UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

-----------------------------------------------------

LOS ANGELES DODGERS LLC,

Plaintiff,

-vs-

STERLING METS L.P. f/k/a

STERLING DOUBLEDAY ENTERPRISES L.P.;
THE CITY OF NEW YORK;
CITIGROUP LLC;
HOK GROUP, INC.;
and “JOHN DOE,” “JANE DOE,” “DOE CORPORATION”
and “CHICO ESCUELA,” the last 4 names being fictitious
and unknown to the Plaintiff, the person or parties intended
being the persons or parties, if any, having or claiming an
interest in the premises described in the complaint,

Defendants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------X

The Plaintiff, by its attorneys, HUNGADUNGA, HUNGADUNGA,

HUNGADUNGA AND MCCORMACK LLP, complaining of the Defendants, respectfully alleges
that:

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This is a complaint for Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, and False Description
arising under §§ 32 and 43 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114(1) (Trademark Infringement) and
1125(a) (Unfair Competition and False Description), for Unfair Business Practice arising under
California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq., and for injury to business reputation.

2. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1338(a) and 15 U.S.C. § 1121. This Court has related claim jurisdiction over the state law claim
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1338(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant STERLING METS LP because such
defendant regularly transacts business within this District at 1000 Elysian Park Avenue in the City
and County of Los Angeles, State of California.

4. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) and (c) because a substantial part of the
events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this district, a substantial part of the
property that is the subject of the action is situated in this district, and the plaintiff maintains its
principal place of business in this district.
 II. PARTIES

5. Plaintiff is a California limited liability company. Defendant STERLING METS LP is a

Delaware limited partnership. Defendant CITY OF NEW YORK is a municipality within the State
of New York. Defendant HOK GROUP, INC. is a Missouri corporation. All other defendants are
fictitious pending their identification as “fans” during the course of these proceedings.

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

6. Plaintiff is the successor in interest to an entity formerly existing within the State of New York
known as BROOKLYN DODGERS, INC., which among other things operated a facility within the
County of Kings, State of New York commonly known as “Ebbets Field.”

7. Said facility was uniquely identifiable with plaintiff’s business operations in its architecture,
design, atmosphere and incorporation by reference of plaintiff’s long-tenured membership in the
National League of Professional Base Ball Clubs.

8. The Plaintiff is the owner and holder of all patents, trademarks, copyrights and other intellectual
property formerly owned by BROOKLYN DODGERS, INC., including, without limitation, the
logos, uniform labels and colors, retired numbers of former players and in and to the design,
architecture and trade dress of the facility operated within the County of Kings, State of New York
commonly known as “Ebbets Field.”

9. The Defendant STERLING METS LP is the successor in interest to an entity formerly existing
within the State of New York known as METROPOLITAN BASEBALL CLUB, INC., which was
granted its own membership in the National League of Professional Base Ball Clubs in 1961 for the
commencement of activity during the 1962 baseball season.

10. At various times, such defendant used various items of plaintiff’s intellectual property with
plaintiff’s knowledge and consent, including the color blue incorporated into its trade dress, and
certain numbers associated with plaintiff including, without limitation, 14, 37 and 42. Plaintiff
acknowledged and permitted such limited usages, primarily, because such defendant, together with
defendant CITY OF NEW YORK, established and operated a facility within the County of Queens,
State of New York known as “William A. Shea Municipal Stadium” which presented a unique and
distinguishable identity separate from that of the plaintiffs, with a resulting minimal amount of
confusion or trademark dilution over the ensuing forty-four years.

11. In the year 2008, defendants STERLING METS LP, CITY OF NEW YORK and HOK
GROUP, INC. commenced external construction of a new facility neighboring such stadium,
constructed with the intention of replacing such stadium by the commencement of the 2009
championship season within the National League of Professional Base Ball Clubs, such replacement
now being evidenced by the complete and utter destruction of such stadium during the winter of
2008-09.

12. While the defendants’ prior facility had created minimal confusion with plaintiff’s intellectual
property, the newly opened facility can be described in no other terms than as a complete and total
infringement upon plaintiff’s rights in such property. Such infringements include, but are not limited
to, (a) the continued presence of plaintiff retired numbers 14 and 37 on conspicuous display in the
defendant outfield; (b) the continued and aggravated usage of plaintiff’s distinct blue coloring on
uniforms and logos, such usage no longer distinguished except on rare special occasions by the use
of “pinstripes” that had produced a distinguishable identity; (c) use of a variety of components of
plaintiff’s history within the City of New York in the identification of sections of defendants’ new
facility such as the “Ebbets Club” and the “Jackie Robinson Rotunda;” and (d) the blatant use of the
trade dress of the Ebbets Field facility throughout, and indeed as the defining feature of, the new
facility, leading numerous fans and casual observers to wonder whether they are at a sports facility
operated by a team known as “Mets” or, rather, plaintiff’s former incarnation known as the
“Brooklyn Dodgers.”

13. Upon information and belief, the defendants knowingly, consciously and intentionally
incorporated these names and features into their new facility for the purpose of diluting plaintiff’s
continuing financial interests in its fan base, both nationwide and particularly in the greater New
York metropolitan area where it still maintains a significant number of followers.

IV. FIRST CLAIM: TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT UNDER LANHAM ACT § 3231

14. Plaintiff repeats and hereby incorporates herein by reference, as though specifically pleaded
herein, the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 13.

15. Defendants’ use of plaintiff’s trade names, trade dress and other intellectual property comprises
an infringement of its registered trademarks is likely to cause confusion, mistake and deception of
the public as to the identity and origin of defendant’s products in interstate commerce, causing
irreparable harm to plaintiff for which there is no adequate remedy at law.

16. By reason of the foregoing acts, defendants are liable for trademark infringement under 15
U.S.C. § 1114.

V. SECOND CLAIM: UNFAIR COMPETITION UNDER LANHAM ACT § 4334.

17. Plaintiff repeats and hereby incorporates herein by reference, as though specifically pleaded
herein, the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 16.

18. Defendants’ use of plaintiff’s intellectual property to promote, market, or sell sports products or
services in direct competition with plaintiff’s products and services constitutes Unfair Competition
pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). Their use of plaintiff’s marks is likely to cause confusion, mistake,
and deception among consumers. Such unfair competition has caused and will continue to cause
damage to plaintiff, and is causing irreparable harm to plaintiff for which there is no adequate
remedy at law.

VI. THIRD CLAIM: UNFAIR COMPETITION UNDER CALIFORNIA BUSINESSAND

PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200 et seq.

19. Plaintiff repeats and hereby incorporates herein by reference, as though specifically pleaded
herein, the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 18.

20. Defendants’ actions discussed herein constitute unfair competition within the meaning of
California Business and Professions Code § 17200.
21. Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code § 17203, plaintiff is entitled to
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief ordering defendants to cease this unfair competition, as
well as disgorgement of all of Apple’s profits associated with this unfair competition.

VII. FOURTH CLAIM: FALSE DESCRIPTION

22. Plaintiff repeats and hereby incorporates herein by reference, as though specifically pleaded
herein, the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 21.

23. Defendants’ uses of plaintiff’s baseball-related names, marks, dress and other intellectual
property constitute such a colorable imitation and copy of plaintiff’s trademark established in the
market for baseball-related products that their use thereof in the context of baseball marketing is
likely to create confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive consumers as to the affiliation,
connection or association of plaintiff’s products, or to deceive consumers as to the origin,
sponsorship or approval of Cisco’s products.

24. Such acts and uses by defendants comprise a false description or representation of such business
or products under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act).

VIII. FIFTH CLAIM: COMMON LAW INJURY TO BUSINESS REPUTATION

25. Plaintiff repeats and hereby incorporates herein by reference, as though specifically pleaded
herein, the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 24.

26. Plaintiff alleges that these practices by defendants create a likelihood of injury to its business
reputation because persons encountering the “New York Mets” and its products and services will
believe that they are affiliated with or related to or have the approval of defendants, and any adverse
reaction by the public to said “Mets” and the quality of its products (or lack thereof) and the nature
of its business (or lack thereof) will injure the business reputation of plaintiff and the goodwill that
it enjoys in connection with “Dodgers” intellectual property.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray:

1. That Defendants and their agents, officers, employees, representatives, successors, assigns,
attorneys and all other persons acting for, with, by, through or under authority from Defendants, and
each of them, be preliminarily and permanently enjoined from:(a) using plaintiff’s trademarks, trade
names, trade dress or other intellectual property described in this Complaint, or any colorable
imitation thereof; (b) using any trademark that imitates or is confusingly similar to or in any way
similar to plaintiff’s or that is likely to cause confusion, mistake, deception,or public
misunderstanding as to the origin of products or services or their connectedness to Defendant.

2. That Defendants be required to file with the Court and serve on the undersigned within thirty (30)
days after entry of the Injunction, a report in writing under oath setting forth in detail the manner
and form in which Defendants complied with the Injunction;

3. That, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117, Defendants be held liable for all damages suffered resulting
from the acts alleged herein;
4. That, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117, Defendants be compelled to account for any and all profits
derived from the illegal acts complained of herein;

5. That the Defendants be ordered pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1118 to deliver up for destruction all
containers, labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles, rotundas, promenades, porches,
sections, advertising, promotional material or the like in possession, custody or under the control of
Defendants bearing or otherwise consisting of a trademark found to infringe plaintiff’s trademark
rights, as well as all plates, matrices, and other means of making the same;

6. That the Court declare this to be an exceptional case and award plaintiff its full costs and
reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117;

7. That the Court grant plaintiff any other remedy to which it may be entitled as provided for in 15
U.S.C. §§ 1116 and 1117 or under state law; and,

8. For such and other further relief that the court deems just and proper.
Dated: April 1, 2009

HUNGADUNGA, HUNGADUNGA,
HUNGADUNGA AND MCCORMACK LLP

By:_____/s/______________________
Charles Hungadunga, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
1330 Avenue of the Stars
Los Angeles, CA 90029