Free Motion for Order to Show Cause - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

i Exhibit 7
1
Case 2:O2—cv—O1815-JAT Document 102-8 FiIed·O1/18/2007 Page 1 of 3 i

' ) )
,» iii. r .
< I '·:
‘ T H U rz w E
rama m 2 4
V l WE STE it N . Peter M. de Jonge t f
‘» e ‘ Registered Patent/tttomey ‘ §
dejon|,•@t•w.eon
— Mme 6,2006 Q
VIA as:
Jeffrey C. Whitley
Loty & Associates, P.C.
ll 120 North Tatum Boulevard, Suite 101
Phoenix, Arizona 85028
Re: Infringement of SPORT COURT° by Rozzi Sports & Courts and compliance with
permanent injunction
Our Docket No. 24549 and 24109 —
Dear Mr. Whitley
This letter responds to your reply to our letter dated December 1, 2005 which we did not
' receive until February 7, 2006. V
‘ First, our letters to Mr. Rozzi were sent to the address listed in the telephone directory _
wherein Mr. Rozzi advertises his business Rozzi Sports and Courts as well as the address
provided in the domain name registration for Mr. Rozzi’s webpage www.r0zzisports.com. We
are confident he received them. Additionally, we are puzzled by your assertion that Mr. Rozzi is .
not a Rhino dealer given the prominent display of your Rhino logo on the home page of his
website and the statement below the logo that Rozzi Sports & Courts is an authorized dealer for __
Rhino Sports.
Second, Mr. Rozzi’s infringing use of the SPORT COURT" mark is not limited to his —
tradename. His use includes references identical to the SPORT COURT° mark in telephone
listings as well as in the source code of his website. Had you taken the time to actually read the .
material we sent you before preparing your belated and unnecessarily terse response, you would ‘
have been apprised of the relevant facts and correctly responded to our request. Moreover, your _
assessment of Sport Court’s claim that Rozzi Sports & Courts is confusingly similar to the i
SPORT COUR'I° mark is irrelevant. At its sole discretion, Sport Court may notify Rhino of an
"alleged infringement" by a Rhino dealer. The permanent injunction clearly states that Sport
Court may request that Rhino send a letter to an alleged iutiinger after six weeks of the original
notification. The permanent injunction also states that Rhino td_g__a_ll send a letter to the alleged 2
iniiinger if Sport Court is unable to resolve the matter six week after its first request to Rhino.
www.tnw.eom
8t80SouI•1wEeel·$ut•2Ill—S¤¤t;.0¤h84U70·05B2·80l58&B$3·t80t.5B$D750·¤0¤¤@tu»¤nn Iususrnmmm P.11Bn:I2l8·$¤tdylni»8t09I·t2t9
The Team Anprcsch lo Premier Parivrmancr
;
Case 2:02—cv—01815—JAT Document 102-8 Filed 01/18/2007 Page 2 of 3

` ‘ ) · _)
Whitely `
March 6, 2006 · ..
Page 2 of 2 ·
Your client’s duty and obligation to respond to Sport Court’s correspondence in this regard is not ·
optional. Accordingly, we must insist that you send a letter to Mr. Rozzi pursuant to the terms of ·
the permanent injunction and copy us on that correspondence. `
Third, we have recently observed icringing uses of the SPORT COUR'1° mark by your
client, Rhino Sports, in violation ofthe permanent injunction. Those uses are located on your
client’s website and on the Intemet in connection with advertisements for "Rl1ino Sport Cotu·t" _
franchises and on the website www.keyaccess.ccm. We have attached examples of these uses to
this correspondence for your convenience. · - ‘
We demand that your client immediately remove any and all reference to the SPORT
COURT" mark, including the term "multi sport court" from its website and cease use of the _
SPORT COURT° mark in connection with your client's franchising efforts. Your client’s failure ·
‘ to abide by the terms of the permanent injunction is disconcerting. If the above matters are not `
resolved by March 20, 2006, Sport Court will be forced to seek an Order for Contempt of Court. ·
Sport Court will no longer tolerate your c1ient’s failure to abide by the terms of the
settlement agreement and the permanent injunction. In the event Sport Court is forced to
continue policing your client’s activities, Sport Court will be forced to seek hill redress from the
' Court including all past fees and expenses related to its enforcement of the agreement. ‘
We have also recently observed that your client is using the mark COURT BUILDERTM -
mark on its website for designing recreational courts. Sport Court has tiled application for the ‘ .
trademark COURT BUILDER for use in connection with a variety of products, including ’
online interactive software for customizing and designing recreational courts and athletic courts.
Your client’s use ofthe COURT BUILDERTM mark in connection with its goods and services is
likely to cause confusion, mistake, and to deceive consumers. As such, we demand that your ·
client cease any and all use of Sport Court's COURT BUILDERTM mark.
If you have any questions regarding these matters, please contact me. `
· ' Sincerely,
v · ORTH & WESTERN L.L.P. 4
A a V '
de J • nge
PMD/JHH/j j
i
1
. cc: Ronald A. Yokubison, Connor Sport Court Intemational, Inc. g
l
Case 2:02-cv-01815-JAT Document 102-8 Filed 01/18/2007 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:02-cv-01815-JAT

Document 102-8

Filed 01/18/2007

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:02-cv-01815-JAT

Document 102-8

Filed 01/18/2007

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:02-cv-01815-JAT

Document 102-8

Filed 01/18/2007

Page 3 of 3