Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00800/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00800-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Epona, Ltd
Plaintiff
Grooma.Com
Defendant
Miraclecorp Products
Defendant
Miraclecorp of Australia
Defendant

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 

JOINT STIPULATION (CASE NO. C 07 0800 SI) 

1329986.1 

BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL LLP 

LYNN E. RZONCA (Pa. Bar No. 21214) 

ROBERTA JACOBS-MEADWAY (Pa. Bar No. 86747) 

STEVEN D. KIM (Pa. Bar No. 203459) 

1735 Market Street, 51st Floor 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

Telephone: (215) 665-8500 

Facsimile: (215) 864-8999 

E-mail: rzoncal@ballardspahr.com 

HANSON BRIDGETT MARCUS VLAHOS & RUDY, LLP 

GARNER K. WENG – 191462 

ALEXANDRA ATENCIO – 227251 

425 Market Street, 26th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Telephone: (415) 777-3200 

Facsimile: (415) 541-9366 

E-mail: gweng@hansonbridgett.com 

EPONA, LTD., a Delaware corporation 

Thomas A. Knoth (Ohio Bar No. 0034240) 

Victoria L. Nilles (Ohio Bar No. 0076616) 

THOMPSON HINE LLP 

2000 Courthouse Plaza N.E. 

P.O. Box 8801 

Dayton, OH 45402 

Telephone: (937) 443-6777 

Facsimile: (937) 443-6830 

E-mail: Tom.Knoth@Thompsonhine.com 

 Victoria.Nilles@Thompsonhine.com 

Richard J. Mooney (CA Bar No. 176486) 

Tom M. Kerr (CA Bar No. 241530) 

HOLME ROBERTS & OWEN LLP 

560 Mission St. #2500 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Telephone: (415) 268-2000 

Facsimile: (415) 268-1999 

E-mail: richard.mooney@hro.com 

 tom.kerr@hro.com 

Attorneys for Defendant 

MIRACLECORP PRODUCTS, an Ohio Corporation 

Case 3:07-cv-00800-SI Document 30 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 1 of 13 Case 3:07-cv-00800-SI Document 32 Filed 07/03/07 Page 1 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 

JOINT STIPULATION (CASE NO. C 07 0800 SI) 

1329986.1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

EPONA, LTD., a Delaware corporation, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

MIRACLECORP PRODUCTS, an Ohio 

corporation, (formerly named herein as MiracleCorp 

of Australia, an Ohio corporation d/b/a 

GROOMA.COM), 

 Defendant. 

No. C 07 0800 SI 

JOINT STIPULATION 

TO THE HONORABLE COURT: 

The parties to the above-entitled action jointly submit this stipulation consenting to the 

filing of Plaintiff Epona, Ltd.’s Second Amended Complaint. 

Pursuant to General Order No. 45, counsel for Plaintiff Epona, Ltd., who submits this joint

stipulation on behalf of all parties, attests that concurrence in the filing of this stipulation has been 

obtained from Defendant MiracleCorp Products’ counsel. 

DATED: July 2, 2007 

Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ 

Lynn E. Rzonca 

Roberta Jacobs-Meadway 

Steven D. Kim 

BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & 

INGERSOLL LLP 

1735 Market Street 

51st Floor 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

Telephone: (215) 665-8500 

Facsimile: (215) 864-8999 

E-mail: rzoncal@ballardspahr.com 

 jacobsmeadwayr@ballardspahr.com 

 kims@ballardspahr.com 

Case 3:07-cv-00800-SI Document 30 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 2 of 13 Case 3:07-cv-00800-SI Document 32 Filed 07/03/07 Page 2 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 - 

JOINT STIPULATION (CASE NO. C 07 0800 SI) 

1329986.1 

Garner K. Weng (#191462) 

Alexandra Atencio (#227251) 

HANSON BRIDGETT MARCUS VLAHOS & 

RUDY, LLP 

425 Market Street 

26th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Telephone: (415) 777-3200 

Facsimile: (415) 541-9366 

E-mail: gweng@hansonbridgett.com 

 aatencio@hansonbridgett.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Epona, Ltd. 

 /s/ 

Thomas A. Knoth (OH Bar No. 0034240) 

Victoria L. Nilles (OH Bar No. 0076616) 

THOMPSON HINE LLP 

2000 Courthouse Plaza N.E. 

P.O. Box 8801 

Dayton, OH 45402 

Telephone: (937) 443-6777 

Facsimile: (937) 443-6830 

E-mail: Tom.Knoth@Thompsonhine.com 

 Victoria.Nilles@Thompsonhine.com 

Richard J. Mooney (CA Bar No. 176486) 

Tom M. Kerr (CA Bar No. 241530) 

HOLME ROBERTS & OWEN LLP 

560 Mission St. #2500 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Telephone: (415) 268-2000 

Facsimile: (415) 268-1999 

E-mail: richard.mooney@hro.com 

 tom.kerr@hro.com 

Attorneys for Defendant, 

MiracleCorp Products 

Case 3:07-cv-00800-SI Document 30 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 3 of 13 Case 3:07-cv-00800-SI Document 32 Filed 07/03/07 Page 3 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 - 

JOINT STIPULATION (CASE NO. C 07 0800 SI) 

1329986.1 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Pursuant to the Parties’ Stipulation, the Second Amended Complaint lodged herewith is 

deemed filed as of the date entered. Defendants shall have ten (10) days from the date of service 

to respond to the Second Amended Complaint. 

