Nike v. Putian Qingchunzhijia Sports Goods - Complaint (Sans Exhibits)

Case: 1:19-cv-01408 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/26/19 Page 1 of 31 PageID #:1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
NIKE, INC., an Oregon corporation, Case No.: 1:19-cv-01408
Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR:
v. (1) DESIGN PATENT

INFRINGEMENT
PUTIAN QINGCHUNZHIJIA SPORTS (2) TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
GOODS CO., LTD. d/b/a ONEMIX, a China UNDER THE LANHAM ACT
limited company and PU TIAN SHI QING (3) FALSE DESIGNATION OF
CHUN ZHI JIA TI YU YONGPIN YOU XIAN ORIGIN
GONG SI d/b/a ONEMIX, a China Corporation, (4) DILUTION
(5) COMMON LAW TRADEMARK
Defendants. INFRINGEMENT & UNFAIR
COMPETITION
JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
Plaintiff, NIKE, Inc. (“NIKE”), for its complaint against Defendants Putian Qingchunzhijia
Sports Goods Co., Ltd. and Pu Tian Shi Qing Chun Zhi Jia Ti Yu Yongpin You Xian Gong Si,
both d/b/a OneMix (Defendants are collectively referred to as “OneMix”), alleges as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. NIKE is the world’s leading designer, marketer and distributor of authentic athletic
footwear for a wide variety of sports and fitness activities.
2. NIKE invests heavily in research, design and development efforts, and those efforts
are key factors in NIKE’s success.
3. To protect its investments, NIKE files for and maintains design patents protecting
its valuable aesthetic designs. For example, NIKE owns design patents for its popular FLYKNIT
upper designs and its AIR MAX midsole and outsole designs, like the designs shown below.

4. NIKE also utilizes trademarks on nearly all of its products. Having distinctive
marks that are readily identifiable is an important factor in creating a market for its goods, in
identifying its brands and the Company, and in distinguishing its goods from the goods of others.
5. NIKE has developed powerful trademark rights, such as its AIR MAX, FLYKNIT,
and FLYWIRE trademarks. NIKE developed its trademark rights through its continuous and long-
standing promotion of the marks, substantial sales of products bearing the marks, and consumer
recognition of the marks. For example, NIKE has continuously promoted and sold footwear
bearing its AIR MAX trademark since 1987, including in connection with dozens of iconic shoe
designs and innovative footwear technologies. As a result, NIKE’s AIR MAX trademark is not
only famous, it is one of the most recognizable and valuable trademarks in the world.
6. NIKE’s intellectual property rights, including its design patents and trademarks, are
important to its success and its competitive position. NIKE vigorously protects them against third-
party theft and infringement. It is for that reason that NIKE brings this lawsuit.
7. OneMix is a Chinese footwear brand created in 2013. The brand promotes and sells
footwear in the United States through its online retail store and through third party marketplaces,
such as Amazon.com and eBay.com.
8. Instead of competing fairly by offering its own footwear designs, OneMix promotes
and sells footwear with designs that are virtually identical to NIKE’s patented designs, such as the
midsole and outsole designs shown below.
2
9. Industry commentators have noticed OneMix’s unlawful and unfair conduct. For
example, a popular sneaker blog, KicksOnFire.com, reviewed OneMix footwear and a related
promotional video in a post titled “Wait, What? Get Ready For The Onemix Flyknit Air Max.” In
the post, KicksOnFire.com describes OneMix’s footwear as a copy of NIKE’s Flyknit Air Max:
Excerpt from https://www.kicksonfire.com/onemix-flyknit-air-max-nike-copy/
10. The KicksOnFire.com post continues that OneMix’s footwear designs are not
limited to copies of Flyknit Air Max, but also include copies of other NIKE footwear designs:
3
Excerpt from https://www.kicksonfire.com/onemix-flyknit-air-max-nike-copy/
11. Footwear consumers also recognize the substantial similarity between OneMix’s
footwear and NIKE’s patented designs. For example, consumers on Amazon.com frequently
comment on the striking similarity between the designs:
Excerpt from https://www.amazon.com/ONEMIX-Running-Flyknit-Lightweight-

