UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Transcription

1 Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0 Brent H. Blakely (SBN bblakely@blakelylawgroup.com Cindy Chan (SBN cchan@blakelylawgroup.com BLAKELY LAW GROUP Parkview Avenue, Suite 0 Manhattan Beach, California 0 Telephone: (0-00 Facsimile: (0-0 Attorneys for Plaintiff Michael Kors, L.L.C. MICHAEL KORS, L.L.C., a Delaware Limited Liability Corporation, vs. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, M R ENTERPRISES, an unknown business entity; DEEPAK NARULA, an individual; DOES -0, inclusive, Defendants. CASE NO. PLAINTIFF S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF. FEDERAL TRADE DRESS INFRINGEMENT;. FEDERAL TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT OF UNREGISTERED MARK;. COMMON LAW TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT;. UNFAIR COMPETITION IN VIOLATION OF CA BUS. & PROF. CODE 00, et seq.;. COMMON LAW UNFAIR COMPETITION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Plaintiff Michael Kors, L.L.C. for its claims against Defendants M R Enterprises, Deepak Narual and DOES -0, respectfully alleges as follows:

2 Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0 JURISDICTION AND VENUE. Plaintiff files this action against Defendants for: ( federal trade dress infringement; ( federal trademark infringement of an unregistered trademark; ( California common law trademark infringement; ( California statutory unfair competition; and ( California common law unfair competition.. The common law claims in this action arise out of the same nucleus of operative facts as the substantial federal law claims to which they are joined. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to U.S.C., U.S.C. (a and (b, and U.S.C. 0,, and under the principles of pendent jurisdiction pursuant to U.S.C... This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants are incorporated, domiciled, and/or conduct business within this judicial district.. This action arises out of wrongful acts, including advertising, offering for sale, selling and distributing products by Defendants within this judicial district. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to U.S.C. because the claims asserted arise in this district. THE PARTIES. Plaintiff Michael Kors, L.L.C. ( Michael Kors is a limited liability corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, having an office and principle place of business at West nd Street, New York, New York 00. Michael Kors is a luxury lifestyle brand with a presence in over countries. Michael Kors has developed significant and valuable intellectual property rights in its Michael Kors brands.. Upon information and belief, Defendant M R Enterprises is an unknown business entity with an office and principal place of business at 00 Lakewood Center Mall, Lakewood, California 0.

3 Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0. Upon information and belief, Defendant Deepak Narula is an individual residing in this judicial district and is an owner, officer, director, and/or managing agent of M R Enterprises.. Plaintiff is unaware of the names and true capacities of Defendants, whether individual, corporate and/or partnership entities, named herein as DOES through 0, inclusive, and therefore sues them by their fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this complaint when their true names and capacities are ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that said Defendants and DOES through 0, inclusive, are in some manner responsible for the wrongs alleged herein, and that at all times referenced each was the agent and servant of the other Defendants and was acting within the course and scope of said agency and employment.. Plaintiff is informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that at all relevant times herein, Defendants and DOES through 0, inclusive, knew or reasonably should have known of the acts and behavior alleged herein and the damages caused thereby, and by their inaction ratified and encouraged such acts and behavior. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants and DOES through 0, inclusive, have a non-delegable duty to prevent or cause such acts and the behavior described herein, which duty Defendants and DOES though 0, inclusive, failed and/or refused to perform. ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION A. The MICHAEL KORS Brands, the MK Common Law Trademark, and the MK Trade Dress 0. Michael Kors is a famous and valuable global luxury lifestyle brand launched in by award-winning designer Michael Kors. The company has evolved from an American luxury sportswear house to a global accessories, footwear and apparel company with a presence in nearly 00 countries.