SO ORDERED. 

DATED:_______________ 

Hon. Susan Illston 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:07-cv-00800-SI Document 30 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 4 of 13 Case 3:07-cv-00800-SI Document 32 Filed 07/03/07 Page 4 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

- 1 - 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (CASE NO. C07-0800 SI) 

BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL LLP 

LYNN E. RZONCA (Pa. Bar No. 21214) 

ROBERTA JACOBS-MEADWAY (Pa. Bar No. 86747) 

STEVEN D. KIM (Pa. Bar No. 203459) 

1735 Market Street, 51st Floor 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

Telephone: (215) 665-8500 

Facsimile: (215) 864-8999 

E-mail: rzoncal@ballardspahr.com 

HANSON BRIDGETT MARCUS VLAHOS & RUDY, LLP 

GARNER K. WENG - 191462 

ALEXANDRA ATENCIO – 227251 

425 Market Street, 26th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Telephone: (415) 777-3200 

Facsimile: (415) 541-9366 

E-mail: gweng@hansonbridgett.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

EPONA, LTD., a Delaware corporation 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

EPONA, LTD., a Delaware corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MIRACLECORP PRODUCTS, an Ohio 

corporation (formerly named herein as 

MiracleCorp of Australia, an Ohio 

corporation d/b/a GROOMA.COM), 

Defendant. 

No. C-07-0800 SI 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

This is an action for federal trade dress infringement and unfair competition arising under 

Section 43(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq., as amended (hereinafter 

“Lanham Act”). 

Plaintiff, Epona, Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), by and through its counsel, alleges as 

follows: 

Case 3:07-cv-00800-SI Document 30 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 5 of 13 Case 3:07-cv-00800-SI Document 32 Filed 07/03/07 Page 5 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

- 2 - 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (CASE NO. C07-0800 SI) 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1338. 

2. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant. Defendant transacts business 

in California, in this District, sells products in this District in California; and solicits business in 

this judicial district. 

3. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 (b) and (c), and 1400(b) 

inasmuch as Plaintiff resides in this district and the cause of action accrued within this District. 

INTRA-DISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

4. Pursuant to General Order 44 and the Local Rules of the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of California, Civil L.R. 3-2, assignment is proper to any Division 

of this Court because this is an action involving intellectual property rights. 

PARTIES

5. Epona, Ltd. (hereinafter “Epona”) is a corporation organized and existing under 

the laws of the state of Delaware, having filed a certificate of authority with the State of 

California, and having a principal place of business in Fairfax, California, which is located in this 

judicial district. 

6. Upon information and belief, Defendant MiracleCorp Products (hereinafter 

“Defendant”) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Ohio and 

having a principal place of business at 2425 West Dorothy Lane, Dayton, Ohio 45435. 

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

7. Epona is and has since September of 1992 been engaged in manufacturing and 

selling natural grooming products for horses, including hoof picks, throughout the United States, 

and has built a successful business in connection therewith. 

Case 3:07-cv-00800-SI Document 30 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 6 of 13 Case 3:07-cv-00800-SI Document 32 Filed 07/03/07 Page 6 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

- 3 - 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (CASE NO. C07-0800 SI) 

8. Epona manufactures and sells a unique and distinctive hoof pick under the 

trademark EPONA (the “Epona Design”). The Epona Design trade dress elements include, but 

are not limited to: (a) the distinctive silhouette of the product, and (b) the particular graceful curve 

of the neck. The Epona Design is shown below: 

9. Epona created the Epona Design based upon aesthetic and decorative 

considerations. 

10. Epona has promoted and sold hoof picks since 1996. 

11. Epona has extensively promoted its hoof picks, including the Epona Design under 

its unique trade dress through its website, advertising, as well as through sales representatives and 

appearances at trade shows. 

12. Epona sells its Epona Design hoof picks through numerous authorized dealers and 

other retailer establishments, as well as through catalogs and the Internet. 

13. Epona has spent significant effort and been successful in advertising, promoting, 

and marketing its hoof picks, including the Epona Design, since prior to 1999. 

14. By virtue of Epona’s use and advertising of the Epona Design, the design 

constitutes a distinctive and non-functional trade dress which identifies Epona as the source of the 

goods and therefore acts as a source identifier. 

