Longhorn Locker v. Hollman - Complaint

Case 3:19-cv-02872-C Document 1 Filed 12/04/19 Page 1 of 91 PageID 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
LONGHORN LOCKER COMPANY, §

LLC and AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE §
MANUFACTURING, LLC collectively §
doing business as LONGHORN §
LOCKER, AMERICAN §
INDEPENDENCE MANUFACTURING §
and AIM §
§ CASE NO. 3:19-cv-2872
Plaintiffs, § JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
v. §
§
HOLLMAN, INC., CRYSTAL CLEAR §
CREATIVE, LLC, KELLIE MATHAS, §
and TITAN OF LOUISIANA, INC. §
§
Defendants §
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs Longhorn Locker Company, LLC and American Independence Manufacturing,
LLC d/b/a Longhorn Locker, American Independence Manufacturing and AIM file this original
complaint against Defendants Hollman, Inc., Crystal Clear Creative, LLC, Kellie Mathas, and
TITAN of Louisiana, Inc. and would show the Court the following:
I. PARTIES
1. Plaintiff Longhorn Locker Company, LLC d/b/a Longhorn Locker (Longhorn
Locker) is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business located at 503
County Road 109, Venus, Texas 76084. Plaintiff Longhorn Lockers is the exclusive master
distributer of custom lockers manufactured by its affiliate, Plaintiff American Independence
Manufacturing, LLC.
2. Plaintiff American Independence Manufacturing, LLC d/b/a American
1
Independence Manufacturing or AIM (AIM) is a Texas limited liability company with its principal
place of business located at 503 County Road 109, Venus, Texas 76084. Plaintiff AIM
manufactures custom lockers for its affiliate and exclusive master distributer, Plaintiff Longhorn
Lockers.
3. Plaintiffs Longhorn Locker and AIM collectively do business as, are recognized
by, and are generally known as Longhorn Locker Company, Longhorn Locker, American
Independence Manufacturing and AIM (collectively, Longhorn).
4. Defendant Hollman, Inc. (Hollman) is Texas corporation with its principal place of
business located at 1825 West Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 110, Irving, Texas 75038 and may be served
by and through its registered agent Vi B. Ho at 1825 West Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 110, Irving,
Texas 75038.
5. Defendant Crystal Clear Creative, LLC (Crystal Clear) is a Louisiana limited
liability company with its principal place of business in New Orleans, Louisiana and may be served
by and through its registered agent Kellie Mathas at 680 Ferriday Ct., Harahan, Louisiana 70123.
6. Defendant Kellie Mathas (Mathas) is an individual who resides at 680 Ferriday
Court, Harahan, Louisiana 70123. At all relevant times, Mathas was acting within the course and
scope of her employment with and as owner and creative director of Crystal Clear.
7. Defendant TITAN of Louisiana, Inc. (TITAN) is a Louisiana corporation with its
principal place of business in New Orleans, Louisiana and may be served by and through its
registered agent Nicole M. Babb at Kings & Jurgens, LLC located at 201 St. Charles Avenue, 45th
Floor, New Orleans, Louisiana 70170.
2
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8. This Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1338 because this is a civil
action arising under an Act of Congress relating to copyrights and patents. This Court also has
federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 for federal trade-secret misappropriation
claims brought under 18 U.S.C. § 1836. This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over the
state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because the state law claims are so related to those claims
for which this Court has original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy
under Article III of the United States Constitution.
9. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. A substantial
part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred within this District, and
Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this District because Hollman’s principal place
of business is in Dallas, Texas; TITAN agreed that the venue of any dispute under the Vendor
Confidentiality & Non-Use Agreement shall be in Dallas County, Texas; and Crystal Clear and
Mathas intentionally encouraged a Texas corporation to commit direct copyright infringement in
this District.
III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. Longhorn
10. Longhorn designs, manufacturers, sells, and installs custom lockers for
professional, collegiate, and high school sports teams. Longhorn was founded in 2005 and is
located in Venus, Texas where it maintains its design center—called the “Vault”— as well as its
manufacturing facility and showroom. For over a decade, Longhorn’s skilled designers, craftsmen
and artisans have created and manufactured unique and stylish lockers to help discerning
professional and collegiate sports teams across the country personalize locker rooms of every style.
3
The result is a high-quality locker assembled using stainless steel, state-of-the-art technology and
reflecting beautiful craftsmanship, the quality standards of an industry leader and the personal
vision of Longhorn’s customers.
11. Longhorn has earned a well-established reputation in the industry for maintaining
the highest quality standards and incorporating new and innovative designs into its state-of-the-art
lockers. As a result, it has had the privilege to work on some of the most prestigious locker room
projects in the nation, including the Dallas Cowboys, the Baltimore Ravens, University of
Alabama, University of Texas, Texas Christian University and many more. Many professional
and collegiate sports teams across the country are spending millions of dollars renovating team
locker rooms. These locker rooms are no longer simply basic changing and storage areas with
standard box-style lockers. Instead, these newly-designed locker rooms are used as recruiting tools
and are therefore exquisitely designed with state-of-the art furnishings, amenities and lockers.
Longhorn’s lockers are custom designed and typically include team logos, specialized lighting,
ventilation systems, digital lock boxes, display cases, telephone chargers, hidden storage spaces
and sometimes even television monitors.
12. Since its founding, Longhorn has spent thousands of hours creating, designing, and
developing unique and ornamental design features, artistic and creative design elements, and trade
secret manufacturing techniques and systems that Longhorn incorporates into each of its custom
lockers for its customers. Along the way, Longhorn and Sam Allen—the named inventor, founder
and Chief Executive Officer of Longhorn—have sought to protect their unique and original
creations incorporated into Longhorn’s lockers by obtaining numerous utility patents, design
patents and copyrights for their lockers and locker designs, including U.S. Patent No. 10,080,433
(the ‘433 Patent), U.S. Patent No. 10,299,583 (the ‘583 Patent), U.S. Patent No. D826,602 (the
4
‘602 Patent), U.S. Patent No. D845,680 (the ‘680 Patent), U.S. Patent No. 10,477,964 (the ‘964
Patent), U.S. Patent No. 10,376,049 (the ‘049 Patent) and U.S. Copyright Registration No. VA-2-
153-424 (the ‘424 Registration). In addition, there are twelve pending patent applications,
including application Serial Nos. 15/639,117, 15/804,286, 15/832,073, 15/897,875, 29/687,844,
16/429,895, 16/454/161, 16/686,991, 15/639,216, 16/515,605, 16/549,528, 16/546,977 and a
pending copyright application No. 1-8073830571 (the ‘571 Application). 1
13. Longhorn is the exclusive licensee of the ‘433, the ‘583, the ‘602, the ‘680, the
‘964, and ‘049 Patents and the owner of the ‘424 Registration and the ‘571 Application. True and
correct copies of the ‘602 Patent, the ‘424 Registration, and the ‘571 Application are attached
hereto as Exhibits A-C. Longhorn respects the intellectual property rights of its competitors and
expects its competitors to do the same.
B. Hollman
14. Hollman is one of Longhorn’s direct competitors. Hollman was founded in 1976.
In its early years, Hollman was principally in the business of designing and installing racquetball
courts. Later, Hollman began manufacturing and selling gym lockers to fitness centers, clubs,
resorts, and spas. Hollman’s lockers are primarily made of wood, laminate and phenolic materials.
15. In 2011, Hollman began focusing on building lockers for the professional and
collegiate sports markets. Hollman has sold custom team lockers to Texas A&M, Ohio State
Longhorn filed this copyright infringement action based on the ‘424 Registration pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §
1
501 and the ‘571 Application pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 411(a). In accordance with 17 C.F.R. 205.13, Longhorn served
notice of the institution of the action and a copy of the complaint on the Register of Copyrights by sending such
documents by certified mail to the General Counsel of the Copyright Office at U.S. Copyright Office, P.O. Box 70400,
Washington, DC 20024–0400. The notice was in the form of a letter that clearly identified the notice as a § 411(a)
notice. Both the letter and the envelope stated: “Section 411(a) Notice to the Register of Copyrights.” In compliance
with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i), a notice of the institution of the action and a copy of the complaint was also served on both
the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Texas and the United States Department of Justice, directed to
the Attorney General, Attn: Director of Intellectual Property Staff, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Washington,
DC 20530.
5
University, Auburn University, Georgia Tech, the University of Southern California, the Dallas
Mavericks, the Chicago Cubs and others. Hollman claims to be the largest manufacturer of lockers
for sports teams, fitness facilities, country clubs and corporate office spaces in the United States.
Hollman generates revenues totaling $72 million.
C. Longhorn and Hollman compete head-to-head in the highly-competitive custom

locker market
16. Hollman and Longhorn are fierce competitors. Although Longhorn and Hollman
are “frequently competing for the same business,” Hollman brags that it has a dominant “80%
market share” and always viewed Longhorn as “a minor and insignificant competitor in the locker
and manufacturing industry.” Travis Hollman—Hollman’s president—intensely dislikes and
despises Longhorn. He repeatedly disparages Longhorn and its products and said on multiple
occasions that he intended to “crush” Longhorn and “put them out of business.”
D. Litigation ensues in state court between Longhorn and Hollman
17. After Longhorn introduced its high-end custom lockers into the market, Hollman
embarked on a campaign to gain an industry advantage and market share by copying Longhorn’s
copyrighted works, stealing Longhorn’s confidential trade secret information and unlawfully
poaching Longhorn’s customers.
18. When Longhorn learned Hollman had improperly acquired and used Longhorn’s
confidential and trade secret information to win a contract with the New Orleans Saints in 2017,
Longhorn filed suit in the 95th Judicial District Court in Dallas County, Texas asserting a claim for
violation of the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (TUTSA), TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §
134A.001-.008 (2017). This lawsuit is still pending.
19. During the course of discovery in the state court action, Longhorn discovered that
Defendants Hollman, Crystal Clear, Mathas and TITAN (either individually or collectively)
6
directly and literally infringed the ‘602 Patent exclusively licensed to Longhorn, directly and
contributorily infringed Longhorn’s copyrighted works, including the copyrighted works reflected
in the ‘424 Registration and the ‘571 Registration, willfully and maliciously misappropriated
Longhorn’s trade secrets, materially breached Longhorn’s Vendor Confidentiality & Non-Use
Agreement, and tortiously interfered with Longhorn’s perspective contract with the New Orleans
Saints. This wrongful conduct was designed not only to destroy Longhorn’s relationship with the
New Orleans Saints but also to gain an unfair competitive advantage over Longhorn in the
marketplace and “crush” Longhorn as a competitor. Longhorn could not bring claims for patent
and copyright infringement against Hollman in state court because these claims are within the
original jurisdiction of this Court. 28 U.S.C. § 1338.
E. The New Orleans Saints contact Longhorn about designing and manufacturing
new custom lockers for its renovated locker room
20. The catalyst for the dispute between Longhorn and Hollman arose in 2016 when
Longhorn was contacted by the New Orleans Saints football team about designing and
manufacturing new custom lockers for its renovated locker room. On February 19, 2016, John
Baumgartner, the equipment manager for the New Orleans Saints, contacted Longhorn about the
renovation of the Saints’ football locker room. In response, James Weiss—Longhorn’s vice
president of sales—responded “Longhorn would love to work with the New Orleans Saints” and
asked about scheduling a time to discuss the project.
21. After discussing the project with the Saints, Longhorn began the process of
designing and manufacturing a full-scale working mock-up locker for the Saints as depicted below:
7
22. Longhorn’s locker for the Saints is a creative interpretation of a stylized football
field with a sleek and contemporary feel. See Exhibit C. The locker is in the shape of a long
8
rectangle—the same shape as a football field. A decorative football-shaped cut out is molded into
the leather seat back with horizontal openings, suggesting the line of scrimmage of a football field.
The locker is adorned with sleek and contemporary shiny metallic trim pieces, suggesting the yard
lines of a football field. On the upper portion is a colored back-lit nameplate to display a player’s
name and number, suggesting the endzone of a football field. On the opposite end is a modern
metallic inset screen with a clean, round perforated grill pattern used as a backdrop to display a
team name or logo, suggesting the opposite endzone of a football field. There are matching
decorative contours and carvings on each of the side panels, suggesting the sidelines of a football
field to separate the field of play from out of bounds. The locker is carved in wood, formed in
leather, decoratively lit with back lighting and trimmed in stainless steel. The dramatic use of light
and shadows brings the locker to life and adds a warm look and feel to the locker’s otherwise
contemporary style. In addition, the choice to adorn the locker with stylized yard lines made of
metallic trim pieces adds a feeling of movement to the design. The locker combines multiple types
of shapes in a variety of sizes, textures, colors, materials and perspectives culminating in a creative
work that goes beyond the mere display of a few standard geometric shapes in a preordained or
obvious arrangement.
23. The claimed ornamental and decorative features of Longhorn’s copyrighted work
are depicted below:
9
10
Exhibit C.2
24. On March 3, 2016, Allen and Weiss of Longhorn met with Sean Payton (the Saints’
head coach) to go over Longhorn’s locker designs.
25. On March 7, 2016, Allen and Weiss again traveled to the New Orleans Saints’
facilities with Longhorn’s mock-up locker. Longhorn set-up its mock-up locker in the Saints’
2
Detailed information regarding the original authorship and creative expression found in Longhorn’s
copyrighted sculptural work can be found infra at ¶¶ 107—114.
11
locker room and showed it to Coach Payton, Baumgartner, Mickey Loomis (the Saints’ executive
vice president and general manager), Jessica Richardson (the Saints’ executive director of
marketing) and Kelli Mathas of Crystal Clear (an interior designer retained by the Saints).
Longhorn’s locker as displayed in the Saints’ locker room is graphically depicted below:
Exhibit D.
26. True and correct copies of the photographs taken from Longhorn’s March 7, 2017
12
visit to Saints’ facilities are attached hereto as Exhibit D.
27. After this meeting and based upon recommendations from the Saints, Longhorn
prepared seven renderings of its proposed locker design for the Saints’ review.
28. True and correct copies of these renderings are attached hereto as Exhibit E, one of
which is graphically depicted below:
Longhorn’s Copyrighted Rendering
Exhibit E.
13
Longhorn’s Copyrighted Rendering
Exhibit E.
29. It took a Longhorn designer approximately nine and a half hours to prepare each
rendering for a total of over 66 hours. On March 17, 2016, Longhorn sent these seven renderings
to Coach Payton, Loomis and Baumgartner through a secure online transfer application called
“WeTransfer.” In Longhorn’s submission to the Saints, Longhorn included a conspicuous
“INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY NOTICE” warning:
Any and all enclosed or attached documents which contain drawings, plans,
specifications, or pricing produced by Longhorn Lockers, LLC are the sole property
of Longhorn Lockers, LLC. Such information is intended to be confidential in
nature and used only by authorized representatives of entities subject to a Non-Use
and Non-Disclosure Agreement with us. Any unauthorized or third-party use of
this information will result in legal action.
14
30. In addition, Longhorn included a copyright notice (or ©) on its renderings and
stated that these renderings and the information disclosed in them are the exclusive property of
American Independence Manufacturing, a Longhorn affiliate. Longhorn also warned that any
reproduction or use of the drawings/designs, in whole or in part, without express written consent
of American Independence Manufacturing is prohibited. Longhorn received a download
confirmation notice that the Saints downloaded the files from WeTransfer on March 17-18, 2016.
Longhorn understood and expected the Saints, and anyone working with the Saints, would
maintain the confidentiality of Longhorn’s information and would not use or reproduce copies of
them.
F. Kellie Mathas of Crystal Clear reaches out to Hollman and discloses Longhorn’s
confidential locker design
31. On December 21, 2016, Mathas emailed Gary Schlatholt—Hollman’s athletic
division director. Schlatholt was employed by Hollman from October 2015 to April 2017 and was
at all relevant times a representative of Hollman who directly reported to Hollman’s vice president
and frequently interacted with Travis Hollman, Hollman’s president.
32. In her email to Schlatholt, Mathas discussed “working with Hollman as our option.”
Attached to her email was a .pdf image entitled “PastedGraphic-1.pdf.” The attached .pdf image
was a photograph of the mock-up locker that Longhorn confidentially displayed at the Saints’
facilities on March 7, 2016. Mathas emailed the photograph of Longhorn’s mock-up locker to
Longhorn’s direct competitor, Hollman, without Longhorn’s consent or authorization. Mathas
explained to Hollman that the attachment was sample mock-up shown to the Saints that “they
seemed pleased with.” Mathas said she could send Hollman some additional pictures and a layout
of the existing locker room if that would help. Mathas asked: “What else do you need to get started
to ensure we get some sort of visual.”
15
G. Hollman prepares its own locker design and quote for the Saints locker project
33. On December 22, 2016, Schlatholt emailed Mathas a PowerPoint presentation of
Hollman’s 2016 locker projects and asked her to “take a look through these slides and maybe we
can collaborate to come up with a design that will wow the coach!” Schlatholt requested that
Mathas “[p]lease keep these photos and rendering confidential.” Mathas responded “yes I will
keep it confidential and I assume that was the same with you all with my info I was sharing.”
Schlatholt responded: “Absolutely.”
34. On January 4, 2017, Schlatholt forwarded to Mathas Hollman’s pricing for two
different sized lockers. Mathas then forwarded Hollman’s pricing to Kimberly Finney of Kimberly
Finney Architects, LLC (Finney). Finney was the architect retained by the Saints to design and
oversee the Saints’ locker renovation project. Finney compared Hollman’s pricing to Longhorn’s
pricing. Finney thereafter emailed Mathas and stated that “right away, I can see the cost difference
in that the interior of Longhorn lockers are more high end with more stainless steel on the interior
where [Hollman’s lockers] both have plastic laminate.” Finney also said that “[t]he Longhorn
lockers are also larger.” Finney stated that “Longhorn looks like there is more lighting, logos and
accessories.”
35. On January 5, 2017, Schlatholt emailed to Mathas Hollman’s first proposed
rendering of the Saints lockers and stated “[h]ere’s a concept, that we can tweak.” Hollman’s
rendering depicts four box-style lockers as shown below:
16
36. On the footlocker of each Hollman locker was a rectangular inset which Hollman
indicated would include “brushed metal laminates or solid surface front,” and an “optional black
back pinted (sic) front.” Hollman’s rendering also included “double doors with optional darkened
hardware pulls” and an interior that “include[d] [a] coat rod, wardrobe hooks, and shelving.”
Hollman’s rendering depicted a “helmet storage” compartment located on the right side of the
locker and a “lock box with Digilock” located on the left side of the locker.
37. Unlike Longhorn’s copyrighted work, Hollman’s initial proposed rendering
submitted to the Saints did not include an ornamental split-back seat design, metallic trim, accent
pieces or a perforated grill pattern on the inset of the footlocker, or matching decorative contours
on the side panels of its locker.
38. On January 12, 2017, Schlatholt emailed Mathas stating, “[h]ere is pricing for the
exact locker from the original picture you sent” on December 21, 2016. In Hollman’s quote,
17
Hollman quoted pricing for new features on its locker including “custom folding cushion seat back
in lieu of door,” “metal vented grill at bottom section,” “stainless clad” shelf liners and the lift-up
bench, just like Longhorn’s copyrighted work.
H. Longhorn prepares revised renderings and a quote for the Saints locker project
39. In the meantime, on January 13, 2017, Weiss of Longhorn emailed Loomis of the
Saints. In his email, Weiss attached Longhorn’s up-to-date quote along with Longhorn’s revised
renderings. At the bottom of Wiess’ email, Longhorn again included its “INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY NOTICE.” Longhorn’s renderings also included a copyright notice ( or ©) and a
warning that the renderings are the exclusive property of American Independence Manufacturing,
a Longhorn affiliate. Longhorn also warned that any reproduction or use of the drawings/designs,
in whole or in part, without express written consent of American Independence Manufacturing is
prohibited. Later that same day, Loomis forwarded Weis’ email to Mathas. Mathas then
forwarded Weiss’ email to Finney and cautioned her “this is confidential and not to be shared
beyond you and Tom” Gozdzialski. Tom Gozdzialski is the president of Titan, who was the
general contractor for the Saints’ locker room renovation project. Richardson of the Saints sent
an email to Mathas warning her, “FYI – I assured Mickey [Loomis of the Saints] that you wouldn’t
send Longhorn’s quote or share their price with Hollman.”
I. Hollman offers to make Longhorn’s “exact” locker
40. On January 18, 2017, Travis Hollman—Hollman’s President—emailed Mathas,
stating “[m]y team and I want to do this project.” He explained that “[Hollman] can make the
exact locker that [Longhorn] ha[d] as a sample at the [Saints’] facility except make it engineered
to last a lot longer.”
18
J. Hollman presents its sample locker to the Saints, but the Saints were under
impressed
41. Immediately after receiving Hollman’s message, Mathas replied stating, “Thank
you so much for all of this it is very helpful.” Mathas suggested that “[i]f it was (sic) me I would
personally rent a truck, put 3-4 models in it and drive it to New Orleans tomorrow and meet Mickey
and coach Payton face to face . . . . At least you can say your company did everything in its power
to get this job.” Hollman responded, “[t]his can be done if you can get the meeting set up.”
42. After Mathas setup the meeting for January 18, 2017, Schlatholt immediately
traveled to New Orleans to present Hollman’s model locker to Mathas as well as Mickey Loomis
and Coach Payton of the Saints. The Hollman locker Schlatholt presented was a sample locker
Hollman had in its showroom. Hollman had earlier presented its sample locker to TCU but lost
the project to Longhorn. Unlike Longhorn’s locker, Hollman’s TCU sample locker did not have
Longhorn’s split-back seat feature.
43. On January 20, 2017, Mathas emailed Schlatholt stating that “[a]fter much back
and forth I was voted out” and that Hollman did not get the Saints’ job. Mathas explained that
“unfortunately [Hollman’s] TCU sample threw them off,” and “[t]hey just struggle with seeing
beyond what’s right in front of them.” Mathas stated “I wanted to thank you and Travis for doing
everything in your power to get the saints (sic) job. . . . my apologies for it not going your way.”
Mathas concluded: “Certainly, should [the Saints] have any issues as you all have shared concerns
of other teams than (sic) that will be more the reason to get you back in.”
K. Longhorn is awarded the Saints’ locker project
44. On January 20, 2017, Mathas emailed Weiss of Longhorn. Mathas confirmed that
the Saints had chosen Longhorn for its locker room project and asked Weiss to modify Longhorn’s
agreement to include what they had previously discussed. Later that day, Weiss replied to Mathas,
19
stating “[w]e agree to the terms but will need a contract to make it official.” That same day, Weiss
emailed Mathas a copy of Longhorn’s purchase agreement. In the purchase agreement, Longhorn
provided pricing for the delivery and installation of its lockers. In the email attaching the purchase
agreement, Longhorn put Mathas on notice that “[a]ny and all enclosed or attached documents
which contain . . . pricing . . . is intended to be confidential in nature . . . .” Weiss requested that
Longhorn’s purchase agreement be signed and returned to him.
45. On January 31, 2017, Gozdzialski of TITAN, the general contractor for the Saints
locker project, visited Longhorn’s facilities in Texas. Gozdzialski told Longhorn that the purpose
of his visit was to discuss the installation of Longhorn’s lockers into the electrical system of the
Saints’ locker room. Before Longhorn allowed TITAN to examine Longhorn’s mock-up of its
Saints locker, Longhorn required TITAN to execute a Vendor Confidentiality & Non-Use
Agreement. Gozdzialski executed the Agreement on behalf of TITAN, a true and correct copy of
which is attached hereto as Exhibit F.
46. In the Agreement, TITAN agreed that Longhorn was “the copyright owner in all
copyrightable works of every kind and description . . . created or developed by them for purposes
of Design Drawing submission to Customer.” Id. at ¶ 2.1. TITAN agreed that it would not
“disclos[e] . . . any design . . . conceptualization, idea, configuration and composition of patterns,
color, products, materials, handicraft or other intellectual property . . . (whether in whole or in part)
created by Longhorn Locker Company, LLC and submitted to [TITAN] for review and execution
of scope of work.” Id. at ¶ 1.1. TITAN also agreed “to safeguard all confidential information at
all times so that it is not exposed to or taken by unauthorized persons and will exercise best efforts
to ensure its safe keeping.” Id. at ¶ 1.2. TITAN further agreed that it would “not use or divulge
any confidential information for the benefit of any person or entity other than [Longhorn].” Id at
20
¶ 1.3. Finally, TITAN agreed that it would “at no time, transfer, . . . disclose . . . or misappropriate
any confidential information . . . .” Id at ¶ 1.5.
47. TITAN inspected Longhorn’s Saints mock-up locker and took four photographs of
the locker without Longhorn’s knowledge or consent.
L. Mathas of Crystal Clear contacts Hollman and provides Hollman copies of

