Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
vs.
14
DFD WHEELS,
Case No.
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
INFRINGEMENT, TRADEMARK
INFRINGEMENT, AND UNFAIR
COMPETITION
Defendant.
15
16
17
I.
18
JURISDICTION.
1.
19
20
trademark under 15 U.S.C. 1125, and unfair competition under the common law
21
of California.
22
2.
23
24
25
II.
26
PARTIES.
3.
27
organized and existing under the laws of the State of California having a principal
28
90221.
4.
corporation organized under the laws of the State of Texas having a principal
III.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND.
5.
Since 1986, MHT has been engaged and is presently engaged in the
design and distribution of custom wheels for automobiles. MHTs products are
10
6.
11
29/435,831, with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to
12
obtain a design patent on a novel design for the front face of a wheel, which
13
wheel MHT sells under the name MAVERICK. The application was filed in the
14
name of Arthur D. Hale, Jr., (Hale), the MAVERICK wheel designs inventor,
15
and was assigned to MHT. A patent matured from this application entitled
16
Vehicle-Wheel Front Face, Patent Number D686,963, issued on July 30, 2013
17
(the 963 Patent). A copy of the 963 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
7.
18
19
29/435,827 with the PTO to obtain a design patent on a novel design for a spoke
20
of the MAVERICK wheel. The application was filed in the name of Hale, and
21
was assigned to MHT. A patent matured from this application entitled, Spoke
22
23
2013 (the 002 Patent). A copy of the 002 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit
24
B.
25
8.
MHT has sold wheels under the trademark DUB since 2003 and has
26
named one of its lines of wheels DUB. MHT uses its DUB mark both in block
27
letters and in a distinctive logo. The logo is widely used on MHTs promotional
28
material as well as on the center caps of MHTs DUB line of wheels and
-2-
showing such use of MHTs DUB logo are attached hereto as Exhibits C and D.
9.
spoke designs, Defendant DFD has offered for sale and sold vehicle wheels which
embody the patented MAVERICK designs. A screen shot from the website of a
10.
Notwithstanding the rights of MHT in its DUB logo, DFD sells its
wheels with a stylized DFD logo which is a colorable imitation of MHTs DUB
10
11.
DFDs offer for sale and sale of vehicle wheels which embody
11
12
hereinabove was without the consent or authorization of MHT as was its use of
13
14
12.
15
demanding that it cease its infringement of MHTs 963 and 002 patents and of
16
the DUB logo. A true copy of MHTs demand letter is attached hereto as Exhibit
17
G. The demand letter was returned to MHTs counsel unopened and marked
18
19
20
(Patent Infringement)
21
22
23
13.
Defendant DFD has offered for sale and sold in this district and
24
elsewhere in the United States, vehicle wheels which infringe the claims of the
25
26
15.
27
by its direct infringement of the 963 and 006 Patents and by its acts of inducing
28
16.
and 002 Patents and will be irreparably damaged unless DFDs infringement is
enjoined by this Court. Plaintiff does not have an adequate remedy at law.
4
5
17.
18.
9
10
11
logo, Defendant DFD has adopted and used its DFD logo in commerce and in
12
connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution and/or advertising of
13
vehicle wheels.
14
20.
15
logo and DFDs wheels are sold in direct competition with MHTs DUB wheels,
16
17
21.
Defendant DFDs use of the DFD logo in connection with the sale,
18
19
cause and, on information and belief, has caused and will continue to cause
20
21
association with MHT and its DUB line of vehicles, or as to the origin,
22
23
24
25
26
22.
27
28
simulation of MHTs DUB logo was likely to cause confusion, or cause mistake,
-4-
24.
has caused and continues to cause MHT immediate and irreparable injury and
will continue to damage MHT and deceive the public unless enjoined by this
court.
8
9
25.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
26.
trademark rights in the DUB logo in violation of the common law of California.
28.
Defendants acts alleged above have caused, and if not enjoined, will
17
18
and goodwill. MHT has no adequate remedy at law as monetary damages are
19
20
21
22
29.
23
24
25
26
1.
27
a.
28
of this action;
-5-
1
2
b.
3
4
c.
d.
2.
a.
10
control embodying unauthorized use of the designs shown in United States Patent
11
12
13
b.
any and all uses of the DFD logo including but not limited to
14
vehicle wheel center caps as well as product material and packaging which
15
16
3.
17
18
19
20
21
4.
That Plaintiff receive judgment for all damages and its lost profits
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5.
That
Defendant
pay
Plaintiff
interest
on
all
infringement damages.
7.
That Plaintiff have and recover its costs in this action including
-6-
prejudgment
attorneys fees.
8.
That Plaintiff have such other or further relief as the Court may deem
5
6
Respectfully submitted,
CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP
By /s/ Edward R. Schwartz
Edward R. Schwartz
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-7CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP
Exhibit A
Page 8
Exhibit A
Page 9
Exhibit A
Page 10
Exhibit A
Page 11
Exhibit B
Page 12
Exhibit B
Page 13
Exhibit B
Page 14
Exhibit C
Page 15
Exhibit C
Page 16
Exhibit D
Page 16
Exhibit E
Page 17
Exhibit F
Page 18
Exhibit G
Page 19
Exhibit G
Page 20
Exhibit G
Page 21
Exhibit G
Page 22
Exhibit G
Page 23
Exhibit G
Page 24
Exhibit G
Page 25
Exhibit G
Page 26
Exhibit G
Page 27
Exhibit G
Page 28
Exhibit G
Page 29