TELEBRANDS CORP., Plaintiff, TV DIRECT LLC, Defendant. 14 CV 597 Civil Action No JUDGE FAILLA >: COMPLAINT Plaintiff Telebrands Corp. ("Telebrands LLC ("TV Direct"), alleges as follows: THE 1. Plaintiff Telebrands is a corporation org^ized and New Jersey, having a place of business at 79Tv^cj Bridges 2. Upon information and belief, defendant TlV Direct under the laws of the State of New York and hiving Avenue, Suite 1100, New York, New York 10016 Upon business within the State of New York and in this! Judicial Complaint against Defendant TVDiiect' CO CO c_ Cj r- o C~~) CO <-J ~~. rur- -*. T) on '-< -'D existing under the laws of the State CO # o" Road, Fairfield, New Jersey 07004. is a corporation organized and existing principal place of business at 347 Fifth information and belief, TV Direct is doing District. NATURE OF CLAIMS. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This action arises under the Patent Laws of the Uhited States (35 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), the United States (15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.), and the 3n. Bus. I|.aw 360). 15U.S.CJ 1121,28 U.S.C. 1331,1332(a)(1), oftfoisC^urt under 28 U.S.C. 1367. The matter Trademark and Unfair Competition Laws of the statutory and common law of New York (N. Y. 4. Jurisdiction of this Court is founded upoh 1338(a) and (b), and the supplemental jurisdiction < in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of irjtejrest and^osts, andthere is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties. 5. Venue is proper within this Judicial Distrifc 1400 (b). :t under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1391(b) and (c), and FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 6. Telebrands is a direct marketing company of marketing and selling a wide variety of principally through direct response advertising of the recognized leaders in the direct response based in part by expending a large amount of response orders. The television advertising the product among consumers who then purch Telebrands' AERO ;ind,:since| prbd through tildvision money a heig the prod KNIFE 1987, has been engaged in the business consular products in this Judicial District and elsewhere, and national retail stores. Telebrands is one marketing industry. Telebrands' success is advertising products on television for direct ht^nedbrandawareness andrecognition of ttct in retail stores. Product. ;create ase 7. Telebrands markets and sells a product under the trademark AERO KNIFE. The AERO KNIFE product is a knife product that has a uni<jjub anddistinctive product configuration andtrade dress which is characterized, in part, by a blaqe distinctive configuration, namely, in the order followed by a quadrilateral, followed by two shortest side at the other opposing lower arrangement and combination of these elements and constitutes valid trade dress. Telebrands is that has five polygonal shapes in a unique and df a triangle on one upper corner of the blade, parallelograms, followed by a pentagon with the blade ("Product Trade Dress"). The non-fundtional, arbitraryandfanciful, distinctive owner of all right, title and interest in and to this Was adopted to give the AERO KNIFE product a Photographs of the AERO KNIFE product are corner of the is the Product Trade Dress. The Product Trade Dress distinctive appearance and to indicate source, attached as Exhibit A. 8. Telebrands' new, non-obvious and ornalm^ntal "Knife," design of the AERO KNIFE product is the which issued on May 6, 2014 ("Design Tel&brarjds isowner ofallright, title and interest subject of U.S. Design Patent No. D704,010 for Patent"), a copy of which is attached as Exhibit in and to the Design Patent. 9. Telebrands rolled out the AERO KN B IFE product in early 2013, and sales grew rapidly, gh direct response channels to the general within this Judicial District. Telebrands also Telebrands sells the AERO KNIFE product consuming public throughout the United States sells theAERO KNIFE product toconsumers th|rc|ugh majc-r retailers throughout theUnited States and within this Judicial District. ;h:ou and his 10. Telebrands has expended millions of do product on television and on the Internet, most Dress. As aresult ofthese substantial advertising land prorriotional efforts, Telebrands' sales ofthe of advertising and promoting the AERO KNIFE which emphasizes the distinctive Product Trade AERO KNIFE product have been significant. jSifice its roll-out, Telebrands has sold a substantial number oftheAERO KNIFE product intheUni^ejl States, totaling millions insales, since rolling out the product in early 2013. 11. As a result of its extensive advertising distinctive Product Trade Dress, and further as a Trade Dress has become well and favorably kndw)n as indicating the sourceor originof the AEROKK 12. The Product Trade Dress is non-functibrial represents substantial goodwill of Telebrands i District. Defendant's Ac and promotional activities which emphasize the result of its substantial sales, the distinctive Product to the purchasing public and widely recognized IFE product. , fanciful, distinctive and well-recognized and thlrolughout the United States, including inthis Judicial Of infringement 13. On information and belief, TV Direct jn^rkets and sells a knife product under the name elsw,here. Tjhe "Infinity Knife" product imitates the The "Infinity Knife" product incorporates the Dress arid embodies the invention claimed in the "Infinity Knife" in this Judicial District and design of Telebrands' AERO KNIFE product elements of Telebrands' distinctive Product Trade Design Patent. Photographs of TV Direct's Telebrands' AERO KNIFE product, are attached 14. The"InfinityKnife"product is competitive information and belief, is sold to consumers thrbii 15. Upon information and belief, TV Direct Patent, as well as its adoption and use of a copy Or Infinity Knife" product, shown together with as Exhibit C. with Te gh retail adoption ebrands' AERO KNIFE product and, on outlets. of the invention claimed in the Design colorable imitation of the Product Trade Dress is deliberate and intentional and with full knowledgee of Telebrands' rights. the Design Patent and use of a copy or vias and is without Telebrands' authorization and 16. TV Direct's adoption of the invention bl&imbd in colorable imitation of the Product Trade Dress consent. 17. Upon information and belief, TV Direct of the Product Trade Dress was and is with th^ Intent and deceiving the public, and unfairly capitalizing on 18. By adopting and using Telebrands' valuable goodwill, TV Direct has caused and is purchasers and potential purchasers as to the to the existence of an association, connection, dr 19. TV Direct's acts as recited herein have bpe|n with Telebrands. 20. TV Direct's actions have damaged anq aire goodwill of Telebrands. 21. Telebrands is being irreparably injured Telebrands has no adequate remedy at law. COUNT 1 - PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. D704.010 22. Telebrands repeats and realleges the allegations set fforth inparagraphs 1-21 above, as though fully set forth herein. 23. This cause of action arises under Section 35 of thfe Patent Laws of the United States, 35 adoption likely and use of a copy or colorable imitation purpose of confusing, misleading and Telebrarids' initiative and goodwill. Pnj>dtict Trade^ Dress, and by trading on Telebrands' lively to cahse confusion, mistake anddeception of sourceor originof the "InfinityKnife"productandas relationship between TV Direct and Telebrands. undertaken in bad faith so as to compete unfairly to damage the superior reputation and and monetarily damaged by TV Direct's acts. U.S.C. 271 and 289. 24. The Design Patent is valid and enforceable 25. By the acts alleged above, TV Direct into the United States, and on information and bUJef, still ate hS and/or importing into theUnited States, product^ through contributory and/or induced i Telebrands' authorization or consent made, , still having a infringe|ment, the used, offered to sell, sold and/or imported making, using, offering to sell, selling, designthat infringesdirectlyor indirectly claim of the Design Patent, without 26. On information and belief, TV Direct's infringement: has been intentional and willful, making this an exceptional case. 27. TV Direct will, on information and under 271 and/or 289 of the Patent Act, unless has been and is likely to continue to be irreparab has no adequate remedy at law. COUNT 2 -INFRINGEMENT! OF PRODUCT TRADE DRESS belief, continue and until injured unless to infringe upon Telebrands' rights it is enjoined by this Court. Telebrands TV Direct is enjoined. Telebrands 28. Telebrands repeats and realleges the illlegations set forth in paragraphs 1-27 above, as though fully set forth herein. 29. This cause of action isforunfair competition andarises under Section 43(a) of theLanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a). 30. By the acts alleged above, TV Direct has goods, false designations of origin and false descriptions nature, characteristics and qualities of those go(j)dJ5, in violation uped in interstate commerce in connection with its and representations which misrepresent the of 15 U.S.C. 1125(a). 31. TV Direct's unauthorized distribution and product, bearing a copy, counterfeit or colorable? Dress for its AERO KNIFE product, is likely to 0a|use and potential purchasers as to the origin, spo|nsjorship, c-r Telebrands. interstate commerce of its "Infinity Knife" of Telebrands' distinctive Product Trade sale) in i ijnitation confusion, mistake or deception of purchasers approval of TV Direct's product by 32. TV Direct's unauthorized distribution aid commerce of its "Infinity Knife" product likely to cause confusion, mistake, or sale in iuct and falsely designates the origin of TV Direct's deception about the origin of TV Direct's good 33. By using such trade dress, TV Direct has Knife" product it is selling and offering for Telebrands. prod i 1,3 falsely anq misleadingly described that its "Infinity emanate^ from or is sponsored or approved by sale infringement has been intentional and willful , continue 43(a) of theLanham Act unless anduntil it is enjoined by likely to continue to be injured unless TV Direct's acts arej enjoined. Telebrands has no adequate remedy at law COUNT 3 - INJURY TO BUSINESS 34. On information and belief, TV Direct's 35. TV Direct will, on information and belief t:o infringe upon Telebrands' rights under this Court. Telebrands has been and is REPUTATION UNDER GBL 360 36. Telebrands repeats and realleges the allegations set forth inparagraphs 1-35 above, as though fully set forth herein. 37. This cause ofaction arises under Sectioji $60-1 ofthe General Business Lawofthe State of New York. 38. TV Direct's acts are likely to injure the who are dissatisfied with the quality of TV Ditebt's dissatisfaction to Telebrands. business reputationof Telebrands and consumers, Infinity Knife" product, will attribute their 39. TV Direct will, on information and betlipf, continue to impair Telebrands' rights under and until it is enjoined by this Court. Telebrands uiilessTVDirect's acts are enjoined. Telebrandshas Section 360-1 of the General Business Law unless has been and is likely to continue to be injured no adequate remedy at law. COUNT 4 - NEW YORK COMMON LAW 40. Telebrands repeats and realleges theallegations set forth inparagraphs 1-39 above, as though fully set forth herein. 41. This cause of action isforunfair competition andarises under thecommon lawoftheState of New York. 42. By the acts alleged above, TV Direct has adversely affected Telebrands' business by the specifically designed to capitalize on the initiatjivle common law of the State of New York. ijnpaired use of and goodwill UNFAIR COMPETITION Telebrands' goodwill and has otherwise unfair and improper business practices of Telebrands in violation of the 43. TV Direct will, on information and belief, continue until it is enjoined by this Court. Telebrands has Dieen and TVDirect's acts are enjoined. Telebrands has i|io adequate to impair Telebrands' rights unless and ::s likely to continue to be injured unless remedy at law. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judMentj a. Adjudging and decreeing that tM Direct infringed and/or induced infringement of Telebrands' Desji dress rights and unfairly competed with Telebrands b. Preliminarily and permanently employees and attorneys and all those in active 1. From infringing U.S. Patbrit No. D704 2. from importing, distributing, advertjsin sale a product substantially slnjiilar to the 3. from importing, distributjinjg, advertjsin sale a product that incorporate^ Telebrands' AERO KNIFE 4. from otherwise unfairly 5. from falsely representing offers for sale is genuine, or from otherwise falsely advertising, repifesentin: with Telebrands, unless TV Dilrect's prdd en has unlawfully infringed, contriburoily gn Patent, infringed Telebrands' trade oinmg TV Direct, its officers, agents, servants, concert or participation with any of them: ,010; ing, promoting, selling, or offering for Design Patent; g, promoting, selling or offering for or colorably imitates the trade dress of , copies, p|rdduct; competing with Telebrands in any manner; and suggesting that the product TV Direct sells or authorized by or emanates from Telebrands, or cr is g or suggesting any connection uct is genuine AERO KNIFE product and emanates from or is auth|oi)ized byTelebrands any gement Direct's c. Requiring TV Direct to pay Telebrands out of and/or as a result of TV Direct's patent intfrtn Direct's profits and/or reasonable royalties for TV damages Telebrands has suffered arising , including Telebrands' lost profits, TV patent infringement, and any other relief provided for in 35 U.S.C. 284 and 289; d. Requiring TV Direct to pay its Telebrands as a result of TV Direct's acts, and profiits to ebrands' Te] Telebiiands Telebrands, any damages sustained by costs for the action, and attorneys' fees, three times the amount of Telebrands' pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117(a); e. Requiring TV Direct to pay to actual damages because of the exceptional natufe U.S.C. 1117(a); f. Imposing costs and reasonable exceptional nature of this case, pursuant to 35 other damages recoverable under any other statute g. Requiring that all products, receptacles, and advertisements of TV Direct reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable other means of making the same, be delivered U.S.C. 1118; and of this case, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285 and/or 15 attorneys' [fees against TV Direct because of the C. 28} and/or 15 U.S.C. 1117(a) and/or any alleged in this Complaint; pjojluct labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, tteking Telbbrands' Product Trade Dress, and any iirhtkioiJL theijeof, and all plates, molds, matrices and dp to Telebrands for destruction, pursuant to 15 U.S Granting such other and further :-e. ief as this Court deems just and proper. 1(1 JURY DEMAND Plaintiff Telebrands Corp. requests a tri al by jury in this matter. Dated: July31, 2014 By: Res pe ctfully submitted, COOPERi & DUNHAM LLP ptfiUdb T'7/laJj/yna^/fl. Peter Torjia 30 Ne\V Tel Fax D. Murrajy T A Eolckefeller York, C>12)278- (212)391 (PM-6912) Robeitt T. Maldonado (RM-7873) (TS-7208) Plaza York 10112 0400 -0525 pmiiniay@cooperdunham.com Sayour New rmald 3nado@cooperdunham.com tsayour@cooperdunham.com Attbnkeys for Plaintiff TELEBRANDS CORP. lui mil hi mi nnininmmhiihiiiii i n US00D704010S (12) United States Design Pate^ Shahani ) Psitent No.: ) Date of Patent: US D704,010 S May 6, 2014 (54) KNIFE (71) Applicant: Raj oo M. Shahani, Fairlawn, NJ (US) (72) Inventor: Kajon M. Shahani, Fairlawn, NJ (US) (73) Assignee: Telebrands Corp., Fairfield, NJ (US) (**) Term: 14 Years (21) Appl.No.: 29/451,183 (22) Filed: Mar. 28,2013 (51) LOC(10)C1 07-03 (52) U.S. CI. USPC D7/649 (58) Field of Classification Search USPC D7/368, 393-395, 401.2, 642-646, D7/649-654, 660-664, 669, 675-676, 683, D7/688-692, 695-696; D8/5, 25, 83, D8/98-99, 107, 303; D24/146-147; 30/115, 137, 141-143, 147-150, 30/322-327, 329, 335, 340, 342-348, 30/355; 416/70 R Sec application file for complete search history. (56) References Cited U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS D177,743 S * 5/1956 Marx D7/650 0304,154 S * 10/1989 Osterhout D8/99 (4 ** 12/1998 Kwok D7/401.2 4/2001 Juhlinetal. 5/2001 Balolia D8/99 10/2002 Richwineetal D8/5 7/2006 Fortetal D7/652 7/2007 Curtin D7/650 11/2007 Hood D7/650 7/2008 Curtin D7/649 12/2008 Epstein D7/401.2 12/2008 Epstein D7/401.2 9/2009 Miltneretal D7/649 8/2011 Hirai 8/2011 Hirai D7/649 citcHbyexaminer Primary Examiner Ricky Pham (74) Attorny, Agent, or FirmJeffrey L. Snow; Cooper & Dunham, LtP (57) The ihiamdntal FIG. FIG. FIG. FIG. FIG. FIG. FIG. CLAIM design for a knife, as shown and described. DESCRIPTION is a bottom perspective view thereof; is a front view thereof; $ isa rearview thereof; is a right side view thereof; is a 1aft side view thereof; is a top side view thereof; and, t is a bottom side view thereof. 1 Claim, 6 Drawing Sheets U.S. Patent May 6,2014 US D704,010 S U.S. Patent May 6, 2014 Slieet J of S US D704,010 S FIG 2 =20 FIG. 3 U.S. Patent May 6,2014 Slieet:I of <> US D704,010 S 0 to U.S. Patent May 6,2014 Slieet 4of(i US D704,010 S U.S. Patent May 6,2014 Sheet :ii of 6 US D704,010 S fr^-~ ^\ FIG 6 U.S. Patent May 6,2014 Sheet MOfl) US D704,010 S \\ ll' m.7