Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Oakley v. SSAMECO - Complaint
Oakley v. SSAMECO - Complaint
1 THE PARTIES
2 4. Oakley is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
3 the State of Washington, having its principal place of business at One Icon,
4 Foothill Ranch, California 92610.
5 5. Oakley is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that
6 Defendant SSAMECO, Inc. d/b/a SingSong Ameco is a corporation organized
7 and existing under the laws of the State of California, having its principal place
8 of business at 401 S. Los Angeles Street #3, Los Angeles, California 90013.
9 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
10 6. Oakley has been actively engaged in the manufacture and sale of
11 high quality eyewear since at least 1985. Oakley is the manufacturer and
12 retailer of several lines of eyewear that have enjoyed substantial success and are
13 protected by various intellectual property rights owned by Oakley.
14 7. On December 4, 2007, the United States Patent and Trademark
15 Office (“U.S.P.T.O.”) duly and lawfully issued United States Design Patent No.
16 D556,818 (“the D818 Patent”), titled “Eyeglass Components.” Oakley is the
17 owner by assignment of all right, title, and interest in the D818 Patent. A true
18 and correct copy of the D818 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
19 8. On July 31, 2007, the USPTO duly and lawfully issued United
20 States Design Patent No. D547,794 (“the D794 Patent”), titled “Eyeglasses.”
21 Oakley is the owner by assignment of all right, title, and interest in the D794
22 Patent. A true and correct copy of the D794 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit
23 2.
24 9. On November 6, 2007, the USPTO duly and lawfully issued United
25 States Design Patent No. D554,689 (“the D689 Patent”), titled “Eyeglass
26 Frame.” Oakley is the owner by assignment of all right, title, and interest in the
27 D689 Patent. A true and correct copy of the D689 Patent is attached hereto as
28 Exhibit 3.
-2-
Case 8:18-cv-00394 Document 1 Filed 03/12/18 Page 4 of 17 Page ID #:4
1 10. Defendant manufactures, uses, sells, offers for sale, and/or imports
2 into the United States eyewear that have infringed Oakley’s patent rights,
3 including the D818 Patent, the D794 Patent, and the D689 Patent (collectively,
4 the “Asserted Patents”).
5 11. Oakley manufactures and sells sunglasses under the mark
6 HOLBROOK bearing distinctive trade dress in the overall design of the
7 sunglasses (“HOLBROOK Trade Dress”). An example of an Oakley product
8 bearing the distinctive HOLBROOK Trade Dress is depicted in the photograph
9 attached as Exhibit 4.
10 12. As a result of Oakley’s widespread use and display of the
11 HOLBROOK Trade Dress in association with its eyewear, (a) the public has
12 come to recognize and identify eyewear bearing the HOLBROOK Trade Dress
13 as emanating from Oakley, (b) the public recognizes that products bearing the
14 HOLBROOK Trade Dress constitute high quality products that conform to the
15 specifications created by Oakley, and (c) the HOLBROOK Trade Dress has
16 established strong secondary meaning and extensive goodwill.
17 13. The HOLBROOK Trade Dress is not functional. The design
18 features embodied by the HOLBROOK Trade Dress are not essential to the
19 function of the product, do not make the product cheaper or easier to
20 manufacture, and do not affect the quality of the product. The design of the
21 HOLBROOK Trade Dress is not a competitive necessity.
22 14. Subsequent to Oakley’s use and adoption of the HOLBROOK
23 Trade Dress, Defendant has developed, manufactured, imported, advertised,
24 and/or sold products that use trade dress that is confusingly similar to the
25 HOLBROOK Trade Dress.
26 15. Defendant’s acts complained of herein have caused Oakley to
27 suffer irreparable injury to its business. Oakley will continue to suffer
28 substantial loss and irreparable injury unless and until Defendant is enjoined
-3-
Case 8:18-cv-00394 Document 1 Filed 03/12/18 Page 5 of 17 Page ID #:5
-4-
Case 8:18-cv-00394 Document 1 Filed 03/12/18 Page 6 of 17 Page ID #:6
1 rights in the design claimed in the D794 Patent. Oakley and its iconic designs
2 are well-known throughout the eyewear industry, and Defendant’s 7306ME
3 sunglass model is an identical copy of Oakley’s patented design. Accordingly,
4 Defendant’s actions constitute willful and intentional infringement of the D794
5 Patent. Defendant infringed the D794 Patent with reckless disregard of
6 Oakley’s patent rights. Defendant knew, or it was so obvious that Defendant
7 should have known, that its actions constitute infringement of the D794 Patent.
8 Defendant’s acts of infringement of the D794 Patent were not consistent with
9 the standards of commerce for its industry.
10 24. Defendant, through its agents, employees, and/or servants has, and
11 continues to, knowingly, intentionally, and willfully infringe the D689 Patent by
12 making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing eyewear having a
13 design that would appear to an ordinary observer to be substantially similar to
14 the claim of the D689 Patent, for example, Defendant’s 7306ME sunglass
15 model as shown below.
