Case 1:22-cv-00368-JMS-DML Document 1 Filed 02/21/22 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
AUTONIQ, LLC )
)
Plaintiff )
)
v. ) Case No. 1:22-cv-00368
)
LASER APPRAISER, LLC )
)
Defendant. )
COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
For its Complaint against Defendant Laser Appraiser, LLC (“Defendant”), Plaintiff
Autoniq, LLC (“Autoniq”), through the undersigned, states and alleges as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This is an action for false advertising arising under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §
1051 et seq., and for breach of contract under the laws of the State of Indiana.
THE PARTIES
2. Autoniq is a Virginia limited liability company with its principal place of business
at 11299 N. Illinois Street, Carmel, Indiana 46032.
3. Defendant is a Georgia limited liability company with its principal place of business
at 1360 Caduceus Way, Bldg. 500, Suite 107, Watkinsville, Georgia 30677.
1
US.136922909.01
Case 1:22-cv-00368-JMS-DML Document 1 Filed 02/21/22 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 2
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 1338(a)
and 15 U.S.C. § 1121(a) because Autoniq’s false advertising claim arises under the Lanham Act.
5. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Autoniq’s Indiana state law claim for
breach of contract pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1338(b) and 1367(a) because that claim is joined with
a substantial and related claim under the Lanham Act, and is so related to the claim under the
Lanham Act that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United
States Constitution.
6. The exercise of in personam jurisdiction over Defendant comports with the laws of
the State of Indiana and the constitutional requirements of due process because Defendant entered
into a settlement agreement with Autoniq—a company headquartered in Carmel, Indiana—and
committed tortious acts in the State of Indiana that caused injury to Autoniq.
7. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial
part of the events giving rise to Autoniq’s claims occurred within the State of Indiana and this
District. Alternatively, venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(3) because
Defendant is subject to the Court’s personal jurisdiction.
ALLEGATIONS RELEVANT TO ALL COUNTS
8. Autoniq – via a software solution branded autoniq –offers dealers an easy and
convenient way to find, research, purchase, and price vehicles, both online and at auction.
9. For over a decade, Autoniq has continuously used the trademark autoniq (the
“AUTONIQ Mark”) in order to distinguish its products and services from those of its competitors.
Autoniq has expended significant resources in advertising and promoting its products and services
under the AUTONIQ Mark and has amassed significant goodwill in the AUTONIQ mark as a
result.
2
US.136922909.01
Case 1:22-cv-00368-JMS-DML Document 1 Filed 02/21/22 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 3
10. In order to protect the extensive goodwill it has built up over the years in the
AUTONIQ Mark, Autoniq has registered the AUTONIQ Mark on the principal register of the
United States Patent and Trademark Office. Autoniq is the owner of all right, title, and interest in
the below incontestable trademark registration:
Mark Reg. No. Reg. Date Date of Applicable Goods and Services
First Use
AUTONIQ 4502642 Mar. 24, Mar. 2008 Computer application software for mobile
2014 phones or other mobile devices, namely,
software for use in scanning vehicle
identification numbers to access accident and
repair history, pricing, auction run lists and
other auction information and market supply
and demand information in the field of
automobile wholesaling and retail sales;
software for use by consumers to
anonymously provide vehicle accident and
repair history, pricing and other vehicle sales
information to dealers in the field of
automobile purchasing; software for use to
provide automobile pricing and consumer
information to dealers in the field of
automobile purchasing; software for use to
provide consumer and automobile availability
information to dealers in the field of
automobile purchasing; software for use to
provide vehicle information and pricing in the
field of automobile retail and wholesaling
sales; and software for use to provide vehicle
pricing and market information to dealers in
the field of automobile retail and wholesaling
sales
Software as a service (SAAS) services,
namely, hosting software for use by others for
use in accessing accident and repair history,
pricing, auction run lists and other auction
information and market and supply and
demand information in the field of automobile
wholesaling and retail sales; hosting software
for use by consumers to anonymously provide
vehicle accident and repair history, pricing
and other vehicle sales information to dealers
in the field of automobile purchasing; hosting
software for use by others to provide
automobile pricing and consumer information
3
US.136922909.01
Case 1:22-cv-00368-JMS-DML Document 1 Filed 02/21/22 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 4
to dealers in the field of automobile
purchasing; hosting software for use by others
to provide consumer and automobile
availability information to dealers in the field
of automobile purchasing; hosting software
for use by others to provide vehicle
information and pricing in the field of
automobile retail and wholesaling sales; and
hosting software for use by others to provide
vehicle pricing and market information to
dealers in the field of automobile retail and
wholesaling sales
11. A copy of the certificate of registration for the AUTONIQ Mark is attached hereto
as Exhibit A.