4 Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0. Michael Kors offers two primary collections: the Michael Kors collection and the MICHAEL Michael Kors collection (together, the Michael Kors Products.. The Michael Kors collection was first introduced in and reflects the pinnacle of luxury. The Michael Kors collection is carried in Michael Kors retail stores and in some of the finest luxury department stores in the world, including, but not limited to Nordstrom, Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus. This collection consists of accessories, including handbags and small leather goods (many of which are made from high quality leathers and other exotic skins, footwear and apparel.. The MICHAEL Michael Kors collection, an accessible luxury collection, was first introduced in 00. This collection focuses on handbags and accessories, but also includes footwear and apparel. The MICHAEL Michael Kors collection is carried in Michael Kors lifestyle stores and in leading department stores throughout the world.. There are currently more than 0 Michael Kors stores located throughout the United States, including within this judicial district, carrying Michael Kors Products.. The MICHAEL Michael Kors Collection includes, inter alia, women s handbags and accessories utilizing the MK Common Law Trademark, which consists of the block letter M connected to the block letter K as shown below:. The MK Common Law Trademark was first used by Michael Kors in interstate commerce at least as early as 00 and is inherently distinctive, nonfunctional and exclusively owned and used by Michael Kors. As the result of significant sales and the expenditure of millions of dollars in multi-media advertising and promotion by Michael Kors, in the United States and throughout the world as part of a long term and carefully planned marketing program, the MK Common Law Trademark serves to identify Michael Kors to the consuming public as the source of

5 Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0 merchandise including, without limitation, women s accessories, on which the MK Common Law Trademark is displayed. Consumers directly associate the MK Common Law Trademark with Michael Kors, the MICHAEL Michael Kors Collection, and with merchandise of the highest quality. As such, the MK Common Law Trademark, in addition to being inherently distinctive and non-functional, has developed strong secondary meaning and is of inestimable value to Michael Kors.. The MICHAEL Michael Kors collection of handbags and accessories is widely recognized for the MK Trade Dress, which features the MK Common Law Trademark in repetitious horizontal rows as shown below:. The MK Trade Dress was an original design by Michael Kors and the elements thereof are nonfunctional and its distinctive quality has achieved a high degree of consumer recognition and secondary meaning since its introduction in or around 00.. The MK Trade Dress serves to identify Michael Kors as the source of its merchandise including, without limitation, women s accessories such as, inter alia, handbags, swing packs, clutches, purses, totes and satchels. 0. Michael Kors has spent substantial time, effort, and money in designing, developing, advertising, promoting, and marketing Michael Kors Products featuring

6 Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0 the MK Trade Dress and MK Common Law Trademark. Michael Kors s efforts have been successful and Michael Kors has sold a substantial amount of Michael Kors Products bearing the MK Trade Dress and MK Common Law Trademark.. Due to Michael Kors and its predecessors long use, extensive sales, and significant advertising and promotional activities, the MK Trade Dress and MK Common Law Trademark have achieved widespread acceptance and recognition among the consuming public and the trade throughout the United States. The arbitrary and distinctive MK Trade Dress and MK Common Law Trademark identify Michael Kors as the source/origin of the goods on which it appears. B. Defendants Infringing Activities. Upon information and belief, Michael Kors herein avers and alleges that Defendant M R Enterprises owns and operates a retail store at Lakewood Center Mall located 00 Lakewood Center Mall, Lakewood, California 0.. Michael Kors recently discovered the advertisement, marketing, offering for sale, and/or sale of handbags and related products from said M R Enterprises retail store that bear designs confusingly similar to Michael Kors s MK Trade Dress and MK Common Law Trademark ( Infringing Products : MICHAEL Michael Kors Product Defendants Infringing Products

7 Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0. Upon information and belief, Defendant Deepak Narula is an owner, officer, and/or managing agent of M R Enterprises and is the active, moving, conscious force behind the infringing activities alleged herein.. Michael Kors is informed and believes and herein alleges that Defendants are competitors and have copied Michael Kors s MK Trade Dress and MK Common Law Trademark in an effort to exploit Michael Kors s reputation in the market.. Michael Kors has not granted a license or any other form of permission to Defendants with respect to any of its trademarks, trade dresses, or other intellectual property.. Michael Kors is informed and believes and herein alleges that Defendants have acted in bad faith and that Defendants acts have misled and confused and were intended to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of Defendants Infringing Products with Michael Kors, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of Defendants Infringing Products by Michael Kors. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Trade Dress Infringement - U.S.C. (a. Michael Kors incorporates herein by reference the averments of the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.. The MK Trade Dress was an original design by Michael Kors and the elements thereof are nonfunctional and their distinctive quality has achieved a high degree of consumer recognition and secondary meaning nationwide. 0. Through many years of use in interstate commerce, Michael Kors has established common law trademark protection for its inherently distinctive and nonfunctional MK Trade Dress used on Michael Kors s women s accessories in the MICHAEL Michael Kors Collection including, inter alia, handbags, swing packs, clutches, purses, totes and satchels.

