Tomgal v. BH Fashion - Complaint

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

TOMGAL, LLC d/b/a ROBIN RUTH, :
:
Plaintiff, :
:
v. :
:
BH FASHION DESIGN INC.; :
ARKASH IMPORTS LLC; :
MOURDI FAKS; and ALBERT FAKS, :
:
Defendants. :

Civil Action No. _____________

COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Tomgal, LLC d/b/a Robin Ruth (Robin Ruth), for its Complaint against
Defendants, BH Fashion Design Inc., Arkash Imports LLC, Mourdi Faks, and Albert Faks
(collectively Defendants), alleges as follows:
THE PARTIES
1. Tomgal, LLC d/b/a/ Robin Ruth is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Florida, having its principal place of business at 730 S. Powerline Rd. Bldg.
3, Suite 1, Deerfield Beach, FL 33442, and a place of business at 146-27 167
th
Street, J amaica,
NY 11434. Robin Ruth designs, manufactures, distributes and sells distinctive bags and
accessories that are imprinted with distinctive patterns that relate to a particular geographic area
(hereinafter City-State Products).
2. On information and belief, Defendant BH Fashion Design Inc. (BH Fashion) is a
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York and having a
principal place of business at 234 Beach 101st Street, Rockaway Park, NY 11694.
Case 1:13-cv-03388-MKB-RML Document 1 Filed 06/13/13 Page 1 of 70 PageID #: 1
2
3. On information and belief, Defendant Arkash Imports LLC (Arkash) is a

corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York and having a
principal place of business at 234 Beach 101st Street, Rockaway Park, NY 11694.
4. On information and belief, Defendant Mourdi Faks is an individual who is an owner
and/or officer of BH Fashion and Arkash, has an address at 234 Beach 101st Street, Rockaway
Park, NY 11694, and is doing business as BH Fashion and Arkash in this J udicial District.
5. On information and belief, Defendant Albert Faks is an individual who is an owner
and/or officer of BH Fashion and Arkash, and has an address at 234 Beach 101st Street,
Rockaway Park, NY 11694, and is doing business as BH Fashion and Arkash in this J udicial
District.
6. On information and belief, Defendants Albert Faks and Mourdi Faks, individually
and together, have controlled and continue to control the acts of BH Fashion and Arkash as
alleged herein, and each of the Defendants were and are, relative to the acts alleged, the agents of
each other, and each has and is acting within the scope, purpose, and authority of that agency and
with the knowledge, permission and consent of the other.
7. On information and belief, there has existed and continues to exist a unity of interest
between each of the Defendants such that any individuality and separateness among each of the
Defendants has ceased, and each is the agent and alter-ego of the other in the acts alleged.
8. On information and belief, the acts of each Defendant were and continue to be done
with the permission, consent, knowledge and active inducement on the part of the other, and the
Defendants together acted and continue to act as co-conspirators and/or agents in the
performance of such acts.
3
9. On information and belief, Defendants import, manufacture, distribute, offer for sale
and/or sell bags which infringe design patents and trade dress owned by Robin Ruth in
connection with its City-State Products (hereinafter Infringing Products). On information and
belief, Defendants sell Infringing Products within the State of New York and within this J udicial
District.
NATURE OF CLAIMS, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
10. This action arises under the Patent laws of the United States (35 U.S.C. 1 et. seq.),
the Trademark and Unfair Competition laws of the United States (15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.), and
under the statutory law of the State of New York (N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law 349 et seq.) and the
common law of the State of New York.
11. J urisdiction of this Court is founded upon 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1338(a) and (b), 15
U.S.C. 1121, and the pendent jurisdiction of this Court.
12. Venue is proper within this J udicial District under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and (c), and
1400 (b).
13. On information and belief, Defendant BH Fashion and Arkash have committed and
continue to commit acts of patent and trade dress infringement and unfair competition in this
J udicial District.
14. On information and belief, Defendants Mourdi and Albert Faks, individually and
through their active control of BH Fashion and Arkash, have committed and continue to commit
acts of patent and trade dress infringement and unfair competition in this J udicial District.
15. On information and belief, Defendants BH Fashion, Arkash, Mourdi Faks, and Albert
Faks are subject to personal jurisdiction in this District because they reside in this J udicial
District, and purposefully engaged in, and continue to engage in, activities giving rise to claims
4
for patent and trade dress infringement and unfair competition in this J udicial District which are
directed at the residents of New York in this J udicial District.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
Robin Ruths City-State Products
16. At all times relevant herein, Robin Ruth has been engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing and selling a line of bags and accessories of
varying styles, with each bag and accessory item characterized, in part, by a unique and
distinctive repeating pattern containing the name of a particular geographic area or city, where
the repeating pattern may appear in a unique and distinct font of a single color, except for one
instance where the name of the area or city appears in a different and contrasting color (Classic
Robin Ruth Trade Dress). Robin Ruth distributes and sells goods bearing the Classic Robin
Ruth Trade Dress worldwide, throughout the United States, and including within this J udicial
District, principally through retail stores, souvenir shops, airports, and on the Internet.
17. The Classic Robin Ruth Trade Dress has been applied to numerous styles of bags and
accessories, including a Tote Bag, a Neck Wallet and a Hobo Bag. Images of these bags bearing
the Classic Robin Ruth Trade Dress are attached hereto as Exhibit A1-A3. Images of the Neck
Wallet bearing the Classic Robin Ruth Trade Dress are attached hereto as Exhibit A4. Images of
the Hobo Bag bearing the Classic Robin Ruth Trade Dress are attached hereto as Exhibit A5.
18. The Classic Robin Ruth Trade Dress is non-functional, fanciful, distinctive, well-
recognized, and represents the source of Robin Ruths products sold in association therewith and
the substantial goodwill of Robin Ruth throughout the United States, including in this J udicial
District. The Classic Robin Ruth Trade Dress constitutes valid trade dress and Robin Ruth owns
exclusive rights to it.
5
19. Robin Ruths new, non-obvious, and ornamental design for the Tote Bag is the
subject of U.S. Design Patent No. D586,118 for a Handbag, which issued on February 10,
2009 (the 118 Patent). A true and correct copy of the 118 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit
B. Robin Ruth is the owner by assignment of all right, title, and interest in the 118 Patent.
20. Robin Ruths new, non-obvious, and ornamental design for the Neck Wallet is the
subject of U.S. Design Patent No. D597,304 for Neck Wallets, which issued on August 4,
2009 (the 304 Patent). A true and correct copy of the 304 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit
C. Robin Ruth is the owner by assignment of all right, title, and interest in the 304 Patent.
21. Robin Ruth has also designed and is manufacturing, marketing, distributing and
selling a bag known as the City Bag, characterized, in part, by a unique and distinctive repeating
pattern containing the name of a particular geographic area or city where the individual lines of
text share the same unique and distinctive font but vary in size, orientation, and related hue
(City Bag Trade Dress).
22. Robin Ruth distributes and sells goods bearing the City Bag Trade Dress worldwide,
throughout the United States, and including within this J udicial District. Images of the City Bag
bearing the City Bag Trade Dress are attached hereto as Exhibits A6-A7.
23. The City Bag Trade Dress is non-functional, fanciful, distinctive, well-recognized,
and represents the source of Robin Ruths products sold in association therewith and the
substantial goodwill of Robin Ruth throughout the United States, including in this J udicial
District. The City Bag Trade Dress constitutes valid trade dress and Robin Ruth owns exclusive
rights to it.
