IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

SWAGWAY, LLC, an Indiana limited liability 

company,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-567 _

v.

 JURY TRIAL REQUESTED

HANGZHOU CHIC INTELLIGENT 

TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., a Chinese 

company, JANSCO MARKETING, INC., a 

Massachusetts corporation, and COKEM 

INTERNATIONAL, LTD., a Minnesota 

corporation,

Defendants.

COMPLAINT 

Plaintiff Swagway, LLC (“Swagway”), as and for its Complaint against Defendants

Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. (“Chic”), Jansco Marketing, Inc. (“Jansco”), 

and COKeM International, Ltd. (“COKeM”), alleges as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. Swagway and Chic both sell self-balancing two-wheeled boards or “hoverboards”

in the U.S. market. This is an action for unfair competition and intentional interference with 

business relationships arising from numerous false and misleading statements made by Chic and 

its agents, including Jansco and COKeM, to Swagway’s retailers and customers regarding 

Swagway, its hoverboards, and Chic’s alleged patent rights. Defendants made these statements 

for the sole purpose of causing harm to Swagway’s business and preventing fair competition. 

Swagway seeks damages for and injunctive relief from Defendants’ intentional and improper 

activities. 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00567-PPS-MGG document 1 filed 08/26/16 page 1 of 24
2

THE PARTIES

2. Swagway is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of

Indiana, with its principal place of business at 3431 William Richardson Drive, Suite F, South 

Bend, Indiana 46628. 

3. On information and belief, Chic is a company organized and existing under the 

laws of the People’s Republic of China, with a principal place of business at 2/F, No. 2 Building, 

Liangzhu University, Science and Technology Park, No. 1 Jingyi Road, Liangzhu, Hangzhou, 

311112, People’s Republic of China.

4. On information and belief, Jansco is a corporation organized and existing under 

the laws of Massachusetts, with a principal place of business at 31 Schoosett Street, # 107, 

Pembroke, Massachusetts 02359.

5. On information and belief, COKeM is a corporation organized and existing under 

the laws of Minnesota, with a principal place of business at 3880 4th Avenue East, Shakopee, 

Minnesota 55379. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 

1367 and 15 U.S.C. § 1121(a) because this is an action for violation of the Lanham Act, 15 

U.S.C. § 1051 et seq., as well as under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because there is complete diversity 

between the parties and the amount in controversy with respect to Swagway’s claims against 

Defendants exceeds the value of $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs. 

7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Chic because, on information and belief, 

Chic regularly and purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting business activities in 

this District and the State of Indiana. In particular, on information and belief, Chic markets, 

offers to sell, and/or sells Chic’s products, directly and/or through distributors, to consumers 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00567-PPS-MGG document 1 filed 08/26/16 page 2 of 24
3

throughout the United States, with the reasonable expectation that its products will be purchased 

and/or used by consumers in this District. On information and belief, Chic has sold and shipped 

Chic products to consumers in the State of Indiana, including this District. 

8. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Jansco because, on information and 

belief, Jansco is an agent of Chic and acts in concert with Chic to market, offer to sell, and/or sell

Chic’s products, directly and/or through distributors, to consumers throughout the United States, 

with the reasonable expectation that Chic’s products will be purchased and/or used by consumers 

in this District. On information and belief, Jansco routinely conducts sales and marketing 

activities in the State of Indiana including this District and claims on its website that Indiana is a 

geographical territory in which Jansco conducts sales and marketing activities.

9. This Court has personal jurisdiction over COKeM because, on information and 

belief, COKeM is another agent of Chic and acts in concert with Chic to market, offer to sell, 

and/or sell Chic’s products, directly and/or through distributors, to consumers throughout the 

United States, with the reasonable expectation that Chic’s products will be purchased and/or used 

by consumers in this District. On information and belief, COKeM routinely ships products to 

locations throughout the United States, including the State of Indiana and this District, and 

claims on its website that it ships products to the State of Indiana within two days.

10. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391. 

BACKGROUND

Swagway

11. Swagway is in the business of the development, production, marketing, and sale 

of its Swagway X1, Swagtron T1, and Swagtron T3 hands-free smart boards also known as 

hoverboards (“Products”).

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00567-PPS-MGG document 1 filed 08/26/16 page 3 of 24
4

12. Swagway markets, offers to sell, and/or sells its Products to customers throughout 

the United States, both directly and through its nationwide network of distributors and retailers. 

13. Swagway’s network of retailers, each of which Swagway maintains an ongoing 

valid business relationship, include: QVC, Inc., Modell’s Sporting Goods, Best Buy Co. Inc., 

Target Corp., Nebraska Furniture Mart, Inc., Adorama Camera, Inc., Fry’s Electronics, Inc., BJ’s 

Wholesale Club, Inc., and EVINE Line, Inc.

