Keezio Group v. Bubblebum USA - Complaint

Case 3:18-cv-07593 Document 1 Filed 12/18/18 Page 1 of 21
1 Christopher W. Sweeney (Bar No. 143217)

LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER W. SWEENEY
2 1300 Oliver Road, Suite 300
Fairfield, CA 94534
3 Telephone: (707) 435-1244
Facsimile: (707) 435-1245
4 cwslaw@comcast.net
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff
KEEZIO GROUP LLC,
6 a California limited liability company
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
11
Law Offices of Christopher W. Sweeney
KEEZIO GROUP, LLC, a California limited Case No.

12 liability company
1300 Oliver Road, Suite 300, Fairfield, CA 94534
Phone: (707) 435-1244 Fax: (707) 435-1245
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF

13 Plaintiff, THE LANHAM ACT (15 U.S.C 1125(a)),
TRADE LIBEL, INTENTIONAL
14 v. INTERFERENCE WITH
CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS,
15 BUBBLEBUM USA, LLC, BUBBLEBUM INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE
(UK) LTD, and GRAINNE KELLY WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC
16 ADVANTAGE, VIOLATION OF
Defendants. UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW
17 (CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17200 ET
SEQ.), UNJUST ENRICHMENT,
18 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND
DECLARATORY RELIEF
19
20 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 -1-
Complaint; Case No.:

1 COMES NOW Plaintiff KEEZIO GROUP LLC, a California limited liability company
2 (hereinafter “Plaintiff” or “KEEZIO”), bringing this action against Defendants BUBBLEBUM
3 USA, LLC, BUBBLEBUM (UK) LTD, and GRAINNE KELLEY (hereinafter collectively
4 “Defendants” or “BUBBLEBUM”), alleging as follows:
5 PARTIES
6 1. Plaintiff, KEEZIO GROUP LLC., is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a
7 limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, with
8 its principal place of business located within the State of California, County of Contra Costa,
9 City of Alamo. All of the members of KEEZIO are residents of the State of California,
10 County of Contra Costa. KEEZIO is a company engaged in the business of the design,
11 manufacture, marketing, distribution and sale of children’s products throughout the United
12 States, including the State of California, County of Contra Costa.

Phone: (707) 435-1244 Fax: (707) 435-1245
13 2. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Defendant
14 BUBBLEBUM USA, LLC is and at all times herein mentioned was, a limited liability
15 company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, with its principal place
16 of business in Orlando, Florida, doing business in the State of California and in this District
17 by, among other things, marketing, distributing and selling children’s products throughout the
18 United States, the State of California and this District.
20 BUBBLEBUM (UK) LTD is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a business entity, form
21 unknown to Plaintiff, with its principal place of business in Londonderry, United Kingdom,
22 doing business in the State of California and in this District by, among other things, marketing,
23 distribution and selling children’s products throughout the United States, the State of
24 California and this District.
26 GRAINNE KELLY is, and at all times herein mentioned was, an individual and resident of the
27 United Kingdom, who, as an partner, principle and/or officer of BUBBLEBUM USA, LLC
28 -2-

1 and BUBBLEBUM (UK) LTD does business in the State of California and in this District by,
2 among other things, marketing, distribution and/or selling children’s products throughout the
3 United States, the State of California and this District.
4 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5 5. The Court has original jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1121
6 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as this action arises under the Federal Trademark Act of 1946, as
7 amended, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1124-1125 (“the Lanham Act”). The Court has supplemental
8 jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The Court also has
9 jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, as this case is a civil action between
10 citizens of different states and citizens or subjects of a foreign state, and in which the matter in
11 controversy will exceed, exclusive of costs and interests, seventy-five thousand dollars
12 ($75,000.00).
Phone: (707) 435-1244 Fax: (707) 435-1245
13 6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants (a)
14 market, distribute and/or sell their products throughout the United States, including to
15 customers within this District, (b) have engaged in tortious and wrongful conduct directed to
16 harm residents of this District, and (c) have purposefully directed their activities to the State of
17 California and/or purposefully availed themselves of this jurisdiction. Venue is proper in this
18 District under 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(b)(2) because, inter alia, a substantial part of the events
19 giving rise to the claims occurred in this District, and because Defendants are subject to
20 personal jurisdiction in this District.
21 INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
22 7. Assignment to this division in proper pursuant to Local Rule 3-2 (c) and (e)
23 because this action arises in the County of Contra Costa as a substantial part of the events
24 giving rise to the claims occurred in the County of Contra Costa.
25 FACTUAL BACKGROUND
26 8. KEEZIO markets, distributes and sells its line of brands, most notably, its
27 “hiccapop” line of children’s products throughout the United States, including the San
28 -3-

