1 

 AUS:0104637/00000:635659v1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

SOUTH BEND DIVISION 

COACH, INC. and COACH SERVICES, INC., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

ZIP THRU MART AND CHARLES ESTOK, SR., 

AN INDIVIDUAL, AND JANICE ESTOK, AN 

INDIVIDUAL. 

 Defendants. 

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Case No. ______________ 

COMPLAINT 

Plaintiffs Coach, Inc. and Coach Services, Inc. (hereinafter collectively referred to as 

“Coach” or “Plaintiffs”), through their undersigned counsel, file this Complaint against 

Defendants Zip Thru Mart, Charles Estok Sr., an individual, and Janice Estok, an individual 

(hereinafter referred to as “Defendants”), allege as follows: 

Nature of the Action 

1. This is an action for trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, trademark 

dilution and counterfeiting under the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1116, 1117, and 1125(a) 

and (c)); copyright infringement under the United States Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 501 et seq.); 

trademark infringement, unfair competition and unjust enrichment under Indiana common law.

Jurisdiction and Venue 

2. Jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this action is proper in this 

Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1121 (actions arising under the Lanham Act), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00209-JD-CAN document 1 filed 04/04/16 page 1 of 27
2 

 AUS:0104637/00000:635659v1

(actions arising under the laws of the United States), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (diversity of 

citizenship between the parties), and § 1338(a) (actions arising under an Act of Congress relating 

to trademarks). This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the claims in this Complaint that 

arise under state statutory and common law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 

3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants because they do business 

and/or reside in the State of Indiana. 

4. Venue is properly founded in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1391(b) and (c), and 1400(a) because Defendants reside in this District, may be found in this 

District, and/or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims in this action occurred 

within this District. 

Parties 

5. Plaintiff Coach, Inc. is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws 

of the State of Maryland, with its principal place of business in New York, New York. 

6. Plaintiff Coach Services, Inc. is a corporation duly organized and existing under 

the laws of the State of Maryland, with its principal place of business in Jacksonville, Florida. 

7. Upon information and belief, Defendant Zip Thru Mart (“Zip Thru”) is a domestic 

entity operating a business at 1107 S. Heaton Street, Knox, Indiana 46534. It may be served 

with process by serving Charles Estok Sr. (or such other authorized person) at that address or 

wherever else he may be found. 

8. Upon information and belief, Defendant Charles (“Chuck”) Estok Sr. (“Chuck 

Estok”) is or purports to be the owner/member and operator of and conducts business through 

Zip Thru located at 1107 S. Heaton Street, Knox, Indiana 46534. Defendant Chuck Estok may 

be served with process at the business address(es), or wherever he may be found. 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00209-JD-CAN document 1 filed 04/04/16 page 2 of 27
3 

 AUS:0104637/00000:635659v1

9. Upon information and belief, Defendant Janice Estok (“Janice Estok”) is or 

purports to be the owner/member and operator of and conducts business through Zip Thru 

located at 1107 S. Heaton Street, Knox, Indiana 46534. Defendant Janice Estok may be served 

with process at the business address(es), or wherever she may be found. 

10. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that at all relevant 

times herein, Defendants knew or reasonably should have known of the acts and behavior 

alleged herein and the damages caused thereby, and by their inaction ratified and encouraged 

such acts and behavior. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants have a non-delegable duty to 

prevent or cause such acts and the behavior described herein, which duty Defendants failed 

and/or refused to perform. 

The World Famous Coach Brand and Products 

11. Coach was founded seventy-five (75) years ago as a family-run workshop in 

Manhattan. Since then Coach has been engaged in the manufacture, marketing and sale of fine 

leather and mixed material products, including, but not limited to, handbags, wallets, accessories, 

eyewear, footwear, clothing, outerwear, jewelry and watches (collectively, the “Coach 

Products”). Coach sells its goods throughout the United States, including in Indiana, through its 

own specialty retail stores and outlet stores, through various department stores, and via the 

Internet websites located at www.coach.com and www.coachoutlet.com. 

12. Coach Products have become enormously popular and even iconic, driven by 

Coach’s arduous quality standards and innovative designs. Among the purchasing public, 

genuine Coach Products are instantly recognizable as such. 

13. Both in the United States and internationally, the Coach brand has come to 

symbolize high quality, and Coach Products are among the most recognizable handbags and 

accessories in the world. Whether made entirely of leather or in combination with printed or 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00209-JD-CAN document 1 filed 04/04/16 page 3 of 27
4 

 AUS:0104637/00000:635659v1

other components, genuine Coach Products are greatly coveted as premier fashion accessories of 

the highest quality. 

14. The unique mix of function, workmanship, fashion and style that goes into each 

and every genuine Coach Product, as well as the brand’s exclusive cache, results in Coach 

Products commanding a relatively high price at retail. Coach’s loyal customer base willingly 

pays more for genuine Coach Products than they would pay for lesser products both because 

Coach Products are of higher quality and durability than competitors’ and because of the prestige 

associated with genuine Coach Products. Coach is the exclusive distributor of Coach Products. 

