1 PETER K.

STRIS (SBN 216226)

ELIZABETH BRANNEN (SBN 226234)
2 JUSTIN BARNES (SBN 217517)
STRIS & MAHER LLP
3 777 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3850
Los Angeles, CA 90017
4 Telephone: (213) 995-6800
Facsimile: (213) 261-0299
5
Attorneys for Plaintiff
6 PLAYOLOGY, LLC
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 LOS ANGELES DIVISION
11
777 S FIGUEROA ST, STE 3850

12 PLAYOLOGY, LLC, Case No.

LOS ANGELES, CA 90017

13 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY

14 v. JUDGEMENT OF NON-
INFRINGEMENT & INVALIDITY;
15 C.B. WORLDWIDE, INC., DBA
MAMMOTH PET PRODUCTS,
16 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Defendant.
MAH E R
S T R I S

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

28

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT &

INVALIDITY; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
 1 Plaintiff’s Complaint Seeking A Declaratory Judgement As To Non-
2 Infringement & Invalidity
3 Plaintiff Playology, LLC (“Playology”) seeks a declaratory judgment of
4 noninfringement and invalidity of United States Patent Nos. D743,638 S (“‘638

5 Patent”), D744,175 S (“‘175 Patent”), and D778,002 (“‘002 Patent”) (collectively

6 “Patents-In-Suit”) as follows:
7 NATURE OF THE ACTION
8 1. This is an action for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and
9 invalidity arising under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United
10 States Code, and the Declaratory Judgment Act. Playology requests this relief
11 because defendant C.B. Worldwide Inc., dba Mammoth Pet Products (“Mammoth”)
777 S FIGUEROA ST, STE 3850

12 has, through its counsel, made clear threats to Playology and its counsel and one of
LOS ANGELES, CA 90017

13 its customers regarding the Patents-In-Suit. Mammoth’s allegations of infringement

14 have created a justiciable controversy, and Playology now seeks a declaratory
15 judgment of non-infringement and invalidity regarding the Patents-In-Suit.
16 2. The ‘638 Patent is not infringed and is invalid and/or unenforceable
MAH E R
S T R I S

17 against Playology. Playology seeks declaratory judgment to that effect so that it may
18 remove from Playology’s products the haze that Mammoth’s threats continually seek
19 to impose.
20 3. The ‘175 Patent is not infringed and is invalid and/or unenforceable
21 against Playology. Playology seeks declaratory judgment to that effect so that it may
22 remove from Playology’s products the haze that Mammoth’s threats continually seek
23 to impose.
24 4. The ‘002 Patent is not infringed and is invalid and/or unenforceable
25 against Playology. Playology seeks declaratory judgment to that effect so that it may
26 remove from Playology’s products the haze that Mammoth’s threats continually seek
27 to impose.

28
2
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT &
INVALIDITY; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
 1 THE PARTIES
2 5. Playology is a limited liability company organized and existing under the
3 laws of the state of Delaware, with a place of business at 19210 S. Vermont Ave,
4 Building E, Gardena, CA 90248. Playology provides products for pets, including but

5 not limited to dog toys.

6 6. On information and belief, Mammoth is a California corporation with its
7 principal place of business in Mammoth Lakes, California, that imports pet products
8 from China into the United States, including through the Port of Los Angeles, and
9 maintains officers, offices, employees, and/or contractors within this District.
10 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
11 7. This action arises under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201,
777 S FIGUEROA ST, STE 3850

12 and under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 100-390.
LOS ANGELES, CA 90017

13 8. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28
14 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), and 2201(a).
15 9. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Mammoth. Among other
16 things, Mammoth is incorporated in, and maintains continuous and systematic
MAH E R
S T R I S

17 business contacts with California. On information and belief, Mammoth’s officer,

18 Charles Byrne, resides in California. On information and belief, Mammoth’s account
19 manager for shipping and receiving resides in California, in or around Santa Ana,
20 California.
21 10. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), (c), and
22 1400(b) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Playology’s claims
23 occurred in this District, including the correspondence regarding alleged infringement
24 sent by Mammoth’s counsel from offices within this judicial district, and because
25 Mammoth is subject to personal jurisdiction here. On information and belief,
26 Mammoth has purported to have offices located at 376 South Westmoreland Ave, Los
27 Angeles, CA, within this judicial district.

