Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/210399467/Mouth-Man-v-American-Marketing-Enterprises
Timestamp: 2017-05-28 21:53:21
Document Index: 726568059

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1331', '§301', '§301', '§271', '§271', '§271', '§1117']

Mouth Man v. American Marketing Enterprises | Patent | Defendant
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 InUploadMouth Man v. American Marketing EnterprisesUploaded by PriorSmartPatentDefendantPlaintiffNew YorkClothing0.0 (0)DownloadEmbedDescription: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-00210-DNH-ATB: Mouth Man, LLC v. American Marketing Enterprises, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District o...View MoreOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-00210-DNH-ATB: Mouth Man, LLC v. American Marketing Enterprises, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, the Hon. David N. Hurd presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-la2c for more info.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentPage 1UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ) Mouth Man, LLC ) ) Plaintiff ) ) CIVIL ACTION - against - ) NO.: ) American Marketing Enterprises, Ìnc. ) ) Defendants. ) ) COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Mouth Man, LLC ("Plaintiff¨) for its complaint against Defendant, American Marketing Enterprises, Ìnc. ("Defendant¨) states as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. This action is based upon patent infringement. United States Patent No. 8,181,274 ("the Patent¨) is attached as Exhibit A. THE PARTIES 2. Plaintiff is a California company having its principal place of business at 4271 Park Road, Benicia, California 94510. 3. On information and belief, Defendant is a New York corporation having its principal place of business at 350 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10118. 3:14-CV-210 [DNH/ATB]
Page 2 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1338(a), and 1338(b). 5. Under NY C.P.L.R. §301, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant is doing business in the State of New York. 6. Defendant's website advertises that Defendant's business is located in the State of New York. 7. Entity information from the New York Department of State Division of Corporations indicates that Defendant is a domestic business corporation in the State of New York. 8. The website, http://companies.findthecompany.com/l/16945385/American Marketing-Enterprises-Ìnc-in-New-York-NY states that the company produces men's, women's, children's, and infants' clothing and accessories. 9. Under NY C.P.L.R. §301, this Court has personal .jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant transacts business within the State of New York and/or contracts to supply goods and services in the State of New York. 10. Defendant has committed a tortious injury in the State of New York. 11. Upon information and belief, Defendant is manufacturing, selling, and delivering products, specifically articles of clothing that infringe the Patent at least in the States of New York and California. 12. Defendant's articles of clothing are substantially identical to the articles of clothing described and claimed in the Patent and sold by Plaintiff under the registered trademark, MouthMan®. Page 3 BACKGROUND 13. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the statements and allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-12 above, and incorporates them herein. 14. Plaintiff is the manufacturer and distributor of proprietary articles of clothing. 15. Plaintiff is the owner of the Patent. 16. Plaintiff advertises and sells articles of clothing under the registered trademark, MouthMan®. 17. Letters Patent for the Patent constitutes prima facie evidence of Plaintiff's exclusive right to make, use, sell, and import articles of clothing described and claimed in the Patent. COUNT I Patent Infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271 18. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the statements and allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-12 and 14-17 above, and incorporates them herein. 19. Defendant is a manufacturer and distributor of products in the women's, children's, and infants' clothing industry. 20. Defendant offers women's, children's, and infants' products, specifically women's, children's, and infants' clothing at least in the States of New York and California. 21. Upon information and belief, at least since the issuance of the Patent (May 22, 2012), Defendant has been manufacturing, selling, and distributing products that infringe the Patent in at least the states of New York and California. Page 4 22. Defendant lacked any authorization or permission to manufacture, sell, and/or distribute articles of clothing covered by the Patent. 23. Defendant's conduct constitutes willful patent infringement in violation of 35 U.S.C. §271. COUNT II Unfair Comtpetition under Common Law 24. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the statements and allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-12, 24-27, and 19-23 above, and incorporates them herein. 25. Defendant manufactures, sells, and distributes articles of clothing under the trademarks, Dragon Jammin' Jaws, Shark Jammin' Jaws, Crocodile Jammin' Jaws, T-Rex Jammin' Jaws, and Bear Jammin' Jaws, at least in the States of New York ad California in violation of the Patent. 26. Defendant's manufacturing, selling, and distributing of articles of clothing covered by the Patent in at least the States of New York and California constitute unfair competition under the common law. COUNT III Common Law Misappropriation 27. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the statements and allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-12, 24-27, 19-23, and 25-26 above, and incorporates them herein. 28. Plaintiff has expended considerable money to research, develop, and patent articles of clothing covered by the Patent. 