1 Francisco Bay Area, exclusively on the Amazon online retail sales platform. Amazon is an
2 online retail outlet that sells consumer products, computing services and digital content,
3 among other products and services. KEEZIO markets its brands as “Amazon-Exclusive”
4 brands, because its core management team has a long and valued relationship with Amazon
5 spanning nearly 15 years. KEEZIO strategically utilizes the Amazon platform as the exclusive
6 sales outlet for its products due to the simplicity and ease of use of the platform for its
7 customers. One product in KEEZIO’s hiccapop line is an inflatable child booster seat, known
8 as the “Hiccapop Uberboost Inflatable Booster Car Seat” (“Uberboost”), which was designed
9 and manufactured over a two year process and recently released on the Amazon platform in
10 November 2018. Defendant BUBBLEBUM markets products similar to Plaintiff’s Uberboost
11 on the Amazon platform, including the “BubbleBum Backless Inflatable Booster Car Seat”
12 among other child booster seats.

Phone: (707) 435-1244 Fax: (707) 435-1245
13 9. On information and belief, BUBBLEBUM and/or affiliated persons or entities

14 own(s) two U.S. patents associated with its inflatable booster car seat product - U.S. Patent
15 No. D672,996 and U.S Patent No. 8,678,499 (“the U.S. Patents”). Because the Uberboost
16 product was similar in nature to BUBBLEBUM’s inflatable booster seat product, KEEZIO
17 carefully evaluated BUBBLEBUM’s U.S. Patents in the course of developing, finalizing and
18 manufacturing the Uberboost product. In that regard, and as a prudent and precautionary
19 measure to avoid potential concerns or claims of infringement, KEEZIO retained a registered
20 patent law firm to thoroughly review and evaluate the Uberboost product for potential
21 infringement on both U.S. Patents owned and/or controlled by BUBBLEBUM. Upon
22 completing that review, KEEZIO’s legal counsel rendered two legal opinions conclusively
23 establishing that KEEZIO’s Uberboost product did not infringe upon either U.S. Patent owned
24 and/or controlled by BUBBLEBUM. True and correct copies of the legal opinions
25 determining non-infringement of the Uberboost product are attached to this complaint as
26 Exhibit “A” and are incorporated herein by this reference (“the Non-Infringement Opinions”).
27 //
28 -4-

1 10. On October 31, 2018, again in an effort to avoid potential concerns or claims of
2 infringement, KEEZIO’s California legal counsel sent a letter to BUBBLEBUM advising of
3 KEEZIO’s plans to release its Uberboost product for sale on the Amazon platform. Counsel’s
4 letter further advised BUBBLEBUM that, as a prudent and precautionary measure to avoid
5 potential concerns or claims of infringement, KEEZIO had retained a registered patent law
6 firm to thoroughly review and evaluate its product for potential infringement which, upon
7 completing that review, rendered legal opinions of non-infringement. Counsel’s letter
8 enclosed copies of the Non-Infringement Opinions and invited BUBBLEBUM to have legal
9 counsel review the opinions and communicate any questions or concerns to KEEZIO’s
10 counsel. Thereafter, KEEZIO released the Uberboost product for marketing and sale on the
11 Amazon platform.
12 11. On or prior to November 14, 2018, purposefully and with the specific intention
Phone: (707) 435-1244 Fax: (707) 435-1245
13 of maligning KEEZIO’s products (including Uberboost), tradename and business reputation,

14 and in connection with promoting its products to Amazon, BUBBLEBUM filed malicious and
15 knowingly false complaints with Amazon alleging that KEEZIO’s Uberboost product
16 infringed upon the U.S. Patents owned or controlled by BUBBLEBUM. As a direct and
17 proximate result of BUBBLEBUM’s malicious and knowingly false infringement complaints,
18 on November 14, 2018, Amazon suspended KEEZIO’s rights to market and sell Uberboost
19 and removed the product from the Amazon online retail sales platform, resulting in injury to
20 KEEZIO’s brand, tradename and long established business relationship, as well as pecuniary
21 loss attributable to lost sales of its products.
22 12. After receiving notification that Uberboost had been suspended by Amazon,
23 KEEZIO, through its legal counsel, immediately corresponded with BUBBLEBUM
24 demanding the immediate retraction of the baseless infringement claim and appealed the
25 suspension of the Uberboost product directly to Amazon based upon the Non-Infringement
26 Opinions. On information and belief, BUBBLEBUM failed to retract its infringement claim,
27 but KEEZIO’s appeal to Amazon resulted in the temporary reinstatement of the Uberboost
28 -5-

