Impo Int'l v. Skechers U.S.A. - Complaint

Case 2:20-cv-10430 Document 1 Filed 11/13/20 Page 1 of 31 Page ID #:1
1 G. WARREN BLEEKER, CA Bar No. 210834

wbleeker@lrrc.com
2 DREW WILSON, CA Bar No. 283616
dwilson@lrrc.com
3 LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP
655 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2300
4 Glendale, CA 91203-1445
Telephone: (626) 795-9900
5 Facsimile: (626) 577-8800
6 Attorneys for Plaintiff
IMPO INTERNATIONAL LLC
7
8
9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
Glendale, CA 91203-1445
655 North Central Avenue
12 IMPO INTERNATIONAL LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-10430

13 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR:
14 vs. 1. DESIGN PATENT INFRINGEMENT
Suite 2300
15 SKECHERS U.S.A., INC., 2. INFRINGEMENT OF

UNREGISTERED TRADE DRESS
16 Defendant.
17 3. CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17200
et seq.
18
4. CALIFORNIA COMMON LAW
19 UNFAIR COMPETITION
20
21 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
22
23
24 Plaintiff Impo International LLC (“Impo” or “Plaintiff”), by and through its
25 attorneys, asserts this Complaint against Skechers U.S.A., Inc. (“Defendant”) as set
26 forth below.
27
28
-1-
111662315.5
1 I. JURISDICTION
2 1. This is an action for patent infringement in violation of the patent laws
3 of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1, et seq., infringement of unregistered trade
4 dress under the Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. §1125(a), California state statutory unfair
5 competition under California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq., and
6 California state common law unfair competition.
7 2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this lawsuit
8 pursuant to, inter alia, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). The state law claims in this
9 action arise from the same common nucleus of operative facts and transactions,
10 such that they form part of the same case or controversy and a plaintiff would
11 ordinarily be expected to try them all in a single judicial proceeding. Accordingly,
12 this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Impo’s state law claims pursuant to
13 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
14
Suite 2300
3. On information and belief, venue is proper under 28 U.S.C.

15 §§ 1391(b) and 1391(c)(2) in that Defendant Skechers U.S.A., Inc. is a resident of
16 this district, and maintains its principal place of business within this district.
17 II. PARTIES
18 4. Impo is a limited liability company organized and existing under the
19 laws of the State of California having a principal place of business in Santa Maria,
20 California.
21 5. On information and belief, Defendant is a corporation organized and
22 existing under the laws of the State of Delaware having a principal place of business
23 in Manhattan Beach, California.
24 III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
25 Impo’s Intellectual Property Rights
26 6. Impo is a leading designer and seller of shoes. Impo’s designs, through
27 substantial innovation, unique appearance, and hard work, have become renowned
28 in the shoe industry.
-2-
111662315.5
1 7. Impo protects its innovative designs by a number of means, including