28
3
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT &
INVALIDITY; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
 1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2 11. On or about October 31, 2019, counsel for Mammoth sent a letter to
3 Playology, alleging infringement of the Patents-In-Suit on the basis of Playology’s
4 Dri-Tech Rope and Dri-Tech Knot dog toys. The letter demanded that Playology

5 “cease and desist any further sales of infringing goods, withdraw all of your
6 advertising and marketing of said goods, and immediately destroy all inventory of
7 said goods. Your failure to do so will leave us no choice but to file legal action
8 against you in Federal Court.” (emphasis in original).
9 12. On or about November 12, 2019, Adam Beatty, President of Playology,
10 sent a responsive letter to Mammoth’s counsel, indicating that Playology “do[es] not
11 believe our products could possibly infringe anything exclusive to your client.” The
777 S FIGUEROA ST, STE 3850

12 letter also included examples of prior art to the Patents-In-Suit. The letter requested
LOS ANGELES, CA 90017

13 that Mammoth send more detailed information, if any, “on what, precisely, your client
14 believes it has patented and how it is different from the prior art,” and explained “we
15 would be happy to review it.” The letter also requested that any further materials be
16 sent to Playology’s counsel.
MAH E R
S T R I S

17 13. On or about December 9, 2019, Mammoth’s counsel sent cease and

18 desist correspondence to a Playology customer located in San Diego alleging
19 infringement of the Patents-In-Suit, demanding that the customer immediately cease
20 and desist sales and marketing of Playology’s Dri-Tech Rope and Dri-Tech Knot
21 products, and “immediately destroy all inventory of said goods.” The letter concluded
22 by stating that failure to do so would result in a legal action against the customer in
23 federal court.
24 14. On or about February 11, 2020, Mammoth’s counsel sent a response
25 letter to Playology’s counsel. This letter alleged that the Patents-In-Suit differed from
26 the prior art because they included braided rope. The letter also requested a formal
27 response to the letter of October 31, 2019.

28
4
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT &
INVALIDITY; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
 1 15. On or about February 27, 2020, counsel for Playology sent a letter to
2 Mammoth’s counsel, explaining both non-infringement and invalidity positions
3 regarding the Patents-In-Suit. The letter disclosed prior art that included braided rope,
4 showing screenshots of online reviews of products with braided rope that predate the

5 Patents-In-Suit. The letter also described how Playology’s products use a “basket”
6 weave that differed substantially from the “chevron” weave in Mammoth’s claimed
7 designs.
8 16. On or about August 20, 2020, counsel for Mammoth sent a letter to
9 Playology’s counsel. The letter acknowledged that Playology’s February 27, 2020
10 letter “advance[d] invalidity and noninfringement positions in connection with” the
11 Patents-In-Suit. The letter disagreed with the positions put forward by Playology and
777 S FIGUEROA ST, STE 3850

12 maintained that the Patents-In-Suit are valid and infringed. The letter concluded by
LOS ANGELES, CA 90017

13 reiterating that: “In order to resolve this matter on an amicable basis, C.B. Worldwide
14 requires that Playology cease and desist from any further offering and sale of the
15 infringing products. In addition, C.B. Worldwide also requires an accounting for these
16 products so we may arrive at a fair compensation for patent infringement damages.”
MAH E R
S T R I S

17 17. An immediate, real, and justiciable controversy exists between

18 Playology and Mammoth as to whether Playology’s Dri-Tech Rope and Dri-Tech
19 Knot toys infringe the Patents-In-Suit, and as to whether the Patents-In-Suit are valid
20 and enforceable.
21 COUNT ONE
22 (Declaration of Non-Infringement of the ‘638 Patent)
23 18. Playology restates and incorporates by reference the allegations in
24 paragraphs 1 through 17 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
25 19. On information and belief, Mammoth claims to own all rights, title, and
26 interest in the ‘638 Patent. A true and correct copy of the ‘638 Patent is attached as
27 Exhibit A.

28
5
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT &
INVALIDITY; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
 1 20. The ‘638 Patent has one claim: “The ornamental design for a double
2 knotted rope pet toy, as shown and described.”
3 21. Figure 1 of the ‘638 Patent, reproduced below, “is a perspective view of
4 a double knotted braided rope pet today embodying my new design.”

