Source: https://issuu.com/watchlords.com/docs/swatch_v_sturhling_response
Timestamp: 2017-05-23 11:13:28
Document Index: 2568734

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 1125', '§ 35', '§ 1117', '§ 1117']

swatch v sturhling response by Watchlords Inc - issuu
Case 1:12-cv-02927-DLI-RLM Document 15 Filed 01/17/13 Page 1 of 29 PageID #: 71UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
THE SWATCH GROUP (U.S.) INC.,
: No. 2012 CIV. 2927 DLI / RLM-MJ
STÜHRLING ORIGINAL LLC and
VALUEVISION MEDIA, INC.,
ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM OF DEFENDANTS STÜHRLING ORIGINAL LLC
AND VALUEVISION MEDIA, INC. TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINTGIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
Howard S. Hogan (HH 7995)
Telephone: 202.887.3640
202.530.9550
Akiva Shapiro (AS 7570)
212.351.3830
212.351.6340
VALUEVISION MEDIA, INC.Case 1:12-cv-02927-DLI-RLM Document 15 Filed 01/17/13 Page 2 of 29 PageID #: 72UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
AND VALUEVISION MEDIA, INC. TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
I.ANSWERFor their answer to the Complaint of Plaintiff The Swatch Group (U.S) Inc. (“Swatch”),
Defendants Stührling Original LLC (“Stührling”) and ValueVision Media, Inc. (“ValueVision”)
(collectively, “Defendants”), by and through counsel, state as follows:
1.Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny theallegations set forth in paragraph 1 of the Complaint.
2.Defendants admit the allegations set forth in paragraph 2 of the Complaint.3.Defendants admit the allegations set forth in paragraph 3 of the Complaint.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE4.Paragraph 4 of the Complaint states a legal conclusion to which no response isrequired. To the extent that a response is required, Defendants deny each and every allegation
set forth in paragraph 4 of the Complaint.Case 1:12-cv-02927-DLI-RLM Document 15 Filed 01/17/13 Page 3 of 29 PageID #: 735.Paragraph 5 of the Complaint states a legal conclusion to which no response isrequired. To the extent that a response is required, Defendants deny that they are liable to
Swatch under any theory, including Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, and/or False
Advertising arising under the Lanham Act ยง 43(a), 15 U.S.C. ยง 1125, and/or Trademark
Infringement, unfair competition and false designation of origin and false advertising arising
under the common law and the laws of the State of New York, except to state that Swatch
purports to assert such claims.
6.Paragraph 6 of the Complaint states a legal conclusion to which no response isrequired. To the extent that a response is required, Defendants deny each and every allegation
set forth in paragraph 6 of the Complaint.
7.Paragraph 7 of the Complaint states a legal conclusion to which no response isrequired. To the extent that a response is required, Defendants deny each and every allegation
set forth in paragraph 7 of the Complaint.
8.Paragraph 8 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To theextent that a response is required, Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in
paragraph 8 of the Complaint.
9.Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to thetruth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 9 of the Complaint, and on that basis deny them.
10.Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to thetruth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 10 of the Complaint, and on that basis deny them.
11.Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 11 of theComplaint.2Case 1:12-cv-02927-DLI-RLM Document 15 Filed 01/17/13 Page 4 of 29 PageID #: 7412.Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to thetruth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 12 of the Complaint, and on that basis deny them.
13.Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 13 of theComplaint.
14.Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 14 of the Complaint,except to admit that the Hamilton Ventura watch incorporates a triangular-shaped case and bezel,
with points at 1 oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;clock, 5 oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;clock and 9 oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;clock, and to aver that many watches by various
manufacturers have these same characteristics and that triangular watches are common in the
marketplace. Defendants deny that the appearance of the Hamilton Ventura is unique, inherently
distinctive, and/or nonfunctional. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the allegation that Richard Arbib designed the Hamilton Ventura watch,
and on that basis deny it.
15.Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to thetruth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 15 of the Complaint, and on that basis deny them.
16.Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to thetruth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 16 of the Complaint, and on that basis deny them.
17.Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to thetruth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 17 of the Complaint, and on that basis deny them.
18.Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to thetruth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 18 of the Complaint, and on that basis deny them.
19.Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to thetruth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 19 of the Complaint, and on that basis deny them.3Case 1:12-cv-02927-DLI-RLM Document 15 Filed 01/17/13 Page 5 of 29 PageID #: 7520.Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to thetruth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 20 of the Complaint, and on that basis deny them.