Defendants

14. Chic is a competitor of Swagway’s in the U.S. hoverboard market. 

15. Chic’s products are offered for sale to and may be purchased and/or used by 

consumers in this District. 

16. Chic owns, maintains, and/or operates a website at http://www.chicrobot.com/en/, the content of which is incorporated herein by reference. Under its “On-line shop” 

tab, Chic’s website provides links to Chic’s online stores hosted by e-commerce companies 

Alibaba (http://chic-robot.en.alibaba.com/) and eBay (http://www.ebay.com/usr/iochic/), through 

which customers in the U.S. and this District can purchase Chic’s products. 

17. On information and belief, Chic fraudulently obtained several U.S. patents 

allegedly covering hoverboard technology due to inequitable conduct it committed before the 

United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Specifically, Chic withheld from the 

USPTO several material information that would render its patents invalid with the intent to 

deceive the USPTO, as explained in detail in Swagway’s Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and 

Counterclaims filed in Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Tech. Co. v. Swagway, LLC, No. 3:16-cv04804-HSG (N.D. Cal.) on August 26, 2016, the content of which is incorporated herein by 

reference.

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00567-PPS-MGG document 1 filed 08/26/16 page 4 of 24
5

18. On information and belief, Jansco and COKeM are agents of Chic in the United 

States. Chic, acting in concert with Jansco and COKeM, markets and offers to sell its products to 

hoverboad retailers and customers, including Swagway’s retailers and customers, by making 

false and misleading statements about Swagway, its products, and Chic’s patent rights.

Defendants’ False and Misleading Statements

19. On information and belief, since at least May 2016, Chic and its agents, including 

Jansco and COKeM, have been communicating directly with and making false and misleading 

statements to Swagway’s retailers and/or customers regarding Swagway, its hoverboards, and 

Chic’s patent rights. 

20. For example, on May 20, 2016, Chic sales agent John Garvey of Jansco, wrote to 

Marty Checkoway, a buyer for Swagway retailer BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc. (“BJ’s”), regarding 

Segway, Inc.—a company that sells personal transporters. Mr. Garvey wrote that “the only 

company that works in partnership with Segway, and that will receive exemption from the ITC 

[U.S. International Trade Commission] ruling, is [Chic]. ... The two companies are allied in the 

protection of their combined intellectual properties. Segway permits importation of noninfringing companies and licensees, and [Chic] will be able to provide documentation to US 

Customs to ensure Customs clearance for Chic hoverboards.” See Email chain between J. Garvey 

and M. Checkoway (Ex. A) at 3. 

21. And on June 2, 2016, Mr. Garvey again wrote to Mr. Checkoway that Chic 

“work[s] with Segway to ensure that IP’s are not infringed and have Segway’s full support in the 

US market.” See id. at 2.

22. Mr. Garvey’s May 20 and June 2 emails to BJ’s Mr. Checkoway are materially 

false and misleading for at least the following reasons, on information and belief: Chic and 

Segway are not “in partnership” or “allied in the protection of their combined intellectual 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00567-PPS-MGG document 1 filed 08/26/16 page 5 of 24
6

properties.” Chic is also not a licensee of Segway with respect to Chic’s hoverboards; nor does it 

“have Segway’s full support in the US market.” For example, on August 16, 2016, Segway, Inc. 

filed a Complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission alleging that Chic’s

hoverboards infringe two U.S. patents. See Certain Personal Transporters, Components Thereof, 

& Packaging & Manuals Thereof, Inv. No. ITC-337-3168. 

23. On information and belief, Jeff Manatrey, COKeM’s Senior Sales Director, has

made similar false and misleading statements to various distributors, retailers, and/or customers

of hoverboards, including (i) that Chic holds the only license to sell hoverboards in the United 

States, and (ii) that Chic’s product was the only patented product available for sale legally in the 

United States. For example, on information and belief, Mr. Manatrey made such statements at a 

trade show held on August 14-16, 2016, in Minneapolis, Minnesota, that was sponsored by MidStates Distributing Company, Inc., a company that represents approximately 40 retailers and a 

combined 750 stores. On information and belief, Mr. Manatrey’s false and misleading statements 

created confusion and concern among those distributors, retailers, and/or customers at the 

tradeshow and resulted in a loss of sales of Swagway Products. 