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
777 S FIGUEROA ST, STE 3850

12
LOS ANGELES, CA 90017

13
14
15
16
MAH E R
S T R I S

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 22. To the extent that the claim of the ‘638 Patent is valid, Playology does
25 not directly or indirectly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,
26 at least due to its use of a “basket” weave pattern in the Accused Products.
27 23. A substantial, immediate, and real controversy exists between Playology
28 and Mammoth regarding whether Playology infringes the ‘638 Patent by making,
6
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT &
INVALIDITY; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
 1 using, selling, and/or offering for sale its products. A judicial declaration is necessary
2 to determine the parties’ respective rights regarding the ‘638 Patent.
3 24. Playology seeks a judgment declaring that Playology does not infringe,
4 either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the ‘638

5 Patent by making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale its products, either directly
6 under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), or indirectly under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(b) and (c).
7 COUNT TWO
8 (Declaration of Non-Infringement of the ‘175 Patent)
9 25. Playology restates and incorporates by reference the allegations in
10 paragraphs 1 through 24 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
11 26. On information and belief, Mammoth claims to own all rights, title, and
777 S FIGUEROA ST, STE 3850

12 interest in the ‘175 Patent. A true and correct copy of the ‘175 Patent is attached as
LOS ANGELES, CA 90017

13 Exhibit B.
14 27. The ‘175 Patent has one claim: “The ornamental design for a triple
15 knotted braided rope pet toy, as shown and described.”
16
MAH E R
S T R I S

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

28
7
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT &
INVALIDITY; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
 1 28. Figure 1 of the ‘175 Patent, reproduced below, “is a perspective view of
2 a triple knotted braided rope pet toy embodying my new design.”
3
4

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
777 S FIGUEROA ST, STE 3850

12
LOS ANGELES, CA 90017

13
14
15
16
MAH E R
S T R I S

17
18
19
20
21
22
29. To the extent that the claim of the ‘175 Patent is valid, Playology does
23
not directly or indirectly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,
24
at least due to its use of a “basket” weave pattern in the Accused Products.
25
30. A substantial, immediate, and real controversy exists between Playology
26
and Mammoth regarding whether Playology infringes the ‘175 Patent by making,
27

28
8
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT &
INVALIDITY; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
 1 using, selling, and/or offering for sale its products. A judicial declaration is necessary
2 to determine the parties’ respective rights regarding the ‘175 Patent.
3 31. Playology seeks a judgment declaring that Playology does not infringe,
4 either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the ‘175

5 Patent by making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale its products, either directly
6 under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), or indirectly under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(b) and (c).
7 COUNT THREE
8 (Declaration of Non-Infringement of the ‘002 Patent)
9 32. Playology restates and incorporates by reference the allegations in
10 paragraphs 1 through 31 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
11 33. On information and belief, Mammoth claims to own all rights, title, and
777 S FIGUEROA ST, STE 3850

12 interest in the ‘002 Patent. A true and correct copy of the ‘002 Patent is attached as
LOS ANGELES, CA 90017

13 Exhibit C.
14 34. The ‘002 Patent has one claim: “The ornamental design for a rope ball
15 pet toy with pull, as shown and described.”
16
MAH E R
S T R I S

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

28
9
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT &
INVALIDITY; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
 1 35. Figure 1 of the ‘002 Patent, reproduced below, “is a perspective view of
2 a rope ball pet toy with pull embodying my new design.”
3
4

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
777 S FIGUEROA ST, STE 3850

12
LOS ANGELES, CA 90017

13
14
15 36. To the extent that the claim of the ‘002 Patent is valid, Playology does
16 not directly or indirectly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,
MAH E R
S T R I S

17 at least due to its use of a “basket” weave pattern in the Accused Products.
18 37. A substantial, immediate, and real controversy exists between Playology
19 and Mammoth regarding whether Playology infringes the ‘002 Patent by making,
20 using, selling, and/or offering for sale its products. A judicial declaration is necessary
21 to determine the parties’ respective rights regarding the ‘002 Patent.
22 38. Playology seeks a judgment declaring that Playology does not infringe,
23 either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the ‘002
24 Patent by making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale its products, either directly
25 under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), or indirectly under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(b) and (c).
26
27

