US UNCUT Motion For Preliminary Injunction

Case 1:16-cv-00368-PB Document 8 Filed 08/25/16 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
US UNCUT LLC,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-368-PB
v.
RYAN CLAYTON,
and
JOHN DOES Nos. 1 through 10.
Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

NOW COMES plaintiff US Uncut LLC (US Uncut) by its attorneys, Devine Millimet
& Branch, Professional Association, pursuant to Rule 65(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, hereby moves for a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants from continuing to
infringe upon US Uncuts protected service mark US UNCUT and mislead consumers as to the
sponsorship, source and origin of the goods and services they are offering. In support of this
Motion, US Uncut states as follows:
1.
US Uncut is an online media company that uses the common law service mark US
UNCUT in connection with its news reporting service that generates tens of million monthly
visitors to its Facebook page and web site, usuncut.com. Indeed, with more than 1.5 million
Facebook followers, US Uncut is among one of Facebooks top 25 publishers. US Uncut has
used its mark in connection with its news reporting services since its incorporation in September
2014 and its owners, Carl Gibson and Mark Provost, used the mark before then in connection
with their grassroots movement against government austerity and corporate tax dodging.
2.
US Uncut believes Ryan Clayton and the John Doe defendants (yet to be
identified) are behind a scheme that unfolded on August 3, 2016 to hijack control of US Uncuts
Facebook page. The hijacking has resulted in US Uncut losing its administrator rights to its
Facebook page, meaning US Uncut can no longer control the content of its Facebook page.
Making matters worse, a new (and anonymous) administrator for the US Uncut Facebook page is
posting content to the page in order to direct US Uncuts audience to a copycat website called
usuncut.news. The website is virtually identical in the look and feel to US Uncuts website,
even down to the style and layout of the page, and the types of articles and content that plaintiff
has become famous for publishing. This conduct is blatant trademark infringement and unfair
competition, among other violations of law, and US Uncut is entitled to immediate injunctive
relief to stop it.
3.
Accordingly, US Uncut now moves for a preliminary injunction against
defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a) to enjoin defendants from continuing to infringe
upon US Uncuts protected trademark rights and from continuing their unlawful conduct in
hijacking US Uncuts Facebook page.
4.
As explained in the accompanying memorandum of law, which is filed
simultaneously herewith and incorporated herein, a preliminary injunction is warranted in this

case because US Uncut has demonstrated that it is likely to prevail on the merits of its trademark
and cyberpiracy claims. In this regard, defendants hijacking and continuing use of US Uncuts
Facebook page amounts to a wholesale impersonation of US Uncut and its business. In addition,
the domain name for defendants website, usuncut.news, is not merely confusingly similar, but
nearly identical to US Uncuts protected trademark.
5.
In addition, defendants use of the US UNCUT mark is likely to cause consumer
confusion in the marketplace and US Uncut has sustained, and will continue to sustain,
irreparable harm as a result of defendants infringement of its trademark. The balance of harms
weighs in favor of an injunction, as does the publics interest in protecting trademarks and
preventing cyberpiracy.
6.
No concurrence to this motion has been requested because of the nature of the
relief requested and because no defendant has appeared in the action.

WHEREFORE, US Uncut respectfully requests that this Honorable Court:
A.
Schedule a prompt hearing on US Uncuts Motion for Preliminary Injunction;
B.
Upon completion of the hearing, issue an Order prohibiting defendants, their
officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys and any person(s) acting in concert or
participation with defendants from using or displaying in any way US Uncuts protected
trademark or any names, marks or words that are confusingly similar to US Uncuts protected
trademark, and ordering defendants to restore to US Uncut sole administrator rights to its
Facebook page;
C.
Prohibit defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys
and any person(s) in active concert or participation with them from using the Internet domain
name usuncut.news;
D.
Prohibit defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys
and any person(s) acting in concert or participation with them from us US Uncuts protected
trademark or any names, marks or words that are confusingly similar to US Uncuts protected
trademark within meta tags on any website; and
E.
Grant US Uncut such other and further relief as this Court deems just and
equitable.
Respectfully submitted,
US UNCUT LLC
By its attorneys,
DEVINE, MILLIMET & BRANCH, PA
Dated: August 25, 2016
/s/ Jonathan M. Shirley

Nicholas K. Holmes, Esquire (NH Bar #1183)
Jonathan M. Shirley, Esquire (NH Bar #16494)
111 Amherst Street
Manchester, NH 03101
Tel.: 603-695-8515
nholmes@devinemillimet.com
jshirley@devinemillimet.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that this document filed through the ECF system will be sent
electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing and a
paper copy will be served on defendant Ryan Clayton consistent with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.

Jonathan M. Shirley
Case 1:16-cv-00368-PB Document 8-1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 1 of 22

US UNCUT LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
RYAN CLAYTON,
and
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF

Plaintiff US Uncut LLC (US Uncut) submits this Memorandum of Law in Support of
its Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
I.
INTRODUCTION
US Uncut initiated this action upon learning that defendants have created a website using
the domain name usuncut.news that is virtually identical to the US UNCUT common law
service mark owned by plaintiff and the website plaintiff has operated since 2015 using the
domain name usuncut.com. Defendants are using the website to post news articles on current
events relating to progressive politics, the economy and human rights, which is the same
business in which US Uncut is engaged and for which its brand is famous. Making matters
worse, defendants have taken control of plaintiffs popular Facebook page, which has more than
1.5 million followers, and are posting links of its articles to the Facebook page that direct
plaintiffs audience to defendants confusingly similar website, usuncut.news.
Defendant
Ryan Clayton has also filed an application before the United States Patent and Trademark Office
to register US UNCUT on the Principal Register as his own service mark for news reporting
services.
US Uncut now moves for a preliminary injunction against defendants. Injunctive relief is
particularly appropriate in this case given that defendants are using a domain name that is
virtually identical to US Uncuts service mark and the domain name owned and used by US
Uncut. US Uncut respectfully submits that it is entitled to a preliminary injunction enjoining
defendants from using any mark which is confusingly similar to the US Uncut service mark,
from using the usuncut.news domain name, from using US Uncuts Facebook page, and from
otherwise holding themselves out as US Uncut or any variation thereof.
II.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Rise of the US Uncut Movement

In February 2011, a decentralized direct action group arose in the United States to combat
corporate tax avoidance and highlight cuts to social spending and public sector jobs.
(Declaration of Carl Gibson 2 [hereinafter Gibson Decl.].) Three early members of the
group, Carl Gibson, Joanne Gifford and Ryan Clayton, each created Facebook pages within days
of each other named US UNCUT. (Id. . 2-3) The purpose of the Facebook pages was to
help distribute information and coordinate the groups actions, which were taking place on a
national scale. (Id.) Indeed, the groups first direct action a protest against a large financial
institution occurred simultaneously on February 26, 2011 in 50 cities across the United States.
(Id. 2.)
In and around this same time, Gibson also secured the Internet domain name
usuncut.org, and used it to host a web page to distribute information about the groups actions.
(Id.)
Soon after establishing their respective Facebook pages, Gibson, Gifford and Clayton
agreed to combine their information distribution efforts on Facebook into a single page, the name
of which remained US Uncut.
(Id. 3.)
Gibson, Gifford and Ryan all maintained
administrator rights for the Facebook page, meaning they each could add or remove content to
the page. (Id.)
At least nine other members of the US Uncut movement were also given
administrator rights to the Facebook page. (Id.)

