecting classifications of trademarks to be filed before the United States Patent
& Trademark Office, and filing trademarks before the United States Patent &
Trademark Office.
38
95.Trademark Engine is not a law firm in the United States and is not
authorized to practice law in any state. Trademark Engine is not a registered or
bonded legal document assistant under California Business and Professions
96.Trademark Engine has threatened Plaintiff LegalForce RAPC
Worldwide’s business directly by misleading consumers searching Google and
Bing for “trademark filing” and “trademark registration” to non-attorney
trademark landing pages. This creates unfair competition for Plaintiffs which
file all trademarks of their clients before the USPTO with representation by
licensed attorneys at LegalForce RAPC Worldwide’s offices, in either California
or Arizona. The conduct is unfair and unethical because it misleads customers
to selecting Trademark Engine’s services instead of those of the Plaintiffs based
on fraudulent premises.
97.While using AdWords to trigger and disseminate the misleading
advertisements herein alleged, Trademark Engine knew, or by the exercise of
reasonable care should have known, that the advertisements were untrue and
misleading and so acted in violation of Section §17500 of the Business and
Professions Code. Trademark Engine’s advertising further violates Section
§17509 and Section §17600 et seq. in that the advertisements herein alleged for
the reoccurring “Identity Protection Program” (Exhibit Y) includes false and
39
untrue promises of protecting identity, while Trademark Engine expressly
waives this confidentiality and privacy rights unilaterally without customer
consent when paying government fees (Exhibit W).
98.Trademark Engine’s non-attorney trademark document specialists
selecting classifications of trademarks to be filed before the USPTO, and filing
trademarks before the USPTO.
99.Trademark Engine has been unjustly enriched through its false and
misleading advertising.
100. Plaintiffs have lost business caused by the false and misleading
Trademark Engine advertisements as a result of at least one customer refusing to
do business with Plaintiffs due to the fact that Trademark Engine advertisements
falsely implying that Trademark Engine offers trademark filing services with the
USPTO in an ethically compliant manner, upon reason and belief.
101. Unless restrained by this court, Trademark Engine will continue with
its untrue and misleading advertising, as alleged above, in violation of Section
§17500 of the Business and Professions Code and in violation of Section §17509
of the California Business and Professions Code, thus, tending to render
judgment in the instant action ineffectual and will cause additional injury to
Plaintiffs for which Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.
40
102. Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code Section §17500,
Plaintiffs seek an order of this Court preliminarily and permanently enjoining
Trademark Engine from continuing to engage in the false and misleading
advertising set forth herein, as well as compensatory damages and restitution.
103. Trademark Engine’s business practices and acts, fully described above,
constitute an unlawful practice of law and create false and misleading
impressions on potential clients of Plaintiff LegalForce RAPC Worldwide.
104. Trademark Engine’s business model and acts, including but not limited
to its website and false and misleading advertising, constitute unfair practices,
intentionally aimed at getting ahead of any competitors with lawful business
conduct such as that of the Plaintiffs. The acts alleged herein continue to present
a threat to Plaintiffs and average consumers, especially the ones with limited
resources.
105. Trademark Engine’s acts were, and are, likely to deceive an average
consumer, and thus constitute unfair business practices as described herein.
106. Trademark Engine has engaged in unlawful, unfair and fraudulent
business practices and damaged the public and Plaintiffs through the conduct
alleged herein.
107. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege that Trademark
Engine’s conduct as described herein was, and is, unlawful, unfair and/or
41
fraudulent in violation of Section §17000 et. sq. of the California Business and
Professions Code and has the potential to cause, and has in fact caused,
confusion in the marketplace.
108. Plaintiffs have been irreparably harmed and will continue to be
irreparably harmed as a result of Trademark Engine’s unlawful acts unless
enjoined by this Court.
109. The conduct herein complained of was extreme, outrageous,
surreptitious, and was inflicted on Plaintiffs in reckless disregard of Plaintiffs’
rights.
110. Plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction restraining Trademark Engine,
and all persons acting in concert with them, from engaging in such further acts
of unfair competition, including:
i.
Enjoining non-lawyer assistants of Trademark Engine to recommend and

