Lawsuit

Case 1:18-cv-00347 Document 1 Filed 02/12/18 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 15
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case No. _______________
FRANCOIS CARRILLO,
Plaintiff,
v.
AUTOBUSES DR ORIENTE ADO, S.A. DE C.V.,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

______________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff, Francois Carrillo, for his Original Complaint against Defendant Autobuses dr
Oriente ADO, S.A. de C.V. alleges as follows:
NATURE OF THE SUIT
1. This action arises from Defendant’s efforts to acquire Plaintiff’s valuable ado.com
domain name through assertion of a spurious cybersquatting claim under the Uniform Domain
Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) administrative procedure premised on expired U.S.
trademark registrations and inaccurate and misleading statements of fact.
2. Plaintiff Francois Carrillo (“Carrillo” or “Plaintiff”) seeks actual, statutory and/or
punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs, a declaration of the parties’ rights, a finding of
Carrillo’s lack of bad faith intent under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, and a
finding that Defendant engaged in reverse domain name hijacking in violation of U.S. federal
law under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.
© 2018 Wiley Rein LLP. All rights reserved.

PARTIES
3. Francois Carrillo is a French citizen with an address of 18, rue de la Calade,
Juvignac, Herault 34990, France. Carrillo is the administrator of the business, Cybertonic, which
was registered with the Tribunal De Commerce De Montpellier on August 1, 2004.
4. On information and belief Autobuses dr Oriente ADO, S.A. de C.V.
(“Defendant”) is a Mexican company, with a principal business address of 123 Artilleros,
Venustiano Carranza, 7 De Julio, Mexico City 15290, Mexico.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. This is a civil action arising under the Lanham Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. § 1051, et
seq., as amended. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question
jurisdiction); 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) (any act of Congress relating to patents, copyrights and
trademarks); 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (supplemental jurisdiction); and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332
(diversity of citizenship) in that there is complete diversity of citizenship between Carrillo and
Defendant and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. Additionally, as part of
Defendant’s filing under the UDRP, Defendant consented to jurisdiction and venue before this
Court due to the location of the relevant domain name registrar in this district.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff and his Business
6. Carrillo is a French citizen, and a computer engineer, licensed as Professional
Master in Information Technology (EPSI).
7. Carrillo is also an investor in generic, non-infringing, made-up, and acronym
domain names, such as the domain name ado.com, for both his own development and for re-sale.
Carrillo operates Catchy.com as a domain name business specializing in the sale or rental of
domain names on his own behalf and on behalf of third parties. Carrillo is also the proprietor of
2
several other online businesses.
8. In his role as an online business developer, Carrillo negotiated with the previous
registrant of ado.com, Mr. Oliver Hoger, for the purchase of the domain name. These
negotiations took place from May 26, 2012 to June 19, 2012 – over 5 years ago.
9. During the negotiations, Carrillo advised Mr. Hoger that he wanted to acquire the
ado.com domain name for a project to build a software driven website for domain name
advertising. Carrillo also explained that he did not intend to hold ado.com for future re-sale but,
rather, Carrillo was interested in the ado.com domain name because it lent itself to use for an
advertising platform because it included the term “ad.” Carrillo also communicated his plans for
use of ado.com to other third parties for feedback.
10. Carillo purchased the ado.com domain name on or about June 20, 2012 for
$27,500, and transfer of the domain name koz.com, to Mr. Hoger. The significant monetary and
non-monetary consideration paid for ado.com reflect Carillo’s strong interest in using the domain
name for his planned advertising platform.
11. Following is a screen capture showing Carrillo’s use of the ado.com domain name
shortly after purchase for advertising online:
3
12. Carrillo was not aware of the existence of Defendant or its claimed trademark
rights when he purchased ado.com in 2012.
13. Although Carrillo initially intended to use ado.com for a project related to the
advertising of domain names, he lost interest in the project and never ultimately launched the
website to the public. Although the project landing page remained up, on or about August 1,
2015 – three years after acquiring the domain name – Carrillo abandoned the advertising project
and instead adapted ado.com for use in his existing inventory of generic, descriptive, and
brandable short domain names via his website, Catchy.com.
14. The ado.com domain name is not configured, and has not been configured during
Carrillo’s ownership, to display a website that suggests the site is operated by or affiliated with
Defendant.
15. The ado.com domain name is not configured, and has not been configured during
Carrillo’s ownership, to display a website with products or services related to buses, such as
those products and services provided by Defendant.
16. Carrillo did not have at the time of purchase, and does not now have, an intent to
divert consumers from Defendant’s online location to a website that could harm Defendant’s
goodwill represented by Defendant’s purported trademarks.
17. At no time did Carrillo approach Defendant seeking to sell the ado.com domain
name to Defendant.
18. Since the date of Carrillo’s acquisition of the ado.com domain name in June of
2012, the ado.com domain name registration has at all times reflected accurate contact
information by which Carrillo may be contacted.
19. Carrillo had, and continues to have, reasonable grounds to believe that the
4
registration and use of the ado.com domain name was a fair use or otherwise lawful.
20. Carrillo neither registered nor used the ado.com domain name with bad faith
intent to profit from the Defendant’s trademarks.
Background on the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
21. The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (the “ACPA”) was passed into
law in 1999 to address the serious problem of cybersquatting, which is the registration,
trafficking in, or use of a domain name with a bad faith intent to profit from a trademark that is
identical or confusingly similar to the domain name.
22. Around the same time period, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers (“ICANN”) promulgated the UDRP to provide an administrative remedy, dictated by
contract, to also address cybersquatting.
23. The ACPA was developed to address “‘cybersquatters’ or ‘cyberpirates,’ who
abuse the rights of trademark holders by purposely and maliciously registering as a domain name
the trademark name of another company to divert and confuse customers” (106 Cong. Rec.,
S10517).
24. Similarly, the UDRP was developed to address the “deliberate, bad faith
registration as domain names of well-known and other trademarks” (WIPO Final Report, Par. 23
(1999)).
25. The ACPA and the UDRP include a requirement of bad faith.
“Good faith, innocent or negligent uses of a domain name that is identical or