12. Defendant provides used car dealership management software to independent car
dealerships and wholesalers via a mobile and desktop application.
13. In or about November 2019, Autoniq discovered that Defendant has purchased
online keyword search advertisements, including but not limited to Google advertisements, that
resulted in sponsored ads that impermissibly used the AUTONIQ Mark. These advertisements
were generated when a user searched for the term “autoniq,” and prominently displayed the
AUTONIQ Mark as the first word in the heading of the sponsored advertisement. Clicking through
the advertisement then took the user to Defendant’s website featuring Defendant’s competing
product. An image of Defendant’s online keyword search advertisement is depicted below.
4
US.136922909.01
Case 1:22-cv-00368-JMS-DML Document 1 Filed 02/21/22 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 5
14. On November 20, 2019, Autoniq, through its counsel, sent a cease and desist
letter to Defendant regarding (among other things) Defendant’s unauthorized use of the
AUTONIQ Mark.
15. Though Defendant agreed to comply with Autoniq’s demands, it shortly thereafter
launched an email marketing campaign wherein consumers receive an email entitled “Upgrade
Your Autoniq Account” (the “Email Campaign”). When a user opened the email to learn more
about the upgrade, the user was prompted to download Laser Appraiser’s product. One such
email is pictured below.
5
US.136922909.01
Case 1:22-cv-00368-JMS-DML Document 1 Filed 02/21/22 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 6
16. Upon information and belief, Defendant’s email campaign targeted consumers
located across the United States, including the State of Indiana.
17. As a result of the Email Campaign, Autoniq received inquiries from confused
customers regarding Laser Appraiser’s affiliation with Autoniq.
18. On January 17, 2021, Autoniq sent another cease and desist letter to Laser
Appraiser, this time regarding the impermissible Email Campaign.
19. Defendant shortly thereafter announced its intention to redesign its mobile
application. Autoniq believed that the proposed redesign was a purposeful attempt to copy the look
and feel of Autoniq’s mobile application and further confuse consumers.
6
US.136922909.01
Case 1:22-cv-00368-JMS-DML Document 1 Filed 02/21/22 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 7
20. Unable to resolve its differences with Defendant, Autoniq was ultimately forced to
bring a lawsuit on September 21, 2020 (the “Prior Action”)—nearly a full year after it first initiated
contact with Defendant. Autoniq brought the Prior Action in United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana (Indianapolis Division) in a case captioned ADESA, Inc. and Autoniq,
LLC v. Laser Appraiser, LLC, Cause No. 1-20-CV-2433 and alleged various violations of its
intellectual property rights in the AUTONIQ Mark.
21. Autoniq and Defendant settled the Prior Action via a settlement agreement dated
January 29, 2021 (the “Settlement Agreement”) in which Defendant agreed to cease all use of the
AUTONIQ Mark in connection with any of Defendant’s services or the advertisement of its
services “unless such use comprises fair use under the law.”
28. In or about December 2021, Autoniq discovered Defendant has continued
purchasing online keyword search advertisements, including without limitation Google
advertisements, that result in sponsored ads that display the AUTONIQ Mark in a manner that
violates the Settlement Agreement. These advertisements are generated when a user searches for
the term “autoniq,” and prominently displays the AUTONIQ Mark in association with false or
misleading information.
29. The first known advertisement (“Infringing Advertisement 1”) is depicted below:
7
US.136922909.01
Case 1:22-cv-00368-JMS-DML Document 1 Filed 02/21/22 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 8
30. Infringing Advertisement 1 contains a misleading statement—“Autoniq® phones
are on hold”—and a false statement—“Autoniq® scans only barcodes.” Informing consumers that
“Autoniq® phones are on hold” conjures images of lengthy and frustrating wait times and leads
consumers to conclude that Autoniq is unresponsive to support inquiries. But, in reality, Autoniq’s
average time to answer incoming calls is less than 25 seconds. And Autoniq’s products do not
scan “only barcodes”. Autoniq’s products also scan QR codes, which is significant in today’s auto
auction industry as many vehicles feature QR codes on their VIN plate. Additionally, auction
stickers applied to vehicles have largely transitioned from bar codes to QR codes. Defendant’s
statement is not only false – it is also misleading in that it suggests that Autoniq is somehow behind
the times and its product useless in an industry that is transitioning from bar codes when the exact
opposite is true: Autoniq is on the cutting edge of the auto auction industry and its products are
designed with today’s practices in mind.
31. The second known advertisement (“Infringing Advertisement 2”) is depicted
below
8
US.136922909.01
Case 1:22-cv-00368-JMS-DML Document 1 Filed 02/21/22 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 9
32. Infringing Advertisement 2 repeats the same false and misleading statement from
Infringing Advertisement 1—“Autoniq® scans only barcodes”.
33. The third known advertisement (“Infringing Advertisement 3”, and together with
Infringing Advertisement 1 and Infringing Advertisement 2, the “Infringing Advertisements”) is
depicted below:
34. Infringing Advertisement 3 repeats the same false and misleading statement
regarding Autoniq’s product.
35. The Infringing Advertisements actually deceive, or have the tendency to deceive, a
substantial segment of Autoniq’s customers and potential customers. This deception is material as
it concerns an inherent quality, characteristic, and performance of Autoniq’s product that competes
directly with Defendant and is likely to influence the purchasing decisions of customers and
potential customers.
COUNT I
False Advertising Under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act
36. Autoniq repeats and realleges the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
9
US.136922909.01
Case 1:22-cv-00368-JMS-DML Document 1 Filed 02/21/22 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 10
37. Defendant has made and distributed in interstate commerce and in this judicial
district advertisements that contain false and misleading representations and statements of fact.
These advertisements contain actual misrepresentations, misstatements and/or misleading
statements or failures to disclose. Specifically, Defendant has repeatedly misrepresented in at least
three separate and distinct advertisements that Autoniq’s products scan only bar codes when, in
fact, they also scan QR codes.
38. This claim actually deceives, or has the tendency to deceive, a substantial segment
of Autoniq’s customers and potential customers. This deception is material as it concerns an
inherent quality, characteristic, and performance of a product that competes directly with
Defendant’s products and is likely to influence the purchasing decisions of customers and potential
customers.
39. Additionally, Defendant—in at least one advertisement—represents to the
consuming public that “Autoniq® phones are hold”, suggesting long wait times and unresponsive
customer service when Autoniq’s average time to answer incoming calls is less than 25 seconds.
40. This claim also actually deceives, or has the tendency to deceive, a substantial
segment of Autoniq’s customers and potential customers. This deception is material as it concerns
an inherent quality, characteristic, and performance of Autoniq’s customer service that competes
directly with Defendant and is likely to influence the purchasing decisions of customers and
potential customers.
41. Defendant’s false and misleading advertising statements and omissions violate
Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). Defendant has caused, and will continue
to cause, immediate and irreparable injury to Autoniq, including injury to Autoniq’s business,
reputation, and goodwill, for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Autoniq is therefore
10
US.136922909.01
Case 1:22-cv-00368-JMS-DML Document 1 Filed 02/21/22 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 11
entitled to an injunction under 15 U.S.C. § 1116 restraining Defendant, its agents, employees,
representatives and all persons acting in concert with Defendant from engaging in future acts of
false advertising and ordering removal of Defendant’s false and misleading advertisements.
42. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117, Autoniq is further entitled to recover from Defendant
the damages sustained by Autoniq as a result of Defendant’s acts in violation of 15 U.S.C. §
1125(a). Autoniq is at present unable to ascertain the full extent of the monetary damages it has
sustained by reason of Defendant’s acts.
43. Pursuant 15 U.S.C. § 1117, Autoniq is further entitled to recover from Defendant
the gains, profits and advantages that Defendant has obtained as a result of its acts in violation of
15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). Autoniq is at present unable to ascertain the full extent of the gains, profits
and advantages Defendant has obtained by reason of its acts.
44. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117, Autoniq is further entitled to recover the costs of this
action. Moreover, Autoniq is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant’s
conduct was undertaken willfully and with the intention of causing confusion, mistake or
deception, making this an exceptional case entitling Autoniq to recover additional damages and
reasonable attorneys’ fees.
COUNT II
Breach of Contract
45. Autoniq repeats and realleges the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
46. Defendant agreed in paragraph 2 of the Settlement Agreement that it shall “never
use, directly or indirectly through any third party, [the Autoniq Mark] or any variations thereof in
connection with any of its services or the advertisement of its services in the United States or
internationally, unless such use comprises fair use under the law … .”
11
US.136922909.01
Case 1:22-cv-00368-JMS-DML Document 1 Filed 02/21/22 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 12
47. Defendant’s use of the Autoniq Mark in connection with false statements about
Autoniq’s products and customer services is not fair use under the law.
48. Defendant is therefore in breach of the Settlement Agreement.
49. Pursuant to paragraph 7 of the Settlement Agreement, the remedy for a breach of
paragraph 2 is liquidated damages in the amount of $10,000 for each breach:
50. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s actions described herein, Autoniq
suffered, and will continue to suffer, irreparable injury to its business, reputation, and goodwill,
unless and until the Court permanently enjoins Defendant’s actions. Autoniq has no adequate
remedy at law for those of Defendant’s actions that are ongoing.
51. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s actions described herein, Autoniq
is entitled to liquidated damages in the amount $10,000 per breach. Each of the Infringing
Advertisements constitutes a breach, and Autoniq is therefore entitled to at least $30,000 in
liquidated damages.
12
US.136922909.01
Case 1:22-cv-00368-JMS-DML Document 1 Filed 02/21/22 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 13
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Autoniq respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor
and prays:
A. That this Court permanently enjoin Defendant and each of its affiliates, associates,
agents, servants and employees, and all others acting in concert with Defendant from directly,
indirectly, contributorily, or vicariously engaging in false advertising with respect to Autoniq’s
products and services;
B. That this Court order Defendant to pay to Autoniq such damages as Autoniq has
sustained by reason of Defendant’s false advertising and other wrongful conduct;
C. That this Court order Defendant to account for and to pay Autoniq all profits
derived by Defendant by reason of the acts complained of herein;
D. That this Court treble all profits and damages owing to Autoniq due to false
advertising under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a);
E. That this Court order Defendant to pay Autoniq its reasonable attorneys’ fees and
costs pursuant to the Lanham Act; and
F. That this Court order Defendant to pay to Autoniq at least $30,000 in liquidated
damages in connection with its breach of the Settlement Agreement;
G. That this Court award Autoniq such other further relief as this Court deems just.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Autoniq respectfully request a trial by jury on all issues raised by this Complaint.
13
US.136922909.01
Case 1:22-cv-00368-JMS-DML Document 1 Filed 02/21/22 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 14
Dated: February 21, 2022 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Louis T. Perry
Louis T. Perry (#25736-49)
louis.perry@faegredrinker.com
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
300 North Meridian St., Suite 2500
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: (317) 237-0300
Fax: (317) 237-0000
Attorney for Plaintiff
14
US.136922909.01
