Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Baby Delight, Inc., (“Baby Delight” or “Plaintiff”), through its undersigned attorneys,
alleges the following for its Complaint for Declaratory Judgment against defendants Lorne Jason
Clute (“Clute”) and Keezio Group, LLC (“Keezio”) (collectively, with Clute, “Defendants”):
NATURE OF ACTION
with respect to U.S. Design Patent No. D712,677 (“the ‘677 design patent”), a declaration that the
Defendants lack standing to claim copyright infringement and a declaration that the Defendants’
asserted unfair competition claim lacks merit, under the patent laws of the United States, the
copyright laws of the United States, and applicable unfair competition law. By this action, Baby
Delight seeks to resolve an actual, immediate, and substantial controversy with Clute and Keezio.
THE PARTIES
2. Plaintiff Baby Delight is a limited liability company organized and existing under
the laws of Rhode Island, having a principal place of business at 30 Martin Street, Suite 3C,
3. Upon information and belief, Clute is a citizen of the United States and permanently
resides in California with a principle residence at 2375 Roundhill Drive, Alamo, California.
4. Upon information and belief, Keezio Group, LLC is a limited liability company
organized and existing under the laws of the state of California, having a principle place of business
5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Baby Delight’s Declaratory
Judgment Complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), 2201, and 2202, as the action seeks a
6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because, upon information
and belief: (a) Defendants are engaged in the business of the design, manufacture, marketing,
distribution and sale of children’s products, including those allegedly related to the ‘677 design
patent, throughout the United States, including to customers within Rhode Island; (b) Defendants
have engaged in tortious or wrongful conduct directed to harm residents of Rhode Island; and (c)
Defendants have purposefully directed their activities to the State of Rhode Island and/or
part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this District and because Defendants are
subject to personal jurisdiction in this District. Venue is also proper in this District under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1400(b), as Rhode Island is the state in which Defendants have alleged that acts of patent
infringement have occurred and Plaintiff has a regular and established place of business in Rhode
Island.
2
Case 1:19-cv-00559 Document 1 Filed 10/18/19 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 3
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
internationally for their baby products and innovative designs within the infant and baby industry.
Baby Delight offers a diverse number of products that include bassinets, foldable & portable baby
9. Baby Delight has devoted significant resources to research and development and
safety testing and compliance which has resulted in, among other things, development of
innovative products that include unique designs and features. Through these efforts, Baby Delight
has expanded from an initial handful of products to a diverse ecosystem of over a dozen baby
products that are well known for their ruggedness, quality, simplicity, visual appeal, and ease of
use. These baby/infant products include, but are not limited to the Snuggle Nest™ foldable bed,
the Peak™ Portable Infant Bassinet, the Beside Me™ Dreamer Bassinet and Bedside Sleeper, the
Comfy Rise™ Deluxe Crib Wedge, Trek & Travel™, Go With Me Uplift™ Deluxe Portable High
Chair, Go With Me Haven™ Portable Playard, Go With Me Eclipse™ Portable Playard With
Canopy, Go With Me Sway™ Portable Infant Rocker, Go With Me Slumber™ Deluxe Portable
Rocking Bassinet, Comfy Canopy Breeze™ Portable Canopy, and Go With Me Sprout™ Deluxe
10. Through these aforementioned efforts, Baby Delight began marketing and selling
an infant napper (hereinafter Baby Delight Napper) in 2018 under the brand name of Baby Delight
Nestle Nook™, and subsequently the Baby Delight Comfort Nook™, both in traditional brick-
and-mortar retail stores and online through BabyDelight.com, select retailers, and market places
such as Amazon.
11. On September 26, 2019, Clute sent a letter (hereinafter Sept. 26 letter) via email
through his attorney Christopher W. Sweeney to Baby Delight’s president Jason Macari in Rhode
3
Case 1:19-cv-00559 Document 1 Filed 10/18/19 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 4
Island. Attorney Sweeney also purported to assert the rights of both Jason Clute as well as his
licensees. Upon information and belief, those licensees include Keezio doing business under the
trade name “hiccapop,” Keezio is the exclusive licensee of the ‘677 design patent, and Clute is a
12. The Sept. 26 letter asserted, among other things, that the Baby Delight Napper is
“Confusingly and strikingly similar in look, feel and overall design to my client’s patent, such that
to the casual observer (i.e. the typical Amazon-shopping parent, grandparent, et al.), or to an
observer skilled in the art, your product would appear of associated provenance with those
13. The Sept. 26 letter further asserted that “[b]y utilizing my client’s design, you have
gained a distinct and unfair competitive advantage over those in the marketplace who are bona fide
14. The Sept. 26 letter further asserted that “[y]our use of the “FOR THE
client’s design and slogan “FOR THE FLOOR…AND NOTHING MORE” and, among other
obvious and striking similarities, copies my client’s unique color pattern. Your use of this
copyright protected design clearly confuses consumers into believing your product is of similar
provenance to the market leader in this field (see attached photos), thus accruing sales benefit to
your product in a demonstrably unfair manner over that of my client’s valid licensee.”
15. The Sept. 26 letter further asserted that “[i]t appears that your product violates
(8.5.1.1(1)(b). Specifically, your safety language has been altered with respect to the very
important age range requirement of 5 months and is displayed instead as 6 months (see attached),
4
Case 1:19-cv-00559 Document 1 Filed 10/18/19 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 5
thus giving you yet another distinct and decidedly unfair competitive advantage against your
16. On Sept. 27 Baby Delight’s legal counsel contacted Clute’s attorney to inform Clute
that Baby Delight anticipated responding sometime during the following week.
17. On Oct. 10, 2019, Attorney Sweeney sent an email that stated, in relevant part, “I
have not received the response you indicated you would be forwarding. If I do not receive a
response from you by the close of business Friday, 10/11/19 I will assume you do not intend to
18. On Oct. 11, 2019, Baby Delight’s counsel emailed a response letter that answered
and disputed each allegation of the Sept. 26 letter and, among other things, provided Baby
Delight’s position that the Baby Delight Napper is substantially different from the infant cradle of
19. On Oct. 11, 2019, Attorney Sweeney responded to Baby Delight’s response letter
as follows: “I am [sic] receipt of your response and assume from it that your client has no interest
in an amicable resolution. Accordingly, my client will proceed with appropriate legal action.”
20. Counsel for Clute and his licensees engaged in further communication with counsel
for Baby Delight on October 14, 2019. Among other things, Attorney Sweeney demanded that
Baby Delight stop selling on Amazon. Baby Delight did not agree to this demand and the parties
21. Attorney Sweeney’s Sept. 26 letter alleged infringement of the ‘677 design patent,
copyright infringement, and unfair competition in connection with voluntary Federal warning label
guidelines. These allegations and subsequent communications from Attorney Sweeney dated Oct.
11th and 14th 2019 underscore that Clute and Keezio demand that Baby Delight discontinue at least
5
Case 1:19-cv-00559 Document 1 Filed 10/18/19 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 6
the sale of the Baby Delight Napper through Amazon. Baby Delight and Defendants have adverse
legal interests with respect to the question of infringement of the ’677 design patent, copyright
infringement and unfair competition. The demands of Defendants arise a substantial controversy
COUNT I
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’677 DESIGN
PATENT
22. Baby Delight incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
23. Baby Delight’s Napper has not infringed and does not infringe, directly or
24. Briefly, among other reasons, the Baby Delight Napper does not infringe the ‘677
a. The Baby Delight Napper does not include the side seams set out in the ‘677
Design Patent and instead features solid fabric on the side with no
ornamentation.
b. The Baby Delight Napper’s arms do not run continuously from front to back
c. The Baby Delight Napper’s seat surface does not run continuously to the floor
but instead ends at a seam by the feet where a flat panel drops to the floor.
d. The Baby Delight Napper’s arms and seat surface do not run continuously from
front to back but instead begin and end at seams that run sharply perpendicular
to the floor.
e. The Baby Delight Napper’s profile also does not run in a smooth continuous
curve from front to back but instead ends abruptly at a flat front panel.
6
Case 1:19-cv-00559 Document 1 Filed 10/18/19 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 7
f. The Baby Delight Napper’s arms do not rise up in straight perpendicular lines
from the floor but instead taper toward the baby, creating a pinched shape rather
g. The transition between the seam of the support surface and the arms at the rear
of the Baby Delight Napper slopes upwards and meets instead of curving
These and other features of the Baby Delight Napper, when considered separately or as a whole,
are sufficiently distinct from the ‘677 Design Patent so that the two designs would not appear
25. The following accurately describes Figure 1 as set forth in the ‘677 design paten
26. The seam line prominently shown at A of the ‘677 design follows, but is offset,
from the ‘curve’ of the arms of the infant cradle of FIG. 1. This seam line can also be seen in
7
Case 1:19-cv-00559 Document 1 Filed 10/18/19 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 8
FIG. 4 of the ‘677 patent, which is reproduced below. The Baby Delight Napper clearly does not
include this seam line at all and instead features a ‘solid’ fabric side without additional
ornamentation.
27. The arms shown in FIG. 1 of the ‘677 patent include a seam/contour that extends
continuously from front to back, and notably, all the way to the surface supporting the infant cradle
as shown at B. The Baby Delight Napper clearly does not include this feature, and instead, features
28. The supporting surface shown in FIG. 1 of the ‘677 patent at D (the surface that
supports the baby) extends uninterrupted from the back of the infant cradle to the front (where the
baby’s feet would rest). In addition, the supporting surface shown at D curves from the lowest
point (the seat) to the front where the bed meets the underlying surface supporting the same. The
Baby Delight Napper clearly does not include this feature. In contrast, the Baby Delight Napper
includes a supporting surface that ends abruptly at a seam shown generally at E, and then includes
a relatively flat logo panel that extends across the entire width of the bed.
29. The following sets forth Figure 2 as shown in the ‘677 design patent:
8
Case 1:19-cv-00559 Document 1 Filed 10/18/19 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 9
30. FIG. 2 of the ‘677 design patent reproduced above shows that the Infant Cradle
design not only has a continuous supporting surface that transitions to floor, but the supporting
surface includes angular seams that slope to create a taper whereby the arms appear to extend to
and make contact with the surface supporting the infant cradle. This visually results in the arms
hemming in the seat surface that defines the front of the infant cradle of the ‘677 design patent.
The Baby Delight Napper clearly does not include this feature. The Baby Delight Napper includes
seams that begin from where the arms end, and that run perpendicular to the surface supporting
the bed. Notably, the seams of the Baby Delight Napper are disposed at the far corners of the bed
to allow the front panel to visibly extend across the entire width of the bed, as discussed above.
31. The following sets forth Figure 4 as shown in the ‘677 design patent:
32. As can be clearly seen in FIG. 4 of the ‘677 design patent reproduced above, the
infant cradle includes a curved profile that continuously extends from end to end (including the
seam at A), with the front having a relatively gentle curve towards the surface that supports the
infant cradle, shown generally at F. The Baby Delight Napper clearly does not have these features.
The Baby Delight Napper has a truncated profile whereby the curve abruptly ends at where the flat
front panel resides, generally shown at G. Of further note, the Baby Delight Napper includes a
9
Case 1:19-cv-00559 Document 1 Filed 10/18/19 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 10
visible zipper at H, a feature which is absent from the claimed Infant Cradle of the ‘677 design
patent.
33. The following sets forth Figure 5 as shown in the ‘677 design patent:
34. As shown in FIG. 5 of the ‘677 patent reproduced above, the infant cradle includes
arms that extend perpendicular from the surface supporting the same, as generally indicated by the
red parallel lines. This gives the back portion/surface of the infant cradle a rectangular
shape/profile. The Baby Delight Napper clearly does not include this feature. The Baby Delight
Napper includes arms that slope inwards, with the slope becoming markedly more aggressive and
acute towards the peak of the arms, as generally demonstrated by the red & blue lines above. This
difference gives the Baby Delight Napper a trapezoidal shape which is substantially different than
35. FIG. 5 of the ‘677 design patent also shows the transition between the seam of the
support surface and the arms as curving downwards towards the surface supporting the cradle, as
shown at I. The arms in FIG. 5 thus visually end at the seam that outlines/defines the back
portion/surface. The Baby Delight Napper clearly does not include this feature. The transition of
10
Case 1:19-cv-00559 Document 1 Filed 10/18/19 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 11
the Baby Delight Napper includes a seam line that slopes upwards, and meets the arms as generally
shown at J. This results in the arms visually ending before the back panel.
36. The Baby Delight Napper simply would not appear substantially the same as the
38. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate so that Baby Delight continue
to sell its Baby Delight Napper free from fear of frivolous patent infringement claims.
