Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Defendants.
Plaintiffs, Ana Cheri and Julianne Klaren, by and through their attorneys, BURG
SIMPSON ELDREDGE HERSH & JARDINE, P.C., hereby submit their Complaint and Jury
Demand against Defendants Deja Vu – Colorado Springs, Inc. a/k/a Deja Vu, Inc. d/b/a Déjà Vu
Showgirls, Deja Vu Services, Inc., and Pine Tree Assets, Inc. f/k/a Deja Vu Consulting, Inc., and
INTRODUCTION
1. This is an action for damages and other relief under The Lanham Act arising from
the misappropriation and misuse of Plaintiffs’ images in order to promote the strip club located at
2. For the purposes of this Complaint, Defendants Deja Vu – Colorado Springs, Inc.
a/k/a Deja Vu, Inc. d/b/a Déjà Vu Showgirls, Deja Vu Services, Inc., and Pine Tree Assets, Inc.
3. Defendants use the Deja Vu website and online social media marketing platforms
to market and advertise Deja Vu as having “1000s of Beautiful Girls & 3 Ugly Ones!,” and a place
where “you will scream with joy, watching the incredible nude display of stage talent,” and where
its “showgirl squadron numbers nearly 40+ shapely bombardiers and are ready to blow you off the
4. As a means of illustrating those claims and in an effort to drive traffic and economic
and commercial benefits to Deja Vu, Defendants posted pictures of many women on their website
Defendants posted, and then continually maintained on their Twitter account, images of Plaintiffs.
false impression that Plaintiffs worked at, would appear at, endorsed, sponsored, or were affiliated
7. Plaintiffs are not employed by Defendants, do not strip or dance at Deja Vu, do not
endorse or sponsor Deja Vu or their promotional activities, and are not affiliated with Deja Vu in
any way.
8. Defendants did not have Plaintiffs’ permission to use their images or likenesses,
2
Case 1:18-cv-02446 Document 1 Filed 09/25/18 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 15
9. Defendants have not compensated Plaintiffs for the use of their images or
10. Defendants knew that their use of Plaintiffs’ images and likenesses was
unauthorized, and knew that their use of Plaintiffs’ images would cause consumer confusion as to
Plaintiffs’ sponsorship, approval of, affiliation with, and/or employment at Deja Vu.
identities, as described herein, violates Section 43 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125(a).
12. This action seeks all actual and compensatory damages as compensation for
Defendants’ unlawful activities, the Defendants’ profits that are attributable to their unlawful use
of Plaintiffs’ images, likenesses, and identities, treble damages, attorney’s fees and costs, and other
such relief as would be fair and just to remedy Defendants’ unlawful acts, and to ensure that no
PARTIES
13. Plaintiff Ana Cheri is an internationally known and recognizable talent, model,
actress, host, social media personality, brand ambassador, and business-woman residing in
Westminster, California.
15. Defendant Deja Vu – Colorado Springs, Inc. a/k/a Deja Vu, Inc. d/b/a Déjà Vu
Showgirls is a Colorado corporation, with a principal office address located at 1530 1st Ave S,
3
Case 1:18-cv-02446 Document 1 Filed 09/25/18 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 15
16. Upon information and belief, Defendants Deja Vu – Colorado Springs, Inc. a/k/a
Deja Vu, Inc. d/b/a Déjà Vu Showgirls owns and operates Déjà Vu Showgirls strip club.
18. Upon information and belief, Defendants Deja Vu Services, Inc. is an owner or
19. Pine Tree Assets, Inc. f/k/a Deja Vu Consulting, Inc. is a Michigan corporation with
a registered office address located at 8252 E. Lansing Road, Durand, Michigan 48429.
20. Upon information and belief, Defendants Pine Tree Assets, Inc. f/k/a Deja Vu
21. Jurisdiction in this case is based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because Plaintiffs’
22. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants by virtue of their presence
and operations in Colorado, by their transacting business in Colorado, and by virtue of their
improper acts and violations of The Lanham Act in this state, all of which have caused Plaintiffs’
damages, and through regular, continuous, and systematic contacts with Colorado such that this
Court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over Defendants is proper, reasonable, and comports
23. Venue is proper in this Court because this district is where a substantial part of the
events or omissions giving rise to the claims stated herein occurred, and Defendants are subject
4
Case 1:18-cv-02446 Document 1 Filed 09/25/18 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 15
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
24. The Defendants coordinate the advertising, marketing and promotional activities
for Deja Vu through, among other things, active and dynamic use of Deja Vu’s website and various
coordinated and linked social media promotions through Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter,
25. Defendants’ marketing and promotional activities are publicly accessible through
the World Wide Web, various social media outlets, and affirmative prospect marketing.
26. Defendants further promote Deja Vu’s business by and through the use of
marketing strategies and channels including, but not limited to, the following: the active use of
27. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants had actual and exclusive control
over the contents contained within and/or displayed on each of these marketing channels.
28. Upon information and belief, Defendants manage, operate and/or control a “Twitter
business, solicit customers, and advertise events for the Deja Vu strip club, and particularly
29. Defendants have at all times relevant to this Complaint exercised actual control
over the contents displayed on their Twitter account through their own personal acts of posting
items on the account, or by expressly permitting and condoning another person(s)’ act of posting
5
Case 1:18-cv-02446 Document 1 Filed 09/25/18 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 15
30. At the time Defendants posted the Plaintiffs’ images, the Deja Vu Twitter
page/account stated, “Hot girls! Hot club! Just tweeting about what we do and random things that
Plaintiffs Are Professional Models and Their Images Are Commercially Valuable
31. Plaintiff Ana Cheri, at all times relevant to the claims herein, is a professional
model, actress, social media personality, brand ambassador, and business-woman who earns her
living by, inter alia, modeling and selling her image to companies and individuals for the
32. Plaintiff Julianne Klaren, at all times relevant to the claims herein, is a professional
model and social media personality who earns her living by, inter alia, modeling and selling her
image to companies and individuals for the advertisement of products and services.
33. Plaintiffs’ careers in modeling and private enterprise have value stemming from the
34. Plaintiffs’ goodwill and reputations are critical to establishing a brand, being
35. A model’s reputation directly impacts the commercial value associated with the use
36. Plaintiffs’ images and likenesses have high commercial value and Plaintiffs
command substantial sums of money for the licensed commercial use of their images.
37. Plaintiffs are professional models in the ordinary course; they seeks to control the
commercial use and dissemination of their images and identities, and, thus, actively participate in
vetting and selecting modeling, advertising, brand spokesperson, and/or hosting engagements.
6
Case 1:18-cv-02446 Document 1 Filed 09/25/18 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 15
38. Plaintiffs rely on their professional reputations and own brands for modeling,
assessment, to wit:
reputations;
typically turns on the work Plaintiffs are hired to do, the time involved, travel,
and how their images are going to be used (among other variables);
written agreement that defines the parties’ relationship, the terms and
industry, can severely impact a model’s career by limiting or foreclosing future modeling or brand
endorsement opportunities.
7
Case 1:18-cv-02446 Document 1 Filed 09/25/18 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 15
enhance and amplify a model’s earning potential and career opportunities by making a model more
42. As set forth below, Plaintiffs’ images were misappropriated by or at the direction
of the Defendants to advertise and promote Deja Vu in their online marketing scheme without
Plaintiffs’ consent.
43. On September 25, 2015 and January 4, 2016, without her knowledge, consent, or
authorization, Defendants posted Plaintiff Ana Cheri’s image on Defendants’ Twitter site for the
purpose of advertising and promoting Defendants’ strip club and soliciting patronage of Deja Vu.
44. Attached as Exhibit 1 are copies of Defendants’ use of Plaintiff Ana Cheri’s image
and likeness on their Defendants’ Twitter site, which is hereby incorporated by reference.
Defendants posted Plaintiff Julianne Klaren’s image on Defendants’ Twitter site for the purpose
of advertising and promoting Defendants’ strip club and soliciting patronage of Deja Vu.
image and likeness on their Defendants’ Twitter site, which is hereby incorporated by reference.
47. After Defendants used Plaintiffs’ images on their Twitter site, Plaintiffs discovered
that Defendants were knowingly and without prior consent, using their images.
48. Defendants’ use of Plaintiffs’ images and likenesses on their Twitter site falsely
implies and creates the impression that Plaintiffs have worked for, would appear at, have endorsed,
8
Case 1:18-cv-02446 Document 1 Filed 09/25/18 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 15
49. Defendants’ use of Plaintiffs’ images was unauthorized and intended to attract
customers, promote Deja Vu, and generate revenue for the Defendants.
50. Plaintiffs are readily identifiable in the misappropriated images, and Defendants
could not reasonably believe that Plaintiffs were employees or agents of the Defendants or
51. Defendants have never contacted the Plaintiffs, either directly or indirectly, to
52. Defendants never hired or contracted with Plaintiffs to advertise, promote, market
53. Plaintiffs have never been employed by Defendants or contracted with Defendants
Defendants’ use of their images, likenesses, or identities to advertise, promote, market or endorse
Deja Vu.
56. Defendants neither offered nor paid any remuneration to Plaintiffs for the
57. Defendants’ use of Plaintiffs’ images created the false perception that Plaintiffs
worked for Deja Vu, would appear at Deja Vu, or had consented or agreed to promote, advertise,
market and/or endorse Deja Vu and their events to the benefit of Defendants’ commercial interests.
9
Case 1:18-cv-02446 Document 1 Filed 09/25/18 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 15
58. Defendants’ use of Plaintiffs’ images, likenesses, and/or identities impugns the
Plaintiffs’ character, embarrasses them, and falsely suggests their support for and participation in
59. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each and every allegation set forth in the
60. Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), applies to Defendants.
61. Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), protects Plaintiffs from the
62. Defendants used Plaintiffs’ images, likenesses and/or identities as described herein
without authority in order to, inter alia, create the false perception that the Plaintiffs worked at,
would appear at, or were otherwise affiliated with Deja Vu, endorsed Deja Vu or Deja Vu’s
business activities, and/or consented to or authorized Defendants’ usage of their images, likenesses
and/or identities in order to advertise, promote and market Deja Vu’s business activities.
63. Defendants’ use of the Plaintiffs’ images, likenesses and/or identities to advertise,
promote, and market Defendants’ business, events and activities as described in this Complaint
64. Defendants’ unauthorized use of the Plaintiffs’ images, likenesses and/or identities
as described herein constitutes false advertising and false endorsement by falsely suggesting or
implying, inter alia, that the Plaintiffs worked at or were otherwise affiliated with, associated with,
10
Case 1:18-cv-02446 Document 1 Filed 09/25/18 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 15
or connected to, Deja Vu, endorsed Deja Vu’s business, events or activities, or consented to or
authorized Deja Vu’s usage of their images in order to advertise, promote, and market Deja Vu’s
65. The manner of the Defendants’ unauthorized use of the Plaintiffs’ images,
likenesses and/or identities has a tendency to convey a false impression, confuse, mislead, and/or
deceive consumers, including actual and prospective patrons to Deja Vu, as to the general quality
of attendees and participants at Deja Vu and in their events, as well as specifically whether the
Plaintiffs worked at or were otherwise affiliated or associated with Deja Vu, and whether the
Plaintiffs endorsed, sponsored, or approved of Defendants’ business, Deja Vu, or Deja Vu’s events
or activities, or whether Plaintiffs would appear in person at Deja Vu’s events and activities.
66. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ false and deceptive use of Plaintiffs’
images did, in fact, deceive, and/or cause actual consumer confusion as to:
a. whether the Plaintiffs worked at, would appear at, or were otherwise affiliated
67. Upon information and belief, such unauthorized use of Plaintiffs’ images,
likenesses, and/or identities misled and deceived consumers, and served to entice consumers and
prospective consumers to visit Deja Vu and participate in and attend events at Deja Vu and had a
11
Case 1:18-cv-02446 Document 1 Filed 09/25/18 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 15
material effect and impact on the decision of patrons and prospective patrons to visit Defendants’
business establishment.
69. Defendants promote their business and events through interstate promotions and
campaigns to target persons from several different states across the United States.
70. Defendants principally uses the internet, World Wide Web, social media, and other
vehicles of interstate commerce to advertise, market, promote, and entice or lure traffic and
identities as described herein was designed and intended to benefit Defendants’ commercial and
business interests by, among other things, capitalizing on Plaintiffs’ goodwill by promoting Deja
Vu and their activities and attracting clientele to Deja Vu, thereby generating revenue for the
72. Plaintiffs are in the business of commercializing their identities and selling their
73. Defendants’ customers are the same demographic that view Plaintiffs’ images in
74. Both Plaintiffs and the Defendants compete in the entertainment industry and utilize
similar marketing channels, their respective endeavors overlap, and they vie for the same dollars
12
Case 1:18-cv-02446 Document 1 Filed 09/25/18 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 15
75. As such, an unauthorized use of Plaintiffs’ images to promote a strip club created
Plaintiffs.
76. Defendants knew or should have known that their unauthorized use of the
Plaintiffs’ images, likenesses, and/or identities would cause consumer confusion as described
herein.
identities, as described herein, violates 15 U.S.C. §1125(a), constitutes false advertising and false
conduct, acted with intent to capitalize on Plaintiffs’ goodwill and deprive the Plaintiffs of their
interests and rights, and further acted with actual or constructive knowledge of the high probability
80. The method and manner in which Defendants used the images of Plaintiffs further
evinces that Defendants were aware of and/or consciously disregarded the fact that the Plaintiffs
did not consent to Defendants’ use of their images to advertise Defendants’ business.
81. Defendants have caused and will continue to cause irreparable harm and damage
to the Plaintiffs, their reputations, and their brands, by attributing to the Plaintiffs their involvement
with or endorsement of the Deja Vu strip club and Plaintiffs’ association with events and activities
relating thereto.
13
Case 1:18-cv-02446 Document 1 Filed 09/25/18 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 15
82. Defendants have damaged Plaintiffs as a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result
of their unauthorized use of Plaintiffs’ images, likenesses, and/or identities without compensating
Plaintiffs, thereby entitling Plaintiffs to recover in money damages the actual and fair market value
of each misappropriated use of their images and likenesses in an amount to be established by proof
at trial.
83. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct as alleged herein,
Defendants have earned and withheld profits attributable directly or indirectly to the unlawful use
84. Defendants’ conduct was purposeful and malicious in that Defendants knowingly
violated Plaintiffs’ rights solely to benefit their business, increase profits, and avoid paying money
to legally acquire the right to commercial use of the Plaintiffs’ images and likenesses.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants Deja Vu – Colorado
Springs, Inc. a/k/a Deja Vu, Inc. d/b/a Déjà Vu Showgirls, Deja Vu Services, Inc., and Pine Tree
Assets, Inc. f/k/a Deja Vu Consulting, Inc., and each of them, for relief in amounts to be determined
at trial, as follows:
2. All damages allowed by 15 U.S.C. §§ 1125, 1116, and 1117, including all actual and
14
Case 1:18-cv-02446 Document 1 Filed 09/25/18 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 15
Plaintiffs’ images and likenesses, and well as treble damages and reasonable attorney’s
fees;
5. For such further and other relief as the Court deems just.
s/ Steven G. Greenlee
Steven G. Greenlee, Reg. No. 24577
Shane Fulton, Reg. No. 52212
40 Inverness Drive East
Englewood, CO 80112
Phone: 303-792-5595
sgreenlee@burgsimpson.com
sfulton@burgsimpson.com
15