15. As a result of the widespread and continuous use and promotion, and the nature of 

the hoof pick design, Epona’s unique trade dress in its Epona Design hoof pick has received 

broad national recognition as identifying Plaintiff as the exclusive source of such hoof picks. 

16. Defendant is in the business of manufacturing and selling grooming products for 

horses in competition with Epona. 

Case 3:07-cv-00800-SI Document 30 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 7 of 13 Case 3:07-cv-00800-SI Document 32 Filed 07/03/07 Page 7 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

- 4 - 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (CASE NO. C07-0800 SI) 

17. Defendant sells its products to many of the same retailers as Epona. 

18. Epona recently became aware that Defendant is marketing and selling a “Grooma 

Hoof Pick,” which is substantially similar in appearance to Epona’s product. The “Grooma Hoof 

Pick” is shown below: 

19. Upon information and belief, Defendant first sold its “Grooma Hoof Pick” in 

2005, years subsequent to Epona’s sale of its unique and distinctive hoof pick and years 

subsequent to the time the Epona design became well and favorably known and associated with 

EPONA. 

20. Defendant previously sold a hoof pick with a very different appearance from the 

“Grooma Hoof Pick” shown above. Upon information and belief, Defendant sold a “Grooma 3 ‘n 

1 Pick” since as early as 2001. The “Grooma 3 ‘n 1” has a substantially different design from and 

does not resemble Epona’s product. The “Grooma 3 ‘n 1” hoof pick is shown below: 

21. Defendant is producing, distributing, promoting and selling the product 

complained of herein in direct competition with Epona’s hoof picks, including the Epona Design. 

22. Epona has not consented to, sponsored, endorsed, or approved of Defendant’s use 

of Epona’s trade dress in connection with the Epona Design or any other product. 

Case 3:07-cv-00800-SI Document 30 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 8 of 13 Case 3:07-cv-00800-SI Document 32 Filed 07/03/07 Page 8 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

- 5 - 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (CASE NO. C07-0800 SI) 

23. On December 4, 2006, Epona, through its counsel, sent Defendant a demand letter 

stating that Defendant’s acts constituted trademark and trade dress infringement, and that 

Defendant cease production and distribution of any products emulating or copying Epona’s 

product designs. A true and correct copy of the December 4, 2006 demand letter is attached 

hereto as Exhibit A. 

24. On December 20, 2006, Epona, through its counsel, submitted a follow-up cease 

and desist letter, restating its prior demands. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s letter is 

attached hereto as Exhibit B. 

25. Defendant has since failed to respond to Plaintiff’s December 4, 2006 and 

December 20, 2006 letters or otherwise respond in any meaningful way. 

CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Federal Unfair Competition in the Nature of Trade Dress Infringement)

26. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint are incorporated 

herein by reference. 

27. Since at least as early as 1999, Epona has sold and promoted its Epona Design 

hoof picks throughout the United States. 

28. Due to such widespread and continuous promotional activities and sales, the nonfunctional design, trade dress, or overall appearance and impression of the Epona Design hoof 

picks has come to be recognized by customers to identify and distinguish Epona as the sole 

source of hoof picks with such design and the Epona Design has acquired secondary meaning in 

the minds of the consuming public. 

29. The design used by Defendant for its “Grooma Hoof Pick” is substantially similar 

and confusingly similar to the Epona hoof pick trade dress in appearance and commercial 

impression. 

30. Defendant’s manufacture and sale of the product complained of herein was 

subsequent to Epona’s manufacture and sale of its distinctive product. 

Case 3:07-cv-00800-SI Document 30 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 9 of 13 Case 3:07-cv-00800-SI Document 32 Filed 07/03/07 Page 9 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

- 6 - 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (CASE NO. C07-0800 SI) 

31. Upon information and belief, Defendant’s manufacture and sale of the product 

complained of herein occurred after Epona’s product acquired secondary meaning in the minds of 

the consuming public. 

32. Consequently, there is a likelihood of confusion and mistake as to the origin of, or 

affiliation between Defendant’s and Epona’s products identified by Epona’s trade dress. 

33. To the extent there is such a likelihood of confusion, the use of such trade dress by 

Defendant is likely to deceive purchasers and prospective purchasers as to the source or 

sponsorship of Defendant’s goods and as to the affiliation of Defendant with Epona. 

34. This likelihood of confusion is exacerbated by the fact that Defendant’s and 

Epona’s hoof picks are likely to be purchased by the same types of consumers, and are advertised 

and promoted in the same or similar advertising channels and marketed and sold in the same or a 

similar manner. 

35. The acts and activities of Defendant complained of herein constitute trade dress 

infringement in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). 

36. Upon information and belief, Epona alleges that Defendant’s foregoing actions 

have been knowing, deliberate, willful, and in utter disregard of Epona’s rights. 