29. Defendant has not incurred expenses toward the funding of Plaintiff's patented articles of clothing. 30. Defendant is free-riding off Plaintiff's efforts and investment. Page 5 31. Plaintiff is damaged by Defendant's misappropriation of Plaintiff's patented articles of clothing. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays: a) For a judgment that Defendant willfully infringes the Patent under 35 U.S.C. §271; b) For a judgment that Defendant has engaged in unfair competition; c) For a judgment that Defendant has engaged in unfair competition and misappropriation New York common law; d) This Court preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendant from patent infringement and unfair competition; e) This Court award treble Plaintiff's damages, Defendant's profits, Plaintiff's costs, and Plaintiff's attorney fees under 15 U.S.C. §1117(a) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 54; f) This Court preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendant from manufacturing, selling, and distributing articles of clothing covered by the Patent in any form whatsoever, throughout the United States and its Territories; g) This Court preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendant from marketing, distributing, selling, offering for sale, listing in catalogs, displaying in public or on websites, or advertising any product covered by the Patent or any colorable imitation thereof, h) This Court preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendant from using or causing to be used any and all signs, labels, packages, catalogs, and advertising or promotional materials referring to articles of clothing covered by the Patent and from Page 6 manufacturing, marketing, distributing, selling, or offering for sale, listing in catalogs, displaying in public or on websites, or advertising any product covered by the Patent or any colorable imitation thereof, i) This Court award interest on Plaintiff's damages; and j) This Court grant such other relief as this Count deems just and appropriate. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues properly tried to a jury. Dated: February 26, 2014 Respectfully submitted by: Mark Levy, Esq. Federal Bar Roll No.: 301451 HÌNMAN, HOWARD & KATTELL, LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff 700 Security Mutual Building 80 Exchange Street P.O. Box 5250 Binghamton, NY 13902-5250 Telephone: (607) 723-5341 Documents Similar To Mouth Man v. American Marketing EnterprisesSkip carouselStar Headlight & Lantern v AG Design & Assoc LLC13-02-22 Google Filing Re German H.264 License1000000552910000005512Steps to Filing a Patent ApplicationMoss v. Moss et. al.$1,000,000 Trade Show contractAsiatic Petroleum v Pp.docxPatents Environment PPT.pptxMax-patent Paper for France-finalVehicle Operation Technologies v. Nissan North America05 - Smith Kline vs. CASpecCom_cases_Kline & French Laboratories vs CASmith Klie vs CA6. smith vs caExcerpts From Transcript of Haedicke Testimony Recorded on 13-06-14FAQs on IPR EnforcementBrandon’s DilemmaValeri v. Mystic Industries852International Business Travel --- an engine of innovationIPCalculus - Patenting Activity in Clinical Chemistry & Clinical Toxicology Devices10000019860Canatelo v. Cisco Systems Et. Al.HO 13 Comm AttyCatindigAcqis v. Ericsson Et. Al.Bad CounselKeplinger v. De Young, 23 U.S. 358 (1825)Case DigestMcRo Inc.Documents About PatentSkip carousel16-12-20 Apple Complaint v. Acacia Et Al.AppleVsSamsung_11.07.05Nike v. SkechersWizards of the Coast v. Cryptozoic Entertainment et. al.NokiaVsApple_11.03.31.100Samsung vs Apple - Samsung's Appeal to the Supreme CourtGillette Company v. ADKM, Inc. d/b/a Harry's Razor Company et. al.David Einhorn's presentation on Green Mountain RoastersConsulting AgreementPRICELINE COM INC 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-20Nokia Complaint Against Apple in federal district court, WisconsinApple vs Samsung 11.04.22Beyond Philanthropy3D Systems v. Formlabs et. al.Translation of Mannheim 2O240 Ruling Motorola v MicrosoftApple vs Android 10.12.02Koninklijke Philips N.V. et. al. v. Nintendo et. al.Provisional Patent Application12-04-30 Apple-Samsung Teksler-Kim Letter Re FRANDBose v. Beats Civil ComplaintNovartis patent JudgementBose vs Beats (ITC complaint)Against Intellectual Property, by Stephan Kinsella 14-01-21 Apple v. Samsung Summary Judgment Order11-07-01 Apple Motion for PI Against SamsungAmicus Brief in Support of Samsung RehearingGENENTECH INC 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-20Apple vs Samsung 11.06.16MicrosoftVsMotorola_11.12.11Treehouse Avatar Technologies v. TurbineMore From PatentBlastSkip carouselMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Samsung Electronics Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Nintendo of America Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Cantor Fitzgerald Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. ZTE Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Toshiba AmericaMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Pantech Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. NVIDIAActifio v. DelphixRTC Industries v. Flextronics InternationalTactical Medical Solutions v. Karl Et. AlPrometheus Laboratories v. Par Pharmaceutical Companies Et. AlAndrea Electronics v. Lenovo Group Et. Al.Andrea Electronics v. Toshiba Et. Al.Property Disclosure Technologies v. TruliaGlobal Tel*Link v. Securus Technologies et. al.Century Board v. National Registered AgentsIatric Systems v. FairWarningHologram Et. Al. v. Arena3D Industrial Illusion Et. Al.Tech-ni-Fold v. F.P. Rosback CompanyRTC Industries v. ZiveloMotobatt v. Deltran OperationsImpax Laboratories Et. Al. v. Lannett Holdings Et. Al.Alkermes Pharma Ireland v. Sun Pharma Global FZE Et. Al.Unimed Pharmaceuticals Et. Al. v. Perrigo Company Et. Al.Sensus v. Certified MeasurementCapella Photonics v. TellabsCapella Photonics v. Fujitsu Network CommunicationsCapella Photonics v. CienaILife Technologies v. AliphComAeritas v. GameStop