24. Robin Ruths new, non-obvious, and ornamental design for the City Bag is the
subject of U.S. Design Patent No. D612,597 for a Handbag, which issued on March 30, 2010
6
(the 597 Patent). A true and correct copy of the 597 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
Robin Ruth is the owner by assignment of all right, title, and interest in the 597 Patent.
25. Robin Ruth has also designed and is manufacturing, marketing, distributing and
selling bags known as the Repeat Color Hobo Bag, characterized, in part, by a unique and
distinctive repeating pattern containing the name of a particular geographic area or city, where
each line of the repeating pattern shares the same unique and distinctive font and appears in one
of several repeating colors (Repeat Color Hobo Bag Trade Dress).
26. Robin Ruth distributes and sells goods bearing the Repeat Color Hobo Bag Trade
Dress worldwide, throughout the United States, and including within this J udicial District.
Images of the Repeat Color Hobo Bag bearing the Repeat Color Hobo Bag Trade Dress are
attached hereto as Exhibit A8-A9.
27. The Repeat Color Hobo Bag Trade Dress is non-functional, fanciful, distinctive, well-
recognized, and represents the source of Robin Ruths products sold in association therewith and
the substantial goodwill of Robin Ruth throughout the United States, including in this J udicial
District. The Repeat Color Hobo Bag Trade Dress constitutes valid trade dress and Robin Ruth
owns exclusive rights to it.
28. Robin Ruth products bear distinctive hang tags containing original, unique, and
distinctive design elements including a black and white bisected rectangle displaying a logo on
one side and a bar code on the other side, and a black and white circular medallion bearing a
logo. Defendants Infringing Products bear hang tags with the same elements. Photographs of the
Robin Ruth hang tag as compared to the BH Fashion Design hang tag are attached as Exhibit E.
The unique design features of Robin Ruths hang tags have become well-known to the
7
purchasing public as an indication of a quality Robin Ruth product, to which BH Fashion Design
has misappropriated for use in their hang tags on the Infringing Products.
29. Robin Ruth has expended substantial sums of money in advertising and promoting its
line of bags and accessories bearing its distinctive trade dress styles. As a result, the product line
has become a cultural phenomenon and has enjoyed substantial recognition by consumers,
becoming well and favorably known to the purchasing public and widely recognized as
indicating the source or origin of Robin Ruths products. The London Tote Bag was featured
on CBS News as a part of a gift set celebrating President Obamas visit to the Queen of England.
Reality television personalities Kate Gosselin and Nicole Snooki Polizzi were photographed
carrying the New York Tote Bag, and the Dalai Lama was photographed wearing a Robin
Ruth cap bearing the Amsterdam Classic Robin Ruth Trade Dress.
DEFENDANTS ACTS OF INFRINGEMENT
30. On information and belief, Defendants market and sell within this J udicial District
Infringing Products which copy Robin Ruths line of bags and embody Robin Ruths trade dress
and patented inventions, including for the Tote Bags, Neck Wallets, Hobo Bags, City Bags and
Gradated Color Hobo Bags, without authorization from Robin Ruth. Photographs of Infringing
Products of BH Fashion are attached hereto as Exhibit F. A copy of an Arkash catalog showing
Infringing Products are attached hereto as Exhibits G1-G9, and photographs of Infringing
Products of Arkash are attached hereto as Exhibits G10-G11.
31. Robin Ruth maintains a website for advertising, promoting and selling its products.
Excerpts from Robin Ruths website are attached as Exhibit H. Arkash has maintained a website
for advertising, promoting and selling its products which is identical to, and directly competitive
with, Robin Ruths website. Excerpts from Arkashs website are attached as Exhibit I. On
8
information and belief, Arkash directly copied Robin Ruths website and such copying forms a
part of Arkashs infringement as alleged herein.
32. Defendants Infringing Products are competitive with Robin Ruths products and, on
information and belief, are offered for sale and sold to consumers through the same channels of
trade.
33. By trading on Robin Ruths valuable goodwill, Defendants have caused and are likely
to cause confusion, mistake, and deception of purchasers and potential purchasers as to the
source or origin of the Defendants products and as to the existence of an association,
connection, or relationship between Robin Ruth and Defendants.
34. On information and belief, Defendants infringement has been willful and deliberate,
with full knowledge of Robin Ruths rights, and designed specifically to trade upon the
enormous goodwill associated with Robin Ruths trade dress and to capitalize on Robin Ruths
initiative.
35. Defendants actions have damaged and are likely to damage the superior reputation
and goodwill of Robin Ruth.
36. Robin Ruth is being irreparably injured and monetarily damaged by Defendants acts.
Robin Ruth has no adequate remedy at law.
COUNT 1 PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. D586,118, D597,304 AND D612,597
37. Robin Ruth repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-36 above,
as though fully set forth herein.
38. This cause of action arises under the United States Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. 1, et seq.
39. The 118 Patent, the 304 Patent, and the 597 Patent are valid and enforceable.
9
40. By the acts alleged herein, BH Fashion and the individual defendants have infringed
at least one claim of the 118 Patent, the 304 Patent, and the 597 Patent, without Robin Ruths
authorization or consent.
41. By the acts alleged herein, Arkash and the individual defendants have infringed at
least one claim of the 597 Patent, without Robin Ruths authorization or consent.
42. On information and belief, Defendants infringement has been intentional and willful,
making this an exceptional case.
43. Defendants will, on information and belief, continue to commit patent infringe as
alleged unless and until they are enjoined by this Court. Robin Ruth has been and is likely to
continue to be irreparably injured unless Defendants are enjoined. Robin Ruth has no adequate
remedy at law and is thus damaged in an amount that is yet to be determined.
COUNT 2 TRADE DRESS INFRINGEMENT IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 43(a) OF
THE LANHAM ACT, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)
45. This cause of action arises under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.
1125(a).
46. Defendants acts as alleged herein are likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception
of purchasers and potential purchasers as to the origin, sponsorship, approval, or association of
Defendants products by Robin Ruth in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.
1125(a).
47. By the acts alleged herein, Defendants have used false designations of origin and
false and misleading descriptions and representations, which misrepresent the nature,
characteristics, and qualities of the Infringing Products and falsely describe the origin,
10
sponsorship, approval, or association by Robin Ruth of Defendants Infringing Products, in

violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).
48. By the acts alleged herein, Defendants have used false and misleading descriptions,
which suggest that the Infringing Products emanate from Robin Ruth. This causes confusion and
mistake, deceives and misleads the purchasing public, trades upon Robin Ruths goodwill and
high quality reputation, and improperly appropriates to Defendants the valuable rights of Robin
Ruth.
49. Defendants wrongful acts constitute trade dress infringement in violation of Section
43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).
50. Defendants wrongful acts will continue to cause irreparable injury to Robin Ruth and
infringe upon Robin Ruths trade dress in the future unless and until they are enjoined by this
Court. Robin Ruth has been and is likely to continue to be injured unless Defendants are
enjoined. Robin Ruth has no adequate remedy at law and is thus damaged in an amount that is
yet to be determined.
COUNT 3 UNFAIR COMPETITION, FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN AND
FALSE DESCRIPTION AND REPRESENTATION IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 43(a)
OF THE LANHAM ACT, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)
52. This cause of action arises under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.
1125(a).
53. By the acts alleged herein, Defendants have used a false designation of origin that is
likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception of purchasers and potential purchasers as to the
11
origin, sponsorship, approval, or association of the Infringing Products by Robin Ruth in

54. By the acts alleged herein, Defendants have used false designations of origin and
false and misleading descriptions and representations, which misrepresent the nature,
characteristics, and qualities of the Infringing Products and falsely describe the origin,
sponsorship, approval, or association by Robin Ruth of Defendants Infringing Products, in
55. By the acts alleged herein, Defendants have caused confusion, mistake, and
deception, and have misled the purchasing public, traded upon Robin Ruths high quality
reputation, and improperly appropriated to themselves the valuable rights of Robin Ruth.
56. Defendants wrongful acts constitute unfair competition and use in commerce of false
designations of origin and false and/or misleading descriptions or representations, tending to
describe and/or represent, in a false and misleading fashion, Defendants Infringing Products as
those of Robin Ruth in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).
57. Defendants wrongful acts will continue to cause irreparable injury to Robin Ruth
unless and until they are enjoined by this Court. Robin Ruth has been and is likely to continue to
be injured unless Defendants are enjoined. Robin Ruth has no adequate remedy at law and is thus
damaged in an amount that is yet to be determined.
COUNT 4 NEW YORK COMMON LAW UNFAIR COMPETITION
59. This cause of action is for unfair competition and arises under the common law of the
State of New York.
12
60. Defendants acts as alleged herein are likely to deceive or to confuse the trade and the
general public as to the source or origin of Defendants Infringing Products and as to the
existence of a relationship between Robin Ruth and Defendants.
61. On information and belief, Defendants are acting in a manner such as to deceptively
and/or fraudulently pass off its goods as those of Robin Ruth and to capitalize on the initiative
and goodwill of Robin Ruth.
62. Because of Defendants use of Robin Ruths distinctive trade dress and website
design, ordinary persons acting with reasonable care are likely to mistake Defendants goods for
those of Robin Ruth.
63. Defendants, through their unfair competition and false designations of origin, have
unfairly competed with Robin Ruth by use of unfair and improper business practices, in violation
of the common law of the state of New York.
64. Robin Ruth has and is being irreparably damaged by such acts, and damage will
continue unless Defendants acts are enjoined. Robin Ruth has no adequate remedy at law and is
thus damaged in an amount that is yet to be determined.
COUNT 5 DECEPTIVE ACTS AND PRACTICES IN VIOLATION OF N.Y. GEN. BUS.
LAW 349 ET SEQ.
66. This cause of action arises under Section 349 et seq. of the New York Consolidated
Laws.
67. Because of Defendants acts alleged herein, ordinary persons acting with reasonable
care are likely to mistake Defendants Infringing Products for the genuine goods of Robin Ruth.
13
68. Defendants unauthorized acts alleged herein constitute unlawful, unfair and
fraudulent business practices.
69. Defendants unauthorized acts as alleged herein include deceptive, untrue, and
misleading advertisements, confusing the public into believing that Robin Ruth is responsible
for, endorses, or sponsors Defendants Infringing Products.
70. Robin Ruth has and is being irreparably damaged by such acts, and damage will
continue unless Defendants acts are enjoined. Robin Ruth has no adequate remedy at law and is
thus damaged in an amount that is yet to be determined.
WHEREFORE, Robin Ruth demands judgment:
A. Adjudging and decreeing that Defendants have unlawfully infringed the 118 Patent,
the 304 Patent, and the 597 Patent and have misappropriated Robin Ruths trade dress rights;
B. Preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents, servants,
employees and attorneys and all those in active concert or participation with any of them:
1. from importing, distributing, advertising, promoting, selling, and/or offering to
sell any product which infringes any claim of the 118 Patent, the 304 Patent, or
the 597 Patent, or which embodies a design that imitates the Classic Robin Ruth
Trade Dress, the City Bag Trade Dress, or the Repeat Color Hobo Bag Trade
Dress, or any colorable variation thereof, unless the product emanates from or is
authorized by Robin Ruth; and
2. from falsely representing or suggesting that Defendants products are affiliated
with, related to, or sponsored by Robin Ruth or suggesting any connection with it;
14
C. Requiring Defendants to pay their profits to Robin Ruth, any damages sustained by
Robin Ruth as a result of Defendants acts, and Robin Ruths costs for the action, and attorneys
fees, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284, 289, and 15 U.S.C. 1117(a);
D. Requiring that all product labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles, and
advertisements of Defendants bearing the Classic Robin Ruth Trade Dress, the City Bag Trade
Dress, the Repeat Color Hobo Bag Trade Dress, and any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or
colorable imitation thereof, and all plates, molds, matrices and other means of making the same,
be delivered up to Plaintiff for destruction, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1118;
E. Requiring Defendants to pay to Robin Ruth three times the amount of actual
damages, and reasonable attorneys fees and costs, because of the exceptional nature of this case,
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285, 15 U.S.C. 1117(a), and/or N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law 349 et seq.; and
F. Granting such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
JURY DEMAND
Robin Ruth requests a trial by jury in this matter.
Dated: J une 13, 2013 Respectfully submitted,

s/ Wendy E. Miller _
Wendy E. Miller (WM-1982)
COOPER & DUNHAM LLP
30 Rockefeller Plaza, 20
th
Fl.
New York, NY 10112
Tel: (212) 278-0400
Fax: (212) 371-0525
wmiller@cooperdunham.com

C a s e 0 : 1 0 - c v - 6 0 2 1 5 - D L G D o c u m e n t 2 1 - 1 E n t e r e d o n F L S D D o c k e t 0 4 / 0 9 / 2 0 1 0 P a g e 2 6 o f
2 8
Exhibit A-3
.c
u
c
0
.,....
X
0
~
tn
0'>
(I)
co
IJ)
co
>
c
(I)
u
ttJ
Exhibit A-1
C
a
s
e

0
:
1
0
-
c
v
-
6
0
2
1
5
-
D
L
G

D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

2
1
-
1

E
n
t
e
r
e
d

o
n

F
L
S
D

D
o
c
k
e
t

0
4
/
0
9
/
2
0
1
0

P
a
g
e

2
7

o
f

2
8
E
x
h
i
b
i
t

A
-
4
Canvas Bags 11 .2X 16 1nch
t !II '
8 ~ V 0 0 l A BNYOOI C 8NY001 1: SNYOOl f BNYOO I G BNYOO I I
8NY001 J BN'IOOI K. SNYOOI N ll N '1'00 l X I>NYOOI Q BNYOOI l BNYOO? A.
www.roblnrvlh.com

E
x
h
i
b
i
t

A
-
2
C a s e 0 : 1 0 - c v - 6 0 2 1 5 - D L G D o c u m e n t 2 1 - 1 E n t e r e d o n F L S D D o c k e t 0 4 / 0 9 / 2 0 1 0 P a g e 2 8 o f
2 8
Exhibit A-5
-
-
~

(I)
co
>
c
co
(.)
(I)
Q)
E
i=
~
1.0
~
Exhibit A-3
Exhibit A-2
<1
<1
<1
........,
Q)
co
s
<j
~
(.)
Q)
z
c
0
Q)
u..
,..:.
0
"" >-
z
CXl
w
I
""
0
"" >-
z
Ctl
0
I
"
0
"" >-
z
Ctl
u
I
"
0
"
>-
z
Ctl
Exhibit A-4

Roun eo Bag
61 ' ,

,, f
t
'I

Nr)O

Exhibit A-5

1ty ags-819
0 4 V ~ 0 1 ,., ou ~ c
n
B"'T' I. YSIJI li
Exhibit A-6

Exhibit A-7

Exhibit A-8

Exhibit A-9
Exhibit B-1
111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
c12) United States Design Patent
Shabi
(54) HANDBAG
(75) Inventor: Yaniv Shabi, Forest Hills, NY (US)
(73) Assignee: Tomgal LLC, Delray Beach, FL (US)
(**) Term: 14 Years
(21) Appl. No.: 29/278,270
(22) Filed: Mar. 23, 2007
(51) LOC (9) Cl. .................................................. 03-01
(52) U.S. Cl. ....................................................... D3/234
(58) Field of Classification Search . ... ... ... ... .. ... D3/230,
D3/232-234, 238, 240-246, 318, 324; 150/100,
150/103-104, 107-110, 118-119
See application file for complete search history.
(56) References Cited
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
D244,914 S * 7/1977 Nicol .......................... D9/704
D453,070 S * 112002 Jacobs ......................... D3/234
OTHER PUBLICATIONS
4 imprint tote bags item E (sarasota beach club), p. 64 [online].
4imprint, Summer 2006 [retrieved Jul. 16, 2008]. Retrieved from the
Internet: http:/

These are pictures of handbags offered for sale by Robin Ruth in a
Robin Ruth Catalog with dates underneath each handbag when they
were first offered for sale-Jun. 30, 2006 thru Nov. 29, 2006.
* cited by examiner
USOOD586118S
(10) Patent No.: US D586,118 S
** Feb. 10, 2009 (45) Date of Patent:
Primary Examiner-Holly H Baynham
(74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm-Jon A. Gibbons; Fleit
Gibbons Gutman Bongini & Bianco P.L.
(57) CLAIM
The ornamental design for a handbag, as shown and
described.
DESCRIPTION
FIG. 1 is a top plan view of a first embodiment of a handbag
with the city ORLANDO, showing our new design;
FIG. 2 is a top plan view of a second embodiment of a
handbag with the city NEW YORK, showing our new design;
FIG. 3 is a top plan view of a third embodiment of a handbag
with the city LAS VEGAS, showing our new design;
FIG. 4 is a top plan view of a fourth embodiment of a handbag
with the city CHICAGO, showing our new design;
FIG. 5 is a top plan view of a fifth embodiment of a handbag
with the city LOS ANGLES, showing our new design; and,
FIG. 6 is a top plan view of a sixth embodiment of a handbag
with the city SAN FRANCISCO, showing our new design.
The broken lines in FIGS. 1-6 are included for the purpose of
illustrating a portion of the handbag that forms no part of the
claimed design.
1 Claim, 6 Drawing Sheets
Exhibit B-2
U.S. Patent Feb.10,2009 Sheet 1 of 6 US D586,118 S
...
, .......

,::::::::.
Exhibit B-3
Exhibit B-4
U.S. Patent Feb.10,2009 Sheet 3 of 6

,:::::::::
:::Y{:

..... ., ,-. ...
.=:.:_::.._. :, : :, :, ,: - ._ .. -_...___ ....._ ..

US D586,118 S

:::::::})
Exhibit B-5
Exhibit B-6
U.S. Patent Feb.10,2009 Sheet 5 of 6

u ....
,, , ....

..............

--.........
(f:-!.?-J)
::c::}
:::::::1)
(f:.f,?j)
,.. ...

:::::::'})
U .. j}:::U
US D586,118 S
:\

Vl::::-
LU
-
-l
LU

CJ)

z

<
w
3f
Exhibit B-7
Exhibit C-1
I IIIII 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111
USOOD597304S
c12) United States Design Patent (10) Patent No.: US D597 ,304 S
** Aug. 4, 2009
Avrahami
(54) NECK WALLETS
(75) Inventor: BoazAvrahami, LJ Badhoevedorp (NL)
(73) Assignee: Tomgal, LLC., Pompano Beach, FL
(US)
(**) Term: 14 Years
(21) Appl. No.: 29/326,702
(22) Filed: Oct. 23, 2008
(51) LOC (9) Cl. .................................................. 03-01
(52) U.S. Cl. ....................................................... D3/234
(58) Field of Classification Search .......... D3/232-233,
(56)
D3/240-252, 318, 324; 150/100, 103-104,
150/106-110, 113-114, 118-119, 130--132
References Cited
D244,914 S * 7/1977 Nicol .......................... D9/704
D453,070 S * 112002 Jacobs ......................... D3/234
* cited by examiner
(45) Date of Patent:
(57) CLAIM
The ornamental design for a neck wallet, as shown and
described.
DESCRIPTION
FIG.1 is a top plan view of a first embodiment of a neck wallet
with the city San Francisco, showing our new design;
FIG. 2 is a top plan view of a second embodiment of a neck
wallet with the city Las Vegas, showing our new design;
FIG. 3 is a top plan view of a third embodiment of a neck
wallet with the city Chicago, showing our new design;
FIG. 4 is a top plan view of a fourth embodiment of a neck
wallet with the city Miami, showing our new design;
FIG. 5 is a top plan view of a fifth embodiment of a neck
wallet with the city New York, showing our new design; and,
FIG. 6 is a top plan view of a sixth embodiment of a neck
wallet with the city Los Angles, showing our new design.
The broken lines in FIGS. 1-6 are included for the purpose of
illustrating a portion of the neck wallets that forms no part of
the claimed design.
Exhibit C-2
U.S. Patent Aug. 4, 2009 Sheet 1 of 6 US D597 ,304 S
F I G ~ 1
Exhibit C-3
Exhibit C-4
Exhibit C-5
..
: : .. -... :
" , ,_ . : r , __ -'-..
.. , 1 : '-
,_,--' 'i. '.\ l :V S< !
. __ .. '
.., '. __ v :
.. \ ........
\..:- ! :1 :
t-;::(&' '( :..:.."'
n ;J.ci :,
. ..._.-/'.,. : ...................""" ......... \ !
., ' -! \. t ol'
.... ..... .t ". f- !I

... .., ........... ........................ .,...,.. ........... .,.,...,..,._ ................. ..,. .. 'lijl'llji .................... .,..,..,. ........................... ... .................................. .,. ....... R-.. ..
< ;:cor._--._--._"""
I( -" !! {
:1: t

il'/'::.\ .. t ......... ........,:..: ' '
'\. ' ' ' '
j --:
'( :
j "" ,11----
< ' ' '( .. ,
>i' r
>
H
>' '
}.I
.,. '
'
"' t