39. Baby Delight is entitled to a declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202
that the Baby Delight Napper does not infringe the ‘677 design patent, as well as a declaration that
any claims asserted by Defendants arising out of alleged infringement of the ‘677 design patent
COUNT II
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT DEFENDANTS LACK STANDING TO ASSERT
A COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT CLAIM
40. Baby Delight incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
41. 17 U.S.C. § 411 requires that any copyright claimant must have registered or
preregistered their copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office before they can bring suit.
42. Based on information and belief, neither Defendant owns a Federal copyright
registration for the warning graphic on hiccapop brand baby beds or any other portion of the
warning label.
43. Moreover, based on information and belief, neither Defendant owns a single
11
Case 1:19-cv-00559 Document 1 Filed 10/18/19 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 12
45. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate so that Baby Delight may utilize
its current labels free from the fear of frivolous copyright claims.
46. Accordingly, Baby Delight requests a declaration from this Court that Defendants
Clute and Keezio lack standing to assert a copyright infringement claim and that any claims arising
COUNT III
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT THE DEFENDANTS’ ASSERTED UNFAIR
COMPETITION CLAIM LACKS MERIT
47. Baby Delight incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
48. “Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Infant Inclined Sleep Products”,
49. The Baby Delight Napper includes a warning label that clearly states that use should
be discontinued when the baby can pull up on the sides, as required by the voluntary standard
ASTM F3118-17a.
a general recommendation for ascertaining an approximate age at which the baby can pull up on
the sides. Based on information and belief, six (6) months of age is also an approximate age at
which the baby can pull up on the sides and is appropriate for warning labels on infant inclined
sleep products.
51. Upon information and belief, Keezio markets and sells its products exclusively
through the Amazon online retail sales platform. The alleged non-conforming warning label does
not appear on the Amazon page for the Baby Delight Napper, and therefore no unfair competition
52. Upon information and belief, the hiccapop-branded product sold by Keezio that
competes with the Baby Delight Napper does not comply with the ASTM F3118-17a standard.
12
Case 1:19-cv-00559 Document 1 Filed 10/18/19 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 13
53. Thus, Defendants do not believe in their own allegations that a violation of this
standard can amount to unfair competition as they too follow the same practice they have accused
55. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate so that Baby Delight may utilize
its current labels free from the fear of frivolous unfair competition claims.
56. Accordingly, Baby Delight requests a declaration from this Court that the unfair
competition claim asserted by Defendants Clute and Keezio based on the voluntary federal
standard ASTM F3118-17a lacks any basis under Federal or state law and, accordingly, Baby
Delight has not committed an act of unfair competition by virtue of not using the 5 months
(a) Enter Judgment in favor of Baby Delight on Count I and declare that Baby Delight
has not infringed and does not infringe, directly or indirectly, any claim of the ‘677
design patent and that any claims arising out of such alleged infringement are
(b) Enter Judgment in favor of Baby Delight on Count II and declare that Defendants
Clute and Keezio lack standing to assert a copyright infringement claim and that any
claims arising out of such alleged infringement are preempted by Federal copyright
law;
13
Case 1:19-cv-00559 Document 1 Filed 10/18/19 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 14
(c) Enter Judgment in favor of Baby Delight on Count III and declare that Baby Delight
has not committed an act of unfair competition by virtue of not using the 5 months
(d) Declare this to be an exceptional case and award Baby Delight its costs, expenses,
(e) Award Baby Delight any further and additional relief that this Court deems just and
proper.
JURY DEMAND
By Its Attorneys,
14
Case 1:19-cv-00559 Document 1-1 Filed 10/18/19 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 15
JS 44 (Rev. 08/18) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Adam J. Chandler, Vrountas, Ayer & Chandler, P.C., 250 Commercial Christopher W. Sweeney, Law Offices of Christopher W. Sweeney,
Street Suite 4004, Manchester, NH 03101, 603-935-9601 1300 Oliver Road Suite 300, Fairfield, CA 94534
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
’ 1 U.S. Government ’ 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State ’ 1 ’ 1 Incorporated or Principal Place ’ 4 ’ 4
of Business In This State
’ 2 U.S. Government ’ 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State ’ 2 ’ 2 Incorporated and Principal Place ’ 5 ’ 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".
II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)
III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.
IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code
that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service
VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.