1 product on the Amazon platform at some point on or about November 29, 2018.
2 Notwithstanding the reinstatement of Uberboost by Amazon, in a continuing malicious effort
3 to harm KEEZIO’s brand, business reputation and pecuniary interests, on or about November
4 29, 2018, BUBBLEBUM circumvented Amazon’s platform policies by surreptitiously filing a
5 new complaint with Amazon restating the baseless, knowingly false claims of patent
6 infringement. As a result of the second malicious and false infringement complaint by
7 BUBBLEBUM, KEEEZIO’s Uberboost product was again suspended by Amazon and
8 removed from the Amazon online retail sales platform. A subsequent appeal to Amazon once
9 again resulted in the temporary reinstatement of the Uberboost product on the Amazon
10 platform at some point on or after November 29, 2018. Plaintiff’s product remained online at
11 Amazon until Defendant BUBBLEBUM filed yet another complaint with Amazon on or about
12 December 18, 2018, restating the baseless and false claims of patent infringement. As a result
Phone: (707) 435-1244 Fax: (707) 435-1245
13 of the third malicious and false infringement complaint by BUBBLEBUM, Plaintiff’s

14 Uberboost product was again suspended by Amazon and removed from the Amazon online
15 retail sales platform at the height of the holiday selling season, resulting in additional injury to
16 KEEZIO’s brand, tradename and long established business relationship, as well as pecuniary
17 loss attributable to lost sales of its products.
18 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
19 (Violation of § 43(a) of the Lanham Act – 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a))
20 13. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 12, inclusive, as
21 though fully set forth herein.
22 14. In connection with the promotion of Defendant’s products to Amazon,
23 Defendant has disseminated and/or caused others to disseminate into interstate commerce false
24 and misleading statements concerning Plaintiff and its products by filing malicious and
25 knowingly false complaints with Amazon alleging that Plaintiff’s Uberboost product infringed
26 upon the U.S. Patents owned or controlled by Defendant BUBBLEBUM in violation of §
27 43(a) of the Lanham Act. The knowingly false infringement complaints filed by Defendant in
28 -6-

1 connection with the promotion of Defendant’s products to Amazon constitute false and
2 misleading representations of fact that are likely to confuse, mislead and deceive Amazon as to
3 the nature, characteristics and qualities of Plaintiff’s products, including Uberboost.
4 Defendant’s knowingly false infringement complaints were maliciously intended to injure, and
5 have injured Plaintiff’s brand, business reputation and pecuniary interests, by, inter alia,
6 directly causing the suspension and removal of Plaintiff’s Uberboost product from the Amazon
7 online retail sales platform. Unless immediately enjoined by this Court, Defendant’s
8 malicious and unlawful conduct will continue to confuse, mislead and deceive as to the nature,
9 characteristics and qualities of Plaintiff’s products, including Uberboost, and will continue to
10 cause injury to Plaintiff’s brand, business reputation and pecuniary interests.
11 15. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful acts and practices as
12 herein alleged, Defendants’ conduct has caused, and unless immediately enjoined by this
Phone: (707) 435-1244 Fax: (707) 435-1245
13 Court will continue to cause, irreparable harm to Plaintiff’s business, reputation and goodwill
14 for which there is no adequate remedy at law, and for which Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive
15 relief. Additionally, Defendant’s unlawful acts and practices described herein are, and unless
16 enjoined by this Court will continue to be in violation of § 43(a) of the Lanham Act.
17 16. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct herein alleged,
18 Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer damages, including lost sales and profits, in a
19 total amount presently unknown and to be determined at trial according to proof, but which
20 Plaintiff reasonably estimates will exceed $75,000.00.
21 17. Further, by virtue of Defendant’s purposeful and knowing violation of § 43(a) of
22 the Lanham Act (25 U.S.C. § 1125(a)), and in addition to the recovery of Plaintiff’s damages
23 and the injunctive relief requested herein, Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Defendant’s
24 profits, costs of this action, reasonable attorney’s fees, as well as all other monetary amounts,
25 including treble damages, as specified in 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a).
26 //
27 //
28 -7-

1 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2 (Trade Libel)
5 19. As hereinabove alleged, Defendant has repeatedly made statements alleging
6 patent infringement by Plaintiff that would clearly be understood to have disparaged (a) the
7 desirability and quality of Plaintiff’s products, including Uberboost, and (b) Plaintiff’s brand
8 and business reputation (“the Statements”).
9 20. Defendant made and published the Statements to a person other than Plaintiff.
10 21. The Statements were and are untrue, and were made without justification or
11 privilege.
12 22. At the time Defendant made and published the Statements, Defendant knew the
Phone: (707) 435-1244 Fax: (707) 435-1245
13 Statements were untrue, or acted with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of the
14 Statements.
15 23. At the time Defendant made and published the Statements, Defendant knew or
16 should have known that third parties might act in reliance on the Statements, causing financial
17 losses and/or injury to Plaintiff.
18 24. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ publication of the Statements,
19 Amazon suspended and removed Plaintiff’s Uberboost product from the Amazon online retail
20 sales platform and Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer damages, including lost sales
21 and profits, in a total amount presently unknown and to be determined at trial according to
22 proof, but which Plaintiff reasonably estimates will exceed $75,000.00.
23 25. Defendant’s publication of the Statements was a substantial factor in causing the
24 harm to Plaintiff herein alleged.
25 //
26 //
27 //
28 -8-