24. On information and belief, in June 2016, at Chic’s request, Chinese Customs in 

Shenzhen inspected a shipment of Swagway Products bound for the United States for possible 

infringement of Chic’s patents. On information and belief, upon inspecting the Swagway 

Products, Chinese Customs found no grounds to detain the products. In fact, the Chinese 

Customs’ records for this inspection contain handwritten notes dated June 28, 2016, stating in 

Chinese, among other things, “nothing unusual” and “no infringement” with respect to the 

inspected products. Consequently, Chinese Customs released the products for shipment, which 

have since arrived in the United States. 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00567-PPS-MGG document 1 filed 08/26/16 page 6 of 24
7

25. On July 1, 2016, Chic published a press release on its website regarding this June 

Customs inspection, titled “Chic Intercepted Four Export Containers of Infringing Smart Boards 

in Shenzhen Customs.” See http://www.chic-robot.com/en/index.php/news/info/38. A true and 

correct copy of this press release is attached as Ex. B. 

26. Chic’s July 1 press release reads: 

In June 2016, four export containers of infringing smart boards 

with SWAGTRON logo founded [sic] on scooters and packages 

were intercepted by [Chic] in Shenzhen Customs.

See id. (emphasis added). 

27. Also on or about July 1, 2016, Chic and/or its agents, including Jansco and/or 

COKeM, communicated directly to Swagway’s retailers and/or customers regarding this June 

Customs inspection. For example, on July 1, 2016, Chic’s agent Mr. Garvey of Jansco wrote the 

following to Mr. Checkoway of BJ’s. 

Chinese customs has started holding containers of Swagtron 

products from even leaving China due to infringement of Chic’s 

patents. The first four containers of Swagtron T1’s have just been 

seized in Shenzhen Customs. 

Between Chic’s patents, which I sent on Wednesday, and Chinese 

government support to prevent infringing goods from even 

leaving the country, Chic will be the only reliable, legal and safe 

source of goods in the US this year. 

See Ex. A at 1. (emphasis added). 

28. Chic’s July 1 press release and Mr. Garvey’s July 1 email are materially false and 

misleading for at least the following reasons, on information and belief: 

(i) Stating that the Swagway Products were “infringing” and failing to 

indicate that Chinese Customs found “nothing unusual” and “no 

infringement” of Chic’s patents with respect to the products. 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00567-PPS-MGG document 1 filed 08/26/16 page 7 of 24
8

(ii) Stating that the Swagway Products were “intercepted,” “seized,” and 

“prevent[ed] ... from even leaving the country,” and failing to indicate 

that, upon finding “nothing unusual” and “no infringement,” Chinese 

Customs cleared and released the products for shipment to the United 

States.

(iii) Stating that Chic will be “the only reliable, legal and safe source of goods 

in the US this year,” despite the fact that Chinese Customs cleared and 

released the Swagway Products, which have since arrived in the United 

States, and that Swagway’s Products, which use the UL 2271 Certified 

SentryShieldTM Battery, are reliable and safe.

(iv) Stating that four containers of Swagway Products were inspected, instead 

of only two containers. 

29. On or about August 2, 2016, Chic and/or its agents began sending cease-anddesist (“C&D”) letters to retailers of the Swagway Products with whom Swagway maintains 

ongoing business relationships. Specifically, Chic and/or its agents sent a C&D letter dated 

August 2, 2016, to at least the following Swagway retailers: QVC, Inc., Modell’s Sporting 

Goods, Best Buy Co. Inc., Target Corp., Nebraska Furniture Mart, Inc., Adorama Camera, Inc., 

and Fry’s Electronics, Inc. And on or about August 16, 2016, Chic and/or its agents sent a C&D 

letter to at least the following additional Swagway retailers: BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc. and 

EVINE Line, Inc. 

30. An exemplary C&D letter, which was sent to Swagway retailer QVC, Inc. and 

dated August 2, 2016, is attached as Ex. C. 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00567-PPS-MGG document 1 filed 08/26/16 page 8 of 24
9

31. In its letter, Chic identifies itself as the owner of U.S. Patent No. 9,376,155 and 

U.S. design patents D737,723 and D738,256 (collectively, “Chic’s Patents”). It then alleges that 

“[b]ased on our investigation, certain personal vehicles, such as the ‘Swagtron’ [and] ‘Swagway’

... lines of produces made and sold by [Swagway], practice Chic’s Patents.” 

32. Chic’s letter also alleges that “Chic has not granted Swagway a license to practice 

Chic’s Patents. ... Your sale of the Swagway products (Exhibit 4) is considered an unauthorized 

sale and therefore infringement of Chic’s Patents, for which courts may order compensation to 

be paid to Chic.”

33. Chic then demands that the retailer immediately take the following actions: 

(A) cease the sale of the infringing products, 

(B) provide us with written assurance within five (5) calendar days that 

you have done so, 

(C) provide reports of sales of the infringing products to date, and 

(D) request and confirm that your retailers have delisted or removed the 

infringing products.

