2 Dogs Distribution v. Cyberush Products - Complaint

Case 2:17-cv-02725-DJH Document 1 Filed 08/11/17 Page 1 of 15
1 Shane E. Olafson (Bar No. 024605)

LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP
2 201 East Washington Street, Suite 1200
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
3 Phone: (602) 262-5327
Fax: (602) 734-3756
4 solafson@lrrc.com
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff 2 Dogs Distribution, LLC

6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8 2 Dogs Distribution, LLC, No.

9 Plaintiff,
COMPLAINT
10 v.
Cyberush Products Ltd. d/b/a Toogli, (Jury Trial Demanded)
11
12 Defendant.
13
14 Plaintiff 2 DOGS Distribution, LLC (2 DOGS or Plaintiff), for its Complaint
15 against Cyberush Products Ltd. d/b/a Toogli (Toogli or Defendant), hereby alleges as
16 follows:
17 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
18 1. This is an action for patent infringement, trademark infringement, and
19 unfair competition arising under 35 U.S.C. 1, et seq., 15 U.S.C. 1051, et seq., and
20 applicable state and common laws.
21 2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to at
22 least 35 U.S.C. 100 et seq., including 35 U.S.C. 271 and 281, 15 U.S.C. 1121, and
23 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338 because this action arises under the patent and trademark
24 laws of the United States. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining
25 claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C 1367.
26 3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because it has, directly
27 or through its agents and/or intermediaries, committed acts within, and directed to, this
28 District giving rise to this action and/or has established such minimum contacts with this
-1-
1 District such that the exercise of jurisdiction would not offend traditional notions of fair
2 play and substantial justice.
3 4. Particularly, upon information and belief, Defendant and/or its agents
4 and/or intermediaries, offers for sale and/or sells its products in Arizona, including the
5 products accused of infringement in this action, through several distributors in the United
6 States, without geographical limitation or restriction as to the method of sale, including
7 through distributors who offer such products for sale over the Internet with free
8 nationwide shipping, including products for sale within or into this judicial district, in
9 direct competition Plaintiff within this judicial district. Defendant also sells and offers its
10 products for sale through Internet-based distributors, including Amazon and its own
11 internet store at toogli.com. Defendants accused product is also offered for sale on
12 Bonanza.com, OlivesMall, The Newish Warehouse, and Chickadee Solutions.
13 5. Upon information and belief, and as further described herein, Defendant
14 has committed patent infringement in Arizona that has led to foreseeable harm and injury
15 to Plaintiff. On information and belief, Defendant derives substantial revenue from the
16 sale of its infringing products distributed within this District and/or should reasonably
17 expect its actions to have consequences in this District.
18 6. Additionally, Defendant is subject to jurisdiction in the United States and
19 specifically in this District, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2). Defendant has contacts
20 within the United States that include, inter alia, offering to sell and/or selling infringing
21 products within this Judicial District and/or having infringing products imported into the
22 United States.
23 7. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and (c) and
24 28 U.S.C. 1400(b).
25 PARTIES
26 8. 2 DOGS is a Delaware limited liability company with a principal place of
27 business at 125 W. Gemini Dr., Suite E1-E2 in Tempe, Arizona 85283.
28
-2-
1 9. Upon information and belief, Defendant is a corporation organized and