advise on selection of classifications of goods and services for trademark
applications sought to be filed with the USPTO directly to customers, modify
standard descriptions from the USPTO ID manual directly for customers and pay
government fees on behalf of customers who are not represented by a lawyer.
ii. E
njoining Trademark Engine from purchasing misleading advertising related
to “trademark filing”, “trademark registration”, and related keywords for
non-attorney trademark filing services offered by Trademark Engine with
42
respect to U.S. trademark matters.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE
(Against Defendant Crabtree, Gray Reed & McGraw and DOES 1-50)
authorized to practice law in any state.
113. In addition, upon reason and belief, Defendants owed a duty to
Plaintiff Raj Abhyanker when they collected more than $450 in legal service and
government fees from Plaintiff Raj Abhyanker without depositing the funds into
an IOLTA trust account and conducting a conflict check against existing
customers and adverse parties for the EVEREST CLAY REALTORS trademark
in the Gray Reed & McGraw P.C. law firm or with customers of Trademark
Engine LLC.
114. Defendants have breached that duty by purposefully engaging in the
unauthorized practice of law with respect to the filing of the EVEREST CLAY
REALTORS trademark on behalf of Plaintiff Raj Abhyanker respectively while
falsely implying that no legal advice was to be received in the “non-attorney”
trademark filing service linked to a Google advertisements falsely implying that
professional attorney help will be provided.
115. Moreover, Defendants breached their duty to Plaintiff Raj Abhyanker
43
by not supervising non-lawyer assistants Aaron, Jake, Michelle, and others who
provided legal advice including classification selection, description of goods and
services modification, search report preparation, and search report analysis for
the federal trademark applications for EVEREST CLAY REALTORS.
116. In addition, Defendants and DOES 1-50, each of them owed a duty to
Plaintiff Raj Abhyanker to act at all times in good faith and in Plaintiff Raj
Abhyanker’s best interests, and had a duty, among other things, to perform the
services for which their corporate entity Trademark Engine was retained with
reasonable care and skill to prepare and file the EVEREST CLAY REALTORS
trademark, to act in the Plaintiff Raj Abhyanker highest and best interests at all
times, and to not expose Plaintiff Raj Abhyanker to unnecessary risk or peril.
117. By providing legal advice in the selection of classification and
description of goods and services to Plaintiff Raj Abhyanker using non-lawyer
assistants (Exhibit D), Defendants exposed Plaintiff Raj Abhyanker to risk or
peril for their EVEREST CLAY REALTORS trademark as described by the
USPTO web page titled “Proper representation in trademark matters” (Exhibit
A), including but not limited to (1) delaying and prolonging in the trademark
application process, potentially leading to abandonment of the EVEREST
CLAY REALTORS application, and jeopardizing the validity of any resulting
registration.
44
118. Defendants each breached their neglected fiduciary duties to Plaintiff
Raj Abhyanker by failing to properly supervise legal assistants, paid search
specialists, and/or on-page marketing specialists in violation of 37 CFR §11.503
– Duty to supervise non-lawyers. Specifically, Defendants each failed to
supervise a non-practitioner assistant employed or retained by or associated with
Trademark Engine while being responsible for conduct of such a person that
would be a violation of the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct if engaged in
by a practitioner.
119. At all times mentioned here, Defendants failed to exercise the required
standard of care and by failing have jeopardized the validity of the Plaintiffs’
EVEREST CLAY REALTORS trademark.
120. Further, as a direct and proximate result of the negligence, omissions,
and/or intentional acts of Defendants, Plaintiff Raj Abhyanker have sustained
damages, among other things loss in legal fees paid to Trademark Engine in the
amount of $198 and other amounts which will be determined according to proof
at trial.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES
(Against Defendant Crabtree, Gray Reed & McGraw and DOES 1-50)
45
authorized to practice law in any state.
123. Upon reason and belief, Defendants breached their fiduciary duty to
Plaintiff Raj Abhyanker when they collected more than $450 in legal service and
government fees from Plaintiff Raj Abhyanker without depositing funds into an
IOLTA trust account and conducting a conflict check against existing customers
and adverse parties for the EVEREST CLAY REALTORS trademark through a
corporation they formed and in which they are substantial individual
shareholders, Trademark Engine LLC.
124. In addition, Defendants have breached a fiduciary duty by purposefully
engaging in the unauthorized practice of law with respect to the filing of the
EVEREST CLAY REALTORS trademark on behalf of Plaintiff Raj Abhyanker
respectively while falsely implying that no legal advice was to be received in the
“non-attorney” trademark filing service linked to a Google advertisements