confusingly similar to another’s mark or dilutive of a famous mark are not
covered by the legislation’s prohibition. Thus, registering a domain name while
unaware that the name is another’s trademark would not be actionable.”
106 Cong. Rec., S10518.
26. When drafting the ACPA, Congress was concerned that overreaching
5
cybersquatting claims could be asserted to take a domain name from a registrant who did not
possess the bad faith specifically required under the ACPA and administrative policies such as
the UDRP. The Congressional Record for the ACPA is replete with specific examples of
overreaching cybersquatting claims such as claims asserted against “two year old Veronica
Sam’s ‘Little Veronica’ website (veronica.org) and 12 year old Chris ‘Pokey’ Van Allen’s web
page (pokey.org).” 106 Cong. Rec., S9755.
27. In light of the potential for such overreaching claims, Congress provided domain
name owners with causes of action to determine that they have not violated the ACPA, and to
award damages, attorney’s fees, and injunctive relief in cases of reverse domain name hijacking.
28. Defendant’s actions in the present case are precisely the type of overreaching
actions that Congress cited as the reason for creation of the causes of action now asserted by
Carrillo. Indeed, Defendant’s course of conduct in pursuit of Defendant’s baseless claims is far
more troubling than the examples cited by Congress when creating the present causes of action.
Defendant has no more right to steal Carrillo’s ado.com domain name than the claimants had to
steal the veronica.org domain name from little Veronica Sams or the pokey.org domain name
from little Chris “Pokey” Van Allen.
Background on Defendant
and Defendant’s Violations of U.S. Federal Law
29. Defendant claims to be a leading business group providing products and services
related to buses in Mexico.
30. Defendant’s products and services are allegedly offered under the trademark
ADO.
31. Defendant is not the exclusive owner of the generic and/or common phrase “ado”
throughout the world, nor is “ado” exclusively associated with Defendant.
6
32. “Ado” is defined in English as a “to-do, commotion, stir, tumult” and is
commonly used in the phrase “much ado about nothing.” Additionally, the French word, “ado”
is defined as an abbreviation of the word adolescent.
33. There are hundreds of ADO trademarks registered to unrelated companies all over
the world for different products and services that have nothing to do with Defendant.
Additionally, there are several companies that use “ado” as part of their names and in their
domain names. Examples include:
a) Ado Goldkante (Ado-Goldkante.de)

b) ADO / TTC Grate & Room Cooling (Ado.de)
c) ADO Agricultural Developments Organization (AdoSom.org)
d) Ado Chemicals (AdoChemicals.com)
e) ADO Group Ltd. (a publicly traded major corporation)
f) Ado Group (Ado.holdings)
g) Ado Health Services, Inc. (AdoHealthServices.com)
h) Ado Corporation (AdoCorporation.co.jp)
i) Ado Products (AdoProducts.com)
j) Ado Properties (Ado.immo)
k) Ado - Olympic Sports Association (ADO.es)
l) Ado & C. (Ado.it)
m) Ado Practice Solutions (AdoPracticeSolutions.com)
n) Ado Manufacturing (Pty) Ltd. (Ado.co.za)
o) The ADO Corporation (TheAdocorporation.com)
p) Ado Builders (AdoBuilders.co.uk)
34. On information and belief, at this time, Defendant has no active ADO trademark
registrations, and has no valid common law rights in any ADO marks, in the United States.
35. If Defendant possesses trademark rights in an ADO trademark under U.S. law, the
putative trademark is not famous within the meaning of the Lanham Act and is not highly
distinctive given that ADO is merely an initialism for Defendant’s company name and is
comprised of a common word that is frequently used by unrelated third-parties around the world.
36. On August 25, 2017, Defendant filed a complaint under the UDRP with the
World Intellectual Property Organization alleging inter alia that Carrillo registered and used the
7
ado.com domain name in bad faith and that Carrillo possesses no rights or legitimate interests in
the domain name. Defendant filed an amended complaint on September 11, 2017.
37. Defendant’s UDRP complaint was based on inter alia trademark rights in ADO in
Mexico from 1935, as well as registrations in the United States and the European Union.
38. The UDRP complaint was based in part upon two expired U.S. trademark
registrations, Nos. 2,437,845 and 2,437,846. See Exhibits A and B. Both registrations were
registered on March 27, 2001 and cancelled on December 29, 2007.
39. Defendant’s UDRP complaint contained the following certification: “The
complainant certifies that the information contained in this complaint is, to the best of their
knowledge, complete and accurate, that this complaint is not being presented with any
inappropriate motive, such as the creation of obstacles, and that the statements made in this
complaint are guaranteed by the Rules and applicable law, as it currently exists, or to the extent
that it can be extended by means of arguments that are reasonable and made in good faith.”
40. Contrary to Defendant’s certification in the UDRP complaint, Defendant’s
complaint contained material omissions and misstatements of fact and law.
41. Defendant failed to disclose that the U.S trademark registrations, upon which it
relied in its arguments in the UDRP proceeding, had been expired for almost ten years at the time
of filing.
42. Despite the expiration of Defendant’s U.S. trademark registrations nearly five
years before Carrillo acquired the ado.com domain name, Defendant’s UDRP complaint claimed
that Defendant has “valid trademark rights over ADO at the moment of registration of the
disputed domain name in the US of America and Mexico (since as early as 1935)” (emphasis
added).
8
43. Defendant went so far as to argue that Carrillo should have used “a free trademark
search in the USPTO website” to “make sure that the disputed domain name did not infringe on
third parties’ trademarks.” Yet, such a search of U.S. Patent and Trademark Office records
would have revealed no active trademark registrations for ADO owned by Defendant.
44. Additionally, Defendant’s UDRP complaint alleges that Carrillo acted in “bad
faith” through use of the ado.com domain name. The allegations are based upon actions from
2010 to 2012 – prior to Carrillo’s acquisition of ado.com – when the prior owner of the domain
name had allowed the landing page for ado.com to display content related to passenger land
transportation and ticket sales in Mexico. Defendant alleged that this demonstrated an attempt by
Carrillo to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the ado.com website and created a
likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website.
45. Contrary to Defendant’s assertions, however, Carrillo never used ado.com in
connection with transportation and ticket sales in Mexico. Defendant’s allegations are based
solely upon activities of a prior registrant before Carrillo acquired the domain name. Carrillo did
not monetize the domain name or attempt to divert people looking for a bus ticket. Carrillo
initially intended ado.com to be used for advertising and then subsequently adapted it for use in
his existing inventory of generic, descriptive, and brandable short domain names via his website,
Catchy.com.
46. Defendant further alleged in the UDRP proceeding that the use of the color red by
Carrillo as a logo for his website was an effort to “mimic” Defendant’s mark. Defendant did not
mention that Defendant’s two expired U.S. trademark registrations did not claim any significance
in the color red, and Defendant appears to actually use its logo in the color white.
47. Following is a current screen capture from Defendant’s website:
9
48. Moreover, even if Defendant is using its logo in the color red, the parties’ logos
are substantially different in font, look, feel, and commercial impression, and no reasonable fact
finder could conclude that Carrillo’s logo is a facsimile of Defendant’s logo or that any passing
similarities are indicative of bad faith:
Defendant’s logo Carrillo’s logo
49. Defendant’s allegations of bad faith are incorrect. The ado.com domain name
was acquired by Carrillo because it is a commercially appealing term, not to target Defendant. In
fact, Carrillo was unaware of Defendant at the time of acquisition in 2012 and remained unaware
of Defendant until the filing of the UDRP complaint.
10
50. Defendant’s UDRP complaint was filed by counsel who is an accredited UDRP
panelist and who is, or should be, familiar with the implications of filing a UDRP complaint
under certification of accuracy that nonetheless contains factual inaccuracies and material
omissions.
51. In a decision dated February 1, 2018, the UDRP panel appointed by the World
Intellectual Property Organization granted Defendant’s UDRP complaint (filed by their peer
UDRP panelist), and ordered the ado.com domain name transferred from Carrillo to Defendant.
52. The decision of the UDRP panel has been criticized far and wide including, for
example, by the author of the preeminent legal treatise on domain name litigation who has stated
that the “decision (frankly) makes no sense!” See Gerald M. Levine, What's So Outrageous
Asking High Prices for Domain Names?, http://bit.ly/2HbVZDC (Feb. 12, 2018).
COUNT I
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
(28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 2202)
53. Carrillo realleges and incorporates each and every allegation set forth above as if
fully set forth and restated herein.
54. Defendant has asserted that Carrillo registered and used the ado.com domain
name in bad faith and without any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.
55. Defendant has asserted that Carrillo’s ownership of the ado.com domain name is
likely to cause confusion among Defendant’s consumers and the consuming public.
56. The ado.com domain name was not acquired and used by Carrillo in bad faith,
Carrillo possesses rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Carrillo is entitled to a
declaration that he did not violate the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.
57. Defendant’s claims against Carrillo constitute reverse domain name hijacking in
11
violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.
58. An actual and justiciable controversy exists between Defendant and Carrillo, and
Carrillo is entitled to a declaratory judgment that Defendant has violated the Anticybersquatting
Consumer Protection Act, that Carrillo has not violated the Anticybersquatting Consumer
Protection Act, that Defendant does not possess any current trademark rights in ADO under U.S.
law, and that any claim that Carrillo violated the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act is
barred by the statute of limitations.
59. Defendant’s conduct has harmed and will continue to harm Carrillo, thereby
entitling Carrillo to recover actual and/or statutory damages and attorney’s fees and costs.
COUNT II
NO BAD FAITH INTENT/CYBERPIRACY
(15 U.S.C. §§ 1114(2)(D)(v), 1125(d)(1)(B)(ii))
61. The actions described above evidence the absence of bad faith, within the
meaning of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, by Carrillo as owner of the
ado.com domain name registration.
62. The actions described above evidence a belief by Carrillo that the registration,
acquisition, and use of the ado.com domain name was a fair use or otherwise lawful.
63. The actions described above evidence reasonable grounds for belief by Carrillo
that the registration, acquisition, and use of the ado.com domain name was a fair use or
otherwise lawful.
64. Carrillo is entitled to a judgment of no bad faith intent in the registration,
acquisition, or use of the ado.com domain name.
12
COUNT III
REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING
(15 .S.C. § 1114(2)(D)(iv))
67. Upon information and belief, in response to Defendant’s claims in the UDRP
complaint, the registrar for the ado.com domain name, TurnCommerce, Inc. d/b/a
NameBright.com, changed the “status code” for the domain name, thereby disabling and/or
suspending the ado.com domain name and limiting Carrillo’s lawful use of the domain name.
68. NameBright.com’s disabling and/or suspending of the ado.com domain name in
response to Defendant’s claims has prevented Carrillo from using his account with
NameBright.com to change the hosting settings for the domain name, the registrant for the
domain name, and/or the administrative and technical contacts for the domain name, and from
transferring ownership of the domain name.
69. Upon information and belief, NameBright.com’s disabling and/or suspending of
the ado.com domain name was pursuant to NameBright.com’s implementation of a reasonable
policy prohibiting the registration of a domain name that is identical to, confusingly similar to, or
dilutive of another’s mark, and such action was taken by NameBright.com in response to
Defendant’s knowing and material misrepresentation that the ado.com domain name is identical
to, confusingly similar to, or dilutive of, Defendant’s trademarks.
70. A cursory review of the UDRP and/or ACPA, and a basic investigation of
ado.com, particularly after Carrillo’s response ot the UDRP complaint, should have made it clear
13
to Defendant that Carrillo’s acquisition and use of ado.com is entirely proper and lawful.
71. Defendant’s UDRP filing represents a knowing and material misrepresentation
that the ado.com domain name is a bad faith use of Defendant’s trademarks, including U.S.
trademarks that expired in 2007.
72. Defendant’s UDRP filing and the allegations of cybersquatting set forth therein
represent a knowing and material misrepresentation that the ado.com domain name is identical
to, confusingly similar to, or dilutive of marks.
73. The above acts by Defendant constitute reverse domain name hijacking in
violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(2)(D)(iv).
74. The foregoing actions of Defendant have been knowing, deliberate, and willful.
75. Carrillo is entitled to a judgment that Defendant’s actions violate the
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Carrillo respectfully requests that the Court:
1. Enter judgment on its behalf against Defendant on all counts;
2. Enter an order finding an absence of bad faith, within the meaning of
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, by Carrillo;
3. Enter an order finding that Defendant made a knowing and material
misrepresentation that the ado.com domain name is a bad faith use of Defendant’s trademarks;
4. Enter an order finding that Defendant made a knowing and material
misrepresentation that the ado.com domain name is identical to, confusingly similar to, or
14
dilutive of marks;
5. Enter an order finding the Defendant engaged in reverse domain name hijacking
in violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act;
6. Enter an order directing the World Intellectual Property Organization to withdraw
the UDRP decision and enjoining Defendant from any and all further efforts to force Carrillo to
transfer the ado.com domain name to Defendant;
7. Enter an award of $100,000.00 in actual, statutory, and/or punitive damages
against Defendant pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(d);
8. Enter an award of Carrillo’s damages, costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees
pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1114(2)(D)(iv);
9. Enter an order finding the case to be exceptional and awarding Carrillo his
reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a); and
10. Awarding such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff hereby demands a
jury trial on issues triable by a jury.
Dated: February 12, 2018 By: /s/ .

David E. Weslow
Ari Meltzer (for pro hac vice)
WILEY REIN LLP
1776 K St. NW
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 719-7000 (phone)
dweslow@wileyrein.com
Counsel for Plaintiff Francois Carrillo
15
Case 1:18-cv-00347 Document 1-1 Filed 02/12/18 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 6
EXHIBIT
A
2/12/2018 Status Search SN 2437846
TSDR now includes a Post Registration Maintenance Tab. When viewing a Registered mark, users will now find a new
3rd tab providing Post Registration information next to the "Status" and "Document" tabs, below the search text box. The
tab will not appear if the mark is not registered.
STATUS DOCUMENTS MAINTENANCE Back to Search Print
Generated on: This page was generated by TSDR on 2018-02-12 14:50:13 EST
Mark: ADO No Image exists for this

case.
US Serial Number: 75474626 Application Filing Date: Apr. 27, 1998
US Registration Number: 2437846 Registration Date: Mar. 27, 2001
Register: Principal
Mark Type: Service Mark
TM5 Common Status DEAD/REGISTRATION/Cancelled/Invalidated

Descriptor:
The trademark application was registered, but subsequently
invalidated and removed from the registry.
Status: Registration cancelled because registrant did not file an acceptable declaration under Section 8. To view all
on the Trademark Document Retrieval link at the top of this page.
Status Date: Dec. 29, 2007
Publication Date: Jan. 02, 2001
Date Cancelled: Dec. 29, 2007
Mark Information
Goods and Services
Basis Information (Case Level)
Current Owner(s) Information
Attorney/Correspondence Information
Prosecution History
TM Staff and Location Information
Assignment Abstract Of Title Information - Click to Load
Proceedings - Click to Load
http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=2437846&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch 1/2
EXHIBIT
B
TSDR now includes a Post Registration Maintenance Tab. When viewing a Registered mark, users will now find a new
3rd tab providing Post Registration information next to the "Status" and "Document" tabs, below the search text box. The
tab will not appear if the mark is not registered.
STATUS DOCUMENTS MAINTENANCE Back to Search Print
Generated on: This page was generated by TSDR on 2018-02-12 14:49:15 EST
Mark: ADO
US Serial Number: 75474454 Application Filing Date: Apr. 27, 1998
US Registration Number: 2437845 Registration Date: Mar. 27, 2001
Register: Principal
Mark Type: Service Mark
TM5 Common Status DEAD/REGISTRATION/Cancelled/Invalidated

Descriptor:
The trademark application was registered, but subsequently
invalidated and removed from the registry.
Status: Registration cancelled because registrant did not file an acceptable declaration under Section 8. To view all
on the Trademark Document Retrieval link at the top of this page.
Status Date: Dec. 29, 2007
Publication Date: Jan. 02, 2001
Date Cancelled: Dec. 29, 2007
Mark Information
Mark Literal Elements: ADO
Standard Character Claim: No
Mark Drawing Type: 5 - AN ILLUSTRATION DRAWING WITH WORD(S) /LETTER(S)/ NUMBER(S) INSTYLIZED FORM
Goods and Services
Note:
The following symbols indicate that the registrant/owner has amended the goods/services:
Brackets [..] indicate deleted goods/services;
Double parenthesis ((..)) identify any goods/services not claimed in a Section 15 affidavit of incontestability; and
Asterisks *..* identify additional (new) wording in the goods/services.
For: transportation of passengers, and their baggage by motor coaches
International Class(es): 039 - Primary Class U.S Class(es): 100, 105
Class Status: SECTION 8 - CANCELLED
Basis: 1(a)
First Use: 1939 Use in Commerce: 1964
Basis Information (Case Level)
Filed Use: Yes Currently Use: Yes Amen
Filed ITU: No Currently ITU: No Ame
Filed 44D: No Currently 44D: No Amen
Filed 44E: No Currently 44E: No Amen
Filed 66A: No Currently 66A: No
Filed No Basis: No Currently No Basis: No
Current Owner(s) Information
Owner Name: Autobuses de Oriente ADO, S.A. de C.V.
Owner Address: Norte 35 No. 1015

Col. Industrial Vallejo
MEXICO
Legal Entity Type: CORPORATION State or Country Where MEXICO

Organized:
Attorney/Correspondence Information
Attorney of Record
Attorney Name: REBECCA PATTON
Correspondent
Correspondent REBECCA PATTON

Name/Address: P O BOX 176
VALLEY MILLS, TEXAS UNITED STATES 76689-0176
Domestic Representative
Domestic Representative REBECCA PATTON