2 but not limited to trade dress rights and design patents.
3 8. On July 16, 2012, Impo filed an application, Serial No. 29/427299,
4 with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) to obtain a design
5 patent on a novel design for the upper of a sandal. The application was filed in the
6 name of H. Rodney Beckett, the sandal design’s inventor, and was assigned to
7 Impo. A patent matured from this application titled “SANDAL UPPER.”
8 Patent No. D672,122, issued on December 11, 2012 (the “’122 Patent”). A copy
9 of the ’122 Patent is attached as Exhibit A.
10 9. The upper design claimed by the ’122 Patent is as follows:
11
12
13
14
Suite 2300
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
111662315.5
1 10. As is evident from the dashed lines above, the sole of the sandal is not
2 a claimed element of the ’122 Patent.
3 11. On June 5, 2014, Impo filed an application, Serial No. 29/493148,
4 with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) to obtain a design
5 patent on a novel design for the upper of a sandal. The application was filed in the
6 name of H. Rodney Beckett, the sandal design’s inventor, and was assigned to
7 Impo. A patent matured from this application titled “SANDAL UPPER.”
8 Patent No. D734,016, issued on July 14, 2015 (the “’016 Patent”). A copy of the
9 ’016 Patent is attached as Exhibit B.
10 12. The upper design claimed by the ’016 Patent is as follows:
11
12
13
14
Suite 2300
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 As is evident from the dashed lines above, the sole of the sandal is not a
23 claimed element of the ’016 Patent.
24 13. On March 6, 2018, Impo also filed an application, Serial No.
25 29/649,389 with the USPTO to obtain a design patent on a novel design for a shoe
26 upper. The application was filed in the name of H. Rodney Beckett, the shoe’s
27 inventor, and was assigned to Impo. A patent matured from this application titled,
28 “SHOE UPPER.” Patent No. D885,738, issued on June 2, 2020 (the “’738 Patent”).
-4-
111662315.5
1 A copy of the ’738 Patent is attached as Exhibit C. The ’738 Patent, ’016 Patent,
2 and the ’122 Patent are collectively referred to as the “Impo Patents.”
3 14. The design claimed by the ’738 Patent is as follows:
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Suite 2300
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 15. As is evident by the dashed lines in the claimed design, the sole of the
23 shoe is not a part of the claimed design.
24 16. Impo marks the commercial embodiments of the Impo Patents with
25 the relevant patent numbers that apply to the products.
26 17. In addition to the above design patents, Impo’s designs, through
27 substantially exclusive use, extensive advertising and sales, a number of Impo’s
28 unique and non-functional designs have come to acquire secondary meaning in the
-5-
111662315.5
1 minds of the relevant consumer who now associate Impo’s unique design
2 with Impo.
3 18. The patterns of the straps, the way they weave in and out with each
4 other, and their attachment points are not dictated by the functional needs of the
5 sandals. These patterns are ornamental and are capable of serving as an
6 identification of source or origin.
7 19. Relevant to this matter, Impo has common law trade dress rights in
8 the following shoe designs (“Impo’s Trade Dress Rights”):
9
10
11
12
13
14
Suite 2300
15
16
17
18
19
20 Impo Refresh
21 ///
22 ///
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 *****
27 ///
28 ///
-6-
111662315.5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Suite 2300
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 Impo Rocio Sandal Impo Rima Sandal
26
27
28
-7-
111662315.5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Suite 2300
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 Impo Ramy/Ramsey Impo Rise/Rick
24
25
26
27
28
-8-
111662315.5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Suite 2300
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Impo Reba Impo Elenna/Emberly
23
24 Defendant’s Infringement of Impo’s Intellectual Property Rights
25 20. On or about the first half of 2019, Impo discovered that Defendant was
26 selling designs that infringed Impo’s rights in the ’122 Patent, as well as its trade
27 dress rights in the Reba, Elenna, Reba, Rocio and Rima sandals. After further
28 investigation, it later discovered that Defendant was also infringing the ’738 Patent
-9-
111662315.5
1 as well as its trade dress rights in the Elenna/Emberly (“Elenna”), Ramy/Ramsey

2 (“Ramy”) and Rise/Rick (“Rick”) sandals.
3 Defendant’s Infringement of the ’122 Patent
4 21. As for the ’122 Patent, Defendant’s Slim Spliced sandal matched the
5 design claimed by the ’122 Patent down to the order in which the individual strands
6 of the sandal’s straps overlap themselves.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Suite 2300
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Design Claimed by the ’122 Patent Defendant’s Slim Spliced Sandal
28
-10-
111662315.5
1 22. As the sandal’s sole was not claimed by the ’122 Patent, the look of
2 the sole of the Defendant’s Slim Spliced sandal is irrelevant.
3 23. Given the identical look of the Defendant’s Slim Spliced sandal to the
4 design claimed by the ’122 Patent, the ordinary observer, with knowledge of the
5 relevant prior art, would see the Slim Spliced sandal and believe that it was the
6 design claimed by the ’122 Patent.
7 24. The above actions by Defendant constitute patent infringement of the
8 ’122 Patent.
9 25. On information and belief, Defendant was aware of the ’122 Patent
10 when it first began selling the infringing Slim Spliced sandal. Defendant’s patent
11 infringement was thus willful.
12 26. On information and belief, despite receiving actual written notice from
13 Impo regarding Defendant’s infringement of the ’122 Patent, Defendant continues
14
Suite 2300
to sell the Slim Spliced sandal.