By the fall of 2011, Gibson was handling virtually all of the work for posting content to
the US Uncut Facebook page. (Id. 4.) While all of the individuals kept their administrator
rights, only Gibson posted content on a regular basis. (Id.)
In August 2012, Mark Provost joined the operation of the US Uncut Facebook page.
(Gibson Decl. 5.) Provost and Gibson agreed to collaborate in a deliberate and concentrated
effort to grow the US Uncut Facebook page from a site used by members of a grassroots
movement to publicize and coordinate their actions, to a meme-based information hub for
progressive politics. (Id.) Although Clayton continued to have administrator rights to the
Facebook page, he did not meaningfully contribute to the work that Provost and Gibson
undertook. (Id.)
During the period from August 2012 to August 2015 thanks to the work of Provost and
Gibson, the US Uncut Facebook page experienced unprecedented and phenomenal growth,
rapidly expanding from an audience of roughly 30,000 followers, to more than one million
followers. (Id. 6.) Clayton did not contribute to the growth of the Facebook page, posting
almost no original content and not participating in any of the group discussions about what
content to post to attract more members to the US Uncut audience. (Id.)
On or about June 13, 2014, Clayton was removed as an administrator of the US Uncut
Facebook page because he posted content on the page that the other administrators viewed as
contrary to the groups guiding principles. (Gibson Decl. 7.) Worse still, Clayton posted the
content despite a majority vote of the administrators that the content not be posted to the
Facebook page. (See id.) Claytons removal as administrator meant that he could no longer post
content to the Facebook page. (Id.)
The US Uncut Service Mark
Following Claytons departure, Gibson and Provost undertook a deliberate and sustained
effort to build a US Uncut online media brand that would serve as a leading publisher for wellwritten, quality stories about topics of interest to people interested in the goals of the US Uncut
movement and with a particular focus on progressive politics, the economy and human rights.
(Declaration of Mark Provost 2 [hereinafter Provost Decl.].) To this end, Gibson and
Provost formed US Uncut LLC in September 2014 and launched a new website,
www.usuncut.com. (Id.) The articles US Uncut LLC produced were published on usuncut.com
and linked to the US Uncut Facebook page. (Id.)
By 2015, US Uncut had established itself as a preeminent, non-mainstream online news
source, with its website and Facebook page serving as the principal content outlets. (Id. 3.) By
August 2015, Gibson and Provost were the only administrators on the US Uncut Facebook page,
and the US Uncut Facebook page was almost exclusively used for distribution of content posted
on usuncut.com. (Id.) As of August 1, 2016, the US Uncut Facebook page had grown to over
1.5 million followers, and was ranked as a Top 25 Facebook Publisher worldwide. (Id.) Its
website, usuncut.com, generated 10 to 32 million monthly page views. (Id.)
In order to support itself and continue creating content, US Uncut began selling
advertising on its usuncut.com website in August 2015. (Provost Decl. 4.) This was the first
commercial activity of US Uncut LLC and the first definitive use of the US UNCUT service
mark in commerce. (Id.) The US Uncut Facebook page became an important component in the
ability of US Uncut to sustain its operations because viewers of the Facebook page would also
often become viewers of US Uncuts web site, usuncut.com. (Id.) In other words, the Facebook
page was a primary conduit for viewers (and revenue) for US Uncuts website. (Id.)
The Hijacking of US Uncuts Facebook Page
Until recently, Gibson and Provost of US Uncut were the only administrators of the US
Uncut Facebook page. (Provost Decl. 5.) And, as noted already, the Facebook page was an
important component of the operations for US Uncuts news reporting service because the page
serves 1.5 million Facebook followers. (Id. 4.)
At 4:03 PM on August 3, 2016, US Uncut learned that it was locked out of its Facebook
page and that the administrator rights had somehow been changed without any warning to US
Uncut. (Id. 5.) Since then, the US Uncut Facebook page has been operated by one or more
persons who are posting stories that link to a new web site that was designed to look like US
Uncuts web site and given the confusingly similar name of usuncut.news. (Id. 6 and
Exhibits 1 & 2 thereto.) The website usuncut.news will be referred to hereinafter as the
Competitor Web Site.
To date, despite the fact that the members of US Uncut have had exclusive use, control,
and responsibility for the US Uncut Facebook page since June 2014, Facebook representatives
have refused to reveal: (a) why US Uncuts members were removed as administrators for the
US Uncut Facebook page; (b) the identity of the person (or persons) who now control the US
Uncut Facebook page; and, (c) why the Facebook page is being used to promote the
Competitors Web Site. (Provost Decl. 7.)
US Uncut believes Clayton is behind the launch of the Competitor Web Site and the
hijacking of US Uncuts Facebook page because on July 11, 2016, only days before
usuncut.news was launched, Clayton filed an application before the United States Patent and
Trademark office to register US UNCUT as a service mark for [n]ews reporting services,
namely, providing news in the nature of current event reporting; providing news, information
and commentary through a website, electronic newsletter, and social media in the nature of
current events relating to politics, the economy, and human rights. (Id. 8 and Exhibit 3
thereto.) Of course, the US UNCUT mark is actually owned by US Uncut because it has used
the mark continuously since its inception as a media company and its predecessors-in-interest,
Messrs. Gibson and Provost, used it continuously as a mark before then. (Id. 8.)
In any event, US Uncut is unable to confirm its belief about the ownership of the
Competitors Web Site because (a) the Competitors Website does not have any information
about who owns it, and (b) when registering its URL, the owner of the Competitor Web Site paid
for a service to block the owners identity from public disclosure. (Provost Decl. 9.)
US Uncut also believes Clayton is behind the hijacking of its Facebook page because of
Claytons recent association with members of a US Uncut competitor, Addicting Info
Enterprises, LLC, as well as with an individual named Aaron Minter. (Id. 10.) The members
of Addicting Info Enterprises, LLC are Matthew Hanson and Daniel Gouldman. (Id.) Matthew
Hanson sometimes uses the alias Matthew Desmond when posting on the Internet. (Id.)
Daniel Gouldman sometimes uses the alias Icarus Deum Verum when posting on the Internet.
(Id.) Aaron Minter, who also uses the name Aaron Black, is an associate with a Washington, DC
based consulting firm, and has experience with online media issues. (Id.)
Upon information and belief, Clayton met with Matthew Hanson and/or Aaron Minter on
one or more occasions at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, PA during the
week of July 25, 2016, just a few days before US Uncut lost control of its Facebook page.
(Provost Decl. 11.) US Uncut also believes that at least two writers who regularly write
articles for web sites operated by Addicting Info Enterprises, LLC, are also writing articles for
the Competitors Web Site, but using assumed names. (Id. 13.)
What is more, Mark Provost, a member of US Uncut, was told on August 4, 2016, by
Eric Barbera, a Facebook employee, that Barbera had heard from another Facebook employee
that someone at the Democratic National Convention in July 2016 was disputing US Uncuts
right to use the US Uncut Facebook page. (Provost Decl. 12.)
US Uncut believes Clayton is behind the hijacking of its Facebook page because Clayton
recently facilitated the republishing of a conversation on the US Uncut Facebook page. This
activity occurred as recently as August 12, 2016. (Gibson Decl. 8 and Exhibits A and B
thereto.)
For US Uncut, the loss of its Facebook page has caused a precipitous drop in traffic to its
website usuncut.com. (Id. 10.) Whereas traffic to usuncut.com ranged from 10 to 32 million
viewers on a monthly basis before the Facebook hijacking, traffic to the website since the
hijacking is on track to fall below 2% of its regular volume on a monthly basis. (Id.)
For defendants, by contrast, their website usuncut.news has seen a dramatic increase in
traffic since its inception only one month ago, in July 2016. According to one website ranking
service, after the hijacking of US Uncuts Facebook page on August 3, 2016, the Internet traffic
for usuncut.news experienced tremendous growth and jumping ahead of hundreds of thousands
of other websites worldwide in only a matter of days, with most visitors having visited
facebook.com immediately prior to visiting defendants site. (Gibson Decl. 11 and Exhibit C
thereto.) This data appears to confirm plaintiffs belief that its audience of 1.5 million Facebook
followers is being lured into visiting the defendants website usuncut.news in the mistaken belief
that it is US Uncuts website.
III.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Trademark law seeks to prevent one seller from using the same mark as - or one
similar to - that used by another in such a way that he confuses the public about who really
produced the goods (or service). DeCosta v. Viacom Intl, Inc., 981 F.2d 602, 605 (1st Cir.
1992). To prevent such confusion, federal law expressly authorizes this Court to grant injunctive
relief to enjoin the unauthorized use of federally registered trademarks. See 15 U.S.C. 1116(a).
In the First Circuit, a four part test is used to determine whether the granting of
preliminary injunctive relief is appropriate. Under this formula, trial courts must consider:
(1) the likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the potential for irreparable harm if
the injunction is denied; (3) the balance of relevant impositions, i.e. the hardship
to the non-movant if enjoined contrasted with the hardship to the movant if no
injunction issues; and (4) the effect, if any, of the Courts ruling on the public
interest.
Ross-Simons of Warwick, Inc. v. Baccarat, Inc., 102 F.3d 12, 15 (1st Cir. 1996). Although each
factor is significant, the sine qua non of [the preliminary injunction standard] is whether the
plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits. Gately v. Massachusetts, 2 F.3d 1221, 1225 (1st
Cir. 1993). Likelihood of success on the merits is the main bearing wall of the four factor
framework. Ross-Simons, 102 F.3d at 15.
As set forth in detail below, US Uncut is able to satisfy each of the elements necessary
for obtaining a preliminary injunction. US Uncut, therefore, is entitled to the injunctive relief
requested herein.
IV.
ARGUMENT
A. U.S. UNCUT WILL PREVAIL ON THE MERITS
1. Trademark Infringement Claim
To prevail on the merits of its trademark infringement claim, US Uncut must establish
that: (i) it owns and uses a protected mark; (2) defendants are using the same or similar mark;
and (3) defendants use of the same or similar mark is likely to confuse the public, causing harm
to US Uncut. Star Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Aastar Mortgage Corp., 89 F.3d 5, 9 (1st Cir. 1996);
DeCosta, 981 F.2d at 605.
a. US Uncut Owns and Uses the Distinctive Mark US UNCUT
The exclusive right to use a trademark belongs to the first who appropriates it and uses it
in connection with a particular business. Jordan K. Rand, Ltd. v. Lazoff Bros., Inc., 537 F.
Supp. 587, 593 (D.P.R. 1982); see also Puritan Furniture Corp. v. Comarc, Inc., 519 F. Supp.
56, 58 (DNH 1981). A service mark is defined as a word, name, symbol, device, or any
combination thereof adopted and used in the sale or advertising of services to identify the service
of the entity and distinguish them from the services of others. Estate of Presley v. Russen, 513 F.
Supp. 1339, 1362 (D.N.J. 1981). Rights are acquired in a service mark by adopting and using
the mark in connection with services provided. Id.; Johnny Blastoff Inc. v. Los Angeles Rams
Football Co., 188 F.3d 427, 433 (7th Cir. 1999). The party who first appropriates the mark
through use, and for whom the mark serves as a designation of source, acquires superior rights to
it. Johnny Blastoff, 188 F.3d at 433.
9
In this case, US Uncut and its founders, Carl Gibson and Mark Provost, undertook a
deliberate and sustained effort to establish an online media company and build the US Uncut
Facebook page so it would become an information hub for progressive politics. That effort
began with using memes but it developed by late 2014 into the formation of US Uncut LLC and
the acquisition of the domain name usuncut.com. Thereafter, US Uncut published its articles on
usuncut.com and linked the articles to its Facebook page. As a result of these efforts by Gibson
and Provost, US Uncuts Facebook audience grew such that by August 1, 2016, US Uncut had
achieved 1.5 million Facebook followers for its page, ranking it among one of Facebooks top
25 publishers. Internet traffic to US Uncuts website, usuncut.com, had also grown to between
10 and 32 million visitors on a monthly basis. In short, US Uncut owns the US UNCUT mark
because it first appropriated the mark for a news reporting service and the mark now serves as a
designation for US Uncut as the origin of that service.1
The fact that Clayton has surreptitiously sought to claim US UNCUT as his own service
mark by filing a registration application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office is
irrelevant for purposes of the ownership analysis. Jordan K. Rand, Ltd. v. Lazoff Bros., Inc., 537
F. Supp. 587, 593 (D.P.R. 1982). The registration of a trademark does not create or enlarge a
registrants rights, and any rights belonging to a prior user are not extinguished. Id. In any
event, Claytons application was filed little more than a month ago and no registration, let alone
a publication period, has issued. (Provost 8 and Ex. 3 thereto.) The application is also
fraudulent because Clayton asserts that he is the owner of the mark and that his first use was in
1
US UNCUT is an inherently distinctive mark when used in connection with a news reporting service because the
mark standing alone provides no clear or direct indication about the qualities or characteristics of the service. See
2 J. Thomas McCarthy, MCCARTHY ON TRADEMARKS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION 11.67 (4th ed.). But even
if the mark were somehow merely descriptive, the audience and following US Uncut has gained through
Facebook and the Internet demonstrates that the mark has acquired a secondary meaning for the relevant group of
consumers to identify the news reporting service provided by US Uncut. RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF UNFAIR
COMPETITION 13 (1995) cmt e.
10
February of 2011. (Id. at Ex. 3.) In truth, Clayton never used US UNCUT in connection with a
news reporting service. To be sure, Clayton was part of the original effort in early 2011 to
launch the US Uncut Facebook page when it was a conduit for distributing information about the
grassroots movement. And while Clayton retained his administrator rights for a period of time
after that, his contributions to the US Uncut Facebook page were seldom and he had nothing to
do with the substantial work of Gibson and Provost between 2012 and 2015 to grow US Uncuts
audience. Indeed, Claytons association with the US Uncut Facebook page was severed no later
than June 14, 2014. Clayton cannot claim ownership of the US UNCUT mark because he has
had nothing to do with the transformation of US Uncut and the association the mark now has
with US Uncuts news reporting service.
Because US Uncut was the first to use the US UNCUT mark for a news reporting service,
it holds the superior right to the mark.
b. Defendants Are Using The Same Mark
The similarity of marks is determined on the basis of the total effect of the mark on the
senses. Beacon Insurance Co. v. OneBeacon Insurance Group, 376 F.3d 8, 18 (1st Cir. 2004)
(holding that the use of the word Beacon accompanied by a lighthouse logo created a substantial
similarity between marks); Equine Tech., Inc. v. Equitechnology, Inc., 68 F.3d 542, 546 (1st Cir.
1995) (holding that the similarity between two horse care products was strong); Keds Corp. v.
Renee International Trading Corp., 888 F.2d 215, 222 (1st Cir. 1989) (holding that blue
rectangle labels on shoes manufactured by different companies were sufficiently similar to
constitute trademark infringement); Chart House, Inc. v. Bornstein, 636 F.2d 9 (1st Cir. 1980)
(holding that a restaurant named Chart House Village was sufficiently similar to plaintiffs
trademark of Chart House that preliminary injunctive relief was warranted).
11
In this case, defendants are using the mark US UNCUT, which is identical to the service
mark that US Uncut has used its web site and Facebook page for several years. Indeed, by
hijacking US Uncuts Facebook page, defendants are literally impersonating US Uncut and
directly misappropriating US Uncuts service mark for their own use.
c. Defendants Use of the Same Mark Is Confusing the Public and Harming US
Uncut
Whether there is a substantial likelihood of confusion between marks, and thus trademark
infringement, requires the examination of several factors, including (i) the similarity or
dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as to appearance, (ii) the nature of the goods and
services associated with the marks, (iii) the relationship of the parties channels of trade, (iv) the
classes of prospective purchasers, (v) evidence of actual confusion and (vi) the defendants intent
in adopting the mark. Star Financial Services, Inc. v. Aastar Mortgage Corp., 89 F.3d 5, 10 (1st
Cir. 1996). The cornerstone of a likelihood of confusion analysis is based on whether the
ordinary, prudent consumer in the marketplace would likely be confused. MCCARTHY 23.63.
i. Similarity of Marks
Defendants are using a domain name usuncut.news that is virtually identical to US
Uncuts service mark as well as its domain name usuncut.com.
The look and feel of
defendants web site is also remarkably similar to US Uncuts website, even down to the font,
white background and organization of news articles. (Provost Decl. at Exhibits 1 and 2.)
Viewing each as a whole, therefore, the marks and domain names are sufficiently similar to
create confusion in the marketplace with regard to the source, origin, and/or sponsorship of the
services being marketed and sold by defendants. Equine Tech., 68 F.3d at 546; Keds Corp., 888
f.2d at 222. Defendants are further compounding the problem of confusion by posting links from
their website to US Uncuts Facebook page, which has been hijacked such that US Uncut no
12
longer controls the contents of the page. As a result, US Uncuts Facebook audience is being
misled into visiting defendants services at usuncut.news instead of to US Uncuts services
through its usuncut.com domain name.
ii. Similarity of Goods and Services
US Uncut and defendants are both engaged in the business of providing online news
reporting services that publish articles on topics concerning progressive politics, the economy
and human rights. The parties, therefore, provide substantially similar services to the public.
iii. The Relationship Between The Parties Channels of Trade, Advertising
And Class of Prospective Purchasers
Channels of trade, advertising, and prospective purchasers are typically three classes that
the court generally consider together. Star Fin., 89 F.3d at 10 n. 3. As explained already,
defendants operate a website that provides the identical services of US Uncut i.e., the
publication of news articles on progressive politics, the economy and human rights and
defendants have organized their website using fonts, a page layout and stark-white background
that is nearly identical to the look and feel of US Uncuts web site. Defendants also now control
US Uncuts Facebook page and they are using it to promote articles from their website, just like
US Uncut had done prior to losing control of its Facebook page. The parties services are
directed at the same audience principally US Uncuts Facebook audience and, indeed,
defendants appear to have selected their domain name for the very purpose of impersonating US
Uncut.
Accordingly, there is a very significant likelihood that defendants use of the US
UNCUT mark and usuncut.news domain name has deceived and will continue to deceive
consumers and cause confusion in the marketplace.
13
iv. Evidence of Actual Confusion