.... :

'oi "\'
n\ {: .... , \ !'\ . ..-? (i
-'>"[ : u
i-
\{
. t fb:i}. _ f';. . -,< i __: . -_.:!.: ,:'_,_., .. ,-.":-:s,-., . ... __ : .. __ -__ .. ::... .._:-
[ ; u _ --::-_: ..
_,.-

FIG.4
Exhibit C-6
Exhibit C-7
Exhibit D-1
I IIIII 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111
c12) United States Design Patent
Avrahami
(54) HANDBAG
(75) Inventor: BoazAvrahami, Badhoevedorp (NL)
(73) Assignee: Tomgal, LLC, Pompano Beach, FL (US)
(**) Term: 14 Years
(21) Appl. No.: 29/320,308
(22) Filed: Jun.25,2008
(51) LOC (9) Cl. .................................................. 03-01
(52) U.S. Cl. ....................................................... D3/234
(58) Field of Classification Search .......... D3/232-234,
(56)
D3/238, 240-246, 318, 324; 150/100, 103-104,
150/106-110, 113-114, 118-119
References Cited
D244,914 s
D453,070 S *
D535,472 S *
D576,793 S *
7/1977 Nicol
112002 Jacobs ......................... D3/234
112007 Fendi .......................... D3/234
9/2008 Norsa .......................... D3/234
OTHER PUBLICATIONS
4 imprint tote bags item E (sarasota beach club), p. 64 [online].
4imprint, Summer 2006 [retrieved Jul. 16, 2008]. Retrieved from the
Internet: http:/

USOOD612597S
(10) Patent No.:
(45) Date of Patent:
US D612,597 S
** Mar. 30, 2010
* cited by examiner
(57) CLAIM
The ornamental design for a handbag, as shown and
described.
DESCRIPTION
FIG. 1 is a top plan view of a first embodiment of a handbag;
FIG. 2 is a top plan view of a second embodiment of a
handbag;
FIG. 3 is a top plan view of a third embodiment of a handbag;
FIG. 4 is a top plan view of a fourth embodiment of a handbag;
FIG. 5 is a top plan view of a fifth embodiment of a handbag;
FIG. 6 is a top plan view of a sixth embodiment of a handbag;
and,
FIG. 7 is a top plan view of a seventh embodiment of a
handbag.
Portions of the design shown in broken or dashed lines in the
drawings are for illustrative purposes only, and forms no part
of the claim design.
Exhibit D-2
U.S. Patent Mar. 30, 2010 Sheet 1 of 7 US D612,597 S
Exhibit D-3
FIG.2
Exhibit D-4
FIG.3
Exhibit D-5
U.S. Patent Mar. 30,2010 Sheet 4 of7 US D612,597 S
Exhibit D-6
FIG.5
Exhibit D-7
FIG.6
Exhibit D-8
U.S. Patent Mar.30,2010 Sheet 7 of7 US D612,597 S
FIG.7
Side-by-Side Comparison Between Hang Tags

Robin Ruth Products Hang Tag BH Fashion Design Products Hang Tag
Exhibit E

DNY0002
A B
c D
E
Exhibti G-3 F

A t. .

.
-
IL'-ir.
Exhibit F-1

A
c
E
ONY0003 (10"X10") SM
ONY0004 (10.X15") MEO
ONY0006 (lS"X 21 ") LG
B
D
F
Exhibit F-2

Exhibit F-3

DNY0001
A 8
c
E F
Exhibit F-4

DNYOOOS
A
c D
E F
Exhibit F-5

Exhibit F-6

Exhibit I-2
Exhibit F-7

Exhibit G-1
Exhibit G-1


Exhibit G-2


Exhibit G-3


Exhibit G-4


Exhibit G-5


Exhibit G-6


Exhibit G-7


Exhibit G-8


Exhibit G-9


Exhibit G-10

Exhibit G-11
E
x
h
i
b
i
t

H
-
1
RO Bll\: }I{ RUTl-1 ,\ ;i-i . i i_i . . =:c:- ' [oi -.F ::-UT L::

NEWS
01.12.2012
Christmas is near!
Robin Ruth Germany is taking
part at the famous BRAVO .de
advent calendar. You can w1n
5 different city bundles. For
more Information visit our.. .
05.11. 2012
MBYC 2012 Kids Fishing
Tournament
MBYC 2012 K1ds Fishing
Tournament and charity event
of Robin Ruth in Jamaica. Our
friend Lennox Lewis was
Search

VIDEO NEW COLLECTION
E
x
h
i
b
i
t

H
-
2
NEWS
01.12.2012
Christmas is near!
Robin Ruth Germany IS tak1ng
part at the famous BRAVO .de
advent calendar. You can win
5 different city bundles. For
more information visit our ...
05.1.1.2012
MBYC 2012 Kids Fishing
Tournament
MBYC 2012 Kids F1sh1ng
Tournament and chanty event
of Robin Ruth in Jamaica. Our
friend Lennox Lewis was
VIDEO NEW COLLECTION
E
x
h
i
b
i
t

H
-
3
there too!
21.09.2012
Robin Ruth is licensed to
sale NBA accessories
Robin Ruth team is proud to
say that we are licensed to
sale NBA accessones. Hold on
NBA Fans we are coming :_)
Let us show you what we.
31.08.2012
Spotted
Graffiti piece spotted nearby
the Amsterdam soccerteam
llJA:J( stadron of a man
wearing a Robin Ruth
cap .. WE ARE EVERYWHERE I
06.08.2012
Gifts 2012 .. in Moscow
Our Robin Ruth office in
Russia participated in a great
salon .. Business gifts,
souvenirs, elite stationery ..
which took place in Moscow
March .
Company Contact
STREET
Press Newsletter FAQ

ROBIN RUTH on Facebook
Find us on Facebook
Robin-Ruth
.::JUke 6,606
6,606 people like Robin-Ruth.
Dot'escar Allfln Tor. KamiUa
IJL.i-.e 138
Career Terms and Conditions
Etiro
E
x
h
i
b
i
t

I
-
1
I
Support (786)334-8965
f b
search site Q.
HOME ABOUT US SHOP OUR CATALOG FAQ'S CONTACT US
Welcome To Arkash Fashion, Your Number 1 Source For All
Gifts & Souvenirs.
WATCH COLLECTION
Our Collection of Affordable Fashion
Watches
learn More
e
ARKASH FASHION BAGS
COLLECTION
Our Collection of Affordable Fash1on Bags
learn More
0
WHOLESALE ACCOUNTS
Arkash fash1on IS always lookmg to grow
with new merchants.
Learn More
E
x
h
i
b
i
t

I
-
2
Supporr Hoiline: t785)334-8965
f
search s1te
Welcome To Arkash Fashion, Your Number 1 Source For All
Gifts & Souvenirs.
e
ARKASH FASHION BAGS
COllECTION
Collecuon of Affordable Fash1on Bags
0
WHOLESALE ACCOUNTS
Ark ash fash1on is always looking to grow
Wllh new merchants.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t

I
-
3

meswith
fined skin
~ e s a color
ge switcher. a
ngsand
Jptions
GIFTS UNDER $20

You can now setup a
word press installation that
looks like this den1o with just a
single dick of your moLrse.
Amazing co get started and
accustomed to the theme
The theme comes with a built in font and color selectors in case you
want co change rhe tone of your website by changing the font and colors.
You can also use choose between a ton of predefined skins as a startrng
point for your custornization and with the help of color selectors for li nks.
b.:Kkground image and color create a uni que layout in a matter of seconds
ts as easy as can be!
ACCESSORI ES

To get your content
displayed properly the
theme uses wordpress
shortcodes. Visual previews help
you while creating those
shortcodes so you don't need to
men1orize the codes.
effon for every customer we
get. Thats how we roll!
JS 44 (Rev. 1/2013)
CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the inIormation contained herein neither replace nor supplement the Iiling and service oI pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules oI court. This Iorm, approved by the Judicial ConIerence oI the United States in September 1974, is required Ior the use oI the Clerk oI Court Ior the
purpose oI initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
(b) County oI Residence oI First Listed PlaintiII County oI Residence oI First Listed DeIendant
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
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)
u 1 U.S. Government u 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
PlaintiII (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen oI This State u 1 u 1 Incorporated or Principal Place u 4 u 4
oI Business In This State
u 2 U.S. Government u 4 Diversity Citizen oI Another State u 2 u 2 Incorporated and Principal Place u 5 u 5
DeIendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) oI Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject oI a u 3 u 3 Foreign Nation u 6 u 6
Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in One Box Only)
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
u 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY u 625 Drug Related Seizure u 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 u 375 False Claims Act
u 120 Marine u 310 Airplane u 365 Personal Injury - oI Property 21 USC 881 u 423 Withdrawal u 400 State Reapportionment
u 130 Miller Act u 315 Airplane Product Product Liability u 690 Other 28 USC 157 u 410 Antitrust
u 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability u 367 Health Care/ u 430 Banks and Banking
u 150 Recovery oI Overpayment u 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS u 450 Commerce
& EnIorcement oI Judgment Slander Personal Injury u 820 Copyrights u 460 Deportation
u 151 Medicare Act u 330 Federal Employers` Product Liability u 830 Patent u 470 Racketeer InIluenced and
u 152 Recovery oI DeIaulted Liability u 368 Asbestos Personal u 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
Student Loans u 340 Marine Injury Product u 480 Consumer Credit
(Excludes Veterans) u 345 Marine Product Liability LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY u 490 Cable/Sat TV
u 153 Recovery oI Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY u 710 Fair Labor Standards u 861 HIA (1395II) u 850 Securities/Commodities/
oI Veteran`s BeneIits u 350 Motor Vehicle u 370 Other Fraud Act u 862 Black Lung (923) Exchange
u 160 Stockholders` Suits u 355 Motor Vehicle u 371 Truth in Lending u 720 Labor/Management u 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) u 890 Other Statutory Actions
u 190 Other Contract Product Liability u 380 Other Personal Relations u 864 SSID Title XVI u 891 Agricultural Acts
u 195 Contract Product Liability u 360 Other Personal Property Damage u 740 Railway Labor Act u 865 RSI (405(g)) u 893 Environmental Matters
u 196 Franchise Injury u 385 Property Damage u 751 Family and Medical u 895 Freedom oI InIormation
u 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability Leave Act Act
Medical Malpractice u 790 Other Labor Litigation u 896 Arbitration
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS u 791 Employee Retirement FEDERAL TAX SUITS u 899 Administrative Procedure
u 210 Land Condemnation u 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: Income Security Act u 870 Taxes (U.S. PlaintiII Act/Review or Appeal oI
u 220 Foreclosure u 441 Voting u 463 Alien Detainee or DeIendant) Agency Decision
u 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment u 442 Employment u 510 Motions to Vacate u 871 IRSThird Party u 950 Constitutionality oI
u 240 Torts to Land u 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 State Statutes
u 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations u 530 General
u 290 All Other Real Property u 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - u 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION
Employment Other: u 462 Naturalization Application
u 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - u 540 Mandamus & Other u 465 Other Immigration
Other u 550 Civil Rights Actions
u 448 Education u 555 Prison Condition
u 560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions oI
ConIinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an X in One Box Only)
u 1 Original
Proceeding
u 2 Removed Irom
State Court
u 3 Remanded Irom
Appellate Court
u 4 Reinstated or
Reopened
u 5 TransIerred Irom
Another District
(specify)
u 6 Multidistrict
Litigation
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are Iiling (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):

BrieI description oI cause:
VII. REQUESTED IN
COMPLAINT:
u CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
DEMAND $ CHECK YES only iI demanded in complaint:
JURY DEMAND: u Yes u No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
IF ANY
(See instructions):
JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE
TOMGAL, LLC d/b/a ROBIN RUTH
Queens
BH FASHION DESIGN INC.;
ARKASH IMPORTS LLC;
MOURDI FAKS; and ALBERT FAKS
Queens
Wendy E. Miller, Cooper & Dunham LLP
30 Rockefeller Plaza, 20th Fl., New York, NY 10112
(212)278-0400
35 U.S.C. 1 et seq.
Patent Infringement
06/13/2013 s/ Wendy E. Miller
Case 1:13-cv-03388-MKB-RML Document 1-1 Filed 06/13/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 71
CERTIFICATION OF ARBITRATION ELIGIBILITY
Local Arbitration Rule 83.10 provides that with certain exceptions, actions seeNing money damages only in an amount not in excess oI $150,000,
exclusive oI interest and costs, are eligible Ior compulsory arbitration. The amount oI damages is presumed to be below the threshold amount unless a
certiIication to the contrary is Iiled.
I, , counsel Ior , do hereby certiIy that the above captioned civil action is
ineligible Ior compulsory arbitration Ior the Iollowing reason(s):
monetary damages sought are in excess oI $150,000, exclusive oI interest and costs,
the complaint seeNs injunctive relieI,
the matter is otherwise ineligible Ior the Iollowing reason
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT - FEDERAL RULES CIVIL PROCEDURE 7.1
IdentiIy any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation that owns 10 or more or its stocNs:
RELATED CASE STATEMENT (Section VIII on the Front of this Form)
Please list all cases that are arguably related pursuant to Division oI Business Rule 50.3.1 in Section VIII on the Iront oI this Iorm. Rule 50.3.1 (a)
provides that 'A civil case is 'related to another civil case Ior purposes oI this guideline when, because oI the similarity oI Iacts and legal issues or
because the cases arise Irom the same transactions or events, a substantial saving oI judicial resources is liNely to result Irom assigning both cases to the
same judge and magistrate judge. Rule 50.3.1 (b) provides that ' A civil case shall not be deemed 'related to another civil case merely because the civil
case: (A) involves identical legal issues, or (B) involves the same parties. Rule 50.3.1 (c) Iurther provides that 'Presumptively, and subject to the power
oI a judge to determine otherwise pursuant to paragraph (d), civil cases shall not be deemed to be 'related unless both cases are still pending beIore the
court.
NY-E DIVISION OF BUSINESS RULE 50.1(d)(2)
1.) Is the civil action being Iiled in the Eastern District removed Irom a New YorN State Court located in Nassau or SuIIolN
County:
2.) II you answered 'no above:
a) Did the events or omissions giving rise to the claim or claims, or a substantial part thereoI, occur in Nassau or SuIIolN
County?
b) Did the events oI omissions giving rise to the claim or claims, or a substantial part thereoI, occur in the Eastern
District?
II your answer to question 2 (b) is 'No, does the deIendant (or a majority oI the deIendants, iI there is more than one) reside in Nassau or
SuIIolN County, or, in an interpleader action, does the claimant (or a majority oI the claimants, iI there is more than one) reside in Nassau
or SuIIolN County?
(Note: A corporation shall be considered a resident oI the County in which it has the most signiIicant contacts).
BAR ADMISSION
I am currently admitted in the Eastern District oI New YorN and currently a member in good standing oI the bar oI this court.
Yes No
Are you currently the subject oI any disciplinary action (s) in this or any other state or Iederal court?
Yes (II yes, please explain) No
I certiIy the accuracy oI all inIormation provided above.
Signature:
EDNY Revision 1/2013
Wendy E. Miller Tomgal, LLC
No
No
Yes
s/ Wendy E. Miller
Case 1:13-cv-03388-MKB-RML Document 1-1 Filed 06/13/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 72

Tomgal v. BH Fashion - Complaint

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Tomgal v. BH Fashion - Complaint

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3. On information and belief, Defendant Arkash Imports LLC (Arkash) is a

sponsorship, approval, or association by Robin Ruth of Defendants Infringing Products, in

origin, sponsorship, approval, or association of the Infringing Products by Robin Ruth in

Case 1:13-cv-03388-MKB-RML Document 1 Filed 06/13/13 Page 19 of 70 PageID #: 19

Case 1:13-cv-03388-MKB-RML Document 1 Filed 06/13/13 Page 20 of 70 PageID #: 20

Case 1:13-cv-03388-MKB-RML Document 1 Filed 06/13/13 Page 22 of 70 PageID #: 22

Side-by-Side Comparison Between Hang Tags

Case 1:13-cv-03388-MKB-RML Document 1 Filed 06/13/13 Page 47 of 70 PageID #: 47

Case 1:13-cv-03388-MKB-RML Document 1 Filed 06/13/13 Page 48 of 70 PageID #: 48

Case 1:13-cv-03388-MKB-RML Document 1 Filed 06/13/13 Page 49 of 70 PageID #: 49

Case 1:13-cv-03388-MKB-RML Document 1 Filed 06/13/13 Page 50 of 70 PageID #: 50

Case 1:13-cv-03388-MKB-RML Document 1 Filed 06/13/13 Page 51 of 70 PageID #: 51

Case 1:13-cv-03388-MKB-RML Document 1 Filed 06/13/13 Page 52 of 70 PageID #: 52

Case 1:13-cv-03388-MKB-RML Document 1 Filed 06/13/13 Page 53 of 70 PageID #: 53

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi