Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

FOURSTAR GROUP USA, INC. Plaintiff, v. KAISER GROUP, INC., Defendant. __________________________________/ COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Plaintiff, Fourstar Group USA, Inc. (Fourstar), sues Defendant, Kaiser Group, Inc. (Kaiser), for a declaratory judgment and alleges the following: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is an action for declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201 Case No.

and Rule 57, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for the purpose of determining a question of actual controversy between the Plaintiff and Defendant. Plaintiff Fourstar seeks declarations that: (a) Kaisers claimed design patent at issue is invalid and unenforceable; (b) in the event Kaisers design patent at issue is valid and enforceable, Fourstars accused products do not infringe it; (c) Kaisers asserted trademark and trade dress rights are invalid and unenforceable; and (d) in the event Kaisers asserted trademark and trade dress rights at issue are valid and enforceable, Fourstars accused products do not infringe any such rights of Kaiser.

THE PARTIES 2. Plaintiff, Fourstar, is a Delaware corporation with a major office located in

Clearwater, Florida. 3. Defendant, Kaiser, is a Minnesota corporation with its registered place of

business in Edina, Minnesota. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28

U.S.C. 1331 and 1338. 5. 1391. 6. Kaiser is subject to jurisdiction in Florida pursuant to the Florida Long Venue is proper in this district and in this division under 28 U.S.C.

Arm Statute, Section 48.193, Florida Statutes, and jurisdiction in this Court over the person of the Defendant comports with the requirements of due process. 7. Kaiser is also subject to jurisdiction in Florida because its products that

are allegedly covered by Kaisers design patent and trademark rights at issue, and Fourstars products that Kaiser has asserted infringe its design patent and trademark rights at issue, are sold within the Middle District of Florida. COUNT I DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 8. Fourstar realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations

contained within paragraphs 1 through 7 above, as if set forth fully herein. 9. On March 25, 2014, Kaisers counsel sent a letter (the Kaiser Demand

Letter) to one of Fourstars customers, Greenbrier International, Inc. (Greenbrier) in

which Kaiser accused Greenbrier of infringing Kaisers U.S. Design Patent No.: D693,176 S (the 176 Patent) by selling Fourstars double wall wine glass tumbler product (Fourstars Wine Glass Tumbler). 10. The Kaiser Demand Letter also asserted that Fourstars Wine Glass

Tumbler infringes Kaisers asserted trade dress rights and its trademark VINO2GO. 11. Kaisers allegations have created a real and reasonable apprehension in

Fourstar that Kaiser will sue Fourstar and Greenbrier for infringement of Kaisers 176 Patent and its asserted trade dress and trademark rights if Fourstar and its customers, including Greenbrier, continue selling Fourstars Wine Glass Tumbler. 12. Because Fourstars Wineglass Tumbler is markedly different in many

respects from the design claimed in Kaisers 176 Patent, Fourstar does not believe that Fourstars Wine Glass Tumbler infringes Kaisers 176 Patent and further believes that it is not engaging in any activity that constitutes infringement of Kaisers 176 Patent. 13. unenforceable. 14. Because the non-functional elements of Fourstars Wineglass Tumbler Fourstar also believes that Kaisers 176 Patent is invalid and

are markedly different in many respects from the non-functional elements of Kaisers VINO2GO products and Fourstar does not use any mark, say nothing of a mark that is confusingly similar to VINO2GO, in connection with Fourstars Wineglass Tumbler, Fourstar does not believe that Fourstars Wine Glass Tumbler or any of Fourstars activities infringe Kaisers asserted trade dress and trademark rights.

15.

Fourstar also believes that Kaisers asserted trade dress and trademark

rights are invalid and unenforceable. 16. Actual controversies exist between Fourstar and Kaiser as to whether

Fourstar and its customers are infringing Kaisers patent, trade dress, and trademark rights by selling Fourstars Wine Glass Tumbler and whether Kaisers asserted patent, trade dress, and trademark rights are invalid and unenforceable. 17. Fourstar and Kaiser have opposing interests of such immediacy that a

declaration of rights is warranted. 18. A declaration of rights will serve the useful purpose of clarifying and

settling the legal relations at issue. A declaration of rights will also afford relief from the uncertainty, insecurity, and controversy giving rise to these proceedings. 19. Fourstar is entitled to declarations that Fourstars Wine Glass Tumbler

does not infringe Kaisers 176 Patent, asserted trade dress rights, or asserted trademark rights and that Kaisers 176 Patent, and asserted trade dress and trademark rights are invalid and unenforceable. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Fourstar Group, USA, Inc., respectfully requests this Court to: (A) enter a declaratory judgment that: (1) Kaisers claimed design patent at issue is invalid and unenforceable; (2) in the event Kaisers design patent at issue is valid and enforceable, Fourstars Wine Glass Tumbler is not infringing it;

(3)

Kaisers asserted trademark and trade dress rights are invalid and unenforceable; and

(4)

in the event Kaisers asserted trademark and trade dress rights are valid and enforceable, Fourstars Wine Glass Tumbler does not infringing any such rights of Kaiser;

(B) (C)

award to Fourstar the costs of bringing this action; and grant to Fourstar all other relief this Court deems just and appropriate.

Dated: April 3, 2014

s/ Richard E. Fee Richard E. Fee Florida Bar No. 813680 Kathleen M. Wade Florida Bar No. 127965 FEE & JEFFRIES, P.A. 1227 North Franklin Street Tampa, Florida 33602 (813) 229-8008 - Telephone (813) 229-0046 Facsimile rfee@feejeffries.com kwade@feejeffries.com Trial counsel for Plaintiff, Fourstar Group USA, Inc.