8 Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0. Merchandise utilizing Michael Kors s MK Trade Dress has a unique look, which distinguishes it from other women s accessories, and puts potential second comers and users of confusingly similar trade dress, such as found on Defendants Infringing Products, on notice as to Michael Kors s exclusive and protected trade dress rights in connection with, inter alia, women s accessories. Women s accessories bearing Michael Kors s MK Trade Dress have achieved substantial sales, and favorable consumer and trade acceptance, both in the United States and throughout the world. In addition to being inherently distinctive, the MK Trade Dress has acquired secondary meaning and has become a strong indicator of Michael Kors, and the MICHAEL Michael Kors Collection, as a source of goods bearing such trade dress.. As a direct result of the continuous and exclusive use of the MK Trade Dress in interstate commerce, Michael Kors has established significant good will and consumer expectation regarding the high quality and source of Michael Kors s merchandise including, inter alia, women s accessories, displaying the MK Trade Dress.. Michael Kors has dedicated substantial monetary expenditures and resources to support its MICHAEL Michael Kors line, bearing the MK Trade Dress, by way of extensive advertising and promotional efforts through diverse media in the United States as well as internationally.. The Infringing Products produced, distributed, advertised and offered for sale by Defendants bear nearly identical reproductions of the MK Trade Dress, such as to cause a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship or approval by Michael Kors of Defendants products. Indeed, use of the block letters M and K in the manner shown on Defendants Infringing Products creates a high likelihood of consumer confusion amongst consumers, which is especially damaging to the good will established in the MK Trade Dress and Michael Kors s reputation for high quality luxury products.

9 Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0. Defendants use of the MK Trade Dress is without Michael Kors s permission or authority and in total disregard of Michael Kors s rights to control its intellectual property.. Defendants use of the MK Trade Dress is likely to lead to and result in confusion, mistake or deception, and is likely to cause the public to believe that Defendants products are produced, sponsored, authorized, or licensed by or that are otherwise connected or affiliated with Michael Kors, all to the detriment of Michael Kors.. Michael Kors has no adequate remedy at law.. In light of the foregoing, Michael Kors is entitled to injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from using Michael Kors s MK Trade Dress, or any designs confusingly similar thereto, and to recover all damages, including attorneys fees, that Michael Kors has sustained and will sustain, and all gains, profits and advantages obtained by Defendants as a result of their infringing acts alleged above in an amount not yet known, as well as the costs of this action. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Trademark Infringement of an Unregistered Trademark - U.S.C. (a. Michael Kors incorporates herein by reference the averments of the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 0. The MK Common Law Trademark is an arbitrary mark and its distinctive quality has achieved a high degree of consumer recognition and secondary meaning nationwide.. Through many years of use in interstate commerce, Michael Kors has established common law trademark protection for its inherently distinctive MK Common Law Trademark used on Michael Kors s women s accessories in the MICHAEL Michael Kors Collection including, inter alia, handbags, swing packs, clutches, purses, totes and satchels.