2 existing under the laws of the Province of Manitoba, Canada, having a principal place of
3 business at 198 Carroll Road, Winnipeg, MB, R3K 1H6 Canada.
4 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
5 10. 2 DOGS is the exclusive owner of certain intellectual property directed to
6 innovative and quality carabiner products, including, without limitation, United States
7 Design Patent Nos. D613,583 and United States Federal Trademark Registration No.
8 3,306,126 for THE MOMMY HOOK. The Mommy Hook product has been sold
9 commercially in one form or another since at least 2006, and has gained widespread
10 recognition among consumers. A photo of the authentic Mommy Hook product is below:
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 11. 2 DOGS seeks to exploit the reach of THE MOMMY HOOK brand and
23 product through a successful and profitable licensing and merchandising program. 2
24 DOGS is very selective in the choice of its licensees and carefully controls and monitors
25 the quality of the licensed products. The intent of the licensing program is to build brand
26 equity on THE MOMMY HOOK trademark by licensing quality products, and
27 strengthening THE MOMMY HOOK experience for both core and non-traditional
28 customers.
-3-
1 12. The Mommy Hook has been widely successful due to its unique design,
2 and has garnered a reputation as a high-quality, innovative and stylish product.
3 A. Plaintiffs Patent Rights
4 13. 2 DOGS has taken steps to protect its products and owns various United
5 States patents relating to its product designs. Relevant to this dispute, 2 DOGS owns all
6 right, title, and interest in, and has the right to sue and recover for past, present, and
7 future infringement of, United States Patent No. D613,583 (the 583 Patent), which
8 issued on April 13, 2010. A copy of the 583 Patent is attached as Exhibit A.
9 14. The 583 patent is entitled Carabiner, and claims the distinctive
10 ornamental design for a carabiner as shown in the Patent.
11 15. The 583 patent is presumed to be valid.
12 B. Plaintiffs Trademark Rights
13 16. 2 DOGS is also the owner of common law and statutory rights to THE
14 MOMMY HOOK trademark, including United States federal trademark Registration No.
15 3,306,126 for THE MOMMY HOOK (the Trademark). The Trademark covers goods
16 and services in Class 6, including Fasteners, namely, metal clips and metal hooks, for
17 use on strollers, shopping carts and other carrier structures. A true and accurate copy of
18 the Trademark registration is attached as Exhibit B.
19 17. As a result of continuous and long-standing promotion, substantial sales,
20 high quality, and consumer recognition, THE MOMMY HOOK has developed powerful
21 good will that others want to copy.
22 18. THE MOMMY HOOK trademark is presumed valid and is incontestable
23 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1065.
24 C. Defendants Infringing Activities
25 19. Without 2 DOGS authorization, Defendant has made, used, sold, and/or
26 offered to sell a product that is the same or substantially similar to the design claimed in
27 the 583 Patent (the Infringing Product), thus directly infringing the 583 Patent.
28
-4-
1 20. On information and belief, Defendant also imports (or causes others to
2 import) the Infringing Product into the United States, further infringing the583 Patent.
3 21. According to Defendants website, Defendant is based in Canada, but has
4 partnered with fulfillment centers strategically placed in warehouses across the United
5 States. See https://toogli.com/pages/why-buy-from-us (last visited Aug. 8, 2017).
6 22. Defendant also boasts having thousands of customers, and that [a]ll of
7 our items are in stock & ready to ship immediately. Id. Defendant offers free shipping
8 throughout the United States, including into Arizona.
9 23. Upon information and belief, Defendant has also induced and continues to
10 induce acts by third parties that Defendant knows or should know constitute direct
11 infringement of the 583 Patent. Defendant actively induced infringement of the 583
12 Patent by designing its Infringing Product such that it infringes the 583 Patent and by
13 purposefully directing, promoting, encouraging, and causing the manufacture, sale,
14 advertisement for sale, use and/or importation into the United States of its Infringing
15 Product by third parties in ways that infringe the 583 Patent.
16 24. A side-by-side comparison of the patented design and Defendants
17 Infringing Product is shown below:
18
Patented Design Infringing Product
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-
1 25. On its Amazon.com product page, Defendant compares the design of the
2 Infringing Product with that of Competing Brands Stroller Hook, and markets the
3 infringing design as being advantageous over other products having a non-infringing
4 design:
5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 26. Upon information and belief, Defendant knew or should have known of
17 Plaintiffs existing patent rights in the 583 Patent because that Patent has been published
18 since at least April 13, 2010. Moreover, the authentic Mommy Hook product is marked
19 with the 583 Patent number. Defendant was therefore aware or should have been aware
20 of Plaintiffs rights in the 583 patent.
21 27. Plaintiff also, through counsel, expressly informed Defendant of the 583
22 Patent on or about July 14, 2017, demanding, inter alia, that Defendant cease
23 infringement of the 583 Patent and confirm so in writing. Thus, Defendants violation of
24 Plaintiffs patent rights has been and continues to be willful.
25 28. Upon information and belief, Defendant also knew or should have known
26 of Plaintiffs trademark rights in THE MOMMY HOOK. The application for THE
27 MOMMY HOOK trademark published in July 24, 2007, and registration issued in
28 October 2007. On information and belief, Defendant also had notice of THE MOMMY
-6-
1 HOOK trademark via display of the circle R on product packaging and other advertising
2 in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 1111.
3 29. Defendant is seeking to improperly trade off THE MOMMY HOOK name
4 and brand by advertising its infringing product as HOOKS FOR MOMMY and a HOOK
5 SET FOR MOMMY. For example, the following text appears on Defendants web page
6 for the Infringing Product:
7
10
11 30. Defendant uses the terms MOMMY and HOOK in direct proximity to one
12 another despite there being no commercial need for Defendant to do so. On information
13 and belief, Defendant is seeking to trade off the well-known THE MOMMY HOOK
14 trademark and brand name.
15 31. Defendant was also expressly informed by Plaintiff, through counsel, of
16 Plaintiffs rights in THE MOMMY HOOK trademark on or about July 14, 2017. In that
17 correspondence, Plaintiff demanded, inter alia, that Defendant cease infringement of
18 THE MOMMY HOOK trademark. Defendants violation of Plaintiffs trademark rights
19 has been and continues to be willful.
20 32. By selling and importing into the United States its Infringing Product, and
21 by marketing that product as a hook for mommy for use on strollers, shopping carts and
22 other carrier structures, Defendant is infringing Plaintiffs patent and trademark rights,
23 diluting Plaintiffs trademark rights, and causing Plaintiff irreparable harm.
24 33. Defendants are also inducing others to infringe THE MOMMY HOOK
25 trademark by intentionally supplying the Infringing Product to, and by inducing and
26 encouraging others to advertise, promote and sell the Infringing Product, using the terms
27 MOMMY and HOOK in proximity to each other, knowing that such use infringes THE
28 MOMMY HOOK trademark.
-7-
1 34. Defendants infringement is further damaging Plaintiff via negative

