Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue 2. Plaintiff ETS Express, Inc. dba The Express Line (hereinafter "ETS
EXPRESS") is a California Corporation having a principal place of business at 420 South Lombard Street, Oxnard, California 93030. 3. Upon information and belief, Defendant BODUM USA INC. (hereinafter
BODUM) is a Delaware Corporation with an address of 603 West 26th Street, Suite 1250, New York, NY 10001 registered with the Secretary of State of the State of California as a foreign corporation with an agent for service of process within California. 4. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202, this Court may declare the rights and
other legal relationships of the parties and may order such other relief as may be necessary. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction of the design patent declaratory relief claims under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and under 28 U.S.C. 1338, in that, this case arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. l et seq. 5. This Court also has subject matter jurisdiction of the trade dress declaratory
relief action under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and under 28 U.S.C. 1338, in that, this case also arises under the Trademark Laws of the United States 15 U.S.C. 1951 et seq.
-2-
COMPLAINT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
6.
president alleging infringement of Design Patent No. D553,437S ( "the '437 patent") and of Defendant's alleged BODUM CANTEEN TRADE DRESS as a violation of Defendant's rights under Lanham Act 43a (15 U.S.C. 1125a). In the penultimate paragraph of that letter, Mr. Bennett said "If we do not receive a satisfactory response from you, Bodum will have no choice but to take all appropriate action to stop such activity." A copy of that letter is attached as Exhibit 1. 7. An actual case and controversy exists between ETS EXPRESS and Defendant
BODUM as a result of Defendant's accusations of patent and trade dress infringement. 8. Defendant BODUM is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court
because BODUM has offered products for sale and/or sold products in the Central District of California. This court also has personal jurisdiction over Defendant by virtue of the fact that, upon information and belief, Defendant: a) operates a website through which Defendant does business in this state (see, http://www.bodumusa.com/); and/or b) regularly solicits business and/or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed in this state.
-3-
COMPLAINT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
7.
because acts giving rise to the claims asserted herein occurred in the Central District of California. Facts 8. Plaintiff markets and sells a line of double-wall glassware under the "VISTA"
name. Plaintiff's VISTA glassware is offered and sold to the promotional products market rather than the general consumer market. Plaintiff's products have a distinctive frusto-conical shape that is different from the frusto-conical shape of Defendant's asserted trade dress. Moreover, Plaintiff's VISTA glassware has distinctively colored handles while the design of the asserted '437 patent lacks handles altogether. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF [Declaratory Judgment, under 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202 of Non- Infringement Against Defendant] 9. 10. 11. 12 The preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. A copy of the '437 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. A picture of the accused VISTA glass is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. As is plainly evident, Plaintiff's VISTA glass does not, in any
way, infringe the design of the BODUM '437 patent. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF [Declaratory Judgment under 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202 -4COMPLAINT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
13. 14.
The preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. A picture of a BODUM CANTEEN glass, which, it is presumed, embodies the
BODUM CANTEEN TRADE DRESS, is attached as Exhibit 4. 15. Plaintiff's VISTA glassware does not, in any way infringe any rights that
Defendant BODUM may have in its so-called CANTEEN TRADE DRESS. 16. Defendant BODUM cannot claim any trade dress rights to the frusto-conical
shapes of its CANTEEN glassware or any item in the CANTEEN glassware line. 17. The "double-wall" feature of the claimed trade dress is functional and, as such,
cannot be appropriated by BODUM either under the Patent Laws or the Trade Mark Laws of the United States. 18. The frusto-conical shape of the BODUM CANTEEN glassware is a common
geometric shape and cannot be appropriated by BODUM under either the Patent Laws or the Trade Mark Laws of the United States. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE PLAINTIFF ETS EXPRESS PRAYS for judgment against Defendant BODUM as follows:
1.
A declaration that ETS EXPRESS has not in any manner infringed, and
-5-
COMPLAINT
EXHIBIT 1
Exhibit 1 Page 8
Exhibit 1 Page 9
Exhibit 1 Page 10
Exhibit 1 Page 11
Exhibit 1 Page 12
Exhibit 1 Page 13
EXHIBIT 2
Exhibit 2 Page 14
Exhibit 2 Page 15
Exhibit 2 Page 16
EXHIBIT 3
Exhibit 3 Page 17
EXHIBIT 4
Exhibit 4 Page 18