16 27. In or about second quarter 2020, Impo discovered that Defendant was
17 selling a sandal that was an identical match to the design claimed by the
18 ’016 Patent.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 Design Claimed by the ’016 Patent Defendant’s Meditation/
Cali Multi-Strap
26
27 28. As can be seen above, the strap pattern of the Defendant’s
28 Meditation/Cali Multi-Strap is exactly the same as the design claimed by the
-11-
111662315.5
1 ’016 Patent. The number of strands of the straps, their attachment points, and even
2 the order and manner in which the straps interweave is the same. As the ’016 Patent
3 does not claim the sole of the shoe, the sole of the Defendant’s Meditation/Cali
4 Multi-Strap is irrelevant.
5 29. Given the identical look of the Defendants’ Meditation/Cali Multi-
6 Strap to the design claimed by the ’016 Patent, the ordinary observer, with
7 knowledge of the relevant prior art, would see the Meditation/Cali Multi-Strap and
8 believe that it was the design claimed by the ’016 Patent.
10 30. In or about second quarter 2020, Impo discovered that Defendant was
11 selling a sandal that was an identical match to the design claimed by the
12 ’738 Patent.
13
14
Suite 2300
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Design Claimed by the ’738 Patent Defendant’s Petite Parallel
22 Crossed Wires Wedge
23 31. As can be seen above, the strap pattern of the Defendant’s Petite
24 Parallel Crossed Wires wedge is exactly the same as the design claimed by the ’738
25 Patent. The number of strands of the straps, their attachment points, and even the
26 order and manner in which the straps interweave is the same. As the ’738 Patent
27 does not claim the sole of the shoe, the sole of the Defendant’s Petite Parallel
28 Crossed Wires wedge is irrelevant.
-12-
111662315.5
1 32. Given the identical look of the Defendant’s Petite Parallel Crossed
2 Wires wedge to the design claimed by the ’738 Patent, the ordinary observer, with
3 knowledge of the relevant prior art, would see the Petite Parallel Crossed Wires
4 wedge and believe that it was the design claimed by the ’738 Patent.
5 33. The above actions by Defendant constitute patent infringement of the
6 ’738 Patent.
7 34. On information and belief, despite being placed on notice of the ’738
8 Patent, Defendant’s Parallel - Crossed Wires product is still available for sale
9 including on Home Shopping Network.
10 35. On information and belief, Defendant’s infringement of the ’738
11 Patent is willful.
12 Defendant’s Trade Dress Infringement

13 Impo Reba Sandal
14
Suite 2300
36. As for the Reba sandal, Defendant introduced a sandal entitled the
15 “Slim Spliced Sandal” that is identical in its design to the Impo Reba sandal.
16 ///
17 ///
18 ///
19 ///
20 ///
21 *****
22 ///
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28
-13-
111662315.5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Suite 2300
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 Impo Reba Sandal Defendant’s Slim Spliced Sandal
24
25 37. As can be seen above, the pattern is identical. The straps of both shoes
26 have the same number of strands (3). They follow the same path and have the same
27 attachment points. This unique design is not dictated by functional requirements of
28 the shoe. Through extensive advertising and significant commercial sales,
-14-
111662315.5
1 customers have come to associate this pattern with Impo. Impo has thus acquired
2 significant trade dress rights in the pattern embodied by the Reba sandal.
3 38. Defendant’s advertising, manufacturing, offer for sale, and/or sale of
4 the Slim Spliced sandal is likely to cause confusion as to the source, origin,
5 sponsorship or affiliation between Impo and the Reba sandal on the one hand and
6 Defendant and the Slim Spliced sandal on the other.
7 Impo Refresh Sandal
8 39. As for the Refresh, Defendant introduced a sandal entitled the
9 “Meditation” or the “Cali Multi-Strap” (depending on the vendor) that is identical
10 in its design to the Impo Refresh.
11
12
13
14
Suite 2300
15
16
17 Impo Refresh Defendant’s Meditation/Cali Multi-Strap
18
20 have the same number of strands. They follow the same path and have the same
24 significant trade dress rights in the pattern embodied by the Refresh.
26 the Meditation/Cali Multi-Strap is likely to cause confusion as to the source, origin,
27 sponsorship or affiliation between Impo and the Refresh on the one hand and
28 Defendant and the Meditation/Cali Multi-Strap on the other.
-15-
111662315.5
1 Impo Elenna Heel

2 42. As for the Elenna, Defendant introduced a sandal entitled the “Petite
3 Parallel Crossed Wires” wedge that is identical in its design to the Impo Elenna.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Impo Elenna Defendant’s Petite Parallel Crossed Wires
13
14
Suite 2300
43. As can be seen above, the pattern is identical. The straps of both shoes
19 significant trade dress rights in the pattern embodied by the Elenna.
21 the Petite Parallel Crossed Wires wedge is likely to cause confusion as to the
22 source, origin, sponsorship or affiliation between Impo and the Elenna on the one
23 hand and Defendant and the Petite Parallel Crossed Wires wedge on the other.
24 Impo Rocio Sandal
25 45. As for the Rocio sandal, Defendant introduced a sandal entitled the
26 “Stretch Appeal” that is identical in its design to the Impo Rocio sandal.
27
28
-16-
111662315.5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Suite 2300
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Impo Rocio Sandal Defendant’s Stretch Appeal Sandal
22
24 have the same number of strands (3). They follow the same path and have the same
28 significant trade dress rights in the pattern embodied by the Rocio sandal.
-17-
111662315.5

2 the Stretch Appeal Sandal is likely to cause confusion as to the source, origin,
3 sponsorship or affiliation between Impo and the Rocio sandal on the one hand and
4 Defendant and the Stretch Appeal sandal on the other.
6 Impo regarding Defendant’s infringement of the Impo Rocio sandal, it continues to
7 sell the Stretch Appeal Sandal.
8 Impo Rima Sandal
9 49. As for the Rima sandal, Defendant introduced a sandal entitled the
10 “Forget Me Knot” that is identical in its design to the Impo Rima sandal.
11 ///
12 ///
13 ///
14
Suite 2300
///
15 ///
16 ///
17 *****
18 ///
19 ///
20 ///
21 ///
22 ///
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
-18-
111662315.5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Suite 2300
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 Impo Rima Sandal Defendant’s Forget Me Knot Sandal
27 attachment points. They also have the same number of knots. This unique design
28 is not dictated by functional requirements of the shoe. Through extensive
-19-
111662315.5
1 advertising and significant commercial sales, customers have come to associate this
2 pattern with Impo. Impo has thus acquired significant trade dress rights in the
3 pattern embodied by the Rima sandal.
5 the Forget Me Knot sandal is likely to cause confusion as to the source, origin,
6 sponsorship or affiliation between Impo and the Rima sandal on the one hand and
7 Defendant and the Forget Me Knot sandal on the other.
9 Impo regarding Defendant’s infringement of the Impo Rima sandal, it continues to
10 sell the Forget Me Knot Sandal.
11 Impo Rise Sandal
12 53. As for the Rise sandal, Defendant introduced a sandal entitled the
13 “Parallel – Crossed Wires” that is identical in its design to the Impo Rise sandal.
14
Suite 2300
///
15 ///
16 ///
17 ///
18 ///
19 ///
20 *****
21 ///
22 ///
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
-20-
111662315.5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Suite 2300
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 Impo Rise Sandal Defendant’s Parallel – Crossed
Wires Sandal
24
-21-
111662315.5
2 significant trade dress rights in the pattern embodied by the Rise sandal.
4 the Parallel – Crossed Wires is likely to cause confusion as to the source, origin,
5 sponsorship or affiliation between Impo and the Rise sandal on the one hand and
6 Defendant and the Parallel – Crossed Wires sandal on the other.
7 56. On information and belief, despite being put on notice of Defendant’s
8 infringement of Impo’s trade dress that is embodied in Impo Rise sandal,
9 Defendant’s Parallel - Crossed Wires is still available for sale on Home Shopping
10 Network.
11 57. On information and belief, Defendant’s infringement of the trade dress
12 embodied in the Impo Rise sandal is willful.