Longhorn’s copyrighted renderings and information about Longhorn’s
confidential pricing
48. On February 2, 2017, Mathas secretly reinitiated contact with Schlatholt at
Hollman, emailing: “Hi Gary it’s Kellie for the Saints call me when you can thank you !” Later
that day, Mathas sent Schlatholt an email with the subject line “sample.” Mathas attached as a
copy to her email Longhorn’s copyrighted locker renderings without Longhorn’s authorization or
consent. Longhorn’s renderings were altered because someone removed Longhorn’s name, logos
and copyright notice (or ©) from the renderings. Although Longhorn’s altered renderings were
attached to Mathas’ email, Mathas denied deleting Longhorn’s information. She explained to
Schlatholt that “this was the general look” of the locker that the Saints liked. She also said “they
want the seat to function that way . . . .” Mathas then asked Schlatholt: “What else do you need?”
Schlatholt responded, “[w]e went through each line item, and I do not see anything on here that
we cannot build to equal or greater quality. I can get this done for under $365k. I will get you
formal pricing tomorrow.” Mathas replied, “ok thank you that’s what I needed and I think getting
it under 365 would seal the deal.”
49. On February 3, 2017, Mathas emailed Schlatholt a revised construction timeline for
the Saints project with a completion date of July 20, 2017. Schlatholt told Mathas that Hollman
could “definitely meet that date.” Mathas requested that Hollman provide a quote. When Mathas
received Hollman’s quote, she expressed concern that, with tax not included, Hollman’s quote was
21
too close to Longhorn’s contract price stating “[c]rap that’s not good…that brings up (sic) closer
to [Longhorn’s] quote . . . .”. She explained “we should be approx.. $12-$15K less than
[Longhorn’s quote] for the same locker, with a better warranty.”
50. Schlatholt and Mathas later admitted that Mathas provided Hollman both
Longhorn’s copyrighted locker renderings and a good idea of Longhorn’s bid numbers. Schlatholt
also admitted that he knew all along that these were Longhorn’s renderings and bid numbers, and
Hollman was “just working to try and to just beat Longhorn Locker’s numbers so [Hollman] could
get the work.”
51. On February 6, 2017, Mathas emailed Schlatholt stating that “when you send
revised quote for new taller locker please also include the option for the shoulder pad gear rack
and tray drop down or we still will not be comparing the same locker” as Longhorn. Schlatholt
responded that “Ok, I will put those as added items on the same quote. what is the ‘tray drop down’
is referring to? Is this a pull out shoulder pad unit and a drop down?”
52. Hollman provided the Saints a sales quote, which included all the features depicted
in Longhorn’s copyrighted locker for a total estimated purchase price of $354,728.84, which was
nearly $23,071.16 less than Longhorn’s proposed contract price of $377,800.
53. On February 7, 2017, Jessica Richardson of the Saints, emailed Mathas, indicating
that Mickey Loomis was “nervous because he hasn’t really seen anything from [Hollman] to have
the confidence they can do this, but he said he trusts [Mathas] – so make sure they don’t eff this
up!”. A couple minutes later, Mathas forwarded this email to Schlatholt stating, “Gary see below
. . . no pressure here or anything!”
M. Hollman copies Longhorn’s copyrighted renderings and undercuts Longhorn’s

price
54. On February 7, 2017, Weiss sent Mathas three of Longhorn Locker’s copyrighted
22
renderings of the Saints football locker he sent to Mathas through WeTransfer. Each copyrighted
rendering included a copyright notice ( or ©) and a prominent warning that said “[t]hese drawings
and the information it discloses is exclusive property of American Independence Manufacturing
any reproduction or use of this drawings/designs in part of in whole without express written
consent of American Independence Manufacturing is prohibited.” Each rendering also bore
Longhorn’s FUSION DEFENDER™ word and design marks and Longhorn’s AIM™ design
mark.
55. Later that same day, Mathas sent Schlatholt an email with the subject line “Custom
Saints Locker Renderings.” In the email, Mathas copied and sent as an attachment three of
Longhorn’s copyrighted renderings of the Saints football locker to Hollman, Longhorn’s direct
competitor. Mathas told Schlatholt to “pay no attention to that logo they used that is wrong.”
56. Schlatholt admitted in his deposition that he “immediately recognize[d] . . .
Longhorn’s logo” on Longhorn’s renderings and assumed that Longhorn created the renderings.
Schlatholt also understood Longhorn’s copyright warning to mean “don’t copy that design—don’t
copy that rendering.” Schlatholt confessed that he knew that “some locker companies treats (sic)
their designs as trade secrets” . . . and was “aware of the fact that Longhorn has people sign
nondisclosure agreements.” Yet, Schlatholt admitted that he simply forwarded Longhorn’s
renderings to Bryan Martin, an independent contractor who prepared 3-D renderings for Hollman
and asked Martin to prepare similar renderings for Hollman.
57. On February 7, 2017, Schlatholt copied and sent as an attachment Longhorn’s
copyrighted renderings to Martin. In his email, Schlatholt said “[h]ere are a few more,” and copied
as attachments Longhorn’s copyrighted renderings entitled “Saints 1.jpeg,” “Saints 2.jpeg,” and
“Saints 3.jpeg.”
23
58. Schlatholt specifically told Martin to copy what was depicted in the renderings he
sent him. Schlatholt did not disclose to Martin that the renderings were copyrighted works created
by Longhorn. At the time, Martin did not know the source of the renderings or who prepared them.
He assumed Hollman had previously prepared these renderings for another customer, and
therefore, Martin did not have problem with duplicating or copying them. Schlatholt told Martin
he “needed the project done by tomorrow” so that Hollman could put a bid in for a project. Martin
responded that it might take him all night, but he believed he could do it.
59. On February 8, 2017, at 4:08 AM, Martin emailed Schlatholt stating that “[t]his is
as far as I was able to get tonight/yesterday (4 am).” As requested, Martin created locker
renderings for Hollman that were virtually identical to Longhorn’s copyrighted renderings as
graphically depicted below and attached hereto as Exhibit G:
Hollman’s Infringing Rendering (Exhibit G)
24
Longhorn’s Copyrighted Rendering (Exhibit E)
25
Hollman’s Infringing Rendering (Exhibit G)
26
27
28
29
30
60. Before the Saints project, Hollman had never designed or manufactured a locker
that included a split-back seat feature like that created by Longhorn.
61. On February 8, 2017, Schlatholt copied and sent as an attachment to Mathas copies
of Longhorn’s copyrighted renderings prepared by Martin.
62. In their depositions, Hollman, Schlatholt, Mathas and Finney all admitted that
Longhorn’s copyrighted renderings and Hollman’s renderings prepared by Martin look very
similar to each other. In fact, the renderings prepared by Hollman and Longhorn are so similar
31
that even Travis Hollman, Hollman’s president and CEO, was confused and unable to tell them
apart at his deposition.
63. Schlatholt testified that in his experience with working at Hollman, it was common
knowledge among Hollman employees—even its president, Travis Hollman—that Hollman would
“take a rendering from someone else and use it as a baseline for [Hollman’s] own renderings.”
Schlatholt testified that it was “commonplace” for Hollman to “get a competitors’ rendering and
use it in part of [Hollman’s] design.”
64. Martin later prepared additional copies of Longhorn’s copyrighted renderings and
sent them to Schlatholt. Schlatholt specifically requested that Martin remove the “pull out shoulder
pad,” among other features, because he was “[n]ot sure [Hollman] can produce that.” Once Martin
made the requested modification and sent it to Schlatholt, Schlatholt copied and sent to Mathas as
an attachment Martin’s copies of Longhorn’s copyrighted renderings.
65. On February 13, 2017, Bobby Huey—Hollman’s sales director for its athletic
division—sent Finney an email stating that “[w]e are grateful for the opportunity to work with the
New Orleans Saints on the upcoming locker project.” Huey copied and sent as an attachment
Martin’s copies of Longhorn’s copyrighted renderings. In addition, he attached a copy of
Hollman’s proposed contract with the New Orleans Saints and requested that the contract be signed
“as soon as possible.”
N. TITAN materially breaches Longhorn’s Vendor Confidentiality & Non-Use