1 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2 (Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations)
5 27. Plaintiff has, and at all relevant times herein mentioned has had, valid and
6 existing contractual relationships with Amazon and with Plaintiff’s customers who purchase
7 Plaintiff’s children’s products, including Uberboost, on Amazon’s online retail sales platform.
8 28. Defendants are aware, and at all relevant times herein mentioned have been
9 aware of the contractual relationships between Plaintiff and Amazon and between Plaintiff and
10 its customers.
11 29. By engaging in the wrongful acts hereinabove alleged, specifically, the repeated
12 assertion of malicious and knowingly false claims of patent infringement, Defendants

Phone: (707) 435-1244 Fax: (707) 435-1245
13 knowingly and intentionally disrupted plaintiff’s contractual and economic relationships with
14 Amazon and with Plaintiff’s customers by inducing Amazon to suspend and remove Plaintiff’s
15 Uberboost product from the Amazon online retail sales platform. By engaging in the conduct
16 alleged herein, Defendants knew that Plaintiff would suffer harm from the disruption of its
17 contractual relationships with Amazon and Plaintiff’s customers.
18 30. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants intentional acts herein alleged,
19 the contractual relationships of Plaintiff described herein have been, and continue to be
20 actually disrupted in that Defendants’ malicious infringement claims have induced Amazon to
21 suspend and remove Plaintiff’s Uberboost product from the Amazon online retail sales
22 platform. Defendants’ conduct has caused, and will continue to cause, irreparable harm to
23 Plaintiff’s business interests, and has significantly damaged plaintiff’s contractual
24 relationships described herein.
28 -9-


2 32. The acts of Defendants described herein were willful, fraudulent, malicious and
3 oppressive and in conscious disregard of the rights of Plaintiff, and were taken with knowledge
4 that such acts would cause harm to Plaintiff. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to exemplary and
5 punitive damages.
6 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
7 (Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage)
10 34. Plaintiff has, and at all relevant times herein mentioned has had, valid and
11 existing contractual relationships with Amazon and with Plaintiff’s customers who purchase
12 Plaintiff’s children’s products, including Uberboost, on Amazon’s online retail sales platform.
Phone: (707) 435-1244 Fax: (707) 435-1245
13 Additionally, Plaintiff has prospective economic relationships with Amazon and with its
14 customers, with the probability of significant, future economic benefit to Plaintiff as a result of
15 these economic relationships.
16 35. Defendants are aware, and at all relevant times herein mentioned have been
17 aware of the contractual relationships between Plaintiff and Amazon and between Plaintiff and
18 its customers.
20 assertion of malicious and knowingly false claims of Patent infringement as hereinabove
21 alleged, Defendants knowingly and intentionally disrupted plaintiff’s contractual and
22 economic relationships, and the prospective economic benefits thereof, with Amazon and with
23 Plaintiff’s customers described herein by inducing Amazon to suspend and remove Plaintiff’s
24 Uberboost product from the Amazon online retail sales platform. By engaging in the conduct
25 alleged herein, Defendants knew that Plaintiff would suffer harm from the disruption of its
26 contractual relationships with Amazon and Plaintiff’s customers.
27 //
28 - 10 -

5 38. The acts of Defendants described herein were willful, fraudulent, malicious and
6 oppressive and in conscious disregard of the rights of Plaintiff and were taken with knowledge
7 that such acts would cause harm to Plaintiff. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to exemplary and
8 punitive damages.
9 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
10 (Violation of Unfair Competition Law)
11 [Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.]

Phone: (707) 435-1244 Fax: (707) 435-1245

15 assertion of malicious and knowingly false claims of Patent infringement as hereinabove
16 alleged, defendants have engaged in unlawful, fraudulent, and/or unfair business practices in
17 violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq., designed to
18 deprive Plaintiff of the economic benefits of its established business relationships with
19 Amazon and with its customers, and which gives Defendants a competitive advantage in the
20 retail sale of its products on the Amazon platform.
25 42. Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code section 17203, Plaintiff is
26 entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief ordering Defendants to cease this unfair
27 competition, as well as disgorgement of all of Defendants’ profits associated with this
28 - 11 -