28
10
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT &
INVALIDITY; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
 1 COUNT FOUR
2 (Declaration of Invalidity of the ‘638 Patent)
3 39. Playology restates and incorporates by reference the allegations in
4 paragraphs 1 through 38 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

5 40. An immediate, real, and justiciable controversy exists between

6 Playology and Mammoth regarding the validity of the ‘638 Patent.
7 41. Playology seeks a judgment declaring that the claim of the ‘638 Patent
8 is invalid.
9 42. The ‘638 Patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103 and/or 171
10 because the claimed design is anticipated and/or obvious in light of numerous prior
11 art references, including several made known in correspondence to counsel for
777 S FIGUEROA ST, STE 3850

12 Mammoth, and because it claims a purely functional design.

LOS ANGELES, CA 90017

13 COUNT FIVE
14 (Declaration of Invalidity of the ‘175 Patent)
15 43. Playology restates and incorporates by reference the allegations in
16 paragraphs 1 through 42 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
MAH E R
S T R I S

17 44. An immediate, real, and justiciable controversy exists between

18 Playology and Mammoth regarding the validity of the ‘175 Patent.
19 45. Playology seeks a judgment declaring that the claims of the ‘175 Patent
20 are invalid.
21 46. The ‘175 Patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103 and/or 171
22 because the claimed design is anticipated and/or obvious in light of numerous prior
23 art references, including several made known in correspondence to counsel for
24 Mammoth, and because it claims a purely functional design.
25
26
27

28
11
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT &
INVALIDITY; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
 1 COUNT SIX
2 (Declaration of Invalidity of the ‘002 Patent)
3 47. Playology restates and incorporates by reference the allegations in
4 paragraphs 1 through 46 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

5 48. An immediate, real, and justiciable controversy exists between

6 Playology and Mammoth regarding the validity of the ‘002 Patent.
7 49. Playology seeks a judgment declaring that the claims of the ‘002 Patent
8 are invalid.
9 50. The ‘002 Patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103 and/or 171
10 because the claimed design is anticipated and/or obvious in light of numerous prior
11 art references, including several made known in correspondence to counsel for
777 S FIGUEROA ST, STE 3850

12 Mammoth, and because it claims a purely functional design.

LOS ANGELES, CA 90017

13 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

14 WHEREFORE, Playology prays for judgment and relief as follows:
15 A. Declaring that Playology’s Dri-Tech Rope and Dri-Tech Knot products
16 do not directly or indirectly infringe the ‘638 Patent, either literally or under the
MAH E R
S T R I S

17 doctrine of equivalents, that Playology does not induce or contribute to infringement

18 of the ‘638 Patent, and that neither Playology nor its customers are liable for damages
19 or injunctive relief based on any claim of the ‘638 Patent;
20 B. Declaring that the ‘638 Patent is invalid;
21 C. Declaring that Playology’s Dri-Tech Rope and Dri-Tech Knot products
22 do not directly or indirectly infringe the ‘175 Patent, either literally or under the
23 doctrine of equivalents, that Playology does not induce or contribute to infringement
24 of the ‘175 Patent, and that neither Playology nor its customers are liable for damages
25 or injunctive relief based on any claim of the ‘175 Patent;
26 D. Declaring that the ‘175 Patent is invalid;
27 E. Declaring that Playology’s Dri-Tech Rope and Dri-Tech Knot products
28 do not directly or indirectly infringe the ‘002 Patent, either literally or under the
12
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT &
INVALIDITY; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
 1 doctrine of equivalents, that Playology does not induce or contribute to infringement
2 of the ‘002 Patent, and that neither Playology nor its customers are not liable for
3 damages or injunctive relief based on any claim of the ‘002 Patent;
4 F. Declaring that the ‘002 Patent is invalid;
5 G. Declaring that judgment be entered in favor of Playology and against
6 Mammoth on each of Playology’s claims;
7 H. Finding that this an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285;
8 I. Awarding Playology its costs and attorneys’ fees in connection with this
9 action; and
10 J. Such further and additional relief as the Court deems just and proper.
11 JURY DEMAND
777 S FIGUEROA ST, STE 3850

12 Playology demands a jury trial on all issues and claims so triable.

LOS ANGELES, CA 90017

13
14
15 Dated: October 8, 2020 STRIS & MAHER LLP
16
/s/ Elizabeth Brannen
MAH E R
S T R I S

