Tabberone is pronounced tab ber won
not tay ber own

Tabbers Temptations     www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/ Home | Site Index | Disclaimer | Email Me!

Tabberone Logo
The latest Hartsel weather.

  "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
Edmund Burke

Source:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22573729/Snyder-vs-Greenberg-Traurig-Diane-Von-Furstenberg-Studio-Filed-Amended-Complaint

January 5, 2011. The following is excerpted from the original complaint.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division

Case No. 1:08cv01270 (GBL-TCB).

On December 8, 2006, Defendants entered Plaintiffs’ home under color of a civil trademark-related search and seizure order.[FN1] During this search and seizure, Defendants exceeded the scope of the warrant, violating the rights of Plaintiffs. Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 15 U.S.C. § 1116, and other claims under the common law and the law of Virginia for constitutional violations, abuse of process, trespass, and conversion and trespass to chattels. Additionally, Plaintiffs bring claims under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1119 and 1120 for cancellation of a fraudulent trademark and damages therefrom.

[FN1.] The Order, signed December 7, 2006 by Judge Cacheris of this Court, regarding the search and seizure of Plaintiff Catherine Snyder’s home, will be referred to herein as “the order,” “order,” “the warrant,” or “warrant.”

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

13. This is an action under U.S.C. § 1983, with related claims under Bivens v. Six Named Unknown Agents of the Fed. Bur. of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), Title 15 of the United States Code, and under Virginia law. Defendants entered Plaintiffs’ home with a civil search and seizure warrant issued by this Court under the Lanham Act. During the execution of the warrant, Defendants went well beyond what was authorized by the warrant and violated Plaintiffs’ constitutionally protected rights, particularly by seizing goods not described in the warrant and by causing a reporter, in her journalistic capacity, to be present during the execution of the warrant and using the execution of the warrant as an ‘advertising opportunity’ for the lawyers and law firm involved. Further, the trademark under which the warrant was obtained had been fraudulently obtained by its holder, and was accordingly void ab initio.

Ex Parte Proceedings Against the Snyders in the Prior Action

17. Near the end of 2006, Law Defendants filed an action on Von Furstenberg’s behalf, under seal, in this Court against Plaintiff Catherine Snyder, alleging violations of the Lanham act for selling over the internet allegedly counterfeit goods bearing the Von Furstenberg mark, requesting a search and seizure order and temporary restraining order at an ex parte hearing, and representing to this Court that they had thoroughly investigated Catherine Snyder.

19. Law Defendants and Von Furstenberg stated in its request for the search and seizure order that they had “thoroughly investigated” Catherine Snyder and others. On information and belief, part of this investigation involved having investigators track down zip codes to see who had “assets worth going after.”

20. Although Law Defendants and Von Furstenberg represented that they had thoroughly investigated Catherine Snyder, they made a number of false statements to this Court in their request for seizure order and TRO.

21. Examples of these false statements which Law Defendants and Von Furstenberg could readily have verified include allegations that Catherine Snyder operated in a common operation with individuals alleged to be named Lily Shao and John Auyeung and that Catherine Snyder operated from various locations in Virginia.

25. This Court, upon an ex parte hearing, granted a temporary restraining order against Plaintiff Catherine Snyder and authorized the U.S. Marshals or other law enforcement officers, with the assistance of attorneys or agents of Von Furstenberg, to search the residence of Plaintiffs and seize certain enumerated items.

26. The items described in the seizure order were limited to the following: a. any and all unauthorized and unlicensed merchandise bearing the Von Furstenberg marks, as well as the means for making the same;

b. the books and records relating thereto, including but not limited to records and data contained in electronic format on computers, servers, hard drives, zip drives and disks;

c. the containers or vehicles in which the same are held or transported, which Defendants sell, attempt to sell or hold for sale: and

d. any counterfeit Von Furstenberg product, reproduction, copies or colorable imitations thereof, including dresses or other items.

Entry Made to the Snyders’ Home

27. Upon information and belief, on or about the morning of December 8, 2006, Law Defendants approached the Herndon Police Department for the purpose of obtaining assistance and an official presence at the entry to the Snyders’ home.

28. Upon information and belief, Wadyka, upon introducing himself to officers of the Herndon Police Department and for the purpose of inducing those officers to accompany Law Defendants to Plaintiffs’ house during the execution of the warrant, flashed a badge and indicated that he was a U.S. law enforcement official.

29. On the morning of December 8, 2006, Law Defendants, accompanied by two members of the Herndon Police Department and two other individuals who Law Defendants did not identify at any time to the Snyders during the search, entered Plaintiffs’ home and indicated that they were present under authorization of a warrant and that compliance with Law Defendants’ directions and requests was required by law. Under the reasonable belief that Law Defendants’ actions had the force of law, the Snyders complied with Law Defendants’ directions and requests throughout the time Law Defendants were present in the Snyders’ home. The two unidentified individuals were a forensic technician and the reporter Larissa MacFarquhar. Law Defendants took charge of the operation, and the police officers, though present, did not actively search or seize items.

30. At the time that Law Defendants and MacFarquhar arrived, Mr. Snyder met this group at the door. Law Defendants entered the house first before the police officers, engaged in all substantive discussion with and direction to Plaintiffs, and otherwise entirely directed the search and seizure, intentionally giving the impression that they were in charge of the search under color of this Court’s order and state law.

31. Mrs. Snyder was still in bed, and Mr. Snyder requested permission of Lewin to awaken her and let her dress. Although Lewin permitted Mr. Snyder to awaken Mrs. Snyder, Lewin insisted, under color of law, that Mr. Snyder keep the bedroom door open so that Lewin could observe.

