Case 2:17-cv WHW-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/16/17 Page 1 of 25 PageID: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY. Plaintiff, COMPLAINT

Transcription

1 Case 2:17-cv WHW-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/16/17 Page 1 of 25 PageID: 1 ANGELA JUPIN, ESQ. # Strykers Road Suite Phillipsburg, New Jersey (908) telephone (908) facsimile Attorney for Plaintiff, Kinekt Design, LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY KINEKT DESIGN, LLC, Civil Action No. v. Plaintiff, COMPLAINT SEARS HOLDINGS CORPORATION; SEARS ROEBUCK AND CO.; KMART CORPORATION; HELEN ANDREWS, INC. and NORMAN KELAPIRE, Defendants. Plaintiff, Kinekt Design, LLC, a New Jersey limited liability corporation, by and through its attorney, by way of Complaint against the Defendants, Sears Holding Corporation, Sears Roebuck and Co., Kmart Corporation, Helen Andrews and Norman Kelapire, says as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This is an action for patent infringement, false advertising, injunctive relief and damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 271, et seq. and 15 U.S.C Subject matter 1

2 Case 2:17-cv WHW-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/16/17 Page 2 of 25 PageID: 2 jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1331, 28 U.S.C and 28 U.S.C This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants because Defendants direct their business activities towards, and conduct business with, consumers within this judicial district through fully interactive, commercial Internet websites, as well as physical brick and mortar store locations, and the products that are the subject of this action were, and continue to be, sold to consumers in the State of New Jersey. 3. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. 1391, as a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this district, Defendants have sold, and continue to sell, products that infringe upon Plaintiff s patent within this district, Defendants conduct infringing activities and cause harm within this district and the property that is the subject of this action is situated in this district. THE PATENT AND TRADEMARK 4. On June 7, 2011, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally issued United States Design Patent No. D639,199 (hereinafter referred to as the Design Patent ) to Glen Liberman and Ben Hopson for the design of an ornamental gear ring (hereinafter referred to as the Gear Ring ). Mr. Liberman and Mr. Hopson assigned all right, title and interest to the Design Patent to Plaintiff, Kinekt Design, LLC (hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff ). A photographic exemplar of the Gear Ring is attached hereto as Exhibit A and the Design Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 5. On January 28, 2014, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally issued United States Utility Patent No. 8,636,624 B2 (hereinafter referred to as the Utility Patent ) to Glen Liberman and Ben Hopson for a rotational educational 2

3 Case 2:17-cv WHW-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/16/17 Page 3 of 25 PageID: 3 entertainment and therapeutic device known as the Gear Ring. Mr. Liberman and Mr. Hopson also assigned all right, title and interest to the Utility Patent to Plaintiff. The Utility Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C. The Design Patent and the Utility Patent are hereinafter collectively referred to as the Patents. 6. Plaintiff has placed a notice of the Patents on all marketing and other informational material related to the Gear Ring, and notice of the Patents even appears in Plaintiff s search engine advertising items and listings. 7. Plaintiff also holds Trademark Registration Number for the Gear Ring (hereinafter referred to as the Trademark ), issued on June 12, Plaintiff has submitted the Gear Ring registered trademark to the United States Customs and Border Protection ( CBP ), Intellectual Property Rights Branch, CBP Recordation Number TMK , and pursuant to the WIPO Madrid Protocol. 9. On August 31, 2012, Plaintiff obtained a registered copyright, Registration Number TX , through the United States Copyright Office of all the content contained on Kinektdesign.com, which includes images of the Gear Ring (hereinafter referred to as the Copyright ). 10. Plaintiff has therefore followed each and every legal avenue available to it to protect its intellectual property rights. THE PARTIES 11. Plaintiff, Kinekt Design, LLC (hereinafter referred to as Kinekt or the Plaintiff ) is a limited liability company of the State of New Jersey with its principal place of business located at 184 South Livingston Avenue, Suite 9-239, Livingston, New Jersey