2 association with Defendants Infringing Product, which has received dozens of negative
3 reviews on Amazon.com, including the following customer comments:
4 Poor quality,
5 as I was trying to open the clasp it just broke in my hands
6 very poor quality and cheaply made
7 Broke on the very first use. Really disappointed
8 Used it twice and it simply broke.
9 Useless. Get something else.
10 broke pretty quickly. Pretty disappointed.
11 broke before I even hooked it onto the stroller.
12 Broke in 2 days.
13 Just got them in the mail and they arrived broken. . . . Disappointing.
14 the sides of the metal clips . . . are so sharp they could cut my fingers.
15 broke after just 1 or 2 uses . . . . DO NOT BUY.
16 These things are cheap and not worth the $
17 Very Poor Material
18 Disappointed it showed up broken.
19 it broke immediately
20 arrived defective. Dont waste your money.
21 Dont by [sic] this product, it is a waste of money!
22 35. As evidenced by these and other comments from Defendants customers
23 regarding the Infringing Product, confusion among consumers between the Infringing
24 Product and the authentic Mommy Hook is likely to harm 2 DOGS and The Mommy
25 Hooks reputation.
26 36. Defendants infringing conduct is causing Plaintiff irreparable harm.
27
28
-8-
1 COUNT I
2 Direct Infringement of the 583 Patent
3 37. 2 DOGS repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the allegations set
4 forth in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
5 38. Upon information and belief, Defendants Infringing Product is covered by
6 the design set forth in claim 1 of the 583 Patent.
7 39. Defendant has sold in the United States, offered for sale in the United
8 States and imported into the United States, the Infringing Product. These acts constitute
9 direct infringement of the 583 patent.
10 40. As a direct and proximate result of these actions, Defendant has unlawfully
11 derived and will continue to derive, income, profits and goodwill from its infringing
12 activities.
13 41. 2 DOGS has been and will continue to be damaged irreparably by
14 Defendants direct infringement of the 583 patent. 2 DOGS has no adequate remedy at
15 law for these wrongs and injuries. The damage to 2 DOGS includes harm to its
16 intellectual property that money cannot compensate.
17 42. Defendants infringing conduct makes this an exceptional case under
18 35 U.S.C. 285, due in part to Defendants wanton disregard for Plaintiffs patent rights.
19 COUNT II
20 Induced Infringement of the 583 patent
23 44. Upon information and belief, Defendant has induced others to make, use,
24 sell, and offer for sale in the United States, and to import into the United States,
25 Defendants Infringing Product. Such third parties include online retailers and
26 distributors throughout the United States who sell, offer for sale, distribute and/or import
27 the Infringing Product in the United States.
28
-9-
1 45. Upon information and belief, Defendant knew of the 583 Patent as
2 described above, and knew that third parties actions constitute infringement of the 583
3 Patent.
4 46. Upon information and belief, the actions of Defendant described above
5 have at all times relevant to this action been willful.
6 47. 2 DOGS has been and will continue to be damaged irreparably by
7 Defendants induced infringement the 583 Patent. 2 DOGS has no adequate remedy at
8 law for these wrongs and injuries. The damage to 2 DOGS includes harm to its
9 intellectual property that money cannot compensate.
10 48. Defendants infringing conduct makes this an exceptional case under
11 35 U.S.C. 285, due in part to Defendants wanton disregard for Plaintiffs patent rights.
12 COUNT III
13 Trademark Infringement Under the Lanham Act
16 50. Defendant has knowingly used and continues to use in commerce
17 advertising that is designed to, and likely to, cause consumer confusion with regard to
18 THE MOMMY HOOK trademark. Defendant has done so with the knowledge of, and
19 the intent to call to mind and create a likelihood of confusion with regard to, and/or trade
20 off the fame and goodwill associated with THE MOMMY HOOK product.
21 51. 2 DOGS has given notice of its registrations and claimed trademark rights
22 pursuant to section 29 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1111. Nevertheless, Defendant
23 continues to infringe Plaintiffs registered trademark.
24 52. Defendants actions (A) constitute trademark infringement, (B) are likely to
25 confuse, mislead, or deceive customers, purchasers, and members of the general public as
26 to the origin, source, sponsorship, or affiliation of Defendant and 2 DOGS and/or
27 Defendants products and 2 DOGS products, and (C) is likely to cause such people to
28 believe in error that Defendant's products have been authorized, sponsored, approved,
- 10 -
1 endorsed, or licensed by 2 DOGS, or that the Defendant is in some way affiliated with 2
2 DOGS.
3 53. 2 DOGS has no control over the nature and quality of the goods or services
4 Defendant offers, and 2 DOGS reputation and goodwill will be damaged and the value
5 of THE MOMMY HOOK trademark jeopardized by Defendants continued
6 infringement of Plaintiffs trademark. Because of the likelihood of confusion between
7 the Infringing Product and The Mommy Hook product, any defects, objections, or
8 faults found with Defendants products will negatively reflect upon and injure the
9 reputation that The Mommy Hook product has gained. As such, Defendant is liable to
10 2 DOGS for infringement of its registered mark under 15 U.S.C. 1114.
11 54. Defendants acts alleged above have caused, and if not enjoined will
12 continue to cause, irreparable and continuing harm to 2 DOGS trademarks, business,
13 reputation, and goodwill. 2 DOGS has no adequate remedy at law as monetary damages
14 are inadequate to compensate 2 DOGS for the injuries caused by Defendant.
15 55. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants conduct, 2 DOGS has
16 suffered damages to the THE MOMMY HOOK trademark, and other damages in an
17 amount to be proved at trial.
18 56. Defendants infringement of 2 DOGS registered trademark is deliberate,
19 willful, fraudulent and without any extenuating circumstances, and constitutes a knowing
20 use of Plaintiffs trademark, and an exceptional case within the meaning of 15 U.S.C.
21 1117(a).
22 57. 2 DOGS is entitled to injunctive relief, and to recover Defendants profits,
23 actual damages, enhanced profits and damages, costs, and reasonable attorney fees under
24 15 U.S.C. 1114, 1116, and 1117.
25
26
27
28
- 11 -
1 COUNT IV
2 False Designation of Origin/Unfair Competition
3 Under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act
6 59. Defendants aforementioned acts constitute direct and/or indirect trademark
7 infringement, false designation of origin, passing off and unfair competition in violation
8 of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), et seq.
9 60. THE MOMMY HOOK trademark has been used in commerce for over a
10 decade, is federally registered, is legally incontestable, and is entitled to protection under
11 both federal and common law. Through that extensive and continuous use, THE
12 MOMMY HOOK trademark has become a well-known indicator of the origin and quality
13 of The Mommy Hook product.
14 61. Defendants use of colorable imitations of THE MOMMY HOOK
15 trademark constitutes a false designation of origin that is likely to cause consumer
16 confusion, mistake, or deception as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of the
17 Infringing Product by creating the false and misleading impression that the Infringing
18 Product is manufactured by, authorized by, or otherwise associated with 2 DOGS.
19 62. Defendants use of colorable imitations of THE MOMMY HOOK
20 trademark has caused, and unless enjoined, will continue to cause substantial and
21 irreparable injury to 2 DOGS for which 2 DOGS has no adequate remedy at law,
22 including at least substantial and irreparable injury to the goodwill and reputation for
23 quality associated with 2 DOGS trademark rights.
24 63. On information and belief, Defendants use of colorable imitations of THE
25 MOMMY HOOK trademark has been intentional and willful. Defendants bad faith is
26 evidenced at least by the similarity of the Infringing Product to the authentic Mommy
27 Hook product and THE MOMMY HOOK trademark, as well as by Defendants failure
28 to abide by Plaintiffs infringement notices.
- 12 -
1 64. 2 DOGS is entitled to injunctive relief, and 2 DOGS is also entitled to

