Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/231261848/JAT-v-Spec-1-Complaint
Timestamp: 2015-08-02 22:36:36
Document Index: 442605600

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1125', '§43', '§1125', '§1125', '§17200', '§ 1331', '§ 1338', '§ 1367', '§ 1391']

JAT v. Spec-1 - Complaint
P. 1JAT v. Spec-1 - ComplaintJAT v. Spec-1 - ComplaintRatings: (0)|Views: 34|Likes: 0Published by slbursteinJAT v. Spec-1 - ComplaintJAT v. Spec-1 - ComplaintMore info:Published by: slburstein on Jun 25, 2014Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reservedAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/231261848/JAT-v-Spec-1-Complaint06/25/2014pdftextoriginal 1 Yang Wang, P.C. . Tommy SF Wang SBN: 272409 2 Andrew J. Wei SBN: 293787 3 355 S. Grand Ave., Ste. #2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (888) 827-8880 Fax: (888) 827-8880 ALE } a e u.s. D"3m'CT (:O'JRT ~--'- -
'1 ~ 2 4 2014 I Email: twang@yangwanglaw.com;awei@yangwanglaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff JAT Wheels, Inc. 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OJ CALIFORNIA. _ 10 JAT Wheels, Inc., a California Case~oV 4 4 j 9 7 t G It l-J{,Ii 11 Corporation d/b/a STR Racing, Plaintiff, 12 vs. 13 SPEC-l RACING WHEELS INC, a ) 14 Florida Corporation; and DOES 1-10, collectively, Defendant. 5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 A \~\ - 2 L-) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT FOR: 1 FEDERAL TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AND TRADEMARK COUNTERFEITING; 2. FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN [15 U.S.C. §1125(a)/Lanham Act §43(a)]. 3. FEDERAL TRADEMARK DILUTION [15 U.S.C. §1125(c)]; 4 FEDERAL COPYRIGRT INFRINGEMENT [17 U.S.C.I06]; 5. PATENT INFRINGEMENT [35 U.S.C.271]; 6 FEDERAL UNFAIR COMPETITION [15 U.S.C. §1125(a)]; 7. CALIFORNIA COMMON LAW UNFAIR COMPETITION; and 8. CALIFORNIA UNFAIR COMPETITION CALIFORNIA BUSINESS PROFESSIONS CODES §17200, t seq.] DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL . ~ JAT WHEELS INC.'S COMPLAINT 1 Plaintiff, JA T WHEELS, Inc. a California Corporation, dba STR Racing 2 (hereinafter Plaintiff'), hereby files this Complaint against Defendant JNC 3 WHEEL COLLECTION (hereinafter Defendant ), and DOES 1 to 10 and alleges 4 as follows: 6 1 Plaintiff files this action to combat the willful sale of unlicensed and 7 counterfeit products (hereinafter Infringing Products ) bearing the 8 Plaintiff's exclusive Trademark and utilizing the Plaintiffs exclusive 9 design patents, and unauthorized use of Plaintiffs copyrighted 1 ° photographs. The Defendant is a corporation specializing in the research, 11 manufacture and sales of aftermarket automobile wheels. 12 2. Plaintiff seeks a Permanent Injunction, damages, costs, and attorneys' fees 13 as authorized by the Lanham Act, the patent laws of the United States, 14 Title 35, United States Code, California's common law, and California 15 Business Professions Code. 17 3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal 18 question) and 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) (action arising under an Act of 19 Congress relating to patents or trademarks). 20 4. On information and belief, Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction 21 in the Central District of California (the District ), consistent with the 22 principles of due process and the California Long Arm Statute, because 23 Defendants offer their products for sale in this District, have transacted 24 business in this District, have committed and/or induced acts of patent 25 infringement in this District, and/or have placed infringing products into 26 JAT WHEELS INC. S COMPLAINT 2 1 the stream of commerce through established distribution channels with the 2 expectation that such products will be purchased by residents of this 3 District. 4 5 Further, this Court has jurisdiction over laintiffs California state 5 statutory and common law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 6 6 Supplemental jurisdiction exists over Defendant because on information 7 and belief, Defendant conducts business in California and in this judicial 8 district, has purposefully availed itself to California and in this judicial 9 district, or has otherwise availed itself of the privileges and protections of 10 the law of the State of California, such that this Court's assertion of 11 jurisdiction over Defendant does not offend traditional notions of fair play 12 and due process. 13 7 Venue is proper within the Central District of California pursuant to 28 14 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1400(a) because on information and belief, a 15 substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim 16 occurred in this judicial district, and has caused damages to Plaintiff in 17 this district. 18 THE P RTIES 19 8 Plaintiff, JAT WHEELS, INC., dba STR Racing, is a California 20 corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of 21 California, and whose office is located at address 2107-D W 22 Commonwealth Ave. #392, Alhambra, California 91803. 23 9 Upon information and belief, Defendant, SPEC-l RACING WHEELS, 24 INC (hereinafter Defendant ), is, and at all times mentioned herein was, 25 a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of 26 JAT WHEELS INC.'S COMPLAINT 3 Activity (1)FiltersAdd to collectionReviewAdd NoteLikeShowingAllMost RecentReviewsAll NotesLikesYou've already reviewed this. Edit your review.Rating 0/5Post notePost reviewPost replyPost note and like1 hundred readsLoad more
More From This UserZeeray v. MTM Indus. - ComplaintslbursteinISG v. Synlawn - ComplaintslbursteinZenith Products v. Mambate USA - ComplaintslbursteinID7D v. Menards - ComplaintslbursteinTangle v. Magic Time - Amended ComplaintslbursteinABPA Amicus Brief - Felder's Collision Parts v. All Star Advertising AgencyslbursteinBlack & Decker v. Positec - ComplaintslbursteinPathway Innovations v. Recordex USA - ComplaintslbursteinXEO v. Hookahzz - ComplaintslbursteinBlue Water Investment v. Merrick - ComplaintslbursteinAthletes for Christ v. Iron Warrior Jewelry - ComplaintslbursteinAlliance Sports Group v. Fishing Lights, Etc. - ComplaintslbursteinKeysmart v. Vante - ComplaintslbursteinJohns Manville v. Knauf Insulation - IPR PetitionslbursteinUMF v. Midmark - ComplaintslbursteinVitro v. Saverglass - Petition for IPRslbursteinNationwide Indus. v. Weldon Indus. - ComplaintslbursteinThai v. Wild Eye Designs - ComplaintslbursteinRoss v. Weiser - ComplaintslbursteinNordock v. Systems - Appellate BriefsslbursteinNordock v. Systems - Order on Post-Trial MotionsslbursteinChico's v. Clair - Order Denying Summary JudgmentslbursteinGlobal Allies v. JL Furnishings - ComplaintslbursteinKyjen Company v. Doskocil - ComplaintslbursteinWireless Environment v. Hootoo.com - Complaintslburstein