falsely implying that attorney help will be provided.
125. Moreover, Defendants breached their fiduciary duty to Plaintiff Raj
Abhyanker by not supervising non-lawyer assistants Aaron, Jake, Michelle as
well as unknown others who provided legal advice including classification
selection, description of goods and services modification, search report
preparation, and search report analysis for the federal trademark applications for
EVEREST CLAY REALTORS.
46
126. In addition, Defendants and DOES 1-50, each of them owed a
fiduciary duty to Plaintiff Raj Abhyanker to act at all times in good faith and in
their best interests, and had a duty, among other things, to perform the services
for which their corporate entity Trademark Engine was retained with reasonable
care and skill to prepare and file the EVEREST CLAY REALTORS trademark,
to act in the Plaintiffs’ highest and best interests at all times, and to not expose
Plaintiff Raj Abhyanker to unnecessary risk or peril.
127. By providing legal advice in the selection of classification and
description of goods and services to Plaintiff Raj Abhyanker using non-lawyer
assistants (Exhibit D), Defendants exposed Plaintiff Raj Abhyanker to risk or
peril for his EVEREST CLAY REALTORS trademark as described by the
USPTO web page titled “Proper representation in trademark matters” (Exhibit
A), including but not limited to (1) delay and prolong in the trademark
application process, potentially leading to abandonment of the EVEREST
CLAY REALTORS trademark applications, and jeopardizing the validity of any
resulting registration.
128. Defendants each breached their neglected fiduciary duties to Plaintiff
Raj Abhyanker by failing to properly supervise legal assistants, paid search
specialists, and/or on-page marketing specialists in violation of 37 CFR §11.503
– Duty to supervise non-lawyers. Specifically, Defendants each failed to
47
supervise a non-practitioner assistant employed or retained by or associated with
Trademark Engine while being responsible for conduct of such a person that
would be a violation of the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct if engaged in
by a practitioner.
129. At all times mentioned here, Defendants failed to exercise the required
standard of care and by failing to have jeopardized the validity of the EVEREST
CLAY REALTORS trademark application.
130. Further, as a direct and proximate result of the negligence, omissions,
and/or intentional acts of Defendants, Plaintiff Raj Abhyanker have sustained
damages, among other things loss in legal fees paid to Trademark Engine in the
amount of $198 and other amounts which will be determined according to proof
at trial.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray judgment as follows:
1. Temporary and permanent injunctions as defined herein be entered in their
favor and against all Defendants, and any company or entity in which
Defendants have an ownership or beneficial interest, first temporarily and then
permanently restraining and enjoining them, directly or indirectly, on their own
or as a partner, or an employee from operating websites known as
www.trademarkengine.com, www.grayreed.com, www.swiftfilings.com,
48
www.legalvorce.com, or any other website that attempts to offer any legal
services requiring the practice of law including, but not limited to, U.S.
trademark filing and prosecution services for office actions, statements of use,
oppositions, trademark watch, renewal, opposition, and litigation services.
2. From further acts of false and misleading advertising and unfair
competition that would damage or injure Plaintiffs.
3. The Court find Trademark Engine’s acts of false and misleading
advertising and unfair competition to be knowing and willful, and an
exceptional case within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. §1117 and California law.
4. Restitution as allowed under applicable statutes.
5. Compensatory damages in an amount believed to be in excess of one
million dollars ($1,000,000) to be determined at trial. Plaintiffs’ damages are
continuing each day as they are unable to compete fairly due to Defendant’
unlawful actions, and they will seek treble recovery of all additional damages
they incur during the pendency of this lawsuit.
6. Punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
7. Legal and equitable further relief as this court finds just and proper.
8. Permanent exclusion from practice of law before the USPTO and the State
of Texas of Defendant Trademark Engine and its owner Travis Crabtree.
9. Order compelling the USPTO to follow its stated procedures for
49
notification to affected applicants of an excluded marks for all trademarks in
which government fees were paid by the excluded party (Exhibit X) including,
but not limited notifications to the affected applicant or registrant that:
i. T
rademark Engine is not entitled to practice before the USPTO in
trademark matters and, therefore, may not represent the
applicant or registrant.
ii. A
ny trademarks and documents filed by Trademark Engine are
void ab initio, meaning they were invalid from the start of any
action taken by the excluded party.
iii. Trademark Engine may not sign checkboxes, pay government

fees, prepare trademark applications, assist with responses to the
USPTO’s actions, authorize examiner’s amendments or priority
actions, conduct interviews with USPTO employees, or
otherwise represent an applicant, registrant, or party to a
proceeding before the USPTO.
iv. All correspondence concerning the application or registration will
be sent to the domestic representative if one has been appointed,
or, alternatively, and in most circumstances, to the applicant or
registrant at his/her address of record.
10. Plaintiffs be awarded costs, prejudgment interest and attorneys’ fees
50
pursuant to 15 U.S. Code § 7706 of the Federal Trade Commission Act for
exceptional case, and other applicable statutes.
Respectfully submitted this Tuesday December 26, 2017.
LEGALFORCE RAPC WORLDWIDE P.C.
/s/ Raj V. Abhyanker______

Raj V. Abhyanker
California State Bar No. 233,284
Attorney for Plaintiffs:
LegalForce RAPC Worldwide, P.C.,
LegalForce, Inc., and
Raj V. Abhyanker
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
Plaintiffs hereby request a jury trial for all causes of action alleged in this
Complaint.
Respectfully submitted this Tuesday December 26, 2017.
LEGALFORCE RAPC WORLDWIDE P.C.
By__/s/ Raj V. Abhyanker______

51
Raj V. Abhyanker
California State Bar No. 233,284
Attorney for Plaintiffs:
LegalForce RAPC Worldwide, P.C.,
LegalForce, Inc., and
Raj V. Abhyanker
52

LegalForce RAPC v. TrademarkEngine, Inc. Filed Complaint December26 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LegalForce RAPC v. TrademarkEngine, Inc. Filed Complaint December26 2017

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

LegalForce RAPC v. TrademarkEngine, Inc. Filed Complaint December26 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 5:17-cv-07303 Document 1 Filed 12/26/17 Page 1 of 52

RAJ V. ABHYANKER​, California SBN 233,284

Attorneys for Plaintiffs,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1. LEGALFORCE RAPC Case No. 5:17-cv-7303

Plaintiffs, 1. FEDERAL UNFAIR

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

1. Plaintiffs LegalForce RAPC Worldwide, P.C., LegalForce, Inc., and Raj

V. Abhyanker (jointly, “LegalForce” or “Plaintiffs”) submit the following

complaint (the “Complaint”) against Trademark Engine LLC (“Trademark

an equity Shareholder (collectively referred to as “Defendants” or “Trademark

2. This Complaint is brought by Plaintiffs to expose the willful and

systematic acts of unauthorized practice of law and unfair competition by

Trademark Engine Entities with respect to preparation and filing of trademark

risk of bad legal advice dispensed by unlicensed, un-trained, and uninformed

applications before the USPTO.

3. Plaintiff LegalForce RAPC Worldwide, P.C. (“LegalForce RAPC

Worldwide”) is a law firm wholly owned by Raj Abhyanker, a member in good

place of business at 1580 W. El Camino Real Suite 10, Mountain View

4. Plaintiff LegalForce, Inc. is a Delaware corporation offering law firm

automation and free trademark search services through its website

Trademarkia.com with a principal place of business at 1580 W. El Camino Real

Suite 9, Mountain View California 94040.

5. Plaintiff Raj Abhyanker is a California licensed attorney practicing patent

shareholder of Plaintiff LegalForce RAPC Worldwide and is a CEO of Plaintiff

award by the American Bar Association.

6. Trademark Engine LLC is a Delaware corporation (“Trademark Engine”)

authorized to practice law in any state. Trademark Engine LLC is not a

registered or bonded legal document assistant under California Business and

Professions Code, sections §6400 et seq.

7. Defendant Travis Crabtree (“Crabtree”) is a covert owner of Trademark

at 1300 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 2000, Houston, TX 77056.

8. Defendant Gray Reed & McGraw P.C. is professional law firm

corporation in Texas in which Crabtree is a Shareholder having a principal place

of business at 1300 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 2000, Houston, TX 77056.

9. DOES 1-50 are entities that participated in the transactions complained

nature, and extent of participation in the alleged activities by DOES 1-50,

names and capacities when ascertained.

BACKGROUND OF THE PARTIES

10. Plaintiff LegalForce RAPC Worldwide is a law firm wholly owned by

Plaintiff Raj Abhyanker, a member in good standing of the State Bar of

446 E. Southern Avenue Tempe Arizona 85282.

website Trademarkia.com with respect to trademark filings before the USPTO.

the United Kingdom and South Africa. LegalForce RAPC Worldwide

including over a thousand clients from the State of California, hundreds of

of its former attorneys are currently hired as USPTO trademark examining

attorneys or legal assistants have been hired in trademark and IP departments of

departments at leading technology companies, including Google, Inc., Facebook,

Inc., and Apple, Inc.

14. Plaintiff LegalForce, Inc. is a Delaware corporation offering law firm

automation and free trademark search services through its website

Trademarkia.com with a principal place of business at 1580 W. El Camino Real

and co-founder of Plaintiff LegalForce, Inc. is Plaintiff Raj Abhyanker. Plaintiff

LegalForce, Inc. makes no revenue from preparation and filing on U.S.

trademark applications. It receives a flat monthly technology licensing revenue

from Plaintiff LegalForce RAPC Worldwide independent of the legal services

revenue secured by the firm LegalForce RAPC Worldwide through the

15. Plaintiff Raj Abhyanker is a California licensed attorney practicing

shareholder of Plaintiff LegalForce RAPC Worldwide and is a CEO of Plaintiff

LegalForce, Inc. In 2013, he was named an American Bar Association Journal

RAJ V. ABHYANKER, California SBN 233,284

on the TrademarkEngine.com website including the About Us page (Exhibit E),

on Crabtree’s LinkedIn profile (Exhibit G), on Trademark Engine LLC’s

license page for TrademarkEngine.com (Exhibit N) and on corporate records.

code of ethics (Exhibit N) including:

maintenance document, or other related document. (Exhibit A).

II. USPTO’S DEFINITION OF LEGAL ADVICE FOR TRADEMARK

28. Analyzing or pre-approving documents before filing. (Exhibit B).

acceptability of specimens and classification of goods and services. (Exhibit B).

30. 37 CFR §11.503 – Duty to supervise non-lawyers. With respect to a

31. 37 CFR §11.505 – Unauthorized Practice of Law. A practitioner shall

32. 37 CFR §11.107 – Conflict of interest. (a) Except as provided in

33. 37 CFR §11.115 - IOLTA trust account. A practitioner shall hold