17
Elizabeth Brannen (SBN 226234)
18
Peter K. Stris (SBN 216226)
19
Justin Barnes (SBN 217517)
20 STRIS & MAHER LLP
777 S Figueroa St, Ste 3850
21
Los Angeles, CA 90017
22 Telephone: (213) 995-6800
Facsimile: (213) 261-0299
23
24 Attorneys for Plaintiff
25
26
27

28
13
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT &
INVALIDITY; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
EXHIBIT A
 USOOD743638S

(12) Byrne
United States Design Patent (10) Patent No.: US D743,638 S
(45) Date of Patent: : *Nov. 17, 2015
(54) DOUBLE KNOTTED BRADED ROPE PET 5,142,782 A * 9/1992 Martucci................. B29C 63,24
TOY 138,125
D348,959 S * 7/1994 Lawson ....................... D30,160
(71) Applicant: C.B. Worldwide, Inc., Mammoth Lakes, 5,357,904 A * 10/1994 Takahashi ............ AOK 15,025
CA (US) 119,708
D356,879 S * 3/1995 O’Rourke .................... D30,160
(72) Inventor: Charles A. Byrne, Mammoth Lakes, CA 5,477,815 A * 12/1995 O’Rourke ............ AOK 15,026
(US) 119,710
5,802,828. A * 9/1998 Adorno .................. DO2G 3/045
(73) Assignee: C.B. Worldwide, Inc., Mammoth Lakes, 156,172
CA (US) 6,044,800 A * 4/2000 Kubo ................... AOK 15,026
119,709
(*) Notice: This patent is subject to a terminal dis 6,050,224. A * 4/2000 Owens ................. AOK 15,026
claimer. 119,709
6,178,922 B1* 1/2001 Denesuk .............. AOK 1/O152
(**) Term: 14 Years 119,710
(21) Appl. No.: 29/498,156 D505,233 S * 5/2005 Viola ........................... D30,160
D513,547 S * 1/2006 Baron .......................... D30,160
(22) Filed: Jul. 31, 2014 (Continued)
(51) LOC (10) Cl. ................................................ 30-99 OTHER PUBLICATIONS
(52) U.S. C.
USPC ......................................................... D30/160 R.C. Steele Wholesalel Pet Supplies catalog; p. 61; Booda 100%
(58) Field of Classification Search Cotton Fiber Bones; HS20-0924/0925/0926/1929.*
USPC ........ D30/160; 119/702, 706 707; 87/6, 89: (Continued)
57/232; 29/890.144; 138/125; 156/50
CPC ..... A01K 15/00: A01K 15/02: A01K 15/025;
A01K 29/00; A63B 65/10; A63B 67/06; Primary Examiner — Cathy Anne MacCormac
A63H5/00; A63H 15/00; B29C 63/06; (74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm — Martino Patent Law at the
B66C 1/12: D02G 3/36; F16L 11/10; H01B Law Offices of Sepehr Daghighian
13/06
(57) CLAM
See application file for complete search history. The ornamental design for a double knotted braided rope pet
(56) References Cited toy, as shown and described.
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS DESCRIPTION
2,740,316 A * 4/1956 Crossley .................. D04D 1 00 FIG. 1 is a perspective view of a double knotted braided rope
385/100
2,979,982 A * 4, 1961 Weitzel .................... D04D 1 00 pet toy embodying my new design;
57/235 FIG. 2 is a front elevation view thereof;
4,036,101 A * 7/1977 Burnett .................... D04C 1/12 FIG. 3 is a rear elevation view thereof;
294f74 FIG. 4 is a right side elevation view thereof;
4,312.260 A * 1/1982 Morieras .................. DOTB 1,04 FIG. 5 is a left side elevation view thereof;
174,121 R FIG. 6 is a top plan view thereof; and,
4,924,811 A * 5/1990 Axelrod ................... A61D 5700 FIG. 7 is a bottom plan view thereof.
119,710
4,973.370 A * 1 1/1990 Kreinberg ............ HO1R4/2495 The broken lines depict environmental subject matter, are for
156.50 illustration only and form no part of the claimed design.
5,033,410 A * 7/1991 Sigurdsson .......... AOK 15,026
119,710 1 Claim, 3 Drawing Sheets
 US D743,638 S
Page 2

(56) References Cited OTHER PUBLICATIONS

U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS Mammoth Pet Products catalogs; p. 3; Rope Bone (white)
#1OOOOF 100008F/#1OO66F.
D605,737 S * 12, 2009 von Glanstaetten ......... D23.266
D657,234 S. * 4, 2012 Herman ............. ... D8,382 Mammoth Pet Products catalogs; p. 3; Three Knot Tug (white)
D661,850 S * 6, 2012 Byrne .......................... D30,160 #10012F 100166F.
D710,554 S * 8, 2014 Byrne .......................... D30,160 Mammoth Pet Products catalogs; p. 3; Four & Five Knot Tug (white)
2002fO144742 A1* 10, 2002 Martucci............... F16L 11,127
138,125 #10036F 2003.8F.*
2007/0215063 A1* 9, 2007 Simpson .............. AOK 15,026
119,708 * cited by examiner
U.S. Patent Nov. 17, 2015 Sheet 1 of 3 US D743,638 S
U.S. Patent Nov. 17, 2015 Sheet 3 of 3 US D743,638 S

G. 8 G. 7
EXHIBIT B
 USOOD744 175S

(12) Byrne
United States Design Patent (10) Patent No.: US D744,175S
(45) Date of Patent: . Nov. 24, 2015
(54) TRIPLE KNOTTED BRADED ROPE PET TOY D505,233 S * 5/2005 Viola ........................... D30,160
7,574,977 B2 * 8/2009 Ritchey........................ 119,707
(71) Applicant: C.B. Worldwide, Inc., Mammoth Lakes, D605,737 S * 12/2009 von Glanstaetten et al. D23/266
7.762,214 B2 * 7/2010 Ritchey......................... 119,707
CA (US) 8,033,253 B2 * 10/2011 Ritchey et al ... 119,707
D657,234 S * 4/2012 Herman ...... ... D8,382
(72) Inventor: Charles A. Byrne, Mammoth Lakes, CA D661,850 S * 6/2012 Byrne ... ... D30,160
(US) D702,004 S * 4/2014 Byrne ... ... D30,160
D702,005 S * 4/2014 Byrne ... ... D30,160
(73) Assignee: C.B. Worldwide, Inc., Mammoth Lakes, D710,554 S * 8/2014 Byrne ............ ... D30,160
2002fO144742 A1* 10, 2002 Martucci et al. ... 138,125
CA (US) 2007/0215063 A1* 9/2007 Simpson ....................... 119,708
(**) Term: 14 Years OTHER PUBLICATIONS

(21) Appl. No.: 29/498,160 R.C. Steele Wholesale Pet Supplies catalog; p. 61; Booda 100%
Cotton Fiber Regular Tug; HS20-1748/S20-1747/S20-0928.*
(22) Filed: Jul. 31, 2014 Mammoth Pet Products catalog; p. 3; Three Knot Tug (color);
#20068F-20016F and Three Knot Tug (white) 10012F-10016FF.*
(51) LOC (10) Cl. ................................................ 30-99
(52) U.S. C. * cited by examiner
USPC ......................................................... D30/160
(58) Field of Classification Search Primary Examiner — Cathy Anne MacCormac
USPC ........ D30/160; 119/702, 706 707; 87/6, 89: (74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm — Martino Patent Law at the
57/232; 29/890.144; 138/125; 156/50 Law Offices of Sepehr Daghighian
CPC ..... A01K 15/00: A01K 15/02: A01K 15/025;
A01K 29/00; A63B 65/10; A63B 67/06; (57) CLAM
A63H5/00; A63H 15/00; B29C 63/06; The ornamental design for a triple knotted braided rope pet
B66C 1/12: D02G 3/36; F16L 11/10; H01B toy, as shown and described.
13/06
See application file for complete search history. DESCRIPTION

