Skechers et. al. v. Anthony L and S et. al.

7/28/2019 Skechers et. al. v. Anthony L and S et. al.

1/50


2/50

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

NATURE OF THE A

1. This is an action for design patent infriand unfair competition.

2. Skechers is a world leader in designinginvested and spent hundreds of millions of dollars c

designs. One such new design is an ornamental ou

is embodied in its GOwalk shoe. The GOwalk shoe

heavily advertised on TV, in magazines, and the Int


3/50

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

4. This outsole periphery trade dress has auniquely identifies the shoe as emanating from a sin

in the following photograph, the distinctive ornamen

periphery trade dress is the repeating pattern of clea

have a relatively straight periphery surface (indicate

with cleats or nubs that have a curved periphery sur


4/50

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

GOwalk outsole periphery trade dress. The outsole

Assn. shoe in this regard is shown below.


5/50

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9. Defendants copied Skechers proven-sutrade dress rather than taking a risk by trying to dev

A sample of Skechers original Bikers Dream Come

followed by a picture of defendants shameless knoc


6/50

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

12. Defendant Anthony L&S, LLC is a Nehaving an office and place of business at 1400 Broa

York 10019.

13. Defendant United States Polo Associatcorporation having an office and place of business a

110, Lexington, Kentucky 40511.

14. Defendant USPA Properties, Inc. is an and place of business at 771 Corporate Drive, Suite


7/50

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

SKECHERS GOWALK OUTSOLE PERI

19. The United States Patent and Trademarnon-obvious, and ornamental appearance of the outs

issuing U.S. Patent, No. D661,880 (Exhibit 1, the "'

Defendants infringement of the 880 patent can be

shows a sample figure from the 880 patent next to d


8/50

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

20. The United States Patent and Trademarnon-obvious, and ornamental appearance of the outs

issuing U.S. Patent, No. D 680,309 (Exhibit 2, the "

Defendants infringement of the 309 patent can be

shows a sample figure from the 309 patent next to d


9/50

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

SKECHERS GOWALK OUTSOLE PER

21. The trade dress embodied in the outsolshown in comparison to the U.S. Polo Assn. shoe be


10/50

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

23. On June 19, 2012, the United States PaUnited States Patent, Patent No. US D661,880 S, th

date of issue of the '880 patent, Skechers has been, a

of the entire right, title and interest in and to the '880

'880 patent includes without limitation the exclusive

exclusive right to file actions based on infringement

right to recover damages or other monetary amount

and to be awarded injunctive relief pertaining to the


11/50

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

SECOND CAUSE OF

(Design Patent Infringement, Paten

28. Skechers realleges and incorporates byforegoing numbered paragraphs, photographs and fi

photograph and figure has been fully set forth herea

29. On April 23, 2013, the United States PUnited States Patent, Patent No. US D680,309 S, th

date of issue of the '309 patent, Skechers has been, a


12/50

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

adequate remedy at law. Skechers is therefore entit

defendants' further infringing conduct.

33. Defendants have profited and are profit'309 patent and Skechers has been and is being dam

infringement. Skechers is therefore entitled to recov

total profit derived from such infringement, all in an

THIRD CAUSE OF A

(GOwalk Outsole Periphery Trade Dress -


13/50

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

37. Defendants' conduct is likely to cause camong the general purchasing public, and interfere w

profit from its GOwalk outsole periphery trade dres

38. Defendants' conduct as described abovthe current ability of Skechers' GOwalk outsole peri

trade dress emanates from a single source. Defenda

harms the goodwill and reputation associated with S

trade dress.


14/50

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

mistake, and to deceive by wrongly suggesting that

affiliation, connection, or association with SkechersSuch use by defendants of their Wanda shoe is also

cause mistake, and to deceive as to the origin, spons

Wanda shoe. Such use by defendants of their Wan

infringement in violation of Lanham Act 43(a), 15

43. Defendants have infringed, and continuCome True trade dress. Defendants' Wanda shoe in


15/50

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

FIFTH CAUSE OF A

(Common Law Unfair Co48. Skechers realleges and incorporates by

foregoing numbered paragraphs, photographs and fi

photograph and figure has been fully set forth herea

49. Defendants are willfully, fraudulently, unlawfully attempting to pass off, and are passing o

approved and/or authorized by Skechers.


16/50

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

57. A complete recitation of the damages sunfair competition must await discovery of defenda

REQUEST FOR RE

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Skechers U.S.A., In

respectfully demand a judgment against defendants

1. A judgment declaring that defendants havea. Infringed Skechers' '880 and 309 patentsb. Infringed Skechers' GOwalk outsole perip


17/50

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Skechers' GOwalk outsole periphery trade

trade dress or the reputation or goodwill ounfairly with Skechers;

3. For a judgment directing that any shoes, g

the possession or under the control of defendants w

patent or any colorable imitation or facsimile there

be delivered up and destroyed within 10 days of en

instrumentalities used in the production of such sho


18/50


19/50


20/50


21/50


22/50


23/50


24/50


25/50


26/50


27/50


28/50


29/50


30/50


31/50


32/50


33/50


34/50


35/50


36/50


37/50


38/50

35

EXHIBIT 3

PAGE 35


39/50

36

EXHIBIT 3

PAGE 36


40/50

37

EXHIBIT 3

PAGE 37


41/50

38


42/50

39


43/50

40

EXHIBIT 3

PAGE 40

41


44/50

41

EXHIBIT 3

PAGE 41


45/50

42


46/50

42

EXHIBIT 4

43


47/50

43

EXHIBIT 4

44


48/50

44

45


49/50

45

EXHIBIT 4

PAGE 45


50/50

Date post:	03-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	priorsmart
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Skechers et. al. v. Anthony L and S et. al.

Documents