Although evidence of actual confusion is not necessary to show a likelihood of confusion,
see Keebler Co. v. Rovira Biscuit Corp., 624 F.2d 366, 377 (1st Cir. 1980), here, since the
hijacking of its Facebook page, US Uncut has experienced a precipitous drop in visitors to its
web site. Indeed, in the weeks that have followed the hijacking, Internet traffic to usuncut.com
has dropped precipitously. By contrast, defendants newly launched website has witnessed a
dramatic jump in traffic in only a matter of weeks. US Uncut suspects this is the direct result of
defendants hijacking of its Facebook page. In other words, by cloning themselves to look just
like US Uncut, defendants are causing US Uncuts audience to visit their website instead of
visiting US Uncuts website.
v. Defendants Intent In Using the Mark
It can be inferred from the facts and circumstances that defendants intended to use the
usuncut.news domain name and US Uncuts Facebook page to capitalize on US Uncuts name,
goodwill, business reputation and sizeable online audience. Defendant Ryan Clayton certainly
knew of the existence of US Uncuts mark when he filed his application to register US UNCUT
as his own trademark because he included in his application a screen shot of US Uncuts
Facebook page from 2015, a year after he had lost his access as an administrator to the Facebook
page. (Provost Decl. at Exhibit 3.)
vi. Strength of the US Uncut Mark
The strength of a given trademark depends on its inherent distinctiveness and its
commercial strength in the marketplace. Boston Athletic Assn v. Sullivan, 867 F.2d 22, 32 (1st
Cir. 1987). In determining a trademarks relative strength, a court must look to the length of
time a mark has been used and the relative renown in the field; the strength of the mark in
14
plaintiffs field of business; and the plaintiffs action in promoting the mark. See Keds Corp.,
888 F.2d at 222 (quoting Boston Athletic Assn, 867 F.2d at 32).
The US UNCUT mark is inherently distinctive for a news reporting service because it
provides no clear or direct indication about the qualities or characteristics of the service. See 2 J.
Thomas McCarthy, MCCARTHY
ON
TRADEMARKS
AND
UNFAIR COMPETITION 11.67 (4th
ed.). Moreover, US Uncut has quickly become a recognized leader in the online news reporting
service for articles and content that concern progressive politics, the economy and human rights.
The strength of its leadership in this market is reflected in the fact that, as of August 2016, it had
grown the audience of its Facebook page to more than 1.5 million followers, ranking it among
Facebooks top 25 publishers worldwide, and its website averaged from 10 to 32 million viewers
per month.
Accordingly, US Uncut is likely to prevail on its trademark infringement claim against
defendants.
2. Cyberpiracy Claim
The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act of 1999 (the ACPA), 15 U.S.C.
1125(d), created a remedy for trademark violation in the registration, trafficking, or use of a
domain name. DaVinci Technology Corp. v. Rubino, 2005 WL 124962 at *6 (D.N.J. May 25,
2005); Sportys Farm v. Sportsmans Market, Inc., 202 F.3d 489, 496 (2d Cir. 2000). To
succeed on a claim for cyberpiracy under 15 U.S.C. 1125(d), a plaintiff must establish the
following elements:
(1) the mark must be distinctive and entitled to protection; (2) the allegedly
infringing domain names must be identical or confusingly similar; and (3)
defendants must have had a bad-faith intent to profit from the plaintiffs
trademarks.
DaVinci Technology Corp., 2005 WL 1249462 at *7.
15
a. Defendants Domain Name Is Nearly Identical and