34. And in closing, Chic states: 

Failure to receive a timely response from you may force 

Chic to seek all available remedies under the laws of the United 

States, including monetary damages and injunctive relief. In 

addition, now that you are on notice that sale of the infringing 

products is unauthorized, your continued sales may constitute 

“willful infringement” and subject you to enhanced damages under 

35 U.S.C. § 284.

35. On information and belief, Chic, its agents, and its counsel knew or should have 

known that Chic’s patents listed in its C&D letters are invalid, unenforceable, and not infringed 

by the Swagway Products. Yet, Chic, its agents, and/or its counsel sent these C&D letters in bad 

faith to disparage Swagway’s reputation and tortiously interfere with Swagway’s business 

relationship with its retailers and/or customers.

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00567-PPS-MGG document 1 filed 08/26/16 page 9 of 24
10

36. Chic’s C&D letters dated August 2 and 16 are also materially false and 

misleading for at least the following reasons, on information and belief: 

(i) Stating that all three of Chic’s patents listed in the letters are infringed by 

each of the three Swagway Products. On information and belief, Chic was 

aware that this is a false and misleading statement. For example, on 

August 19, 2016, Chic filed a Complaint against Swagway in U.S. District 

Court. See Chic v. Swagway, Case No. 16-cv-04804 (N.D. Cal.). In it, 

Chic alleges only that (1) U.S. Patent No. 9,376,155 is infringed by the 

Swagtron T1 and Swagtron T3 models (not the Swagway X1 model), and 

(2) design patent U.S. D737,723 is infringed by the Swagway X1 and 

Swagtron T1 models (not the Swagtron T3 model). Thus, despite alleging 

in its C&D letters that Swagway’s products infringe design patent U.S. 

D738,256, Chic’s exclusion of this patent from its lawsuit indicates that 

Chic does not believe it has a good-faith basis for making such 

infringement allegations. 

(ii) Stating that the “‘Swagway’ ... line[] of products” infringes each of the 

three listed Chic patents. The only model in the “Swagway” line of 

products is the “Swagway X1” model. No Swagway retailers market, sell,

or offer to sell the “Swagway X1” model; it is available directly from 

Swagway. As such, retailers receiving a C&D letter may likely believe 

that Chic’s reference to the “‘Swagway’ ... line[] of products” refers to all 

models made by Swagway, instead of just the “Swagway X1.” This 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00567-PPS-MGG document 1 filed 08/26/16 page 10 of 24
11

statement is therefore likely to mislead the retailers that receive the letter

and to disparage Swagway’s reputation. 

37. On or about August 3, 2016, Chic and/or its agents, including Jansco and/or 

COKeM, communicated directly to Swagway’s retailers who had not yet been sent C&D letters. 

For example, Chic’s agent Mr. Garvey of Jansco wrote the following to Mr. Checkoway of BJ’s:

I wanted to follow up one more time about the Chic High 

Roller hoverboards, and the Swagtron boards specifically. Chic is 

now aggressively defending their utility and design patents here in 

the US. Last I knew you were still planning to work with 

Swagtron in Q4, so I wanted to give you a heads up that today 

Chic started sending cease & desist letters to Swagtron retailers. 

A sample letter is attached. I really wanted to make sure you had 

all the information before you finalize any plans, and while there 

is still time to secure your season with Interworks, Chic’[s] US 

distributor. 

Ex. A at 1 (emphasis added). 

38. As indicated above, Mr. Garvey attached to his email a template of Chic’s C&D 

letter being sent to Swagway’s retailers, which is printed on Chic’s counsel’s letterhead. See Ex. 

D at 3-4. 

39. On information and belief, Chic’s C&D letters appear to have been sent in bad 

faith in order to mislead and harass Swagway’s retailers, for reasons in addition to containing 

multiple false and misleading statements. For example, Chic’s C&D letters appear to have been 

generated in haste and likely based on the same template or form letter. This is because, among 

other reasons, all of Chic’s letters dated August 2 and 16 that are in Swagway’s possession have 

identical language in their letter bodies (and thus identical false and misleading statements). 

Also, the letters are signed with a typed “/s/” and signature, instead of signed manually by Chic’s 

counsel, a customary formality with correspondence containing such serious allegations and 

demands that are intentionally designed to disrupt another’s business. Chic’s generation of its 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00567-PPS-MGG document 1 filed 08/26/16 page 11 of 24
12

letters based on a form is supported by the template C&D letter sent by Chic’s agent Mr. Garvey 

of Jansco to BJ’s agent Mr. Checkoway. Chic’s use of a template to generate identical batchmailings suggests a lack of due diligence with respect to evaluating any specific allegedly 

infringing acts conducted by each retailer receiving a letter. 

40. The fact that Chic and/or its agents, not Chic’s counsel, sent out the template 

C&D letter without even identifying any particular company or allegedly infringing products 

sold by that company further shows that Chic’s C&D letters were sent to Swagway’s retailers in 

bad faith.

41. On August 10, 2016, Swagway’s in-house counsel, Lydia M. Lim, sent a letter to 

Chic’s counsel, Qingyu Yin, demanding that Chic stop its tortious and unfairly competitive 

activities. And on August 17, 2016, Ms. Lim sent a letter to Chic’s agent Mr. Garvey of Jansco, 

demanding that Jansco stop its tortious and unfairly competitive activities: 

It has come to the attention of [Swagway], that Jansco Marketing 

Inc. (“Jansco”) has undertaken certain activities and participated in 

communications with Swagway’s customers that are designed to 

encourage our customers and prospective customers to cancel 

and/or not place orders for Swagway products.

Specifically, we are aware that you have distributed a form letter 

from Qingyu Yin of Finnegan to our customers which asserts an 

unsubstantiated allegation of patent infringement by Swagway as 

to patents that [Chic] claims to own. You also circulated an email 

stating the false claim that Chic has maintained a seizure of 

Swagway products in China. While Chic did initiate an illegitimate 

customs seizure of Swagway’s products in China, it was unable to 

sustain this action and our products were released several weeks, if 

not months ago. The publication of this matter by Jansco 

constitutes misinformation intended to create doubts and concerns 

by our customers regarding the legality and availability of 

Swagway products.

We demand that Jansco immediately cease and desist from 

circulating the Finnegan letter, any misinformation regarding any 

customs seizure, and any further information, whether orally or in 

written form, to any third party that constitutes any violation of 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00567-PPS-MGG document 1 filed 08/26/16 page 12 of 24
13

unfair competition law, tortious interference, defamation, and other 

unlawful practices.

Please be advised that Swagway reserves all rights, to the full 

extent of the law, to pursue all legal remedies available to it against 

Jansco for any and all damages, losses, claims, fees and expenses 

incurred whatsoever arising out of any Jansco’s blatant and 

improper interference with our customers and our business, 

including without limitation monetary damages and damages to 

our reputation and goodwill.

See Ex. D, at 1.

42. Despite Ms. Lim’s August 10, 2016 letter, on August 20, 2016, Chic published 

another press release on its website regarding Swagway, titled “Hangzhou CHIC Sues Swagway 

in the United States for Patent Infringement over Smart Scooter Technologies.” See

http://www.chic-robot.com/en/index.php/news/info/38. A true and correct copy of this press 

release is attached as Ex. E. Chic’s August 20 press release was subsequently re-published on 

August 22 by PR Newswire. See http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/hoverboardoriginator-hangzhou-chic-sues-swagway-in-the-united-states-for-patent-infringement-oversmart-scooter-technologies-300316456.html. 

43. Chic’s August 20 press release reads, in pertinent part: 

[Chic] is determined to protect its rights in the technologies for the 

Smart scooter. Starting early August 2016, Chic issued Cease & 

Desist (“C&D”) letters to more than a dozen retailers for 

[Swagway], demanding immediate desistance of patent 

infringement activities. Some of the retailers complied. Yet others 

continue to sell the infringing products.

To stop the infringing activities and prevent further infringement 

upon Chic’s property rights, on August 19, 2016 (U.S. time), Chic 

filed a complaint for patent infringement against Swagway in the 

United States Court for the Northern District of California. ...

This is the second lawsuit Chic has initiated against Swagway 

products. The first one was filed in China this July after Swagway 

repeatedly tried to have infringing products exported to the U.S. In 

June 2016, Chic intercepted four containers of such products 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00567-PPS-MGG document 1 filed 08/26/16 page 13 of 24
14

through the Customs. (http://www.chicrobot.com/en/index.php/news/info/36: Chic Intercepted Four 

Export Containers of Infringing Smart Boards in Shenzhen 

Customs.) The intercepted products bore the trademark 

“SWAGTRON” on both the scooters and the packages.

SWAGTRON is a brand of SWAGWAY, as shown on pages 11 

and 12 of the complaint filed in the Northern District of California 

on August 19, 2016.

In July 2016, Chic again learned that Shenzhen Zhouwu 

Technology Co., Ltd. (“Zhouwu”) attempted to export two 

batches (2520 units) of infringing [Swagway Products] through 

Shenzhen Customs. Customs was able to timely intercept and 

stop the products from exiting the country after communicating 

with Chic. Chic then immediately filed a complaint for patent 

infringement against Zhouwu with the Shenzhen Intermediate 

People’s Court. The Court accepted the case on July 12th and the 

case is proceeding according to court schedule.

Ex. E (emphasis added).

44. Chic’s August 20 press release is materially false and misleading for at least the 

following reasons, on information and belief: 

(i) Stating that the Swagway Products were the subject of a fictitious second 

inspection by Chinese Customs, which allegedly occurred sometime in 

July 2016, at which “Customs was able to timely intercept and stop the 

products from exiting the country after communicating with Chic.” No 

such inspection ever occurred. 

(ii) By repeating the same materially false and misleading statements Chic 

made in its July 1 press release regarding the June inspection, and 

subsequent clearance and release, of a shipment of Swagway Products by 

Chinese Customs in Shenzhen. These false and misleading statements are 

described in paragraph 28, which Swagway re-alleges and incorporates by 

reference as if fully stated herein. 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00567-PPS-MGG document 1 filed 08/26/16 page 14 of 24
15

Results of Defendants’ Wrongful Conduct

45. Defendants’ false and misleading statements contained in, e.g., direct email or 

other communications to Swagway’s retailers and/or customers, publicly available press releases 

on Chic’s website, and mass mailings of C&D letters to Swagway’s retailers, have disparaged 

and diminished Swagway’s business and caused material deception in the U.S. marketplace for 

hoverboards, specifically with respect to Swagway’s Products. 

46. Swagway has received and had to respond to inquiries from numerous retailers 

and others regarding Defendants’ false and misleading statements made since May 2016, e.g., 

regarding the existence and veracity of Defendants’ statements. 

47. Defendants’ false and misleading statements have adversely affected Swagway’s 

ability to compete and have detracted from its reputation and goodwill in a manner that 

benefitted Defendants. For example, on information and belief, Swagway’s retailers and 

customers were aware of Defendants’ statements when they were made and were influenced by 

them to purchase hoverboards from Chic rather than from Swagway. Defendants’ statements had 

direct effects on Swagway and the U.S. market for hoverboards in which Swagway participates. 

48. Defendants’ deceptions were material and likely to influence purchasing 

decisions. For example, on information and belief, retailers and other customers made decisions 

that were or may have been influenced by Defendants’ misrepresentations, among others, that (i) 

Swagway’s Products are infringing each of Chic’s three patents; (ii) Chinese Customs is working 

in concert with Chic to prevent Swagway’s Products from being exported to the United States

and has seized six containers of Swagway’s Products; (iii) Chic will be the only source of 

hoverboards in the U.S. in 2016; and (iv) Chic and Segway are allied in a partnership whereby 

Chic will receive a license from Segway with respect to Chic’s hoverboards. Defendants made 

these false and misleading statements, among others, to a substantial segment of the U.S. market 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00567-PPS-MGG document 1 filed 08/26/16 page 15 of 24
16

for hoverboards for the sole purpose of causing harm to Swagway’s business and preventing fair 

competition. 

49. U.S. customers of hoverboards would read and/or hear Defendants’ false and 

misleading statements and would likely be deceived as to the nature of Swagway’s Products and 

buy hoverboards from Chic. On information and belief, Swagway’s retailers and customers were 

likely aware of Defendants’ statements and influenced by them to buy Chic’s hoverboards 

instead of Swagway’s.

50. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ false and misleading statements, 

Swagway has suffered and, unless Defendants’ conduct is enjoined by this Court, will continue 

to suffer, actual economic damages in the form of lost sales, revenues, and profits, and 

immediate and irreparable harm to its goodwill and reputation, for which Swagway has no 

adequate remedy at law. With respect to actual economic damages, for example, as a result of 

Defendants’ false and misleading statements, one distributor delayed payment of approximately 

$1,300,000.00 owed to Swagway for several weeks and several retailers have ceased purchasing, 

advertising, and/or selling Swagway’s Products. For example, QVC, Inc. suspended airing 

approximately six televised segments with regards to the sale of Swagway’s Products and, to 

date, has continued to suspend its sales of the Swagway Products. In fact, Chic has admitted to 

the harm caused to Swagway by its false and misleading statements: in its August 20, 2016 press 

release, Chic wrote that it sent C&D letters to “more than a dozen retailers for [Swagway], 

demanding immediate desistance of patent infringement activities. Some of the retailers 

complied.” See Ex. E (emphasis added).

51. Based on Defendants’ wrongful conduct described above, considered as a whole, 

it is clear that Defendants have engaged in systematic intentional tortious interference with 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00567-PPS-MGG document 1 filed 08/26/16 page 16 of 24
17

Swagway’s business relationships and unfair competition. Swagway believes that, after a 

reasonable opportunity for further investigation and discovery, it will likely have additional 

evidence supporting these allegations. 

COUNT I

(Unfair Competition under the Lanham Act)

52. Swagway re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 51 as if 

fully stated herein.

53. Swagway’s and Chic’s products are used, sold, and/or offered for sale in interstate 

and foreign commerce.

54. In connection with goods or services, Defendants have used one or more words, 

terms, names, symbols, or devices, alone or in combination, and have made false or misleading 

descriptions or representations of fact, which Defendants’ caused to enter interstate commerce, in 

commercial advertising or promotion that misrepresent the nature, characteristics, or qualities of 

Swagway’s and/or Chic’s goods, services, or commercial activities.