The Coach Trademarks 

15. Coach has sold leather goods under the COACH mark since 1941. The types of 

goods sold under the COACH mark have expanded extensively since then to include all of the 

Coach Products, and the Coach Products have long been among the most popular luxury lifestyle 

items. The COACH mark itself is iconic, symbolizing a unique blend of fashion, craftsmanship, 

style, and function, whether associated with handbags or other Coach Products. 

16. Coach owns the trademark and trade name “COACH” for the Coach Products, as 

well as numerous other highly distinctive marks, including those pictured here: 

 

the “Signature C Mark” the “COACH Lozenge” the “Op Art C Mark” 

the “Horse and Carriage Logo” collectively, the “StoryPatch” 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00209-JD-CAN document 1 filed 04/04/16 page 4 of 27
5 

 AUS:0104637/00000:635659v1

17. Coach incorporates a variety of distinctive marks in the design of its various 

handbags, purses and other Coach Products. Coach Products typically include at least one of 

Coach’s federally registered trademarks. Often several of Coach’s trademarks appear on a single 

Coach Product. Coach also uses these trademarks in connection with the marketing of its Coach 

Products. Coach and its predecessors have achieved annual sales volume of more than four 

billion dollars ($4,000,000,000) on products bearing Coach’s trademarks. As such, Coach’s 

trademarks, and the goodwill associated therewith, are among Coach’s most valuable assets. 

18. Coach has registered many of its trademarks with the United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, including, inter alia, the following marks, which are collectively referred to 

as the “Coach Trademarks: 

Registration 

No. Mark Classes, Goods and Services 

Date of 

Registration Image 

2,088,706 COACH 6, 9, 16, 18, 20 and 25 

for inter alia key fobs, 

eyeglass cases, cellular 

phone cases satchels, 

tags for luggage, 

luggage, backpacks, 

picture frames, hats, 

gloves and caps. 

August 19, 

1997 

3,157,972 COACH 35 for retail store 

services. 

October 17, 

2006 

751,493 COACH 14 for Leather Goods, 

namely, Utility Kits, 

Portfolios, Key Cases, 

Pass Cases, Billfolds, 

Wallets, Pocket 

Secretaries. 

June 23, 

1963 

2,451,168 COACH 9 for eyeglasses. May 15, 

2001 

4,105,689 COACH 9 for sunglasses. February 25, 

2012 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00209-JD-CAN document 1 filed 04/04/16 page 5 of 27
6 

 AUS:0104637/00000:635659v1

Registration 

No. Mark Classes, Goods and Services 

Date of 

Registration Image 

2,537,004 COACH 24 for inter alia home 

furnishings. 

February 5, 

2002 

1,846,801 COACH 25 for men’s and 

women’s coats and 

jackets. 

July 26, 1994 

3,439,871 COACH 18 for umbrellas. June 3, 2008 

2,231,001 COACH 25 for clothing for 

men, women, namely, 

coats, jackets, 

overcoats, raincoats, 

shirts, vests, scarves, 

shoes and belts. 

March 9, 

1999 

3,354,448 COACH 14 for inter alia

jewelry. 

December 

11, 2007 

2,446,607 COACH 16 for inter alia

writing instruments. 

April 24, 

2001 

2,291,341 COACH 14 for watches. November 9, 

1999 

1,071,000 COACH 18, 25 for inter alia

women’s handbags 

and men’s and 

women’s belts. 

August 9, 

1977 

3,633,302 COACH 3 for inter alia

perfumes, lotions and 

body sprays. 

June 2, 2009 

4,168,626 COACH NEW 

YORK 

18, 25 for inter alia 

briefcases, satchels, 

tote bags, duffle bags, 

key cases, coin cases, 

wallets, hats, caps, 

gloves, coats, jackets, 

overcoats, raincoats, 

scarves, shoes and 

belts. 

July 3, 2012 

4,296,584 COACH NEW 

YORK 

9, 16 for cases for 

eyeglasses and 

sunglasses, sunglasses 

and spectacles, 

February 26, 

2013 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00209-JD-CAN document 1 filed 04/04/16 page 6 of 27
7 

 AUS:0104637/00000:635659v1

Registration 

No. Mark Classes, Goods and Services 

Date of 

Registration Image 

calendars and diaries. 

3,413,536 COACH EST. 

1941 Stylized 

14 for inter alia 

jewelry 

April 15, 

2008 

2,534,429 COACH & 

Lozenge Design 

9 for eyeglasses, 

eyeglass frames, and 

sunglasses. 

January 29, 

2002 

3,363,873 COACH & 

Lozenge Design 

3 for inter alia

fragrances. 

January 1, 

2008 

2,252,847 COACH & 

Lozenge Design 

35 for retail services. June 15, 

1999 

2,291,368 COACH & 

Lozenge Design 

14 for inter alia

watches. 

November 9, 

1999 

2,534,429 COACH & 

Lozenge Design 

9 for eyeglasses, 

eyeglass frames and 

sunglasses. 