Confusingly Similar to US Uncuts Distinctive Mark
The analysis of the first two elements of cyberpiracy is similar to the analysis of
ownership and identify/similarity of marks in a claim of trademark infringement. DaVinci
Technology Corp., 2005 WL 1249462 at *7. For the same reasons described above, US Uncut
has demonstrated that it is the owner of the distinctive service mark US UNCUT and that this
mark is entitled to protection. US Uncut has also demonstrated that defendants are using a mark
identical to the US UNCUT mark on their website and that defendants are using a confusingly
similar domain name to direct US Uncuts audience to their website.
b. Defendants Have Acted in Bad Faith
The ACPA includes nine factors to aid courts in determining whether a defendant had a
bad faith intent to profit from a plaintiffs mark. 15 U.S.C. 1125(d)(1)(B)(i)(I-IX). These
factors are not required elements, but rather indicia of bad faith that a court may consider.
Sportys Farm, 202 F.3d at 498.
The enumerated factors include, among others, (i) the
trademark or other intellectual property rights of the person, if any, in the domain name; (ii) the
extent to which the domain name consists of the legal name of the person or a name that is
otherwise commonly used to identify the person; (iii) the persons prior use, if any, of the
domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of any goods or services; (iv) the
persons intent to divert consumers from the marks owners online location to a site accessible
under the domain name that could harm the goodwill represented by the mark, either for
commercial gain or with the intent to tarnish or disparage the mark, by creating a likelihood of
confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the site; and (v) the extent
to which the mark incorporated in the persons domain name registration is or is not distinctive
and famous. 15 U.S.C. 1125(d)(1)(B)(i)(I-IX).
16
It would seem beyond dispute that defendants registered the usuncut.news domain name
in order to trade on the goodwill established by US Uncut, to divert US Uncuts audience to their
website, and to profit from the prominence and strength of the US Uncut name and mark.
Defendants are not and never have been authorized to use the name US Uncut, the US UNCUT
mark, or the usuncut.com domain name. All such rights belong exclusively to US Uncut.
Defendants, therefore, have no right to claim any association with the name US Uncut.
Defendants could not have believed that they had a right to use usuncut.news as a domain
name, because this phrase is so similar to US Uncuts domain name and to its US UNCUT mark.
Finally, US Uncut and the US UNCUT mark are well known to defendant Ryan Clayton
and, thus, he was plainly on notice of the existence of the US UNCUT mark and domain name
when he and the John Doe defendants selected their confusingly similar domain name and
undertook to seize US Uncuts Facebook page.
B. U.S. UNCUT HAS AND WILL CONTINUE TO SUFFER IMMEDIATE AND
IRREPARABLE HARM IF INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IS NOT GRANTED
There is a presumption in trademark infringement cases that infringement causes
irreparable harm. Amer. Bd. of Psychiatry & Neurology, Inc. v. Johnson-Powell, 129 F.3d 1, 4
(1st Cir. 1997); Societe Des Produits Nestle, S.A. v. Casa Helvetia, Inc., 982 F.2d 633, 640 (1st
Cir. 1992) (Trademark infringement results in irreparable harm because the attendant loss of
profits, goodwill, and reputation cannot be satisfactorily quantified.).
US Uncut has devoted substantial time and expense developing a good reputation in the
news reporting business and building its reading audience on Facebook and the Internet.
Defendants unauthorized use of a domain name that is virtually identical to US Uncuts name,
mark, and domain name threatens to cause harm to US Uncuts good reputation. Hypertherm,
Inc. v. Precision Prods., Inc., 832 F.2d 697 (1st Cir. 1987) (Few harms are more corrosive than
17
the inability of a trademark holder to control the quality of bogus articles though (erroneously)
derived from it.). US Uncut is being irreparably harmed by defendants unauthorized use of its
name, mark and domain name, not to mention by the hijacking of its Facebook page.
C. THE BALANCING OF HARMS WEIGHS IN FAVOR OF GRANTING
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
The ability of a defendant to cause injury to a trademark owner during the pendency of
the lawsuit, and into the future, is a significant factor in determining the propriety of granting
injunctive relief. Camel Hair and Cashmere Indust. of America, Inc. v. Associated Dry Goods
Corp., 799 F.2d 6, 13 (1st Cir. 1986). Here, defendants ability to cause harm to US Uncuts
business reputation and goodwill is substantial. US Uncut has taken significant steps in the past
two years and invested resources to insure the quality of the news reporting service it provides to
its audience. If defendants are allowed to provide substandard services which US Uncuts
audience believes is actually provided by US Uncut, US Uncuts goodwill and reputation will be
damaged. Preliminary injunctive relief is necessary to prevent this risk of irreparable harm to US
Uncuts goodwill and business reputation. In any event, readers seeking US Uncuts news
reporting services because of its reputation are entitled to seek out US Uncut without being
misled by defendants.
In contrast, any hardship imposed on defendants by the issuance of a preliminary
injunction would be minimal.
The issuance of a preliminary injunction would not force
defendants out of business. Rather, defendants would continue to provide their news reporting
services through the Internet simply by using a different domain name and Facebook page.
Thus, any hardship imposed on defendants as a result of a preliminary injunction would be
minimal.
18
D. ENFORCEMENT OF THE TRADEMARK LAWS WILL BENEFIT THE

