Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/147544601/Shashi-v-Tsipilates
Timestamp: 2016-08-30 17:41:37
Document Index: 568155904

Matched Legal Cases: ['§101', '§1051', '§1114', '§495', '§501', '§1331', '§1121', '§1367', '§1391', '§48', '§48', '§48', '§1125', '§43', '§1125', '§1125', '§43', '§1125', '§1114', '§1114', '§495', '§495', '§501', '§501', '§101', '§1051', '§495', '§1051', '§1125', '§35', '§1117', '§1117', '§35', '§1117', '§285', '§501', '§35', '§1117', 'art44', 'art3']

Shashi v. Tsipilates
BrowseUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicWelcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out moreUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.SHASHI, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) TSIPILATES, LLC, a Florida ) limited liability company, ) ) ) Defendant. ) ___________________________________) COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Shashi, LLC (“Plaintiff”), hereby files it
Complaint against Defendant, Tsipilates, LLC (“Defendant”) and alleges as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This is an action for injunctive and other relief under
the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §101, et seq., for design patent infringement. This is also an action for injunctive and other relief under the Federal Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1051, et seq. (“Lanham Act”), particularly 15 U.S.C. §§1114 and 1125(a), for trade dress infringement, trademark infringement, false
designation of origin, false description or representation, and unfair competition. Plaintiff also asserts claims in accordance with common law rights, Fla. Stat. §495.161, for trade dress infringement, trademark infringement and unfair competition and for violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act,
Fla. Stat. §501. 201, et seq. 2. 28 U.S.C. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to §§1331, 1338(a) and 1338(b). This Court also has
jurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1121 and the doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction, as set forth in 28 U.S.C. §1367. 3. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§1391(b) and 1391(c) in
that Defendant resides in the Southern District of Florida and/or the wrongful acts committed by Defendant occurred in and originated from the Southern District of Florida, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred therein, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated therein. 4. that: a. Defendant has operated, conducted, engaged in, or Upon information and belief, jurisdiction is proper in
carried on a business venture in this State, and the Southern District of Florida, from which this action
arises, within the meaning of Fla. Stat. §48.193(1)(a); or b. Defendant has committed tortious acts within this
State, and the Southern District of Florida, including the infringement set forth herein, within the meaning of Fla. Stat. §48.193(1)(b); or c. Defendant has engaged in substantial and not isolated 2
activity within this state, and the Southern District of Florida, within the meaning of Fla. Stat. §48.193(2). THE PARTIES 5. Plaintiff is a limited liability corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, and having an address at 6926 Royal Orchid Circle, Delray Beach, Florida 33446. 6. Upon information and belief, Defendant is a limited
liability company organized and existing under the laws of Florida with an address of 571 Stonemont Drive, Weston, Florida 33326. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 7. Since approximately November, 2010, Plaintiff has been in
the business of designing, causing to be manufactured, marketing, promoting, offering for sale, distributing and selling fitness apparel, namely a proprietary line of fitness socks that are particularly suited for use during Pilates, yoga, and barre
workouts sold under the registered trademark “SHASHI®”. 8. The SHASHI® socks have a unique mesh top panel and a
novel arrangement of slip-resistant grip dots on the bottom of the sock. 9. Plaintiff has invested considerable time, creative
effort, and resources to create its exclusive and innovative socks, and develop goodwill in the SHASHI® mark. PLAINTIFF’S PATENT AND TRADE DRESS RIGHTS 10. Plaintiff is the owner of U.S. Design Patent No. D664,349 3
(“the ‘349 Patent”) which was duly and lawfully issued on or about July 31, 2012, for the ornamental design for its innovative sock, as shown and described therein (the “patented design”). See Exhibit A hereto. 11. Plaintiff’s unique patented design and appearance in and
of the SHASHI® socks is recognizable as the style and work and trade dress of Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s trade dress consists of an overall look or commercial impression resulting from the arbitrary selection and combination of certain non-functional features, namely a sock that: (1) covers the toe, sides and bottom of the foot; (2) has an ankle length; (3) has a cut-out disposed along the top of the sock or foot along which a mesh panel which is secured that rises slightly onto the ankle; (4) has a non-slip pattern along the bottom surface or sole of the sock; and (5) has a logo element on the upper elastic potion of the sock (all collectively hereafter “Plaintiff’s Product Trade Dress”). Examples of
Plaintiff’s Product Trade Dress are shown in Exhibit B. 12. Plaintiff also has acquired trade dress rights in and to
its distinctive packaging of its SHASHI® socks which consists of an overall look or commercial impression resulting from the arbitrary selection and combination of certain non-functional features, namely: (1) a see-thru mesh bag; (2) with a decorative horizontal ribbon in the upper portion of the bag; and (3) a header card attached to the top of the mesh bag (all collectively hereafter 4
“Plaintiff’s Packaging
Trade Dress”).
Packaging Trade Dress are shown in Exhibit C. 13. Prior to the acts of Defendant complained of herein,
Plaintiff adopted and used in commerce its distinctive Product and Packaging Trade Dress for its SHASHI® socks. Such use has been continuous since its inception. 14. Since prior to the infringing acts of Defendant
complained of herein, Plaintiff has achieved significant commercial success and substantial sales, advertising, and promotion of its socks utilizing Plaintiff’s Product and Packaging Trade Dress, throughout the State of Florida and the United States, including the Southern District of Florida. 15. By virtue of their unique style and continuous and
widespread use, and since prior to the infringing acts of Defendant complained of herein, Plaintiff’s Product and Packaging Trade Dress has developed a secondary meaning and significance, and have been readily recognizable by the public and the trade as identifying Plaintiff as the exclusive source and distinguishing Plaintiff’s goods and packaging from the goods and packaging of others. PLAINTIFF’S TRADEMARK RIGHTS 16. Since long prior to the acts of Defendant complained of
herein, Plaintiff adopted and used the inherently distinctive designation and trademark “SHASHI” for use in connection with socks (Plaintiff’s “SHASHI® Mark”). 5
Since its adoption, Plaintiff has continuously used its
SHASHI® Mark in interstate commerce for and in connection with such goods and has not abandoned this mark. 18. Plaintiff has obtained U.S. Trademark Registration No.
4,256,950 for its SHASHI® Mark for use in connection with “socks” in International Class 025 (“Plaintiff’s SHASHI® Registration”). See Exhibit D hereto. 19. Since long prior to the acts of Defendant complained of
herein, Plaintiff has expended much money, time, and effort in advertising, promoting, and marketing the goods sold under the SHASHI® Mark. 20. Since long prior to the acts of Defendant complained of
herein, the Plaintiff’s SHASHI® Mark has been readily recognizable by the public as associated exclusively with Plaintiff and has achieved a secondary meaning to the consuming public. 21. The Plaintiff’s SHASHI® Mark has been in continuous use
in U.S. commerce since its adoption and first use in the U.S. commerce. DEFENDANT’S INFRINGING ACTIVITY 22. purchased Defendant was a regular customer of Plaintiff, who had hundreds of pairs of SHASHI® socks from Plaintiff
embodying the patented design, Plaintiff’s Product Trade Dress, and Plaintiff’s Packaging Trade Dress, at both the retail and wholesale level from December, 2010 through February, 2013. 6
After it began purchasing SHASHI® socks from Plaintiff, and belief, Defendant began manufacturing,
marketing, and selling competing and infringing socks under the infringing mark “SOXSI” designed for the Pilates, yoga, and barre industry. 24. Upon and information, Defendant began selling its
infringing “SOXSI” socks in March, 2013 - one month after it suddenly stopped purchasing SHASHI® socks from Plaintiff. 25. Defendant is well aware and, since long prior to the acts
of Defendant complained of herein, has been well aware of the goodwill represented and symbolized by Plaintiff’s Product and Packaging Trade Dress and SHASHI® Mark and that Plaintiff’s Product and Packaging Trade Dress and SHASHI® Mark are widely recognized and relied upon by the public and the trade as identifying
Plaintiff and its goods and distinguishing said goods from the goods of others. 26. Notwithstanding Defendant’s knowledge of Plaintiff’s
Product and Packaging Trade Dress, SHASHI® Mark, and/or the ‘349 Patent, and indeed by reason of such knowledge, Defendant has engaged in, and it is believed will continue to engage in a deliberate and willful scheme to trade upon and to misappropriate for itself the vast goodwill represented and symbolized by the Plaintiff’s Product and Packaging Trade Dress and SHASHI® Mark and to infringe upon and utilize the design shown in the ‘349 Patent, 7
all without Plaintiff’s consent thereof. 27. The acts of Defendant complained of herein constitute
willful and intentional infringement of Plaintiff’s Product and Packaging Trade Dress and SHASHI® Mark and rights in and to the ‘349 Patent, and are in total disregard of Plaintiff’s rights, and were commenced and it is believed will continue in spite of the Defendant’s knowledge that its use of the infringing design was and is in direct contravention of Plaintiff’s rights. 28. Upon information and belief, subsequent to the issuance
of the ‘349 Patent, and the original sales of goods by or on behalf of Plaintiff embodying Plaintiff’s patented design, Defendant