Agreement and furnishes unauthorized photographs of Longhorn’s mock-up
locker to Hollman
66. On February 14, 2017, Gozdzialski of TITAN emailed Hughey of Hollman. In
material breach of its agreement with Longhorn, TITAN “attached some photos of the similar
Longhorn Locker which shows the locker has a metal plenum built on the back side of the locker.”
32
Attached to the email was a .pdf entitled “Longhorn Locker Mock-up 1-31-17.pdf,” which
contained the four unauthorized photographs of Longhorn’s mock-up locker that TITAN had
surreptitiously taken while visiting Longhorn’s facilities.
67. Immediately thereafter, Huey sent copies of the unauthorized photographs to
Schlatholt. Schlatholt then forwarded the unauthorized photographs to Rajat Agarwal—
Hollman’s product development manager. In the email, Schlatholt said “Check this out.”
68. Schlatholt later admitted that if “[Hollman] had to figure out how to build
something, [Agarwal] would the guy to figure out how to build [it].” Schlatholt confessed that
Longhorn’s mock-up locker depicted in the unauthorized photographs was in an unfinished
condition and therefore exposed Longhorn’s electrical and venting systems and other components
that would not normally be seen by the public once the locker was installed. Schlatholt testified
that TITAN had forwarded to him the unauthorized photographs TITAN had taken of Longhorn’s
locker at its facility of those parts of the locker that the public doesn’t typically see, and he simply
forwarded these unauthorized photographs to Agarwal, the “guy who builds things” for Hollman.
O. Hollman is awarded the Saints’ locker project and begins building a locker “to
match Longhorn’s mock-up design as exactly as possible”
69. Schlatholt emailed Mathas saying “[w]e will start getting shops asap.” Dan
Brown—Hollman’s Systems Engineer—emailed Schlatholt asking whether Hollman will be “able
to access shop drawings of the mock-up” Longhorn had designed and constructed. Brown asked
Schlatholt: “do you have other photos that shoed [sic] the mock-up locker in the existing player
locker room? Any help from the architect for existing shop drawings previously submitted” by
Longhorn. Schlatholt then contacted Finney inquiring about “shops that were sent over from
Longhorn.” Finney responded, “no shop drawings were produced that I’m aware of, but Kellie
may have something.” Mathas responded on the same email string “all I ever got from [Longhorn]
33
was a line item detail, renderings and a video to show the pull down to show the shoulder pads.”
Mathas and Finney later admitted that Hollman was actively seeking to obtain Longhorn’s shop
drawings. Having Longhorn’s shop drawings would have saved Hollman significant time and
expense in copying Longhorn’s locker.
70. On February 15, 2017, Schlatholt emailed Mathas and observed that “[t]he only
item that I did notice on a photo from [Longhorn] that was not on any line item from them or us
was the fan at the top of the locker?” Schlatholt later admitted that the fan he was referencing in
this email was the same fan depicted in the unauthorized photographs of Longhorn’s mock-up
locker taken by TITAN that Schlatholt observed and noted. He admitted the reason he knew that
the fan was not on any line item from Longhorn’s bid was because he “probably saw [Longhorn’s]
bid.” Schlatholt and Mathas later confessed that “Mathas either gave [him] Longhorn’s bid or at
least told [him] the numbers on the bid.”
71. Later that day, Brown emailed Schlatholt and Telema Vea—a draftsman at
Hollman—stating “[w]e have been awarded the New Orleans Saints project.” Brown said
“[a]ttached are photos, rendering, etc. to assist us.” Brown copied and sent as an attachment to his
email a copy of the knock-off renderings Hollman requested Martin to prepare and the four
unauthorized photographs of Longhorn’s mock-up taken by TITAN during its visit to Longhorn’s
facilities.
72. He explained that “[t]he Project is fast-track and I am requesting your assistance
and expertise to work together getting these drawings knocked out and begin the mock-up/approval
process.” Brown made clear that Hollman was “to match a [Longhorn’s] mockup design, with
stainless steel components, as exacting as possible.” According to Vea, he was instructed to
prepare shop drawings that were similar to Longhorn’s locker design. Hollman’s designated
34
corporate representative likewise testified that Hollman’s “design intent” at the time was to make
a locker similar to Longhorn’s locker as Hollman was instructed to do by Mathas and Crystal
Clear.
73. On February 16, 2017, Schlatholt emailed Brown enclosing “some more photos”
of Longhorn’s mock-up locker. In this email, Schlatholt copied and sent as an attachment to his
email the unauthorized photographs of Longhorn’s mock-up locker taken by TITAN. In addition,
Schlatholt emailed Brown another “mock-up photo” of Longhorn’s locker taken at the Saints
facility that Mathas had earlier forwarded to Schlatholt.
74. On February 20, 2017, Mathas emailed Schlatholt and told him that “I just had the
chance to tell Longhorn that they lost the job to you and I want to ensure that some of the things
they were stating can’t come to fruition.”
75. On March 1, 2017, Brown forwarded to Gozdzialski of TITAN Hollman’s initial
“locker shop drawings” prepared by Vea. Hollman’s shop drawings depicted several different
views, dimensions and annotations of its locker. Hollman created shop drawings that were
virtually the exact same dimension, size and shape as Longhorn’s copyrighted renderings and its
copyrighted mock-up as graphically depicted below and attached hereto as Exhibit H:
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
76. On March 16, Mathas copied and sent as an attachment Hollman’s knock-off
renderings, which are an exact copy of Longhorn’s copyrighted renderings.
77. On March 17, 2017, Schlatholt copied and sent as an attachment a high-resolution
rendering of Hollman’s knock-off locker, which is an exact copy of Longhorn’s copyrighted
rendering.
78. On March 23, 2017, Mathas copied and sent as an attachment three versions of
Hollman’s knock-off locker renderings to Jessica Richardson and Mickey Loomis of the Saints.
All three versions of Hollman’s knock-off renderings are an exact copy of Longhorn’s copyrighted
renderings.
79. On April 5, 2017, Schlatholt emailed Noel Torres of Hollman photographs of
Longhorn’s copyrighted mock-up, including the unauthorized photographs taken by TITAN.
80. On April 10, 2017, Brown emailed Mathas, Finney and Gozdzialski Hollman’s
revised “locker shop drawing” for their “review, use, and approval.” Hollman’s revised drawings
likewise depict virtually the exact same dimension, size and shape as Longhorn’s copyrighted
rendering and mock-up.
81. On April 14, 2017, Mathas emailed Schlatholt and Finney. Mathas requested
Schlatholt “[l]ook at the inside really carefully please” and “make sure the INSIDES of our lockers
function like this . . . .” In her email, Mathas copied and sent as an attachment three of Longhorn’s
copyrighted renderings of the Saints football locker. Each copyrighted rendering included a
copyright notice ( or © ) and a prominent warning that “[t]hese drawings and the information it
discloses is exclusive property of American Independence Manufacturing any reproduction or use
of this drawings/designs in part or in whole without express written consent of American
Independence Manufacturing is prohibited.” Each rendering also bore Longhorn’s FUSION
43
DEFENDER™ word and design marks and Longhorn’s AIM™ design mark. Schlatholt
responded “[e]verything will function exactly like this”.
P. Hollman manufacturers and sells its knock-off locker to the Saints
82. On May 4, 2017, Finney approved Hollman’s final shop drawings for the Saints
locker project. On June 12, 2017 and June 26, 2017, Mathas repeatedly copied and sent
attachments of Hollman’s knock-off renderings, which are an exact copy of Longhorn’s
copyrighted renderings.
83. Hollman began production and later installed its knock-off lockers at the Saints
facility. True and correct photographs of Hollman’s knock-off lockers installed at the Saints’
facility are attached hereto as Exhibit I. The Saints paid Hollman approximately $511,358.52 for
its knock-off lockers and associated accessories. Hollman’s knock-off lockers are virtually the
exact same dimension, size and shape with the same unique and highly-creative decorations and
ornamentation as Longhorn’s copyrighted renderings and mock-up, as graphically depicted below:
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Q. Hollman’s knock-off lockers have numerous manufacturing defects
84. As part of its agreement with the Saints, Hollman agreed “to fix all manufacturing
defects post project completion, in a timely and efficient manner….” After Hollman installed its
lockers, Hollman began receiving complaints from the Saints about defects in its lockers caused
by either player wear and tear or manufacturer defects. For example, the Saints reported:
• A broken weld under one of the locker seats;
• Split and broken wood near the one of the hinges of a cabinet door;
• The top portion of a split locker seat would not stay open;
• A broken weld connecting the seat to the lid of the shoe bin;
53
• Broken parts;
• Cracked wood where the bottom portion of the back cushion connects to the locker;
• An unattached weld from the seat.
At one point, Mathas emailed Hollman and said “please see below and add to the list. Is this type
of thing normal with brand new lockers?”
R. Hollman continues to infringe Longhorn’s copyrighted renderings and locker

design in other locker projects and in its brochures, website and other advertising
materials
85. Beginning in 2017 and continuing to the present, Hollman has been designing and
preparing marketing materials, brochures and additions to its website to promote the knock-off
locker it installed for the Saints. In one of the promotional brochures entitled “Hollman New
Orleans Saints lockers,” Hollman included photographs of its knock-off locker—a verbatim copy
of Longhorn’s copyrighted renderings and locker design. It also copied Longhorn’s copyrighted
renderings and locker design in a document entitled “SAMPLE WORK” where Hollman included
photographs of its knock-off locker. Hollman also copied Longhorn’s copyrighted renderings and
locker design on its website where it depicted photographs of its knock-off locker. Hollman also
copied Longhorn’s copyrighted renderings and locker design in shop drawings it produced for
other customers. Since 2017, Hollman produced and distributed multiple copies of Longhorn’s
copyrighted works to its customers, prospective customers, leads and referral sources.
86. For example, on September 14, 2017, Suzanne Manos—Hollman’s sales
representative—sent as an attachment photographs of Hollman’s knock-off locker to head baseball
coach Steve Rodriguez at Baylor University. These photographs of Hollman’s knock-off locker
are based entirely on Longhorns’ copyrighted renderings and locker. Later, Ely Bam—an
independent graphic designer working with Hollman—prepared renderings for Hollman of a
54
knock-off Baylor locker. The renderings created by Bam are virtually identical to Longhorn’s
copyrighted renderings and locker as graphically depicted below and attached hereto as Exhibit J:
87. Hollman later created shop drawings for the Baylor locker. These shop drawings
are virtually identical to Longhorn’s copyrighted renderings as graphically depicted below and
55
attached hereto as Exhibit K:
88. On August 21, 2017, Manos responded to a request for information from Scott
56
Schiamberg—an architect with Perkins Eastman in New York—about a Big 10 Division I
University for which Schiamberg was preparing architectural plans for a game day locker. Manos
attached photographs of Hollman’s knock-off locker, which are based entirely on Longhorns’
copyrighted renderings and locker. In her email, she said “[p]lease let me know if you would like
more information about it, or would like anything else.”
89. On January 22, 2018, Manos sent an email regarding Hollman’s bid for a locker
project at Southern Methodist University’ performance center. In her email, Manos stated
“[p]lease see attached sales quote for SMU Saints lockers.”
90. On November 28, 2018, Manos sent an email to Ryan Steinberg and Evan Feinglass
with the University of Connecticut. In her email, Manos stated “I have attached a couple of photos
for your review. Please let me know if you need anything else from us. We are thrilled to compete
for this project.” Manos attached to her email a PowerPoint presentation entitled “SAMPLE
WORK.” Hollman’s “SAMPLE WORK” included photographs of Hollman’s knock-off locker
and touted Hollman’s “[h]idden clothing storage behind the seat,” “[i]ntegrated bench design with
a custom head rest” and “[c]ustom quilted leather bench top and back.” The photographs of
Hollman’s knock-off locker in its “SAMPLE WORK” are based entirely on Longhorns’
copyrighted works and patented designs. Hollman offered to sell its knock-off lockers to the
University of Connecticut for “$390,000; No Design Fee.”
91. On February 14, 2019, Jason Haase—Hollman’s sales representative—sent an
internal company email to senior level executives at Hollman stating “[t]his is a presentation that
I have been sending with bids – leads – it showcases our past projects and encapsulates our
capabilities here at Hollman.” He attached to his email a .pdf document entitled “Hollman
Athletics Presentation.pdf.” On page 12 of the presentation, Hollman included photographs of its
57
knock-off lockers and touted its “[h]idden clothing storage behind the seat,” “[i]ntegrated bench
design with a custom head rest” and “[c]ustom quilted leather bench top and back.” The
photographs of Hollman’s knock-off lockers in the presentation Haase circulated are based entirely
on Longhorns’ copyrighted works and patented designs.
92. On March 28, 2019, Haase also emailed Tom Hersey of the University of Buffalo
and stated “[a]ttached is a .pdf presentation of some of our most recent completed projects for your
reference.” Haase attached to his email documents entitled “Hollman Athletics Presentation.pdf”
and “01 Athletics_Brochure.pdf.” On page 12 of Hollman’s Athletics Presentation and on page 3
of its Athletics Brochure, Hollman included photographs of its knock-off locker and touted its
“[h]idden clothing storage behind the seat,” “[i]ntegrated bench design with a custom head rest”
and “[c]ustom quilted leather bench top and back.” The photographs of Hollman’s knock-off
locker forwarded to the University of Buffalo are based entirely on Longhorns’ copyrighted works
and patented designs. In his email, Haase concluded “[i]t was great speaking to you in more detail
about the project, like I said we are very excited about this opportunity!” On its website, in its
brochures and marketing materials, Hollman repeatedly uses, exposes for sale, offers for sale and
sells its knock-off locker, which is an exact copy Longhorn’s copyrighted works and patented
designs. Attached hereto as Exhibit L is a true and correct copy of a webpage from Hollman’s
website as graphically depicted below, Hollman has and continues to infringe Longhorn’s
copyrighted works and patented design as graphically depicted below:
58
IV. CLAIMS
COUNT I: Direct and secondary copyright infringement by Hollman of

Longhorn’s exclusive right to reproduce its copyrighted renderings
in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 106
93. Longhorn repeats and realleges each of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-
92 above.
94. Longhorn is the exclusive owner of the ‘424 Registration for its copyrighted
renderings of its locker. Longhorn’s registration constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity
of its copyrighted work. 17 U.S.C. § 410 (c). Longhorn’s ‘424 Registration is valid and
enforceable.
59
95. Hollman directly and willfully copied constituent elements of Longhorn’s
copyrighted renderings that are original to Longhorn without Longhorn’s authorization. Despite
having access to Longhorn’s copyrighted work and professing that it does not take “short cuts,”
Hollman slavishly copied Longhorn’s complete copyrighted work in order to create a knock-off
locker with the desired intent to sell its pirated rendering as its own and to steal customers and
potential customers from Longhorn. Hollman had access and actually used Longhorn’s
copyrighted material to create its own infringing renderings. When compared side-by-side, an
ordinary layperson would view Hollman’s infringing works as substantially similar to the
protectable elements of Longhorn’s copyrighted work. Hollman engaged in volitional conduct by
engaging in the act constituting copyright infringement. In addition, Hollman engaged in willful
infringement because Hollman was put on actual notice that Longhorn’s renderings constituted
copyrighted works.
96. In addition, Hollman engaged in secondary infringement by committing
contributory and vicarious infringement of the ‘424 Registration. Hollman committed
contributory infringement because Bryan Martin directly infringed Longhorn’s copyrighted
renderings, Hollman knew that Martin was directly infringing, Hollman intentionally induced or
encouraged Martin’s direct infringement, and Hollman knowingly took steps that were
substantially certain to result in Martin’s direct infringement.
97. Alternatively, Hollman committed vicarious copyright infringement because it had
the right and ability to supervise Bryan Martin—the direct infringer, but declined to exercise its
right to stop or limit Martin’s direct infringement. Furthermore, Hollman had a direct financial
interest in the infringing conduct, and it profited directly from the infringement.
60
98. Hollman made copies of the infringing renderings prepared by Martin and
circulated them to and the Saints and its architect and interior designer. As a result of Hollman’s
direct and secondary copyright infringement of Longhorn’s copyrighted renderings, Longhorn is
entitled to recover its actual damages it suffered as a result of the infringement and Hollman’s
profits attributable to the infringement under 17 U.S.C. 504(b), for which Longhorn now sues.
COUNT II: Direct copyright infringement by Hollman of Longhorn’s exclusive

right to prepare derivative works based upon its copyrighted
renderings in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 106
98 above.
of its copyrighted work. 17 U.S.C. § 410 (c). Longhorn’s ‘424 Registration is valid and
enforceable.
101. A copyright owner “has the exclusive rights to . . . prepare derivative works based
upon the copyrighted work.” 17 U.S.C. § 106. A “‘derivative work’ is a work based upon one or
more preexisting works, such as a[n] . . . abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a
work may be recast, transformed, or adapted.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. “A work consisting of editorial
revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original
work of authorship, is a ‘derivative work.’” Id. “To constitute a derivative work, the infringing
work must incorporate in some form a portion of the copyrighted work.” Vault Corp. v. Quaid
Software Ltd., 847 F.2d 255, 267 (5th Cir.1988).
102. Hollman directly infringed Longhorn’s exclusive right to prepare derivative works
from its copyrighted renderings. Specifically, Hollman made derivative works from Longhorn’s
copyrighted works including its infringing renderings, shop drawings, mock-up locker, installed
61
lockers, brochures, website and other promotional materials. Hollman’s infringing works
incorporate in some form all or virtually all of Longhorn’s copyrighted work. When compared
side-by-side, an ordinary layperson would view Hollman’s infringing works as substantially
similar to the protectable elements of Longhorn’s copyrighted work. Hollman copied constituent
elements of Longhorn’s copyrighted renderings that are original to Longhorn without Longhorn’s
authorization or consent. Despite having access to Lonhorn’s copyrighted works and professing
that it does not take “short cuts,” Hollman slavishly copied Longhorn’s complete copyrighted
works in order to create a knock-off locker with the desired intent to sell its pirated locker as its
own and to steal customers and potential customers from Longhorn. Hollman had access to and
actually used Longhorn’s copyrighted material to create its own infringing derivative works.
Hollman’s infringing derivative works are substantially similar to the protectable elements of
Longhorn’s copyrighted work. Hollman engaged in volitional conduct by engaging in the act
constituting copyright infringement. As a result, in the course and scope of Hollman’s advertising
activities, Hollman misappropriated and used Longhorn’s advertising ideas and concepts for
Longhorn’s copyrighted work on Hollman’s website, its brochures and advertising, which resulted
in an infringement of Longhorn’s copyrighted locker and trade dress. In addition, Hollman
engaged in willful infringement because Hollman was put on actual notice that Longhorn’s
renderings constituted copyrighted works.
103. As a result of Hollman’s direct copyright infringement of Longhorn’s copyrighted
work, Longhorn is entitled to recover its actual damages it suffered as a result of the infringement
and Hollman’s profits attributable to the infringement under 17 U.S.C. 504(b), for which Longhorn
now sues.
62
104. In addition, Hollman willfully and repeatedly copied and continues to display
infringing derivative works on its website after having actual knowledge of the ‘424 Registration
in conscious and flagrant disregard to Longhorn’s copyrights. Thus, Longhorn is entitled to recover
statutory damages of not more than $150,000 per infringed work pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 504(c)(2).
COUNT III: Direct copyright infringement by Hollman of Longhorn’s exclusive