21.Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to thetruth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 21 of the Complaint, and on that basis deny them.
22.Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to thetruth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 22 of the Complaint, and on that basis deny them.
23.Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to thetruth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 23 of the Complaint, and on that basis deny them.
24.Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 24 of theComplaint.
25.Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to thetruth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 25 of the Complaint, and on that basis deny them.
26.Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to thetruth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 26 of the Complaint, and on that basis deny them.
27.Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 27 of theComplaint.
28.Paragraph 28 of the Complaint states a legal conclusion to which no response isrequired. To the extent that a response is required, Defendants deny each and every allegation
set forth in paragraph 28 of the Complaint.
29.Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to thetruth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 29 of the Complaint, and on that basis deny them.
30.Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to thetruth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 30 of the Complaint, and on that basis deny them.4Case 1:12-cv-02927-DLI-RLM Document 15 Filed 01/17/13 Page 6 of 29 PageID #: 7631.Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 31 of theComplaint.
32.Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 32 of the Complaint exceptto admit that the Stührling Ricochet watch incorporates a triangular case, with points at 1
o’clock, 5 o’clock and 9 o’clock, and to aver that triangular watches with these characteristics
are common in the industry.
33.Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 33 of theComplaint.
34.Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 34 of the complaint exceptto admit that fewer than 500 Stührling Ricochet watches were marketed, promoted, advertised, or
sold through channels such as Amazon.com, ShopNBC.com, and on the ShopNBC television
network prior to July 2012.
35.Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 35 of the Complaint,except to admit that ValueVision operates the ShopNBC television network and its website
ShopNBC.com.
36.Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 36 of the complaint exceptto admit that fewer than 400 Stührling Ricochet watches were marketed, promoted, advertised, or
sold through ShopNBC.com and the ShopNBC television network prior to July 2012.
37.Defendants admit that fewer than 400 Stührling Ricochet watches were marketed,promoted, advertised, or sold through ShopNBC.com and the ShopNBC television network prior
to July 2012, but otherwise deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 37 of the
Complaint.5Case 1:12-cv-02927-DLI-RLM Document 15 Filed 01/17/13 Page 7 of 29 PageID #: 7738.Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 38 of theComplaint.
39.Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 39 of theComplaint.
40.Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 40 of theComplaint.
41.Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 41 of theComplaint.
42.Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 42 of the Complaint,except to admit that on or about May 28, 2012, Lawrence Magen, President of North American
Operations for StĂźhrling, appeared on the ShopNBC television network, and that during the
show, the host stated,
You guys could not have picked a better time to build this, because
this whole triangular thing has been championed by at least two of
the major power brands coming out at the Hall of Dreams, and, of
course, obviously commanding much higher price points than this.
If memory serves, I think thereâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s another motion picture release
now where this is once again being touted.
43.Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 43 of theComplaint.
44.Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 44 of theComplaint.
45.Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 45 of theComplaint.
46.Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 46 of theComplaint.6Case 1:12-cv-02927-DLI-RLM Document 15 Filed 01/17/13 Page 8 of 29 PageID #: 78COUNT I
47.Defendants repeat and reallege their responses to the foregoing paragraphs of theComplaint.
48.Paragraph 48 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To theextent that a response is required, Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in
paragraph 48 of the Complaint.
49.Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 49 of theComplaint.
50.Paragraph 50 contains legal conclusions to which no response is required. To theextent that a response is required, Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in
paragraph 50 of the Complaint, and aver that no consent or authorization is required to sell
triangular watches such as the Ricochet watch.
51.Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 51 of theComplaint.
52.Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 52 of theComplaint.
53.Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 53 of theComplaint.
54.Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 54 of theComplaint.
55.Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 55 of theComplaint.7Case 1:12-cv-02927-DLI-RLM Document 15 Filed 01/17/13 Page 9 of 29 PageID #: 7956.Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 56 of theComplaint.
57.Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 57 of theComplaint.
58.Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 58 of theComplaint.
59.Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 59 of theComplaint.
60.Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 60 of theComplaint.
61.Paragraph 61 contains legal conclusions to which no response is required. To theextent that a response is required, Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in
62.Defendants repeat and reallege their responses to the foregoing paragraphs of theComplaint.
63.Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 63 of theComplaint.
64.Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 64 of theComplaint.
65.Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 65 of theComplaint.8Case 1:12-cv-02927-DLI-RLM Document 15 Filed 01/17/13 Page 10 of 29 PageID #: 8066.Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 66 of theComplaint.
67.Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 67 of theComplaint.
68.Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 68 of theComplaint.
69.Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 69 of theComplaint.
70.Paragraph 70 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To theextent that a response is required, Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in
paragraph 70 of the Complaint.
71.Defendants repeat and reallege their responses to the foregoing paragraphs of theComplaint.
72.Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 72 of theComplaint.
73.Paragraph 73 contains legal conclusions to which no response is required. To theextent that a response is required, Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in
paragraph 73 of the Complaint, and aver that no consent or authorization is required to sell
74.Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 74 of theComplaint.9Case 1:12-cv-02927-DLI-RLM Document 15 Filed 01/17/13 Page 11 of 29 PageID #: 8175.Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 75 of theComplaint.
76.Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 76 of theComplaint.
77.Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 77 of theComplaint.
78.Paragraph 78 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To theextent that a response is required, Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in
paragraph 78 of the Complaint.
79.Defendants repeat and reallege their responses to the foregoing paragraphs of theComplaint.
80.Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 80 of theComplaint.
81.Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 81 of theComplaint.
82.Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 82 of theComplaint.
83.Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 83 of theComplaint.
84.Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 84 of theComplaint.10Case 1:12-cv-02927-DLI-RLM Document 15 Filed 01/17/13 Page 12 of 29 PageID #: 8285.Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 85 of theComplaint.
86.Paragraph 86 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To theextent that a response is required, Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in
paragraph 86 of the Complaint.
87.Defendants repeat and reallege their responses to the foregoing paragraphs of theComplaint.
88.Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 88 of theComplaint.
89.Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 89 of theComplaint.
90.Paragraph 90 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To theextent that a response is required, Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in
paragraph 90 of the Complaint.
91.Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 91 of theComplaint.
92.Paragraph 92 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To theextent that a response is required, Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in
paragraph 92 of the Complaint.
93.Defendants repeat and reallege their responses to the foregoing paragraphs of theComplaint.11Case 1:12-cv-02927-DLI-RLM Document 15 Filed 01/17/13 Page 13 of 29 PageID #: 8394.Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 94 of theComplaint.
95.Paragraph 95 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To theextent that a response is required, Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in
paragraph 95 of the Complaint.
96.Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 96 of theComplaint.
97.Paragraph 97 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To theextent that a response is required, Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in
paragraph 97 of the Complaint.
98.Defendants repeat and reallege their responses to the foregoing paragraphs of theComplaint.
99.Paragraph 99 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To theextent that a response is required, Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in
paragraph 99 of the Complaint.
100.Defendants repeat and reallege their responses to the foregoing paragraphs of theComplaint.
101.Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 101 of theComplaint.
102.Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 102 of theComplaint.12Case 1:12-cv-02927-DLI-RLM Document 15 Filed 01/17/13 Page 14 of 29 PageID #: 84103.Paragraph 103 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To theextent that a response is required, Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in
paragraph 103 of the Complaint.
104.Paragraph 104 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To theextent that a response is required, Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in
paragraph 104 of the Complaint.
1.The Complaint fails to state any claim upon which relief can be granted.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE2.Swatch does not possess any trademark rights in Swatch’s asserted trade dress.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE3.Defendants’ activities relating to the Ricochet watch do not infringe or otherwiseviolate any valid rights for which Swatch is entitled to relief.
4.Swatch’s asserted trade dress referenced in the Complaint is neither inherentlydistinctive nor has it acquired secondary meaning, and is therefore not subject to protection.
5.Swatch’s claims are barred by the doctrine of trademark misuse.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE6.Swatch cannot recover against Defendants on any of its claims alleged in theComplaint because Defendants have not engaged in any business practice that is forbidden by
any federal or state statute, regulation, rule, policy, and/or common law.13Case 1:12-cv-02927-DLI-RLM Document 15 Filed 01/17/13 Page 15 of 29 PageID #: 85SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7.Swatch cannot recover against Defendants on any of its claims alleged in theComplaint because Defendants have not engaged in any conduct that is likely to deceive or
8.Swatch cannot recover against Defendants on its claims alleging injury tobusiness reputation because its asserted trade dress is not a distinctive mark and there is no
likelihood of dilution.
9.Defendants’ advertisements and/or marketing statements were either accurate or,at most, puffery, and not likely to mislead or deceive any consumers, and on that basis, Swatch’s
claims regarding the contents of Defendants’ advertisements and/or marketing statements are
10.Swatch is barred from recovery because it has not suffered any injury or damageas a result of any act or conduct of Defendants.
11.Swatch’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the applicable statute oflimitations, waiver, and/or laches.
12.Swatch is not entitled to injunctive relief because any alleged injury to Swatch isnot immediate or irreparable, and Swatch has an adequate remedy at law.14Case 1:12-cv-02927-DLI-RLM Document 15 Filed 01/17/13 Page 16 of 29 PageID #: 86OTHER DEFENSES RESERVED
13.Defendants expressly reserve the right to assert any other legal or equitabledefenses that may be available based on legal theories, which may or will be divulged through
clarification of the Complaint, through discovery, or through further legal analysis of Swatch’s
claims and positions in this litigation.
ANSWER TO PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Swatch’s wherefore clause states a request for relief to which no response is required. To
the extent that any response is required, Defendants deny that Swatch is entitled to the relief
requested, and the Defendants request the entry of judgment dismissing Swatch’s Complaint.WHEREFORE, having fully answered, Defendants pray that the Court:
(a)Dismiss the Complaint with prejudice;(b)Award Defendants their costs and expenses incurred herein; and(c)Grant Defendants such other and further relief as it may deem just and proper.
II.COUNTERCLAIMPursuant to Rule 13 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants Stührling
Original LLC (“Stührling”) and ValueVision Media, Inc. (“ValueVision”) (collectively,
“Defendants”), by and through counsel, bring these counterclaims against Plaintiff and
Counterclaim-Defendant The Swatch Group (U.S.) Inc. (“Swatch”), and allege as follows:
1.Stührling is a limited liability company with its principal place of business at 44920th Street, Brooklyn, New York.15Case 1:12-cv-02927-DLI-RLM Document 15 Filed 01/17/13 Page 17 of 29 PageID #: 872.ValueVision is a Minnesota corporation with its principal place of business at6740 Shady Oak Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota and operates the ShopNBC television network
and website, available at www.ShopNBC.com.
3.In its Complaint, Swatch alleges that it is a Delaware corporation with itsprincipal place of business at 1200 Harbor Boulevard, 7th Floor, Weehawken, New Jersey.
4.This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over these counterclaims pursuant to 28U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), 1367(a), and 2202.
5.This Court has personal jurisdiction over Swatch because Swatch has submitteditself to the personal jurisdiction of this Court by commencing this action.
6.Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because Swatch filed itsComplaint in this District and thus has consented to venue in this Court, and because a
substantial part of the events giving rise to the Counterclaim occurred in this District.
7.Stührling is a manufacturer of premium watches which sells over 600 differenttypes of watches and has designed and developed thousands of watch models.
8.ValueVision operates ShopNBC and ShopNBC.com to afford consumers anopportunity to purchase premium products.
9.Neither Stührling nor ValueVision has an interest in or incentive to causeconsumer confusion.
10.This Counterclaim is brought to protect Defendants against Swatch’s assertionthat the common triangular shape and arrangement exhibited in its Hamilton Ventura watch
constitutes a protectable trade dress. Swatch claims that Defendants’ advertisement and sale of16Case 1:12-cv-02927-DLI-RLM Document 15 Filed 01/17/13 Page 18 of 29 PageID #: 88the Stührling Ricochet, a triangular-shaped watch, constitutes trademark infringement, unfair
competition, and false advertising, despite the fact that triangular-shaped watches are common in
the industry. Swatch’s attempt to monopolize the use of the triangular watch case is unsupported
by law, defies common sense, and would unduly restrict the design options available to
competitors in this market.
11.On information and belief, Swatch has no registrations with the U.S. Patent andTrademark Office that encompass the trade dress that it has asserted in this action.
12.Triangular watches that bear the same design elements that Swatch claims as itstrade dress are used by multiple watch merchants. At least a dozen manufacturers currently sell
watches making use of the same design elements that Swatch asserts to be protected.
13.As can be seen in below, a number of watches by various manufacturers bear theoverall look and feel of the Hamilton Ventura watch, including protruding angles at the same
hours on the watch and the location of the crown.
14.Below is a true and correct image of a watch marketed by Seiko WatchCorporation. The watch below has a triangular case, with points at 1 o’clock, 5 o’clock and 9
o’clock, and a crown at the 3 o’clock position.17Case 1:12-cv-02927-DLI-RLM Document 15 Filed 01/17/13 Page 19 of 29 PageID #: 8915.Below is a true and correct image of a watch marketed by TechnoMarine S.A.The watch below has a triangular case, with points at 1 o’clock, 5 o’clock and 9 o’clock, and a
crown at the 3 o’clock position.16.Below is a true and correct image of a watch that is, on information and belief,licensed by the popular science fiction television program Doctor Who and marketed to
consumers. The watch below has a triangular case, with with points at 1 o’clock, 5 o’clock and 9
o’clock, and a crown at the 3 o’clock position.18Case 1:12-cv-02927-DLI-RLM Document 15 Filed 01/17/13 Page 20 of 29 PageID #: 9017.Below is a true and correct image of a watch marketed by Timex Group USA,Inc. The watch below has a triangular case .18.Below is a true and correct image of a watch marketed by Sheffield WatchCompany. The watch below has a triangular case, with scalloping along two of the edges of the
case.19Case 1:12-cv-02927-DLI-RLM Document 15 Filed 01/17/13 Page 21 of 29 PageID #: 9119.Below is a true and correct image of a watch marketed by Charles-Hubert, Paris.The watch below has a triangular case, with points at 1 o’clock, 5 o’clock and 9 o’clock, and a
crown at the 3 o’clock position.20.On information and belief, there are and have been other watches marketed bycompanies other than Swatch and available to consumers in the United States that similarly make
use of watch design that Swatch claims to be its exclusive trade dress.
21.It was in the context of a market that includes all of the watches shown above thatStührling introduced the Ricochet watch in 2012.
22.The differences between the Stührling Ricochet and the Hamilton Ventura areobvious and include the highlight colors, the design of the hands, the design of the dial, the tick
marks that denote the hours and minutes, and the overall shape and angles of the triangle.
23.To avoid any possibility of confusion with any other manufacturer’s watch, theStührling Ricochet clearly states “Stührling”:
•across the face of the watch;•on the back of the watch;20Case 1:12-cv-02927-DLI-RLM Document 15 Filed 01/17/13 Page 22 of 29 PageID #: 9224.•on the inside of the watch band;•all over the packaging in which the watch is sold; and•all over the advertising that accompanies any sale of the watch.Below is a true and correct image of the packaging in which the StührlingRicochet is offered to the public. “Stührling” is written all over the packaging, including across
the top cover of the packaging, on the inside of the watch box, and on the cleaning cloth included
with the packaging.21Case 1:12-cv-02927-DLI-RLM Document 15 Filed 01/17/13 Page 23 of 29 PageID #: 9325.Below is a true and correct image of the Stührling Ricochet as offered to thepublic through Amazon.com. “Stührling” is stated all over the advertising that accompanies the
watch, as well as across the face of the watch itself as displayed for sale.22Case 1:12-cv-02927-DLI-RLM Document 15 Filed 01/17/13 Page 24 of 29 PageID #: 9426.Below is a true and correct image of the Stührling Ricochet as offered to thepublic on ShopNBC. “Stührling” is stated prominently on screen as well as across the face of the
watch itself as displayed for sale.27.As a result, no consumer was able to view the Stührling Ricochet watch withoutalso seeing the prominently displayed and stylized “Stührling” mark and logo, not only on the
watch itself, but also in marketing materials and at points of sale, including on ShopNBC.
28.Stührling ceased all sales of the Stührling Ricochet in July 2012.29.The Hamilton Ventura and the Stührling Ricochet watches were not sold in closeproximity. The Stührling Ricochet was sold primarily on ShopNBC, during segments where
only Stührling watches were sold and the watches and program were clearly branded as23Case 1:12-cv-02927-DLI-RLM Document 15 Filed 01/17/13 Page 25 of 29 PageID #: 95Stührling, and through Stührling’s own website and distribution channels (where the watches
were similarly branded as Stührling).
30.On information and belief, the Hamilton Ventura is and at all times relevant hasbeen sold primarily by authorized Swatch distributors who do not carry Stührling watches.
31.On information and belief, during the time that the Stührling Ricochet wasavailable on the market, there was no actual confusion of the two watches, nor has there been
any instance of actual confusion since.
32.Defendants had no intent to cause any confusion with the Hamilton Venturawatch, and on the contrary have ensured that consumers see the Stührling name whenever they
see the Ricochet watch.