1 unlawful competition.
2 SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
3 (Unjust Enrichment)
6 44. By engaging in the conduct described above, Defendants have benefited and
7 continue to benefit from their wrongdoing and have been unjustly enriched by reaping the
8 benefits of its unlawful activities, all to Plaintiff’s injury and damage.
9 45. Under the circumstances of this case, it would be inequitable for Defendants to
10 retain the benefits unjustly received from their wrongful actions herein alleged without
11 repaying the lost value and benefit to Plaintiff.
Phone: (707) 435-1244 Fax: (707) 435-1245
16 SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
17 (Injunctive Relief)
20 48. By engaging in the conduct described above, Defendants have willfully and
21 purposefully harmed Plaintiff and have benefited and continue to benefit from their
22 wrongdoing, all to Plaintiff’s injury and damage. The conduct of Defendants in maliciously
23 interfering with Plaintiff’s contractual relationships and prospective economic advantage, and
24 in violation of the statutory provisions above referenced, constitute a continuing injury to and
25 interference with Plaintiff’s business, which diminishes Plaintiff’s profits and which cannot be
26 fully and adequately compensated in damages.
27 49. Unless an injunction is issued prohibiting Defendants from violating Plaintiff’s
28 - 12 -

1 contractual and statutory rights as hereinabove alleged, Plaintiff will continue to suffer
2 irreparable harm to its brand, tradename and long established business relationships, and
3 Plaintiff will have no adequate remedy at law.
4 50. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting
5 Defendants from maliciously interfering with Plaintiff’s contractual relationships and
6 prospective economic advantage as hereinabove alleged in violation of Plaintiff’s contractual
7 and statutory rights.
8 EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
9 (Declaratory Relief)
12 52. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiff and
Phone: (707) 435-1244 Fax: (707) 435-1245
13 Defendants concerning their respective rights and duties in that Plaintiff maintains that its
14 Uberboost product does not infringe upon the U.S. Patents owned and/or controlled by
15 Defendants whereas Defendants dispute this contention and maintain that their patent rights
16 have been infringed.
17 53. Plaintiff desires a judicial determination of the parties’ respective rights and
18 duties relative to the conflicting claims. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at
19 this time under the circumstances in order that Plaintiff may ascertain its rights and duties and
20 obtain a fair and just adjudication of the dispute.
21 //
22 //
23 //
24 //
25 //
26 //
27 //
28 - 13 -

1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

2 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that judgment be entered in its favor in this action as
3 follows:
4 1. For a finding that Defendants have violated § 43(a) of the Lanham Act (25
5 U.S.C. § 1125(a));
6 2. For preliminary and permanent injunctive relief ordering Defendants to cease
7 their unlawful acts and practices in violation of § 43(a) of the Lanham Act (25 U.S.C. §
8 1125(a)), and for an order compelling Defendants to issue a retraction statement to Amazon (to
9 be prepared in cooperation with, and to the satisfaction of Plaintiff) expressly retracting the
10 false and misleading allegations of patent infringement made by Defendants;
11 3. For disgorgement of Defendant’s profits, costs of this action, reasonable
12 attorney’s fees, and all other monetary amounts, including treble damages, specified in 15
Phone: (707) 435-1244 Fax: (707) 435-1245
13 U.S.C. § 1117(a) due to Defendant’s purposeful and knowing violation of § 43(a) of the
14 Lanham Act (25 U.S.C. § 1125(a));
15 4. For actual damages against Defendants in an amount presently unknown to
16 Plaintiff to be established at trial according to proof, but which Plaintiff reasonably estimates
17 will exceed $75,000.00;
18 5. For exemplary and punitive damages in an amount according to proof at the
19 time of trial;
20 6. For a finding that Defendants have violated Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et
21 seq.
22 7. For preliminary and permanent injunctive relief ordering Defendants to cease
23 their unfair competition, as well as disgorgement of all of Defendants’ profits associated with
24 this unlawful competition;
25 8. Compelling defendants to provide an accounting of any profits improperly made
26 as a result of their unlawful conduct as herein alleged, and imposing a constructive trust on any
27 such profits in favor of Plaintiff, as well as compelling Defendants to disgorge all profits
28 - 14 -

1 accrued as a result of its unlawful conduct as herein alleged in an amount to be determined at

2 trial according to proof;
3 9. For a judicial declaration as to the parties’ rights and obligations relative to the
4 conflicting claims asserted in this action;
5 10. For reasonable attorney’s fees under California Code of Civil Procedure
6 § 1021.5;
7 11. For costs of suit herein incurred; and
8 12. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
9 Dated: December 14, 2018 LAW OFFICES
OF CHRISTOPHER W. SWEENEY
10
11 /s/ Christopher W. Sweeney

By:
12 Christopher W. Sweeney
Phone: (707) 435-1244 Fax: (707) 435-1245
Attorney for Plaintiff