January 29, 

2002 

2,169,808 COACH & 

Lozenge Design 

25 for inter alia

clothing for men and 

women, namely, coats, 

jackets, scarves, shoes, 

and belts. 

June 30, 

1998 

2,045,676 COACH & 

Lozenge Design 

6, 9, 16, 18, 20, 25 for 

inter alia key fobs, 

money clips, phone 

cases, computer cases, 

briefcases, satchels, 

duffel bags, hats, caps 

and gloves. 

March 18, 

1997 

1,070,999 COACH & 

Lozenge Design 

18, 25 for inter alia

women’s handbags 

and men’s and 

women’s belts. 

August 9, 

1977 

1,309,779 COACH & 

Lozenge Design 

9, 16, 18 for inter alia

eyeglass cases and 

leather goods, namely, 

wallets, purses and 

shoulder bags. 

December 

19, 1984 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00209-JD-CAN document 1 filed 04/04/16 page 7 of 27
8 

 AUS:0104637/00000:635659v1

Registration 

No. Mark Classes, Goods and Services 

Date of 

Registration Image 

2,035,056 COACH & 

Lozenge Design 

3, 21 for inter alia

leather cleaning 

products and shoe 

brushes. 

February 4, 

1997 

2,626,565 CC & Design 

(Signature C) 

18 for inter alia

handbags, purses, 

clutches, shoulder 

bags, tote bags, and 

wallets. 

September 

24, 2002 

2,822,318 CC & Design 

(Signature C) 

24 for fabric for use in 

the manufacture of 

clothing, shoes, 

handbags, and 

luggage. 

March 16, 

2004 

2,832,589 CC & Design 

(Signature C) 

6, 9, 14, 18, for inter 

alia sunglasses and 

eyeglass cases, metal 

key fobs, leather key 

fobs, jewelry, watches, 

umbrellas. 

April 13, 

2004 

2,592,963 CC & Design 

(Signature C) 

25 for inter alia

clothing namely, 

scarves, belts, gloves, 

hats, shoes, coats, 

jackets. 

July 9, 2002 

2,822,629 CC & Design 

(Signature C) 

35 for retail services. March 16, 

2004 

4,365,898 COACH Signature 

C & Design 

9 for protective covers 

and cases for cell 

phones, laptops and 

portable media 

players. 

July 9, 2013 

3,396,554 AMENDED CC & 

Design (Signature 

C) 

3 for fragrances. March 11, 

2008 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00209-JD-CAN document 1 filed 04/04/16 page 8 of 27
9 

 AUS:0104637/00000:635659v1

Registration 

No. Mark Classes, Goods and Services 

Date of 

Registration Image 

3,784,814 COACH OP ART 

& Design 

9 for inter alia 

eyeglasses and 

sunglasses. 

May 4, 2010 

4,365,899 COACH OP ART 

& Design 

9 for protective covers 

and cases for cell 

phones, laptops and 

portable media 

players. 

July 9, 2013 

4,105,636 COACH OP ART 

& Design 

14, 18, 25 for jewelry, 

watches, wallets, 

handbags, belts, hats, 

scarves, shoes, coats, 

gloves and t-shirts. 

February 28, 

2012 

3,696,470 COACH OP ART 

& Design 

18, 24 and 25 for inter 

alia handbags, wallets, 

umbrellas, hats, 

scarves, belts, coats, 

shoes and fabrics for 

the manufacturing of 

clothing, shoes and 

handbags. 

October 13, 

2009 

4,391,741 COACH 

LEATHERWARE 

EST. 1941 & 

Design 

3 for after-shave, body 

lotions, fragrances, 

make-up, perfumes, 

soaps for personal use. 

August 27, 

2013 

4,296,582 COACH EST. 

1941 NEW YORK 

& Design 

14,16,18 and 25 for 

inter alia jewelry and 

watches, handbags, 

leather credit card 

cases, purses, shoulder 

bags, wallets, belts, 

coats, t-shirts, hats, 

gloves, shoes, day 

planners. 

February 26, 

2013 

4,359,191 COACH EST. 

1941 NEW YORK 

& Design 

9 for protective covers 

and cases for cell 

phones, laptops and 

portable media 

June 25, 

2013 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00209-JD-CAN document 1 filed 04/04/16 page 9 of 27
10 

 AUS:0104637/00000:635659v1

Registration 

No. Mark Classes, Goods and Services 

Date of 

Registration Image 

players. 

3,251,315 COACH EST. 

1941 & Design 

18, 25 for inter alia

handbags, small 

leather goods, jackets, 

coats and shoes. 

June 12, 

2007 

3,338,048 COACH & Design 18 for inter alia

luggage, backpacks, 

purses, wallets, and 

shoulder bags. 

November 

11, 2007 

3,149,330 C & Lozenge Logo 14 for watches. September 

26, 2006 

2,162,303 COACH & Tag 

Design 

25 for belts. June 2, 1998 

4,334,351 COACH & Tag 

Design 

9 for protective covers 

and cases for cell 

phones, laptops and 

portable media 

players. 

May 14, 

2013 

3,685,590 COACH & Tag 

Design 

14 for bracelets, 

earrings, jewelry, 

necklaces, rings being 

jewelry, watches. 

September 

22, 2009 

2,088,707 COACH & Tag 

Design 

18 for inter alia 

briefcases, handbags, 

satchels, tote bags, 

duffle bags, cosmetic 

bags, luggage. 

August 19, 

1997 

3,908,558 POPPY 9 for eyeglasses and 

sunglasses. 

January 18, 

2011 

3,812,170 POPPY 18 for inter alia

backpacks, briefcases, 

leather key chains, 

handbags, wallets and 

billfolds. 

June 29, 

2010 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00209-JD-CAN document 1 filed 04/04/16 page 10 of 27
11 

 AUS:0104637/00000:635659v1

Registration 

No. Mark Classes, Goods and Services 

Date of 

Registration Image 

4,744,715 COACH NEW 

YORK & Design 

18 for handbags; 

purses; tote bags; 

clutch purses; wristlet 

bags; shoulder bags; 

messenger bags; duffle 

bags; backpacks; 

briefcases; travel bags; 

luggage; garment bags 

for travel; bags for 

carrying babies' 

accessories; wallets; 

billfolds; luggage tags; 

cosmetic cases sold 

empty; toiletry cases 

sold empty; key cases 

and wallets; business 

card cases; credit card 

cases; coin purses; 

umbrellas; pet collars 

and leashes; and 

leather boxes. 

May 26, 

2015 

4,744,716 COACH NEW 

YORK & Design 

16 for notebooks; 

address books; daily 

planners; diaries; 

paper refills for 

notebooks, address 

books, daily planners, 

diaries, and calendars; 

paper weights; desk 

file trays; bookmarks; 

pencil cases; 

checkbook covers; 

money clips; paper 

shopping bags; boxes 

of paper or cardboard; 

paper holders for 

receipts; and tissue 

paper. 

May 26, 

2015 

4,744,718 COACH NEW 

YORK & Design 

25 for clothing, 

namely, coats, jackets, 

overcoats, raincoats, 

vests, parkas, capes, 

blouses, shirts, t-shirts, 

May 26, 

2015 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00209-JD-CAN document 1 filed 04/04/16 page 11 of 27
12 

 AUS:0104637/00000:635659v1

Registration 

No. Mark Classes, Goods and Services 

Date of 

Registration Image 

tank tops, tunics, 

sweaters, sweatshirts, 

skirts, pants, dresses, 

scarves, swimwear; 

belts; gloves; hats; and 

footwear. 

4,744,719 COACH NEW 

YORK & Design 

3 for fragrances; 

aftershaves; colognes; 

leather cleaning and 

moisturizing 

preparations; and 

fabric cleaners. 

May 26, 

2015 

4,744,720 COACH NEW 

YORK & Design 

9 for sunglasses; 

eyeglasses; optical 

frames; cases for 

eyeglasses and 

sunglasses; adapter 

plugs; cell phone 

cases; cell phone 

covers; carrying cases 

for cell phones; 

protective covers and 

cases for tablet 

computers; and mouse 

pads. 

May 26, 

2015 

4,744,721 COACH NEW 

YORK & Design 

14 for watches; 

jewelry; and 

ornamental pins. 

May 26, 

2015 

4,814,094 COACH NEW 

YORK & Design 

18 for handbags; 

purses; tote bags; 

clutch purses; wristlet 

bags; shoulder bags; 

messenger bags; duffle 

bags; backpacks; 

briefcases; travel bags; 

luggage; garment bags 

for travel; bags for 

carrying babies' 

accessories; cosmetic 

cases sold empty; and 

toiletry cases sold 

September 

15, 2015 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00209-JD-CAN document 1 filed 04/04/16 page 12 of 27
13 

 AUS:0104637/00000:635659v1

Registration 

No. Mark Classes, Goods and Services 

Date of 

Registration Image 

empty. 

4,754,870 COACH NEW 

YORK 

3, 6 for fragrances; 

key fobs of common 

metal; and metal rings 

and chains for keys. 

June 16, 

2015 

19. The registrations for these Coach Trademarks are valid, subsisting, in full force 

and effect and have become incontestable pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1065. All registrations 

originally held in the name of Coach’s predecessors, Sara Lee Corporation and Saramar 

Corporation, were assigned in full to Coach on or about October 2, 2000. 

20. The Coach Trademarks at issue in this case have been continuously used and have 

never been abandoned. 

21. The registration of the Coach Trademarks constitutes prima facie evidence of 

their validity and conclusive evidence of Coach’s exclusive right to use the Coach Trademarks in 

connection with the goods identified therein and on other commercial goods. 

22. The registration of the Coach Trademarks also provides sufficient notice to 

Defendants of Coach’s ownership of and exclusive rights in the Coach Trademarks. 

23. Coach has expended substantial time, money, and other resources in developing, 

advertising, and otherwise promoting the Coach Trademarks. As a result, products bearing the 

Coach Trademarks are widely recognized as being high quality products and are exclusively 

associated by consumers, the public, and the trade with Coach. The Coach Trademarks have 

therefore acquired strong secondary meaning and signal to consumers that Coach is the exclusive 

source of Coach Products bearing the Coach Trademarks. 

24. The Coach Trademarks qualify as famous marks, as that term is used in 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1125(c)(1). 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00209-JD-CAN document 1 filed 04/04/16 page 13 of 27
14 

 AUS:0104637/00000:635659v1

The Coach Trade Dress 

25. Coach is the owner of a variety of unique and distinctive trade dresses consisting 

of a combination of one or more features, including sizes, shapes, colors, designs, fabrics, 

hardware, hangtags, stitching patterns and other non-functional elements comprising the overall 

look and feel incorporated into Coach Products (the “Coach Trade Dresses”). 

26. Consumers immediately identify Coach as the single source of high quality 

products bearing the Coach Trade Dresses. 

27. The Coach Trade Dresses associated with Coach products are independent of the 

functional aspects of Coach Products. 

28. Coach has employed the Coach Trade Dresses associated with its Coach Products 

exclusively and without interruption, and the Coach Trade Dresses have never been abandoned. 

The Coach Copyrights 

29. Many of the decorative and artistic combinations of the design elements present 

on Coach Products are independently protected works under the United States Copyright Laws. 

These design elements are wholly original works and are fixed in various tangible products and 

media, thereby qualifying as copyrightable subject matter under the United States Copyright Act, 

17 U.S.C. Sections 101 et seq. (hereinafter referred to as the “Coach Design Elements”). 

30. In addition to others, Coach has a valid copyright registered with the Copyright 

Office for its “Legacy Stripe” design (registration number VA000704542), “Signature C” design 

(registration number VA0001228917), “Op Art” design (registration number VA0001694574) 

and “Horse & Carriage” design (registration number VA0001714051). 

31. At all times relevant hereto, Coach has been the sole owner and proprietor of all 

rights, title, and interest in and to the copyrights in the Coach Design Elements used on Coach 

Products, and such copyrights are valid, subsisting and in full force and effect. 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00209-JD-CAN document 1 filed 04/04/16 page 14 of 27
15 

 AUS:0104637/00000:635659v1

Defendants’ Acts of Infringement and Unfair Competition 

32. Upon information and belief, Defendants are engaged in designing, 

manufacturing, advertising, promoting, distributing, selling, and/or offering for sale products 

bearing logos and source-identifying indicia and design elements that are studied imitations of 

the Coach Trademarks (hereinafter referred to as the “Infringing Products”). Defendants’ 

specific conduct includes, among other things, the trafficking in counterfeit Coach merchandise, 

specifically purses, at Zip Thru as an enticement to attract potential customers to the business. 

33. On or about February 3, 2016, an investigator from Coach entered Zip Thru’s 

location at 1107 S. Heaton Street, Knox, Indiana 46534 to conduct an undercover purchase of 

items displayed for sale bearing Coach trademarks. The investigator observed approximately 

seven (7) purportedly Coach trademarked purses displayed for sale. He specifically purchased 

one (1) of the purportedly Coach trademarked purses. An additional nine (9) purportedly Coach 

trademarked purses were seized by a Homeland Security Investigations officer during a 

subsequent visit to the business. Based on training and experience, venue, price point, lack of 

legitimate hangtags as well as overall quality of the materials, the Investigator determined the 

items were counterfeit and infringed on Coach’s intellectual property. 

34. Defendants are well aware of the extraordinary fame and strength of the Coach 

Brand, the Coach Trademarks, the Coach Trade Dresses, Coach Copyrights, and the Coach 

Design Elements, and the incalculable goodwill associated therewith. 

35. Defendants have no license, authority, or other permission from Coach to use any 

of the Coach Trademarks, the Coach Trade Dresses, Coach Copyrights or the Coach Design 

Elements in connection with the designing, manufacturing, advertising, promoting, distributing, 

selling, and/or offering for sale of the Infringing Products. 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00209-JD-CAN document 1 filed 04/04/16 page 15 of 27
16 

 AUS:0104637/00000:635659v1

36. Defendants have been engaging in the above-described illegal counterfeiting and 

infringing activities negligently and/or knowingly and intentionally, with reckless disregard or 

willful blindness to Coach’s rights, or with bad faith, for the purpose of trading on the goodwill 

and reputation of the Coach Trademarks and Coach Products. 

37. Defendants’ activities, as described above, are likely to create a false impression 

and deceive consumers, the public, and the trade into believing that there is a connection or 

association between the Infringing Products and Coach. 

38. Upon information and belief, Defendants intend to continue to design, 

manufacture, advertise, promote, import, distribute, sell, and/or offer for sale the Infringing 

Products. 

39. Coach is suffering irreparable injury, has suffered substantial damages as a result 

of Defendants’ activities, and has no adequate remedy at law. 

COUNT I 

(Trademark Counterfeiting, 15 U.S.C. § 1114) 

40. Coach repeats and realleges the allegations set forth above as if fully set forth 

herein. 

41. Defendants, without authorization from Coach, have used and are continuing to 

use spurious designations that are identical to, or substantially indistinguishable from, Coach’s 

Trademarks. 

42. The foregoing acts of Defendants are intended to cause, have caused, and are 

likely to continue to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive consumers, the public, and the 

trade into believing that Defendants’ Infringing Products are genuine or authorized products of 

Coach. 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00209-JD-CAN document 1 filed 04/04/16 page 16 of 27
17 

 AUS:0104637/00000:635659v1

43. Upon information and belief, Defendants have acted with knowledge of Coach’s 

ownership of the Coach Trademarks and with deliberate intention or willful blindness to unfairly 

benefit from the incalculable goodwill inherent in the Coach Trademarks. 

44. Defendants’ acts constitute trademark counterfeiting in violation of Section 32 of 

the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1114). 

45. Upon information and belief, Defendants have made and will continue to make 

substantial profits and/or gains to which they are not in law or equity entitled. 

46. Upon information and belief, Defendants intend to continue their infringing acts, 

unless restrained by this Court. 

47. Defendants’ acts have damaged and will continue to damage Coach, and Coach 

has no adequate remedy at law. 

COUNT II 

(Trademark Infringement, 15 U.S.C. § 1114) 

48. Coach repeats and realleges the allegations set forth above as if fully set forth 

herein. 

49. Defendants, without authorization from Coach, have used and are continuing to 

use spurious designations that are confusingly similar to Coach’s Trademarks. 

50. The foregoing acts of Defendants are intended to cause, have caused, and are 

likely to continue to cause confusion, mistake, and deception among consumers, the public, and 

the trade as to whether Defendants’ Infringing Products originate from, or are affiliated with, 

sponsored by, or endorsed by Coach. 

51. Upon information and belief, Defendants have acted with knowledge of Coach’s 

ownership of the Coach Trademarks and with deliberate intention or willful blindness to unfairly 

benefit from the incalculable goodwill symbolized thereby. 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00209-JD-CAN document 1 filed 04/04/16 page 17 of 27
18 

 AUS:0104637/00000:635659v1

52. Defendants’ acts constitute trademark infringement in violation of Section 32 of 

the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1114). 

53. Upon information and belief, Defendants have made and will continue to make 

substantial profits and/or gains to which they are not in law or equity entitled. 

54. Upon information and belief, Defendants intend to continue their infringing acts, 

unless restrained by this Court. 

55. Defendants’ acts have damaged and will continue to damage Coach, and Coach 

has no adequate remedy at law. 

COUNT III 

(Trade Dress Infringement, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)) 

56. Coach repeats and realleges the allegations set forth above as if fully set forth 

herein. 

57. The Coach Trade Dresses are used in commerce, non-functional, inherently 

distinctive, and have acquired secondary meaning in the marketplace. 

58. Defendants, without authorization from Coach, have designed, manufactured, 

advertised, promoted, distributed, sold, and/or offered for sale, and/or are causing to be designed, 

manufactured, advertised, promoted, distributed, sold, and/or offered for sale, products which 

contain a collection of design elements that is confusingly similar to the Coach Trade Dresses. 

59. The foregoing acts of Defendants are intended to cause, have caused, and are 

likely to continue to cause confusion, mistake, and deception among consumers, the public, and 

the trade who recognize and associate the Coach Trade Dresses with Coach. Moreover, 

Defendants’ conduct is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive consumers, the 

public, and the trade as to the source of the Infringing Products, or as to a possible affiliation, 

connection or association between Coach, the Defendants, and the Infringing Products. 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00209-JD-CAN document 1 filed 04/04/16 page 18 of 27
19 

 AUS:0104637/00000:635659v1

60. Upon information and belief, Defendants have acted with knowledge of Coach’s 

ownership of the Coach Trade Dresses and with deliberate intention or willful blindness to 

unfairly benefit from the incalculable goodwill symbolized thereby. 

61. Defendants’ acts constitute trade dress infringement in violation of Section 43(a) 

of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)). 

62. Upon information and belief, Defendants have made and will continue to make 

substantial profits and gains to which they are not in law or equity entitled. 

63. Upon information and belief, Defendants intend to continue their infringing acts, 

unless restrained by this Court. 

64. Defendants’ acts have damaged and will continue to damage Coach, and Coach 

has no adequate remedy at law. 

COUNT IV

(False Designation of Origin and False Advertising, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)) 

65. Coach repeats and realleges the allegations set forth above as if fully set forth 

herein. 

66. Defendants’ promotion, advertising, distribution, sale, and/or offering for sale of 

the Infringing Products, together with Defendants’ use of other indicia associated with Coach is 

intended, and is likely to confuse, mislead, or deceive consumers, the public, and the trade as to 

the origin, source, sponsorship, or affiliation of the Infringing Products, and is intended, and is 

likely to cause such parties to believe in error that the Infringing Products have been authorized, 

sponsored, approved, endorsed or licensed by Coach, or that Defendants are in some way 

affiliated with Coach. 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00209-JD-CAN document 1 filed 04/04/16 page 19 of 27
20 

 AUS:0104637/00000:635659v1

67. The foregoing acts of Defendants constitute a false designation of origin, and 

false and misleading descriptions and representations of fact, all in violation of Section 43(a) of 

the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)). 

68. Upon information and belief, Defendants have made and will continue to make 

substantial profits and/or gains to which they are not in law or equity entitled. 

69. Upon information and belief, Defendants intend to continue their infringing acts, 

unless restrained by this Court. 

70. Defendants’ acts have damaged and will continue to damage Coach, and Coach 

has no adequate remedy at law. 

COUNT V 

(Trademark Dilution, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)) 

71. Coach repeats and realleges the allegations set forth above as if fully set forth 

herein. 

72. The Coach Trademarks are strong and distinctive marks that have been in use for 

many years and have achieved enormous and widespread public recognition. 

73. The Coach Trademarks are famous within the meaning of Section 43(c) of the 

Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)). 

74. Defendants’ use of the Infringing Products, without authorization from Coach, is 

diluting the distinctive quality of the Coach Trademarks and decreasing the capacity of such 

marks to identify and distinguish Coach Products. 

75. Defendants have intentionally and willfully diluted the distinctive quality of the 

famous Coach Trademarks in violation of Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 

1125(c)). 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00209-JD-CAN document 1 filed 04/04/16 page 20 of 27
21 

 AUS:0104637/00000:635659v1

76. Upon information and belief, Defendants have made and will continue to make 

substantial profits and gains to which they are not in law or equity entitled. 

77. Upon information and belief, Defendants intend to continue their infringing acts, 

unless restrained by this Court. 

78. Defendants’ acts have damaged and will continue to damage Coach, and Coach 

has no adequate remedy at law. 

COUNT VI 

(Copyright Infringement, 17 U.S.C. § 501) 

79. Coach repeats and realleges the allegations set forth above as if fully set forth 

herein. 

80. Many of the Coach Design Elements contain decorative and artistic combinations 

that are protected under the United States Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.). These 

include, but are not limited to, the “COACH Design”, the “Coach Stylized Design”, the 

Amended CC & Design”, the “Op Art Design”, the “CC & Design (Signature C)”, the “Coach & 

Lozenge Design”, and the “Coach Est. 1941”. 

81. Upon information and belief, Defendants had access to and copied the CC & 

Design (Signature C), the Coach Est. 1941 Design and other Coach Design Elements present on 

Coach Products. 

82. Defendants intentionally infringed Coach’s copyrights in the CC & Design 

(Signature C), the Coach Est. 1941 Design, and other Design Elements present on Coach 

products by creating and distributing the Infringing Products, which incorporate elements 

substantially similar to the copyrightable matter present in the CC & Design (Signature C), the 

Coach Est. 1941 Design, and other Design Elements present on Coach products, without Coach’s 

consent or authorization. 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00209-JD-CAN document 1 filed 04/04/16 page 21 of 27
22 

 AUS:0104637/00000:635659v1

83. Defendants have infringed Coach’s copyrights in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 501 et 

seq. 

84. Upon information and belief, Defendants have made and will continue to make 

substantial profits and gains to which they are not in law or equity entitled. 

85. Upon information and belief, Defendants intend to continue their infringing acts, 

unless restrained by this Court. 

86. Defendants’ acts have damaged and will continue to damage Coach, and Coach 

has no adequate remedy at law. 

COUNT VII 

(Common Law Trademark Infringement) 

87. Coach repeats and realleges the allegations set forth above as if fully set forth 

herein. 

88. Coach owns all rights, title, and interest in and to the Coach Trademarks, 

including all common law rights in such marks. 

89. Defendants, without authorization from Coach, have used and are continuing to 

use spurious designations that are identical to, substantially indistinguishable from, or 

confusingly similar to the Coach Trademarks. 

90. The foregoing acts of Defendants are intended to cause, have caused, and are 

likely to continue to cause confusion, mistake, and deception among consumers, the public, and 

the trade as to whether Defendants’ Infringing Products originate from, or are affiliated with, 

sponsored by, or endorsed by Coach. 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00209-JD-CAN document 1 filed 04/04/16 page 22 of 27
23 

 AUS:0104637/00000:635659v1

91. Upon information and belief, Defendants have acted with knowledge of Coach’s 

ownership of the Coach Trademarks and with deliberate intention or willful blindness to unfairly 

benefit from the incalculable goodwill symbolized thereby. 

92. Defendants’ acts constitute trademark infringement in violation of the common 

law of the State of Indiana. 

93. Upon information and belief, Defendants have made and will continue to make 

substantial profits and/or gains to which they are not in law or equity entitled. 

94. Upon information and belief, Defendants intend to continue their infringing acts, 

unless restrained by this Court. 

95. Defendants’ acts have damaged and will continue to damage Coach, and Coach 

has no adequate remedy at law. 

COUNT VIII 

(Common Law Unfair Competition) 

96. Coach repeats and realleges the allegations set forth above as if fully set forth 

herein. 

