Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/157208292/complaint-with-legend-pdf
Timestamp: 2019-02-18 00:12:08
Document Index: 651591316

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2201', '§ 1331', '§ 101', '§ 1367', '§ 1391', '§ 501']

complaint with legend.pdf | Diversity Jurisdiction | Lawsuit
Uploaded by Ana Adams
Case 2:13-cv-00260-WTL-MJD Document 1 Filed 07/10/13 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA TERRE HAUTE DIVISION Civil No. 2:13-cv-260
RIDERS CHOICE, LLC d/b/a SHOW AND TELL SADDLE BLANKETS and LONI RHODES, Plaintiffs -vLORI HECKAMAN d/b/a GOLDEN WEST SADDLE BLANKETS, Defendant.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF (FRCP 57)
Plaintiffs Riders Choice, LLC and Loni Rhodes by their attorneys Woodard, Emhardt, Moriarty, McNett & Henry, LLP, for their complaint state:
1. This is a complaint under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 USC § 2201, and under the Indiana Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, Ind. Code 34-14-1-1 et seq. 2. The Court has jurisdiction over the case under 28 USC § 1331 because the defendant alleges infringement of rights protected by U.S. copyright law, 17 USC § 101, et seq., and under the supplemental jurisdiction provisions of 28 USC § 1367(a). 3. Venue is proper under 28 USC §§ 1391(b) and 1400.
4. Plaintiff Riders Choice, LLC (“Riders Choice”) is an Indiana limited liability company with a principal place of business at 76 East Private Road 65 S., Center Point, IN 47840.
Case 2:13-cv-00260-WTL-MJD Document 1 Filed 07/10/13 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 2
5. Plaintiff Loni Rhodes (“Rhodes”) is an individual residing at 76 East Private Road 65 S., Center Point, IN 47840. 6. On information and belief, Defendant Lori Heckaman d/b/a Golden West Saddle Blankets (“Heckaman” or “Golden West”) is a Texas citizen who resides in Gainesville, TX and has a principal place of business at 309 North Commerce, Suite No. 1, Gainesville, TX 76240. 7. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Heckaman under Ind. Trial 4.4 and venue is proper in this district because: (a) on information and belief, Heckaman and/or Golden West have marketed, sold and/or actively contracted to supply goods in the State of Indiana and within this district and actively conduct business in the State of Indiana and within this judicial district, in connection with the matters giving rise to this action; (b) Heckaman’s threats of liability for copyright infringement and business tort liability were directed to Riders Choice and Rhodes in this district and would harm Riders Choice and Rhodes in this district; and (c) the production of the allegedly infringing goods and the use of the methods allegedly giving rise to business tort liability occurred in this district.
8. On information and belief, Heckaman, doing business as Golden West Saddle Blankets, makes and sells products related to horseback-riding, including blankets with colorful geometric designs.
Case 2:13-cv-00260-WTL-MJD Document 1 Filed 07/10/13 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 3
9. On information and belief, blankets with similar designs are widely produced and sold by third parties. 10. On information and belief, Heckaman uses certain weaving and design methods to produce her blankets. 11. On information and belief, Heckaman has not registered any of her designs with the U.S. copyright office. 12. On information and belief, Heckaman has not obtained or applied for a patent on the methods used to produce her blankets. 13. On information and belief, Heckaman has not taken steps to maintain the secrecy of the weaving and design methods she uses. 14. Plaintiff Rhodes owns Riders Choice. 15. Plaintiff Riders Choice, sometimes operating as “Show and Tell Saddle Blankets,” makes and sells products related to horseback-riding, including handwoven saddle blankets with colorful geometric designs. 16. Riders Choice uses certain weaving and design methods to produce its blankets. 17. Rhodes learned these methods from books and other publicly available materials unaffiliated with Heckaman. 18. The blankets Riders Choice sells are original works designed by Rhodes. 19. Every blanket Riders Choice sells is unique in that no two blankets are sold with an identical pattern. 20. Rhodes has never copied defendant’s designs.
Case 2:13-cv-00260-WTL-MJD Document 1 Filed 07/10/13 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 4
21. Defendant’s counsel sent two cease-and-desist letters to Rhodes and Riders Choice, the first on June 14, 2013 and the second on July 2, 2013. Copies of the letters are attached as Exhibits A, B and C (pictures sent with Exhibit B). 22. The first cease-and-desist letter, Exhibit A, asserts that the designs on defendant’s blankets are copyrighted, and alleges against Rhodes and Riders Choice claims for copyright infringement based on Rhodes and/or Riders Choice’s manufacture, marketing and sale of its own blankets. 23. The first cease-and-desist letter also alleges claims against Rhodes and Riders Choice for business interference, unfair competition and misappropriation of trade secrets based on Rhodes’s and/or Riders Choice’s marketing of Riders Choice’s blankets and alleged copying of Golden West’s weaving and design methods. 24. The second cease-and-desist letter, Exhibits B and C, repeats the allegation of copyright infringement by writing that Rhodes and/or Riders Choice is “intentionally copying the look” of Golden West’s saddle blankets and by calling Riders Choice’s blankets “substantially similar and infringing.” 25. The second cease-and-desist letter alleges that Rhodes and/or Riders Choice intentionally copied Golden West’s “method of manufacture” and “construction techniques” used in producing Golden West’s blankets. 26. The second cease-and-desist letter alleges Rhodes and/or Riders Choice markets its blankets as a specific alternative to Golden West’s blankets. 27. Both cease-and-desist letters demand that Rhodes and/or Riders Choice stop marketing, selling and producing its blankets.