right to reproduce its copyrighted locker in violation of 17 U.S.C. §
106
104 above.
106. Longhorn is the exclusive owner of the ‘571 Application and the copyright to the
ornamental and decorative elements of its locker. Longhorn’s copyright is valid and enforceable.
Longhorn owns a copyright to the ornamental and decorative elements of its locker, as depicted
below:
63
64
65
66
107. 17 U.S.C. § 102(a)(5) specifically protects original works of authorship in the
categories of pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works. The “design of a useful article shall be
considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design
incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and
are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.” 17 U.S.C. § 101.
Longhorn’s copyrighted locker consists of an original work of authorship of a sculptural work.
Longhorn’s copyrighted locker consists of unique and highly-creative decorations and
ornamentation on a sports locker. Longhorn is not seeking protection for the locker itself nor the
locker’s mechanical or utilitarian aspects. Rather, Longhorn claims a copyright in its original
authorship and artistic expression reflected in decorative and ornamental features of the locker.
108. As is illustrated in Exhibit C, Longhorn’s copyrighted locker contains numerous
features of original authorship and creative expression that can be identified separately from and
which are capable of existing independently of any utilitarian aspects a generic locker. For
example, Longhorn’s copyrighted locker is a creative interpretation of a stylized football field with
a sleek and contemporary feel. Longhorn’s copyrighted locker is carved in wood, formed in
leather, decoratively lit with back lighting and trimmed in stainless steel. The dramatic use of light
and shadows brings the locker to life and adds a warm look and feel to the locker’s otherwise
contemporary style. In addition, the choice to adorn the locker with stylized yard lines made of
metallic trim pieces adds a feeling of movement to Longhorn’s copyrighted locker.
109. Furthermore, the creative elements of Longhorn’s copyrighted locker are not
merely standard geometric shapes with no additional design elements. It combines multiple types
of shapes in a variety of sizes, colors, materials and perspectives culminating in a creative work
that goes beyond the mere display of a few geometric shapes in a preordained or obvious
67
arrangement. In other words, Longhorn’s copyrighted locker is not a mere variation of the well-
known and typical box-shaped locker. Original authorship of creative expression is present in
Longhorn’s copyrighted locker through the selection, coordination, and arrangement of
ornamentation, lighting, texture, color, size, shapes, materials, images, words and other elements,
providing a sufficient amount of creative expression in the work as a whole. Therefore, the
distinctive features of creative expression and original authorship found in Longhorn’s copyrighted
locker satisfy the basic requirements of originality and creativity.
110. In Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc., the Supreme Court held “that a
feature incorporated into the design of a useful article is eligible for copyright protection only if
the feature (1) can be perceived as a two- or three-dimensional work of art separate from the useful
article and (2) would qualify as a protectable pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work – either on its
own or fixed in some other tangible medium of expression – if it were imagined separately from
the useful article into which it is incorporated.” 137 S. Ct. 1002, 1007 (2017). A feature may be
protected even if it retains the overall shape of a useful article if that feature can be imaginatively
removed from the surface of that article. See Star Athletica, 137 S. Ct. at 1012 (recognizing that
“[j]ust as two-dimensional fine art corresponds to the shape of the canvas on which it is painted,
two-dimensional applied art correlates to the contours of the article to which it is applied.”).
111. The figures depicted above are two-dimensional line drawings graphically
illustrating the claimed creative expression that can be perceived as a two-dimensional work of art
separate from the useful features of the locker itself. Longhorn only claims copyright in its original
authorship and creative expression found in the following combination of decorative and
ornamental features of the locker:
(1) a decorative football-shaped cut-out molded into the locker’s leather seat
back;
68
(2) sleek and contemporary shiny, metal trim pieces adorning and accenting
certain horizontal planes of the locker’s shelving and footlocker;
(3) a back-lit colored name plate on the top of the locker to display the player’s
name and number;
(4) a modern metallic inset screen on the locker’s footlocker with a clean, round
perforated grill pattern used as a backdrop to display the team name or logo;
and
(5) matching decorative contours and carvings on the locker’s side panels.
112. The solid yellow lines in Exhibit C are used to denote claimed creative elements,
while the broken yellow lines are used to denote excluded useful features. The creative expression
Longhorn’s locker qualifies as copyrightable material because the claimed expression can be
imagined separately from the useful elements of the locker itself and are capable of existing
independently of the utilitarian aspects of the locker.
113. The decorative and ornamental elements of Longhorn’s copyrighted locker have
pictorial, graphic and sculptural qualities which can be perceived as a two- or three-dimensional
work of art separate from the useful article. The arrangement of colors, shapes, and lines on the
surface of the locker can be separated from the locker and applied to another medium. As
graphically illustrated in Exhibit C, conceptually removing the surface decoration and
ornamentation from the locker and applying them in another medium does not replicate the locker
itself. The decoration and ornamentation on the sculpture are nonuseful pictorial, graphical and
sculptural works on their own, and separable from the locker. See, e.g., Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S.
201, 202, 214 (1954) (holding that the fact that a copyright registration for a pair of the statuettes
intended to be used as table lamps “with electric wiring, sockets and lamp shades attached” did
not invalidate their registration); Universal Furniture Internat’l, Inc. v. Collezione Europe USA,
Inc., 618 F.3d 417, 434 (4th Cir. 2010) (holding that decorative elements of owner’s furniture
69
designs were conceptually separable from furniture’s utilitarian design); U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE,
COMPENDIUM OF U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE PRACTICES § 924 (3rd ed. 2017).
114. The separable, stand-alone works depicted in Exhibit C contain a sufficient amount
of creative and original expression. Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc.,
499 U.S. 340, 345 (1991) (requiring only “independent creation plus a modicum of creativity”)
None of the creative features depicted in Exhibit C are part of a common or generic locker. Generic
lockers are not decoratively modeled after a football field complete with stylized yard lines,
endzones, sidelines, and a football-shaped cut-out on a line of scrimmage. Generic lockers do not
include decorative elements formed in leather. Generic lockers are not decoratively lit with back
lighting. Generic lockers are not trimmed in stainless steel. Longhorn’s copyrighted locker does
not reflect common or standard design choices from a well-established set of locker elements or a
combination of long-standing design features in sports lockers. To the contrary, the original
authorship and creative expression found in the various standard and non-standard shapes,
materials and decorative and ornamental aspects of Longhorn’s copyrighted locker, taken as a
whole, illustrate the creative choices sufficient to meet the requirements of originality and creative
expression.
115. Hollman directly and willfully copied constituent elements of Longhorn’s
copyrighted locker that are original to Longhorn without Longhorn’s authorization. Despite
having access to Longhorn’s copyrighted work and professing that it does not take “short cuts,”
Hollman slavishly copied Longhorn’s complete copyrighted work in order to create a knock-off
locker with the desired intent to sell its pirated locker as its own and to steal customers and potential
customers from Longhorn. Hollman had access to and actually used Longhorn’s copyrighted
locker to create its own infringing works including its infringing renderings, shop drawings, mock-
70
up locker, installed lockers, brochures, website and other promotional materials. When compared
side-by-side, an ordinary layperson would view Hollman’s infringing works as substantially
similar to the protectable elements of Longhorn’s copyrighted work. Hollman engaged in
volitional conduct by engaging in the act constituting copyright infringement. As a result, in the
course and scope of Hollman’s advertising activities, Hollman misappropriated and used
Longhorn’s advertising ideas and concepts for Longhorn’s copyrighted locker on Hollman’s
website, its brochures and advertising, which resulted in an infringement of Longhorn’s
copyrighted locker and trade dress. In addition, Hollman engaged in willful infringement because
Hollman was put on actual notice that Longhorn’s locker constituted a copyrighted work.
116. As a result of Hollman’s direct copyright infringement of Longhorn’s copyrighted
locker, Longhorn is entitled to recover its actual damages it suffered as a result of the infringement
and Hollman’s profits attributable to the infringement under 17 U.S.C. 504(b), for which Longhorn
now sues.
COUNT IV: Misappropriation of trade secrets by Hollman in violation of Texas

Uniform Trade Secret Act (TUTSA) TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE
§ 134A.001-.008 (2017) and the Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C.
§ 1836
116 above.
118. Longhorn owns certain trade secrets in its business including secret designs,
prototypes, patterns, plans, procedures, devices, methods, techniques and processes for its lockers.
Longhorn took reasonable measures under the circumstances to keep the information secret and
derived independent economic value, actual or potential, from its trade secrets not being generally
known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by, another person who can
obtain economic value from the disclosure or use of the information.
71
119. Although some components of Longhorn’s locker existed independently in the
public domain, Longhorn combined them in a unique and original way in a locker customized and
specially designed for the Saints. This unique and original locker design provided Longhorn a
competitive advantage. Longhorn combined the following components, which, taken as a whole,
comprised Longhorn’s trade secret locker design that it specifically created and confidentially
disclosed to the Saints:
a. The locker’s functionality, including the stainless-steel frame and

compartments, integrated footlocker and bench, hidden storage closet,
ventilation and lighting systems, lift-up head rest, fold down seat back,
and lift-up seat;
b. The locker’s split-seat back design, including the bottom and top portion
of the seat back;
c. The locker’s electrical system, including hidden junction boxes, step-

down transformers, low-voltage wiring and hardware, electrical cooling
fans and channels for routing power to various components such as
ventilation/drying fans and ornamental LED lighting;
d. The locker’s ventilation system including its plenum design,

termination and integrated air balancing system with baffles to
consistently regulate air flow among all the installed lockers; and
e. The locker’s hidden construction techniques, processes and methods

including fastener types and through-bolt construction to increase
durability.
120. Longhorn confidentially disclosed these and other trade secrets, including its
confidential pricing information, to the Saints, its consultants, architects and contractors as part of
a business transactions in which Longhorn expected to profit and which furthered Longhorn’s
economic interests. These authorized recipients of Longhorn’s trade secret information knew or
should have known that the information was a trade secret and the disclosure was made to them in
confidence.
121. Hollman willfully and maliciously misappropriated Longhorn’s trade secrets by:
72
(1) acquiring Longhorn’s trade secrets that Hollman knew or had reason to know were acquired
by improper means; (2) using Longhorn’s trade secrets without Longhorn’s express or implied
consent, and using improper means to acquire knowledge of Longhorn’s trade secrets; (3) using
Longhorn’s trade secrets without Longhorn’s express or implied consent that Hollman, at the time
of the disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that its knowledge of the trade secrets was
derived from or through a person who had used improper means to acquire them; (4) using
Longhorn’s trade secrets without Longhorn’s express or implied consent that Hollman, at the time
of the disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that its knowledge of Longhorn’s trade secrets
was acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain their secrecy or limit their use;
or (5) using Longhorn’s trade secrets without Longhorn’s express or implied consent that Hollman,
at the time of the disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that its knowledge of Longhorn’s
trade secrets was derived from or through a person who owed a duty to Longhorn to maintain their
secrecy or limit their use.
122. As a result of Hollman’s willful and malicious misappropriation of Longhorn’s
trade secrets, Longhorn is entitled to recover its actual damages it suffered as a result of the
misappropriation including its lost profits, the development costs Hollman avoided by the
misappropriation or the profits Hollman earned from its misappropriation under Texas Uniform
Trade Secret Act (TUTSA), TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 134A.004, and the Defend Trade
Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1836, for which Longhorn now sues.
123. In addition, Longhorn seeks an award of exemplary damages in an amount not to
exceed twice its actual damages under TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 134A.004 for Hollman’s
willful and malicious misappropriation.
73
COUNT V: Direct and literal patent infringement by Hollman of Longhorn’s

exclusive right to sell or expose for sale its patented design in
violation of 35 U.S.C. § 289
123 above.
125. Longhorn is the exclusive licensee of the ‘602 Patent entitled “Locker with folding
seat back.” An issued patent is presumed valid. 35 U.S.C. § 282. Therefore, the ‘602 Patent is
valid and enforceable.
126. Hollman directly and literally infringes claim one of the ‘602 Patent as depicted
below:
Exhibit A, Figs. 1 and 2. Despite professing that it does not take “short cuts,” Hollman slavishly
copied the entire design depicted in the ‘602 Patent in order to create a knock-off locker with the
desired intent to sell its pirated design as its own and to steal customers and potential customers
from Longhorn. As a result, an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived
74
into thinking that Hollman’s accused design was the same as the patented design. Hollman directly
and literally infringes the ‘602 Patent by selling and exposing for sale in its brochures, advertising
materials and website products that infringe claim 1 of the ‘602 Patent. In addition, Hollman
engaged in willful infringement because Hollman was put on actual notice of the patented design.
127. As a result of Hollman’s direct and literal infringement of the ‘602 Patent in
violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, Longhorn is entitled to recover its actual damages it suffered as a
result of the infringement, but in no event less than $250 under 35 U.S.C. § 289, for which
Longhorn now sues.
128. In addition, Hollman willfully continues to display photographs of its infringing
locker on its website after the ‘602 Patent issued and in conscious and flagrant disregard to
Longhorn’s exclusive rights to the ‘602 Patent. Because Hollman’s infringement is willful,
Longhorn also seeks an increased award of up to two times the amount of damages found or
assessed as permitted by 35 U.S.C § 289.
COUNT VI: Direct patent infringement by Hollman of Longhorn’s exclusive

right to use and offer for sale its patented design in violation of 35
U.S.C. § 271
128 above.
130. Longhorn is the exclusive licensee of the ‘602 Patent entitled “Locker with folding
seat back.” An issued patent is presumed valid. 35 U.S.C. § 282. Therefore, the ‘602 Patent is
valid and enforceable.
131. Hollman directly and literally infringes claim one of the ‘602 Patent as depicted
below:
75
Exhibit A, Figs. 1 and 2. Despite professing that it does not take “short cuts,” Hollman slavishly
copied the entire design depicted in the ‘602 Patent in order to create a knock-off locker with the
desired intent to sell its pirated design as its own and to steal customers and potential customers
from Longhorn. As a result, an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived
into thinking that Hollman’s accused design was the same as the patented design. Hollman directly
and literally infringes the ‘602 Patent by selling and exposing for sale in its brochures, advertising
materials and website products that infringe claim 1 of the ‘602 Patent. In addition, Hollman
engaged in willful infringement because Hollman was put on actual notice of the patented design.
132. As a result of Hollman’s direct and literal patent infringement of the ‘602 Patent in
violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, Longhorn is entitled to recover its actual damages it suffered as a
result of the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the
invention by Hollman, together with interest and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 284, for which Longhorn
now sues.
76
133. In addition, Hollman willfully continues to display photographs of its infringing
locker on its website after the ‘602 Patent issued and in conscious and flagrant disregard to
Longhorn’s exclusive rights to the ‘602 Patent. Because Hollman’s infringement is willful,
Longhorn also seeks an increased award of up to three times the amount of damages found or
assessed as permitted by 35 U.S.C § 284.
COUNT VII: Tortious interference of Longhorn’s prospective business relations

by Hollman
133 above.
135. Hollman intentionally interfered with Longhorn’s prospective contractual or
business relations with the Saints. There is a reasonable probability that Longhorn would have
entered into a business relationship with the Saints. Hollman either acted with a conscious desire
to prevent the relationship from occurring or knew the interference was certain or substantially
certain to occur as a result of its wrongful conduct. Hollman infringed Longhorn’s copyrighted
works and patented designs, misappropriated Longhorn’s trade secrets and used Longhorn’s
advertising ideas and concepts for Longhorn’s copyrighted locker on Hollman’s website, its
brochures and advertising materials. Hollman engaged in all of this tortious conduct with the
desire to interfere with Longhorn’s prospective contract with the Saints or with the belief that
interference was substantially certain to result.
136. As a result of Hollman’s tortious interference, Longhorn is entitled to recover its
actual damages proximately caused by Hollman’s interference, for which Longhorn now sues. In
addition, because Hollman’s interference was committed with malice, Longhorn also seeks
exemplary damages.
77
COUNT VIII: Direct and secondary copyright infringement by Crystal Clear and
Mathas of Longhorn’s exclusive right to reproduce its copyrighted
renderings in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 106
136 above.
of its copyrighted work. 17 U.S.C. § 410 (c). The ‘424 Registration is valid and enforceable.
139. Crystal Clear and Mathas had access to Longhorn’s copyrighted work and directly
and willfully copied Longhorn’s copyrighted renderings that are original to Longhorn without
Longhorn’s authorization. Crystal Clear and Mathas had access to and actually copied Longhorn’s
copyrighted renderings and sent them as copies to Longhorn’s direct competitor, Hollman. Crystal
Clear and Mathas also made copies of Longhorn’s copyrighted renderings and copies of the
infringing renderings prepared by Longhorn and Martin and circulated them to Finney and the
Saints. The infringing copies made by Crystal Clear and Mathas are identical to the protectable
elements of Longhorn’s copyrighted work. Crystal Clear and Mathas engaged in volitional
conduct by engaging in the act constituting copyright infringement. In addition, Crystal Clear and
Mathas engaged in willful infringement because Crystal Clear and Mathas were put on actual
notice that Longhorn’s renderings constituted copyrighted works.
140. In addition, Crystal Clear and Mathas engaged in secondary infringement by
contributorily infringing Longhorn’s copyrighted work. Crystal Clear and Mathas committed
contributory infringement because Hollman directly infringed Longhorn’s copyrighted work,
Crystal Clear and Mathas knew that Hollman was directly infringing, they intentionally
encouraged Hollman’s direct infringement, and they knowingly took steps that were substantially
certain to result in Hollman’s direct infringement.