(56) References Cited FIG. 1 is a perspective view of a triple knotted braided rope
pet toy embodying my new design;
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS FIG. 2 is a front elevation view thereof;
2,740,316 A * 4/1956 Crossley et al. .................... 87.9 FIG. 3 is a rear elevation view thereof;
2,979,982 A * 4/1961 Weitzel ........ ... 87.6 FIG. 4 is a right side elevation view thereof;
4,036,101 A * 7, 1977 Burnett ... ... 87/8 FIG. 5 is a left side elevation view thereof;
4.312,260 A 1, 1982 Morieras ............................. 87.6 FIG. 6 is a top plan view thereof; and,
4,924,811 A * 5/1990 Axelrod ... 119,710 FIG. 7 is a bottom plan view thereof.
4,973.370 A * 1 1/1990 Kreinberg ....................... 156.50 The broken lines are for illustration only and form no part of
5,142,782 A * 9/1992 Martucci. 29,890.144
D348,959 S * 7/1994 Lawson ....................... D30,160 the claimed design.
5,357,904 A * 10/1994 Takahashi et al. 119,708
5,802,828. A * 9/1998 Adorno ........................... 57/232 1 Claim, 3 Drawing Sheets
U.S. Patent Nov. 24, 2015 Sheet 1 of 3 US D744,175S
U.S. Patent Nov. 24, 2015 Sheet 2 of 3 US D744,175S
W

:2,4%)-§§?
§

<% 222

¿z&-
&
U.S. Patent Nov. 24, 2015 Sheet 3 of 3 US D744,175S

&

FIG.7 \,,
EXHIBIT C
 USOOD7780O2S

(12) United States Design Patent (10) Patent No.: US D778,002 S

Byrne (45) Date of Patent: Jan. 31, 2017
(54) ROPE BALL PET TOY WITH PULL D457,720 S * 5/2002 Dorris ............................ D3/208
D462,833 S * 9/2002 Dorris ............................ D3/208
D656,281 S * 3/2012 Morton ........................ D30,160
(71) Applicant: C.B. Worldwide, Inc., Mammoth D657,234 S * 4/2012 Herman ......................... D8,382
Lakes, CA (US) D704,395 S * 5/2014 Byrne ... ... D30,160
D715,503 S * 10/2014 Byrne ... D30,160
(72) Inventor: Charles A. Byrne, Mammoth Lakes, D741,027 S * 10/2015 Byrne .......................... D30,160
CA (US)
OTHER PUBLICATIONS
(73) Assignee: C.B. Worldwide, Inc., Mammoth Mammoth Pet Products catalog; rec'd May 2008; p. 4; Monkey Fist
Lakes, CA (US) Tug #20092F #20098F; from Design Library.*
(**) Term: 15 Years
* cited by examiner
(21) Appl. No.: 29/535,430 Primary Examiner — Cathy Ann MacCormac
(22) Filed: Aug. 6, 2015 (74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm — Hackler Daghighian
Martino & Novak
(51) LOC (10) Cl. ............................................... 30-99
(52) U.S. C. (57) CLAM
USPC ......................................................... D30/160 The ornamental design for a rope ball pet toy with pull, as
(58) Field of Classification Search shown and described.
USPC ....... D30/160; D24/211-212: D21/405-406, DESCRIPTION
D21/662, 684; 119/706
CPC ... A01K 15/024: A01K 15/025; A01K 15/026; FIG. 1 is a perspective view of a rope ball pet toy with pull
A01K 15/027; A01K 15700; A01K 15/02 embodying my new design;
See application file for complete search history. FIG. 2 is a front elevation view of FIG. 1;
FIG. 3 is a rear elevation view of FIG. 1;
(56) References Cited
FIG. 4 is a right side elevation view of FIG. 1;
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS FIG. 5 is a left side elevation view of FIG. 1;
FIG. 6 is a top plan view of FIG. 1; and,
3,722,070 A * 3/1973 Shiner ...................... A63H 9/00 FIG. 7 is a bottom plan view of FIG. 1.
29,433
D359,147 S * 6/1995 Hotta ........................... D30,160 1 Claim, 4 Drawing Sheets

&
3.

essary {SY.
3&
222
(SS SSS s
S.
Six XX& ) <>
'YXX
SX
S32 s
SSssass-3
AZsas A. seas SN
2.
U.S. Patent Jan. 31, 2017 Sheet 1 of 4 US D778,002 S

ac &&
2XSS
SA) X
/X
Šx:2
U.S. Patent Jan. 31, 2017 Sheet 2 of 4 US D778,002 S
U.S. Patent Jan. 31, 2017 Sheet 3 of 4

22
©
<C:

FIG. 4

F.G. 5
U.S. Patent Jan. 31, 2017 Sheet 4 of 4 US D778,002 S

sa

2%.SSS
KKYANSX7
YS