97. The foregoing acts of Defendants constitute unfair competition in violation of 

Indiana common law. 

98. Upon information and belief, Defendants have made and will continue to make 

substantial profits and/or gains to which they are not in law or equity entitled. 

99. Upon information and belief, Defendants intends to continue their infringing acts, 

unless restrained by this Court. 

100. Defendants’ acts have damaged and will continue to damage Coach, and Coach 

has no adequate remedy at law. 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00209-JD-CAN document 1 filed 04/04/16 page 23 of 27
24 

 AUS:0104637/00000:635659v1

COUNT IX 

(Unjust Enrichment) 

101. Coach repeats and realleges the allegations set forth above as if fully set forth 

herein. 

102. The acts complained of above constitute unjust enrichment of Defendants at 

Coach’s expense, in violation of Indiana common law. 

Prayer 

WHEREFORE, Coach respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment against the 

Defendants as follows: 

A. Finding that: (i) Defendants have violated Section 32 of the Lanham Act (15 

U.S.C. § 1114); Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)); Section 43(c) of the 

Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)); and Section 43(d) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)); 

(ii) Defendants have violated Section 501 of the Copyright Act of 1976 (17 U.S.C. § 501); (iii) 

Defendants have engaged in trademark infringement and unfair competition under Indiana 

common law; and (iv) Defendants have been unjustly enriched in violation of Indiana common 

law; 

B. Granting an injunction, pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure and 15 U.S.C. § 1116, preliminarily and permanently restraining and enjoining 

Defendants, their officers, agents, employees, and attorneys, and all those persons or entities in 

active concert or participation with her from: 

1. Manufacturing, importing, advertising, marketing, promoting, supplying, 

distributing, offering for sale, or selling any products which bear the Coach Trademarks, the 

Coach Trade Dresses, and/or the Coach Design Elements, or any other mark or design element 

substantially similar or confusing thereto, including, without limitation, the Infringing Products, 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00209-JD-CAN document 1 filed 04/04/16 page 24 of 27
25 

 AUS:0104637/00000:635659v1

and engaging in any other activity constituting an infringement of any of Coach’s rights in the 

Coach Trademarks, the Coach Trade Dresses, and/or the Coach Design Elements; or 

2. Engaging in any other activity constituting unfair competition with Coach, 

or acts and practices that deceive consumers, the public, and/or trade, including without 

limitation, the use of designations associated with Coach; 

C. Requiring Defendants to recall from any distributors and retailers and to deliver to 

Coach for destruction or other disposition all remaining inventory of all Infringing Products, 

including all advertisements, promotional and marketing materials therefore, as well as means of 

making same; 

D. Requiring Defendants to file with this Court and serve on Coach 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 have complied with the injunction; 

E. Directing such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate to prevent 

consumers, the public, and/or the trade from deriving any erroneous impression that any product 

at issue in this action that has been manufactured, imported, advertised, marketed, promoted, 

supplied, distributed, offered for sale, or sold by Defendants, has been authorized by Coach, or is 

related in any way with Coach and/or its products; 

F. Awarding Coach statutory damages of two million dollars ($2,000,000) per 

counterfeit mark, per type of counterfeit good in accordance with Section 35 of the Lanham Act 

(15 U.S.C. § 1117) or alternatively, and at Coach’s request, ordering Defendants to account to 

and pay to Coach all profits realized by their wrongful acts and also awarding Coach its actual 

damages, and also directing that such profits or actual damages be trebled, in accordance with 

Section 35 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1117); 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00209-JD-CAN document 1 filed 04/04/16 page 25 of 27
26 

 AUS:0104637/00000:635659v1

G. Awarding Coach statutory damages or in the alternative its actual damages 

suffered as a result of the copyright infringement, and any profits of Defendants not taken into 

account in computing the actual damages, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504; 

H. Awarding Coach actual and punitive damages to which it is entitled under 

applicable federal and state laws; 

I. Awarding Coach its costs, attorneys’ fees, investigatory fees, and expenses to the 

full extent provided by Section 35 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1117); 

J. Awarding Coach pre-judgment interest on any monetary award made part of the 

judgment against Defendants; and, 

K. Awarding Coach such additional and further relief as the Court deems just and 

proper. 

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY 

 Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Coach requests a trial by 

jury in this matter. 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00209-JD-CAN document 1 filed 04/04/16 page 26 of 27
27 

 AUS:0104637/00000:635659v1

Respectfully submitted, 

LOCKE LORD LLP 

By:/s/ P. Russell Perdew __________________ 

P. Russell Perdew 

 Indiana Bar No. 22617-45 

111 South Wacker Drive 

Chicago, IL 60606 

(312) 443-0700 

(312) 443-0336 

rperdew@lockelord.com 

John R. Nelson 

 Texas Bar No. 00797144 

600 Congress Avenue, Suite 2200 

Austin, Texas 78701 

(512) 305-4700 (telephone) 

(512) 305-4800 (facsimile) 

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS 

COACH, INC. AND COACH 

SERVICES, INC.

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00209-JD-CAN document 1 filed 04/04/16 page 27 of 27