78
141. As a result of the direct and secondary copyright infringement of Longhorn’s
copyrighted works by Crystal Clear and Mathas, Longhorn is entitled to recover its actual damages
it suffered as a result of the infringement under 17 U.S.C. 504(b), for which Longhorn now sues.
COUNT IX: Secondary copyright infringement by Crystal Clear and Mathas of

Longhorn’s exclusive right to prepared derivative works based
upon its copyrighted renderings in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 106
141 above.
of its copyrighted work. 17 U.S.C. § 410 (c). The ‘424 Registration is valid and enforceable.
144. Hollman had access to Longhorn’s copyrighted work and directly infringed
Longhorn’s exclusive right to prepare derivative works from its copyrighted renderings.
Specifically, Hollman made derivative works from Longhorn’s copyrighted works including its
infringing renderings, shop drawings, mock-up locker, installed lockers, brochures, website and
other promotional materials. Hollman’s infringing works incorporate in some form all or virtually
all of Longhorn’s copyrighted work. Hollman’s infringing works are substantially similar copies
of Longhorn’s copyrighted work.
145. Crystal Clear and Mathas engaged in secondary infringement by contributorily
infringing Longhorn’s copyrighted work. Crystal Clear and Mathas committed contributory
infringement because Hollman directly infringed Longhorn’s copyrighted work by creating
derivative works. Crystal Clear and Mathas knew that Hollman was directly infringing by creating
these derivative works, they intentionally encouraged Hollman’s direct infringement, and they
knowingly took steps that were substantially certain to result in Hollman’s direct infringement.
79
146. As a result of the secondary copyright infringement of Longhorn’s copyrighted
works by Crystal Clear and Mathas, Longhorn is entitled to recover its actual damages it suffered
as a result of the infringement under 17 U.S.C. 504(b), for which Longhorn now sues.
COUNT X: Secondary copyright infringement by Crystal Clear and Mathas of

Longhorn’s exclusive right to reproduce its copyrighted locker in
violation of 17 U.S.C. § 106
146 above.
148. Longhorn is the exclusive owner of the ‘571 Application and the copyright to the
ornamental and decorative elements of its locker. Longhorn’s copyright is valid and enforceable.
149. 17 U.S.C. § 102(a)(5) specifically protects original works of authorship in the
categories of pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works. Longhorn’s copyrighted locker consists of
an original work of authorship of a sculptural work. Longhorn’s copyrighted locker consists of
unique and highly-creative decorations and ornamentation on a sports locker.
150. Crystal Clear and Mathas engaged in secondary infringement by contributorily
infringing Longhorn’s copyrighted locker. Crystal Clear and Mathas committed contributory
infringement because Hollman directly infringed Longhorn’s copyrighted locker, Crystal Clear
and Mathas knew that Hollman was directly infringing, they intentionally encouraged Hollman’s
direct infringement, and they knowingly took steps that were substantially certain to result in
Hollman’s direct infringement by asking Hollman to make a similar copy of Longhorn’s
copyrighted locker.
151. As a result of the secondary copyright infringement of Longhorn’s copyrighted
locker by Crystal Clear and Mathas, Longhorn is entitled to recover its actual damages it suffered
as a result of the infringement under 17 U.S.C. 504(b), for which Longhorn now sues.
80
COUNT XI: Misappropriation of trade secrets by Crystal Clear and Mathas in

violation of Texas Uniform Trade Secret Act (TUTSA) TEX. CIV.
PRAC. & REM. CODE § 134A.001-.008 (2017) and the Defend Trade
Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1836
151 above.
comprised Longhorn’s trade secret locker design that it specially created and confidentially

and lift-up seat;
of the seat back;


81


durability.
155. Longhorn confidentially disclosed these and other trade secrets, including its
confidential pricing information, to the Saints, Mathas, Crystal Clear, Finney and TITAN as part
of a business transactions in which Longhorn expected to profit and which furthered Longhorn’s
economic interests. These authorized recipients of Longhorn’s trade secret information knew or
should have known that the information was a trade secret and the disclosure was made to them in
confidence.
156. Mathas and Crystal Clear willfully and maliciously misappropriated Longhorn’s
trade secrets by disclosing Longhorn’s trade secrets to Hollman without Longhorn’s express or
implied consent and at the time of disclosure, Mathas and Crystal Clear knew or had reason to
know that their knowledge of Longhorn’s trade secret was acquired under circumstances giving
rise to a duty to maintain the secrecy of Longhorn’s trade secret, or was derived from or through
TITAN who owed a duty to Longhorn to maintain the secrecy of or limit the use of Longhorn’s
trade secret.
157. As a result of the misappropriation of Longhorn’s trade secrets by Mathas and
Crystal Clear, Longhorn is entitled to recover its actual damages it suffered as a result of the
misappropriation under Texas Uniform Trade Secret Act (TUTSA), TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE
§ 134A.004 and the Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1836, for which Longhorn now sues.
exceed twice its actual damages under TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 134A.004 for the willful
and malicious misappropriation by Mathas and Crystal Clear.
82
COUNT XII: Breach of contract by TITAN
158 above.
160. On January 31, 2017, Longhorn and TITAN executed a Vendor Confidentiality &
Non-Disclosure Agreement. This Agreement is a valid and enforceable agreement. In the
Agreement, TITAN agreed that Longhorn was “the copyright owner in all copyrightable works of
every kind and description . . . created or developed by them for purposes of Design Drawing
submission to Customer.” TITAN also agreed that it would not “disclos[e] . . . any design . . .
conceptualization, idea, configuration and composition of patterns, color, products, materials,
handicraft or other intellectual property . . . (whether in whole or in part) created by Longhorn
Locker Company, LLC and submitted to [TITAN] for review and execution of scope of work.”
TITAN further agreed “to safeguard all confidential information at all times so that it is not
exposed to or taken by unauthorized persons and will exercise best efforts to ensure its safe
keeping.” TITAN additionally agreed that it would “not use or divulge any confidential
information for the benefit of any person or entity other than [Longhorn].” Finally, TITAN agreed
that it would “at no time, transfer, . . . disclose . . . or misappropriate any confidential information
to any . . . email account . . . .” In material breach of the Agreement, TITAN surreptitiously took
photographs of Longhorn’s Saints mock-up without Longhorn’s knowledge or authorization and
disclosed them to Hollman, Longhorn’s direct competitor.
161. As a result of TITAN’s material breach of the Agreement, Longhorn suffered
actual, compensatory and special damages, including its lost profits, for which it now sues.
83
COUNT XIII: Misappropriation of trade secrets by TITAN in violation of Texas

Uniform Trade Secret Act (TUTSA) Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code
§ 134A.001-.008 (2017) and the Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C.
§ 1836
161 above.
comprised Longhorn’s trade secret locker design that it specially created and confidentially

and lift-up seat;
of the seat back;


84


durability.
165. Longhorn confidentially disclosed these and other trade secrets to the Saints,
Mathas, Crystal Clear, Finney and TITAN as part of a business transactions in which Longhorn
expected to profit and which furthered Longhorn’s economic interests. These authorized recipients
of Longhorn’s trade secret information knew or should have known that the information was a
trade secret and the disclosure was made to them in confidence.
166. TITAN willfully and maliciously misappropriated Longhorn’s trade secrets by
disclosing Longhorn’s trade secrets to Hollman without Longhorn’s express or implied consent
and at the time of disclosure, TITAN knew or had reason to know that its knowledge of Longhorn’s
trade secret was acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain the secrecy of
Longhorn’s trade secret.
167. As a result of TITAN’s misappropriation of Longhorn’s trade secrets, Longhorn is
entitled to recover its actual damages it suffered as a result of the misappropriation under Texas
Uniform Trade Secret Act (TUTSA), TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 134A.004 and the Defend
Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1836, for which Longhorn now sues.
exceed twice its actual damages under TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 134A.004 for TITAN’s
willful and malicious misappropriation.
V. REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY OR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
168 above.
85
170. In accordance with Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Longhorn
seeks a preliminary injunction, or in the alternative, a permanent injunction against Hollman.
171. Longhorn would show that it is entitled to a preliminary injunction because
Longhorn can establish: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat
of irreparable injury if the injunction is not issued; (3) that the threatened injury if the injunction
is denied outweighs any harm that will result if the injunction is granted; and (4) that the grant of
an injunction will not disserve the public interest.
172. There is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits because Longhorn owns
valid and enforceable copyrights to its renderings and locker. Longhorn is also an exclusive
licensee of a valid and enforceable design patent for the ornamental design of a locker with folding
seat back. There is a substantial threat of irreparable injury to Longhorn if the injunction is not
issued. Hollman repeatedly and willfully infringed Longhorn’s copyrighted works and continues
to infringe the ‘602 Patent in its brochures, website and other advertising materials. The threatened
injury to Longhorn is substantially outweighed by any harm to Hollman if a preliminary injunction
is granted. Hollman will not be harmed if it is precluded from selling or offering for sale lockers
with infringing designs and ornamentation it ripped off from Longhorn. Conversely, Longhorn
will suffer and continue to suffer injury as a result of Hollman’s infringement and Longhorn’s
resulting loss of business and reputation in the market. Finally, a preliminary injunction will not
disserve the public interest because the public interest is never disserved by respecting valid
patents and copyrights.
1. In the alternative, Longhorn would show it is entitled to a permanent injunction
because it can demonstrate: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available
at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that,
86
considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is
warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.
2. Longhorn will suffer irreparable harm because Hollman repeatedly committed acts
of direct copyright infringement by reproducing unauthorized copies of Longhorn’s copyrighted
works and by making unauthorized derivative works of Longhorn’s copyrighted renderings and
locker. Hollman also repeatedly committed acts of secondary copyright infringement of
Longhorn’s copyrighted works. Moreover, Hollman has and continues to infringe the ‘602 Patent
by selling, offering for sale, and exposing for sale Longhorn’s patented design.
3. As a result, Longhorn has lost, and will continue to lose, potential customers and
other business opportunities. The remedies available at law are inadequate to compensate for
Longhorn’s injuries because it is impossible to determine how Hollman’ shocking and brazen
infringement has detrimentally affected Longhorn’s business, and therefore Longhorn’s damages
are impossible to calculate. Longhorn is suffering, and will continue to suffer, irreparable harm
by Hollman’s actions unless this Court enjoins Hollman’s infringing conduct.
4. When considering the balance of hardships between Longhorn and Hollman, a
permanent injunction is warranted. The harm to Longhorn far outweighs the harm to Hollman
because Hollman will not be harmed if it is precluded from selling or offering for sale lockers with
infringing designs and ornamentation it ripped off from Longhorn. But if a permanent injunction
is not entered, Longhorn will suffer and continue to suffer injury as a result of Hollman’s brazen
infringement and Longhorn’s resulting loss of business and reputation in the market. Finally, the
public interest is always served when the Court ensures compliance with the Copyright and Patent
Acts and enjoins infringers. Protecting valid copyrights and patents does not disserve the public
interest.
87
5. Longhorn therefore requests that this Court enter a preliminary, or in the alternative,
a permanent injunction enjoining Hollman, its officers, directors, employees and agents and all
those in active concert or participation with them from: (1) infringing Longhorn’s copyrighted
works or any future derivative works; (2) creating any derivative works from Longhorn’s
copyrighted works; (3) infringing the ‘602 Patent by selling, offering for sale and exposing for sale
any ornamental designs of a locker with a folding seat back (as depicted in claim 1 of the ‘602
Patent) in Hollman’s brochures, website and other advertising materials.
6. In addition, Longhorn requests the Court order that (1) Hollman remove all textual
and pictorial references to the locker it installed at the Saints facility on its brochures, website,
PowerPoint presentations and other advertising materials; (2) Hollman destroy all brochures,
PowerPoint presentations and other advertising materials that contain any textual and pictorial
references to the locker it installed at the Saints facility; (3) Hollman provide the following written
notice to its customers and potential customers to whom it sent the infringing materials and to post
the following notice prominently on the home page of its website for at least the same length of
time during which Hollman’s infringing activities occurred:
“The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas concluded that
Hollman, Inc. infringed Longhorn Locker Company, LLC’s copyrighted works and
infringed United States Patent No. D826,602 by designing, manufacturing, selling
and offering for sale the lockers Hollman installed at the New Orleans Saints
practice facility in 2017;”
and (4) Hollman file within ten (10) days of the date of the Court’s Order a sworn declaration,
signed under penalty of perjury, that it complied with this Court’s Order.
VI. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
7. All conditions precedent have been met or have occurred.
88
VII. REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
8. Longhorn is also entitled to recover its reasonable costs and attorney’s fees against
Hollman, Mathas and Crystal Clear pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §505. Longhorn is entitled to recover
its attorney’s fees against Hollman, Mathas, Crystal Clear and TITAN for their willful and
malicious misappropriation under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code §134A.005. Further,
because this is an exceptional case of patent infringement, Longhorn is entitled to recover its
attorney’s fees against Hollman under 35 U.S.C. §285. Finally, Longhorn is entitled to recover its
attorney’s fees, court costs, expert fees and other cost of enforcement against TITAN under the
Vendor Confidentiality & Non-Use Agreement.
VIII. REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
9. Longhorn requests a trial by jury.
PRAYER
For the reasons stated, Longhorn respectfully requests that this Court:
a. award Longhorn its actual, compensatory and special damages as set forth above;
b. enter a preliminary, or in the alternative, a permanent injunction enjoining

Hollman, its officers, directors, employees and agents and all those in active concert
or participation with them from: (1) infringing Longhorn’s presently existing
copyrighted works or any future derivative works; (2) creating any derivative works
from Longhorn’s copyrighted works; and (3) infringing the ‘602 Patent by selling,
offering for sale and exposing for sale ornamental designs of a locker with a folding
seat back in Hollman’s brochures, website and other advertising materials;
c. order that (1) Hollman remove all textual and pictorial references to the locker it
installed at the Saints facility on its brochures, website, PowerPoint presentations
and other advertising materials; (2) Hollman destroy all brochures, PowerPoint
presentations and other advertising materials that contain any textual and pictorial
references to the locker it installed at the Saints facility; (3) Hollman provide the
following written notice to its customers and potential customers to whom it sent
the infringing materials and to post the following notice prominently on the home
page of its website for at least the same length of time during which Hollman’s
infringing activities occurred:
89
“The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
concluded that Hollman, Inc. infringed Longhorn Locker Company,
LLC’s copyrighted works and infringed United States Patent No.
D826,602 by designing, manufacturing, selling and offering for sale
the lockers Hollman installed at the New Orleans Saints practice
facility in 2017”; and
(4) Hollman file within ten (10) days of the date of the Court’s Order a sworn
declaration, signed under penalty of perjury, that it complied with this Court’s
Order;
d. award Longhorn its reasonable attorney’s fees;
e. award Longhorn’s costs of court;
f. award Longhorn pre- and post-judgment interest at the highest amount allowed by
law; and
g. enter such other and further relief that Longhorn may show itself justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Joseph F. Cleveland, Jr.

Joseph F. Cleveland, Jr.
Texas Bar No. 04378900
jcleveland@belaw.com
Angélique M. McCall
Texas Bar No. 24104172
amccall@belaw.com
BRACKETT & ELLIS

A Professional Corporation
100 Main Street
Fort Worth, TX 76102-3090
Telephone: 817/338-1700
Facsimile: 817/870-2265
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

LONGHORN LOCKER COMPANY, LLC and
AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE
MANUFACTURING, LLC collectively doing
business as LONGHORN LOCKER, AMERICAN
INDEPENDENCE MANUFACTURING and AIM
90
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
In accordance with 17 C.F.R. 205.13 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i), I certify that on December
4, 2019 a true and correct copy of the foregoing complaint and notice of the institution of the action
was served by certified mail on the following:
General Counsel
U.S. Copyright Office
P.O. Box 70400
Washington, DC 20024–0400
Attorney General
United States Department of Justice
Attn: Director of Intellectual Property Staff, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530
United States Attorney

Northern District of Texas
Attn: Civil Process Clerk
Earle Cabell Federal Building
1100 Commerce Street, Suite 300
Dallas, Texas 75242-1699
/s/ Joseph F. Cleveland, Jr.

Joseph F. Cleveland, Jr.
994105-v1/15718-002000
91
Case 3:19-cv-02872-C Document 1-1 Filed 12/04/19 Page 1 of 16 PageID 92
EXHIBIT “A”
I111111111111111111111 111111US00D826602S
1111 IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII 1111111111111111111 IIII
c12) United States Design Patent oo) Patent No.: US D826,602 S

Allen (45) Date of Patent: ** Aug. 28, 2018
(54) LOCKER WITH FOLDING SEAT BACK DESCRIPTION
(71) Applicant: Sam Allen, Maypearl, TX (US) FIG. 1 is a perspective view of a locker with folding seat
back according to the present application.
(72) Inventor: Sam Allen, Maypearl, TX (US) FIG. 2 is a front view of the locker with folding seat back
of FIG. 1.
(**) Term: 15 Years FIG. 3 is a rear view of the locker with folding seal back of
FIG. 1.
(21) Appl. No.: 29/595,094 FIG. 4 is a right side view of the locker with folding seat
back of FIG. 1.
(22) Filed: Feb. 24, 2017 FIG. 5 is a left side view of the locker with fo lding seat back
(51) LOC (11) Cl. . .............................................. 06-04 of FIG. 1.
FIG. 6 is a top view of the locker with folding seat back of
(52) U.S. C I. FIG. 1.
USPC ........................................................... D61664 FIG. 7 is a bottom view of the locker with folding seat back
(58) Field of Classification Search of FIG. 1.
USPC ... D6/334, 335, 336, 368, 642, 664, 707.19; FIG. 8 is a perspective view of the locker with folding seat
D8/331 back of FIG . 1 shown with the seat back folded out accord-
CPC ...... A47C 7/021; A47C 27/088; B61D 33/00; ing to the present application.
B64D 25/1 O; E06B 5/006 FIG. 9 is a perspective view of an alternative embodiment of
See application file for complete search history. a locker with folding seat back according to the present
application.
(56) References Cited FIG. 10 is a front view of the locker with folding seat back
U .S. PATENT DOCUMENTS of FIG. 9.
FIG. 11 is a rear view of the locker with folding seat back
2,429,050 A * l0/ 1947 Decker .................. B6LD33/00 of FIG. 9.
297/ 188.03 FIG. 12 is a right side view of the locker with folding seat
4 ,153,313 A • 5/ 1979 Propst ..................... E06B 5/006 back of FIG. 9.
232/43.I FIG. 13 is a left side view of the locker with folding seat
D330,639 S "' J1/ l992 Munro ..... ....................... 297/ 17 back of FIG. 9.
D385,125 S * JO/ 1997 Zapf ....................... ....... D61642
D430,749 S * 9/2000 Natuzzi .......................... D6/334 FIG. 14 is a top view of the locker with folding seat back of
D495,5ll S • 9/2004 Dingess ......................... D6/368 FIG. 9.
D809,366 S * 2/2018 Gokcebay ...................... DS/33 l FIG. 15 is a bottom view of the locker with folding seat back
(Continued) of FJG. 9; and,
FIG. 16 is a perspective view of the locker with folding scat
Primary Examiner - Kevin K Rudzinski back of PIG. 9 shown with the seat back folded out accord-
Assistant Examiner - Paul D Bohannon ing to the present application.
(74) Allorney, Agent, or Firm - James E. Walton The evenly-spaced broken lines in all views are for the
CLAIM purpose of illustrating environmental structure, and form no
(57)
part of the claimed design.
The ornamental design for a locker with folding seat back,
as shown and described. 1 Claim, 13 Drawing Sheets
US D826,602 S
Page 2
(56) References Cited

U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
2010/0148552 Al * 6/2010 Bred! ..................... B64D 25/ 10

297/228.13
2016/0128490 Al• 5/2016 Cheng .................. .. A47C 27/10
5/655.3
* cited by examiner
U.S. Patent Aug. 28, 2018 Sheet 1 of 13 US D826,602 S

n----------------------------n
11 II
11 11
LJ ____________________________ u
11 11
11 11
11 ,-------------------------7 II
11 I I 11
11 I I 11
11 I _____________ ____________ J I II
IIL 11
11 11
rlr---------------------------~h
III 111
111 111
111 111
111 111
111 111
111 11 1
111 111
111 111
111 111
111 111
111 111
111 c- -J 111
Ill -- ill
111
11 L ____________ - -
t--j-~----------J 11 1
11
I I J - - - - - - - - - - - - - . , - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -11 I
111 I 11 1
I II I 11 I
11 1 I 111
111 I 111
111 I 111
II I I I LI
111 I 11 I
II I r---, Ill
11-------------..1.--------L.--....l --l 11
I r----------·-------rr-------- 7 11
11 II 111
11 11 111
I r============I I 111
: ....,,.:.-.'h ~1 -U{; l ll l
I ):'.• I I 11
I ·.;;•,.__, { 1 III
J i_. ::.1.:·i,;\f1 . I1 :J J
I ,·I I 111
I -,! I II
J .,?:.hH;.,i>!.7~====· nl1-lnl
I · · _,,._., '
J I11:
II---..._--....._ _,,,,~ II II II
II " = " ·;;;,_a,;.;"f,•;', u_w 11
11 •·~)~{ 11
II ,t· II
11 ·;·:, 11
II "i• 11
~ i :.
I I -~
'-f{ftltl_:;;~.,.·_, :..,
·'
': ll
11
11 :,- .111
I I -1:; I III
11 t~, L ________ J 11
n '.;'.1~·;..-,,: •.., .
LI • ,,;... ,·!.,,.,,,-..
I
I
r17
LIJ
I I ..,___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I Ill
11 1 II I
llt; _______________
111 II
..J.J. ________ :jl l
J 11
1-1 1 -
1 r--------
-- -
---
·- ---------------
-- ----
----
-- - - - - 7 11
H
111 11 1
111 III
111 ,----------------------, 111
111 I I 111
111 I I 111
111 I I I 11
111 I I 111
l ll '-----------------------' lll
Ill .111
W~---------------------------~~
FIG. 2
n----------------------------n
11 11
11 11
u ____________________________ u
11 II
11 11
11 11
11 11
11 II
II 11
1·1 11
II 11
rl I lh
111 I I
111 I
I II
111
I
I I
I I
I I
! I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I 11
I 111
I I 11
I 111
I 111
II 11 I
II II I
II 111
11 Ill
11 111
I 111
I I II
I 11 1
I 111
I 111
I 111
I III
I 111
l I II
I I II
I III
III
111
111
111
111
111
I II
111
I
I
I
I
H H
I I I
I I I. I
I I II
I I II
I I II
I I II
I I II
I I II
I I II
I I II
I I 111
UL------------------------ ---~~
FIG. 3
1-------------,
I I
,...-------------,I
I
I I I I
IL ____________ JI IL____________ JI
I l I I
I l I I
I l I I
I I I I
l I I I
l I I I
I I I I
1--------------1I
I
1--------------1
I I
I I I I
l I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I r I
I I I I
I I I l
I I I l
I I I I
I I I !
I I I I
I I I !
I I I I
i I l
I I I
I I I I
I I I I
~
I
:
I
I
I ~
I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
l I I
I I I
I l I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I ! I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
~r--------7, I l l : n---------T,
(~---------Li~--------------
I
i
,
r--------------•
l
L~-------- -L~
I
I I
I I I
I ! I
I I I
I I !
I I I
I I !
I J !
I I
II I' lL __ ______________ ___________ J!
L---------------------------~
FIG. 4 FIG. 5
nr---------------------------1n
I 11 I II
I II 111
II l II I
111 II I
II I II I
I II II I
II I 111
I II 111
111 II I
111 11 I
II I I II
I II 111
Hr------
II .. " --...,. " . .------------u---===~--tt1
. I II
rn r1
I
I 11
rp-========================~j\
I 11 I
I 11 I
I 11 I
I l1 I
I 11 I
I l1 I
I 11 I
I !1 I
Li--------------------------~Lu
FIG. 6
nL===========================~n
111
II I
II I
II I
II I I II
II I 111
II I 111
111 I II
I II 111
II I 111
III 111
II I 111
I II 111
I 11 111
111 I
I 11 I
111 I
I 11 I
111 I
II I I
II I I
J II I
111 I
I II I
II I I
II I I
I II I
111
II I
I
ur===========================~u
FIG. 7

FIG. 9
I
r-----------------------------------7I
I
I
I
r-----------------------------7I III
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I _______________________ _ _ ____ J I I
I I
I c...------=====:i I
L---------7-- ------------- r _________ J
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I ~-------:i I I
I I I I
l r:: l
l ~, l
I I
I
I
I
I
I
n-n I
11 JI I
f I 11 I
W-U
I
I
I
~ I
'-il I
I
'· I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~~': I
"
-~-
I
I
.:;..:.. I
.. ~~:~ I
~~:::~f~r·:<::~. I
I
~----,-------------------------,----~
r----7 r----7
I G'--------------------- ---✓1 I
lI l------------------------
------------------------=jI lI
I I I
I I I I
I I r------ - -----------7 I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
II II IL __________________ JI II II
I I I I
I I I
L----J------------------------~----J
FIG. 10
n-----------------------------------n
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I l
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
11 I
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
II
11
11
II
II
11
II
II
I 11
11 11
11 II
11 !I
11 II
II 11
11 11
11 11
11 II
11 II
11 11
11 11
11 11
I 11
I II
I II
I 11
I II
I 11
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
11 I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
iI II
I l
II I
11 ti
11 11
11 11
11 11
LI-----. -----------------------------LI
FIG. 11
,1------------ 7
II I
II I
II I
II I
II l
II I
II I
II I
II I
I 1. I
II I
II I
II I
II I
II I
II I
;,::f I I
U I
Ii I
II I
II I
II I
II I
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
;,: =\ I
II
., I
>?: I
·, I I
• I I
; I I
, I I
• I I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
h::~::~::::~:::::::::::~- l
I I
.I I
rl I
l I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I I
LL-----------------------~------------J
FIG. 12
r'
p-
I
-----------------------n11
I 11
I I lb
I I II
I . I 11
I I 11
I I 11
I I 11
I I 11
I I 11
I I 11
L I 11
I I II
L------------L-----------------------~J
FIG. 13
FIG. 14
n====--r:-:-:--
II
============= ------::::r====;,. I
II I
II l
II I
II I
II I
II I
I I l
I I I
I I I
I I l
l'I I
II l
II J
II I
II II
II IJ
II II
II II
JI II
JI II
II f1
II II
H
I I
H
II
I l II
I I II
I I II
II II
II II
II II
II II
II II
11 1,
IuI_______ ____ ________________________ IuI
FIG.15

EXHIBIT “B”
'
Case
;·
3:19-cv-02872-C
. > . I I
Document 1-2 Filed 12/04/19 Pagej 2 of 12 PageID 109
. · Gertific::ate of Registtatiotf
. . .. ,/ ' .-- . ._, .- .. •' •, . ·-. .
~: R~gistrJt:ion Nlimb~r ·· .
. ·v1t.2~ls3~424· · .
-.,Eff;~tivfo11e·otR~gistratio~:
February06,20i8 . .
'.:_: .>- :- :.: -~ - .-
~
<Completion/Publicatioh
-- ~- -- ··-. . ·-~ -• . -, '
Ye~r offompleti~~:• ·,2017 · •.

. . . riate~ofistPublication:', ·'August)l 2017 - .
Na don
--·
,-•_
of- 1st. Publication:·
- - . -
·· unitetf
-·· -
St~tes
·-' ..
--
;-.:
-
·... ,_. - '
..
·
· <Author
• Aufhor: L~nghornLockerCotLc· .·
. Author Created:' 2~D:attwork: . .
Workmadeforhire: ··Yes· 0
·•
. , Citizen of} ··united States
Copyrigh!ClaiJnant_' -~ i
.. - C,opyright C::Iahiui~t: l,~11ghg~tiLoc(e;'.coLLC . . _

P.O, Box 375~ :Venus,,TX, 76084, United Statef ·
·. Organization l\fa~ti: J,~\i,i Offi6~s of J;fues t W~ltgn, P:L.L c:

. . N~me: . JarneI; E:·waiton·i > .
. :Email: -jiin@~waltohpHo'.com.
Tel~phon1i: (817,)447,,99,55 . . .
<Address:· 1169 N. B1rrleson'Blvd.tSuite 107~328 ' .
' . , , Btrleson,
, \
TX. 76028
.. \ '.o~
Unit;d
.
States
,, .
•. .,
Certification
Name: Jatnes ;B, Walton
Page 1of 2
Case 3:19-cv-02872-C Document 1-2 Filed 12/04/19
SAINTS Page 3 of 12 PageID 110
FUSION
~DEfENDER
© These drawings and the information it discloses is exclusive property of American Independence Manufacturing any reproduction or use of this drawing/designs. In part or in whole without express written consent of American Independence manufacturing is prohibited
n_
••••••••
••••••
........................... .. .. .. -. .......
......................................-.............. . . -.... ...
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • "lo
............................
..........................
...........................
..........................
......
.............. .
.......... . . .-.
. .. ..-....
.........
.........
.........
........................... .. .. .. -. .......
......................................-.............. . . -.... ...
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • "lo
............................
..........................
...........................
..........................
Ir
EXHIBIT “C”
-----Original Message-----
From: Copyright Office [mailto:cop-rc@loc.gov]
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2019 2:44 PM
To: jim@waltonpllc.com
Subject: [SPAM] Acknowledgement of Uploaded Deposit
THIS IS AN AUTOMATED EMAIL. PLEASE DO NOT REPLY.
Thank you for submitting your registration claim using the Electronic Copyright Office (ECO) System.
The following files were successfully uploaded for service request 1-8073830571
File Name :note_to_copyright_office.docx File Size :26248 KB Date/Time :9/16/2019 3:38:57 PM
File Name :deposits_for_copyright_application_v04.pdf

File Size :8209302 KB
Date/Time :9/16/2019 3:39:10 PM
[THREAD ID: 1-3PJ43S8]
United States Copyright Office

From: Copyright Office [mailto:noreply@loc.gov]

Sent: Monday, September 16, 2019 2:34 PM
To: jim@waltonpllc.com
Subject: [SPAM] Confirmation of Receipt

THIS IS AN AUTOMATED EMAIL - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY.
Your Application and payment for the work Sculpture of Locker were received by the
U.S.Copyright Office on 9/16/2019.
PLEASE NOTE: Your submission is not complete until you upload or mail the material you
are registering. To do so, logon to https://eco.copyright.gov/eService_enu/ and click on case
number 1-8073830571 in the Open Cases table. Follow the instructions to either upload a
digital copy or mail a physical copy (with shipping slip attached) of the work being registered.
Additional instructions and requirements for submitting the material being registered can be
found at http://www.copyright.gov/eco/tips/.
SHIPPING SLIPS: If you mail physical copies of the material being registered, the effective
date of registration will be based on the date on which we receive the copies WITH
CORRESPONDING SHIPPING SLIPS ATTACHED.
A printable copy of the application will be available within 24 hours by clicking the My
Applications link in the left top most navigation menu of the Home screen.
You may check the status of this claim via eCO using this number 1-8073830571. If you have
questions or need assistance, Copyright Office contact information can be found at
http://www.copyright.gov/help/index.html#general.
United States Copyright Office

Longhorn Locker Co LLC (“Longhorn”) designs and manufactures high-end custom

lockers for professional and collegiate athletic sports teams. Longhorn seeks to register its new
three-dimensional sculptural reproduction of a work of art called Sculpture of Locker. Longhorn
is specifically excluding from its copyright claim to this work all preexisting two-dimension
artwork on the locker itself (including the preexisting fleur-de-lis, the New Orleans Saints name
and logo, and the player name and number) and all ideas, concepts, designs and functionality of
the utilitarian aspects of the footlocker, bench, seat back, shelving, cabinets and lockbox in
Sculpture of Locker.
Longhorn is the author and owner of the two-dimensional work of art entitled Images of
Lockers, U.S. Copyright Registration No. VA 2-153-424 (effective date of registration February
06, 2018). Because the U.S. Copyright Office found that Images of Locker “contain[ed] a
sufficient amount of original and creative pictorial” elements to register a copyrightable claim to
the images, Longhorn seeks to register Sculpture of Locker, a three-dimensional sculptural
reproduction of a work of art, interpreting, recasting, transforming and adapting the source work,
Images of Lockers, into a new work.
Sculpture of Locker is not an exact replica of Images of Lockers and includes additional
independent works of creative expression not found in Images of Locker. See Star Athletica, L.L.C.
v. Varsity Brands, Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1002, 1010 (2017) (acknowledging that “a replica [of a useful
article] could itself be copyrightable.”). Specifically, Images of Lockers is two-dimensional
pictorial artwork depicting four lockers. Sculpture of Locker, however, is a three-dimensional
sculptural reproduction of only one locker. Additionally, the shape, lines, perspective, and other
details between Images of Lockers and Sculpture of Locker are significantly different. The overall
shape of Images of Lockers is a horizontal rectangle, whereas Sculpture of Locker is in the shape
of a vertical rectangle. The valance that creates the continuous upper line of Images of Lockers is
longer than the upper line created by the valance in Sculpture of Locker. The perspective is
different because Images of Lockers only depicts two sides of the locker—the front and the left
side—and does not include a view of the back, right side, top or bottom of the lockers. On the
other hand, Sculpture of Locker includes all six sides of the sculpture. Images of Lockers includes
a depiction of Longhorn’s AIM™ word mark and its design consisting of a red, white and blue
shield with stylized wings and Longhorn’s FUSION DEFENDER™ word mark and design mark
consisting of a shield with crossed swords. In Sculpture of Locker, some of these word and design
marks are depicted on the backside of the locker but are created differently. The AIM™ design
mark appears in black on a stainless-steel plate and does not have the AIM™ word mark or the
red, white and blue color on the shield. The DEFENDER™ word mark appears in black on the
stainless-steel plate but does not include the design mark consisting of a shield with crossed
swords.
Longhorn claims a copyright in its new three-dimensional sculptural reproduction of a

work of art, interpreting, recasting, transforming and adapting the source work, Images of Lockers.
Sculpture of Locker contains numerous features of original authorship and creative expression.
Sculpture of Locker is a creative interpretation of a stylized football field. The work is in the shape
of a long rectangle—the same shape as a football field. A decorative football-shaped cut out is
molded into the leather seat back with horizontal openings, suggesting the line of scrimmage of a
football field. The work is adorned with sleek and contemporary shiny metallic trim pieces,
suggesting the yard lines of a football field. On the upper portion is a colored back-lit nameplate
to display a player’s name and number, suggesting the endzone of a football field. On the opposite
end is a modern metallic inset screen with a clean, round perforated grill pattern used as a backdrop
to display a team name or logo, suggesting the opposite endzone of a football field. There are
matching decorative contours and carvings on each of the side panels, suggesting the sidelines of
a football field to separate the field of play from out of bounds. The new material in Sculpture of
Locker is carved in wood, formed in leather, decoratively lit with back lighting and trimmed in
stainless steel.
Furthermore, the creative elements of this sculptural work are not merely standard shapes
with no additional design elements. Sculpture of Locker combines multiple types of geometric
shapes in a variety of sizes, colors, materials and perspectives culminating in a creative design that
goes beyond the mere display of a few geometric shapes in a preordained or obvious arrangement.
In other words, Sculpture of Locker is not a mere variation of the well-known and typical box-
shaped locker. Original authorship of creative expression is present in Sculpture of Locker through
the selection, coordination, and arrangement of ornamentation, lighting, texture, color, materials,
images, words and other elements, providing a sufficient amount of creative expression in the work
as a whole. Therefore, the distinctive features of creative authorship found in Sculpture of Locker
satisfy the basic requirements of originality and creativity.
The locker depicted in Sculpture of Locker is a useful article. The “design of a useful
article shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent
that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified
separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.”
17 U.S.C. § 101. In Star Athletica, the Supreme Court held “that a feature incorporated into the
design of a useful article is eligible for copyright protection only if the feature (1) can be perceived
as a two- or three-dimensional work of art separate from the useful article and (2) would qualify
as a protectable pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work – either on its own or fixed in some other
tangible medium of expression – if it were imagined separately from the useful article into which
it is incorporated.” 137 S. Ct. at 1007. A feature may be protected even if it retains the overall
shape of a useful article if that feature can be imaginatively removed from the surface of that
article. See Star Athletica, 137 S. Ct. at 1012 (recognizing that “[j]ust as two-dimensional fine art
corresponds to the shape of the canvas on which it is painted, two-dimensional applied art
correlates to the contours of the article to which it is applied.”).
Figures 1, 2 and 3 are included in the deposit. These figures are two-dimensional line
drawings graphically illustrating the claimed creative expression that can be perceived as a two-
dimensional work of art separate from the useful features of the locker depicted in Sculpture of
Locker. The creative expression in Sculpture of Locker qualifies as copyrightable material because
the claimed expression can be imagined separately from the useful elements of the locker itself
and are capable of existing independently of the utilitarian aspects of the locker.
The decorative and ornamental elements of Sculpture of Locker have pictorial, graphic and
sculptural qualities which can be perceived as a two- or three-dimensional work of art separate
from the useful article. The arrangement of colors, shapes, and lines on the surface of the locker
can be separated from the locker and applied to another medium. As graphically illustrate in
Figures 1, 2 and 3, conceptually removing the surface decoration and ornamentation from the
locker and applying them in another medium does not replicate the locker itself. The decoration
and ornamentation on Sculpture of Locker are nonuseful pictorial, graphical and sculptural works
on their own, and separable from the locker. See, e.g., Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201, 202, 214
(1954) (holding that the fact that a copyright registration for a pair of the statuettes intended to be
used as table lamps “with electric wiring, sockets and lamp shades attached” did not invalidate
their registration); Universal Furniture Internat’l, Inc. v. Collezione Europe USA, Inc., 618 F.3d
417, 434 (4th Cir. 2010) (holding that decorative elements of owner’s furniture designs were
conceptually separable from furniture’s utilitarian design); U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE, COMPENDIUM
OF U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE PRACTICES § 924 (3rd ed. 2017).
The separable, stand-alone works depicted in Figures 1, 2 and 3 contain a sufficient amount
of creative and original expression to warrant registration. Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural
Telephone Service Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 345 (1991).
Brief Description of the Deposits
Photograph No. 1 depicts the front portion of Sculpture of Locker.
Figure 1 is a two-dimensional line drawing illustrating those creative elements claimed on

the front portion of Sculpture of Locker. (The solid lines denote the claimed creative
elements in Sculpture of Locker. The broken lines denote excluded useful features of the
locker.)
Photograph No. 2 depicts the front and side portions of Sculpture of Locker with
measurements identifying the height, width and depth of the work.
Photograph No. 3 depicts the right side of Sculpture of Locker.

the right side of Sculpture of Locker.
Photograph No. 4 depicts a closeup view of the decorative contours and carvings on the
right side of Sculpture of Locker.
Photograph No. 5 depicts the left side of Sculpture of Locker.

the left side of Sculpture of Locker.
Photograph No. 6 depicts a closeup view of the decorative contours and carvings on the
left side of Sculpture of Locker.
Photograph No. 7 depicts the back side of Sculpture of Locker.
Photograph No. 8 depicts a closeup view the back side of Sculpture of Locker showing the
copyright notice.
Photograph No. 9 depicts a closeup view of the back side of Sculpture of Locker showing
the pictorial images of Longhorn’s AIM™ word mark and design mark consisting of a
shield with stylized wings and Longhorn’s FUSION DEFENDER™ word mark.
Photograph No. 10 depicts a closeup view of the decorative football-shaped cut out molded
into the leather seat back with horizontal openings.
Photograph No. 11 depicts a closeup view of the shiny metallic trim pieces.
Photograph No. 12 depicts a closeup view of the colored back-lit nameplate to display a
player’s name and number.
Photograph No. 13 depicts a closeup view of the decorative inset screen to display a team
name or logo.
Photograph No. 14 depicts the top portion of Sculpture of Locker. (Some useful features
depicted in this photograph are masked to protect trade secrets.)
Photograph No. 15 depicts the bottom portion of Sculpture of Locker.

Photo
Case1 3:19-cv-02872-C Document 1-3 Filed 12/04/19 Page 8 of 25 PageID 127
Sculpture of Locker
Fig. 1 3:19-cv-02872-C Document 1-3 Filed 12/04/19 Page 9 of 25 PageID 128
Case
Colored back-lit name

plate to display a
player’s name and
number suggesting a
football field end zone
Decorative football-
shaped cutout
molded into seat
back with horizontal
openings suggesting
the line of scrimmage
of a football field
Sleek and contemporary

shiny metallic trim
pieces suggesting yard
lines of a football field
Modern metallic inset

screen with a clean
round perforated grill
pattern used as a Solid lines denote
backdrop to display a claimed creative
elements
team name or logo
suggesting a football
Broken lines
field end zone
denote excluded
Sculpture of Locker useful features
Photo
Height = 110”
Width = 40” Depth = 46”
Sculpture of Locker
Photo
Sculpture of Locker
Fig.
Matching decorative contours

and carvings on side panels
Solid lines denote

claimed creative
elements
Broken lines
denote excluded
Photo
Sculpture of Locker
Photo
Sculpture of Locker
Fig.
Matching decorative contours

and carvings on side panels
Solid lines denote

claimed creative
elements
Broken lines
denote excluded
Case 3:19-cv-02872-C Document 1-3 Filed 12/04/19 Photo
Page 16 of 25 PageID 1356
Sculpture of Locker
Photo
Sculpture of Locker
Photo
Sculpture of Locker
Photo
Sculpture of Locker
Photo 10 Case 3:19-cv-02872-C Document 1-3 Filed 12/04/19 Page 20 of 25 PageID 139
Sculpture of Locker
Sculpture of Locker
Photo 11
Sculpture of Locker
Photo 12
Sculpture of Locker
Photo 13
Sculpture of Locker
Photo 14
Sculpture of Locker
Photo 15
EXHIBIT “D”
EXHIBIT “E”
FUSION
~DEfENDER
n_
••••••••
••••••
........................... .. .. .. -. .......
......................................-.............. . . -.... ...
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • "lo
............................
..........................
...........................
..........................
......
.............. .
.......... . . .-.
. .. ..-....
.........
.........
.........
EXHIBIT “F”
LONGHORN LOCKER COMPANY, LLC
VENDOR CONFIDENTIALITY & NON-USE AGREEMENT
THIS CONFIDENTIALITY, NON-DISCLOSURE, NON-COMPETE AND NON-USE AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into
and effective this ..1J..... day of 2,:.... , 20Q_ between Longho rn Locker~Co ., LLC ("Lon~ rn Locker" or "the
Company"), having its principal office in Johnson County, Texas and •1-A-AJ li:: ("Vendor").
L"D I,.} .·s.,-.'f.Nll- ~(_
WHEREAS, Longhorn Locker has been asked by Customer to provide Customer with custom design for
Customer's locker room(s), or the components of said locker room(s); and
WHEREAS, Longhorn Locker Company, LLC has asked Vendor to execute the required scope of work for
Customer's locker room(s), or the components of said locker room(s); and
WHEREAS, such designs are the intellectual property of Longhorn Locker and are only provided to Vendor in
completing an order from Longhorn Locker for the manufacture, delivery and installation of such locker room
components;
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises herein contained, employment of the
Vendor, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged and
confessed, the parties agree as follows:
1. NON-USE/NON-DISCLOSURE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY BY VENDOR

1.1 Non-Use : Non-Disclosu re. Vendor hereby recognizes, acknowledges, and agrees that the Company is the
owner of proprietary information, trade secrets and confidential information which it uses in business and
which provides it a competitive advantage. Except as provided by a written purchase agreement between
Longhorn Locker and Vendor, Vendor agrees to entirely refrain from the use, duplication, removal, transfer,
disclosure of any design, blueprint, drawing, conceptualization, idea, configuration and composition of
patterns, colors, products, materials, handicraft or other intellectual property (collectively such items are
referred to as "Design Drawings") (whether in whole or in part) created by Longhorn Locker Company, LLC as
submitted to Vendor for review and execution of scope of work. Vendor hereby recognizes, acknowledges,
and agrees that any such Design Drawings (whether used in whole or in part) are the sole and exclusive
property of Longhorn Locker Co ., LLC and provided to Vendor as scope of work to be performed by Vendor.
Vendor accepts and agrees that it is not entitled to utilize all or any portion of such creations without the
express written consent of Longhorn Locker for any purpose. Vendor further agrees to refrain from
incorporating any portion of any designed created by Longhorn Locker into any final design or product that
is manufactured by Vendor that is not expressly allowed by Longhorn Locker in written waiver.
1.2 Vendor agrees to safeguard all confidential information at all times so that it is not exposed to or taken by
unauthorized persons and will exercise best efforts to assure its safekeeping;
1.3 Vendor will not use or divulge any confidential information for the benefit of any person or entity other than
the Company;
1.4 Vendor shall deliver to the company all confidential information, tangible property and other things of value
to the Company in Vendor's possession or control, including personal notes and reproductions relating to
the business of Company or the work performed under this Agreement once services by Vendor have been
rendered.
1.5 Vendor shall, at no time, transfer, public, disclose, use or misappropriate any confidential information to any
private electronic drive, social network, electronic device, network server, email account, disk or other
method of electronic transfer without the express written consent of the Company.
2. COPYRIGHT
2.1 Vendor agrees that Longhorn Locker Company shall be the copyright owner in all copyrightable works of
every kind and description (including computer programs, internal reports, compilations of data and
publications) created or developed by them for purposes of Design Drawing submission to Customer. Should
Vendor assist the Company with any portion of the design or creation of design, Vendor hereby agrees, if
necessary, to execute written acknowledgment or assignments of copyright ownership of works covered by
the Agreement as may be necessary to preserve or vest such rights in the Longhorn Locker.
CONFIDENTIALITY AND NON-USE AGREEMENT Page 1

3. NON-COMPETE
3.1 A "Competing Business" means any person or entity that provides services or products that compete with or
displace any services or products provided by Longhorn Locker Company during Vendor's services.
3.2 During the term of Vendor's services by Longhorn Locker Company, and for a period of two years after
service, Vendor shall not engage, directly or indirectly, in any business (either financially or as a shareholder, .•
employee, officer, or partner) which is in any respect a Competing Business with Longhorn Locker Company
within a 100 mile radius of Ellis, Johnson, Dallas or Tarrant Counties, Texas in an effort to disclose, utilize or
execute proprietary information, confidential information or design drawings belonging to Longhorn Locker
Company, LLC.
3.3 The Vendor shall not directly or indirectly contact or participate in contacting any person or entity which
Vendor knows to be a customer, vendor, employee, independent contractor, investor or competitor of the
Company for a period of two years from the date of cessation of Vendor's services for any purpose related
to engaging in any business activity that could be competitive to the Company. Specifically, such purposes
could include but are not limited to (a) soliciting business for a Competing Business; or (b) attempting to
induce a consumer to diminish, curtail, divert or cancel its business relationship with the Company.
4. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
4.1 Vendor acknowledges that its compliance with Section 1, 2 and 3 are necessary to protect the proprietary
interest of Longhorn Locker Company. Vendor acknowledges that breach of any one of these paragraphs
will cause continuing irreparable damage or injury to the Company for which there is no adequate remedy at
law. Vendor agrees that event of breach or threatened breach by the Vendor of any of these sections,
Longhorn Locker Company shall be entitled to: (a) injunctive relief by temporary restraining order,
temporary injunction, and/or permanent injunction; (b) recovery of all attorneys' fees and costs incurred by
the in obtaining relief; and (c) any other legal and equitable relief to which it may be entitled including but
not limited to monetary damages. An agreed amount for the bond to be posted in an injunction is sought by
Longhorn Locker Company, LLC is one thousand dollars and 00/100 ($1,000.00). Longhorn Locker Company
may pursue any remedy available, including declaratory relief, concurrently or consecutively in any order as
to any breach, violation or threatened breach or violation, and the pursuit of one such remedy will not be
deemed an election of remedies or waiver of right to pursue any other remedy.
5. GENERAL PROVISIONS
5.1 Governing Law: Interpretation: Section Headings. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed and
enforced in accordance with the laws ofthe State of Texas. The section headings contained herein are for
purposes of convenience only, and shall not be deemed to constitute a part of this Agreement or to affect
the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement in any way. Venue for any dispute under this Agreement
shall be in Dallas County, Texas.
5.2 Severability. Should any provision of this Agreement be held unenforceable or invalid under the laws of the
United States of America or State of Texas or under any other applicable laws of any other jurisdiction, then
the parties agree that such provision shall be deemed modified for purposed of performance of this
Agreement in such jurisdiction to the extent necessary to render it lawful and enforceable. If a modification
is not possible without materially altering the intention of the parties, then such provision shall be severed
from this Contract for purposes of performance of this contract in such jurisdiction. The validity of the
remaining provisions of this contract shall not be affected by any such modification or severance.
5.3 Entire Agreement. This Contract sets forth the entire agreement and understanding of the parties and
supersedes all prior agreement, written or oral, arrangements and understanding between the parties. No
representation, promise, inducement or statement of intention has been made by any party which is not
embodied in this Contract. Neither party shall be bound by or liable for any alleged representation,
promise, inducement or statement of intention which is not stated in this Contract.
5.4 Binding Effect; Assignment. The rights of the Company hereunder shall inure to the benefit of its successors
and assigns. The Vendor may not assign or delegate rights or obligations hereunder.
5.5 Amendment; Waiver. This Agreement may be amended, modified, superseded or canceled, and any of the
terms, provisions, covenants or conditions may be waived, only by a written instrument signed by all partie
I
or, in the case of a waiver, by the party waiving compliance. The failure of any party at any time or times to

require performance of any provision hereof shall in no manner affect the right to enforce the same. No
waiver by any party of any condition contained in this Contract, in any one or more instances, shall be
deemed to be or construed as a further or continuing waiver of any such condition or breach, or as a waiver
of any other condition or of the breach of any other term, provision or covenant.
5.6 Attorneys' Fees. In the event a party must hire a lawyer to bring suit and or otherwise seek enforcement of
any provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall receive from the non-prevailing party payments
for all attorneys' fees, court costs, expert witness fees and other costs of enforcement in connection with
enforcing or declaring that party's rights.
5.7 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed simultaneously in two or more counterparts, each of which
shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. This
Contract shall be binding when one or more counterparts hereof, individually or taken together, shall bear
the signatures of the parties reflected hereon as signatories.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written,
but to be effective as set forth above.
OCKER COMPANY, LLC

EXHIBIT “G”
From: Gary Schlatholt

To: Kellie Mathas
Subject: FW: Saints Locker
Date: Wednesday, February 8, 2017 9:57:19 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Kellie,
Here you go.
Gary Schlatholt
Director
Athletic Division
1825 W. Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 110

Irving, Texas 75038
P 972.815.4023 | F 972.815.2921 | C 214-475-4400
gary@hollman.com
www.hollman.com
EXHIBIT “H”
From: Kimberly Finney

To: Mollee McKee
Cc: Kellie Mathas; Gary Schlatholt; Dan Brown; Bobby Hughey; Osie Carroll; Tom Gozdzialski
Subject: Re: Shop Drawings from May 1, 2017
Date: Thursday, May 4, 2017 9:46:45 AM
Attachments: Saint locker shop drawings APPROVED 170504.pdf
Mollee:
Please find attached the approved shop drawings for the Saints lockers. We look forward to
reviewing the finished product when we visit in a couple of weeks. Kellie needs to review the
change order quote and sign off on that separately. Thanks.
Kim
Sincerely,
Kimberly Finney, Architect, LEED AP

Principal
Kimberly Finney Architect, LLC

1558 Annunciation Street
New Orleans, LA 70130
PH: (504) 754-1275

cell: (504) 908-3191
www.kfallc.com
On May 4, 2017, at 9:20 AM, Mollee McKee <mollee@hollman.com> wrote:
Confirmed. We will use the deep V cut option for the fleur de lis
Mollee McKee
Project Coordinator
Athletics Division
<image001.png>
1825 W. Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 110
Irving, Texas 75038
P 972.815.4045 | F 972.815.2921 |
mollee@hollman.com
www.hollman.com
NOTICE: This email and any attachments may contain confidential, non-public information and is intended solely for use by the intended
recipient(s). Any other use, disclosure, viewing, copying, alteration, or distribution of, or reliance on this information is strictly
prohibited. Hollman, Inc. makes no representation regarding the absence of any virus in any attachment and expressly disclaims any
responsibility for any damage suffered from the presence of a virus.
HQ)LLMAN TRANSMITTAL
1825 W. Walnut Hill Lane, Irving, Texas 75038 Date: 05/4//2017
Tel : (972) 815-4000, Fax: (972) 815-2921
www.hollman.com
To: New Orleans Sa ints Project Name: New Orleans Saints - Football
Order No.: LO-88791
Phone: (504) 754-1275 Design Engineer: Dan Brown

email: kir@tt:.OOTl Phone : (972) 815-4000
Email: dan@hollman .com
Attn: Kimberly Finney
We are sending you via Email:
0 Samples 0 Deposit Invoice

0 Shop drawings/submittals 0 Installation Instructions
O Product/Leed Data D Other
Attached please find our revised locker shop drawings and room layout.
These are being sent for your review, use, and approval.
Sign, date, and return to enable release for production at your earliest convenience.
Thank you.
Action Requested Bv: 5/4/2017
D
D
D
proved as submitted
Approved as noted
Revised & resubmit
Other as noted
""' ~ .Yt::'
f'F/ .,....,..--
V j
LeadUme Lead time for project is 8-10 weeks after the receipt of approvals and deposit.
Delays in approval and/or deposit may affect the delivery date
Sincerely,
Hollman Inc.
Dan Brown
Design Engineer
:~-"v:-1.--0"
01---S_W_IS_O_~-}-
SE ISO VIEW
Scale: 1" = 1'-0"
Iarr. 0t % I.OCKER:: FRNffiS! JJM QP[{J ..,,.Ell!, ES'lliSSO- FOIISH
HO)LLMAN $.1,c( 1976
1&2.S w. V'#c1hul Hil tono. M°lg IX. , ~

P: 1'72)8 1.).4CXX> f: (972)81.)..292 1
www.holmOn.com
IFOOlBAtb ~~0¢KER! Th1s docuJMnl iJ the ptoperty ol Holln'MIII, Inc. ~nd

b "°'- to be: used wlhout M lt.en permiuion
38 112"
1
I, Case
1
I, 3:19-cv-02872-C Document 1-8 Filed 12/04/19 Page 5 of 7 PageID 170
LOCKER WIDTH
(W0-1) 11-3/4"H VALANCE PANEL,

FLUSH TO FRONT
!!
M
;:
38112"
(W0-1) REMOVABLE, MAGNETIC NAME

-' .--
!o #
PLATE HOLDER LIGHT BOX FRONT
(ACRYLIC GRAP HICS PANEL, 118"
THICK. 34-3/4" X 4". F&I BY OTHERS) 1-----------t------r--- 2-1/2"0 HVAC TUBE
CONNECTION
SAMET, 0-LITE,
-r- SOFT-CLOSE, LIFT ARMS
HOLLMAN STAINLESS STEEL