Athletic/product-reviews/B07F71LJJQ
12. OneMix’s unlawful and unfair conduct is not limited to using NIKE’s patented
designs. OneMix also uses NIKE’s trademarks to promote its footwear. For example, as shown
below, OneMix uses the AIR MAX and FLYKNIT trademarks to promote its infringing footwear:
4
Excerpt from https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07F72RQ74/ref=twister_B07F72F7MK
13. NIKE therefore brings this lawsuit to defend its investments in innovation and
design and to protect its valuable intellectual property rights.
5
NATURE OF LAWSUIT
14. This is an action for patent and trademark infringement arising under 35 U.S.C. §
101 et seq. and 15 U.S.C. § 1051, et seq., respectively. NIKE owns exclusive rights in the
ornamental designs claimed in U.S. Design Patent Nos. D697,294, D694,501, D707,935,
D707,934, D636,571, each titled, “Shoe Outsole,” D702,424, D711,081, D709,681, each titled,
“Shoe Midsole,” and D762,966, D762,965, D718,036, D707,950, D636,588, each titled, “Shoe
Upper,” (collectively, the “NIKE Design Patents”). NIKE also owns exclusive rights in U.S.
Trademark Nos. 1,508,348 for “AIR MAX,” 3,640,542 for “FLYWIRE,” and 4,393,310 for
“FLYKNIT,” (collectively, the “NIKE Trademarks”).
15. OneMix has used and continues to use the claimed designs of the NIKE Design
Patents and the NIKE Trademarks, without NIKE’s permission, for footwear that OneMix makes,
uses, offers for sale, sells, advertises, promotes, distributes, and/or imports into the United States.
16. NIKE seeks, among other relief, an injunction preventing OneMix from further
infringing the NIKE Design Patents and the NIKE Trademarks, and damages or a disgorgement
of OneMix’s profits from its infringements.
THE PARTIES
17. NIKE is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Oregon
with a principal place of business at One Bowerman Drive, Beaverton, Oregon 97005.
18. On information and belief, Putian Qingchunzhijia Sports Goods Co., Ltd. is a China
Limited Company having a place of business at East Rm. 301, No. 698, Xueyuan North Street,
Gongchen Street, Licheng District, Putian, Fujian, China.
6
19. On information and belief, Pu Tian Shi Qing Chun Zhi Jia Ti Yu Yongpin You
Xian Gong Si is a China Corporation having a place of business at Room 403, Layer 4, 108 Of
Xueyuan North Road, Licheng District, Putian City 351100 Fujian China.
20. On further information and belief, Defendants are related to and have and are doing
business under the following additional names: Putian Onemix E-Commerce Co., Ltd., Putian
Qingchunzhijia Sporting Goods Co., Ltd., Putian Qingchunzhijia Sports Equipment Co., Ltd., Pu
Tian Shi Qing Chun Zhi Jia Ti Yu Yong Pin You Xian Gong Si, Putian Youth House Sporting
Goods Co., Ltd., Putian Youth Home Sports Goods Co., Ltd., Putian Youth Home Sport Goods
Co., Ltd., Putian City Youth House Sporting Goods Co., Ltd., Youth House (Fujian) Sporing
Goods Co., Ltd., Putian Youth Sports Equipment Co., Ltd., Putian YoungSneaker Co., Ltd., and
Pu Tian Shi Mai Qu Mao Yi You Xian Gong Si.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
21. This action for design patent and trademark infringement arises under 35 U.S.C. §
101 et seq. and 15 U.S.C. § 1051, et seq., respectively.
22. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §
1121 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338, and 1367.
23. OneMix has and continues to advertise, offer for sale, and sell infringing footwear
designs to customers in the Unites States, including customers in the State of Illinois and in this
District.
24. This Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over OneMix based upon its contacts
with the forum in transacting and soliciting business in Illinois, including committing acts of
infringement by promoting, distributing, offering to sell and selling products covered by the NIKE
Design Patents and/or the NIKE Trademarks that give rise to this lawsuit here. Alternatively, to
7
the extent OneMix alleges it is not subject to personal jurisdiction in the courts of any state, this
Court has personal jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2).
25. Venue is proper in this judicial district under at least 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 because
OneMix transacts in and solicits business in this district, including, with respect to shoes that
infringe the NIKE Design Patents and/or NIKE Trademarks, and has committed and continues to
commit acts of patent infringement in this district including but not limited to selling and offering
to sell shoes that infringe one or more of NIKE’s Design Patents at issue in this case, and are
subject to personal jurisdiction in this district.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
A. NIKE’S DESIGN PATENTS
26. NIKE has taken steps to protect its innovative designs, including its footwear-
related designs. Relevant to this dispute, NIKE owns all right, title, and interest in, and has the
right to sue and recover for past, present, and future infringement of, each of the NIKE Design
Patents identified in Table 1 from the date each patent duly and legally issued to NIKE. NIKE
attaches a copy of each NIKE Design Patent to this Complaint as indicated in Table 1.
Table 1: The NIKE Design Patents

Complaint
U.S. Design Patent No. Title Issue Date
Exhibit
D636,571 (the “’571 Patent”) Shoe Outsole April 26, 2011 1
D694,501 (the “’501 Patent”) Shoe Outsole December 3, 2013 2
D697,294 (the “’294 Patent”) Shoe Outsole January 14, 2014 3
D707,934 (the “’934 Patent”) Shoe Outsole July 1, 2014 4
D707,935 (the “’935 Patent”) Shoe Outsole July 1, 2014 5
D636,588 (the “’588 Patent”) Shoe Upper April 26, 2011 6
8
D707,950 (the “’950 Patent”) Shoe Upper July 1, 2014 7
D718,036 (the “’036 Patent”) Shoe Upper November 25, 2014 8
D762,965 (the “’965 Patent”) Shoe Upper August 9, 2016 9
D762,966 (the “’966 Patent”) Shoe Upper August 9, 2016 10
D702,424 (the “’424 Patent”) Shoe Midsole April 15, 2014 11
D709,681 (the “’681 Patent”) Shoe Midsole July 29, 2014 12
D711,081 (the “’081 Patent”) Shoe Midsole August 19, 2014 13
27. The NIKE Design Patents are presumed to be valid.
B. NIKE’S TRADEMARKS
28. As a result of continuous and long-standing promotion, substantial sales, and
consumer recognition, NIKE has developed powerful trademark rights.
29. In particular, through substantial and long-standing use, the mark AIR MAX has
become a famous trademark. Today, AIR MAX is one of the most recognizable and valuable
trademarks in the world. NIKE has continuously promoted and sold footwear bearing the AIR
MAX mark since at least 1987, including in connection with dozens of iconic shoe designs and
innovative footwear technologies over the years.
30. NIKE has also used the trademarks FLYWIRE and FLYKNIT in connection with
footwear as early as 2009 and 2012, respectively. As a result of NIKE’s promotion and continuous
use of these marks, and because consumers associate these marks with high-quality NIKE
footwear, FLYWIRE and FLYKNIT are valuable trademarks connected with NIKE.
31. NIKE owns federal trademark registrations for the marks AIR MAX, FLYWIRE,
and FLYKNIT. The United States Patent and Trademark Office has examined applications to
register these marks and has registered these marks on the Principal Register in connection with
9
footwear in International Class 25. NIKE owns all right, title, and interest in the registrations
identified in Table 2. A copy of each registration certificate is attached to this Complaint as
indicated in Table 2.
32. NIKE also owns common law trademark rights in the marks in Table 2 as a result
of NIKE’s continuous and exclusive use of the marks for several years. NIKE’s federal and
common law trademark rights in the marks are collectively hereafter referred to as the “NIKE
Trademarks.”
Table 2: NIKE TRADEMARKS

United States Trademark
Trademark Complaint Exhibit
Trademark Reg. No. Registration Date
1,508,348 AIR MAX October 11, 1988 14
3,640,542 FLYWIRE June 16, 2009 15
4,393,310 FLYKNIT August 27, 2013 16
33. The NIKE Trademarks are presumed to be valid.
34. The AIR MAX and FLYWIRE Trademarks are incontestable pursuant to 10 U.S.C.
§ 1065.
35. The AIR MAX and FLYKNIT Trademarks have become famous and well-known
indicators of the origin and quality of NIKE products, specifically footwear.
C. ONEMIX’S INFRINGING ACTIVITIES
36. OneMix promotes and sells athletic footwear to customers in the Unites States,
including customers in the State of Illinois and in this District.
37. Without NIKE’s authorization, OneMix has made, used, offered for sale, sold,
and/or imported into the United States footwear bearing designs that have the same or substantially
similar overall visual impression as the designs covered by the NIKE Design Patents (hereafter
collectively “Infringing Shoes”).
10
38. Without NIKE’s authorization, OneMix uses the NIKE Trademarks to promote and
sell the Infringing Shoes. On information and belief, OneMix intentionally uses infringing marks
in connection with the Infringing Shoes to create associations with NIKE.
39. Without NIKE’s authorization, OneMix promotes, distributes, offers to sell, and
sells, footwear, including the Infringing Shoes, directly to end-user customers through its website
http://www.onemixsport.com and https://onemix.shop/, which reaches into the United States and
this judicial district. NIKE has attached captures of the OneMix website at Exhibit 17. Below is
an example screen shot from Exhibit 17.
40. OneMix promotes, distributes, offers to sell, and sells footwear, including the
Infringing Shoes, directly to end-user customers through third-party online resellers, including
Amazon, eBay, and Ali Express, which reach into the United States and this judicial district. NIKE
has attached captures of the Amazon, eBay and Ali Express websites showing examples of the
Infringing Shoes at Exhibits 18-20.
11
41. In Tables 3 through 15 below, NIKE compares specific examples of Infringing
Shoes to NIKE Design Patents. The tables show exemplary Infringing Shoes. NIKE also accuses
of infringement shoes bearing the same or substantially similar infringing designs, in all colorways.
Table 3: Comparison of ’571 Patent with Exemplary Infringing Shoes

’571 Patent Figures OneMix’s Exemplary Infringing Shoes
See Compl. Ex. 1 ONEMIX Men’s Running Sport Shoes

Waterproof

See Compl. Ex. 2 ONEMIX Men’s Lightweight Air Cushion

Outdoor Sports Running Shoes

See Compl. Ex. 3 ONEMIX Men’s Lightweight Air Cushion

Outdoor Sports Running Shoes
12

See Compl. Ex. 4

ONEMIX Men’s Basketball Shoes Athletic
Sneakers Anti-Slip High Top Outdoor Sport

ONEMIX Kids Sneaker Shoes for Boys/Girls
See Compl. Ex. 5
13

ONEMIX Men’s Running Sport Shoes

Waterproof
See Compl. Ex. 6

See Compl. Ex. 7
14

See Compl. Ex. 8

ONEMIX Women’s Woven Training Shoes

ONEMIX Women’s Running Shoes, Air Cushion

Breathable Athletic Sneakers
See Compl. Ex. 9

15

See Compl. Ex. 10 ONEMIX Men’s Air Running Shoes, Light Gym
Outdoor Walking Sneakers

ONEMIX Men’s Air Cushion Outdoor Sports

Running Shoes
ONEMIX Men’s Lightweight Air Cushion Sport

Running Shoes
See Compl. Ex. 11
16

See Compl. Ex. 12

ONEMIX Men’s Air Cushion Outdoor Sports

Running Shoes
ONEMIX Men’s Lightweight Air Cushion Sport

Running Shoes
See Compl. Ex. 13
17
42. In Table 16 below, NIKE provides examples of OneMix’s infringing uses of the
NIKE Trademarks to promote its Infringing Shoes. The table shows exemplary infringing uses.
NIKE also accuses all of other uses by OneMix of the NIKE Trademarks to promote footwear.
Table 16: Comparison of NIKE Trademarks with Exemplary Infringing Shoes

NIKE’s
Asserted OneMix’s Exemplary Infringing Shoes
Trademark
AIR MAX
U.S. Trademark
Reg. No.
1,508,348
See Compl. Ex.
14
18
19
FLYWIRE
U.S. Trademark
Reg. No.
3,640,542
See Compl. Ex.
15
20
FLYKNIT
U.S. Trademark
Reg. No.
4,393,310
See Compl. Ex.
16
21
43. On information and belief, OneMix knew of the NIKE Design Patents and the
NIKE Trademarks before it began making, using, offering to sell, promoting, distributing, selling,
and/or importing Infringing Shoes into the United States.
44. On information and belief, OneMix continued making, using, offering to sell,
promoting, distributing, selling, and/or importing Infringing Shoes into the United States with
22
knowledge of the NIKE Design Patents and the NIKE Trademarks.
45. The overall appearance of the designs of the NIKE Design Patents and the
corresponding designs of OneMix’s Infringing Shoes are substantially the same.
46. An ordinary observer will perceive the overall appearance of the designs of the
NIKE Design Patents and the corresponding designs of OneMix’s Infringing Shoes to be
substantially the same.
47. Industry commentators and consumers describe OneMix’s Infringing Shoes as
imitations and copies that “look strikingly similar—if not exact replicas—to” NIKE’s patented
designs. See Exhibit 21.
COUNT I
(Patent Infringement of the NIKE Design Patents under 35 U.S.C. § 271)
48. NIKE re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 47 of this Complaint.
49. OneMix has infringed and continues to infringe each of NIKE’s Design Patents at
least by making, using, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing into the United States the
Infringing Shoes, which are covered by the claims of one or more of the NIKE Design Patents.
50. OneMix’s acts of infringement have been without express or implied license by
NIKE, are in violation of NIKE’s rights, and will continue unless enjoined by this Court.
51. On information and belief, OneMix’s infringement of each of NIKE’s Design
Patents has been, and continues to be, deliberate, intentional, and willful.
52. On information and belief, this is an exceptional case in view of OneMix’s unlawful
activities, including OneMix’s deliberate, intentional, and willful infringement.
53. NIKE has been, is being, and will continue to be injured and has suffered, is
suffering, and will continue to suffer injury and damages for which it is entitled to relief under at
23
least 35 U.S.C. §§ 281, 284, 285, and 289.
54. OneMix also has caused, is causing, and will continue to cause irreparable harm to
NIKE for which there is no adequate remedy at law for which NIKE is entitled to injunctive relief
under at least 35 U.S.C. § 283.
COUNT II
(Trademark Infringement under Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act, 35 U.S.C. § 1114)
Paragraphs 1 through 47 of this Complaint.
56. OneMix has knowingly used and continues to use in commerce the NIKE
Trademarks, including reproductions, copies, or colorable imitations thereof, in connection with
footwear OneMix manufactures, advertises, promotes, and/or sells in the United States.
57. OneMix has used the NIKE Trademarks with the knowledge of, and the intent to
call to mind and create a likelihood of confusion with regard to, and/or to trade off NIKE’s fame
and the registered NIKE Trademarks.
58. The NIKE Trademarks are federally registered and are entitled to protection under
both federal law and common law.
59. OneMix’s use of the NIKE Trademarks (a) constitutes trademark infringement; (b)
is likely to confuse, mislead, or deceive customers, purchasers, and members of the general public
as to the origin, source, sponsorship, or affiliation of OneMix and NIKE and/or OneMix’s products
and NIKE’s products; and (c) is likely to cause such people to believe, in error, that OneMix’s
products have been authorized, sponsored, approved, endorsed, or licensed by NIKE, or that
OneMix is in some way affiliated with NIKE.
60. NIKE has no control over the nature and quality of the goods or services OneMix
offers, and NIKE’s reputation and goodwill will be damaged—and the value of the NIKE
24
Trademarks jeopardized—by OneMix’s continued use of the NIKE Trademarks and colorable
imitations thereof. Because of the likelihood of confusion, any defects, objections, or faults found
with OneMix’s products will negatively reflect upon and injure the reputation that NIKE has
established for the products and services it offers in connection with the NIKE Trademarks.
61. OneMix’s acts alleged above have caused, and if not enjoined, will continue to
cause, irreparable and continuing harm to NIKE’s Trademarks, its business, reputation, and
goodwill. NIKE has no adequate remedy at law as monetary damages are inadequate to compensate
NIKE for the injuries caused by OneMix.
62. As a direct and proximate result of OneMix’s conduct, NIKE has suffered damages
to the valuable NIKE Trademarks and other damages in an amount to be proved at trial.
63. OneMix’s infringement of NIKE’s Trademarks is deliberate, willful, fraudulent,
and without any extenuating circumstances and constitutes a knowing use of the NIKE Trademarks
and an exceptional case within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a).
64. NIKE is entitled to injunctive relief and NIKE is also entitled to recover OneMix’s
profits, actual damages, enhanced profits and damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under
15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1116, and 1117.
COUNT III
(False Designation of Origin/Unfair Competition under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act,
15 U.S.C. § 1125(a))
66. OneMix’s use of the NIKE Trademarks to promote, offer to sell, and sell Infringing
Shoes violates Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
25
67. The NIKE Trademarks are federally registered and are entitled to protection under
both federal and common law. NIKE has extensively and continuously promoted and used the
NIKE Trademarks for years in the United States and worldwide. Through that extensive and
continuous use, the NIKE Trademarks have become well-known indicators of the origin and quality
of NIKE footwear.
68. OneMix’s use of the NIKE Trademarks constitutes a false designation of origin that
is likely to cause consumer confusion, mistake, or deception as to the origin, sponsorship, or
approval of the Infringing Shoes by creating the false and misleading impression that the Infringing
Shoes are manufactured by, authorized by, or otherwise associated with NIKE.
69. OneMix’s use of the NIKE Trademarks has caused, and unless enjoined, will
continue to cause substantial and irreparable injury to NIKE for which NIKE has no adequate
remedy at law, including at least substantial and irreparable injury to the goodwill and reputation
for quality associated with the NIKE Trademarks.
70. On information and belief, OneMix’s use of the NIKE Trademarks has been
intentional and willful.
71. NIKE is entitled to injunctive relief, and NIKE is also entitled to recover OneMix’s
15 U.S.C. §§ 1125(a), 1116, and 1117.
COUNT IV
(Dilution under Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act, 35 U.S.C. § 1125(c))
73. The AIR MAX and FLYKNIT trademarks have become famous throughout the
United States as a result of the duration, extent, and geographical reach of advertising and publicity,
26
the amount, volume, and geographical extent of NIKE’s sales and trading areas, their channels of
trade, their degree of recognition, and registration of the AIR MAX and FLYKNIT trademarks.
74. Because NIKE’s products bearing the AIR MAX and FLYKNIT trademarks have
gained a reputation synonymous with fashion, quality, styling, and authenticity, the AIR MAX and
FLYKNIT trademarks have gained substantial renown.
75. On information and belief, the AIR MAX and FLYKNIT trademarks became
famous before OneMix began infringing the marks.
76. OneMix has used and continues to use in commerce the AIR MAX and FLYKNIT
trademarks in connection with the advertisement, promotion, and sale of OneMix’s products.
77. OneMix’s use of the AIR MAX and FLYKNIT trademarks, and colorable
imitations thereof, is likely to cause, has caused, and continues to cause irreparable injury to and
dilution of the distinctive quality of the AIR MAX and FLYKNIT trademarks in violation of
NIKE’s rights under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c).
78. OneMix’s wrongful use of the AIR MAX and FLYKNIT trademarks is likely to
cause dilution by blurring and whittling away of the distinctiveness and fame of the AIR MAX and
FLYKNIT Trademarks.
79. OneMix’s wrongful use of the AIR MAX and FLYKNIT trademarks is likely to
cause dilution by tarnishment by harming NIKE’s reputation.
80. OneMix’s acts alleged above have caused, and if not enjoined, will continue to
cause, irreparable and continuing harm to the AIR MAX and FLYKNIT trademarks, and NIKE’s
business, reputation, and goodwill. NIKE has no adequate remedy at law because monetary
damages are inadequate to compensate for the injuries OneMix is causing.
27
81. As a direct and proximate result of OneMix’s conduct, NIKE has suffered damages
to the valuable AIR MAX and FLYKNIT trademarks and other damages in an amount to be proved
at trial.
82. OneMix’s wrongful use of the AIR MAX and FLYKNIT trademarks is deliberate
and constitutes a willful intent to trade on the recognition of the AIR MAX and FLYKNIT
trademarks, making this an exceptional case within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1117.
15 U.S.C. §§ 1125(c), 1116, and 1117.
COUNT V
(Common Law Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition)
85. NIKE was the first to use the NIKE Trademarks. As a result of NIKE’s continuous
promotion and sales of products bearing the NIKE Trademarks for many years, the NIKE
Trademarks have become widely known, and NIKE has been identified in the public mind as the
manufacturer of the products to which the NIKE Trademarks are applied.
86. As a result of the experience, care, and service of NIKE in producing the products
to which the NIKE Trademarks are applied, these products have become widely known and have
acquired a worldwide reputation for fashion, quality, styling, and authenticity. Moreover, the NIKE
Trademarks have come to symbolize NIKE’s reputation for quality and excellence.
87. OneMix, with knowledge of and with intentional disregard of NIKE’s rights,
continues to advertise, promote, and sell products using the NIKE Trademarks or colorable and
confusing imitations thereof. OneMix’s acts are likely to cause, have caused, and will continue to
28
cause confusion as to the source of origin or certification of NIKE’s products and/or services.
Additionally, OneMix’s acts are likely to cause, have caused, and will continue to cause
misunderstanding as to affiliation with NIKE and NIKE’s products and/or services.
88. OneMix’s acts alleged above have caused, and if not enjoined will continue to
cause, irreparable and continuing harm to NIKE’s Trademarks, its business, reputation, and
goodwill. NIKE has no adequate remedy at law because monetary damages are inadequate to
compensate NIKE for the injuries cause by OneMix.
89. On information and belief, OneMix’s use of the NIKE Trademarks has been
intentional and willful.
profits, actual damages, punitive damages, costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, NIKE respectfully requests that the Court grant the following relief:
1. A judgment that OneMix has (i) willfully infringed the NIKE Design Patents in
violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a); (ii) willfully infringed the NIKE Trademarks in violation of 15
U.S.C. § 1114; (iii) willfully used false designations of origin/unfair competition in violation of
15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (iv) willfully diluted the AIR MAX and FLYKNIT Trademarks in violation
of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c); and (v) willfully violated NIKE’s common law rights in the NIKE
Trademarks;
2. A permanent injunction enjoining OneMix, and all persons or entities acting as
agents or in concert with OneMix, from infringing each of the NIKE Design Patents and colorable
imitations thereof;
29
3. A permanent injunction against further infringement, false designation of origin,
unfair competition, and dilution of the NIKE Trademarks by OneMix and all persons or entities
acting as agents or in concert with OneMix;
4. A judgment and order requiring OneMix to pay NIKE all damages caused by
OneMix’s infringement of each of the NIKE Design Patents (but in no event less than a reasonable
royalty) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, or the total profit made by OneMix from its infringement of
each of the NIKE Design Patents pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 289;
5. An order directing the destruction of all Infringing Shoes in OneMix’s possession
or control, including the destruction of all advertising materials related to the Infringing Shoes in
OneMix’s possession or control, including on the Internet;
6. A judgment and order requiring OneMix to pay NIKE supplemental damages or
profits for any continuing post-verdict infringement up until the entry of the final judgment, with
an accounting, as needed;
7. A judgment and order requiring OneMix to pay NIKE increased damages up to
three times the amount found or assessed pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284;
8. An award of OneMix’s profits, actual damages, enhanced profits and damages,
costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1116, and 1117 for OneMix’s
trademark infringements and dilution;
9. A judgment and order requiring OneMix to pay NIKE pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest on any damages or profits awarded;
10. A determination that this action is an exceptional case pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285;
11. An award of NIKE’s attorneys’ fees for bringing and prosecuting this action;
30
12. An award of NIKE’s costs and expenses incurred in bringing and prosecuting this
action; and
13. Such further and additional relief as this Court deems just and proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
NIKE hereby demands a jury for all issues so triable.
DATED: February 26, 2019 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Christopher Renk

Christopher J. Renk
Michael J. Harris
Janice V. Mitrius
Novaira T. Paul
Banner & Witcoff, Ltd.
71 S. Wacker Dr.
Suite 3600
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 463-5000
Facsimile: (312) 465-5001
CRenk@bannerwitcoff.com
MHarris@bannerwitcoff.com
JMitrius@bannerwitcoff.com
NPaul@bannerwitcoff.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff, NIKE, Inc.
31

Nike v. Putian Qingchunzhijia Sports Goods - Complaint (Sans Exhibits)

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

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 :

Nike v. Putian Qingchunzhijia Sports Goods - Complaint (Sans Exhibits)

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Case: 1:19-cv-01408 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/26/19 Page 1 of 31 PageID #:1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NIKE, INC., an Oregon corporation, Case No.: 1:19-cv-01408

Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR:

v. (1) DESIGN PATENT

JURY TRIAL REQUESTED

footwear for a wide variety of sports and fitness activities.

are key factors in NIKE’s success.

such as Amazon.com and eBay.com.

midsole and outsole designs shown below.

Excerpt from https://www.kicksonfire.com/onemix-flyknit-air-max-nike-copy/

Excerpt from https://www.kicksonfire.com/onemix-flyknit-air-max-nike-copy/

comment on the striking similarity between the designs:

Excerpt from https://www.amazon.com/ONEMIX-Running-Flyknit-Lightweight-

Excerpt from https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07F72RQ74/ref=twister_B07F72F7MK

design and to protect its valuable intellectual property rights.

“FLYKNIT,” (collectively, the “NIKE Trademarks”).

of OneMix’s profits from its infringements.

Gongchen Street, Licheng District, Putian, Fujian, China.

Pu Tian Shi Mai Qu Mao Yi You Xian Gong Si.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

101 et seq. and 15 U.S.C. § 1051, et seq., respectively.

1121 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338, and 1367.

Court has personal jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2).

subject to personal jurisdiction in this district.

A. NIKE’S DESIGN PATENTS

Table 1: The NIKE Design Patents

D694,501 (the “’501 Patent”) Shoe Outsole December 3, 2013 2

D697,294 (the “’294 Patent”) Shoe Outsole January 14, 2014 3

D707,934 (the “’934 Patent”) Shoe Outsole July 1, 2014 4

D707,935 (the “’935 Patent”) Shoe Outsole July 1, 2014 5

D636,588 (the “’588 Patent”) Shoe Upper April 26, 2011 6

D707,950 (the “’950 Patent”) Shoe Upper July 1, 2014 7

D718,036 (the “’036 Patent”) Shoe Upper November 25, 2014 8

D762,965 (the “’965 Patent”) Shoe Upper August 9, 2016 9

D762,966 (the “’966 Patent”) Shoe Upper August 9, 2016 10

D702,424 (the “’424 Patent”) Shoe Midsole April 15, 2014 11

D709,681 (the “’681 Patent”) Shoe Midsole July 29, 2014 12

D711,081 (the “’081 Patent”) Shoe Midsole August 19, 2014 13

27. The NIKE Design Patents are presumed to be valid.

28. As a result of continuous and long-standing promotion, substantial sales, and

consumer recognition, NIKE has developed powerful trademark rights.

innovative footwear technologies over the years.

identified in Table 2. A copy of each registration certificate is attached to this Complaint as

Table 2: NIKE TRADEMARKS

33. The NIKE Trademarks are presumed to be valid.

indicators of the origin and quality of NIKE products, specifically footwear.

C. ONEMIX’S INFRINGING ACTIVITIES

including customers in the State of Illinois and in this District.

collectively “Infringing Shoes”).

in connection with the Infringing Shoes to create associations with NIKE.

an example screen shot from Exhibit 17.

Infringing Shoes at Exhibits 18-20.

41. In Tables 3 through 15 below, NIKE compares specific examples of Infringing

Table 3: Comparison of ’571 Patent with Exemplary Infringing Shoes

See Compl. Ex. 1 ONEMIX Men’s Running Sport Shoes

Table 4: Comparison of ’501 Patent with Exemplary Infringing Shoes

See Compl. Ex. 2 ONEMIX Men’s Lightweight Air Cushion

Table 5: Comparison of ’294 Patent with Exemplary Infringing Shoes

See Compl. Ex. 3 ONEMIX Men’s Lightweight Air Cushion

Table 6: Comparison of ’934 Patent with Exemplary Infringing Shoes

See Compl. Ex. 4

ONEMIX Kids Sneaker Shoes for Boys/Girls

See Compl. Ex. 5

Table 8: Comparison of ’588 Patent with Exemplary Infringing Shoes

ONEMIX Men’s Running Sport Shoes