2 recover Defendants profits, actual damages, enhanced profits and damages, costs, and
3 reasonable attorney fees under 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), 1116, and 1117.
4 COUNT V
5 Common Law Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition
7 forth in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully here.
8 66. As a result of long-time sales of The Mommy Hook and use of THE
9 MOMMY HOOK brand, The Mommy Hook product has become widely known and
10 has acquired a reputation for quality and excellence.
11 67. Defendant, with knowledge of and with intentional disregard of 2 DOGS
12 rights, continues to advertise, promote, sell, and import Infringing Products into the
13 United States and this District, and to intentionally infringe THE MOMMY HOOK
14 trademark.
15 68. Defendants acts are likely to cause confusion as to the source and/or
16 sponsorship of 2 DOGS, and Defendants acts constitute common law trademark
17 infringement and misappropriation of the goodwill associated with THE MOMMY
18 HOOK mark, and constitute unfair competition in violation of Arizona common law.
19 69. Defendants acts alleged above have caused, and if not enjoined will
20 continue to cause, irreparable and continuing harm to 2 DOGS trademarks, business,
21 reputation, and goodwill. 2 DOGS has no adequate remedy at law because monetary
22 damages are inadequate to compensate 2 DOGS for the injuries caused by Defendant.
23 70. On information and belief, Defendants aforementioned conduct has been
24 intentional and willful.
25 71. 2 DOGS is entitled to injunctive relief, and to recover Defendants profits,
26 actual damages, punitive damages, costs, and reasonable attorney fees.
27
28
- 13 -
1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

2 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff 2 DOGS Distribution, LLC respectfully request that this
3 Court enter judgment on each and every claim for relief set forth above and award relief,
4 including, but not limited to, the following:
5 A. Granting judgment that Defendant has directly infringed the 583 patent;
6 B. Granting judgment that Defendant has indirectly infringed the 583 patent
7 by inducing the infringement of the 583 patent;
8 C. Issuing a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, and its agents,
9 employees, attorneys, successors and assigns, and all persons, firms, and corporations
10 acting in concert with them, from directly or indirectly infringing the 583 patent,
11 including inducing the infringement of, or contributing to the infringement of, the 583
12 patent.
13 D. Entering judgment for Plaintiff against Defendant for damages suffered by
14 Plaintiff as a result of such infringement, including, but not limited to lost profits and/or a
15 reasonable royalty pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284;
16 E. Awarding Plaintiff enhanced damages as a result of Defendants willful
17 patent infringement;
18 F. Awarding Plaintiff the costs and disbursements of this action, and
19 reasonable attorneys fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285;
20 G. A preliminary and permanent injunction against further infringement, direct
21 and indirect, of THE MOMMY HOOK trademark and colorable imitations thereof by
22 Defendant, its officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and all others in active
23 concert or participation with any of them;
24 H. An order directing the destruction of all Infringing Products in Defendants
25 possession or control, including the destruction of all advertising materials related to the
26 Infringing Product in Defendants possession or control, including on the Internet
27
28
- 14 -
1 I. An award of Defendants profits, actual damages, enhanced profits and

2 damages, costs, and reasonable attorney fees under 15 U.S.C. 1114, 1116, and 1117
3 for Defendants trademark infringement;
4 J. Awarding Plaintiff pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, to the fullest
5 extent available, on the foregoing; and
6 K. Granting such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
7 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
8 2 DOGS hereby demands a jury trial on all of its claims.
9
10 DATED this 11th day of August, 2017.