4 Case 2:17-cv WHW-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/16/17 Page 4 of 25 PageID: Defendant, Sears Holdings Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Defendant SHC ), is a retailer operating a national network of 1,592 retail brick and mortar stores known as Sears and Kmart headquartered in Hoffman Estates, Illinois. Defendant SHC also operates a number of online Internet websites under the Sears.com and Kmart.com banners. 13. Defendant, Sears Roebuck and Co. (hereinafter referred to as Defendant Sears ) is, upon information and belief, one of the retail and online stores owned and operated by Defendant SHC. 14. Likewise, Defendant Kmart Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Defendant Kmart ) is, upon information and belief, one of the retail and online stores owned and operated by Defendant SHC. 15. Defendant, Helen Andrews, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Defendant Andrews ) is a jewelry wholesale company headquartered in New York, New York that provides various jewelry products for sale to retailers both online and otherwise including Defendants SHC, Sears and Kmart. 16. Defendant, Norman Kelapire (hereinafter referred to as Defendant Kelapire ) is the CEO and owner of Defendant Andrews. FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS 17. Plaintiff has expended a significant amount of time, money and other resources to develop, produce, advertise and otherwise promote the Gear Ring and has taken any and all steps necessary to protect its rights and interests in and to the Gear Ring, both in this country and internationally. Plaintiff has extensively marketed and promoted the Gear Ring for many years and each and every Gear Ring product, as 4

5 Case 2:17-cv WHW-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/16/17 Page 5 of 25 PageID: 5 well as all promotional materials, advise of the fact that the Gear Ring is protected by Patent and Trademark. 18. Plaintiff is a small, start-up company seeking to grow its business based on its ingenuity in inventing the Gear Ring, as well as its expenditure of significant resources to protect its invention, but has thus far, failed to reach its full business profit potential because of constant unlawful copying, counterfeiting and sale of Plaintiff s Gear Ring. 19. Plaintiff has been using the Gear Ring mark in interstate commerce to identify and distinguish Plaintiff s product and the mark has never been assigned or licensed to any third party. Plaintiff prides itself on its use of high quality materials and attention to detail in the manufacture of the Gear Ring, and because of its uniqueness and the superior quality of the materials used to construct the Gear Ring, Plaintiff sells the Gear Ring at a price of One Hundred Sixty-Five Dollars ($165.00) per ring. 20. Unfortunately, other individuals and entities have discovered what a unique and interesting product the Gear Ring is and how much of a demand there is for the product and have decided to capitalize on Plaintiff s efforts in inventing and developing the Gear Ring. In particular, there are several factories in China that have found a way to duplicate Plaintiff s patented Gear Ring, using inferior materials and shoddy construction. These factories sell these counterfeit gear ring products on the Internet, oftentimes in batches, for one-tenth (1/10) the cost of a genuine Gear Ring to a large market of wholesalers, retailers and individuals. 21. Purchasers of these counterfeit gear ring products then re-sell the counterfeit products in the United States to retailers, or directly to consumers, for less than half the price of a genuine Gear Ring. 5

6 Case 2:17-cv WHW-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/16/17 Page 6 of 25 PageID: Because of the prevalence of infringement of Plaintiff s product and the resultant damage being suffered by Plaintiff, Plaintiff is vigilant in searching for unlawful copying of its product design and sales of these counterfeit products. 30. As a result of one such search, on November 21, 2016, Plaintiff discovered a Stainless Steel Men s Gear Spinner Ring being offered for sale on the website known as Sears.com under Item #3ZZVA P, Model #4R22857-ST 10. The ring being offered for sale was an exact duplicate of Plaintiff s patented Gear Ring design and appeared to function identically to Plaintiff s Gear Ring. 31. In fact, the ring was described as featuring gears embedded within a highly polished band, the ring actually spins and the gears turn! The advertisement indicates that the ring was added as a product on October 19, 2016, so more than one month earlier. 32. The ring was being offered for sale for Thirty-Three Dollars and Ninety-Nine Cents ($33.99), which is just a fraction of the price of a genuine Gear Ring. The advertisement offered customers the option of selecting from five (5) different sizes, which indicated that Sears.com had many various sizes, and therefore, rings, available for purchase. 33. A further search revealed that the same product, i.e. the Stainless Steel Men s Gear Spinner Ring, was also available for sale on Kmart.com for Thirty-Four Dollars and Forty-Nine Cents ($34.49). Again, the product being offered for sale was an identical, yet counterfeit, version of Plaintiff s patented Gear Ring. 34. The discovery of this instance(s) of infringement was particularly alarming to Plaintiff in light of the immediate recognition by the public of the Sears and Kmart names 6