PUBLIC
Trademark and unfair competition laws, including the ACPA, protect the public by
providing a mechanism for minimizing confusion as to the source of goods and services. See
DeCosta, 981 F.2d at 605; Sportys Farm, 202 F.3d at 496. Given the likelihood that US Uncut
will succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement claim, trademark dilution claim and
cyberpiracy claim, the public interest weighs in favor of granting an injunction to protect US
Uncuts service mark and domain name.
E. U.S. UNCUTS OTHER CAUSES OF ACTION ALSO ENTITLE IT TO
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
In addition to the trademark infringement and cyberpiracy claims, US Uncuts Complaint
also asserts causes of action for Dilution in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1125(c), Unfair Competition
and False Designation of Origin in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), Unfair and Deceptive Trade
Practices in violation of N.H. RSA 358-A:2 as well as common law conversion and trespass.
Complaint 26-55. Because US Uncuts claims of infringement and cyberpiracy are strong
enough to establish the case for injunctive relief, US Uncut has not at this time briefed the merits
of its other claims. It suffices to say that US Uncut has an equally compelling case for injunctive
relief under each of those claims.
It is worth highlighting, however, that business accounts at social media outlets like
Facebook and Twitter are considered to be property of the company no different from customer
lists and subscriber lists. In re CTLI, LLC, 528 B.R. 359, 366 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. April 3, 2015)
(business social media accounts were property of debtor LLCs bankruptcy estate); In re Borders
Grp., Inc., 2011 WL 5520261, at *13 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2011). Thus, US Uncut holds
cognizable claims for common law conversion and trespass to chattels for defendants hijacking
19
of its Facebook page and it is appropriate relief for the Court to order defendants to return to US
Uncut the administrator rights to the Facebook page that they seized without US Uncuts
authority or consent. See In re CTLI, LLC, 528 B.R. at 376 (ordering former owner of debtor to
turnover to bankruptcy trustee administrator rights to debtors Facebook page).
F. THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BOND REQUIREMENT SHOULD BE
WAIVED IN THIS CASE
US Uncut requests that it not be required to post a bond in accordance with Rule 65(c) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. While Rule 65(c) requires a bond, the amount remains in
the Courts discretion and can even be set at zero. See Crowley v. Local No. 82 Furniture and
Piano, 679 F.2d 978, 999-1000 (1st Cir. 1982), revd on other grounds, 467 U.S. 526 (1984);
Hill Design, Inc. v. Vivian Hodgdon, Civ, No. 03-074-M, slip op. at 15 (D.N.H. 2003). In
considering the propriety of a bond in any given injunction context, the First Circuit has
identified three factors to be balanced: the likelihood of harm to the enjoined party; the hardship
that a bond requirement would impose on the party seeking injunctive relief; and the competitive
positions of the parties. Crowley, 679 F.2d at 999-1000. This determination also includes
likelihood of success on the merits where the likelihood is extraordinarily high. Id. at 1000, n.
25; Arkansas Vest Corp. v. Carolina Freight Corp., 60 F. Supp.2d 517, 520-21 (4th Cir. 1999)
(considering likelihood of success on the merits, including likelihood of imminent and
irreparable harm to enjoining party from infringement, in approving zero bond amount).
In this case, U.S. Uncut has demonstrated an extraordinary high likelihood of success
on the merits. Defendants are using US Uncuts Facebook page to impersonate Uncut and post
links on the Facebook page to articles on defendants website that is virtually identical to the
website operated by US Uncut and defendants are using a domain name that is substantially
similar to US Uncuts registered domain name. Defendants have no legal basis to use this mark
20
or domain name. Defendants use of US Uncuts mark and domain name is likely to cause, and
is causing, confusion in the marketplace with respect to the source, origin and sponsorship of the
content being shown on their website and US Uncuts Facebook page. As a result, there is an
extraordinarily high likelihood that US Uncut will succeed on the merits of tis claims and,
accordingly, Uncut should not be required to post a bond. Arkansas Best Corp., 60 F. Supp.2d
at 520-21.
V.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, US Uncut respectfully requests that the Honorable Court
issue a preliminary injunction in the form of the proposed preliminary injunction submitted
herewith, and enjoin defendants from continuing to use US Uncuts name, mark, Facebook page
and a confusingly similar domain name.
21
Respectfully submitted,
US UNCUT LLC
By its attorneys,
DEVINE, MILLIMET & BRANCH, PA
Nicholas K. Holmes, Esquire (NH Bar #1183)

Jonathan M. Shirley, Esquire (NH Bar #16494)
111 Amherst Street
Manchester, NH 03101
Tel.: 603-695-8515
nholmes@devinemillimet.com
jshirley@devinemillimet.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that this document filed through the ECF system will be sent
electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing and a
paper copy will be served on defendant Ryan Clayton consistent with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.

Jonathan M. Shirley
22

US UNCUT LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
RYAN CLAYTON,
and
Defendants.
DECLARATION OF CARL GIBSON IN SUPPORT OF

I, Carl Gibson, declare as follows:
1.
I am a member of US Uncut LLC (US Uncut) and I have personal knowledge
of the facts giving rise to US Uncuts claims in this action and the facts set forth in this
declaration.
2.
In February 2011, a decentralized direct action group arose in the United States to
combat corporate tax avoidance and highlight cuts to social spending and public sector jobs. I
was an early member of the group and I started a Facebook page called US UNCUT to help
distribute information and coordinate the groups actions, which were being coordinated on a
national scale. In fact, the groups first action was a protest against a large financial institution
that occurred simultaneously on February 26, 2011 in 50 cities across the United States. I also
purchased the domain name usuncut.org and used it to host a web page to distribute
information about the groups actions.
3.
My Facebook page was not the only one dedicated to helping the group. Two
other members of the group Joanne Gifford and Ryan Clayton set up similar Facebook pages
in an around the same time as mine. Because it was inefficient to have three Facebook pages
attempting to do the same thing, the three of us agreed to combine our efforts into a single
Facebook page, the name of which remained US UNCUT. We each maintained administrator
rights for the Facebook page. Administrator rights are what allow a user to add or remove
content to the page. At least nine other members of the US Uncut movement were also given
administrator rights to the Facebook page in the early months of the groups efforts.
4.
By the fall of 2011, I was handling virtually all of the work for posting content to
the US Uncut Facebook page. While the others continued to have administrator rights to the
Facebook page, only I posted content on a regular basis.
5.
In August 2012, Mark Provost joined as an administrator on the US Uncut
Facebook page and he and I agreed to collaborate together on building the US Uncut Facebook
page from a site used by members of a grassroots movement to publicize and coordinate their
actions, to a meme-based information hub for progressive politics. A meme is a picture super
imposed with text and shared on the Internet. Although Clayton continued to have administrator
rights to the Facebook page, he did not meaningfully contribute to the work that Mark Provost
and I undertook.
6.
The work Mark Provost and I did from August 2012 to August 2015 resulted in
the US Uncut Facebook page experiencing unprecedented and phenomenal growth. We rapidly
expanded the audience from roughly 30,000 Facebook followers, to more than one million
followers. Ryan Clayton did not contribute to this growth of the Facebook page. He posted
almost no original content and did not participate in any of the group discussions about what
content to post to attract additional audience members to US Uncut.
7.
Mark Provost and I decided to remove Ryan Clayton as an administrator of the
US Uncut Facebook page on or around June 13, 2014. We made this decision following an
incident in which Ryan Clayton posted to the US Uncut Facebook page a meme that he had
created but that Mark Provost and I viewed as contrary to the guiding principles for US Uncut
and the expectations of the US Uncut audience. We told Ryan Clayton that we did not approve
of the meme and Mark Provost removed the meme from the Facebook page. Ryan Clayton
ignored us, however, and used his administrator rights to re-post the meme to the US Uncut
Facebook page. It was at this point that we removed Ryan Clayton as an administrator, thereby
preventing Ryan Clayton from having the ability to post content to the Facebook page without
our prior approval.
8.
I recently visited Ryan Claytons personal Facebook page, which I have access to
because Ryan Clayton and I are still Facebook friends. On it I found a comment that Ryan
Clayton left on another persons status update in which Ryan asks if he can post a screenshot of
that persons recent discussion to a large-ish page. The person consented and, thereafter, the
screenshot appeared on the hijacked US Uncut Facebook page. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a
true and accurate copy of Ryan Claytons request to the Facebook user to use his content and the
user consenting. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and accurate copy of the post as it
appeared on the hijacked US Uncut Facebook page. The activities shown in Exhibits A and B
took place on or around August 12, 2016.
9.
I note as well that Ryan Clayton refers to the people running the large-ish
Facebook page as they. See Ex. A. This suggests to me that people other than Ryan Clayton
are also involved in the hijacking of the US Uncut Facebook page.
10.
For US Uncut, the loss of its Facebook page has caused a precipitous drop in
traffic to its website usuncut.com. Whereas traffic to usuncut.com ranged from 10 to 32 million
viewers on a monthly basis before the Facebook hijacking, traffic to the website since the
hijacking is on track to fall below 2% of its regular volume on a monthly basis.
11.
By contrast, the website usuncut.news has seen a dramatic increase in traffic since
its inception only one month ago, in July 2016. According to one website ranking service, after
the hijacking of US Uncuts Facebook page on August 3, 2016, the Internet traffic for
usuncut.news experienced tremendous growth and jumping ahead of hundreds of thousands of
other websites worldwide in only a matter of days, with most visitors having visited
facebook.com immediately prior to visiting defendants site. Attached as Exhibit C hereto is a
true and accurate copy of the website ranking service showing the rapid traffic growth for
usuncut.news.
I DECLARE UNDER THE PAINS AND PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT THE

FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND
BELIEF.
/s/ Carl Gibson

Carl Gibson
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C

US UNCUT LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
RYAN CLAYTON,
and
Defendants.
DECLARATION OF MARK PROVOST IN SUPPORT OF

I, Mark Provost, declare as follows:
1.
I am a member of US Uncut LLC (US Uncut) and I have personal knowledge
of the facts giving rise to US Uncuts claims in this action and the facts set forth in this
declaration.
2.
Following Ryan Claytons departure as an administrator for US Uncut in June
2014, Carl Gibson and I undertook a deliberate and sustained effort to build a US Uncut online
media brand that would serve as a leading publisher for well-written, quality stories about topics
of interest to people interested in the goals of the US Uncut movement and with a particular
focus on progressive politics, the economy and human rights.
To this end, Carl Gibson and I
formed US Uncut LLC in September 2014 and launched a new website, www.usuncut.com. The
articles US Uncut LLC produced were published on usuncut.com and linked to the US Uncut
Facebook page.
3.
By 2015, US Uncut had established itself as a preeminent, non-mainstream online
news source, with its website and Facebook page serving as the principal content outlets. By
August 2015, Carl Gibson and I were the only administrators on the US Uncut Facebook page,
and the US Uncut Facebook page was almost exclusively used for distribution of content posted
on usuncut.com. As of August 1, 2016, the US Uncut Facebook page had grown to over 1.5
million followers, and was ranked as a Top 25 Facebook Publisher worldwide. Its website,
usuncut.com, generated 10 to 32 million monthly page views.
4.
In order to support our operations and continue creating content, we began selling
advertising on the usuncut.com website in August 2015. This was the first commercial activity
of US Uncut LLC and the first definitive use of the US UNCUT service mark in commerce.
The US Uncut Facebook page became an important component in the ability of US Uncut to
sustain its operations because viewers of the Facebook page would also often become viewers of
US Uncuts web site, usuncut.com. In other words, the Facebook page was a primary conduit for
viewers (and revenue) for US Uncuts website.
5.
Until recently, Carl Gibson and I were the only administrators of the US Uncut
Facebook page. At 4:03 PM on August 3, 2016, however, Carl Gibson and I learned that we had
been locked out of the US Uncut Facebook page and that our administrator rights had somehow
been changed without any warning to us.
6.
Since then, the US Uncut Facebook page has been operated by one or more
persons who are posting stories that link to a new web site that was designed to look like US
Uncuts web site and given the confusingly similar name of usuncut.news The website
usuncut.news will be referred to hereinafter as the Competitor Web Site. For a comparison,
attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a screen shot of US Uncuts web site at usuncut.com as of August
22, 2016, and attached as Exhibit 2 hereto is a screen shot of the Competitor Web Site as of the
same date.
7.
Despite the fact that Carl Gibson and I have had exclusive use, control, and
responsibility for the US Uncut Facebook page since June 2014, Facebook representatives have
refused to reveal: (a) why we were removed as administrators for the US Uncut Facebook page;
(b) the identity of the person (or persons) who now control the US Uncut Facebook page; and,
(c) why the Facebook page is being used to promote the Competitors Web Site.
8.
I have come to believe Ryan Clayton is behind the launch of the Competitor Web
Site and the hijacking of US Uncuts Facebook page because on July 11, 2016, only days before
usuncut.news was launched, Ryan Clayton filed an application before the United States Patent
and Trademark office to register US UNCUT as a service mark for [n]ews reporting services,
namely, providing news in the nature of current event reporting; providing news, information
and commentary through a website, electronic newsletter, and social media in the nature of
current events relating to politics, the economy, and human rights. A complete copy of Ryan
Claytons Trademark application is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. In truth, the US UNCUT mark
is actually owned by US Uncut because it has used the mark continuously since its inception as a
media company and its predecessors-in-interest, Carl Gibson and myself, used it as a mark
before then.
9.
Carl Gibson and I are unable to confirm the identity of the owner the
Competitors Web Site because (a) the Competitors Website does not have any information
about who owns it, and (b) when registering its URL, the owner of the Competitor Web Site paid
for a service to block the owners identity from public disclosure.
10.
I also believe Clayton is behind the hijacking of the US Uncut Facebook page
because of Ryan Claytons recent association with members of a US Uncut competitor,
Addicting Info Enterprises, LLC, as well as with an individual named Aaron Minter. The
members of Addicting Info Enterprises, LLC are Matthew Hanson and Daniel Gouldman.
Matthew Hanson sometimes uses the alias Matthew Desmond when posting on the Internet.
Daniel Gouldman sometimes uses the alias Icarus Deum Verum when posting on the Internet.
Aaron Minter, who also uses the name Aaron Black, is an associate with a Washington, DC
based consulting firm, and has experience with online media issues.
11.
I learned from posts on Facebook that Ryan Clayton met with Matthew Hanson
and/or Aaron Minter on one or more occasions at the Democratic National Convention in
Philadelphia, PA during the week of July 25, 2016, just a few days before US Uncut lost control
of its Facebook page.
12.
I was also told on August 4, 2016, by Eric Barbera, a Facebook employee, that
Barbera had heard from another Facebook employee that someone at the Democratic National
Convention in July 2016 was disputing US Uncuts right to use the US Uncut Facebook page.
13.
I also believe that at least two writers who regularly write articles for web sites
operated by Addicting Info Enterprises, LLC, are also writing articles for the Competitors Web
Site, but using assumed names.
I DECLARE UNDER THE PAINS AND PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT THE

FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND
BELIEF.
/s/ Mark Provost

Mark Provost
EXHIBIT 1

www.usuncut,com
Monday, August 22,
20'J,6
CEE@E@
lLS. Uncrt
--
Top Stories
'whcro
13 thc
l'cklng chcck?':
Loultllnr ?ollcl
worker gocs
bererk ovcr
Trump's llood
'poto op
The day the
world'3 f!stcat
mrn dld
somcthlng do.ply
moYng lor bllnd
Pr.!lymplc
champon
Trump Dlsoboy3
Loul3l!n
CoYernor to
Bravely Dcllvcr
Play-Ooh to Flood
Ylctlm5 (vlOEO)
?R$
't
-t
fGan Trump
supportar .Jcctcd
trom cmp.lgn
rally lor'havlng
BREAKING: Armed White

Supremacists Storm NAACP
Office in Houston
Famous Restaurant Chain

Busted in Elaborate Scam to
Rip Of f Workers
'Lynch the nl"ers!': Thls ls how Trump supporters talk when

they thlnk no one ls llstenlng
At lrst or group of Dor.ll(i ltLlnl) suF)l)ortor5 hJv. slown tlL.[ vetston of M.kIt(
Anrt-rrc CrL.rt AgJ[ [volvs lyrcltr9 bldck l)cople
o:rr:(
Cop Who Kllled Black Man and lnclted Mllwaukee Rlots Sald
He'd'Start a Rlot Llke lt's Baltlmore'ln Rap Vldeo
Dotttllr(lut, llr'.199.[r Br()wn 6-ye.]r vctr.rD of th MrlwdukeL'Polrce Oet).[tnr]rt
.d--
NYC Releases Statement

After Removing Naked
Trump Statue and lt's

H
ila riou s
EXHIBIT 2

www.usuncut.news
Monday, August 22,20L6
M(
Fd'
WMLD
IGUYEUIIE
ffi6
UMISG
NG
us.uNcuT
Donald Ducks Now Following Trump

Around The Country For F*+ng His Taxes
(vrDEos)
L'-Xa aa
uf
E ::
po L r rcs
Already
Shdd'rot FdldmBccru3
H['No
MDBO)
hcrdil'
checked
your inbox?
Then why not
try to seve?
To Racsm (VlD
EXHIBIT 3
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number.
PTO Form 1478 (Rev 09/2006)
OMB No. 0651-0009 (Exp 02/28/2018)
Trademark/Service Mark Application, Principal Register

Serial Number: 87099007
Filing Date: 07/11/2016
The table below presents the data as entered.

Input Field
SERIAL NUMBER
Entered
87099007
MARK INFORMATION
*MARK
US Uncut
STANDARD CHARACTERS
YES
USPTO-GENERATED IMAGE
YES
LITERAL ELEMENT
US Uncut
MARK STATEMENT
The mark consists of standard characters, without claim to any particular font,
style, size, or color.
REGISTER
Principal
APPLICANT INFORMATION
*OWNER OF MARK
Clayton, Ryan
*STREET
200 Bodwell Rd.
*CITY
Manchester
*STATE
(Required for U.S. applicants)
New Hampshire
*COUNTRY
United States
*ZIP/POSTAL CODE
(Required for U.S. applicants)
03109
LEGAL ENTITY INFORMATION

TYPE
individual
COUNTRY OF CITIZENSHIP
United States
GOODS AND/OR SERVICES AND BASIS INFORMATION

INTERNATIONAL CLASS
041
*IDENTIFICATION
Class 041: News reporting services, namely, providing news in the nature of
current event reporting; providing news, information, and commentary
through a website, electronic newsletter, and social media in the nature of
current events relating to politics, the economy, and human rights; providing
an interactive, online web journal in the nature of current events relating to
politics, the economy, and human rights.
FILING BASIS
SECTION 1(a)
FIRST USE ANYWHERE DATE
At least as early as 02/15/2011
FIRST USE IN COMMERCE DATE
At least as early as 02/15/2011
SPECIMEN FILE NAME(S)

ORIGINAL PDF FILE
SPE0-1731612378-20160711095214085614_._Facebook_screeenshot.pdf
CONVERTED PDF FILE(S)

(1 page)
\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\870\990\87099007\xml1\RFA0003.JPG
SPECIMEN DESCRIPTION
Screenshot of Facebook page
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS SECTION

DISCLAIMER
No claim is made to the exclusive right to use US apart from the mark as
shown.
ATTORNEY INFORMATION
NAME
Richard C. Balough
ATTORNEY DOCKET NUMBER
US Uncut
FIRM NAME
Balough Law Offices, LLC
STREET
1 N LaSalle St Ste 2020
CITY
Chicago
STATE
Illinois
COUNTRY
United States
ZIP/POSTAL CODE
60602
PHONE
312.499.0000
EMAIL ADDRESS
rbalough@balough.com
AUTHORIZED TO COMMUNICATE VIA EMAIL
Yes
OTHER APPOINTED ATTORNEY
Cheryl Dancey Balough
CORRESPONDENCE INFORMATION
NAME
Richard C. Balough
FIRM NAME
STREET
CITY
Chicago
STATE
Illinois
COUNTRY
United States
ZIP/POSTAL CODE
60602
PHONE
312.499.0000
*EMAIL ADDRESS
rbalough@balough.com;cbalough@balough.com
*AUTHORIZED TO COMMUNICATE VIA EMAIL
Yes
FEE INFORMATION
APPLICATION FILING OPTION
TEAS RF
NUMBER OF CLASSES
FEE PER CLASS
275
*TOTAL FEE DUE
275
*TOTAL FEE PAID
275
SIGNATURE INFORMATION
SIGNATURE
/richard c. balough/
SIGNATORY'S NAME
Richard C. Balough
SIGNATORY'S POSITION
Attorney of record, Illinois bar member
SIGNATORY'S PHONE NUMBER
312.499.0000
DATE SIGNED
07/11/2016

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number.
PTO Form 1478 (Rev 09/2006)
OMB No. 0651-0009 (Exp 02/28/2018)
Trademark/Service Mark Application, Principal Register

Filing Date: 07/11/2016
To the Commissioner for Trademarks:

MARK: US Uncut (Standard Characters, see mark)
The literal element of the mark consists of US Uncut.
The mark consists of standard characters, without claim to any particular font, style, size, or color.
The applicant, Ryan Clayton, a citizen of United States, having an address of
200 Bodwell Rd.
Manchester, New Hampshire 03109
United States
requests registration of the trademark/service mark identified above in the United States Patent and Trademark Office on the Principal Register
established by the Act of July 5, 1946 (15 U.S.C. Section 1051 et seq.), as amended, for the following:
International Class 041: Class 041: News reporting services, namely, providing news in the nature of current event reporting; providing
news, information, and commentary through a website, electronic newsletter, and social media in the nature of current events relating to politics,
the economy, and human rights; providing an interactive, online web journal in the nature of current events relating to politics, the economy, and
human rights.
In International Class 041, the mark was first used by the applicant or the applicant's related company or licensee or predecessor in interest at
least as early as 02/15/2011, and first used in commerce at least as early as 02/15/2011, and is now in use in such commerce. The applicant is
submitting one(or more) specimen(s) showing the mark as used in commerce on or in connection with any item in the class of listed
goods/services, consisting of a(n) Screenshot of Facebook page.
Original PDF file:
SPE0-1731612378-20160711095214085614_._Facebook_screeenshot.pdf
Converted PDF file(s) (1 page)
Specimen File1
Disclaimer
No claim is made to the exclusive right to use US apart from the mark as shown.
The applicant's current Attorney Information:
Richard C. Balough and Cheryl Dancey Balough of Balough Law Offices, LLC
Chicago, Illinois 60602
United States
The attorney docket/reference number is US Uncut.
The applicant's current Correspondence Information:
Richard C. Balough
Chicago, Illinois 60602
312.499.0000(phone)
rbalough@balough.com;cbalough@balough.com (authorized)
E-mail Authorization: I authorize the USPTO to send e-mail correspondence concerning the application to the applicant or applicant's attorney
at the e-mail address provided above. I understand that a valid e-mail address must be maintained and that the applicant or the applicant's

attorney must file the relevant subsequent application-related submissions via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS). Failure to
do so will result in an additional processing fee of $50 per international class of goods/services.
A fee payment in the amount of $275 has been submitted with the application, representing payment for 1 class(es).
Declaration
The signatory believes that: if the applicant is filing the application under 15 U.S.C. 1051(a), the applicant is the owner of the
trademark/service mark sought to be registered; the applicant is using the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods/services in the
application; the specimen(s) shows the mark as used on or in connection with the goods/services in the application; and/or if the applicant filed
an application under 15 U.S.C. 1051(b), 1126(d), and/or 1126(e), the applicant is entitled to use the mark in commerce; the applicant has a
bona fide intention, and is entitled, to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods/services in the application. The signatory
believes that to the best of the signatory's knowledge and belief, no other persons, except, if applicable, concurrent users, have the right to use the
mark in commerce, either in the identical form or in such near resemblance as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods/services
of such other persons, to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive. The signatory being warned that willful false statements and the like are
punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. 1001, and that such willful false statements and the like may jeopardize the
validity of the application or any registration resulting therefrom, declares that all statements made of his/her own knowledge are true and all
statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.
Declaration Signature
Signature: /richard c. balough/ Date: 07/11/2016
Signatory's Name: Richard C. Balough
Signatory's Position: Attorney of record, Illinois bar member
RAM Sale Number: 87099007
RAM Accounting Date: 07/11/2016
Internet Transmission Date: Mon Jul 11 11:31:01 EDT 2016
TEAS Stamp: USPTO/BAS-XXX.XXX.XX.XX-2016071111310182
1292-87099007-550e3a4cf8e7e0ebfe30bff9e9
8b29f3a44a4f4fce75f5762072169464e6251e-C
C-9218-20160711095214085614

US UNCUT LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
RYAN CLAYTON,
and
Defendants.
PROPOSED ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

The Court, having considered the Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction,
Memorandum of Law in support thereof, the Declarations of Carl Gibson and Mark Provost and
the exhibits attached thereto, and based upon all the facts and circumstances, makes the
following preliminary findings and rulings:
1.
US Uncut LLC (US Uncut) has demonstrated that it likely will prevail on its
claim for trademark infringement based on Defendants unauthorized use of US Uncuts

Facebook page and use of the domain name www.usuncut.news, which likely has caused or will
cause confusion in the marketplace.
2.
US Uncut has demonstrated that it likely will prevail on its claim for cyberpiracy
based on Defendants use of the usuncut.news domain name.

3.
US Uncut has demonstrated that it likely will prevail on its claim for conversion
and trespass to chattels for the control Defendants have exercised over the US Uncut Facebook
page since August 3, 2016.
4.
US Uncut will suffer immediate and irreparable harm unless Defendants are
enjoined from continuing to use the usuncut.news domain name and the US Uncut Facebook
page.
5.
The harm to US Uncut if the injunction is not granted outweighs any harm the
injunction might cause Defendants.

6.
The public interest, including the public interest in protecting trademarks and
minimizing confusion in the marketplace about the source and origin of goods and services,
favors the issuance of the injunctive relief sought by US Uncut.
7.
Based upon the foregoing preliminary findings, the Court hereby orders that:
a)
Defendants, together with their agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and
any person(s) acting in active concert or participation with them, are hereby
enjoined from using or displaying in any way the mark US UNCUT or any marks
that are confusingly similar to US Uncuts protected service mark.
b)
enjoined from using the Internet domain name usuncut.news or any other
domain name that is confusingly similar to US Uncuts registered domain name,
usuncut.com.
c)
enjoined from using the US Uncut Facebook page or operating any other
Facebook page that is confusingly similar to the US Uncut Facebook page.
d)
any person(s) acting in active concert or participation with them, shall
immediately relinquish control of the US Uncut Facebook and shall restore to US
Uncut all administrator rights to the page.
SO ORDERED
Date: _____________
_____________________________________
United States District Judge/Magistrate Judge

US UNCUT Motion For Preliminary Injunction

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

US UNCUT Motion For Preliminary Injunction

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Case 1:16-cv-00368-PB Document 8 Filed 08/25/16 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case 1:16-cv-00368-PB Document 8 Filed 08/25/16 Page 2 of 4

Accordingly, US Uncut now moves for a preliminary injunction against

As explained in the accompanying memorandum of law, which is filed

simultaneously herewith and incorporated herein, a preliminary injunction is warranted in this

Case 1:16-cv-00368-PB Document 8 Filed 08/25/16 Page 3 of 4

In addition, defendants use of the US UNCUT mark is likely to cause consumer

relief requested and because no defendant has appeared in the action.

Schedule a prompt hearing on US Uncuts Motion for Preliminary Injunction;

Upon completion of the hearing, issue an Order prohibiting defendants, their

Case 1:16-cv-00368-PB Document 8 Filed 08/25/16 Page 4 of 4

Dated: August 25, 2016

/s/ Jonathan M. Shirley

/s/ Jonathan M. Shirley

Case 1:16-cv-00368-PB Document 8-1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 1 of 22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-368-PB

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF

Case 1:16-cv-00368-PB Document 8-1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 2 of 22

The Rise of the US Uncut Movement

Case 1:16-cv-00368-PB Document 8-1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 3 of 22

Gibson, Gifford and Ryan all maintained

administrator rights to the Facebook page. (Id.)

Case 1:16-cv-00368-PB Document 8-1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 4 of 22

Case 1:16-cv-00368-PB Document 8-1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 5 of 22

Case 1:16-cv-00368-PB Document 8-1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 6 of 22

Case 1:16-cv-00368-PB Document 8-1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 7 of 22

Case 1:16-cv-00368-PB Document 8-1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 8 of 22

Case 1:16-cv-00368-PB Document 8-1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 9 of 22

Case 1:16-cv-00368-PB Document 8-1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 10 of 22

Case 1:16-cv-00368-PB Document 8-1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 11 of 22

Case 1:16-cv-00368-PB Document 8-1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 12 of 22

The look and feel of

Case 1:16-cv-00368-PB Document 8-1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 13 of 22

Accordingly, there is a very significant likelihood that defendants use of the US

Case 1:16-cv-00368-PB Document 8-1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 14 of 22

iv. Evidence of Actual Confusion

Case 1:16-cv-00368-PB Document 8-1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 15 of 22

UNFAIR COMPETITION 11.67 (4th

Case 1:16-cv-00368-PB Document 8-1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 16 of 22

a. Defendants Domain Name Is Nearly Identical and

The enumerated factors include, among others, (i) the

Case 1:16-cv-00368-PB Document 8-1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 17 of 22

Case 1:16-cv-00368-PB Document 8-1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 18 of 22

The issuance of a preliminary injunction would not force

Case 1:16-cv-00368-PB Document 8-1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 19 of 22

D. ENFORCEMENT OF THE TRADEMARK LAWS WILL BENEFIT THE

Case 1:16-cv-00368-PB Document 8-1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 20 of 22

Case 1:16-cv-00368-PB Document 8-1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 21 of 22

Case 1:16-cv-00368-PB Document 8-1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 22 of 22

/s/ Jonathan M. Shirley

Nicholas K. Holmes, Esquire (NH Bar #1183)

/s/ Jonathan M. Shirley

Case 1:16-cv-00368-PB Document 8-2 Filed 08/25/16 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-368-PB

DECLARATION OF CARL GIBSON IN SUPPORT OF

I am a member of US Uncut LLC (US Uncut) and I have personal knowledge

Case 1:16-cv-00368-PB Document 8-2 Filed 08/25/16 Page 2 of 4

In August 2012, Mark Provost joined as an administrator on the US Uncut

Case 1:16-cv-00368-PB Document 8-2 Filed 08/25/16 Page 3 of 4