11 LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP
12
By: s/Shane E. Olafson
13 Shane E. Olafson
201 East Washington Street, Suite 1200
14 Phoenix, AZ 85004
Attorneys for Plaintiff 2 DOGS
15 DISTRIBUTION, LLC
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 15 -
Case 2:17-cv-02725-DJH Document 1-1 Filed 08/11/17 Page 1 of 9
EXHIBIT A
11111111111111111111111111111111111i11111111111111111111111111111
(12) United States Design Patent (10) Patent No.: US D613,583 S

Abels (45) Date of Patent: ** *Apr. 13, 2010
(54) CARABINER 4,785,495 A 11/1988 Dellis

4,811,467 A 3/1989 Lowe
(76) Inventor: David L. Abels, 112 Yeargen Pl., Chapel
Hill, NC (US) 27516 (Continued)
(**) Term: 14 Years FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS

DE 2945831 A * 5/1980
(21) Appl. No.: 29/336,431
(Continued)
(22) Filed: May 4, 2009
OTHER PUBLICATIONS
Related U.S. Application Data
Absorbent, Ink., "Jumbo Carry-All Carabiner", Jun. 3, 2008, Pub-
(63) Continuation of application No. 12/016,275, filed on lisher: Accessed online via http://www.absorbentprinting.com/tools-
Jan. 18, 2008. and-knives/carabiners/carabiners/jumbo-carry-all-carabiner
(51) LOC (9) Cl. 08-05 (Continued)

(52) U.S. Cl. D8/356 Primary Examiner Susan Bennett Hattan
(58) Field of Classification Search D8/105, Assistant Examiner Karen Acker
D8/107, 333, 349, 356, 358, 357, 373, 383; (74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm Vincent K. Gustafson;
D11/200, 215; 24/573.11, 579.09, 579.11, Intellectual Property, Technology Law
24/592.11, 599.1, 599.9, 600.1; 182/5
See application file for complete search history. (57) CLAIM
(56) References Cited The ornamental design for a carabiner, as shown and
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS described.
1,219,199 A 3/1917 Troop DESCRIPTION

1,263,745 A 4/1918 Craven
2,412,895 A 12/1946 Lewis FIG. 1 is a perspective view of the carabiner of the invention.
2,492,991 A 1/1950 Hanna
FIG. 2 is a front elevation view of the carabiner of FIG. 1;
2,550,038 A 4/1951 Brown
2,833,454 A 5/1958 McGee FIG. 3 is a top plan view of the carabiner of FIGS. 1-2;
2,983,980 A 5/1961 Hamel FIG. 4 is a left side elevation view of the carabiner of FIGS.
3,120,403 A 2/1964 Molzan et al.
3,358,340 A 12/1967 Higuchi
1-3;
3,563,430 A 2/1971 Forrest FIG. 5 is a right side elevation view of the carabiner of FIGS.
4,095,316 A 6/1978 Gabriel 1-4; and,
4,380,093 A 4/1983 Morgan
FIG. 6 is a bottom plan view of the carabiner of FIGS. 1-5.
D271,466 S 11/1983 Boissonnet
4,556,245 A * 12/1985 Gruenwald 294/31.2
D282,904 S 3/1986 Faidide 1 Claim, 4 Drawing Sheets
US D613,583 S
Page 2
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS D528,406 S 9/2006 Kramer