commenced and has continued making, importing, using, selling, and/or offering for sale, within the Southern District of Florida and elsewhere, unauthorized socks utilizing and embodying the patented design described and claimed in the ‘349 Patent (the “Infringing Socks”). Sample photographs of the Infringing Socks are attached as Composite Exhibit E. 29. These Infringing Socks further incorporate a copy or
colorable imitation of Plaintiff’s Product Trade Dress. 30. In addition, Defendant is selling, advertising and/or
offering for sale, within the Southern District of Florida and elsewhere, competing socks under the infringing “SOXSI” mark (the “Infringing Mark”). 31. Upon information and belief, subsequent to the original 8
sales of goods by or on behalf of Plaintiff of its SHASHI® socks in packaging embodying Plaintiff’s Packaging Trade Dress, Defendant commenced and has continued using, selling, and/or offering for sale, within the Southern District of Florida and elsewhere, unauthorized socks utilizing Plaintiff’s Packaging Trade Dress (the “Infringing Packaging”). A photograph of the Infringing Packaging is attached as Exhibit F. 32. Defendant’s unauthorized sales of the Infringing Socks
utilizing the Infringing Mark and Infringing Packaging and related marketing activities commenced long after substantial and sales in commerce of authorized goods by Plaintiff embodying Plaintiff’s patented design, Plaintiff’s Product and Packaging Trade Dress, and Plaintiff’s SHASHI® Mark and subsequent to the acquisition of rights and secondary meaning in Plaintiff’s Product and Packaging Trade Dress and Plaintiff’s SHASHI® Mark accruing to Plaintiff. 33. Defendant’s Packaging aforesaid and use of the is Infringing designed Socks, and is
calculated and is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, and to deceive customers and prospective customers as to the origin or sponsorship of Defendant’s goods and to falsely cause the consuming public to believe that Defendant’s goods are the goods of
Plaintiff, or are sponsored, licensed, authorized, or approved by Plaintiff, all to the detriment of Plaintiff, the trade, and the public. 9
Defendant has and continues to market and sell the
Infringing Socks utilizing the Infringing Mark and Infringing Packaging to the Pilates, yoga and barre industry, including directly to Plaintiff’s customers. 35. Specifically, Defendant has directly solicited
Plaintiff’s authorized retailers that are listed on Plaintiff’s website and has sent them unsolicited, complementary pairs of its Infringing Socks utilizing the Infringing Mark and Infringing Packaging. Attached as Exhibit G is an example of a postcard
advertising the Infringing Socks that Defendant sent to one of Plaintiff’s authorized retailers along with a complementary pair of Infringing Socks. 36. Defendant commenced its infringing activities described
herein without the consent of Plaintiff, in deliberate, knowing, and wanton disregard of the rights of Plaintiff and to Plaintiff’s irreparable damage, unless restrained by this Court. COUNT I – DESIGN PATENT INFRINGEMENT 37. Plaintiff incorporates herein each and every allegation
set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 36 as if fully set forth herein. 38. Defendant’s aforesaid acts, including the unauthorized
manufacture, import, use, sales, and/or offering for sale of goods embodying the design shown in the ‘349 Patent, constitute
infringement of and/or inducement to infringe the ‘349 Patent, directly and/or under the doctrine of equivalents. 10
Defendant’s aforesaid acts have deprived Plaintiff of
sales that Plaintiff otherwise would have made. 40. Defendant’s aforesaid acts have caused and will cause
great and irreparable injury to Plaintiff, and unless said acts are restrained by this Court, they will be continued and Plaintiff will continue to suffer great and irreparable injury. 41. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
COUNT II - FALSE DESIGNATION, DESCRIPTION, AND REPRESENTATION UNDER THE LANHAM ACT, 15 U.S.C. §1125(a)- PRODUCT TRADE DRESS 42. Plaintiff incorporates herein each and every allegation
set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 36 as if fully set forth herein. 43. Subsequent to Plaintiff’s establishment of its rights in
Plaintiff’s Product Trade Dress, Defendant intentionally commenced to use in commerce, and upon information and belief, will continue to use in commerce the Infringing Socks which are a reproduction, copy, and colorable imitation of the Plaintiff’s Product Trade Dress, despite Plaintiff’s prior use thereof and the public
recognition thereof, constituting use in commerce of a word, term, name, symbol, or device, or combination thereof, or a false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or a false or misleading representation of fact that is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to
affiliation, connection, or association with Plaintiff, or origin, sponsorship, or approval of Defendant’s goods by Plaintiff.
Defendant’s aforesaid acts constitute unfair competition, of origin, and/or false description or
representation in violation of §43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125(a). 45. Defendant’s severely aforesaid damaged acts have harmed Plaintiff’s and upon
information and belief, have diverted sales from Plaintiff. 46. Defendant’s aforesaid acts have caused and will continue
to cause great and irreparable injury to Plaintiff, and unless said acts are restrained by this Court, they will be continued and Plaintiff will continue to suffer great and irreparable injury. 47. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
COUNT III - FALSE DESIGNATION, DESCRIPTION, AND REPRESENTATION UNDER THE LANHAM ACT, 15 U.S.C. §1125(a)- PACKAGING TRADE DRESS 48. Plaintiff incorporates herein each and every allegation
set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 36 as if fully set forth herein. 49. Subsequent to Plaintiff’s establishment of its rights in Packaging Trade Dress, Defendant intentionally
commenced to use in commerce, and upon information and belief, will continue to use in commerce the Infringing Packaging for its Infringing Socks which is a reproduction, copy, and colorable imitation of the Plaintiff’s Packaging Trade Dress, despite
Plaintiff’s prior use thereof and the public recognition thereof, constituting use in commerce of a word, term, name, symbol, or
device, or combination thereof, or a false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or a false or misleading representation of fact that is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to affiliation, connection, or association with Plaintiff, or origin, sponsorship, or approval of Defendants’ goods by Plaintiff. 50. false Defendant’s aforesaid acts constitute unfair competition, of origin, and/or false description or
representation in violation of §43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125(a). 51. Defendant’s severely aforesaid damaged acts have harmed Plaintiff’s and upon
information and belief, have diverted sales from Plaintiff. 52. Defendant’s aforesaid acts have caused and will continue
to cause great and irreparable injury to Plaintiff, and unless said acts are restrained by this Court, they will be continued and Plaintiff will continue to suffer great and irreparable injury. 53. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
COUNT IV FEDERAL TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT, 15 U.S.C. §1114(1) 54. Plaintiff incorporates herein each and every allegation
set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 36 as if fully set forth herein. 55. ownership With and full prior knowledge use of and awareness of Plaintiff's Mark and
“SHASHI®”
Registration, Defendant has willfully used, is using, and will continue to use the Infringing Mark on identical or highly related goods for which Plaintiff’s SHASHI® Registration issued, in a manner that is likely to cause confusion, reverse confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive. 56. Defendant’s acts constitute infringement, use of a
Plaintiff’s SHASHI® Mark, in violation of and pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1114. 57. Defendant’s acts have harmed Plaintiff’s reputation,
severely damaged Plaintiff’s goodwill, and upon information and belief, have and will continue to divert sales from Plaintiff, and create the impression that Plaintiff is an infringer when in fact Defendant is the infringer. 58. Defendant’s aforesaid acts have caused and will cause
great and irreparable injury to Plaintiff, and unless said acts are restrained by this Court, they will be continued and Plaintiff will continue to suffer great and irreparable injury. 59. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. COUNT V - UNFAIR COMPETITION/COMMON LAW TRADE DRESS INFRINGEMENT OF PRODUCT TRADE DRESS 60. Plaintiff incorporates herein each and every allegation
misappropriation, and misuse of Plaintiff’s Product Trade Dress, unfair competition, palming-off and passing-off against Plaintiff, and unjust enrichment of Defendant, all in violation of Plaintiff’s rights at common law and under the law of the State of Florida in accordance with Fla. Stat. §495.161. 62. Defendant’s acts have harmed Plaintiff’s reputation,
severely damaged Plaintiff’s goodwill, and upon information and belief, have diverted sales from Plaintiff. 63. Defendant’s aforesaid acts have caused and will continue
to cause great and irreparable injury to Plaintiff, and unless said acts are restrained by this Court, they will be continued and Plaintiff will continue to suffer great and irreparable injury. 64. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. COUNT VI - UNFAIR COMPETITION/COMMON LAW TRADE DRESS INFRINGEMENT OF PACKAGING TRADE DRESS 65. Plaintiff incorporates herein each and every allegation
set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 36 as if fully set forth herein. 66. Defendant’s aforesaid acts constitute infringement,
misappropriation, and misuse of Plaintiff’s Packaging Trade Dress, unfair competition, palming-off and passing-off against Plaintiff, and unjust enrichment of Defendant, all in violation of Plaintiff’s rights at common law and under the law of the State of Florida in accordance with Fla. Stat. §495.161.
Defendant’s acts have harmed Plaintiff’s reputation,
severely damaged Plaintiff’s goodwill, and upon information and belief, have diverted sales from Plaintiff. 68. Defendant’s aforesaid acts have caused and will continue
to cause great and irreparable injury to Plaintiff, and unless said acts are restrained by this Court, they will be continued and Plaintiff will continue to suffer great and irreparable injury. 69. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. COUNT VII COMMON LAW TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT 70. Plaintiff incorporates herein each and every allegation
set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 36, as if fully set forth herein. 71. Defendant’s aforesaid acts constitute false
designation(s) of origin, false or misleading description(s) of fact, or false or misleading representation(s) of fact, which are likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to affiliation, connection, or association with Plaintiff, or origin, sponsorship, or approval of Defendant’s goods by Plaintiff. 72. Defendant’s aforesaid acts have caused and will continue
to cause substantial and irreparable injury to Plaintiff unless such acts are restrained by this Court. 73. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
COUNT VIII- VIOLATION OF FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES (FLA. STAT. §501.201, ET SEQ.) 74. Plaintiff incorporates herein each and every allegation
set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 36, as if fully set forth herein. 75. Defendant’s aforesaid acts constitute unfair methods of unconscionable acts or practices and unfair or
deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade in commerce in violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices, Fla. Stat. §501.201, et seq. 76. Defendant’s aforesaid acts have caused and will continue
to cause great and irreparable injury to Plaintiff, and unless restrained by this Court, they will be continued and Plaintiff will continue to suffer great and irreparable injury. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays: A. valid, That this Court will adjudge that the `349 Patent is enforceable, and has been infringed as a direct and
proximate result of the acts and/or inducement of Defendant as set forth herein, in violation of Plaintiff’s rights under 35 U.S.C. §101, et seq. B. That Plaintiff’s Product and Packaging Trade Dress has
been infringed as a direct and proximate result of the acts of Defendant as set forth herein, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1051 et seq., and the common law and under the law of the State of Florida in accordance with Fla. 17
Stat. §495.161. C. That this Court will adjudge that Plaintiff’s “SHASHI®”
Mark and Registration has been infringed as a direct and proximate result of the acts of Defendant as set forth in this Complaint, in violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1051 et seq., and the common law. D. unfairly That this Court will adjudge that Defendant has competed with Plaintiff as set forth in this Complaint, in
violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125(a), and the common law. E. That Defendant, and all officers, directors, agents,
servants, employees, attorneys, successors, and assigns, and all persons in active enjoined concert and or participation from therewith, be
manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale and import of the Infringing Socks, and all other infringements of the ‘349 Patent. F. That Defendant, and all officers, directors, agents,
manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale and import of the Infringing Socks and Infringing Packaging, and all other designs and packaging likely to be confused with or infringe Plaintiff’s Product and Packaging Trade Dress described herein. 18
That Defendant be required to deliver up for destruction
all Infringing Socks, Infringing Packaging and other written or printed material in the possession or control of Defendant which embody or bear the Infringing Socks and/or Infringing Packaging, and all plates, molds, matrices, and other means from making the aforesaid items. H. That Defendant be directed to file with this Court and to
serve upon Plaintiff within ten (10) days after service of the injunction issued in this action, a written report, under oath, setting forth in detail the manner of compliance with the above. I. That Plaintiff recover damages adequate to compensate for
the Defendant’s patent infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the patented design by Defendant, and in addition to the amount of actual damages found, such sums shall be in an amount three (3) times the amount of the actual damages found. J. That in addition thereto, Plaintiff have and recover the
profits of Defendant derived from the use of the infringing designs under the ‘349 Patent. K. That Plaintiff recover the Defendant’s profits and the
damages of Plaintiff arising from Defendant’s acts of trade dress infringement, trademark infringement and unfair competition, and that the Court, pursuant to §35 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1117, enter judgment, and that said sums be treble as authorized pursuant 19
to 15 U.S.C. §1117(b). L. That Plaintiff have and recover, pursuant to the laws of
the State of Florida, and common law, in addition to its actual damages, punitive damages in an amount which the Court deems just and proper. M. That Plaintiff have and recover both pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest on each and every damage award. N. That Plaintiff have and recover its reasonable attorney
fees incurred in this action, pursuant to §35 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1117, 35 U.S.C. §285, and Florida Statutes §501.2105, and as otherwise authorized. O. That Plaintiff have and recover its taxable costs and
disbursements herein, pursuant to §35 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1117, and as otherwise authorized. P. That Plaintiff have and recover such further relief as
the Court may deem just and proper. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff demands a trial by jury as to all issues triable of right by a jury. Respectfully submitted, Dated: June 12, 2013 Miami, Florida By:s/Meredith Frank Mendez John Cyril Malloy, III Florida Bar No. 964,220 jcmalloy@malloylaw.com Meredith Frank Mendez Florida Bar No. 502,235 mmendez@malloylaw.com 20
MALLOY & MALLOY, P.L. 2800 S.W. Third Avenue Miami, Florida 33129 Telephone (305) 858-8000 Facsimile (305) 858-0008 Attorneys Shashi, LLC for Plaintiff,
Shashi v. Tsipilates by PriorSmart44 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 0:13-cv-61303-XXXX: Shashi, LLC v. Tsipilates, LLC. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, no judge yet as...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 0:13-cv-61303-XXXX: Shashi, LLC v. Tsipilates, LLC. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l8A8 for more info.Interests: Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedGallagher Et. Al. v. Funeral Source One Supply and Equipment Et. Al.by PatentBlastHarcol Research v. Joe Wells Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Max Muscle Sportsby PriorSmartHarcol Research v. Vitacost.comby PriorSmartContour Complaintby Gregory VincentDiamantis v. Safdie International et. al.by PriorSmart3Form v. Meridien Accentsby PriorSmartCadbury Ltd. and 2 vs Itc Ltd. and 1 on 20 July, 2005by Sumit ShingalaOrderby sstitham31_LipatvsPacificby Ray LegaspiSonic Industry v. Comericaby PriorSmartIn and Out vs Shewaniby silverbow11ArrivalStar et. al. v. Estee Lauderby PriorSmartIn-n- Out Burger vs. Sehwaniby Arlando G. ArlandoBayani vs Panay Electric Co Inc : 139680 : April 12, 2000 : J. Quisumbing : Second Divisionby Tin BasilioRegistered Power of Attorney Cannot Be Cancelled by Mere Filing of Police Complaint 2010 Scby Sridhara babu. N - ಶ್ರೀಧರ ಬಾಬು. ಎನ್ Foreclosure Emergency Motion to Cancel Sale Vacate Final Judgment and Set Aside Default- by winstons2311ArrivalStar et. al. v. Lenovoby PriorSmartEureka Water Co. v. Nestle Waters N.a., Incby propertyintangibleInvestments vs CA Digestby Nikki AndradeWhalen Furniture Mfg. v. Bell'O Internationalby PriorSmartMATEO v. VOSBRINK et al - Document No. 5by Justia.com124 Padilla vs Globeby PaoloGordium Innovations v. Comtrolby PriorSmartArabzadegan v. McKeeman, et al - Document No. 3by Justia.comSimilar to Shashi v. TsipilatesGallagher Et. Al. v. Funeral Source One Supply and Equipment Et. Al.Harcol Research v. Joe Wells Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Max Muscle SportsHarcol Research v. Vitacost.comContour ComplaintDiamantis v. Safdie International et. al.3Form v. Meridien AccentsCadbury Ltd. and 2 vs Itc Ltd. and 1 on 20 July, 2005Order31_LipatvsPacificSonic Industry v. ComericaIn and Out vs ShewaniArrivalStar et. al. v. Estee LauderIn-n- Out Burger vs. SehwaniBayani vs Panay Electric Co Inc Registered Power of Attorney Cannot Be Cancelled by Mere Filing of Police Complaint 2010 ScForeclosure Emergency Motion to Cancel Sale Vacate Final Judgment and Set Aside Default- ArrivalStar et. al. v. LenovoEureka Water Co. v. Nestle Waters N.a., IncInvestments vs CA DigestWhalen Furniture Mfg. v. Bell'O InternationalMATEO v. VOSBRINK et al - Document No. 5124 Padilla vs GlobeGordium Innovations v. ComtrolArabzadegan v. McKeeman, et al - Document No. 3HICKMON v. JUDGE OF THE 9TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT - Document No. 4533 SCRA 738Evolutionary Intelligence v. Twitter