Case 2:13-cv-00260-WTL-MJD Document 1 Filed 07/10/13 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 5
28. On information and belief, both cease-and-desist letters threaten Rhodes and/or Riders Choice with imminent litigation if Rhodes and/or Riders Choice does not comply with defendant’s demands, the first by writing “we will have no choice but to advise our client to protect her interests by instituting a suit in a court of competent jurisdiction,” and the second by writing that although “Golden West prefers to resolve this matter without the necessity of court intervention, all necessary action will be taken if a voluntary agreement cannot be reached.” 29. On July 2, 2013, Riders Choice’s attorneys responded to the cease-and-desist letters by stating that they would investigate the allegations of infringement and prepare a substantive response within 45 days. 30. On July 3, 2013, defendant’s counsel responded to Riders Choice via email and stated that 45 days was an “excessive” amount of time. A copy of the email is attached as Exhibit D. 31. On information and belief, the July 3, 2013 email threatened Rhodes and Riders Choice with imminent litigation by writing that if Rhodes and/or Riders Choice did not “refrain from promoting, marketing, producing, and selling saddle blankets,” Heckaman would have “no choice but to seek available remedies.”
Count I—No Copyright Infringement
32. Plaintiffs adopt by reference paragraphs 1 to 31. 33. Defendant’s allegations of copyright infringement have caused and will continue to cause damage to Rhodes and Riders Choice.
Case 2:13-cv-00260-WTL-MJD Document 1 Filed 07/10/13 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 6
34. On information and belief, defendant will continue her allegations of copyright infringement unless enjoined by this Court. 35. There is an actual, substantial and judicable controversy about whether Rhodes or Riders Choice has infringed any copyright protection for defendant’s blanket designs. 36. Copyright infringement is governed by section 501 of the Copyright Act, 17 USC § 501. 37. Copyright law protects only specific expression original to an author, and does not protect ideas such as the idea of a blanket with a geometric design. 38. Rhodes and Riders Choice have not copied any protectable expression original to defendant. 39. Rhodes and Riders Choice are entitled to a declaration of no copyright infringement.
Count II—No Business Interference
40. Plaintiffs adopt by reference paragraphs 1 to 39. 41. Defendant’s allegations of businesses interference have caused and will continue to cause damage to Rhodes and Riders Choice. 42. On information and belief, defendant will continue her allegations of business interference unless enjoined by this Court. 43. There is an actual, substantial and judicable controversy about whether Rhodes’s or Riders Choice’s sales, marketing and production of blankets constitute business interference against defendant.
Case 2:13-cv-00260-WTL-MJD Document 1 Filed 07/10/13 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 7
44. Defendant’s business interference claims are governed by Indiana or Texas common law. 45. Under Indiana common law, business interference requires, inter alia, illegal conduct that constitutes knowing, unjustified and intentional interference with a valid business relationship. 46. Under Texas common law, business interference requires, inter alia, malicious and unjustified interference conducted with the intent to harm the aggrieved party’s probable contractual relations. 47. Rhodes and Riders Choice have not engaged in any illegal conduct and their production, marketing and sales of blankets have not interfered with any of defendant’s valid business relationships. 48. Rhodes and Riders Choice have not engaged in any malicious or unjustified conduct intended to harm defendant’s probable contractual relations. 49. Rhodes and Riders Choice are entitled to a declaration of no business interference.
Count III—No Unfair Competition
50. Plaintiffs adopt by reference paragraphs 1 to 49. 51. Defendant’s allegations of unfair competition have caused and will continue to cause damage to Rhodes and Riders Choice. 52. On information and belief, defendant will continue her allegations of unfair competition unless enjoined by this Court.
Case 2:13-cv-00260-WTL-MJD Document 1 Filed 07/10/13 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 8
53. There is an actual, substantial and judicable controversy about whether Rhodes’s or Riders Choice’s sales, marketing and production of blankets constitute unfair competition against defendant. 54. Defendant’s unfair competition claims are governed by Indiana or Texas common law, and require a showing that plaintiffs deceived the public about the source of a good or service. 55. Rhodes and Riders Choice have not copied any of defendant’s protected designs or weaving methods, and any use of these methods has not deceived the public about the source of Rhodes’s or Riders Choice’s products. 56. Rhodes’s and Riders Choice’s sales and marketing of its blankets have not deceived the public about the source of Rhodes’s or Riders Choice’s products. 57. Rhodes and Riders Choice are entitled to a declaration of no unfair competition.