13 Impo Ramy Sandal
14 58. As for the Ramy sandal, Defendant introduced a sandal entitled the
Suite 2300
15 “Reggae Slim - Simply Stretch” that is identical in its design to the Impo Ramy
16 sandal.
17 ///
18 ///
19 ///
20 ///
21 *****
22 ///
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
-22-
111662315.5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Suite 2300
15
16
17
18
19
20 Impo Ramy Sandal Defendant’s Reggae Slim –
21 Simply Stretch Sandal
27 significant trade dress rights in the pattern embodied by the Ramy sandal.
28
-23-
111662315.5

2 the Reggae Slim - Simply Stretch is likely to cause confusion as to the source,
3 origin, sponsorship or affiliation between Impo and the Ramy sandal on the one
4 hand and Defendant and the Ramy sandal on the other.
5 61. On information and belief, Defendant’s infringement of Impo’s trade
6 dress rights in the Ramy sandal was willful.
7 Defendant’s Willfulness
8 62. On information and belief, Defendant has a long history of infringing
9 others’ designs, as evidenced by the substantial number of times that Defendant has
10 been sued in federal court for infringing others’ designs. In this case, Impo recently
11 discovered that Emma Stevens, Defendant’s Director of Product Development and
12 Merchandizing, had purchased at least one infringing sandal along with a number
13 of other Impo designs, and had the Impo products delivered to her office at the
14 Defendant’s headquarters in Manhattan Beach, California, prior to Defendant’s
Suite 2300
15 infringement.
16 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
17 (Patent Infringement)
18 63. Impo repeats and realleges the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1
19 through 62 above.
20 64. Defendant has offered for sale and sold in this district and elsewhere
21 in the United States, shoes that, when viewed by the ordinary observer who is
22 familiar with the prior art, the ordinary observer would believe that the shoes sold
23 by Defendant were the design claimed by Impo’s Patents.
24 65. Defendant has violated 35 U.S.C. § 271 by its direct infringement of
25 Impo’s Patents and by its acts of inducing others to infringe Impo’s Patents.
26 66. Defendant’s infringement of Impo’s Patents has damaged Impo and
27 Impo will be irreparably damaged unless Defendant’s infringement is enjoined by
28 this Court. Impo does not have an adequate remedy at law.
-24-
111662315.5
1 67. On information and belief, Defendant’s infringement of the Impo’s

2 Patents was willful.
3 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
4 (Infringement of an Unregistered Trade Dress
5 Under the Lanham Act § 43(a) Infringement)
7 through 62 above.
8 69. Impo created, marketed, and sold a number of unique sandal upper
9 designs that, through substantially exclusive use, and extensive marketing and
10 sales, have come to acquire significant secondary meaning in the mind of
11 consumers who now associate these designs with Impo.
12 70. Impo’s claimed designs were not dictated by functional requirements

13 of the shoes. The number and orientation of the straps/strands, their weaving
14
Suite 2300
pattern, and their attachment points are ornamental and serve as a source identifier
15 for the public.
16 71. Impo has obtained valid and protectable trade dress rights in these
17 designs.
18 72. Relevant to this lawsuit the designs for which Impo has protectable
19 trade dress rights are the Reba, Refresh, Elenna, Rima, Rocio, Ramy, and Rick
20 sandals.
22 in the United States, shoes that are confusingly similar to Impo’s Trade Dress
23 Rights.
24 74. Defendant has violated 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) by its direct infringement
25 of Impo’s Trade Dress Rights and by its acts of inducing others to infringe Impo’s
26 Trade Dress Rights.
27
28
-25-
111662315.5
1 75. Defendant’s infringement of Impo’s Trade Dress Rights has damaged

2 Impo and Impo will be irreparably damaged unless Defendant’s infringement is
3 enjoined by this Court. Impo does not have an adequate remedy at law.
4 76. On information and belief, Defendant’s infringement of the Impo’s
5 Trade Dress Rights was willful.
6 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
7 (Unfair Competition in Violation of California Business
8 and Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq.)
12 designs embodied by the Reba, Refresh, Elenna, Rima, Rocio, Ramy, and Rick
13 sandals that, through substantially exclusive use, and extensive marketing and
14
Suite 2300
sales, have come to acquire significant secondary meaning in the mind of

16 79. Impo’s asserted designs were not dictated by functional requirements
18 pattern, and their attachment points are ornamental and serve as a source identifier
19 for the public.
21 in the United States, shoes that are confusingly similar to Impo’s Reba, Elenna,
22 Rima, Rocio, Ramy, and Rick sandals.
23 81. The claimed designs are aesthetic, and not dictated by functional
24 requirements.
26 in the United States, shoes that are confusingly similar to Impo’s claimed designs.
27 83. By is aforesaid acts, Defendant has violated Business and Professions
28 Code § 17200 et seq. by its direct copying of the Reba, Refresh, Elenna, Rima,
-26-
111662315.5
1 Rocio, Ramy, and Rick designs. Such acts constitute unlawful, unfair, and/or
2 fraudulent business acts and practices and/or unfair, deceptive, untrue and/or
3 misleading advertising.
4 84. Impo has been damaged by Defendant’s acts of unfair competition and
5 will be irreparably damaged unless Defendant’s infringement is enjoined by this
6 Court. Impo does not have an adequate remedy at law.
7 85. On information and belief, Defendant’s unfair competition was
8 willful.
9 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
10 (Common Law Unfair Competition)
14
Suite 2300
designs embodied by the Reba, Refresh, Elenna, Rima, Rocio, Ramy, and Rick
15 sandals that, through substantially exclusive use, and extensive marketing and
16 sales, have come to acquire significant secondary meaning in the mind of
18 88. Impo’s asserted designs were not dictated by functional requirements
20 pattern, and their attachment points are ornamental and serve as a source identifier
21 for the public.
23 in the United States, shoes that are confusingly similar to Impo’s Reba, Refresh,
24 Elenna, Rima, Rocio, Ramy, and Rick sandals.
25 90. By is aforesaid acts, Defendant has engaged in unfair competition by
26 its direct copying of the Reba, Refresh, Elenna, Rima, Rocio, Ramy, and Rick
27 designs and passing off those Impo designs as Defendant designs.
28
-27-
111662315.5
1 91. Impo has been damaged by the aforesaid unfair competition and will
2 be irreparably damaged unless Defendant’s infringement is enjoined by this Court.
3 Impo does not have an adequate remedy at law.
4 92. On information and belief, Defendant’s unfair competition was
5 willful.
6 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
7 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Impo demands judgment as follows:
8 1. That judgment be entered in favor of Impo and against Defendant on
9 all causes of action.
10 2. That this Court adjudge, declare, and enter judgment that:
11 a. that it has jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter of
12 this action;
13 b. that the ’122, ’016, and ’738 Patents are valid and owned by
14
Suite 2300
Impo;
15 c. that Defendant has infringed Impo’s Patents;
16 d. that Impo has valid and protectable trade dress rights in the
17 Reba, Refresh, Elenna, Rima, Rocio, Ramy, and Rick designs;
18 e. that Defendant infringed Impo’s trade dress rights in the Reba,
19 Refresh, Elenna, Rima, Rocio, Ramy, and Rick designs;
20 f. that Defendant engaged in unfair competition by its copying of
21 the designs claimed by the Impo Patents as well as the Reba,
22 Refresh, Elenna, Rima, Rocio, Ramy, and Rick designs;
23 g. that Defendant engaged in passing off by its copying of the
24 Reba, Refresh, Elenna, Rima, Rocio, Ramy, and Rick designs;
25 h. that Defendant patent infringement, trade dress infringement,
26 unfair competition, and passing off was willful;
27 i. that this is an exceptional case.
28
-28-
111662315.5
1 3. That Defendant be required by mandatory injunction to deliver to

2 Impo for destruction:
3 a. any and all shoes in Defendant’s possession, custody or control
4 embodying unauthorized use of the designs shown in Impo’s
5 Patents and Reba, Refresh, Elenna, Rima, Rocio, Ramy, and
6 Rick designs, as well as all promotional literature and
7 packaging which display either of the infringing designs.
8 4. A permanent injunction restraining Defendant, its officers, directors,
9 agents, employees, representatives and all persons acting in concert with
10 Defendant, from engaging in any further patent infringement, trade dress
11 infringement, unfair competition, and passing off.
12 5. That Plaintiff be awarded damages covered by the acts of patent

13 infringement of Defendant in an amount not less than a reasonable royalty pursuant
14
Suite 2300
to 25 U.S.C. § 284 or in an amount equal to Defendant’s profits or Impo’s lost

15 profits pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 289, whichever is greater, and that such damages
16 be trebled in accordance with the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 284.
17 6. That Plaintiff be awarded restitution and/or damages covered by the
18 acts of unfair competition and passing off.
19 7. That Defendant pay Plaintiff prejudgment and post judgment interest
20 on all infringement damages.
21 8. That Plaintiff have and recover its costs in this action including
22 attorney’s fees.
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
-29-
111662315.5
1 9. That Plaintiff have such other or further relief as the Court may deem
2 just and proper.
3
4 Dated: November 13, 2020 Respectfully submitted,
5 LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER
CHRISTIE LLP
6
7 By /s/G. Warren Bleeker
G. Warren Bleeker
8 Drew Wilson

10
11
12
13
14
Suite 2300
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-30-
111662315.5
1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2 Plaintiff Impo International LLC demands a jury trial of all issues in this
3 action so triable.
4
5 Dated: November 13, 2020 Respectfully submitted,
6 LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER
CHRISTIE LLP
7
8 By /s/G. Warren Bleeker
G. Warren Bleeker
9 Drew Wilson

11
12
13
14
Suite 2300
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-31-
111662315.5
Case 2:20-cv-10430 Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/20 Page 1 of 22 Page ID #:32
Exhibit A
-32-
Exhibit A
-33-
Exhibit A
-34-
Exhibit A
-35-
Exhibit A
-36-
Exhibit A
-37-
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
-38-
Exhibit B
-39-
Exhibit B
-40-
Exhibit B
-41-
Exhibit B
-42-
Exhibit B
-43-
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
-44-
Exhibit C
-45-
Exhibit C
-46-
Exhibit C
-47-
Exhibit C
-48-
Exhibit C
-49-
Exhibit C
-50-
Exhibit C

Impo Int&#39;l v. Skechers U.S.A. - Complaint

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Impo Int&#39;l v. Skechers U.S.A. - Complaint

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Case 2:20-cv-10430 Document 1 Filed 11/13/20 Page 1 of 31 Page ID #:1

1 G. WARREN BLEEKER, CA Bar No. 210834

12 IMPO INTERNATIONAL LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-10430

15 SKECHERS U.S.A., INC., 2. INFRINGEMENT OF

3. On information and belief, venue is proper under 28 U.S.C.

1 7. Impo protects its innovative designs by a number of means, including

1 as well as its trade dress rights in the Elenna/Emberly (“Elenna”), Ramy/Ramsey

to sell the Slim Spliced sandal.

12 Defendant’s Trade Dress Infringement

1 Impo Elenna Heel

1 47. Defendant’s advertising, manufacturing, offer for sale, and/or sale of

12 embodied in the Impo Rise sandal is willful.

1 60. Defendant’s advertising, manufacturing, offer for sale, and/or sale of

1 67. On information and belief, Defendant’s infringement of the Impo’s

12 70. Impo’s claimed designs were not dictated by functional requirements

1 75. Defendant’s infringement of Impo’s Trade Dress Rights has damaged

sales, have come to acquire significant secondary meaning in the mind of

1 3. That Defendant be required by mandatory injunction to deliver to

12 5. That Plaintiff be awarded damages covered by the acts of patent

to 25 U.S.C. § 284 or in an amount equal to Defendant’s profits or Impo’s lost

9 Attorneys for Plaintiff

1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

10 Attorneys for Plaintiff

S-ar putea să vă placă și

Impo Int'l v. Skechers U.S.A. - Complaint

Impo Int'l v. Skechers U.S.A. - Complaint