7,114,196 B1 10/2006 Cicio
4,835,823 A 6/1989 Contat 7,140,326 B2 11/2006 Jenny et al.
4,890,355 A 1/1990 Schulten 7,228,600 B1 6/2007 Selby et al.
4,930,194 A 6/1990 Frechin 7,322,624 B2 1/2008 Murphy
4,964,192 A 10/1990 Marui D565,392 S * 4/2008 Shetler D8/356
5,005,266 A 4/1991 Fister et al. D572,573 S 7/2008 Abels
5,010,850 A 4/1991 Sailer 2001/0037542 Al 11/2001 Elliott
5,155,878 A 10/1992 Dellis 2002/0092142 Al 7/2002 Schoen
D334,888 S * 4/1993 Merritt D9/455 2003/0047953 Al 3/2003 Hechimovich et al.
5,210,914 A 5/1993 Katsma 2003/0106190 Al 6/2003 Christianson
5,263,755 A 11/1993 Thompson 2003/0110604 Al 6/2003 Kennard
5,329,675 A 7/1994 McLean et al. 2003/0127477 Al 7/2003 Williams
5,357,657 A 10/1994 Petzl 2004/0143945 Al 7/2004 Christianson
5,361,726 A 11/1994 Harris et al. 2004/0231116 Al 11/2004 Goldberg
5,441,323 A 8/1995 Goddard 2004/0250386 Al 12/2004 Goldberg
D369,549 S 5/1996 Meyers et al. 2005/0028331 Al 2/2005 Axel
5,517,949 A 5/1996 Harris et al. 2005/0057056 Al 3/2005 Davis
D371,023 S * 6/1996 Higgins D6/462 2005/0081347 Al 4/2005 Goldberg
D375,252 S 11/1996 Serra Fabregas 2005/0229367 Al 10/2005 Thompson
5,577,304 A * 11/1996 Simond 24/588.1 2005/0246874 Al 11/2005 Hsu
5,729,864 A 3/1998 Lie et al. 2005/0275230 Al 12/2005 Barrett
5,738,401 A 4/1998 Fan 2005/0278907 Al 12/2005 DiMarchi et al.
D406,250 S 3/1999 Luk et al. 2006/0087139 Al 4/2006 Ayres
5,878,834 A 3/1999 Brainerd et al. 2006/0137151 Al 6/2006 Thompson
5,882,022 A 3/1999 Convertini et al. 2006/0162138 Al 7/2006 Kimura
5,940,943 A * 8/1999 Kloster 24/588.1 2006/0168781 Al 8/2006 Axel
6,000,108 A 12/1999 Roan 2006/0261618 Al 11/2006 Schleucher
6,042,164 A * 3/2000 Merritt 294/28 2006/0273600 Al 12/2006 Rohlf
D432,027 S 10/2000 Fox et al. 2007/0018467 Al 1/2007 Schwartz
D433,312 S * 11/2000 Luquire D8/333 2007/0062013 Al * 3/2007 Mueller 24/599.1
6,148,483 A 11/2000 DeGraff 2008/0022497 Al 1/2008 Thompson
D448,276 S 9/2001 Kelleghan 2008/0185409 Al 8/2008 Kellenberger
6,338,463 Bl 1/2002 Babitz et al.
D474,095 S * 5/2003 Luquire D8/99 FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
D475,591 S 6/2003 Luquire
EP 1849502 Al * 10/2007
6,606,769 Bl 8/2003 Harris
WO WO 9802668 Al * 1/1998
6,622,354 Bl 9/2003 Klingier
D483,647 S 12/2003 Lo OTHER PUBLICATIONS
6,688,259 B2 * 2/2004 Axel 119/792
6,715,898 Bl 4/2004 Huang Ebay Online Auction, "Lightweight Green Carabiner with Foam
6,802,480 Bl 10/2004 Martello Handle", Feb. 14, 2007, Publisher: Accessed Online at: http://cgi.
6,923,356 B2 * 8/2005 Reynolds 224/585 ebay.com/LIGHTWEIGHT-GREEN-CARABINER-WITH-
D513,964 S 1/2006 Overthun et al. FOAM-HANDLE WOQQitemZ220092256791QQihZ012QQ
D519,410 S 4/2006 Luk et al. categoryZ50814QQrclZ1QQcmcIZViewItem.
Home Depot, "Workforce Hangalls Jumbo Carabiner", May 15,
7,047,604 B2 5/2006 Axel
2008.
7,097,223 Bl 8/2006 Bradford
D527,988 S * 9/2006 Shetler D8/356 * cited by examiner
U.S. Patent Apr. 13, 2010 Sheet 1 of 4 US D613,583 S
FIG.1
FIG.2
FIG.3
FIG.6
FIG.4 FIG.5
EXHIBIT B
Int. Cl.: 6
Prior U.S. Cls.: 2, 12, 13, 14, 23, 25 and 50
Reg. No. 3,306,126
United States Patent and Trademark Office Registered Oct. 9, 2007
TRADEMARK
PRINCIPAL REGISTER
The Mommy Hook
CAROLINA PUBLISHING & ADVERTISING THE MARK CONSISTS OF STANDARD CHAR-

CORP. (NORTH CAROLINA CORPORATION) ACTERS WITHOUT CLAIM TO ANY PARTICULAR
112 YEARGEN PLACE FONT, STYLE, SIZE, OR COLOR.
CHAPEL HILL, NC 27516
NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE
FOR: FASTENERS. NAMELY, METAL CLIPS RIGHT TO USE "HOOK", APART FROM THE
AND METAL HOOKS, FOR USE ON STROLLERS, MARK AS SHOWN.
SHOPPING CARTS AND OTHER CARRIER STRUC-
TURES, IN CLASS 6 (U.S. CLS. 2, 12, 13, 14, 21 25 AND
SER. NO. 77-092,837, FILED 1-27-2007.
50).
FIRST USE 4-3-2006; IN COMMERCE 4-3-2006. AMY MCMENAMIN, EXAMINING ATTORNEY

Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Civil Cover Sheet

This automated JS-44 conforms generally to the manual JS-44 approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in
September 1974. The data is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet.
The information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as
required by law. This form is authorized for use only in the District of Arizona.
The completed cover sheet must be printed directly to PDF and filed as an
attachment to the Complaint or Notice of Removal.
Plaintiff Defendant Cyberush Products Ltd. d/b/a

2 Dogs Distribution, LLC
(s): (s): Toogli
County of Residence: Outside the State of
County of Residence: Maricopa
Arizona
County Where Claim For Relief Arose: Maricopa
Plaintiff's Atty(s): Defendant's Atty(s):

Shane E. Olafson
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
201 East Washington Street, Suite 1200
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
602.262.5311
II. Basis of Jurisdiction: 3. Federal Question (U.S. not a party)
III. Citizenship of Principal

Parties (Diversity Cases Only)
Plaintiff:- N/A
Defendant:- N/A
IV. Origin : 1. Original Proceeding
V. Nature of Suit: 830 Patent
VI.Cause of Action: 35 U.S.C. 1, et seq., 15 U.S.C. 1051, et seq. Patent infringement,

trademark infringement and unfair competition
VII. Requested in Complaint
Class Action: No
Dollar Demand:
http://www.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/generate_civil_js44.pl 8/10/2017
Page 2 of 2
Jury Demand: Yes
VIII. This case is not related to another case.
Signature: s/Shane E. Olafson
Date: 08/11/2017
If any of this information is incorrect, please go back to the Civil Cover Sheet Input form using the Back button in
your browser and change it. Once correct, save this form as a PDF and include it as an attachment to your case
opening documents.
Revised: 01/2014
http://www.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/generate_civil_js44.pl 8/10/2017

2 Dogs Distribution v. Cyberush Products - 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

2 Dogs Distribution v. Cyberush Products - Complaint

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Case 2:17-cv-02725-DJH Document 1 Filed 08/11/17 Page 1 of 15

1 Shane E. Olafson (Bar No. 024605)

5 Attorneys for Plaintiff 2 Dogs Distribution, LLC

7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8 2 Dogs Distribution, LLC, No.

14 Plaintiff 2 DOGS Distribution, LLC (2 DOGS or Plaintiff), for its Complaint

17 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

18 1. This is an action for patent infringement, trademark infringement, and

20 applicable state and common laws.

25 claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C 1367.

1 9. Upon information and belief, Defendant is a corporation organized and

1 34. Defendants infringement is further damaging Plaintiff via negative

1 64. 2 DOGS is entitled to injunctive relief, and 2 DOGS is also entitled to

1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

1 I. An award of Defendants profits, actual damages, enhanced profits and

10 DATED this 11th day of August, 2017.

(12) United States Design Patent (10) Patent No.: US D613,583 S

(54) CARABINER 4,785,495 A 11/1988 Dellis

(**) Term: 14 Years FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS

(51) LOC (9) Cl. 08-05 (Continued)

1,219,199 A 3/1917 Troop DESCRIPTION

U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS D528,406 S 9/2006 Kramer

U.S. Patent Apr. 13, 2010 Sheet 1 of 4 US D613,583 S

U.S. Patent Apr. 13, 2010 Sheet 2 of 4 US D613,583 S

U.S. Patent Apr. 13, 2010 Sheet 3 of 4 US D613,583 S

U.S. Patent Apr. 13, 2010 Sheet 4 of 4 US D613,583 S

The Mommy Hook

CAROLINA PUBLISHING & ADVERTISING THE MARK CONSISTS OF STANDARD CHAR-

FIRST USE 4-3-2006; IN COMMERCE 4-3-2006. AMY MCMENAMIN, EXAMINING ATTORNEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Civil Cover Sheet

Plaintiff Defendant Cyberush Products Ltd. d/b/a

Plaintiff's Atty(s): Defendant's Atty(s):

II. Basis of Jurisdiction: 3. Federal Question (U.S. not a party)

III. Citizenship of Principal

IV. Origin : 1. Original Proceeding

V. Nature of Suit: 830 Patent

VI.Cause of Action: 35 U.S.C. 1, et seq., 15 U.S.C. 1051, et seq. Patent infringement,

Jury Demand: Yes

VIII. This case is not related to another case.

Signature: s/Shane E. Olafson

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi