UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS _______________________________________ LAIPAC TECHNOLOGY, INC., Plaintiff, v.

GLOBAL SECURITY TRACKING, INC. Defendant. _______________________________________) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civil Action No. _________

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND The plaintiff, Laipac Technology, Inc. (Laipac), files this Complaint and Jury Demand against the defendant, Global Security Tracking, Inc. (Defendant). PARTIES 1. The plaintiff, Laipac Technology, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing

under the laws of Delaware and having an address at 50 West Beaver Creek Rd., Richmond Hill, Ontario, Canada L4B 1G5. 2. Upon information and belief, the defendant, Global Security Tracking, Inc., is a

Massachusetts Corporation with a place of business at 210 Park Ave, Suite 177, Worcester, Massachusetts 01602. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the trademark laws of the United

States, 15 U.S.C. 1121 and under the judicial code of the United States, 28 U.S.C. 1338(a) and 1338(b). This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367.

4.

This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332, in that

the action involves a dispute between citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant pursuant to M.G.L. 223A

3(d) because, upon information and belief, Defendant regularly does or solicits business, or engages in other persistent courses of conduct, within this Commonwealth and because Defendant has caused tortious injury in this Commonwealth by an act or omission outside this Commonwealth. 6. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and 1400(a)

because (a) the acts of infringement and other wrongful conduct alleged occurred in the District of Massachusetts and (b) Defendant may be found in the District of Massachusetts. FACTS AND ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS LAIPAC, ITS BUSINESS AND ITS LAIPAC TECH MARK AND NAME 7. Laipac is in the business of developing and offering a wide range of location and

tracking technologies, including technologies that enable customers to effectively manage their vehicles, workers and other mobile assets from anywhere in the world; services and devices relating to personal tracking; services and devices relating to asset tracking, including vehicle and trailer tracking; and the offering of tracking-related goods, including GPS-enabled bracelets and vehicle tracking modules, and other wireless products. 8. 9. Laipac operates under the common-law mark and trade name LAIPAC TECH. On October 27, 2008, Laipac applied to the United States Patent & Trademark

Office (USPTO) to protect its LAIPAC TECH mark and trade name. That application continues to be prosecuted at the USPTO. See Exhibit A. 10. Laipac has continuously used the trade name LAIPAC TECH in interstate 2

commerce in connection with the location and tracking industry since at least as early as July 5, 1999. 11. Laipac has continuously used the mark LAIPAC TECH in interstate commerce

since at least as early as July 5, 1999. 12. The designation LAIPAC TECH is arbitrary and unique as used for Laipacs

products and services. 13. Laipacs LAIPAC TECH products and services have been promoted and

accessible to individuals and business communities over the World Wide Web at www.laipac.com (the Website) since at least as early as 2000. THE GOODWILL AND FAME OF LAIPACS LAIPAC TECH MARK AND NAME 14. During its more than 12 years in operation, Laipac has established a unique

identitythe design, look and feel, layout, and organization all contribute to a recognizable and distinct branded community (the Brand Identity). 15. Laipac has prominently and extensively promoted its LAIPAC TECH products

and services for over a decade throughout the United States. As a result, Laipac has developed substantial and valuable goodwill in connection with the LAIPAC TECH mark and name. 16. Laipac has widely promoted its LAIPAC TECH mark and name through such varied

media as newspaper and magazine advertising, brochures, newsletters and the Internet. 17. Laipac has widely advertised and promoted its LAIPAC TECH mark and name

through appearances and exhibitions at numerous nationally attended trade shows held throughout the United States. 18. Laipac has expended nearly three-quarters of a million dollars in national

advertising, promotional, and commercialization efforts carrying the LAIPAC TECH mark and name and in promoting its various tracking-related products and services. 3

19.

As a result of its efforts, and the quality of its services, Laipac has established the

LAIPAC TECH mark and name as a well-known and distinctive designation, particularly among users of tracking-related products and services. THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN LAIPAC AND DEFENDANT 20. On February 5, 2010, Defendant entered into a mutual release agreement with

Laipac (Agreement). A foundational element of the Agreement was Defendants representation that it would cease using any Laipac name, address, website content, and any information concerning its products, including without limitation, the S911 Bracelet. 21. Despite Defendants representation in the Agreement, Laipac has learned that

Defendant continues its blatant use of Laipacs name, content and business address, without Laipacs permission and in direct breach of the Agreement. 22. On August 16, 2011, counsel for Laipac wrote to Defendant, informing it that it was

in breach of the Agreement and demanding that it cure its breach. See Exhibit C. No response was received from Defendant. 23. On September 1, 2011, counsel for Laipac again wrote to Defendant, reminding it

that it was in breach of the Agreement and demanding that it cure its breach. See Exhibit D. Again, no response was received from Defendant. 24. On September 29, 2011, Scott Robidoux for Defendant called counsel for Laipac.

Mr. Robidoux represented that he would remove all Laipac content and references from Defendants website no later than October 13, 2011. Later that day, Laipac, through its counsel, wrote an email to Mr. Robidoux explaining that Laipac required the removal of all Laipac content and references from Defendants website by October 5, 2011. See Exhibit E. As of the filing of this Complaint, Laipacs content and references had not been removed from Defendants website.

DEFENDANTS WRONGFUL ACTIVITIES 25. Like Laipac, Defendant offers a variety of tracking products and services.

Defendants products and services include, but are not limited to, tracking services directed to covert tracking, fleet tracking and personal assets tracking. Upon information and belief, Defendants services under the LAIPAC TECH mark and name are promoted in a multitude of locations on Defendants website. See Exhibit F. 26. Specifically, as shown on Defendants website at

http://www.globalsecuritytracking.com/contact.php, Defendant states: Toronto Head Office Global Security Tracking, Inc Laipac Technology, Inc 50 West Beaver Creek Road, Richmond Hill, Ontario. L4B 1G5 - Canada Tel: 905-762-1228 | Fax: 905-763-1737 Europe Branch Office Global Security Tracking, Inc Laipac Technology, Inc Pla de Salt N14 (17190) Girona - Spain Tel:+34 972 249 722 Fax:+34 972 249 723 See id.; emphasis added. 27. Most egregiously, and as shown on the front page of Defendants website at

http://www.globalsecuritytracking.com, Defendant has embedded links to two self-proclaimed Promotional Videos for the S-911 product. See Exhibit G. Both videos were created for Laipac and are prominently displayed upon Laipacs website. 28. Each of those links merely launch a browser window that displays the videos directly

from Laipacs website. See Exhibit H (demonstrating the source of the video as http://www.laipac.com/s911_video1.htm or http://www.laipac.com/s911_video5.htm; the Videos).

Indeed, in the video titled S-911 Promotional Video #1, the LAIPAC TECH mark is displayed no less than three times. See id. 29. Laipacs website provides notice of its ownership and rights in all materials found

on its website, http://laipac.com (the Website), by prominently displaying the copyright notice, 1999 - 2011 Laipac Technology Inc. All Rights Reserved at the bottom of its webpage(s). See Exhibit I. 30. Upon information and belief, Defendants services under the LAIPAC TECH mark

and name are promoted in Defendants promotional brochures and user manuals. See Exhibits J-K. 31. Specifically, as shown in the brochure titled GST Brochure at

http://www.globalsecuritytracking.com/docs/GST_Brochure.pdf, Defendant states: Global Security Tracking, Inc., in partnership with Laipac Technology, Inc., is a world-wide leading provider of solutions for Telematics, Telemetry, GPS and vehicle & personal location products. Laipac has close industrial partners in the development of new products with Intel, Freescale, Microchip, Wavecom, Maxim and Siemens. See Exhibit J at Page 2; emphasis added. 32. In another instance, and as shown in the user manual at

http://www.globalsecuritytracking.com/docs/BRACELET_QUICK_START.pdf, Defendant displays the LAIPAC TECH mark in each of pages 9 through 17 of the brochure. See Exhibit K at pp. 9-17. 33. Nonetheless, and well after Laipac notified Defendant of its rights, Defendant

continues to offer its products services under the LAIPAC TECH name and mark. 34. The hypertext mark-up language (html) connected to Defendants website

repeatedly uses Laipacs LAIPAC TECH name and mark, which results in the citation to Defendants website in Internet search engine queries for LAIPAC TECH. 35. Upon information and belief, Defendants misuse and misappropriation of the

LAIPAC TECH name and mark has caused actual confusion among Laipacs customers. 36. Upon information and belief, in a complaint filed in the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Illinois two months ago, a plaintiff mistakenly named Laipac and Defendant in the same lawsuit due to confusion as to their affiliation. See Exhibit L. 37. Upon information and belief, Defendant has misappropriated Laipacs name and

mark willfully, at the expense of the goodwill associated with Laipacs name and mark. 38. Upon information and belief, Defendant had actual knowledge of Laipacs LAIPAC

TECH name and mark prior to all of the acts complained of herein. 39. Upon information and belief, Defendants adoption and continuing use of the

LAIPAC TECH name and mark was done with full knowledge and reckless disregard of Laipacs rights to the LAIPAC TECH name and mark and with the full intent of damaging Laipac. 40. In addition to Defendants wrongful acts described herein above, on or about

February 1, 2010, Defendant published, with the intent of causing harm, numerous false, misleading and defamatory statements regarding Laipacs business and practices on the website, ComplaintNow.com. See Exhibit M. 41. As a first illustrative example, Defendant stated, NO FCC OR CE APPROVAL

FOR THE S-911 BRACELET LOCATOR. Laipac states through advertised, brochures, e-mails, online web sites. That [sic] Laipac have approved FCC &CE. We learned that the S-911 Bracelet FCC approved [sic] by the Canada Government. NO FCC to this date 01-28-2010. See id. 42. Upon information and belief, Defendant made no effort to ascertain the truth of the

offending statement, as Laipac held a Grant of Equipment Authorization granted under authority of the Federal Communications Commission on July 4, 2006 for the S-911 product. See Exhibit

N. 43. Defendant also stated, Laipac also stated verbally that the manufacturing location

was now 30 minutes from there [sic] Richmond Hill, ON Canada office. Through investigation the product is being made in China. We also confirm that the S-911 Bracelet is not being made or manufactured in the country of Canada period. See Exhibit M. 44. Defendants statement is blatantly, and objectively, false, as all of Laipacs products

are manufactured in Canada. Indeed, Laipac issues Certificates of Origin -- embodying the Made in Canada mark -- that accompany each of its shipments. 45. In yet another exemplary instance, Defendant stated, 12. On file with the BBB there

are 122 complaints against Laipac Tech. See Exhibit M. 46. Defendant apparently, and negligently, made no effort to ascertain the truth of the

offending statement given that a simple review of publicly available documents reveals their falsity. Specifically, the Better Business Bureaus (BBB) website reveals that only 1 complaint has been filed against Laipac, and that it was indeed resolved. See Exhibits O & P. 47. Upon information and belief, Defendant is responsible for filing the complaint

against Laipac before the BBB. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Breach of Contract) 48. Laipac restates and re-alleges all of the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1

through 47 as if fully set forth herein. 49. The terms of the Agreement between Laipac and Defendant are valid and

enforceable contracts that are clear and definite in all of their material terms. 50. Laipac has performed its obligations under the Agreement.

51. with Laipac. 52.

By at least the conduct described above, Defendant has breached the Agreement

Laipac has been damaged as a result of Defendants breaches. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing)

53.

Laipac restates and re-alleges all of the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1

through 52 as if fully set forth herein. 54. Laipac and Defendant entered into the terms of the Agreement setting forth the

Parties rights and obligations. 55. Every contract entered into in Massachusetts contains an implied covenant of

good faith and fair dealing. 56. Defendant has breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by

violating expressed terms of the Agreement as described above without excuse and in bad faith. 57. Laipac has been damaged as a result of Defendants breaches. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Dilution of Trademarks Under M.G.L. 110B 16) 58. Laipac restates and re-alleges all of the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1

through 57 as if fully set forth herein. 59. Laipacs LAIPAC TECH mark and name is a famous mark that has an inherently

distinctive character and has further acquired a strong recognition in the tracking industry marketplace and with other selected commercial, professional and business marketplaces as a result of its extensive use, advertising, and publicity. 60. Defendants unauthorized commercial use of a term identical to Laipacs

LAIPAC TECH name and mark tends to, and does, dilute, tarnish and blur the distinctive

quality of Laipacs mark, and is diminishing and will destroy the public association of said mark with Laipac in violation of M.G.L. 110B 12. 61. By reason of the acts of Defendant alleged herein, Laipac is suffering and will

continue to suffer irreparable damage and, unless Defendant are enjoined from continuing their wrongful acts, the damage to Laipac will increase. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Common Law Trademark and Trade Name Infringement) 62. Laipac restates and re-alleges all of the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1

through 61 as if fully set forth herein. 63. The acts of Defendant complained of herein constitute trademark and trade name

infringement under the common law of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 64. Upon information and belief, Defendant has acted willfully and with the intention

and the likely result of confusing, misleading, and deceiving consumers, and has intentionally and willfully misappropriated the goodwill belonging to Laipac in its LAIPAC TECH name and mark. 65. The acts of Defendant complained of herein, including, inter alia, their

unauthorized uses of terms confusingly similar to Laipacs LAIPAC TECH name and mark, constitute willful infringement of Laipacs mark and trade name, in violation of Massachusetts common law. 66. By reason of Defendants conduct alleged herein, Laipac is suffering and will

continue to suffer irreparable damage and, unless Defendant are enjoined from continuing these wrongful acts, the damage to Laipac will increase.

10

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Unfair Competition in Violation of 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)) 67. Laipac restates and re-alleges all of the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1

through 66 as if fully set forth herein. 68. For more than twelve years, Laipac has done business under the following service

mark (the Mark):

69.

Because Laipac advertises, promotes, and offers its services under the Mark, the

Mark is the means by which Laipacs services are distinguished from the services of others in the same field or related fields. 70. Because of Laipacs long, continuous, and exclusive use of the Mark, it has come

to mean, and is understood by customers and the public to signify, Laipac. 71. 72. services. 73. Defendant has used and continue to use the Mark willfully, with the purpose of Laipac has acquired valid and protectable rights in the Mark. Defendant has wrongfully used the Mark in their marketing of its products and

misleading, deceiving, or confusing customers and the public, to falsely suggest that Laipac is involved with Defendants products and services, and to trade upon Laipacs goodwill and business reputation. 74. This conduct constitutes unfair competition, in violation of Section 43(a) of the

Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).

11

75. 76.

Defendants wrongful conduct is likely to continue unless restrained and enjoined. As a result of the Defendants wrongful conduct, Laipac has suffered and will

continue to suffer damages. Laipac is entitled to injunctive relief and to an order compelling the impounding and/or destruction of all copies of Defendants products, services and promotional materials bearing its Mark. Laipac has no adequate remedy at law for the Defendants wrongful conduct because, among other things, (a) Laipacs Mark, name, and designs are unique and valuable property which have no readily-determinable market value, and (b) Defendants wrongful conduct, and the resulting damage to Laipac, is continuing. SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Misappropriation, False Designation of Origin, False Description, False Designation of Affiliation, and Unfair Competition) 77. Laipac restates and re-alleges all of the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1

through 76 as if fully set forth herein. 78. Because Laipac advertises, promotes, and offers its services under the Mark, the

Mark is the means by which Laipacs services are distinguished from the services of others in the same field or related fields. 79. Because of Laipacs long, continuous, and exclusive use of the Mark, it has come

to mean, and is understood by customers and the public to signify, Laipac. 80. services. 81. Defendant has used and continue to use the Mark willfully, with the purpose of Defendant has wrongfully used the Mark in their marketing of its products and

misleading, deceiving, or confusing customers and the public, to falsely suggest that Laipac is involved with Defendants products and services, and to trade upon Laipacs goodwill and business reputation.

12

82.

Upon information and belief, Defendant has acted with the intention of causing

confusion, mistake or deception, and of misappropriating the goodwill associated with Laipacs LAIPAC TECH mark and name to profit thereby to the detriment of Laipac. 83. Defendants conduct constitutes (a) false designation of origin, (b) false

description, and (c) false representation that its products and services originates from, was constructed by, and/or was authorized by Laipac, all in violation of 43(a) of the Lanham Trademark Act, set forth at 15 U.S.C. 1125(a). 84. By reason of Defendant unfair competition and/or inducement of others to

compete unfairly, and/or continued unauthorized use of Laipacs trade name and marks in a manner which they know aids others to compete unfairly with Laipac, Laipac is suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable damage and, unless Defendant is enjoined from continuing these wrongful acts, the damage to Laipac will increase. 85. enjoined. 86. As a result of the Defendants wrongful conduct, Laipac has suffered and will The Defendants wrongful conduct is likely to continue unless restrained and

continue to suffer damages. Laipac is entitled to injunctive relief and to an order compelling the impounding and/or destruction of all copies of Defendants products, services and promotional materials bearing its Mark. Laipac has no adequate remedy at law for Defendants wrongful conduct because, among other things, (a) Laipacs Mark, name, and designs are unique and valuable property which have no readily-determinable market value, and (b) Defendants wrongful conduct, and the resulting damage to Laipac, is continuing.

13

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violations of Chapter 93A) 87. Laipac restates and re-alleges all of the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1

through 86 as if fully set forth herein. 88. 89. 90. Laipac is engaged in the conduct of trade and commerce. Defendant is engaged in the conduct of trade and commerce. Defendant has engaged in unfair, deceptive, and unlawful acts and unfair methods

of competition in violation of M.G.L. c. 93A, 2 and 11 by, among other things, fraudulently representing their intention to cease using any Laipac name, website content, address, and any information in any of its products, infringing Laipacs common-law trademark, and falsely designating the origin of its products and services and suggesting that Laipac is involved in their construction. Defendant has also deliberately interfered with Laipacs relationships with its vendors and subcontractors and maliciously damaged Laipacs reputation in the trade and community. 91. Laipac has suffered losses of money and property as a result of Defendants

wrongful conduct. 92. Defendant has willfully and knowingly engaged in these unfair methods of

competition and these unfair, deceptive and unlawful acts and practices. 93. Laipac is entitled to immediate equitable relief, including an order directing

Defendant to cease using and to return any products or services bearing Laipacs name and mark, as well as an award of actual damages, multiple damages and attorneys fees. EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Copyright Infringement) 94. Laipac restates and re-alleges all of the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1

through 93 as if fully set forth herein. 14

95.

Laipac owns all right, title, and interest in and to the materials displayed on its

Website, including without limitation, the Videos titled s911_video1.htm and s911_video5.htm. 96. Defendant has infringed the copyrights in Laipacs Videos by, among other

things, providing copies of and derivative works from the Videos on Defendants website. 97. Defendant has continued to infringe the copyrights in the Videos after being

notified in writing that they were not authorized to do so. 98. Laipac owns all right, title, and interest in and to the materials displayed on its

Website, including without limitation, the S911 graphic depicting an S911 bracelet and a satellite above Earth (S911 Graphic). 99. Defendant has infringed the copyrights in Laipacs S911 Graphic by, among other

things, providing copies of and derivative works from the S911 Graphic on Defendants website. 100. Defendant has continued to infringe the copyrights in the S911 Graphic after

being notified in writing that they were not authorized to do so. 101. Upon information and belief, Defendant has also infringed other content from

Laipacs website. 102. As a result of their wrongful conduct, Defendant is liable to Laipac for copyright

infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 501. 103. Laipac has suffered, and will continue to suffer, substantial losses and is entitled

to recover damages, which include its actual losses and any and all profits Defendant has made as a result of its wrongful conduct, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 504. Alternatively, Laipac is entitled to statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. 504(c).

15

104.

In addition, Defendants infringing conduct has been willful within the meaning

of the Copyright Act. Consequently, the award of statutory damages should be enhanced in accordance with 17 U.S.C. 504(c)(2). 105. Laipac is also entitled to immediate injunctive relief pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 502

and to an order impounding any and all infringing materials pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 503. Laipac has no adequate remedy at law for Defendants wrongful conduct because, among other things, (a) Laipacs copyright in the Videos is unique and valuable property which has no readilydeterminable market value, and (b) Defendants wrongful conduct, and the resulting damage to Laipac, is continuing. 106. Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 505, Laipac is also entitled to recover its attorneys fees

and costs of suit. NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Accounting) 107. Laipac restates and re-alleges all of the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1

through 106 as if fully set forth herein. 108. Laipac is entitled, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117, to recover any and all profits of

Defendant that are attributable to their acts of infringement. 109. Laipac is entitled, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117, to actual damages or statutory

damages sustained by virtue of Defendants acts of infringement. 110. The amount of money due from Defendant to Laipac is unknown to Laipac and

cannot be fully ascertained without a detailed accounting by Defendant of the precise number of products and services sold bearing the LAIPAC TECH name and mark.

16

TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (For Imposition of a Constructive Trust Upon Illegal Profits) 111. Laipac restates and re-alleges all of the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1

through 110 as if fully set forth herein. 112. Defendants conduct constitutes deceptive, fraudulent, and wrongful conduct in

the nature of passing off their products and services as originating from Laipac. 113. By virtue of Defendants wrongful conduct, Defendants has illegally received

money and profits that rightfully belong to Laipac. 114. Upon information and belief, Defendants holds the illegally received money and

profits in the form of bank accounts, real property, or personal property that can be located and traced. 115. Laipac is entitled to have Defendant hold the money and profits that it illegally

received as constructive trustee for the benefit of Laipac. ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Business Defamation) 116. Laipac restates and re-alleges all of the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1

through 115 as if fully set forth herein. 117. By the conduct described above, Defendant has communicated false and

defamatory statements to third parties of and concerning Laipac and its business. 118. Defendant has published and communicated the defamatory statements with

actual malice. It had knowledge of the falsity of its statements or, at a minimum, showed reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity. 119. Defendant intended or should have reasonably recognized that its statements

would result in harm to Laipacs pecuniary interests.

17

120.

As a result of Defendants false and defamatory statements, Laipac has suffered

actual damages, lost profits, and irreparable harm to its business and personal reputations, and others have been deterred from dealing with it. TWELFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Defamation) 121. Laipac restates and re-alleges all of the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1

through 120 as if fully set forth herein. 122. By the conduct described above, Defendant has, without any privilege to do so,

published and communicated to third parties false and defamatory material of and concerning Laipac that ridicules it, treats it with contempt, and discredits it in the minds of a considerable and respectable segment in the community. 123. Defendant has published and communicated its defamatory statements with actual

malice. It had knowledge of the falsity of its statements or, at a minimum showed reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity. 124. As a result of Defendants defamatory statements, Laipac has suffered irreparable

harm to its personal and business reputations and significant monetary damages in an amount to be proven at trial. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Laipac prays for judgment against Defendant as follows: A. That Defendant, its officers, agents, servants, employees, licensees, attorneys,

subsidiaries, related companies and all persons acting for, with, by, and through or under it, be preliminarily and permanently enjoined from: 1. advertising, promoting, distributing, offering for sale, or selling any

products or services using in any manner the term LAIPAC TECH, including but not limited to

18

as a mark, name, trade name, domain name or as part of a domain name, or as a keyword or html code, or any confusingly similar term or any term that is likely to dilute and/or is likely to cause confusion with Laipacs marks; 2. misrepresenting or suggesting sponsorship or affiliation of its or any third

party products by the use of Laipacs marks, or any variation thereof; 3. doing any other act calculated to dilute the Laipacs mark, to cause

confusion or mistake in the mind of the public, or to deceive consumers into mistakenly believing that Defendant or their respective businesses, agents, customers, or clients are authorized, sponsored by, or in any way affiliated with, connected or associated with Laipac or Laipacs businesses or services; B. That Defendant and their related companies, parents, agents, employees,

representatives, and all others acting under its direction or control or in concert with them, or any of them, be ordered to deliver up for destruction all advertising materials, promotional materials, flyers, signs, tickets, trains, and any and all other materials which bear the word LAIPAC TECH, or any variation thereof; C. That Defendant file with the Court and serve upon Laipac no later than thirty (30)

days after entry of Judgment an affidavit setting forth in detail the manner and form in which Defendant has complied with the requirements of the Injunction and Order; D. That Defendant pay to Laipac (a) all gains, profits or advantages derived by

Defendant from the violations of Laipacs rights, (b) such damages as Laipac has sustained in consequence of such violations, (c) statutory damages for willful infringement or such other amounts as may be just and proper, and (d) treble damages for such willful infringement; E. That Defendant pay to Laipac such punitive damages as may be permitted by law;

19

F. G.

That the Court award Laipac its attorneys fees and costs incurred in this action; and That the Court award to Laipac such other and further relief as the Court deems

just and proper. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Laipac requests a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Dated: October 18, 2011

Respectfully submitted, HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP By:_/s/ J. Mitchell Herbert, Jr.__ J. Mitchell Herbert, Jr. (BBO # 671957) 10 St. James Ave., 11th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02116 Tel: (617) 573-5862 Fax: (617) 523-6850 mitchell.herbert@hklaw.com R. David Donoghue (pro hac vice forthcoming) HOLLAND & KNIGHT 131 S. Dearborn St., 30th Floor Chicago, Illinois 60603 Tel: (312) 578-6553 Fax: (312) 578-6666 david.donoghue@hklaw.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT LAIPAC TECHNOLOGY, INC.

#10628857_v8

20