55. Defendants knowingly and willfully misrepresented to the public, inter alia, the 

commercial statements alleged above.

56. Defendants’ commercial statements are either literally false or literally true but 

ambiguous and tend to cause confusion, mistake, and/or deception among those in the U.S. 

hoverboard market, including distributors, retailers, and customers of Swagway and Chic, as to 

the nature, characteristics, and quality of Swagway’s and/or Chic’s goods.

57. Defendants’ misrepresentations were material and made in bad faith for the 

purpose of deceiving a substantial segment of those in the U.S. hoverboard market, including 

distributors, retailers, and customers of Swagway and Chic, and harming Chic’s competition, 

including Swagway.

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00567-PPS-MGG document 1 filed 08/26/16 page 17 of 24
18

58. Defendants’ misrepresentations materially deceived or were likely to materially 

deceive a substantial segment of those in the U.S. hoverboard market, including distributors, 

retailers, and customers of Swagway’s and Chic’s products. Further, Defendants’

misrepresentations are likely to influence the purchasing decisions of others and have caused and 

will continue to cause injury to Swagway.

59. By reason of Defendants’ misconduct, Defendants have willfully violated section 

43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and as a direct and proximate result Swagway has 

suffered, and will continue to suffer, damage to its business, reputation, and goodwill and has 

lost sales and profits that it would have made but for Defendants’ acts, in an amount to be 

determined at trial and no less than thirty million dollars ($30,000,000.00).

60. Swagway has no adequate remedy at law that will compensate for the continued 

and irreparable harm it will suffer if Defendants’ willful misconduct is allowed to continue.

COUNT II

(Unfair Competition under Indiana State Law)

61. Swagway re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 60 as if 

fully stated herein.

62. Defendants have unfairly competed with Swagway by making false or misleading 

descriptions or representations of fact in commercial advertising or promotion that misrepresent 

the nature, characteristics, or qualities of Swagway’s and/or Chic’s goods, services, or 

commercial activities. 

63. Defendants knowingly and willfully misrepresented to the public, inter alia, the 

commercial statements alleged above.

64. Defendants’ commercial statements are either literally false or literally true but 

ambiguous and tend to cause confusion, mistake, and/or deception among those in the 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00567-PPS-MGG document 1 filed 08/26/16 page 18 of 24
19

hoverboard market, including distributors, retailers, and customers of Swagway and Chic, as to 

the nature, characteristics, and quality of Swagway’s and/or Chic’s goods. 

65. Defendants’ misrepresentations were material and made in bad faith for the 

purpose of deceiving a substantial segment of those in the hoverboard market, including 

distributors, retailers, and customers of Swagway and Chic, and harming Chic’s competition, 

including Swagway.

66. Defendants’ misrepresentations materially deceived or were likely to materially 

deceive a substantial segment of those in the hoverboard market, including distributors, retailers, 

and customers of Swagway’s and Chic’s products. Further, Defendants’ misrepresentations are 

likely to influence the purchasing decisions of others and have caused and will continue to cause 

injury to Swagway.

67. By reason of Defendants’ misconduct, Defendants have willfully violated the 

common law of the State of Indiana, and as a direct and proximate result Swagway has suffered, 

and will continue to suffer, damage to its business, reputation, and goodwill and has lost sales 

and profits that it would have made but for Defendants’ acts, in an amount to be determined at 

trial and no less than thirty million dollars ($30,000,000.00).

68. Swagway has no adequate remedy at law that will compensate for the continued 

and irreparable harm it will suffer if Defendants’ willful misconduct is allowed to continue.

COUNT III

(Tortious Interference with Business Relationships)

69. Swagway re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 68 as if 

fully stated herein.

70. Swagway has valid and existing business relationships with its retailers and 

customers throughout the United States.

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00567-PPS-MGG document 1 filed 08/26/16 page 19 of 24
20

71. On information and belief, Defendants knew of these business relationships 

between Swagway and its retailers and customers at the time Defendants made their false and 

misleading statements, inter alia, the statements alleged above.

72. On information and belief, Defendants’ intentional conduct of, among other 

things, making the false and misleading statements alleged above, interferes with Swagway’s 

business relationships with its retailers and customers and was intentionally done for the purpose 

of causing harm to these relationships and preventing fair competition. 

73. Such interference was egregious, without justification, made in bad faith, and 

resulted in harm to Swagway. 

74. By reason of Defendants’ misconduct, Defendants have tortiously interfered with 

Swagway’s valid business relationships in violation of the common law of the State of Indiana, 

and as a direct and proximate result Swagway has suffered, and will continue to suffer, damage 

to its business, reputation, and goodwill and has lost sales and profits that it would have made 

but for Defendants’ acts, in an amount to be determined at trial and no less than thirty million 

dollars ($30,000,000.00). 

75. Swagway has no adequate remedy at law that will compensate for the continued 

and irreparable harm it will suffer if Defendants’ willful misconduct is allowed to continue.

COUNT IV

(Defamation)

76. Swagway re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 75 as if 

fully stated herein.

77. Defendants have made false and misleading statements about the nature, 

characteristics, and quality of Swagway’s goods, as alleged above. 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00567-PPS-MGG document 1 filed 08/26/16 page 20 of 24
21

78. Defendants knowingly and willfully made the false and misleading statements 

alleged above in bad faith with the intent to disparage Swagway’s reputation and goodwill in the 

market.

79. Defendants published their false and misleading statements via emails, letters, and 

online postings, as alleged above. 

80. Defendants’ false and misleading statements have materially deceived or are 

likely to materially deceive those in the hoverboard market, including distributors, retailers, and 

customers of Swagway’s and Chic’s products. Further, Defendants’ false and misleading 

statements influenced and continue to influence the purchasing decisions of others and have 

caused and will continue to cause injury to Swagway.

81. By reason of Defendants’ false and misleading statements, Defendants have

willfully violated the law of the State of Indiana, and as a direct and proximate result Swagway 

has suffered, and will continue to suffer, damage to its business, reputation, and goodwill and has 

lost sales and profits that it would have made but for Defendants’ acts, in an amount to be 

determined at trial and no less than thirty million dollars ($30,000,000.00).

82. Swagway has no adequate remedy at law that will compensate for the continued 

and irreparable harm it will suffer if Defendants’ willful misconduct is allowed to continue.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Swagway respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment against 

Defendants as follows: 

1. For judgment that: 

a. Defendants have violated Section 43 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 

1125(a);

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00567-PPS-MGG document 1 filed 08/26/16 page 21 of 24
22

b. Defendants have unfairly competed with Swagway in violation of Indiana 

common law; 

c. Defendants have tortiously interfered with Swagway’s business 

relationships; 

d. Defendants are liable for defamation; and 

e. In all instances, Defendants have acted in bad faith, willfully, 

intentionally, and/or in malicious disregard of Swagway’s lawfully 

protected rights. 

2. For an order preliminary and permanently enjoining Defendants, their affiliates, 

subsidiaries, parents, and their respective officers, agents, servants, attorneys, and employees, 

and all persons in active concert or participation with them, and mandating that Defendants cease 

and desist and refrain from: 

a. Directly or indirectly making any false or misleading statements to anyone 

or committing any acts calculated to cause confusion or deceive anyone 

regarding Swagway, the nature of its products, or Chic’s patents rights in 

the context of Swagway’s Products, or otherwise unfairly competing with 

Swagway in any manner; and 

b. Tortiously interfering with Swagway’s business relationships; and

c. Publishing any false or misleading statements regarding Swagway and/or 

the nature of its products. 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00567-PPS-MGG document 1 filed 08/26/16 page 22 of 24
23

3. For an order: 

a. Requiring Defendants to account for and pay to Swagway all profits 

derived from Defendants’ wrongful misconduct to the full extent provided 

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

b. Requiring Defendants to pay to Swagway all damages sustained by 

Swagway resulting from Defendants’ wrongful misconduct, including 

treble damages, to the full extent provided for by the Section 35(a) of the 

Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a);

c. Awarding Swagway damages, including punitive damages, to the full 

extent provided by Indiana state law; 

d. Awarding Swagway its costs and expenses incurred in this action, 

including reasonable attorneys’ fees; and 

e. Awarding such other and further relief as this Court deems just and 

proper. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Swagway respectfully requests a trial 

by jury of any and all issues on which a trial by jury is available under applicable law.

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00567-PPS-MGG document 1 filed 08/26/16 page 23 of 24
24

Dated: August 26, 2016 BOTKIN & HALL, LLP

/s/ Michael D. Marston 

Michael D. Marston (No. 26875-71)

Garrick T. Lankford (No. 28648-20)

105 East Jefferson Boulevard, Suite 400

South Bend, IN 46601

(574) 234-3900

mmarston@bhlawyers.net

glankford@bhlawyers.net

Of Counsel:

Lei Mei (pro hac vice pending)

Richard P. Hadorn (pro hac vice pending)

Jeff Pearson (pro hac vice pending)

Irene Chen (pro hac vice pending)

MEI & MARK LLP

818 18th Street, N.W., Suite 410

Washington, DC 20006

(888) 860-5678

mei@meimark.com

rhadorn@meimark.com

jpearson@meimark.com

ichen@meimark.com

Counsel for Plaintiff Swagway, LLC

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00567-PPS-MGG document 1 filed 08/26/16 page 24 of 24