16 Defendant’s 7306ME Oakley’s D689 Patent
Sunglass Model
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 25. Defendant’s acts of infringement of the D689 Patent were
24 undertaken without permission or license from Oakley. Oakley is informed and
25 believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant had actual knowledge of Oakley’s
26 rights in the design claimed in the D689 Patent. Oakley and its iconic designs
27 are well-known throughout the eyewear industry, and Defendant’s 7306ME
28 sunglass model is an identical copy of Oakley’s patented design. Accordingly,
-6-
Case 8:18-cv-00394 Document 1 Filed 03/12/18 Page 8 of 17 Page ID #:8
1 the common law and statutory laws of the State of California, particularly
2 California Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq.
3 55. Oakley is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that
4 Defendant has derived and received, and will continue to derive and receive,
5 gains, profits, and advantages from Defendant’s unfair competition in an
6 amount that is not presently known to Oakley. By reason of Defendant’s
7 wrongful acts as alleged in this Complaint, Oakley has been damaged and is
8 entitled to monetary relief in an amount to be determined at trial.
9 56. By its actions, Defendant has injured and violated the rights of
10 Oakley and has irreparably injured Oakley, and such irreparable injury will
11 continue unless Defendant is enjoined by this Court.
12 WHEREFORE, Oakley prays for judgment in its favor against
13 Defendant for the following relief:
14 A. An Order adjudging Defendant to have willfully infringed the
15 Asserted Patents under 35 U.S.C. § 271;
16 B. A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its
17 respective officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and
18 those persons in active concert or participation with Defendant, from making,
19 using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing into the United States
20 Defendant’s 7306ME sunglass model, as well as any products that are not
21 colorably different therefrom;
22 C. A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its
23 respective officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and
24 those persons in active concert or participation with Defendant, from directly or
25 indirectly infringing any of the Asserted Patents in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271;
26 D. That Defendant account for all gains, profits, and advantages
27 derived by Defendant’s infringement of the Asserted Patents in violation of
28 35 U.S.C. § 271, and that Defendant pay to Oakley all damages suffered by
-12-
Case 8:18-cv-00394 Document 1 Filed 03/12/18 Page 14 of 17 Page ID #:14
1 O. Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and
2 proper.
3
4 Respectfully submitted,
5 KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
6
7 Dated: March 12, 2018 By:/s/Lauren Keller Katzenellenbogen
Michael K. Friedland
8 Lauren Keller Katzenellenbogen
Ali S. Razai
9 James F. Smith
10 Attorneys for Plaintiff OAKLEY, INC.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-15-
Case 8:18-cv-00394 Document 1 Filed 03/12/18 Page 17 of 17 Page ID #:17
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-16-
Case 8:18-cv-00394 Document 1-1 Filed 03/12/18 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:18
EXHIBIT 1
Case 8:18-cv-00394 Document 1-1 Filed 03/12/18 Page 2 of 7 Page ID #:19
EXHIBIT 1
- 17 -
Case 8:18-cv-00394 Document 1-1 Filed 03/12/18 Page 3 of 7 Page ID #:20
EXHIBIT 1
- 18 -
Case 8:18-cv-00394 Document 1-1 Filed 03/12/18 Page 4 of 7 Page ID #:21
EXHIBIT 1
- 19 -
Case 8:18-cv-00394 Document 1-1 Filed 03/12/18 Page 5 of 7 Page ID #:22
EXHIBIT 1
- 20 -
Case 8:18-cv-00394 Document 1-1 Filed 03/12/18 Page 6 of 7 Page ID #:23
EXHIBIT 1
- 21 -
Case 8:18-cv-00394 Document 1-1 Filed 03/12/18 Page 7 of 7 Page ID #:24
EXHIBIT 1
- 22 -
Case 8:18-cv-00394 Document 1-2 Filed 03/12/18 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:25
EXHIBIT 2
Case 8:18-cv-00394 Document 1-2 Filed 03/12/18 Page 2 of 6 Page ID #:26
EXHIBIT 2
- 23 -
Case 8:18-cv-00394 Document 1-2 Filed 03/12/18 Page 3 of 6 Page ID #:27
EXHIBIT 2
- 24 -
Case 8:18-cv-00394 Document 1-2 Filed 03/12/18 Page 4 of 6 Page ID #:28
EXHIBIT 2
- 25 -
Case 8:18-cv-00394 Document 1-2 Filed 03/12/18 Page 5 of 6 Page ID #:29
EXHIBIT 2
- 26 -
Case 8:18-cv-00394 Document 1-2 Filed 03/12/18 Page 6 of 6 Page ID #:30
EXHIBIT 2
- 27 -
Case 8:18-cv-00394 Document 1-3 Filed 03/12/18 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:31
EXHIBIT 3
Case 8:18-cv-00394 Document 1-3 Filed 03/12/18 Page 2 of 6 Page ID #:32
EXHIBIT 3
- 28 -
Case 8:18-cv-00394 Document 1-3 Filed 03/12/18 Page 3 of 6 Page ID #:33
EXHIBIT 3
- 29 -
Case 8:18-cv-00394 Document 1-3 Filed 03/12/18 Page 4 of 6 Page ID #:34
EXHIBIT 3
- 30 -
Case 8:18-cv-00394 Document 1-3 Filed 03/12/18 Page 5 of 6 Page ID #:35
EXHIBIT 3
- 31 -
Case 8:18-cv-00394 Document 1-3 Filed 03/12/18 Page 6 of 6 Page ID #:36
EXHIBIT 3
- 32 -
Case 8:18-cv-00394 Document 1-4 Filed 03/12/18 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:37
EXHIBIT 4
Case 8:18-cv-00394 Document 1-4 Filed 03/12/18 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:38
EXHIBIT 4
- 33 -