'\. SHOULDER PAD HOLDER
STAINLESS STEEL BOX INTERIOR

'\.
14 112"
\.
'\
(W0-1) SHOULDER PAO LIFT DOOR
~
N
N PERFORATED VENTILATION
i
I I;
'\ RICHELIEU , 305128195 PULLS,
'\ 128mm CTC, 8-3I16" L, POWDER
COAT MATTE BLACK
rf i';J
LEVITON USBIPOWER OUTLET,
BLACK WITH STAINLESS COVER ,
CENTERED ON OPENING
~§I ~
DIVIDER BETV'I\NEN HELMET
STORAGE ANO PERSONAL STORAGE
_ _ _"TllL _ __ CUBBIES. STAINLESS STEEL UPPER
BOX CONSTRUCTION
HOLLMAN ID TAG
~ .,i,. (F-1) FLIP UP DOOR CUSHION
~
\!?
-
/ 24" '
~
/
/ 25 318" HOLLMAN STAINLESS STEEL
/
" WARDROBE HOOKS (I)
a=:
' (W0-1) INTERIOR
I w
::.:::
j
ANO DIVIDER
\ I
\ I ~~
I
~ ~
\ I ~
\ I
I ;~
I
\ VENTILATION CUT-OUTS,
\ I (F-1) FLIP DOWN OOOR CUSHION METAL MESH BACK 12 5
\
\ I
I
. s ~~ LL.
C>
\ I 0
I UJ I
\ I (F-1) 2"H BENCH CUSHION

s.
UJ
;...
II
t--t
>
-.-4
II
..... j;
STAINLESS STEEL t--t
-.-4
<Ii a: v
-'.--
LIFTING BENCH TOP
RECESSED LED LIGHT
> "iij
tX -'i.- 0
t--t
"iij
tX
STRIP AT TOP
APPLIED LOGO PLAQUE,
PAINTED BACK & GOLD
I-
z a:
w
0 I-
!o
PERFORATED
STAINLESS STEEL
BENCH BOX FRONT
a:
LL
zt--t
(W0-1) 1-PC BENCH FRONT 4" H LOCKER PLATFORM,
2x4 P.T., 11111TH 1/2"
PLYVVOOO DECK
-'i.-
!,r
(W0-1) 4"H V,.,000
BASE TRIM
(WD-1) 11-3l4'H VALANCE PANEL,
(VVD-1) 11-3/4"H VALANCE PANEL.
FLUSH TO FRONT
~ ~
FLUSH TO FRONT
z
(V\/D-1 ) REMOVABLE, MAGNETIC NAME
:: :,.
?i ;!;
!;:
(WD-1 ) REMOVABLE, MAGNETIC NAME < Ill
~
~
:i
g~
~ rj
PLATE HOLDER LIGHT BOX FRONT !;: PLATE HOLDE R LIGHT BOX FRONT ~ .§E
(ACRYLIC GRAPH ICS PANEL, 1/8" 20' 3• 3• 20"
(ACRYLIC GRAPHICS PANEL, 1/8" E
0 H
THICK, 33-1 /2" X4", F&I BY OTHERS) 2-1/2"IZI HVAC TUBE THICK, 33-1/2" X4", F&I BYOTHERS) l; 5
~ !
CONNECTION H
p
:!:
i j o.)
l ·;
~ ~
SAMET, 0-LITE, SAMET , D-LITE, -"l
SOFT-CLOSE , LIFT ARMS SOFT-CLOSE, LIFT ARMS 3: i·
~
.,i~
HOLLMAN SUPPLIED,
STAINLESS STEEL
DUCTVIJORK, ATTACHED
HOLLMAN STAINLESS STEEL
SHOULDER PAD HOLDER G) ~
/:c ,o
INDIVIDUALLY TO EACH
(VVD-1 ) SHOULDER PAD LIFT DOOR
LOCKER
::r::
iJi
RICHELIEU, 305128195 PULLS,
128mm CTC, 8-3/16"L, POWDER I
COAT MATTE BLACK
co
I a
.,~ .,iii
~
!
Ir I!
"'
STAINLESS SHOULDER PAD
HOLDER CUBBY
"'
LEVITON USB/POWER OUTLET, i
BLACK WITH STAINLESS COVER,
CENTERED ON OPENING
f l
LED PUCK LIGHTS J
(TVIJO EACH)
STAINLESS STEEL PERSONAL
STORAGE CUBBY
i
:I
''
STAINLESS STEE L HELMET
OIGI LOCK, APH, RECESS MOUNT, e
~
STORAGE CUBBY 20"
$ ~ i
HOLLMAN STAINLESS
STEEL WARDROBE HOOKS ,
VIIITH PULL, BLACK FINISH
HOLLMAN IDTAG
-
T\/\0 EACH
COAT ROD
{F-1) FLIP UP DOOR CUSHION
GAS FILLED SUPPORT STRUT
BLUM , CONCEALED, SOFT-CLOSE

CUSHION STOP AN GLE EURO HINGES, 86' SWING STOP
1--.
8 ~
(VVD-1) INTERIOR
/' - ~
"'...
~
...
(')
"'...
(WD-1) INTERIOR
i
en
I
~
a:::
LL.I
)i'
!
"'
(F-1) FLIP DOWN DOOR C USHION {WD-1) RADIUSED SIDE PANEL
i
~ ~ I
j ~5
RP FIVE KNUCKLE HINGES, BLAJ
(F-1) 2"H BENCH CUSHION

I 24"
20 1/2" 3:
LU
•0
I
;..,
24"
18 7/1 6"
18"
{F-1) 2"H BENCH
CUSHION
s
w
9 ;--,
~~ I
lL.
JII
I
> =...cu 1
t,,,-4
II
STAIN LESS STEEL STAINLESS STEEL
II
> •...cu
LIFTING BENCH TOP
1----4 LIFTING BENCH TOP
z ~ z ro~
3/8"
0 0
t,,,-4
RECESSED LED LIGHT
STRIP AT TOP
MAXI-LIFTS
6 MAXI-LIFTS
RECESSED LED LIGHT
STRIP AT TOP t;
~ w
!o
STAINLESS STEEL BENCH ~ STAINLESS STEEL BENCH
BOX.PERFORATED FRONT ' - - VOID SPACE LU / VOID SPACE _ /
BOX, PERFORATED
CJ)
AND BACK U) FRONT AND BACK
(V\/0·1) 1·PC BENCH FRONT (W0-1 ) 1-PC BENCH FRONT
(V\/0·1) 4"H WOOD :,. (W0-1 ) 4"H WOOD

:,.
BASE TRIM BASE TRIM
f+ 42"
.,l .,l
3· l l
1
3·
'1
42"
t{
28 1/4"
231 • (19'-3"1 / ~ .I.F 269 1/2" (22'-5 1/2"] 58 3/4' ~

541/2" I
\/.1.F. V.I.F.
NOTE: LOCKERS SPACED

_J~~
3" OFF BACK WALL FOR
V ""' ss ;r V :. . ~
r \_
HVAC DUCT (TYP.) 57 59 60 61 62 \ 63 64 65 66 67 68 69
46"(\/.I.F.)
6
-'1,----1'1--
~ PANELS
CORNER FILLER
BY HOLLMAN
FLOOR
CLEANOUT
FILLER
PANEL
CORNER FILLER
PANELS BY HOLLMAN
y ~ r-- >
I 346 1/2' [28'-10 112")

24" I
\D
LI"} c I
V.1.F
0
~ LI"} .... I
_,_ _, I
LI"} I-
N
~BE
~---~--------~~ - . <m ~BE
~
;.:
I [
~
44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 X ;;a;
...
IO I ........ '<t
LI)
O'?
a,
=- -
_,_
I
m
CORNER FILLER
PANELS BY HOLLMAN I I ;;
I :!:':
<")
;;;
'<t
-I ~
I I I
N
N
MILL\/\K)RK UNITS
(F&I BY OTHERS)
EXTENDED FINISHED
END PANEL HOLD LOCKERS 15' OFF I :,;
'<t - 15" BACK
.____ WALL,
__ THIS
_ROWONLY
_ ___.
I
-
~
.
~w.m(E
.-t
'<t
0
'<t
I I
I HOLD LOCKERS 15' OFF
BACK WALL, THIS ROW ONLY ~ /ll 15"
I. 451 /4"
FINISHED
END PANEL 1
J
EXTENDED FINISHED _
O'I END PANEL TYP.
m
rm
~)45114"
FINISHED
N
~
END PANELS
00
m 6'"',s· TV ACCENT WALL
IT>.)
w
f"?
I
'iii
§"
r--
.p.
N
C!.
I ~ ~
m
1=.0wwr(E
~
a, i g ~
~ ~
U)
N
1.11
~ B
\D
m
; ~
~
O'I f2 5 e
.....~ ----
in
m § ~
.....,
- ----
~
.,..... , / SE
CORNER FILLER
.__,.._~,,if,, PANELS BY HOLLMAN
lE ts 0£ 6Z 8Z LZ gz sz 17Z £Z zz tz oz 6t St Lt 9t St tt
CORNER FILLER
PANELS BY HOLLMAN~
01: 6 8] \...-
J
f
,_
n
-.-·.. --·
4,/"IQI 7
••
IT
-....1
,,., ,, •
695 3/4" [57'-11 314"1
......... -- .......... 311 3/4' [25'-11 314"]
\ 52 7/8" (V.1.F.)
NOTE: LOCKERS SPACED
>
>
2-112' 1il HVAC TUBE
CONNECTION
J 38 112·
TYP.
~:
I HVAC I
L......-...J ◄
'l
\ 62 1~2" (V.I.F.)
j
3" OFF BACK WALL FOR ,_........_............... .... ... . & _ A _ A _ A _ . . . . _ _....._ ...._ ....._ A _ . t r . _ . . a . )
HVAC DUCT (TYP.)

8] !W-89232!
•
PLAN VIEW ~ 3/1/2017
1 Scale: 1/8" = 1 '-0"
• -
EXHIBIT “I”
CCC 001282
EXHIBIT “J”
EB000003
EXHIBIT “K”
90" 6"
20" 43" 19" s·
~
77/16"
---',
...... "'
~ I f
r
0 ...., • 0 I
.........
0 0 0 c,. . . - - - - • • • 0
o 0 oc, f, ••O \
0 0 0 0
o 0 oc, f, ••O
I 0 0 0 0
\
......
o 0 oc, f, ••O
I I I
0 0 0 0
~
"Tl o 0 oc,
0 0
f, ••O
ft •
0 0 0 0
;o [
0 0 0 0
\
0 o0 o ~ t,••o
0
0
0
o0 o
Q
c:::::J ft
•
t,••o
•
0
l t 0 0 0 0
z ····@ ····
0
0
0
o0 o
0
Q •
t,••o
0
I
\ I
--i
0 0
o o
0 0
o o
t,••o
t,••o
I ~ \
0 0
I ~
@ o o t,••o
ft • \
I ai
< I
0 0 .(]
[ ~ [mHHHHI
0 o0 o ~ t,••o
0 Q • 0
!f 1--1
:-:-~ :-:-
rn 0 Q • 0
I l I
~
...
II
I
~
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
t,••o
t,••o
t,••o
t,••o
t,••o
I
I :::,
:::!
aj
I
0
=
oooo t,••o
0 I
I
0
o0 o t,••o
~
0 0°01.....--- l't••o
0 0 • •
I
"'
~ I
38 3/4"
\/ ---',
16 7/8"
'I 'I
90" 6"
20" 43" 19" s·
~ ---',
......
CB
D □
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
1--1 ....., 0000000
z O') 0 0 0 0
I:::::::
--i t:;J
rn
;o
1--1
@0 CB !::! ~
!f ;o
~
II
~
<
1--1 $
rn
- cij
I
q
~ 0
~ 43" I 17 3116" s·
---',
zu, • ii' Project llt le :

f;- IJl,,f;l> j!l,,f,11, ~!,Ji, f:;l,-1,1, .f"'i BAYLOR UNIVERSITY BASEBALL MAAKER MAT.RIAL OESCftlPTION
EB000001
H
{- l· ~
i'.- i
_.
E
I
f
HOLLMAN $1'<:l 19J4
1825 W. WOhvt Hit lone ~ fX 75006
I,. Contractor:
ShHt r.tlor.
PLAYERS LOCKERS
P (9nJ&1$-<000f ~ 7~&W29'21
www1'1~£om
lhisdoo..ntnt is the Pf'CC>t11Y of Hollman, inc. and

isnottobef.l:Std'Mtf,outwlitttnpetmi$$i0n
90" a·
20" 43• 19" a·
4•
:;;'.
~
<O
I °6 11 11 11 I I~
CJ) ~
m
Q
1--1 w
"l
~ 1°~ ~ o I ~!~:, 111 II I ":
@o
~z
... <
1--1
...II m I II ~ Ill
~ ~
90" a·
20" 43" 19" a·
Cl)
~ 0 ~
CJ)
IJC•
m
i~
x, O
9 l1l
• o•:1 ":
~z
~ <
II
~
1--1
m 7
q ~
-+----+-- II I tu
z u,
[rI ! 1► 1&>11!1-1f;!l,1~1!,),1f;> JIf I P<0ject llt le :
BAYLOR UNIVERSITY BASEBALL MAAKER MAT.RIAL OESCftlPTION
EB000002
H
{-
fii
N E
I
f
HOLLMAN --- $1'<:l 19J4
(I Conl<0clor:
1825 W. WOhvt Hit lone ~
• 1m1&1$-<000F ~, ~ewm,
www1'1~£om
fX 75006
l ShH t r.tle: PLAYERS LOCKERS lhisdoo..ntnt is the Pf'CC>t11Y of Hollman, inc. and
isnottobef.l:Std'Mtf,outwlitttnpetmi$$i0n
EXHIBIT “L”
IV i https:/jwww.hollman.com/collections/athletics/football/ i:klll\lil® I -
l) Mo1t Vi1ited I, Getting Started Case 3:19-cv-02872-C Document 1-12 Filed 12/04/19 Page 2 of 2 PageID 182
HQ) LLMAN GALLERY COLLECTIONS V PRODUCTS V TOOL BOX V ABOUT us V GET QUOTE PARTS STORE
2019 Football Lockers Brochure
BUILT FOR PEAK PERFORMANCE

FOOTBALL
PRO I COLLEGE I HIGH SCHOOL
Football players have large helmets, large pads, cleats, and sometimes afew different uniforms. Whereis all of that
going to go? Not in astandard, cookie-cutter locker.
We have worked withequipment managers, coaches, and facilities directorson football locker rooms. So we know
exactly what players need when it comes tostorage. We also recognize that every team and every facility is different
We take into account your teams available space, schedule, workouts, and more, to create storage that's acustom fit
for your athletes,
From high schools, to colleges to pro facilities, when we work on football projects, we put our energy into creating the
perfect locker room experience, so that staff and student-athletes can take their energy onto the field.

Longhorn Locker v. Hollman - Complaint

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Longhorn Locker v. Hollman - Complaint

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Case 3:19-cv-02872-C Document 1 Filed 12/04/19 Page 1 of 91 PageID 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

LONGHORN LOCKER COMPANY, §

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs Longhorn Locker Company, LLC and American Independence Manufacturing,

1. Plaintiff Longhorn Locker Company, LLC d/b/a Longhorn Locker (Longhorn

distributer of custom lockers manufactured by its affiliate, Plaintiff American Independence

2. Plaintiff American Independence Manufacturing, LLC d/b/a American

Independence Manufacturing and AIM (collectively, Longhorn).

5. Defendant Crystal Clear Creative, LLC (Crystal Clear) is a Louisiana limited

6. Defendant Kellie Mathas (Mathas) is an individual who resides at 680 Ferriday

7. Defendant TITAN of Louisiana, Inc. (TITAN) is a Louisiana corporation with its

Floor, New Orleans, Louisiana 70170.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

under Article III of the United States Constitution.

9. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. A substantial

Mathas intentionally encouraged a Texas corporation to commit direct copyright infringement in

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

vision of Longhorn’s customers.

and sometimes even television monitors.

including application Serial Nos. 15/639,117, 15/804,286, 15/832,073, 15/897,875, 29/687,844,

16/429,895, 16/454/161, 16/686,991, 15/639,216, 16/515,605, 16/549,528, 16/546,977 and a

pending copyright application No. 1-8073830571 (the ‘571 Application). 1

expects its competitors to do the same.

Hollman generates revenues totaling $72 million.

C. Longhorn and Hollman compete head-to-head in the highly-competitive custom

and manufacturing industry.” Travis Hollman—Hollman’s president—intensely dislikes and

D. Litigation ensues in state court between Longhorn and Hollman

poaching Longhorn’s customers.

134A.001-.008 (2017). This lawsuit is still pending.

original jurisdiction of this Court. 28 U.S.C. § 1338.

asked about scheduling a time to discuss the project.

are depicted below:

head coach) to go over Longhorn’s locker designs.

visit to Saints’ facilities are attached hereto as Exhibit D.

which is graphically depicted below:

Longhorn’s Copyrighted Rendering

Longhorn’s Copyrighted Rendering

“WeTransfer.” In Longhorn’s submission to the Saints, Longhorn included a conspicuous

“INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY NOTICE” warning:

of American Independence Manufacturing is prohibited. Longhorn received a download

31. On December 21, 2016, Mathas emailed Gary Schlatholt—Hollman’s athletic

and frequently interacted with Travis Hollman, Hollman’s president.

Longhorn’s direct competitor, Hollman, without Longhorn’s consent or authorization. Mathas

to ensure we get some sort of visual.”

33. On December 22, 2016, Schlatholt emailed Mathas a PowerPoint presentation of

Schlatholt responded: “Absolutely.”

35. On January 5, 2017, Schlatholt emailed to Mathas Hollman’s first proposed

rendering depicts four box-style lockers as shown below:

37. Unlike Longhorn’s copyrighted work, Hollman’s initial proposed rendering

on the side panels of its locker.

bench, just like Longhorn’s copyrighted work.

PROPERTY NOTICE.” Longhorn’s renderings also included a copyright notice ( or ©) and a

in whole or in part, without express written consent of American Independence Manufacturing is

send Longhorn’s quote or share their price with Hollman.”

I. Hollman offers to make Longhorn’s “exact” locker

40. On January 18, 2017, Travis Hollman—Hollman’s President—emailed Mathas,

to last a lot longer.”

Longhorn’s split-back seat feature.

K. Longhorn is awarded the Saints’ locker project

which contain . . . pricing . . . is intended to be confidential in nature . . . .” Weiss requested that

Longhorn’s purchase agreement be signed and returned to him.

which is attached hereto as Exhibit F.

“disclos[e] . . . any design . . . conceptualization, idea, configuration and composition of patterns,