13 KEEZIO GROUP LLC
14
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
15
Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 3-6(a) of the
16
17 Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Plaintiff
18 KEEZIO GROUP LLC demands a trial by jury of this action.
19
Dated: December 18, 2018 LAW OFFICES OF
20 CHRISTOPHER W. SWEENEY
21
/s/ Christopher W. Sweeney
22 By:
Christopher W. Sweeney
23 Attorney for Plaintiff
KEEZIO GROUP LLC
24
25
26
27
28 - 15 -

EXHIBIT “A”
LEGAL OPINIONS
April 24, 2018
Sent Via Email Only to: Jasonclute1@gmail.com
Keezio Group, LLC

Mr. Jason Clute
2375 Roundhill Drive
Alamo, CA 94507
Re: Infringement Opinion UberBoost product over U.S. Patent No.

D672,996
Our File No.: 3454.00003
Dear Mr. Clute:
Per your request, we have conducted a non-infringement analysis of the

UberBoost product for non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. D672,996 (“the ‘996 patent”).
It is our opinion that the UberBoost product does not infringe claim 1 of the ‘996 patent.
In conducting the analysis, we have reviewed the drawings of the ‘996 patent and
identified the ornamental features disclosed therein and compared the ornamental
features to the UberBoost product. What follows is a written description of the relevant
ornamental features of the ‘996 patent and potential absences in the UberBoost product.
In conducting an infringement analysis, the relevant test is whether an ordinary

observer, familiar with the prior art, would consider the product to infringe the patented
design. The test comprises two steps: first, a threshold inquiry as to whether the product
design is “plainly dissimilar” to the patented design, or if the designs are “substantially the
same.” If the designs are “substantially the same,” the second step is performed,
determining whether commonalities between the designs exist in the prior art, thereby
rendering such commonalities less significant in determining infringement.
Referring now to the UberBoost product, images of it and the patented design are
reproduced below:
Keezio Group,
CaseLLC
3:18-cv-07593 Document 1 Filed 12/18/18 Page 18 of 21
Mr. Jason Clute
April 24, 2018
Page 2 of 3
__________________________
There are a number of important distinctions that exist between the ornamental
features of these designs that, in our opinion, render the UberBoost “plainly dissimilar”
from the design of the ‘996 patent.
First, the ‘996 depicts a supplementary support around three sides of an upper
surface of the booster forming a U-shape. In contrast, the supplementary supports of the
UberBoost are bifurcated, such that there is no supplementary support along a rear
portion of the seat.
Second, within the supplementary supports, the ‘996 patent depicts a

supplementary support that is smooth and, importantly, without any seams apart from
where it connects to the seat. In contrast, the supplementary support of the UberBoost
includes a seam along its length.
Third, again returning to the supplementary supports, the ‘996 patent depicts
supplementary supports that extend to a front edge of the seat. The supplementary
support of the UberBoost is differentiated in that its supplementary supports do not extend
to the front edge.
Keezio Group,
CaseLLC
3:18-cv-07593 Document 1 Filed 12/18/18 Page 19 of 21
Mr. Jason Clute
April 24, 2018
Page 3 of 3
__________________________
Fourth, as to the seat, again the ‘996 patent discloses an upper seat surface that
is smooth and free of seams, while the UberBoost comprises a number of lateral seams
across an upper seat surface.
Fifth, while each of the ‘996 patent design and the UberBoost design comprise a
slit to permit a seat belt attaching member to pass there through, the locations of those
slits are substantially different. For the ‘996 patent, the slit is formed in an intermediate
portion of the cover, between a lower section and the supplementary support section. The
slit of the UberBoost, however, is formed in the supplementary support section.
Relatedly, there are ornamental differences between the seat belt attachment
members. Whereas the ‘996 patent utilizes a middle-entry attachment member, where
the seat belt enters a retaining section of the attachment member through an aperture
formed towards the middle of a lateral axis thereof, the UberBoost utilizes a side-entry
attachment member, where the seat belt enters a retaining section of the attachment
member through an aperture towards one side of the attachment member. Concordant
with this difference in design is a resulting difference in the appearance of the attachment
members. Namely, the attachment member of the ‘996 patent has a generally concave,
buckled-in appearance, whereas the attachment member of the UberBoost has a
generally flat appearance.
The multitude of differences between the designs, both taken together and when
considered individually, amount to such significant differences in the overall appearance
between the two designs that it is our opinion that the designs are plainly dissimilar from
one another, and therefore the UberBoost does not infringe the ‘996 patent.
As always, please feel free to contact us regarding any question or comment you
may have on any aspect of this matter.
Best regards.
Sincerely,
WIDERMAN MALEK, PL
Daniel C. Pierron
DPierron@USLegalTeam.com
DCP:mls
April 24, 2018
Sent Via Email Only to: Jasonclute1@gmail.com
Keezio Group, LLC