7 Case 2:17-cv WHW-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/16/17 Page 7 of 25 PageID: 7 as well-established, reputable retailers. As far as Plaintiff was concerned, this lent an air of legitimacy to any products sold through those retailers and would make consumers less likely to question the genuineness of the products and more likely to purchase the counterfeit rings. 35. Plaintiff was also seriously concerned about the timing of the discovery, it being the weekend prior to Thanksgiving, the busiest shopping week of the year. 36. Plaintiff conducted a search for Sears spinning gear ring on the search engine known as Google.com and an advertisement for a Helen Andrews Stainless Steel Men s Gear Spinner Ring was prominently featured as a paid advertisement each time. These paid advertisements indicated that the product searched for was available for purchase on Sears.com and Zukit.com. 37. Zukit.com was a third-party website apparently selling the identical Helen Andrews brand Stainless Steel Men s Gear Spinner Ring as Sears.com and Kmart.com, and claiming that fulfillment of the order and/or shipment would be done by Sears.com. It was apparent, then, that Zukit.com was some type of channel partner of Defendant Sears. 38. The aforementioned Google search also revealed that Defendant Andrews was the wholesaler supplying the counterfeit rings to Defendants SHC, Sears and Kmart, as well as to Zukit. 39. Defendants 1600 physical stores, plus online markets, together with the reputation of Defendants as well-regarded retailers, made Plaintiff acutely concerned about the sheer magnitude of the potential damage that could be incurred, especially 7

8 Case 2:17-cv WHW-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/16/17 Page 8 of 25 PageID: 8 considering imminent Thanksgiving holiday and hectic shopping season. As a result, Plaintiff took immediate action in an attempt to remedy the infringement. 40. Specifically, at 5:45 p.m. on November 19 th, Plaintiff contacted Defendant Sears to demand that the counterfeit products be removed and the infringement immediately cease. Per the parties chat transcript, Plaintiff specified the products that needed to be removed, identifying them by item number as well as URL, and Defendant advised that the issue would be taken care of but that Plaintiff should also the complaints department, which Plaintiff thereafter did. 41. However, after the notification by Plaintiff, instead of removing the counterfeit and infringing product listings, Defendants dropped the price of the products online from $33.99 to $29.74, presumably to sell as many units as possible before having to permanently delete the listings. 42. Upon discovering that its request was not only ignored, but that the price of the counterfeit products was reduced, Plaintiff also faxed a cease and desist letter to Defendant SHC s legal department on the morning of November 21 st, as well as submitted a take-down request to Google.com to remove the paid advertisements for the counterfeit gear ring products and reached out to Defendant Andrews regarding the infringement. 43. Google refused to remove the paid advertisements absent a Court order, but Defendants assured Plaintiff that all listings would be promptly removed and that no further sales would be made. 44. After speaking to Defendant Andrews, it was discovered that Defendant Andrews purchased the counterfeit products from China and sold them wholesale to Defendants SHC, Sears and/or Kmart. None of the Defendants checked the legality 8

9 Case 2:17-cv WHW-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/16/17 Page 9 of 25 PageID: 9 and/or genuineness of the product, or whether there was any impediment to its sale, and instead, simply began offering the infringing product for sale. 45. Six days after discovery and notification of the infringement, and after the Thanksgiving shopping holiday, on November 25, 2016, the counterfeit product listings still appeared on Sears.com, Kmart.com and Zukit.com. 46. It is not known exactly how many product units were purchased by Defendant Andrews, how many units were shipped and/or sold to Defendants SHC, Sears and/or Kmart, how many units were shipped and/or sold by Defendants SHC, Sears and/or Kmart, how many units were shipped and/or sold by any of the Defendants channel partners, subsidiaries or other retailers, or how many, if any, unsold units of counterfeit products remain. It is also unknown whether any of the counterfeit products are currently being offered for sale in any of Defendants brick-and-mortar stores. 47. However, by Plaintiff s calculations, the potential damage is extensive, considering the retailers involved, the sheer number of stores and product units at issue and the fact that the incident occurred during the holiday shopping season. 48. Defendant Andrews has therefore been infringing, and upon information and belief, is continuing to infringe, upon Plaintiff s Patents by purchasing counterfeit gear ring products from China and then re-selling them at wholesale to the other Defendants named in this suit, and possibly other retailers as well. 49. The remaining Defendants, individually and/or collectively, have also been infringing, and upon information and belief, are continuing to infringe, upon Plaintiff s Patent by purchasing the counterfeit gear ring products from Defendant Andrews at wholesale cost and then marketing, advertising, offering for sale, selling and distributing 9

10 Case 2:17-cv WHW-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/16/17 Page 10 of 25 PageID: 10 these counterfeit products through their websites, their brick-and-mortar store locations and other various shopping or online marketplace websites to customers throughout the United States and in this judicial district. 50. The aforementioned counterfeit products are exact duplicates of Plaintiff s patented Gear Ring, and are being manufactured, advertised, marketed, sold and distributed without Plaintiff s authorization or consent. 51. Defendants SHC, Sears and Kmart have engaged in these infringing activities willfully, intentionally and with knowledge of the existence of Plaintiff s Patents, as they continued to sell, and even offered a price reduction, immediately after learning of the counterfeit nature of the products, the clear claim of infringement and Plaintiff s exclusive right to the Patents and patented products. 52. Plaintiff has suffered injury and damages that have been directly and proximately caused by Defendants wrongful sale, offer of sale, distribution, marketing and advertisement of goods that infringe upon Plaintiff s Patents including, but not limited to, having to retain undersigned counsel to represent it in this matter and having to pay said counsel a reasonable fee for such representation. COUNT I Patent Infringement 53. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 52 above and incorporates them as if fully set forth at length herein. 54. Defendants have marketed, advertised, used, offered to sell and sold Plaintiff s patented invention within the United States during the term of the Patents without Plaintiff s authority or consent in violation of 35 U.S.C

11 Case 2:17-cv WHW-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/16/17 Page 11 of 25 PageID: Defendant Andrews has purchased counterfeit gear rings from China which are exact duplicates of Plaintiff s patented invention, and then re-sold these counterfeit products to various retailers for sale on their websites and elsewhere. It is not clear whether Defendant Andrews continues to purchase the counterfeit products from China and/or sell the counterfeit products to retailers. 56. Defendants SHC, Sears and Kmart have purchased the counterfeit gear rings from Defendant Andrews, the re-sold these counterfeit gear ring products to consumers online and in their brick-and-mortar stores. These Defendants were made aware of their infringement by written notice, yet they continued to infringe and, upon information and belief, may still be infringing, upon Plaintiff s Patents by marketing, advertising, using, offering for sale and selling the counterfeit gear ring products, which are exact duplicates of Plaintiff s patented design and function in the identical manner as Plaintiff s product, in the United States and in this judicial district. 57. Defendants repeated and continuous violation of Plaintiff s Patents, despite notice of the infringement, is willful and intentional. 58. Defendants unlawful actions have caused and are continuing to cause damages to Plaintiff which include, but are not limited to, lost profits, loss of business and customers, damage to goodwill and reputation and violation of Plaintiff s exclusive right to the Patents. 59. Upon information and belief, Defendants will continue their infringing activities, and Plaintiff will continue to suffer irreparable injury due to Defendants infringement, if the Defendants are not permanently enjoined from such conduct. 11

12 Case 2:17-cv WHW-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/16/17 Page 12 of 25 PageID: 12 COUNT II False Designation of Origin 60. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 59 above and incorporates them as if fully set forth at length herein. 61. Defendants utilized paid advertisements for the counterfeit products on thirdparty search engines which constitute the use of false descriptions and representations and false designations of origin in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1125(a). 62. Defendants use in commerce of such false designations of origin and false or misleading descriptions and representations is likely to cause confusion in consumers, and actually is causing confusion in consumers, as to the connection of Defendants with Plaintiff, the origin of Defendants counterfeit goods, and whether Plaintiff has any affiliation or relationship with the counterfeit products. 63. Defendants continuous sale of infringing and counterfeit goods, despite the fact that they have been notified of the infringement, is willful and intentional. 64. Defendants unlawful actions have caused and are continuing to cause, damages to Plaintiff which include, but are not limited to, lost profits, loss of business and customers and damage to goodwill and reputation. 65. Upon information and belief, Defendants will continue their infringing activities, and Plaintiff will continue to suffer irreparable injury due to Defendants infringement, if the Defendants are not permanently enjoined from such conduct. COUNT III Deceptive Trade Practices 12

13 Case 2:17-cv WHW-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/16/17 Page 13 of 25 PageID: Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 65 above and incorporates them as if fully set forth at length herein. 67. Defendants use of paid advertisements on third-party search engines in connection with the sale, offer for sale, distribution, marketing and advertising of their counterfeit gear ring products, which are exact duplicates of Plaintiff s design and utilitypatent protected Gear Ring, is fraudulent, misleading and deceptive, and made with the intention that consumers rely on such misrepresentations and believe that the product being offered for sale is a true Gear Ring product and/or otherwise affiliated with Plaintiff in some way. 68. Defendants use of such paid, or sponsored, advertisements in connection with the sale, offer for sale, distribution, marketing and advertising of their infringing and counterfeit products constitutes fraud in connection with the sale or advertisement of goods in violation of N.J.S.A. 56: Defendants unlawful actions have caused and are continuing to cause, damages to Plaintiff which include, but are not limited to, lost profits, loss of business and customers and damage to goodwill and reputation. 70. Upon information and belief, Defendants will continue their infringing activities, and Plaintiff will continue to suffer irreparable injury due to Defendants infringement, if the Defendants are not permanently enjoined from such conduct. COUNT IV Unfair Competition 71. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 70 above and incorporates them as if fully set forth at length herein. 13

14 Case 2:17-cv WHW-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/16/17 Page 14 of 25 PageID: Defendants have engaged in fraudulent, misleading and unlawful conduct in attempting to pass off their counterfeit gear ring products as Plaintiff s products. 73. Defendants have committed these acts willfully and with conscious disregard of Plaintiff s rights. 74. Defendants have therefore engaged in unfair competition in violation of the common law of the State of New Jersey. 75. Defendants unlawful actions have caused and are continuing to cause, damages to Plaintiff which include, but are not limited to, lost profits, loss of business and customers and damage to goodwill and reputation. 76. Upon information and belief, Defendants will continue their infringing activities, and Plaintiff will continue to suffer irreparable injury due to Defendants infringement, if the Defendants are not permanently enjoined from such conduct. COUNT V Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage 77. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 76 above and incorporates them as if fully set forth at length herein. 78. Plaintiff has expended a significant amount of time, money and other resources in developing, patenting, trademarking, copyrighting, advertising and marketing the Gear Ring and expects to gain a significant economic advantage from its efforts. 79. Defendants have interfered with this economic advantage by selling, offering to sell, distributing, marketing and advertising counterfeit gear ring products that have purchased from China. 14

15 Case 2:17-cv WHW-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/16/17 Page 15 of 25 PageID: Defendants sale and advertising of counterfeit gear ring products and their interference with Plaintiff s prospective economic advantage has been done without justification or excuse. 81. If Defendants were not selling counterfeit gear ring products, all consumers wishing to purchase a Gear Ring would do so from Plaintiff, the rightful and true owner of the Gear Ring Patents and Trademark, and Plaintiff would thereby gain all these customers and an economic advantage. 82. As a result of Defendants interference with Plaintiff s prospective economic advantage, Plaintiff has suffered damages which include, but are not limited to, lost profits, loss of business and customers and damage to goodwill and reputation. 83. Upon information and belief, Defendants will continue their infringing activities, and Plaintiff will continue to suffer irreparable injury due to Defendants infringement, if the Defendants are not permanently enjoined from such conduct. COUNT VI Unjust Enrichment 84. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 83 above and incorporates them as if fully set forth at length herein. 85. Defendants profit from the sale, offer for sale, distribution, marketing and advertising of counterfeit gear ring products that are exact duplicates of Plaintiff s patented Gear Ring. 86. Defendants therefore receive a benefit from the improper and unauthorized duplication and sale of Plaintiff s patented product. 15

16 Case 2:17-cv WHW-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/16/17 Page 16 of 25 PageID: Defendants have been unjustly enriched by their sale of counterfeit products to the detriment of Plaintiff. 88. It would be unjust for Defendants to retain this benefit and Defendants should not be permitted to reap the benefits of this wrongful conduct. 89. As a result of Defendants conduct, Plaintiff has suffered damages which include, but are not limited to, lost profits, loss of business and customers and damage to goodwill and reputation. 90. Upon information and belief, Defendants will continue their infringing activities, and Plaintiff will continue to suffer irreparable injury due to Defendants infringement, if the Defendants are not permanently enjoined from such conduct. PRAYER FOR RELIEF ON ALL COUNTS WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment and relief against Defendants as follows: a. Adjudging the Plaintiff s Patents to be valid and enforceable; b. Adjudging that the Defendants have infringed Plaintiff s Patents and engaged in the other wrongful conduct set forth above; c. Adjudging that Defendants conduct was willful and intentional; d. That Defendants, and all persons or entities acting in concert or participation with Defendants, either directly or indirectly, be permanently enjoined from infringing, contributing to the infringement of, and/or inducing the infringement of the Patents, in the United States or in any other country or jurisdiction, and specifically from directly or indirectly manufacturing, making, using, marketing, distributing, selling or offering for sale in the United States or in any other country or jurisdiction, any product embodying the 16

17 Case 2:17-cv WHW-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/16/17 Page 17 of 25 PageID: 17 design or function of the Patents during the life of the Patents, regardless of the name(s) being used for such product, without the express written authority of the Plaintiff; e. That Defendants, and all persons or entities acting in concert or participation with Defendants, either directly or indirectly, whether in the United States or any other country or jurisdiction, be required to immediately remove all uses of, references to, depictions of, offers for sale and advertising of any counterfeit gear ring products, regardless of the name(s) by which it is called, from any and all websites and/or URLs where such may appear including, but not limited to, Sears.com, Kmart.com, HelenAndrews.com and Zukit.com; f. That any Internet service providers, merchant account providers, online marketplace and shopping search engines and websites, as well as third-party processors and search engines, including, but not limited to, Google.com, must, upon request of Plaintiff, immediately remove any and all listings by Defendants and/or links to their listings where counterfeit gear ring products are being used, offered for sale, marketed and/or advertised and that all such listings be de-indexed so that they no longer appear on any search and/or removed from any search results page; g. That Defendants, individually, provide an accounting of all profits derived from their patent infringement and sales of gear ring jewelry, and that Defendants pay such profits to Plaintiff, along with actual damages suffered by Plaintiff, trebled; h. Alternatively, that Plaintiff be awarded damages in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00); i. That Defendants be prohibited from destroying, altering, removing, hiding or otherwise tampering with any books or records that contain any information relating to the 17

18 Case 2:17-cv WHW-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/16/17 Page 18 of 25 PageID: 18 importation, distribution, sale, marketing and/or advertising of all products that infringe on Plaintiff s Patents; j. That any third party providing payment and related services for Defendants sale of infringing gear ring products, including merchant account providers, credit card companies, payment providers and/or third party payment processors whose identity is discovered during the course of the proceedings in this matter, shall, upon receiving notice of an applicable Order, deliver to Plaintiff, or its representative, copies of all documents and records relating to Defendants purchase or sale of gear ring products; k. That Defendants pay Plaintiff its reasonable attorneys fees and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117(a); l. Adjudging that this case be deemed exceptional; m. Adjudging that Defendants be ordered to deliver to Plaintiff, for destruction at Plaintiff s option, all products that infringe the Patents; and, n. Such other relief as the court deems just and proper. Dated: April 7, 2017 _/s Angela Jupin By: Angela Jupin, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff, Kinekt Design, LLC 201 Strykers Road Suite Phillipsburg, New Jersey Telephone (908) Facsimile (908) AngelaJupinLaw@gmail.com 18

19 Case 2:17-cv WHW-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/16/17 Page 19 of 25 PageID: 19 JURY DEMAND Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues. LOCAL CIVIL RULE 11.2 CERTIFICATION I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the matter in controversy is not the subject of any other pending or anticipated litigation in any court or arbitration proceeding, nor are there any non-parties known to Plaintiff that should be joined in this action. In addition, I recognize a continuing obligation during the course of this litigation to file and to serve on all other parties and with the Court an amended certification if there is a change in the facts stated in this original certification. Dated: April 7, 2017 ANGELA JUPIN, ESQ.. Attorney for Plaintiff, Kinekt Design, LLC _/s Angela Jupin By: Angela Jupin, Esq. LOCAL CIVIL RULE CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the above-captioned matter is not subject to compulsory arbitration in that declaratory and injunctive relief is sought. Dated: April 7, 2017 ANGELA JUPIN, ESQ. Attorney for Plaintiff, Kinekt Design, LLC /s Angela Jupin By: Angela Jupin, Esq. 19

20 Case 2:17-cv WHW-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/16/17 Page 20 of 25 PageID: 20 EXHIBIT A 20

21 Case 2:17-cv WHW-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/16/17 Page 21 of 25 PageID: 21 21

22 Case 2:17-cv WHW-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/16/17 Page 22 of 25 PageID: 22 EXHIBIT B 22

23 Case 2:17-cv WHW-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/16/17 Page 23 of 25 PageID: 23 23

24 Case 2:17-cv WHW-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/16/17 Page 24 of 25 PageID: 24 EXHIBIT C 24

25 Case 2:17-cv WHW-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/16/17 Page 25 of 25 PageID: 25 25