UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY, and 3M COMPANY, Plaintiffs,

V.

Civil Action No.

COMPLAINT
(Jury Trial Demanded)

SAS SAFETY CORP.,

Defendant.

Plaintiffs 3M Company and 3M Innovative Properties Company (collectively "3M"), by its attorneys Bowman and Brooke LLP, for their Complaint against Defendant SAS Safety Corp. ("SAS"), state and allege as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of

the United States, 35 U.S.C. 271, 281 - 285, and for trade dress infringement under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), for violation of the Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Minn. Stat. 325D.44; for trade dress infringement under the common law of Minnesota; and for unfair competition under the common law of the State of Minnesota.

1680443-EA 1

THE PARTIES 2. Plaintiff 3M Company is a corporation organized and existing under the

laws of the State of Delaware, having its principal place of business at 3M Center, 2501 Hudson Road, St. Paul, Minnesota. 3M Company designs, develops, manufactures and sells a wide variety of products in the United States and around the world. 3. Plaintiff 3M Innovative Properties Company is a corporation organized and

existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, having a principal place of business at 3M Center, 2501 Hudson Road, St. Paul, Minnesota. 4. Upon information and belief, Defendant SAS is a corporation organized

and existing under the laws of the State of California, having a principal place of business located at 3031 Gardenia Avenue, Long Beach, CA 90807. JURISDICTION 5. This Court has jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. 1121 and 28 U.S.C. 1331

and 1338(a). The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over 3Ms state law claims because they are related to 3Ms federal law claims and form part of the same case or controversy. 6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over SAS because,

inter a/ia, (1) SAS

conducts business in Minnesota; and (2) under the Minnesota Long Arm Statute, Minn. Stat. 543.19, SAS transacts business within Minnesota. 7. 1400. Venue is proper in this Court in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1391 and

1680443-EA 1

COUNT I Patent Infringement

8. On January 24, 1995, United States Patent No. 5,384,857 ("the 857

patent"), entitled "Snap-In Attachment for Ear Defender Cup" was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A true and correct copy of the 857 patent is attached as Exhibit A to this Complaint. 9. 3M Innovative Properties Company owns the 857 patent by assignment.

3M Company is the exclusive licensee of the 857 patent and has standing to bring an action for infringement of the 857 patent. 10. Defendant SAS has directly infringed, contributed to the infringement of,

and/or induced infringement of the 857 patent through the manufacture, use, sale, and offer for sale of their products, including the SAS Digital Earmuffs. A depiction of this product is reproduced below.

11.

The SAS Digital Earmuffs product embodies and is intended to practice

the invention described and claimed in 3Ms 857 patent.

1680443-EA 1

12.

3M has been damaged by the infringement of the 857 patent and will

continue to be damaged in the future unless the SAS is permanently enjoined from infringing the 857 patent, contributing to the infringement of the 857 patent, and/or inducing the infringement of the 857 patent by others.

COUNT II Trade Dress Infringement Pursuant To Section 43(A) Of The Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(A)
13. 3M markets and distributes AM/FM radio hearing 3M hearing protection

earmuff products. A depiction of a representative 3M product is below on the left, and a depiction of the SAS product is below on the right.

14.

3Ms yellow and black color selection and arrangement give the 3M

products their unique appearance. 15. 3M and its predecessor company have been marketing AM/FM radio 3M

hearing protection earmuff products with this unique color scheme since 2003.

1680443-EA 1

16.

As a result of marketing of the 3M hearing protection earmuff products

with this yellow and black color, and unique color scheme, and as a result of advertising, the 3M hearing protection products have become widely known to users of industrial and commercial hearing safety devices as denoting and associated exclusively with 3M and/or its predecessor company. 17. Consequently, 3Ms trade dress for its 3M hearing protection earmuff

products has acquired a distinctiveness which serves to identify such yellow and black colored products with 3M and/or its predecessor companies. 18. For the purpose and with the intent of profiting from the reputation and

goodwill that 3M owns from marketing of the 3M hearing protection earmuff products, and to divert 3Ms customers by means of deception as to the source of Defendants hearing protection earmuffs, SAS has copied the 3M products unique coloration scheme as is illustrated in the images appended herein. Such blatant imitation is calculated to mislead the public. 19. All of the infringing acts committed by SAS have been conducted without

the authority or consent of 3M, and are in violation of 3Ms trade dress rights. 20. As a result of the acts of trade dress infringement by Defendant, as set out

in this cause of action, 3M has suffered damage to its business, reputation and goodwill, the amount of which is to be determined at trial. 21. 3M is informed and believes, and on the basis of such information and

belief alleges, that Defendant, by virtue of its acts of trade dress infringement, as set out in this cause of action, has derived substantial profit and has been unjustly enriched at the expense of 3M, in an amount and in a sum that is currently unknown to 3M.

1680443-EA 1

22.

Unless the acts of trade dress infringement by Defendant, as set out in

this cause of action, are restrained and enjoined, 3M will be seriously and irreparably damaged.
COUNT Ill Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Minn. Stat. 325D.44

23.

3M incorporates the allegations of paragraphs I through 22 above as if

fully set forth herein. 24. SAS has, in the course of its business, copied and used 3Ms trade dress

in a manner that has caused and will continue to cause a likelihood of confusion or a likelihood of misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval, association, or certification of the SAS Digital Earmuffs. SASs use of 3Ms trade dress is likely to cause damage to 3M. By engaging in these activities, SAS has, and is, engaged in deceptive trade practices within the meaning of Minn. Stat. 325D.43, et seq. 25. 3M is entitled to an injunction pursuant to Minn. Stat. 325D.45, subd. 1

and all other appropriate relief available to it at law. 26. SAS has willfully engaged in the described deceptive trade practices 3M should therefore be awarded its reasonable

knowing them to be deceptive.

attorneys fees pursuant to Minn. Stat. 325D.45, subd. 2.

1680443-EA 1

COUNT IV Trade Dress Infringement under the Common Law 27. 3M incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 26 above as if

fully set forth herein. 28. SASs copying of the distinctive appearance of 3M hearing protection

earmuff products constitutes infringement of 3Ms common law trade dress rights under the common law of Minnesota and the laws of other states. 29. SASs product mimics the distinctive appearance of 3M hearing protection

earmuff products such that it is likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception regarding the source, affiliation, characteristics, properties, relationship, or endorsement of SASs product. 30. SAS has infringed 3Ms trade dress rights as alleged herein with the intent

to deceive, defraud, and confuse the public. 31. 3M has been irreparably damaged and, unless SAS is restrained and

enjoined, 3M will continue to be so damaged. 3M is entitled to its damages, an accounting of SASs profits, an injunction, and all other relief afforded at law or at equity. COUNT V Unfair Competition under the Common Law 32. 3M incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 31 above as if

fully set forth herein. 33. SASs infringement of 3Ms trade dress and other unfair and improper

practices alleged hereinabove, constitute unfair competition under the common law of Minnesota and the laws of other states. SAS has infringed 3Ms intellectual property rights as alleged herein with the intent to deceive, defraud, and confuse the public.

1680443-EA 1

34.

SASs unlawful acts have caused and continue to cause 3M to suffer

damages in an amount to be proven at trial. SASs unlawful acts have caused and continue to cause 3M irreparable injury to 3Ms business reputation and goodwill. 35. 3M has been and is being irreparably damaged and, unless SAS is

restrained and enjoined, 3M will continue to be so damaged. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court: A. B. Enter judgment that Defendant SAS has infringed the 857 patent; Enter an order permanently enjoining SAS and their officers, agents,

servants, employees and all persons in active concert or participation with any of them, from infringing the 857 patent; C. Award 3M damages in an amount sufficient to compensate it for

Defendants infringement of the 857 patent, together with pie-judgment and postjudgment interest and costs, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284; D. 285; E. Issue a preliminary and final injunction enjoining Defendant, its agents and Award 3M its attorneys fees, costs, and expenses pursuant to 35 U.S.C.

employees, and all those controlled by or acting on behalf of Defendant, from: (a) Infringing in any manner on 3Ms trade dress; (b) Using trade dress that is in any way similar to 3Ms, and particularly from using color scheme used in 3Ms hearing protection products; F. goodwill; Award money damages to 3M for injury to its business, reputation and

1680443-EA 1

G.

Order an accounting of profits derived by Defendant from the acts of trade

dress infringement described above; H. and proper. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff 3M hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable. Award such other and further relief as this Court deems just, equitable,

Dated: February 15, 2012

BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP By: s/Richard C. Morgan Richard G. Morgan, Esq. (#157053) Timothy J. Mattson, Esq. (#0194517) 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 3000 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Telephone: (612) 339-8682 Facsimile: (612) 672-3200 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY And 3M COMPANY

1680443-EA 1