Mr. Jason Clute
2375 Roundhill Drive
Alamo, CA 94507
Re: Infringement Opinion for UberBoost product over U.S. Patent No.
8,678,499
Our File No.: 3454.00004
Dear Mr. Clute:
Per your request, we have conducted a non-infringement analysis of the

UberBoost product for non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,678,499 (“the ‘499 patent”).
It is our opinion that the UberBoost product does not infringe independent claim 1 of the
‘499 patent. The infringement analysis was performed, and our conclusions reached, in
reliance on the prototype sample you provided for the UberBoost product.
In conducting the analysis, we have reviewed the independent claim of the ‘499
patent, we have parsed and broken out each element of the claim, reviewed the
specification of the ‘499 patent to better understand what is within the scope of those
claim elements, and compared the elements to the UberBoost product. Attached is a
claim chart of a side-by-side analysis of the required claim elements and the UberBoost
product.
It is our opinion that the UberBoost does not infringe claim 1, either literally or under
the doctrine of equivalents. Claim 1 requires a harness comprising a transverse strap and
a longitudinal strap attached thereto. Preliminarily, while UberBoost does comprise a
plurality of straps, those straps are independent of each other and are not attached. No
reasonable observation of the straps of UberBoost could find that they form a harness
adapted to fit over a front portion of the base. The UberBoost straps are each
independently fixedly attached to a rear portion of a top section of the base. In no way
are they adapted to fit over a front portion of the base. Additionally, the straps of the
UberBoost cannot be understood to practice a transverse strap and a longitudinal strap.
Neither of the straps of the UberBoost extend across a width of the base as required by
the transverse strap and owing to neither strap being attached to the other, the
requirements of a longitudinal strap are similarly not met. Furthermore, the UberBoost
also does not practice the requirement of seatbelt receiving members attached to
respective sides of the harness at the transverse strap, due to the lack of a transverse
strap as described. Finally, as to the doctrine of equivalents, claim 1 was amended to
include the transverse and longitudinal straps to overcome a rejection. Accordingly, the
CaseLLC
Keezio Group, 3:18-cv-07593 Document 1 Filed 12/18/18 Page 21 of 21
Mr. Jason Clute
April 24, 2018
Page 2 of 2
__________________________
exclusion of transverse and longitudinal straps from the UberBoost leads to our opinion
that claim 1 is not infringed under the doctrine of equivalents, as those claim elements
cannot be interpreted more broadly under the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel.
As always, please feel free to contact us regarding any question or comment you
may have on any aspect of this matter.
Best regards.
Sincerely,
WIDERMAN MALEK, PL
Daniel C. Pierron
DPierron@USLegalTeam.com
DCP:dcp
JS-CAND 44 (Rev. 06/17) Case 3:18-cv-07593 Document 1-1 Filed 12/18/18 Page 1 of 1
CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS-CAND 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law,
except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved in its original form by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the Clerk of
Court to initiate the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
KEEZIO GROUP, LLC, a California limited liability company BUBBLEBUM USA, LLC, BUBBLEBUM (UK) LTD, and GRAINNE KELLY
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Contra Costa, California County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(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)
Christopher W. Sweeney (Bar No. 143217)
LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER W. SWEENEY, 1300 Oliver Road, Suite 300
Fairfield, CA 94534 Ph: (707) 435-1244; Fax:(707) 435-1245
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)
PTF DEF PTF DEF
1 U.S. Government Plaintiff 3 Federal Question Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4
(U.S. Government Not a Party)
of Business In This State
Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
2 U.S. Government Defendant 4 Diversity of Business In Another State
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6
Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure of 422 Appeal 28 USC § 158 375 False Claims Act
120 Marine Property 21 USC § 881 423 Withdrawal 28 USC 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury – Product
130 Miller Act Liability 690 Other § 157 § 3729(a))
315 Airplane Product Liability
140 Negotiable Instrument 367 Health Care/ LABOR PROPERTY RIGHTS 400 State Reapportionment
320 Assault, Libel & Slander
150 Recovery of Pharmaceutical Personal 410 Antitrust
330 Federal Employers’ 710 Fair Labor Standards Act 820 Copyrights
Overpayment Of Injury Product Liability 430 Banks and Banking
Liability 720 Labor/Management 830 Patent
Veteran’s Benefits 368 Asbestos Personal Injury 450 Commerce
340 Marine Relations 835 PatentņAbbreviated New
151 Medicare Act Product Liability
345 Marine Product Liability 740 Railway Labor Act Drug Application 460 Deportation
152 Recovery of Defaulted PERSONAL PROPERTY 470 Racketeer Influenced &
350 Motor Vehicle 751 Family and Medical 840 Trademark
Student Loans (Excludes 370 Other Fraud Corrupt Organizations
355 Motor Vehicle Product Leave Act
Veterans) 371 Truth in Lending SOCIAL SECURITY
Liability 790 Other Labor Litigation 480 Consumer Credit
153 Recovery of 380 Other Personal Property 861 HIA (1395ff)
360 Other Personal Injury 791 Employee Retirement 490 Cable/Sat TV
Overpayment Damage Income Security Act 862 Black Lung (923) 850 Securities/Commodities/
of Veteran’s Benefits 362 Personal Injury -Medical
Malpractice 385 Property Damage Product 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange
160 Stockholders’ Suits Liability IMMIGRATION
864 SSID Title XVI 890 Other Statutory Actions
190 Other Contract 462 Naturalization
CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 865 RSI (405(g)) 891 Agricultural Acts
195 Contract Product Liability Application
440 Other Civil Rights HABEAS CORPUS FEDERAL TAX SUITS 893 Environmental Matters
196 Franchise 465 Other Immigration
441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee Actions 895 Freedom of Information
870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff or
REAL PROPERTY 442 Employment Act
510 Motions to Vacate Defendant)
210 Land Condemnation 443 Housing/ Sentence 896 Arbitration
871 IRS–Third Party 26 USC
220 Foreclosure Accommodations 530 General § 7609 899 Administrative Procedure
445 Amer. w/Disabilities– Act/Review or Appeal of
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 535 Death Penalty
Employment Agency Decision
240 Torts to Land OTHER
446 Amer. w/Disabilities–Other 950 Constitutionality of State
245 Tort Product Liability 540 Mandamus & Other Statutes
290 All Other Real Property 448 Education
550 Civil Rights
555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee–
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

1 Original 2 Removed from 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from 6 Multidistrict 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District (specify) Litigation–Transfer Litigation–Direct File
VI. CAUSE OF Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
Federal Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) ("The Lanham Act")
ACTION
Brief description of cause:
False Statements in Promotion of Goods under Lanham Act, Trade Libel, Unfair Business Practices and Interference with Contractual Relations
VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, Fed. R. Civ. P. JURY DEMAND: Yes No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S), JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER

IF ANY (See instructions):
IX. DIVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT (Civil Local Rule 3-2)
(Place an “X” in One Box Only) SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND SAN JOSE EUREKA-MCKINLEYVILLE
DATE 12/18/2018 SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD /s/ Christopher W. Sweeney

Keezio Group v. Bubblebum USA - 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

Keezio Group v. Bubblebum USA - Complaint

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Case 3:18-cv-07593 Document 1 Filed 12/18/18 Page 1 of 21

1 Christopher W. Sweeney (Bar No. 143217)

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

KEEZIO GROUP, LLC, a California limited Case No.

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF

20 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Complaint; Case No.:

12 States, including the State of California, County of Contra Costa.

Complaint; Case No.:

Complaint; Case No.:

12 among other child booster seats.

13 9. On information and belief, BUBBLEBUM and/or affiliated persons or entities

Complaint; Case No.:

13 of maligning KEEZIO’s products (including Uberboost), tradename and business reputation,

Complaint; Case No.:

13 of the third malicious and false infringement complaint by BUBBLEBUM, Plaintiff’s

Complaint; Case No.:

Complaint; Case No.:

1 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Complaint; Case No.:

1 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

12 assertion of malicious and knowingly false claims of patent infringement, Defendants

Complaint; Case No.:

1 Plaintiff reasonably estimates will exceed $75,000.00.

Complaint; Case No.:

12 39. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 12, inclusive, as

13 though fully set forth herein.

Complaint; Case No.:

Complaint; Case No.:

Complaint; Case No.:

1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Complaint; Case No.:

1 accrued as a result of its unlawful conduct as herein alleged in an amount to be determined at

11 /s/ Christopher W. Sweeney

Attorney for Plaintiff

18 KEEZIO GROUP LLC demands a trial by jury of this action.

Complaint; Case No.:

April 24, 2018

Sent Via Email Only to: Jasonclute1@gmail.com

Keezio Group, LLC

Re: Infringement Opinion UberBoost product over U.S. Patent No.

Dear Mr. Clute:

Per your request, we have conducted a non-infringement analysis of the

In conducting an infringement analysis, the relevant test is whether an ordinary

Second, within the supplementary supports, the ‘996 patent depicts a

April 24, 2018

Sent Via Email Only to: Jasonclute1@gmail.com

Keezio Group, LLC

Dear Mr. Clute:

Per your request, we have conducted a non-infringement analysis of the

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

VIII. RELATED CASE(S), JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER

DATE 12/18/2018 SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD /s/ Christopher W. Sweeney

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi