Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/179143524/Milo-Gabby-et-al-v-Amazon-com-pdf
Timestamp: 2016-07-24 18:33:43
Document Index: 450652338

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 501', '§ 1331', '§ 1367', '§ 1391', '§ 271', '§ 501', '§ 1125', '§ 1202', '§ 1114', '§ 289', '§ 284', '§ 285', '§ 1117', '§ 1117', '§ 1117', '§ 1205', '§ 19', '§ 63', '§ 63']

Milo & Gabby et. al. v. Amazon.com .pdf
UploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicEditors' Picks BooksHand-picked favorites from our editorsEditors' Picks AudiobooksHand-picked favorites from our editorsEditors' Picks ComicsHand-picked favorites from our editorsEditors' Picks Sheet MusicHand-picked favorites from our editorsTop BooksWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop AudiobooksWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop ComicsWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop Sheet MusicWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreCategoriesArts & IdeasBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipChildren'sComputers & TechnologyCooking & FoodCrafts & HobbiesFantasyFiction & LiteratureHappiness & Self-HelpHealth & WellnessHistoryHome & GardenHumorLGBTMystery, Thriller & CrimePolitics & EconomyReferenceReligionRomanceScience & NatureScience FictionSociety & CultureSports & AdventureTravelYoung AdultCategoriesArts & IdeasBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipChildren'sComputers & TechnologyCooking & FoodFantasyFiction & LiteratureHappiness & Self-HelpHealth & WellnessHistoryHome & GardenHumorLGBTMystery, Thriller & CrimePolitics & EconomyReferenceReligionRomanceScience & NatureScience FictionSociety & CultureSports & AdventureTravelYoung AdultCategoriesAdaptationsChildren’sCrime & MysteryFictionHumorMangaNonfictionRomanceSciFi, Fantasy & HorrorSuperheroesYoung AdultPublishersArcanaArchie ComicsBOOM! StudiosDynamiteIDW PublishingKingstone ComicsMarvel ComicsSpace Goat ProductionsTop Cow ComicsValiant ComicsZenescopeDifficultyBeginnerIntermediateAdvancedMixedInstrumentBrassDrums & PercussionGuitar, Bass, and FrettedPianoStringsVocalWoodwindsGenreClassicalCountryFolkJazz & BluesMovies & MusicalsPop & RockReligious & HolidayStandardsWelcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out more1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. 1.Plaintiffs Milo & Gabby, LLC and Karen Keller (collectively referred to as “Milo & Gabby”), by and through counsel, hereby complain of Defendant Amazon.com, Inc. as follows: NATURE OF LAWSUIT This is a complaint for violations of various State and Federal intellectual property laws arising from Defendant’s sales of products that constitute inferior knock-off duplicates of Plaintiffs’ protected products. THE PARTIES Plaintiff MILO & GABBY, LLC is a Washington State limited liability company engaged in the development, sale, and licensing of animal-shaped pillow cases, among other things. 3. Plaintiff Karen Keller is an individual residing in this judicial district.
MANN LAW GROUP 1218 Third Avenue, Suite 1809 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: 206.436.0900
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON MILO & GABBY, LLC and KAREN KELLER, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendant. Cause No. 13-cv-5941 COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, PATENT INFRINGEMENT, VIOLATION OF RIGHT OF PUBLICITY, DMCA VIOLATIONS, TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT, AND UNFAIR COMPETITION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
On information and belief, Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”) is a Delaware
Corporation with a principle place of business in this judicial district at 410 Terry Ave N, Seattle, WA 98109 and an Internet web presence at www.amazon.com. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This is an action for patent infringement arising under Title 35 U.S.C. § 1, et. seq. and for copyright infringement arising under Title 17 U.S.C. § 501, et. seq. Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the related state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 6. Personal Jurisdiction over the defendant is proper in this Court as the defendant has its principal place of business in this district. Venue in this judicial district is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), (c) and/or 1400(b) in that a substantial part of the events giving rise to the patent infringement claims herein have taken place and may still be taking place in this judicial district. SUMMARY OF FACTS 7. Milo & Gabby was founded by a husband and wife team of product designers. Inspired by their four children and two beloved family pets they set out to create pillowcases that would transform pillows from average to extraordinary. The result was an adorable line of Cozy Companion Pillowcases; eight animal-shaped, 100% cotton pillowcases that blend two favorite things: stuffed animals and children’s favorite pillows (the “Cozy Companion Products”). 8. 9. The Milo & Gabby mark is protected by Federally registered U.S. Milo & Gabby’s unique blend of fun and functional products meets two of Trademark Registration Number 3291697, registered on September 11, 2007. the most essential and timeless needs of children and their families: Cozy
Companions combine the cuddly-comfort of a childhood “best friend/buddy” with the practical “at-home and on-the-go” function families appreciate. Children form immediate, enduring attachments to their Cozy Companion as they quickly become their favorite “go-everywhere” choice. 10. Attached as Exhibit A are true and accurate captures of Milo & Gabby’s website at which the company advertises and offers its Cozy Companion line of products. As shown in Exhibit A, Milo & Gabby’s website and images thereon are protected by valid U.S. copyrights, and are displayed in association with proper copyright management information, including a proper copyright notice and other information other information identifying the copyright owner of the several works. 11. Milo & Gabby has enjoyed commercial success with its line of During that animal-themed children’s accessories over the past five years.
period the company designed, sold and distributed their products to retailers and e-tailers throughout the United States and internationally. Milo & Gabby’s success escalated drastically starting in 2012 when the company entered into an exclusive license arrangement in Asia. Since that time, sales of Milo & Gabby’s products have grown drastically. 12. The growing success in the Asian market of Milo & Gabby’s products has prompted the company to seek out a licensing partner in North America to help continue the company’s dramatic expansion. However, Milo & Gabby has been forced to stall that effort in light of Defendant’s misconduct as described further below. 13. Defendant Amazon.com, Inc., without either the knowledge or authorization of Milo & Gabby, began selling direct knock-off copies of Milo & Gabby’s Cozy Companion Products. More specifically, on its amazon.com website, Defendant Amazon offers for sale and sells products which purport to
be the Milo & Gabby products but which are merely inferior copies of those products in (the “Amazon knock-offs”). 14. The Amazon knock-offs are offered for sale directly from the website of Defendant Amazon. Attached as Exhibit B are true and accurate screen captures of Defendant Amazon’s website at which consumers may purchase the Amazon knock-offs. 15. The Amazon knock-offs are offered for sale directly by Defendant Amazon in its own direct marketing efforts, including by serving electronic advertisements on the websites of others as well as e-mail marketing to potential consumers directly from Defendant Amazon. 16. As shown in Exhibit B, the Amazon knock-offs are marketed using using Milo & Gabby’s own marketing materials. Amazon is misrepresenting to the public that it would be purchasing authentic Milo & Gabby products, even using Milo & Gabby’s registered trademark on the amazon.com website. See attached Exhibit C, showing Amazon’s unauthorized use of the Milo & Gabby mark. 17. As shown in Exhibit C, Amazon displays the Milo & Gabby marketing materials, taken from the Milo & Gabby website, with Milo & Gabby’s copyright management information removed from the Milo & Gabby materials. Such conduct can only have been done with full knowledge of the existence of the copyright management information and thus for the purpose of concealing the identity of the actual owner of the materials, e.g., Milo & Gabby. 18. Although consumers believe they are purchasing legitimate Milo & Gabby products, Amazon in fact delivers to those consumers the Amazon knock-offs, which differ substantially in quality from the Milo & Gabby products. Attached as Exhibit D are true and correct photographs of several of the Amazon knock-offs.
As is seen in Exhibit D, the Amazon knock-offs are each labeled with a
photograph depicting a child at sleep on an exemplar of the product within the package. However, the product depicted in each photograph is in fact a Milo & Gabby Cozy Companion Product and not an Amazon knock-off. 20. Most of the photographs shown in Exhibit D depict the actual children of Plaintiff Karen Keller being used on the labels of the Amazon knock-offs. Amazon is exploiting Ms. Keller’s own children to sell counterfeit goods. 21. Amazon itself, directly, fulfills orders for the Amazon knock-offs and ships the Amazon knock-offs to consumers who order those products from the amazon.com website. Attached as Exhibit E are true and correct copies of the boxes in which the Amazon knock-offs are shipped revealing that the Amazon knock-offs are shipped directly by or under the control of Defendant Amazon. 22. The quality of the Amazon knock-offs is significantly inferior to the Milo & Gabby products. Consumers misled into purchasing the Amazon knock-offs provide negative reviews of the Amazon knock-offs which improperly creates a negative marketing environment for the actual Milo & Gabby products, thus harming Milo & Gabby’s ability to market their own goods. 23. Attached as Exhibit F are true and correct screen captures of the amazon.com website at which consumers who were misled into mistakenly purchasing the Amazon knock-offs provided negative comments regarding the quality of the Amazon knock-offs. 24. The quality issues identified by those dissatisfied consumers do not exist with the Milo & Gabby products.
THE PATENTS 25. Plaintiffs Milo & Gabby and Ms. Keller are the owner of all right, title, and interest in the following U.S. Design Patents, true and correct copies of which are attached as Exhibit G: Patent D520,798 D521,299 D521,792 D523,677 D551,889 Title Issued May 16, 2006 May 23, 2006 May 30, 2006 June 27, 2006 October 2, 2007
Dog-Shaped Pillow Case Rabbit-Shaped Pillow Case Cat-Shaped Pillow Case Dinosaur-Shaped Pillow Case Pony-Shaped Pillow Case THE COPYRIGHTS
Plaintiff is the author and owner of the U.S. Copyrights identified in the table below, true and correct printouts of which are attached as Exhibit H: Number Title Filed/Issued 1-976528811 1-976817132 1-978660959 1-97905743 1-985504482 1-992407599 1-1009623984 1-1009928900 1-1009929001 1-1009929033 1-1009929064 1-1009929096 Dinosaur Dog Cat Bunny Pony Fish Boy Sleeping On Fish Pillowcase Girl Sleeping On Bunny Pillowcase Girl Sleeping On Cat Pillowcase Girl Sleeping On Pony Pillowcase Boy Sleeping On Dinosaur Pillowcase Boy Sleeping On Dog Pillowcase August 13, 2013 August 13, 2013 August 15, 2013 August 15, 2013 September 11, 2013 September 11, 2013 October 22, 2013 October 22, 2013 October 22, 2013 October 22, 2013 October 22, 2013 October 22, 2013
CAUSES OF ACTION I. 26. Patent Infringement As set forth above, Plaintiff Milo & Gabby is the owner of several design
patents that protect the Milo & Gabby Cozy Companion Products. Defendant Amazon is making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing the Amazon knock-offs which are virtually indistinguishable (but for quality) from Plaintiff Milo & Gabby’s patented designs. 27. Defendant Amazon’s actions constitute patent infringement under 35 II. 28. Copyright Infringement U.S.C. § 271, et seq. As set forth above, Plaintiff Milo & Gabby is the owner of several
copyrights in its products and in its promotional materials, including but not limited to the Cozy Companion Products and several photographs taken of children sleeping on exemplars of Milo & Gabby’s Cozy Companion Products. 29. Defendant Amazon, without authorization, is distributing copies of Milo & Gabby’s copyrighted works as the Amazon knock-offs and as labels on the Amazon knock-offs. 30. 31. 32. Defendant Amazon, without authorization, is publicly displaying Defendant Amazon, without authorization, is distributing numerous Milo Defendant Amazon’s conduct constitutes a violation of the U.S. Copyright III. 33. Unfair Competition numerous Milo & Gabby copyrighted images on the amazon.com website. & Gabby copyrighted images on the labels of its Amazon knock-off products. Act, 15 U.S.C. § 501, et. seq. Defendant Amazon violated RCW Chapter 19.86 due to its unfair
methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of its trade or commerce.
By offering for sale, selling, importing, and distributing actual products
that include infringing materials, Amazon is directly liable for its own actions, as set forth above. Amazon has sold, imported, and delivered the Amazon knock-offs to consumers in this district. IV. 35. Lanham Act Defendant Amazon’s unauthorized use of Plaintiff’s marketing materials
and its reproduction and emulation of Plaintiffs’ photographs, images, and products are intended to cause confusion, mistake or to deceive consumers as to the source of origin of their products. Defendant’s actions are likely to cause members of the public who search for Milo & Gabby’s genuine products to believe that the goods being offered for sale, sold, and imported by Amazon to believe that the Amazon knock-offs have an affiliation, connection, association, origin, or sponsorship relationship with Milo & Gabby. 36. Defendant’s actions constitute a false designation of origin in violation of V. 37. Right of Publicity the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1). Defendant Amazon has misappropriated for its own commercial benefit
the photograph and/or likeness of Plaintiff Karen Keller’s children on goods, merchandise, and/or products entered into commerce in this state in violation of RCW Chapter 63.60. 38. Defendant Amazon did so without the authorization of either Ms. Keller or her children. Defendant Amazon’s conduct has soiled and tainted forever the ability of Plaintiffs to use the actual pictures of Ms. Keller’s children free of the cloud of dissatisfaction created by the inferior quality of the Amazon knock-offs. VI. 39. Removal of Copyright Management Information Defendant Amazon did, without the authority of Milo & Gabby,
intentionally remove or alter copyright management information, distribute or
import for distribution copyright management information knowing that the copyright management information had been removed or altered without the authority of Milo & Gabby, and/or distribute or import for distribution Milo & Gabby works knowing that copyright management information had been removed or altered without the authority of Milo & Gabby. 40. Defendant Amazon did so having reasonable grounds to know that it would induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal a copyright infringement in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 1202. VII. Trademark Counterfeiting 41. Defendant Amazon’s unauthorized use in commerce of Plaintiff’s actual registered trademark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of the Amazon knock-offs is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114. 42. Defendant Amazon did reproduce, counterfeit, copy, or colorably imitate Milo & Gabby’s registered mark and did apply such reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles and/or advertisements intended to be used in commerce upon or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of the Amazon knock-offs, such use being likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Milo & Gabby and Karen Keller ask this Court to enter judgment against Defendant and against its subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, servants, employees and all persons in active concert or participation with them, granting the following relief:
An award of damages adequate to compensate Plaintiffs for the
infringement that has occurred, together with prejudgment interest from the date infringement began; B. C. An award of Defendant’s profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289; An award of Plaintiff’s actual damages, including lost profits and/or a
reasonable royalty, and increased or enhanced damages as permitted under 35 U.S.C. § 284; D. § 285; E. F. G. An award of defendant’s profits, Plaintiffs’ actual damages sustained by Trebled damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(b); Statutory damages of up to $2,000,000 per mark per type of goods sold, the plaintiff, and the costs of the action under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a); A finding that this case is exceptional and an award to Plaintiffs of their attorneys’ fees and costs as may be appropriate and as provided by 35 U.S.C.