37. Epona is damaged by the complained of conduct of Defendant in an amount to be 

determined. 

38. The act and activities of Defendant complained of herein deprive Epona of control 

over its reputation and goodwill, which constitutes irreparable injury. 

39. Defendant’s conduct is continuing, and will continue, unless enjoined by the 

Court. 

40. Epona has no adequate remedy at law to compensate it for the harm and damage 

complained of herein. 

41. Defendant is misappropriating Epona’s trade dress to confuse the public into 

believing the product complained of herein is associated with Epona or endorsed by Epona, when 

it is not. 

Case 3:07-cv-00800-SI Document 30 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 10 of 13 Case 3:07-cv-00800-SI Document 32 Filed 07/03/07 Page 10 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

- 7 - 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (CASE NO. C07-0800 SI) 

42. Defendant’s manufacture and sale of its “Grooma Hoof Pick” occurred after 

Epona’s hoof pick acquired secondary meaning in the minds of the consuming public. 

43. Defendant, prior to marketing and selling its “Grooma Hoof Pick,” exclusively 

sold its “Grooma 3 ‘n 1 Hoof Pick,” which is different than Epona’s product. 

44. Upon information and belief, the Defendant’s sale of the “Grooma Hoof Pick” 

demonstrates it intended to trade upon Epona’s distinctive trade dress after it had acquired 

secondary meaning in the minds of the consuming public. 

45. The acts and activities of Defendant complained of herein constitute unfair 

competition in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). 

46. Upon information and belief, Epona alleges the foregoing actions of Defendant 

have been knowing, deliberate, willful, and in utter disregard of Epona’s rights. 

47. The act and activities of Defendant complained of herein deprive Epona of control 

over its reputation and goodwill, which constitutes irreparable injury. 

48. Defendant’s conduct is continuing, and will continue, unless enjoined by the 

Court. 

49. Epona has no adequate remedy at law to compensate it for the harm and damage 

complained of herein. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Epona prays: 

A. That judgment be entered in favor of Epona against Defendant on all counts. 

B. That Defendant be directed to pay for all damages sustained by Epona due to 

Defendant’s trade dress infringement under the Lanham Act. 

C. That Defendant be directed to account and pay over to Epona all profits derived 

from its Grooma hoof picks. 

D. That Defendant, or anyone acting with or on behalf of Defendant, be permanently 

enjoined from manufacturing, producing, distributing, importing, selling, or displaying any hoof 

picks or other items bearing any copy or colorable imitation of Epona’s trade dress. 

E. That Defendant be directed to deliver to Plaintiff all products comprising 

Case 3:07-cv-00800-SI Document 30 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 11 of 13 Case 3:07-cv-00800-SI Document 32 Filed 07/03/07 Page 11 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

- 8 - 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (CASE NO. C07-0800 SI) 

Plaintiff’s hoof pick design, all invoices for purchase, bills of lading, and all related papers, 

permits, and insurance documents, and all names and addresses of the vendors and vendees who 

are or have been invoiced for the specified products. 

F. That Defendant be directed to account to Plaintiff any and all sales information for 

products comprising Plaintiff’s hoof pick design, including the names and addresses of 

Defendant’s agents, servants, employees, and sales representatives. 

G. That Defendant be directed to provide to Plaintiff the names, addresses, and 

account numbers of any and all banks or financial institutions which service Defendant, including 

copies of all of Defendant’s account statements, canceled checks, and deposit slips with such 

banks or financial institutions. 

H. That Defendant be directed to provide to Plaintiff the names and addresses of all

tax preparers and attorneys Defendant previously or currently consults with or employs. 

I. That Defendant be directed to pay Plaintiff’s attorney fees and costs incurred in 

prosecuting the present action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117. 

J. That Epona have such other and further relief as this Court may deem warranted. 

Case 3:07-cv-00800-SI Document 30 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 12 of 13 Case 3:07-cv-00800-SI Document 32 Filed 07/03/07 Page 12 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

- 9 - 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (CASE NO. C07-0800 SI) 

DATED: July 2, 2007 

By: /s/ 

Garner K. Weng, Esq. 

Alexandra Atencio, Esq. 

HANSON BRIDGETT MARCUS 

VLAHOS & RUDY 

425 Market Street, 26th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Telephone: (415) 777-3200 

Lynn E. Rzonca, Esq. 

Roberta Jacobs-Meadway, Esq. 

Steven D. Kim, Esq. 

BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & 

INGERSOLL LLP 

1735 Market Street, 51st Floor 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

Telephone: (215) 665-8500 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

EPONA, LTD., a Delaware corporation 

 

Case 3:07-cv-00800-SI Document 30 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 13 of 13 Case 3:07-cv-00800-SI Document 32 Filed 07/03/07 Page 13 of 13