Count IV—No Misappropriation of Trade Secrets
58. Plaintiffs adopt by reference paragraphs 1 to 57. 59. Defendant’s allegations of misappropriation of trade secrets have caused and will continue to cause damage to Rhodes and Riders Choice. 60. On information and belief, defendant will continue her allegations of misappropriation of trade secrets unless enjoined by this Court. 61. There is an actual, substantial and judicable controversy about whether Rhodes’s or Riders Choice’s sales, marketing and production of blankets constitute misappropriation of trade secrets from defendant.
Case 2:13-cv-00260-WTL-MJD Document 1 Filed 07/10/13 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 9
62. Misappropriation of trade secrets is governed in Indiana by Ind. Code 24-2-3-1 et seq., and in Texas by state common law. 63. In either Indiana or Texas, misappropriation of trade secrets requires, inter alia, improper acquisition of a trade secret. 64. On information and belief, defendant’s design and weaving methods are not trade secrets. 65. Rhodes and Riders Choice have not copied or acquired any of defendant’s design or weaving methods through improper means. 66. Rhodes and Riders Choice are entitled to a declaration of no misappropriation of trade secrets.
Plaintiffs request the Court: (a) declare Rhodes’s and Riders Choice’s blankets did not in the past and do not now infringe any of defendant’s valid copyrights; (b) declare Rhodes and Riders Choice did not commit in the past and are not now engaged in business interference against defendant based on the sale, marketing or production of blankets; (c) declare Rhodes and Riders Choice did not commit in the past and are not now engaged in unfair competition against defendant based on the sale, marketing or production of blankets;
Case 2:13-cv-00260-WTL-MJD Document 1 Filed 07/10/13 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 10
(d) declare Rhodes and Riders Choice did not commit in the past and are not now engaged in the misappropriation of trade secrets from defendant based on the sale, marketing or production of blankets; (e) award plaintiffs their costs and attorney fees.
s/ Kurt N. Jones_________________ Kurt N. Jones Woodard, Emhardt, Moriarty, McNett & Henry LLP 111 Monument Circle, Suite 3700 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 634-3456 Fax: (317) 637-7561 Email: kjones@uspatent.com
#956612_1
Attorneys for Rhodes and Riders Choice, LLC
Case 2:13-cv-00260-WTL-MJD Document 1-1 Filed 07/10/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 11
Case 2:13-cv-00260-WTL-MJD Document 1-1 Filed 07/10/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 12
Case 2:13-cv-00260-WTL-MJD Document 1-2 Filed 07/10/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 13
Case 2:13-cv-00260-WTL-MJD Document 1-2 Filed 07/10/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 14
Case 2:13-cv-00260-WTL-MJD Document 1-3 Filed 07/10/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 15
Case 2:13-cv-00260-WTL-MJD Document 1-3 Filed 07/10/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 16
Jones, Kurt N. Case 2:13-cv-00260-WTL-MJD Document 1-4 Filed 07/10/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 17
From: Sent: To: Cc: Metzler, David [dmetzler@cowlesthompson.com] Wednesday, July 03, 2013 11:01 AM Craft, Conor; Jones, Kurt N. Wiles, Cindy J.; Chiro, Ann
Subject: RE: Golden West Saddle Blankets (Our Ref 26108-2) Mr. Jones – With all due respect, 45 days is an excessive amount of time to respond to this urgent matter. While I am willing to work with your schedule, I cannot agree to the proposed delay. As a suggestion, if your clients will agree, in writing, to refrain from promoting, marketing, producing, and selling saddle blankets until you can deal with this matter, I will see if that is acceptable to my client. Short of that, you leave us with no choice but to seek available remedies. I look forward to your prompt response. From: Craft, Conor [mailto:CCraft@uspatent.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 1:11 PM To: Metzler, David Cc: Wiles, Cindy J.; Chiro, Ann Subject: Golden West Saddle Blankets (Our Ref 26108-2) Dear Mr. Metzler, The attached PDF contains correspondence from Mr. Kurt Jones in the above-referenced matter. Conor Craft
Case 2:13-cv-00260-WTL-MJD Document 1-5 Filed 07/10/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 18
Riders Choice, LLC d/b/a Show and Tell Saddle Blankets and Loni Rhodes
Lori Heckaman d/b/a Golden West Saddle Blankets
Cooke, State of Texas
Kurt N. Jones Woodard Emhardt Moriarty McNett & Henry LLP 111 Monument Circle, Ste. 3700, Indianapolis, IN 46204 (317) 634-3456
David Metzler 901 Main Street, Suite 3900 Dallas, TX 75202-3793 (214) 672-2000
28 USC, Section 2201
DJ to establish non-infringement of an alleged copyright.
s/Kurt N. Jones
Documents Similar To complaint with legend.pdf
Freeport-McMoRan Inc. v. K N Energy, Inc., 498 U.S. 426 (1991)
Steel Technology v. Lifeline First Aid - Complaint
Compliance With the Barangay Conciliation Proceeding
Charcoal Companion v. Medium Rare - Complaint
Scott v. SCDPPPS - Document No. 6
heypiper
Civ Pro - Bryant
Civil Procedure Outline Finals
Flambeau v. TRI - Complaint
Roberts v. Allstate Insurance Company - Document No. 8