offered for sale, or distributed for trademark counterfeiting under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c); H. Statutory damages pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act for the unauthorized removal of Plaintiffs’ copyright management information under 17 U.S.C. § 1205; I. J. An award of actual damages, trebled, and costs, including attorneys fees, In addition to any other award, an award of Plaintiff’s actual damages and under the Washington Unfair Business Practices Act RCW § 19.86.090; Defendant’s profits for infringement of Plaintiffs’ right of publicity under RCW § 63.60.060; K. L. An award of attorneys’ fees under RCW § 63.60.060; A permanent injunction prohibiting further infringement, inducement and
contributory infringement by Defendant;
Prejudgment interest calculated from the time of the first occurrence of An award of any other damages and relief to which Plaintiffs are entitled Such other and further relief as this Court or a jury may deem just and JURY DEMAND Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues presented in this Complaint. Dated: October 24, 2013. Respectfully submitted, /Philip P. Mann Philip P. Mann, WSBA No: 28860 MANN LAW GROUP John Whitaker, WSBA No. 28868 WHITAKER LAW GROUP 1218 Third Avenue, Suite 1809 Seattle, Washington 98101 Phone: (206) 436-0900 Fax: (866) 341-5140 phil@mannlawgroup.com john@wlawgrp.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs
any infringing activity through and until entry of judgment; under the law; and proper.
Milo & Gabby et. al. v. Amazon.com .pdf by PatentBlast41 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionMilo & Gabby et. al. v. Amazon.comMilo & Gabby et. al. v. Amazon.comRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedMilo & Gabby et. al. v. Amazon.comby PriorSmartHollywood Fashion Tape v. Beauty Union Globalby PatentBlastCyber Acoustics v. Belkin Internationalby PatentBlastSESSION #6 Abercrombie and Fitch v Hunting World Digestby donkraemejubacCDD Technologies v. Acer Americaby PriorSmartInterMetro Industries v. Rubbermaidby PriorSmartInner-Tite Corp. v. Brozowski Mass. Superior Court 2010 Non-competeby gesmerAmeranth v. Opentableby PriorSmartAmeranth v. Pizza Hut et. al.by PriorSmartMedicis Pharmaceutical v. Zydus Pharmaceuticals et. al.by PriorSmartAmeranth v. OpenTableby PriorSmartTranxition v. Novellby PriorSmartHBAC MatchMaker Media Inc.by PriorSmartWCM Industries v. IPS et. al.by PriorSmartInnovative Display Technologies v. TomTom North America et. al.by PriorSmartCasesby Joseph PiperEnglert v Alibaba.comby Eric GoldmanLicense.rtfby d_gnetoRock River Arms v. Black Dawn Industries et. al.by PriorSmartCephalon v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries et. al.by PriorSmartSimilar to Milo & Gabby et. al. v. Amazon.com .pdfMilo & Gabby et. al. v. Amazon.comHollywood Fashion Tape v. Beauty Union GlobalCyber Acoustics v. Belkin InternationalSESSION #6 Abercrombie and Fitch v Hunting World DigestCDD Technologies v. Acer AmericaInterMetro Industries v. RubbermaidInner-Tite Corp. v. Brozowski Mass. Superior Court 2010 Non-competeAmeranth v. OpentableAmeranth v. Pizza Hut et. al.Medicis Pharmaceutical v. Zydus Pharmaceuticals et. al.Ameranth v. OpenTableTranxition v. NovellHBAC MatchMaker Media Inc.WCM Industries v. IPS et. al.Innovative Display Technologies v. TomTom North America et. al.CasesEnglert v Alibaba.comLicense.rtfRock River Arms v. Black Dawn Industries et. al.Cephalon v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries et. al.Rydex Technologies LLC_287_Prof._WongEFF