33.Although the Complaint selectively—and misleadingly—quotes from a May 2012ShopNBC broadcast that featured the Stührling Ricochet, in full context, it is clear that the host
was not trying to suggest that the Ricochet was featured in the film Men in Black III, as Swatch
alleges was inferred, or that it was a Hamilton Ventura watch. The host’s full statement makes
clear that he was commenting on the popular triangular case design, and that he specifically
distinguished the Stührling Ricochet from the more expensive brands using that design:
course, obviously commanding much higher price points than
this. If memory serves, I think there’s another motion picture
release now where this is once again being touted.
34.This statement makes clear that the “triangular thing” is a common designelement that is a feature of multiple watch brands. The Hamilton Ventura is not even identified
(and, in light of the many brands selling triangular watches, may not even have been implicitly
referenced), nor is the motion picture release identified.24Case 1:12-cv-02927-DLI-RLM Document 15 Filed 01/17/13 Page 26 of 29 PageID #: 9635.Purchasers of luxury watches are extremely sophisticated buyers who will not beconfused by two watches that share only the same basic shape and are in other material respects
36.Defendants repeat and reallege each of the foregoing paragraphs as though fullyset forth herein.
37.An actual controversy exists between Swatch and Defendants. Swatch’sallegations that the shape of its Hamilton Ventura watch constitutes trade dress, and that the
Stührling Ricochet watch infringes that alleged trade dress, have created a definite and concrete
dispute between the parties, who have adverse legal interests. The parties’ dispute is real and
substantial, and calls for a decree of conclusive character.
38.The substantial controversy between Swatch and Defendants is of sufficientimmediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment. A judicial declaration
is necessary to settle this dispute and to clarify the parties’ respective rights.
39.Swatch’s alleged trade dress is invalid and unprotectable in that it is notdistinctive, has not acquired secondary meaning, and is aesthetically functional.
40.Defendants’ sale of Stührling Ricochet watches is not likely to cause confusion,deception, or mistake among consumers as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or
authorization of the watches, and specifically is not likely to cause confusion among consumers
vis-à-vis Swatch or any of Swatch’s products.
41.Defendants are entitled to a declaratory judgment of their rights, specifically thatthe manufacture, promotion, advertisement, and sale of Stührling Ricochet watches do not25Case 1:12-cv-02927-DLI-RLM Document 15 Filed 01/17/13 Page 27 of 29 PageID #: 97violate any trade dress rights of Swatch under 15 U.S.C. § 1125 or as a matter of New York state
42.Swatch’s assertion of protected trade dress and its claims against Defendants areutterly without merit and appear to be in bad faith. These facts make this case “exceptional”
pursuant to the Lanham Act, § 35(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), entitling Defendants to recover
reasonable attorneys’ fees.WHEREFORE, Defendants pray that the Court:
(a)Dismiss the Complaint with prejudice;(b)Deny any and all relief requested by Swatch;(c)Declare that Swatch’s asserted Hamilton Ventura trade dress is unenforceable as amatter of law;
(d)Declare Defendants’ manufacture, advertisement, and sale of Stührling Ricochetwatches do not infringe any trade dress of Swatch’s in that Swatch’s alleged trade dress is not
protectable and there is no likelihood of any actionable confusion under the Trademark Act;
(e)Award Defendants their costs and expenses incurred herein;(f)Award Defendants their reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C.§ 1117(a); and
(g)Grant Defendants such other and further relief as it may deem just and proper.26Case 1:12-cv-02927-DLI-RLM Document 15 Filed 01/17/13 Page 28 of 29 PageID #: 98Dated: January 17, 2013Respectfully submitted,/s Howard S. Hogan
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLC
202.955.8500
202.467.0539
STĂ&#x153;HRLING ORIGINAL LLC and
VALUEVISION MEDIA, INC.27Case 1:12-cv-02927-DLI-RLM Document 15 Filed 01/17/13 Page 29 of 29 PageID #: 99CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on January 17, 2013, the foregoing Answer and Counterclaim was
filed with the Clerk of the Court and served on the following parties using the CM/ECF system:
Joshua Pauljcollen@collenlaw.com
jpaul@collenip.comThomas Phillip Gulicktgulick@collenip.comAttorneys for Plaintiff THE SWATCH GROUP (U.S.) INC.
/s Akiva Shapiro
Akiva Shapiro28All pages:1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829InfoSaveLikeShareDownloadMoreswatch v sturhling response Published on Jan 27, 2013 watchlords.comFollowRead moreRead moreSimilar toPopular nowJust for youGo explore