Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/238224999/Linx-Bracelet-v-Origami-Owl
Timestamp: 2017-05-27 18:53:49
Document Index: 328771192

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 101', '§ 1125', '§ 1331', '§ 501', '§ 1332', '§ 2201', '§ 1338', '§ 1391', '§ 101', '§ 1125', '§ 17200', '§ 17500', 'Application No. 29', '§ 101', '§ 501', '§ 106', '§ 504', '§ 503', '§ 505', '§ 1125', '§ 1125', '§ 1125', '§17200', '§ 17200', '§17200', '§17200', '§17200', '§17500', '§ 17500', '§ 17500', '§ 2201', 'Application No. 29', '§ 2201', '§ 285', '§ 504', 'art%3']

Linx Bracelet v. Origami Owl | Trade Dress | Copyright Infringement
ScribdExploreEXPLORE BY INTERESTSCareer & MoneyBusiness Biography & HistoryEntrepreneurshipLeadership & MentoringMoney ManagementTime ManagementPersonal GrowthHappinessPsychologyRelationships & ParentingReligion & SpiritualitySelf-ImprovementPolitics & Current AffairsPoliticsSocietyScience & TechScienceTechHealth & FitnessFitnessNutritionSportsWellnessLifestyleArts & LanguagesFashion & BeautyFood & WineHome & GardenTravelEntertainmentCelebrity Biography & MemoirPop CultureBiographies & HistoryBiography & MemoirHistoryFictionChildren’s & YAClassic LiteratureContemporary FictionHistorical FictionLGBTQ FictionMystery, Thriller & CrimeRomanceScience Fiction & FantasyBROWSE BY CONTENT TYPEBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicUploadSign inJoinOptionsJoinSign InUploadLinx Bracelet v. Origami OwlUploaded by Mark H. JaffeTrade DressCopyright InfringementTrademarkDamagesCopyright Law Of The United States5.0 (2)DownloadEmbedView MoreCopyright: © All Rights ReservedDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentCOMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENTAND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES 1149560.1 1
BROWN WHITE & NEWHOUSE LLP ALAN J ACKSON (Bar No. 173647) ajackson@brownwhitelaw.com NANNINA L. ANGIONI (Bar No. 238052) nangioni@brownwhitelaw.com HENRY L. WHITEHEAD (Bar No. 284676) hwhitehead@brownwhitelaw.com 333 South Hope Street, 40
Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-1406 Telephone: 213. 613.0500 Facsimile: 213.613.0550 Attorneys for Plaintiff LINX BRACELETS, INC. d/b/a LINX & MORE ... UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LINX BRACELETS, INC., d/b/a LINX & MORE …, a California corporation, Plaintiffs, v. ORIGAMI OWL, LLC, a Delaware corporation, ISABELLA WEEMS, an individual, CHRISTIAN WEEMS, an individual, ZYAD KADRI, an individual, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants. Case No.: J udge: COMPLAINT FOR: (1) COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT; (2) FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN; (3) COMMON LAW TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT; (4) COMMON LAW UNFAIR COMPETITION (5) TRADE DRESS INFRINGEMENT; (6) COMMON LAW TRADE DRESS INFRINGEMENT; (7) UNFAIR COMPETITION; (8) FALSE ADVERTISING; (9) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF UNENFORCEABILITY OF PATENT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 1 of 81 Page ID #:1
CV14-6799
1 COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES 1149560.1 1
I. INTRODUCTION 1. This case is about the Defendants’ brazen theft of an innovative, successful, and lucrative product and their deceitful attempt to portray it as their own. 2. Gina Eckstein (“Gina”) and Ivette Helfend (“Ivette”), who are sisters, founded Plaintiff Linx Bracelets, Inc. d/b/a Linx & More… (“Linx & More” or “Plaintiff”) in 2000. Gina and Ivette wanted to design jewelry that customers could thereafter customize in unique ways. Linx & More steadily succeeded and grew by selling customizeable charm bracelets. In 2001 Linx & More began producing delicate, customizable bracelets punctuated by interchangeable charms, each of which represented a theme. Those themed charms could be mixed and matched to express the wearer’s individuality. Through innovation and hard work Plaintiff succeeded in the competitive jewelry industry employing this fresh, unique, and distinctively personal idea. 3. In early 2001, building on the success of the charm-themed bracelets, Linx & More embarked on an even more creative and ambitious venture. It began when Ivette sketched an industry-changing design on a napkin at their dining-room table. The design was original, innovative, and built on Linx & More’s theme of customizeable jewelry: a heart-shaped hinged locket encased in glass, enclosing small floating removable charms that wearers could use to tell the world “what’s in your heart.” At that dinner table, Linx & More’s What’s In Your Heart™ line of Linx Lockets was born. 4. Gina and Ivette immediately set to work researching and developing the optimal weight, size, dimensions, shape, texture, color, material, cost, and price point. Every aspect of the design and production was painstakingly thought through. From 2002 to 2004, Linx & More consulted manufacturers and engineers, commissioned the casting of molds and paid for and produced prototypes. However, due to the unique design, Linx and More had to continually refine the products. Finally, in late 2004, Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 2 of 81 Page ID #:2
2 COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES 1149560.1 1
Linx & More produced the first of the beautiful and popular What’s In Your Heart™ line of lockets and charms. 5. In early 2005, Linx & More went to market and first sold the What’s In Your Heart™ line of lockets at trade shows, specialty boutiques, on the internet, and at their Los Angeles-based retail outlet. But the product truly gained momentum in the marketplace through Linx & More’s home-based sales model. Linx & More produced “kits” that included lockets, chains and a variety of charms. The kits started at around $250, but were scalable to fit the seller’s interests and needs. Linx & More sold the kits to individuals and encouraged them to host jewelry parties at their homes, at which they would sell the individual lockets and charms directly to their customers. In the ensuing years Linx & More’s brand, business model and What’s In Your Heart™ product line became increasingly popular and successful. 6. On J anuary 15-18, 2010, Linx & More established a booth at the Los Angles Gift Show, a large jewelry trade show for industry professionals. Linx & More’s booth showcased its popular What’s in Your Heart™ product line. Defendant Christian Weems was at the show, and, on information and belief, so was Defendant Isabella Weems. On information and belief, during the show, Defendants Isabella and Christian Weems examined Linx & More’s designs at the Linx &More booth. 7. On information and belief, Following the J anuary 2010 Los Angeles Gift Show, Defendants Isabella and Christian Weems, enamored with Linx & More’s designs, decided it would be easier to copy and duplicate Linx & More’s products than to design their own jewelry. Defendants Isabella and Christian Weems thereafter undertook to replicate Linx & More’s locket-and-charm designs in order to produce, market and sell those designs. 8. Merely months later, Defendants Isabella and Christian Weems launched their infringing product line, which just like What’s In Your Heart™ was a locket encased in glass, enclosing small interchangeable charms, which were specifically designed to float and could be mixed and matched to connect to the wearer’s Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 3 of 81 Page ID #:3
3 COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES 1149560.1 1
individuality (“Infringing Lockets”). Defendants’ Infringing Lockets are directly copied from and are substantially similar to Linx & More’s designs. 9. Defendants Isabella and Christian Weems’ Infringing Lockets were the launch product of corporate Defendant Origami Owl, a Delaware corporation. Defendant Origami Owl has a principal location in Arizona and produces and distributes the Infringing Lockets in numerous locations, including this Court’s jurisdiction. 10. Defendants Origami Owl, Isabella Weems and Christian Weems, by and through their illegal conduct, have significantly and irreparably damaged Linx & More. Linx & More brings this action to recover for its damages and protect its hard-
earned brand and product lines of copyrighted jewelry. 11. Additionally, Defendants have also marketed their Infringing Lockets by infringing on Linx & More’s trademarks. For instance, Linx & More claims trademark protection in the mark “Linx Lockets,” which Defendants have infringed through their use of the mark “Link Lockets.” Linx & More brings suit not only to protect its copyrighted jewelry, but to protect its position in the marketplace from the consumer confusion Defendants have intentionally caused as part of their effort to steal what Linx & More built through hard work. 12. Defendants have also violated Linx & More’s trade dress rights. Linx & More’s jewelry designs are nonfunctional and serve a source-identifying role because they are inherently distinctive and/or because they have acquired secondary meaning. Therefore, Plaintiff’s designs are entitled to trade dress protection under the Lanham Act and common law. Defendants have caused consumer confusion and have violated Plaintiff’s trade dress rights through their intentional and unauthorized copying of Plaintiff’s designs. 13. Defendants have knowingly falsely marketed their Infringing Lockets by advertising Origami Owl’s lockets as the “original creation” of Isabella Weems as part of a fabricated back story of their stolen product. Defendants acted with the specific Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 4 of 81 Page ID #:4
4 COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES 1149560.1 1
intent to sell those products under such false pretenses. Defendants’ statements were untrue and caused damage to Linx & More, which lost sales as a result of Defendants’ false advertising. 14. Finally, Defendants committed a fraud on the patent office to secure a design patent for a heart shaped locket, Registration No. D711,278 (the “’278 Patent”). Defendants, and each of them, failed to disclose Linx & More’s designs as Prior Art, despite clearly being aware of these designs. Defendants also listed Christian Weems, not Isabella, as the inventor of the patented design, notwithstanding their marketing campaign to the contrary, not to mention Gina and Ivette’s status as the actual inventors of the heart shaped locket. On information and belief, Defendants also did not disclose to the patent office that the heart shaped locket at issue in the ‘278 patent had been in commerce for nearly a decade as a result of Plaintiff’s sales commencing in 2005. As shown below, Defendants’ patent No. D711,278, as well as any co-pending applications, are unenforceable as a result of Defendants’ intentional misrepresentations. II. THE PARTIES 15. Plaintiff Linx & More is a California corporation with its principal place of business located at 23147 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 250, Woodland Hills, California 91367. 16. On information and belief, Defendant Origami Owl, LLC (“Origami Owl”) is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business in Chandler, Arizona. Origami Owl operates a direct sales business model that conducts business within the State of California, and the Central District of California specifically. 17. On information and belief, individual Defendants Isabella Weems and Christian Weems are citizens of the state of Arizona, and principals of Defendant Origami Owl. Prior to their formation of Origami Owl in late 2013, Defendants Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 5 of 81 Page ID #:5
5 COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES 1149560.1 1
Christian and Isabella Weems took many of the actions described herein in their individual capacities. On information and belief, Defendant Zyad Kadri is a citizen of the state of Arizona and an employee of Origami Owl. 18. The true names, identities, and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise of defendants Does 1 through 20, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff who consequently sues said defendants by such fictitious names. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Does 1 through 20 are persons or entities who control the manufacture, distribution, promotion, and sale of products that violate the copyrights and Plaintiff’s related additional rights, including trademark rights. Plaintiff will seek leave of the Court to amend this Complaint to show the true names and capacities of such defendants, identified herein as Doe, when the same are ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that each of defendants Does 1 through 20, inclusive, have participated in all or some of the acts complained of herein and are liable to Plaintiff for the damages and other relief to which Plaintiff is entitled. III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 19. J urisdiction and venue are proper in this Court for the following reasons: a. This Complaint contains claims for copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 101, et seq. and trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1125(a). Subject matter jurisdiction for this Court therefore exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338 and 17 U.S.C. § 501. b. Subject matter jurisdiction also exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) because this case is between citizens of different states and because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs. c. Subject matter jurisdiction also exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 because this case involves an actual controversy regarding Defendants’ patents, which are unenforceable as a result of Defendants’ intentional misrepresentations and Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 6 of 81 Page ID #:6
6 COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES 1149560.1 1
inequitable conduct to the patent office. d. Subject matter jurisdiction for this Court also exists pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution because Plaintiff’s third, fourth, and sixth through eighth claims for relief, which arise under the common law of the State of California, are so related to Plaintiff’s copyright and trademark claims that they form part of the same case or controversy. Thus, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s related state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1338, subdivision (b) and 1367, subdivision (a). e. Personal jurisdiction is proper because Defendants have extensive contact with, and do substantial business within, the State of California and in this judicial district. Defendants advertise, promote, and sell infringing jewelry products in this judicial district. On information and belief, Defendants regularly solicit business from, do business with, and derive revenue from goods provided to customers within this judicial district. Further, Defendants have caused injury to Plaintiff in this judicial district. f. Venue exists in the United States District Court for the Central District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391, subdivisions (b) and (c) and 1400, subdivision (a) because Defendants have extensive contacts within this judicial district, the infringing conduct has injured Plaintiff within this judicial district, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims herein occurred in this judicial district. IV. NATURE OF THE ACTION 20. This is an action for damages and injunctive relief for federal copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, et seq., trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), trade dress infringement, theft, conversion, unfair competition, unfair business practices under Cal. Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq., and false advertising under Cal. Business and Professions Code § 17500, et seq. Plaintiffs Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 7 of 81 Page ID #:7
7 COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES 1149560.1 1
also seek a declaratory judgment that Defendants’ patent(s) are invalid and unenforceable as a result of Defendants’ intentional misrepresentations and inequitable conduct to the patent office. 21. Linx & More files this action in an effort to prevent Defendants’ willful infringement of Linx & More’s registered copyrights in its original jewelry designs. Linx & More also seeks to halt Defendants’ ongoing violations of its federally-
registered trademarks and common law interests in unregistered marks and its trade dress. Linx & More seeks to prevent the continuing and irreparable harm that it has been suffering and will continue to suffer as a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct. 22. Defendants are copying and/or creating derivative works of Linx & More’s copyrighted lockets and charms without its authorization and using Linx & More’s trademarks to market and promote the Infringing Lockets. Defendants are distributing the Infringing Lockets through retail stores, a direct sales business model, and its online advertising and sales through www.origamiowl.com. V. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 23. Linx & More is, and at all relevant times was, engaged in the business of creating, producing, distributing, and marketing its unique and original clasped locket necklaces with interchangeable charms. Linx & More sells its jewelry under a variety of trademarks, including the common law mark Linx Lockets, used for multiple lines of lockets. Linx & More sells its jewelry through home-based sales, its website www.linxandmore.com, trade shows, boutique shops, and at charity and holiday events. 24. In J anuary 2010, Linx & More had a booth at The LA Gift Show; a jewelry trade show in Los Angeles, California, where it displayed its products, including the What’s In Your Heart™ line of lockets and charms. Defendant Christian Weems attended this show. On information and belief, based on the description of a teenaged female who asked about the charms with Plaintiff’s Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 8 of 81 Page ID #:8
8 COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES 1149560.1 1
employees, so was Isabella Weems. At the show, Defendants observed Plaintiff’s products. Defendants began doing business on or around 2010 and fast-tracked design and production tasks by copying Linx & More’s products. Origami Owl’s signature collection was, and currently remains, a line of necklace lockets with interchangeable charms that is substantially similar to Linx & More’s protected line. (See, Exhibit A, Photographs.) From the lockets’ design, shape, size and operational features, to the charms offered, Origami Owl’s Infringing Lockets are substantially similar to Linx & More’s copyrighted designs. 25. On information and belief, Origami Owl sold millions of dollars worth of Infringing Lockets during its first year of operation. 26. The substantial similarity between Origami Owl’s Infringing Lockets and Linx & More’s unique copyrighted designs is so compelling that Linx & More first learned of Origami Owl’s existence in 2012, when a customer brought an infringing Origami Owl locket to Linx & More for repair, on information and belief, mistakenly believing that the knock-off locket was a Linx and More product. This market confusion was further evidenced during mid-2012, when Linx & More was at a trade show in Los Angeles, California. While at the show, a customer approached Linx & More’s owners and handed them a broken locket, asking if they could repair it. Linx & More’s owners closely examined the locket and determined that it was not from their line. Linx & More then started conducting research and were shocked to discover that Origami Owl was in fact producing the Infringing Lockets, less expensive knock-offs of their protected designs. Linx & More could not reasonably have discovered the infringement until this time period. 27. During their investigation of Origami Owl, Linx & More also discovered that Defendants were copying more than just Linx & More’s copyrighted designs. Defendants, and each of them, have also violated Linx & More’s trademark rights, including in the common-law mark “Linx Lockets,” as Defendants have used, and continue to use confusingly similar marks (including “Link Lockets”) in marketing Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 9 of 81 Page ID #:9
9 COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES 1149560.1 1
and selling the Infringing Lockets. Defendants’ actions have caused, and continue to cause, rampant consumer confusion. 28. Defendants have also violated Plaintiff’s trade dress rights. Linx & More’s jewelry designs are subject to trade dress protection because they are non-
functional and serve a source-identifying role for consumers. Linx & More’s designs are inherently distinctive and/or have acquired secondary meaning as a result of Linx & More’s exclusive use of the designs for approximately five years. Defendants have created consumer confusion through their unauthorized copying of Plaintiff’s designs. 29. Defendants, and each of them, have marketed Origami’s Infringing Lockets, as the original creations of Isabella Weems, telling a fabricated story about her inspiration to design them. Defendants tell this tale notwithstanding that they actually stole the designs from Linx & More. Defendants have marketed the Infringing Lockets as Isabella Weems’ original creation with the specific intent of selling the Infringing Lockets under these false pretenses. Defendants’ actions have damaged Linx & More by driving away Linx & More’s sales. 30. Finally, Defendants recently secured a patent registration (Registration No. D711,278) for a heart-shaped locket by committing fraud on the patent office. Defendants failed to cite Linx & More’s products as prior art despite the fact that, on information and belief, Defendants were aware of Linx & More’s designs and Defendants were applying for a patent for a piece of jewelry that was directly copied from Linx & More. Defendants also listed Christian Weems and Zyad Kadri as inventors, directly contradicting statements in Defendants’ marketing campaigns that Isabella Weems was the sole creator of Defendants’ Infringing J ewelry. On information and belief, Defendants have filed a second, related patent application (Application No. 29/477098) in which they repeat the same fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions. 31. Linx & More’s well-known and unique jewelry designs are subject to copyright. A list of Linx & More’s copyrighted designs is attached hereto at Exhibit Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 10 of 81 Page ID #:10
10 COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES 1149560.1 1
B. 32. Linx & More has complied in all respects with the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976, 28 U.S.C. § 101, et seq. Linx & More has applied for and received a copyright registration for the jewelry designs at issue in this action. True and correct copyright registration certificates are attached hereto at Exhibit C.
33. Linx & More also claims trademark rights in the common-law mark “Linx Lockets” and trade dress rights in its jewelry designs. VI. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF FIRST CLAIM FOR RLEIEF Copyright Infringement Pursuant to the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 501, et seq.) Against All Defendants 34. Plaintiff incorporates all allegations set forth at length herein. 35. Plaintiff has copyrights on many of its locket and charm designs (collectively the “J ewelry Designs”). Plaintiff owns the United States copyright registrations for the J ewelry Designs, including the 855 Registration. (Exhibit C.) Plaintiff is currently, at all times referenced herein was, the sole and exclusive proprietor of all rights, titles, and interests in and to the copyrighted J ewelry Designs. 36. The J ewelry Designs are wholly original works, created by Plaintiff’s own skill, labor, judgment, and creative direction. The J ewelry Designs are unique copyrightable subject matter under United States laws. Plaintiff has produced, marketed, and distributed the J ewelry Designs in strict compliance with the Copyright Act of 1976 and applicable copyright laws. 37. Defendants copied, created, and distributed derivative jewelry items, the Infringing Lockets, using Plaintiff’s copyrighted J ewelry Designs. Plaintiff did not 1
Plaintiff specifically directs this court and Defendants to Registration No. VA 1-908-855 (“855 Registration”). The 855 Registration is the first in Plaintiff’s line of registrations for its copyrightable lockets and charms, and shows the method by which charms are inserted into a locket to connect with the wearer’s individuality. Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 11 of 81 Page ID #:11
11 COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES 1149560.1 1
and has not authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Defendants to copy its J ewelry Designs or to make derivative works, the Infringing Lockets, that are substantially similar to, and virtually indistinguishable from, Plaintiff’s J ewelry Designs. Defendants’ public distributing of the unauthorized Infringing Lockets violates Plaintiff’s exclusive rights as the J ewelry Designs’ copyright holder. Each of Defendants’ unauthorized acts infringes upon Plaintiff’s exclusive rights under 17 U.S.C. § 106. 38. On information and belief, Defendants knew that they were infringing upon Plaintiff’s J ewelry Designs and that Plaintiff did not authorize the creation, production, marketing, and/or distribution of Defendants’ Infringing Lockets. 39. On information and belief, Defendants have infringed and will continue to infringe, Plaintiff’s copyrights in the J ewelry Designs by producing, marketing, and distributing jewelry products, specifically the Infringing Lockets that are substantially similar to Plaintiff’s copyrighted J ewelry Designs. 40. Plaintiff has sustained damages as a result of Defendants’ infringing conduct, including but not limited to, decreased sales of Plaintiff’s J ewelry Designs and confusion in the marketplace regarding Plaintiff’s J ewelry Designs. Defendants’ unlawful conduct also negatively affects the market value of Plaintiff’s J ewelry Designs. 41. Plaintiff’s damages are the direct and proximate result of Defendants’ infringing conduct. Additionally, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504, subdivision (c), Plaintiff is entitled to statutory damages in an amount not less than $150,000 with respect to each work at issue in this action, for all infringements regarding the subject works, or for such other amounts as may be proper under the law. 42. Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 503, as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violation of the Copyright Act, all copies of Defendants’ J ewelry Designs, made or used in violation of Plaintiff’s copyrights, including all plates, molds, models, shells, and other items which Defendants have used to make copies of Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 12 of 81 Page ID #:12
12 COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES 1149560.1 1
the J ewelry Designs, must be impounded and destroyed. 43. Based upon information and belief, Defendants’ infringing conduct is willful, wanton, calculated to deceive the public, and was pursued in bad faith. Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court award Plaintiff all costs incurred in bringing this action, and to also award attorneys’ fees as 17 U.S.C. § 505 authorizes. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF False Designation of Origin Under the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125) Against All Defendants 44. Plaintiff incorporates all allegations set forth at length herein. 45. Plaintiff claims trademark rights in a number of unregistered marks, including “Linx Lockets,” which Plaintiff used to market and sell the J ewelry Designs. 46. Defendants’ intentional and unlicensed use of Plaintiff’s marks in commerce to promote, market, and/or sell Defendants’ Infringing Lockets constitutes the false representation that Defendants’ Infringing Lockets has been sponsored by, authorized by, or affiliated with Plaintiff, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A). 47. Defendants’ unauthorized use of Plaintiff’s marks- including “Linx Lockets”- which Defendants have infringed through their use of the term “Link Lockets”- is likely to cause confusion, mistake, and/or deception among consumers. 48. Defendants’ unfair competition has caused and will continue to cause damage to Plaintiff. Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Plaintiff, accordingly, is entitled to injunctive relief and/or a recovery of damages in an amount not to exceed three times its actual damages together with an award of attorneys’ fees. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF Common Law Trademark Infringement Against All Defendants 49. Plaintiff incorporates all allegations set forth at length herein. 50. Plaintiff claims trademark rights in a number of unregistered marks, Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 13 of 81 Page ID #:13
13 COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES 1149560.1 1
including “Linx Lockets,” which Plaintiff used to market and sell the J ewelry Designs. 51. Defendants’ intentional and unlicensed use of Plaintiff’s marks in commerce to promote, market, and/or sell Defendants’ Infringing Lockets constitutes the false representation that Defendants’ Infringing Lockets has been sponsored by, authorized by, or affiliated with Plaintiff, in violation of Plaintiff’s common law rights in such marks. 52. Defendants’ unauthorized use of Plaintiff’s marks—including “Linx Lockets”—which Defendants have infringed through their use of the term “Link Lockets,” is likely to cause confusion, mistake, and/or deception among consumers. 53. Defendants’ unauthorized use of Plaintiff’s marks has caused and will continue to cause damage to Plaintiff. Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Plaintiff, accordingly, is entitled to injunctive relief in addition to any monetary recovery. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Common Law Unfair Competition Against All Defendants 54. Plaintiff incorporates all allegations set fort at length herein. 55. Plaintiff is the creator of the Copyrighted J ewelry Designs at issue in this action, and has been marketing and selling these designs under a series of marks, including the unregistered mark “Linx Lockets.” 56. Defendants, and each of them, violated Plaintiff’s rights in its Copyrighted J ewelry Designs by creating, producing, advertising, marketing, selling, and distributing the Infringing Lockets. 57. Similarly, Defendants have intentionally used Plaintiff’s trademarks to market and sell the Infringing Lockets, including the unregistered mark “Linx Lockets,” which Defendants have infringed through their use of the term “Link Lockets.” Defendants’ use has caused consumer confusion as evidenced above, and is likely to continue to cause consumer confusion if left unchecked. 58. On information and belief, Defendants, and each of them, engaged in the Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 14 of 81 Page ID #:14
14 COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES 1149560.1 1
conduct alleged herein knowingly, willfully, with reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights, and with the intent to harm Plaintiff, its business, its reputation, and its ongoing and prospective business relationships. 59. Defendants’ conduct, as alleged above, constitutes unfair competition under the common law of the state of California, and entitles Plaintiff to injunctive relief and/or damages, including compensatory damages, damages for unjust enrichment, and punitive and exemplary damages. FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Trade Dress Infringement Under the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)) Against All Defendants 60. Plaintiff incorporates all allegations as set forth at length herein. 61. Plaintiff’s jewelry designs are non-functional, as the glass-encased lockets merely creatively display a selection of charms, but serve no other function. On information and belief, Plaintiff’s J ewelry Designs were used exclusively by Plaintiff for at least 5 years prior to their unauthorized copying by Defendants. During that time, Plaintiff’s J ewelry Designs acquired secondary meaning, as consumers have come to recognize Plaintiff’s J ewelry Designs as Plaintiff’s products. Plaintiff’s J ewelry Designs are also inherently distinctive. Thus, Plaintiff’s J ewelry Designs qualify for trade dress protection. 62. Defendants’ intentional and unauthorized copying of Plaintiff’s J ewelry Designs has caused, and is likely to continue to cause confusion, mistake, and/or deception among consumers and constitutes trade dress infringement under the Lanham Act. 63. Defendants’ trade dress infringement has caused and will continue to cause damage to Plaintiff. Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Plaintiff, accordingly, is entitled to injunctive relief and/or a recovery of damages in an amount not to exceed three times its actual damages together with an award of attorneys’ fees. Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 15 of 81 Page ID #:15
15 COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES 1149560.1 1
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Common Law Trade Dress Infringement Against All Defendants 64. Plaintiff incorporates all allegations as set forth at length herein. 65. Because Plaintiff’s J ewelry Designs are non-functional, inherently distinctive, and have acquired secondary meaning, as described above, Plaintiff’s J ewelry Designs are subject to trade dress protections under the common law. 66. Defendants’ intentional and unauthorized copying of Plaintiff’s J ewelry Designs has caused, and is likely to continue to cause confusion, mistake, and/or deception among consumers and constitutes common law trade dress infringement. 67. Defendants’ unfair competition has caused and will continue to cause damage to Plaintiff. Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Plaintiff, accordingly, is entitled to injunctive relief in addition to any monetary recovery. SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Unfair Competition – (California Business & Professions Code §17200, et seq.) Against All Defendants 68. Plaintiff incorporates all allegations set forth at length herein. 69. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition by committing unfair, fraudulent, and deceptive acts within the meaning of California Business & Professions Code, § 17200, et seq. (“§17200”). Defendants’ actions in creating, producing, advertising, marketing, selling, and distributing the Infringing Lockets constitute unfair competition in violation of California state law. Defendants’ intentional use of Plaintiff’s trademarks to market and sell the Infringing Lockets also constitutes unfair competition in violation of California state law. Defendants’ violations of federal Copyright and trademark laws are “unlawful” within the meaning of §17200. 70. Defendants’ actions are also “unfair” and “fraudulent” within the meaning of §17200, as Defendants have intentionally misappropriated Plaintiff’s Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 16 of 81 Page ID #:16
16 COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES 1149560.1 1
J ewelry Designs and, as established below, falsely advertised those designs as their own original creation, all in an effort to siphon off Plaintiff’s customers. Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer damages to its business, reputation, and goodwill as a result of Defendants’ misconduct. 71. On information and belief, Defendants’ misconduct is willful, wanton, calculated to deceive, undertaken in bad faith, and was conducted with knowledge of causing Plaintiff harm. On information and belief, Defendants intended to injure Plaintiff unlawfully, and for the purposes of advancing Defendants’ competitive business interests at Plaintiff’s expense. Accordingly, this Court should award Plaintiff its attorneys’ fees and costs of brining this suit. 72. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ willful actions, Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount to be proven at the time of trial. Further, unless Defendants are restrained from engaging in such misconduct, Plaintiff will continue to suffer irreparable damage. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to injunctive relief. 73. Pursuant to California Business & Professions Code section 17203, Plaintiff is entitled to restitution and/or disgorgement of funds that Defendants obtained through its unfair competition. EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF False Advertising – (California Business & Professions Code §17500, et seq.) Against All Defendants 74. Plaintiff incorporates all allegations set forth at length herein. 75. Defendants have engaged in false advertising within the meaning of California Business & Professions Code, § 17500, et seq. Defendants have repeatedly marketed and advertised Origami’s Infringing Lockets as Isabella Weems’ creation, who claims to have invented a new and unique line of lockets and started a business to buy a car on her 16
birthday. As this Complaint establishes, Defendants, in truth, created the Infringing Lockets by misappropriating Plaintiff’s designs. Defendants’ statements in their advertisements are not true and Defendants knew or reasonably Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 17 of 81 Page ID #:17
17 COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES 1149560.1 1
should have known that they were not true. 76. Defendants advertised Origami’s Infringing Lockets as Isabella Weems’ creation with the specific intent of selling the Infringing Lockets to Origami’s customers. 77. Plaintiff has suffered an injury in fact as a result of this false advertising. Defendants’ false advertising has driven customers away from Plaintiff’s business and towards Defendants’ business, as Defendants have marketed Origami’s Infringing Lockets as an original, unique creation. Plaintiff’s loss of business has been directly caused by Defendants’ false advertising. 78. As a result of Defendants’ false advertising, Plaintiff is entitled to all remedies allowable pursuant to California Business & Professions Code, § 17500, et seq., including, without limitation, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, restitution, and disgorgement of profits. NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Declaratory J udgment of Unenforceability of Patent (28 U.S.C. § 2201) Against Defendants Christian Weems, Zyad Kadri Origami Owl 79. Plaintiff incorporates all allegations set forth at length herein. 80. Defendants Christian Weems, Zyad Kadri, and Origami Owl received a patent for a heart shaped locket on August 19, 2014 (Reg. No. D711, 278). On information and belief, these same Defendants have also contemporaneously applied for a second, related patent application (Application No. 29/477098), which has yet to be approved. 81. The ‘278 Patent is unenforceable as a result of Defendants Christian Weems’ and Zyad Kadri’s inequitable conduct towards the patent office, including the following material misrepresentations and omissions: a. In applying for the ‘278 patent Christian Weems and Zyad Kadri failed to disclose any of Plaintiff’s J ewelry Designs as prior art but represented to the patent office that the patent applicants had disclosed all known prior art. This was a Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 18 of 81 Page ID #:18
18 COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES 1149560.1 1
false representation because Christian Weems and the other Defendants were aware of Plaintiff’s J ewelry Designs and had, in fact, copied Plaintiff’s J ewelry Designs in developing the heart shaped locket that is the subject of the ‘278 patent. This omission was also material because Plaintiff’s J ewelry Designs were and are relevant to determine whether the heart shaped locket was patentable and, if so, the scope of patentability. On information and belief, Christian Weems and Zyad Kadri intended that the patent office rely on this omission by awarding the ‘278 Patent without awareness of the full extent of the prior art. On information and belief, the patent office did rely on this omission and misrepresentation by awarding the ‘278 Patent. b. On information and belief , in applying for the ‘278 patent Christian Weems and Zyad Kadri stated that they were the inventors of the heart shaped locket that is the subject of the ‘278 patent. This statement was false, as Defendants’ misappropriated Plaintiff’s designs, including the heart shaped locket at issue. Ms. Weems’ and Mr. Kadri’s declaration(s) to the patent office was further fraudulent because Defendants’ marketing campaign states that Isabella Weems is the creator of all of Defendants’ jewelry. In other words, Defendants cannot keep their story straight. This misrepresentation was material, as the inventor of the invention is entitled to patent protection. On information and belief, Christian Weems and Zyad Kadri intended that the patent office rely on this material misrepresentation by awarding the ‘278 Patent without being aware of who the true inventor of the heart shaped locket. On information and belief, the patent office did rely on this omission and misrepresentation by awarding the ‘278 Patent. c. Christian Weems and Zyad Kadri failed to disclose that the heart shaped locket has been in commerce for nearly a decade- since Linx & More first began selling its J ewelry Designs in 2005. This omission was false, as Defendants were aware of Plaintiff’s longstanding jewelry sales, including of heart shaped lockets. This omission was material because products that have been in commerce for this many years cannot be patented. On information and belief, Christian Weems Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 19 of 81 Page ID #:19
19 COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES 1149560.1 1
intended that the patent office rely on this omission by awarding the ‘278 patent without being aware that the product had been in commerce for several years. On information and belief, the patent office did rely on this omission by awarding the ‘278 patent. 82. There is an actual controversy, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, between Plaintiffs and Defendants concerning the validity and enforceability of the ‘278 patent. 83. Because the ‘278 patent was issued as a result of Christian Weems’ and Zyad Kadri’s material misrepresentations and omissions, Plaintiff is entitled to a declaratory judgment that the ‘278 patent is unenforceable as a result of Mrs. Weems’ fraud on the patent office. 84. Because of Christian Weems’ and Zyad Kadri’s gross misconduct, fraud and material misrepresentations, this is an exceptional case and Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court enter judgment against Defendants as follows: 1. For an order that Defendants, and their officers, agents, servants, employees, representatives, attorneys, and others acting on their behalf, be preliminarily and permanently enjoined from: a. Directly or indirectly, in manufacturing, selling, distributing, producing, offering, advertising, promoting, lending, importing, creating, and/or copying any products that are substantially similar to Plaintiff’s J ewelry Designs; b. Committing further acts of copyright infringement of Plaintiff’s J ewelry Designs; c. Further infringing Plaintiff’s exclusive rights in the J ewelry Designs or otherwise competing unfairly with Plaintiff; d. Using Plaintiff’s trademarks to market any of Defendants’ Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 20 of 81 Page ID #:20
20 COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES 1149560.1 1
products, including the Infringing Lockets; e. Violating Plaintiff’s trade dress rights in the J ewelry Designs. 2. For damages sufficient to compensate Plaintiff in an amount according to proof at trial; 3. For an award of Defendants’ profits derived by its infringing acts, as determined by an accounting; 4. For statutory damages of not less than $150,000 per each infringement, or for such other amount as the Court deems proper pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504, subdivision (c); 5. For the impoundment and destruction of all Infringing J ewelry including all copies, plates, molds, models, shells, and other items which Defendants have used to make unlawful copies of the J ewelry Designs; 6. For an order directing Defendants to recall and destroy all of its products, designs, merchandise, and items made using the infringing jewelry designs that Defendants have provided to any United States entity; 7. For prejudgment and post-judgment interest according to law; 8. For costs associated with the prosecution of this action; and 9. For attorneys’ fees incurred in bringing this action. DATED: August 29, 2014 BROWN WHITE & NEWHOUSE LLP
s/Alan Jackson
ALAN J ACKSON NANNINA L. ANGIONI HENRY L. WHITEHEAD Attorneys for Plaintiff LINX BRACELETS, INC. d/b/a LINX & MORE ...
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 21 of 81 Page ID #:21
21 COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES 1149560.1 1
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial on all issues triable to a jury. DATED: August 29, 2014 BROWN WHITE & NEWHOUSE LLP
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 22 of 81 Page ID #:22
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 23 of 81 Page ID #:23
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 24 of 81 Page ID #:24
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 25 of 81 Page ID #:25
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 26 of 81 Page ID #:26
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 27 of 81 Page ID #:27
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 28 of 81 Page ID #:28
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 29 of 81 Page ID #:29
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 30 of 81 Page ID #:30
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 31 of 81 Page ID #:31
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 32 of 81 Page ID #:32
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 33 of 81 Page ID #:33
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 34 of 81 Page ID #:34
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 35 of 81 Page ID #:35
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 36 of 81 Page ID #:36
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 37 of 81 Page ID #:37
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 38 of 81 Page ID #:38
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 39 of 81 Page ID #:39
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 40 of 81 Page ID #:40
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 41 of 81 Page ID #:41
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 42 of 81 Page ID #:42
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 43 of 81 Page ID #:43
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 44 of 81 Page ID #:44
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 45 of 81 Page ID #:45
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 46 of 81 Page ID #:46
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 47 of 81 Page ID #:47
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 48 of 81 Page ID #:48
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 49 of 81 Page ID #:49
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 50 of 81 Page ID #:50
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 51 of 81 Page ID #:51
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 52 of 81 Page ID #:52
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 53 of 81 Page ID #:53
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 54 of 81 Page ID #:54
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 55 of 81 Page ID #:55
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 56 of 81 Page ID #:56
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 57 of 81 Page ID #:57
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 58 of 81 Page ID #:58
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 59 of 81 Page ID #:59
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 60 of 81 Page ID #:60
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 61 of 81 Page ID #:61
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 62 of 81 Page ID #:62
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 63 of 81 Page ID #:63
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 64 of 81 Page ID #:64
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 65 of 81 Page ID #:65
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 66 of 81 Page ID #:66
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 67 of 81 Page ID #:67
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 68 of 81 Page ID #:68
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 69 of 81 Page ID #:69
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 70 of 81 Page ID #:70
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 71 of 81 Page ID #:71
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 72 of 81 Page ID #:72
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 73 of 81 Page ID #:73
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 74 of 81 Page ID #:74
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 75 of 81 Page ID #:75
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 76 of 81 Page ID #:76
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 77 of 81 Page ID #:77
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 78 of 81 Page ID #:78
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 79 of 81 Page ID #:79
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 80 of 81 Page ID #:80
Case 2:14-cv-06799-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 81 of 81 Page ID #:81
Documents Similar To Linx Bracelet v. Origami OwlSkip carouselOrigami Owl v. Mayo - ComplaintWilliam M. Yarbrough Foundation, The et. al. v. Garcoa LaboratoriesClingo.com v. Tekno ProductsWallace International Silversmiths, Inc. v. Godinger Silver Art Co., Inc., 916 F.2d 76, 2d Cir. (1990)Fantasia Distribution v. Rand - e-hookah trademark motion to dismiss denied.pdfJAT v. JNC - ComplaintSketchers v. US Polo - ComplaintAxl Rose Takedown NoticeIIPSJ Letter to House Re SOPAGoGEAR Sounddot EnglishHPK Slide Show Re CDN Legislative Developments Fordham 2013 FinalMcIntosh v. N. Cal. Universal Enterprises (E.D. Cal. July 7, 2010)Beaumont Prods. v. Willert Home Prods. - Complaint07 - The HungerJoaquin, Jr. vs. Drilonmmnov15Intellectual Property RightsJoe's Pizza v. Little Joe's Pizza - trademark complaint.pdfWebsite Terms and ConditionsGeab Nr56 EnDELANEY DEVELOPMENT, INC. et al v. LANDMARK AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY et al Complaintart%3A10.1007%2Fs10676-015-9376-7.pdfShenda Resolution 6-29-2005Dermaline IPL Notes for ReportEncap v. Oldcastle Retail et. al.APT Group v. Monster Moto - Amended ComplaintKHO VS CAOnline Piracy23 Qualitex v JacobsonUntitledDocuments About Trade DressSkip carouselBritto v. Craig & Karl and AppleCalvin Klein v. Excell Brands - perfume trademark complaint.pdfRaising Cane's v. Twins Chicken - One Love chicken trademark.pdfPooPourri LawsuitEnergizer v. Camelion Battery - trade dress complaint.pdfadidas v. Skechers - Stan Smith shoe trade dress complaint.pdfKiini v. Victoria's Secret - bikinis.pdfNavan Foods v. Spangerl Candy - trademark complaint.pdfLittle Caesar v. Piara Pizza trademark complaint.pdfadidas v. Skechers - Stan Smith ORDER.pdfAmended Complaint - Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. J.C. Penney, No. 2:14-cv-02565Tech 21 v. Spigen - phone case trade dress.pdfLoggerhead v. Sears Tools opinion.pdfParamount Farms v. Keenan Farms - PistachiosNicole Inc v Cielo USA DesigFusionbrands v. NorproIt Will Be Awesome if They Don't Screw it UpLanard Toys v. Toys R Us - Foam Dart ShooterHershey v. LBB ImportsFireball Whiskey v. Fire Flask Beer5.11 v. Wal-Mart - Taclite Pro Pants.pdfAirware v. Esquire International - Doc Marten undersole trademark complaint.pdfCity of Chicago v. Ibekie - trademark complaint bike ride.pdfBath & Body Works Brand Management v. Tri-Coastal Design GroupAlamo Beer Trademark ComplaintShark Tank PretrialK & M Int'l v. Rhode Island Novelty - Wild Republic animal toys trademark complaint.pdfCrown Awards v. Trophy Depot - trophy copyright complaint.pdfStella McCartney v. Steve Madden.pdfSazerac Co. v. Fetzer Vineyards - buffalo whiskey trademark.pdfMore From Mark H. JaffeSkip carouselPaisley Park v. Boxill - Motion to Seal DocumentPaisley Park v. Boxill - Notice of RemovalHorror Inc. v. Miller - Friday the 13th ComplaintUS v. Lostutter - Mark Jaffe Admission Pro Hac ViceMackenzie Architects v. VLG Real Estate, et al. - order on motion on the pleadings092016_cfpb_WFBconsentorder Wells Fargo phony accounts.pdfSlated IP v. Independent Film Dev Group - Sup Ct NY opinion.pdfIndictment-USA-v-Lostutter-aka-KYAnonymous (1).pdfGriffin v. Ed Sheeran - Lets Get It On copyright complaint.pdfBagwell v. WWE complaint.pdfHSK dba Zerorez v. USOC complaint.pdfRiot Games v. Argote - League of Legends- DMCA complaint.pdfWhite and Ward v. Warner-Tamerlane - Ain't No Fun complaint.pdfHorror Inc. v. Miller - Friday the 13th Complaint.pdfGreggs v. Grande and Guetta - complaint.pdfOrder Denying Plaintiffs Mot for Preliminary a (1)Highsmith v. Getty - copyright management information.pdfManzari v. Associated Newspaperes - 9th Circuit libel.pdfHerbal Access - TTAB opinion.pdfRussell Road Food v. Spencer, Crazy Horse - 9th Circuit.pdfUSA v. Vaulin - Kickass Torrents indictment.pdfCottrell v. Duke - Wal-Mart Derivative Action 8th CircuitUS v. Eberts - 7th Circuit sentencing.pdfOrchard Hill Master Fund v. Fairway Fund - 2nd Circuit.pdfUSA v. Matthew Keys - Mark H. Jaffe Notice of Appearance.pdfECF 14 Motion for Bail Pending Appeal Denied 2016.07.21 US v Keys AppealJeffrey-Mead-Kurzon-v-Democratic-National-Committee-and-New-York-State-Democratic-Committee.pdfJeffrey-Mead-Kurzon-v-Democratic-National-Committee-and-New-York-State-Democratic-Committee.pdfO'Kroley v. Fastcase, Google - 6th Circuit.pdfPhoenix Ent. v. Rumsey - 7th Circuit.pdf