Name:
Prosecution History
Date Description Proceeding Number
Dec. 29, 2007 CANCELLED SEC. 8 (6-YR)
Nov. 27, 2006 CASE FILE IN TICRS
Mar. 27, 2001 REGISTERED-PRINCIPAL REGISTER
Jan. 02, 2001 PUBLISHED FOR OPPOSITION
Dec. 01, 2000 NOTICE OF PUBLICATION
Oct. 25, 2000 APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER
Oct. 23, 2000 ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER 70703
Jul. 07, 2000 CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE
Jul. 07, 2000 CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE
Jul. 17, 2000 NON-FINAL ACTION MAILED
Jul. 17, 2000 ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER 76075
Mar. 29, 2000 ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER 76072
Jun. 15, 1999 CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE
Dec. 30, 1998 NON-FINAL ACTION MAILED
Dec. 11, 1998 ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER 74670
TM Staff and Location Information
TM Staff Information - None

File Location
Current Location: SCANNING ON DEMAND Date in Location: Nov. 27, 2006
Assignment Abstract Of Title Information - Click to Load
Proceedings - Click to Load

Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:18-cv-00347 Document 1 Filed 02/12/18 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 15

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case No. _______________

AUTOBUSES DR ORIENTE ADO, S.A. DE C.V.,

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Oriente ADO, S.A. de C.V. alleges as follows:

NATURE OF THE SUIT

trademark registrations and inaccurate and misleading statements of fact.

2. Plaintiff Francois Carrillo (“Carrillo” or “Plaintiff”) seeks actual, statutory and/or

law under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.

© 2018 Wiley Rein LLP. All rights reserved.

3. Francois Carrillo is a French citizen with an address of 18, rue de la Calade,

was registered with the Tribunal De Commerce De Montpellier on August 1, 2004.

4. On information and belief Autobuses dr Oriente ADO, S.A. de C.V.

(“Defendant”) is a Mexican company, with a principal business address of 123 Artilleros,

Venustiano Carranza, 7 De Julio, Mexico City 15290, Mexico.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

trademarks); 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (supplemental jurisdiction); and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332

Defendant and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. Additionally, as part of

Plaintiff and his Business

6. Carrillo is a French citizen, and a computer engineer, licensed as Professional

Master in Information Technology (EPSI).

7. Carrillo is also an investor in generic, non-infringing, made-up, and acronym

several other online businesses.

use of ado.com to other third parties for feedback.

name for his planned advertising platform.

shortly after purchase for advertising online:

rights when he purchased ado.com in 2012.

brandable short domain names via his website, Catchy.com.

those products and services provided by Defendant.

goodwill represented by Defendant’s purported trademarks.

information by which Carrillo may be contacted.

intent to profit from the Defendant’s trademarks.

Background on the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act

identical or confusingly similar to the domain name.

Numbers (“ICANN”) promulgated the UDRP to provide an administrative remedy, dictated by

contract, to also address cybersquatting.

23. The ACPA was developed to address “‘cybersquatters’ or ‘cyberpirates,’ who

“Good faith, innocent or negligent uses of a domain name that is identical or

page (pokey.org).” 106 Cong. Rec., S9755.

from little Chris “Pokey” Van Allen.

related to buses in Mexico.

throughout the world, nor is “ado” exclusively associated with Defendant.

32. “Ado” is defined in English as a “to-do, commotion, stir, tumult” and is

is defined as an abbreviation of the word adolescent.

domain names. Examples include:

a) Ado Goldkante (Ado-Goldkante.de)

registered on March 27, 2001 and cancelled on December 29, 2007.

39. Defendant’s UDRP complaint contained the following certification: “The

40. Contrary to Defendant’s certification in the UDRP complaint, Defendant’s

complaint contained material omissions and misstatements of fact and law.

likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website.

45. Contrary to Defendant’s assertions, however, Carrillo never used ado.com in

47. Following is a current screen capture from Defendant’s website:

similarities are indicative of bad faith:

Defendant’s logo Carrillo’s logo

of Defendant until the filing of the UDRP complaint.

fully set forth and restated herein.

violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.

barred by the statute of limitations.

fully set forth and restated herein.

meaning of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, by Carrillo as owner of the

ado.com domain name registration.