32. Upon information and belief, at the time of the home invasion described herein, Lewin was the subject of research for a future article for the New Yorker. Lewin and the other attorneys brought with them MacFarquhar, a journalist, to participate in the warrant execution, and brought MacFarquhar into Plaintiffs’ home without the authorization of the warrant, the permission of any resident of the Snyders’ household, and without informing the Snyders that MacFarquhar was not in any way related to the search. MacFarquhar was present for no purpose other than as a journalist, and did not in any way assist with execution of the warrant.

33. At all times, the search of Plaintiffs’ home was controlled, orchestrated and directed by defendant Lewin, whose actions, statements, and shouting evidenced a deliberate attempt to provide a dramatic story for MacFarquhar, who observed the search from within the Snyders’ home.

34. During the course of the warrant execution, Mrs. Snyder approached the front door with the obvious intent to go outside, which neither the warrant nor the police prohibited. Defendant MacFarquhar, who was sitting in front of and blocking the front door, did not move out of the way, and said to Mrs. Snyder in a menacing manner, “I wouldn’t go outside if I were you.”

Defendants’ Actions Beyond the Authorization of Law or this Court

35. In addition to items authorized by the warrant, Law Defendants, acting on behalf of Von Furstenberg and under color of law, removed a large number of other items which they were not authorized to remove and which were self-evidently not within the scope of the warrant. 36. The additional items removed included personal clothing, clothing bearing other brand names besides Von Furstenberg, and other records including

a. the Snyders’ marriage certificate,
b. the Snyders’ and their sons’ birth certificates,
c. correspondence between Mrs. Snyder and an attorney who had represented her in an unrelated matter,
d. their sons’ social security cards,
e. mortgage settlement documents,
f. homeowner and automobile insurance policies,
g. Mrs. Snyder’s life insurance policy,
h. medical records relating to Mrs. Snyder and one of their sons,
i. all of Mrs. Snyder’s credit cards and several of Mr. Snyder’s credit cards,
j. tax returns,
k. unopened mail addressed to Mr. Snyder including personal correspondence, tax documents, correspondence from the boys’ schools, and a time-sensitive vehicle registration renewal form,
l. a report card from one of their sons,
m. lists of usernames and passwords for websites including one son’s login for the Fairfax County Public Schools’ eLearning site,
n. access information for the Snyders’ online banking access,
o. access codes for the Snyders’ voicemail box,
p. pay stubs for Mr. Snyder,
q. stacks of blank personal checks,
r. and social security benefits statements.
37. None of the items listed in paragraph 36 fell within the scope of the seizure order.

38. Law Defendants caused the unopened mail addressed to Mr. Snyder to be opened while in Law Defendants’ possession subsequent to the seizure.

39. Law Defendants removed Mrs. Snyder’s purse from her office closet and removed personal credit cards issued to both Catherine Snyder and Richard Snyder from her wallet. Law Defendants also required the Snyders to give them login access to a computer belonging to Mr. Snyder’s employer and to a computer which Law Defendants identified as the Snyders’ son’s computer.

40. While still in the Snyders’ home under color of the search and seizure order, Lewin or another Law Defendant held out to Mrs. Snyder that she was required to write down for them login information for additional websites such as eBay and Paypal, and then retained that information when she did so.

41. Law Defendants left a stack of papers which were required to be served, regarding the case, in the Snyders’ kitchen. Law Defendants failed to include in this stack the Memorandum of Law in support of its application for the ex parte seizure order and TRO.

42. Before leaving the Snyders’ home, Lewin or another Law Defendant, knowing that the Snyders were not represented by counsel and knowing that Mr. Snyder was not a party to the action, informed Mr. Snyder that there was a hearing before this Court on December 22, 2006 in that matter, but that the Snyders need not attend, and encouraged Mr. Snyder to contact Law Defendants quickly to resolve the matter.

43. Law Defendants were present in the Snyders’ home approximately three hours, although the Herndon Police officers left after about one hour.

44. On information and belief, Law Defendants took direct control of the seized goods rather than allow this Court or the U.S. Marshals to maintain them, and made and retained copies of all papers, regardless of whether they fell within the scope of the order.

45. Upon information and belief, in September 2006, Diane Von Furstenberg, on behalf of defendant Von Furstenberg, stated in a Wall Street Journal interview it is her belief that “Laws are created to intimidate people [with the threat of litigation].”

46. Shortly before leaving the Snyder's home on December 8, 2006, Law Defendant Lewin confronted Mrs. Snyder in her kitchen, telling her: “You're going to have to pay my client some money.” When Mrs. Snyder tearfully replied that she did not have any money, Lewin responded “You've been making a good a living off of my client and now its gonna cost ya lady.”

47. About five months after the home invasion, MacFarquhar and the New Yorker published a cover article, entitled “Bag Man,” describing details of the search and seizure and profiling Lewin’s practice. On information and belief, Lewin and Greenberg Traurig used the publicity of the article authored by MacFarquhar and published by the New Yorker for personal and business marketing.

48. The Court’s Order permitted the freezing of accounts held by Catherine Snyder. Law Defendants, on behalf of Von Furstenberg and under color of federal and state law, went beyond freezing the accounts of Mrs. Snyder, and directed the freezing of accounts held by Richard Snyder and/or directed the freezing of the entire contents of accounts held jointly by Catherine Snyder and Richard Snyder, causing checks written by the Snyders on these improperly frozen funds to bounce, causing Mr. Snyder to be unable to pay bills including a mortgage payment as they came due, and causing damage to Mr. and Mrs. Snyder’s credit.

Resolution of the Prior Matter

49. The prior matter ended by partial summary judgment and a bench trial on the issue of damages. Judgment was entered against Catherine Snyder in the amount of $100,000.

Diane von Furstenberg Studio v. Snyder, et al., File No. 1:06cv1356 (JCC)