10 Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0/0/ Page 0 of Page ID #: As a direct result of the continuous and exclusive use of the MK Common Law Trademark in interstate commerce, Michael Kors has established significant good will and consumer expectation regarding the high quality and source of Michael Kors s merchandise including, inter alia, women s accessories, displaying said mark.. Michael Kors has dedicated substantial monetary expenditures and resources to support its MICHAEL Michael Kors line, bearing the MK Common Law Trademark, by way of extensive advertising and promotional efforts through diverse media in the United States as well as internationally.. The Infringing Products produced, distributed, advertised and offered for sale by Defendants bear nearly identical reproductions of the MK Common Law Trademark, such as to cause a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship or approval by Michael Kors of Defendants products. Indeed, use of the block letters M and K in the manner shown on Defendants Infringing Products creates a high likelihood of consumer confusion amongst consumers, which is especially damaging to the good will established in the MK Common Law Trademark and Michael Kors s reputation for high quality luxury products.. Defendants use of the MK Common Law Trademark is without Michael Kors s permission or authority and in total disregard of Michael Kors s rights to control its intellectual property.. Defendants use of the MK Common Law Trademark is likely to lead to and result in confusion, mistake or deception, and is likely to cause the public to believe that Defendants products are produced, sponsored, authorized, or licensed by or that are otherwise connected or affiliated with Michael Kors, all to the detriment of Michael Kors.. Michael Kors has no adequate remedy at law.. In light of the foregoing, Michael Kors is entitled to injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from using Michael Kors s MK Common Law Trademark, or any designs confusingly similar thereto, and to recover all damages, including 0

11 Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0 attorneys fees, that Michael Kors has sustained and will sustain, and all gains, profits and advantages obtained by Defendants as a result of their infringing acts alleged above in an amount not yet known, as well as the costs of this action. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Common Law Trademark Infringement. Michael Kors incorporates herein by reference the averments of the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 0. The MK Block Trade Dress and MK Common Law Trademark have achieved a high degree of consumer recognition and secondary meaning nationwide and within the state of California.. Defendants infringement of the MK Trade Dress and MK Common Law Trademark constitutes common law trade dress and trademark infringement in violation of the common law of the state of California.. By virtue of the acts complained of herein, Defendants have caused a likelihood of confusion among the purchasing public in this Judicial District and elsewhere, in its unauthorized use of the MK Trade Dress and MK Common Law Trademark on its own products.. Defendants acts are willful, deliberate, and intended to confuse the public and to injure Michael Kors.. Michael Kors has no adequate remedy at law to compensate it fully for the damages that have been caused and which will continue to be caused by Defendants infringing conduct, unless they are enjoined by this Court.. The conduct herein complained of was extreme, outrageous, and was inflicted on Michael Kors in reckless disregard of Michael Kors s rights. Said conduct was despicable and harmful to Michael Kors and as such supports an award of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish and make an example of Defendants, and to deter them from similar such conduct in the future.

12 Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0. In light of the foregoing, Michael Kors is entitled to injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from infringing the MK Block Trade Dress and MK Common Law Trademark, or any designs confusingly similar thereto, and to recover all damages, including attorneys fees, that Michael Kors has sustained and will sustain, and all gains, profits and advantages obtained by Defendants as a result of their infringing acts alleged above in an amount not yet known, and the costs of this action. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Unfair Competition California Unfair Business Practices Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, 00, et. seq. as to All Defendants. Michael Kors incorporates herein by reference the averments of the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.. Defendants appropriation, adoption and use of the MK Block Trade Dress and MK Common Law Trademark in connection with the sale and offering for sale of handbags and related products is likely to confuse or mislead consumers into believing that Defendants goods are authorized, licensed, affiliated, sponsored, and/or approved by Michael Kors, thus constituting a violation of the California Unfair Business Practices Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, 00, et. seq.. The deceptive, unfair and fraudulent practices set forth herein have been undertaken with knowledge by Defendants willfully with the intention of causing harm to Michael Kors and for the calculated purpose of misappropriating Michael Kors s goodwill and business reputation. 0. Defendants use of Michael Kors s MK Block Trade Dress and MK Common Law Trademark has deprived Michael Kors of the right to control the use of its intellectual property.. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants unlawful infringement, Michael Kors has suffered damages and will continue to suffer damages in an amount that is not presently ascertainable but will be proven at trial. Michael Kors is entitled to

13 Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0 all available relief provided for in California Unfair Business Practices Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, 00, et. seq. including permanent injunctive relief. FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Unfair Competition Under California Common Law As to All Defendants. Michael Kors incorporates herein by reference the averments of the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.. Defendants infringement of the MK Block Trade Dress and MK Common Law Trademark constitutes unfair competition in violation of the common law of the state of California.. Defendants are competitors of Michael Kors and have copied Michael Kors s MK Block Trade Dress and MK Common Law Trademark in an effort to exploit Michael Kors s reputation in the market.. Defendants infringing acts were intended to capitalize on Michael Kors s goodwill associated with the MK Block Trade Dress and MK Common Law Trademark for Defendants own pecuniary gain. Michael Kors has expended substantial time, resources and effort to obtain an excellent reputation for the Michael Kors Products. As a result of Michael Kors s efforts, Defendants are now unjustly enriched and are benefiting from property rights that rightfully belong to Michael Kors.. Defendants acts are willful, deliberate, and intended to confuse the public and to injure Michael Kors.. Michael Kors has no adequate remedy at law to compensate it fully for the damages that have been caused and which will continue to be caused by Defendants infringing conduct, unless they are enjoined by this Court.. The conduct herein complained of was extreme, outrageous, and was inflicted on Michael Kors in reckless disregard of Michael Kors rights. Said conduct was despicable and harmful to Michael Kors and as such supports an award of

14 Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0 exemplary and punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish and make an example of Defendants, and to deter them from similar such conduct in the future.. In light of the foregoing, Michael Kors is entitled to injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from infringing the MK Block Trade Dress and MK Common Law Trademark, or any designs confusingly similar thereto, and to recover all damages, including attorneys fees, that Michael Kors has sustained and will sustain, and all gains, profits and advantages obtained by Defendants as a result of their infringing acts alleged above in an amount not yet known, and the costs of this action. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Michael Kors, L.L.C. respectfully prays that this Court enter judgment in its favor and against Defendants as follows:. A Judgment that Defendants have infringed Michael Kors s MK Trade Dress and MK Common Law Trademark and that said infringement was willful;. An order granting permanent injunctive relief restraining and enjoining Defendants, their agents, servants, employees, officers, associates, attorneys, and all persons acting by, through, or in concert with any of them from infringing upon Michael Kors s MK Trade Dress and MK Common Law Trademark, including, but not limited to: a. manufacturing, importing, advertising, marketing, promoting, supplying, distributing, offering for sale, or selling the Infringing Products or any other products which bear Michael Kors s MK Block Trade Trade Dress and MK Common Law Trademark or any designs confusingly similar thereto; b. engaging in any other activity constituting unfair competition with Michael Kors, or acts and practices that deceive consumers, the public, and/or trade, including without limitation, the use of designations and design elements used or owned by or associated with Michael Kors; and c. committing any other act which falsely represents or which has the effect of falsely representing that the goods and services of Defendants are licensed by,

15 Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0 authorized by, offered by, produced by, sponsored by, or in any other way associated with Michael Kors;. Ordering Defendants to recall from any distributors and retailers and to deliver to Michael Kors for destruction or other disposition all remaining inventory of all Infringing Products and related items, including all advertisements, promotional and marketing materials therefore, as well as means of making same;. Ordering Defendants to file with this Court and serve on Michael Kors within thirty (0 days after entry of the injunction a report in writing, under oath setting forth in detail the manner and form in which Defendants have complied with the injunction;. Ordering an accounting by Defendants of all gains, profits and advantages derived from their wrongful acts pursuant to U.S.C. (a;. Awarding Michael Kors all of Defendants profits and all damages sustained by Michael Kors as a result of Defendants wrongful acts, and such other compensatory damages as the Court determines to be fair and appropriate;. Awarding enhanced damages in the Court s discretion as a result of Defendants willful infringement;. Finding that this is an exceptional case under U.S.C. and awarding attorneys fees there under;. Awarding applicable interest, costs, disbursements and attorneys fees; 0. Awarding Michael Kors punitive damages in connection with its claims under California state and common law; and. Such other relief as may be just and proper. Dated: February, 0 BLAKELY LAW GROUP By: /s/ Cindy Chan Brent H. Blakely Cindy Chan Attorneys for Plaintiff Michael Kors, L.L.C.

16 Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Pursuant to Rule (b of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Michael Kors, L.L.C. hereby demands a trial by jury as to all claims in this litigation. Dated: February, 0 BLAKELY LAW GROUP By: /s/ Cindy Chan Brent H. Blakely Cindy Chan Attorneys for Plaintiff Michael Kors, L.L.C.