Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Brent H. Blakely (SBN 157292) [email protected] Cindy Chan (SBN 247495) [email protected] BLAKELY LAW GROUP 1334 Parkview Avenue, Suite 280 Manhattan Beach, California 90266 Telephone: (310) 546-7400 Facsimile: (310) 546-7401 Attorneys for Plaintiff Michael Kors, L.L.C.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MICHAEL KORS, L.L.C., a Delaware Limited Liability Corporation, Plaintiff, vs. M R ENTERPRISES, an unknown business entity; DEEPAK NARULA, an individual; DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants.
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))
CASE NO. PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 1. FEDERAL TRADE DRESS
INFRINGEMENT;
2. FEDERAL TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT OF UNREGISTERED MARK;
3. COMMON LAW TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT;
4. UNFAIR COMPETITION IN VIOLATION OF CA BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17200, et seq.;
5. COMMON LAW UNFAIR COMPETITION
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiff Michael Kors, L.L.C. for its claims against Defendants M R
Enterprises, Deepak Narual and DOES 1-10, respectfully alleges as follows:
Case 2:17-cv-01052 Document 1 Filed 02/09/17 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:1
2
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Plaintiff files this action against Defendants for: (1) federal trade dress
infringement; (2) federal trademark infringement of an unregistered trademark; (3)
California common law trademark infringement; (4) California statutory unfair
competition; and (5) California common law unfair competition.
2. The common law claims in this action arise out of the same nucleus of
operative facts as the substantial federal law claims to which they are joined. This
Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1331, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1338(a) and 1338(b), and 15 U.S.C. §§ 1064, 1119, 1125 and
under the principles of pendent jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants
are incorporated, domiciled, and/or conduct business within this judicial district.
4. This action arises out of wrongful acts, including advertising, offering for
sale, selling and distributing products by Defendants within this judicial district.
Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 because the claims
asserted arise in this district.
THE PARTIES
5. Plaintiff Michael Kors, L.L.C. (“Michael Kors”) is a limited liability
corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware,
having an office and principle place of business at 11 West 42nd
Street, New York,
New York 10036. Michael Kors is a luxury lifestyle brand with a presence in over 85
countries. Michael Kors has developed significant and valuable intellectual property
rights in its Michael Kors brands.
6. Upon information and belief, Defendant M R Enterprises is an unknown
business entity with an office and principal place of business at 500 Lakewood Center
Mall, Lakewood, California 90712.
Case 2:17-cv-01052 Document 1 Filed 02/09/17 Page 2 of 16 Page ID #:2
3
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
7. Upon information and belief, Defendant Deepak Narula is an individual
residing in this judicial district and is an owner, officer, director, and/or managing
agent of M R Enterprises.
8. Plaintiff is unaware of the names and true capacities of Defendants,
whether individual, corporate and/or partnership entities, named herein as DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, and therefore sues them by their fictitious names. Plaintiff will
seek leave to amend this complaint when their true names and capacities are
ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that said
Defendants and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, are in some manner responsible for the
wrongs alleged herein, and that at all times referenced each was the agent and servant
of the other Defendants and was acting within the course and scope of said agency and
employment.
9. Plaintiff is informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that at all
relevant times herein, Defendants and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, knew or
reasonably should have known of the acts and behavior alleged herein and the damages
caused thereby, and by their inaction ratified and encouraged such acts and behavior.
Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, have a
non-delegable duty to prevent or cause such acts and the behavior described herein,
which duty Defendants and DOES 1 though 10, inclusive, failed and/or refused to
perform.
ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
A. The MICHAEL KORS Brands, the MK Common Law Trademark,
and the MK Trade Dress
10. Michael Kors is a famous and valuable global luxury lifestyle brand
launched in 1981 by award-winning designer Michael Kors. The company has
evolved from an American luxury sportswear house to a global accessories, footwear
and apparel company with a presence in nearly 100 countries.
Case 2:17-cv-01052 Document 1 Filed 02/09/17 Page 3 of 16 Page ID #:3
4
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
11. Michael Kors offers two primary collections: the Michael Kors collection
and the MICHAEL Michael Kors collection (together, the “Michael Kors Products”).
12. The Michael Kors collection was first introduced in 1981 and reflects the
pinnacle of luxury. The Michael Kors collection is carried in Michael Kors retail
stores and in some of the finest luxury department stores in the world, including, but
not limited to Nordstrom, Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus. This collection
consists of accessories, including handbags and small leather goods (many of which
are made from high quality leathers and other exotic skins), footwear and apparel.
13. The MICHAEL Michael Kors collection, an accessible luxury collection,
was first introduced in 2004. This collection focuses on handbags and accessories, but
also includes footwear and apparel. The MICHAEL Michael Kors collection is carried
in Michael Kors lifestyle stores and in leading department stores throughout the world.
14. There are currently more than 270 Michael Kors stores located throughout
the United States, including within this judicial district, carrying Michael Kors
Products.
15. The MICHAEL Michael Kors Collection includes, inter alia, women’s
handbags and accessories utilizing the MK Common Law Trademark, which consists
of the block letter “M” connected to the block letter “K” as shown below:
16. The MK Common Law Trademark was first used by Michael Kors in
interstate commerce at least as early as 2003 and is inherently distinctive, non-
functional and exclusively owned and used by Michael Kors. As the result of
significant sales and the expenditure of millions of dollars in multi-media advertising
and promotion by Michael Kors, in the United States and throughout the world as part
of a long term and carefully planned marketing program, the MK Common Law
Trademark serves to identify Michael Kors to the consuming public as the source of
Case 2:17-cv-01052 Document 1 Filed 02/09/17 Page 4 of 16 Page ID #:4
5
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
merchandise including, without limitation, women’s accessories, on which the MK
Common Law Trademark is displayed. Consumers directly associate the MK Common
Law Trademark with Michael Kors, the MICHAEL Michael Kors Collection, and with
merchandise of the highest quality. As such, the MK Common Law Trademark, in
addition to being inherently distinctive and non-functional, has developed strong
secondary meaning and is of inestimable value to Michael Kors.
17. The MICHAEL Michael Kors collection of handbags and accessories is
widely recognized for the “MK Trade Dress,” which features the MK Common Law
Trademark in repetitious horizontal rows as shown below:
18. The MK Trade Dress was an original design by Michael Kors and the
elements thereof are nonfunctional and its distinctive quality has achieved a high
degree of consumer recognition and secondary meaning since its introduction in or
around 2007.
19. The MK Trade Dress serves to identify Michael Kors as the source of its
merchandise including, without limitation, women’s accessories such as, inter alia,
handbags, swing packs, clutches, purses, totes and satchels.
20. Michael Kors has spent substantial time, effort, and money in designing,
developing, advertising, promoting, and marketing Michael Kors Products featuring
Case 2:17-cv-01052 Document 1 Filed 02/09/17 Page 5 of 16 Page ID #:5
6
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
the MK Trade Dress and MK Common Law Trademark. Michael Kors’s efforts have
been successful and Michael Kors has sold a substantial amount of Michael Kors
Products bearing the MK Trade Dress and MK Common Law Trademark.
21. Due to Michael Kors and its predecessors’ long use, extensive sales, and
significant advertising and promotional activities, the MK Trade Dress and MK
Common Law Trademark have achieved widespread acceptance and recognition
among the consuming public and the trade throughout the United States. The arbitrary
and distinctive MK Trade Dress and MK Common Law Trademark identify Michael
Kors as the source/origin of the goods on which it appears.
B. Defendants’ Infringing Activities
22. Upon information and belief, Michael Kors herein avers and alleges that
Defendant M R Enterprises owns and operates a retail store at Lakewood Center Mall
located 500 Lakewood Center Mall, Lakewood, California 90712.
23. Michael Kors recently discovered the advertisement, marketing, offering
for sale, and/or sale of handbags and related products from said M R Enterprises’ retail
store that bear designs confusingly similar to Michael Kors’s MK Trade Dress and MK
Common Law Trademark (“Infringing Products”):
MICHAEL Michael Kors® Product
Defendants’ Infringing Products
Case 2:17-cv-01052 Document 1 Filed 02/09/17 Page 6 of 16 Page ID #:6
7
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
24. Upon information and belief, Defendant Deepak Narula is an owner,
officer, and/or managing agent of M R Enterprises and is the active, moving, conscious
force behind the infringing activities alleged herein.
25. Michael Kors is informed and believes and herein alleges that Defendants
are competitors and have copied Michael Kors’s MK Trade Dress and MK Common
Law Trademark in an effort to exploit Michael Kors’s reputation in the market.
26. Michael Kors has not granted a license or any other form of permission to
Defendants with respect to any of its trademarks, trade dresses, or other intellectual
property.
27. Michael Kors is informed and believes and herein alleges that Defendants
have acted in bad faith and that Defendants’ acts have misled and confused and were
intended to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation,
connection, or association of Defendants’ Infringing Products with Michael Kors, or as
to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of Defendants’ Infringing Products by Michael
Kors.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Trade Dress Infringement - 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a))
28. Michael Kors incorporates herein by reference the averments of the
preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
29. The MK Trade Dress was an original design by Michael Kors and the
elements thereof are nonfunctional and their distinctive quality has achieved a high
degree of consumer recognition and secondary meaning nationwide.
30. Through many years of use in interstate commerce, Michael Kors has
established common law trademark protection for its inherently distinctive and non-
functional MK Trade Dress used on Michael Kors’s women’s accessories in the
MICHAEL Michael Kors Collection including, inter alia, handbags, swing packs,
clutches, purses, totes and satchels.
Case 2:17-cv-01052 Document 1 Filed 02/09/17 Page 7 of 16 Page ID #:7
8
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
31. Merchandise utilizing Michael Kors’s MK Trade Dress has a unique
“look,” which distinguishes it from other women’s accessories, and puts potential
second comers and users of confusingly similar trade dress, such as found on
Defendants’ Infringing Products, on notice as to Michael Kors’s exclusive and
protected trade dress rights in connection with, inter alia, women’s accessories.
Women’s accessories bearing Michael Kors’s MK Trade Dress have achieved
substantial sales, and favorable consumer and trade acceptance, both in the United
States and throughout the world. In addition to being inherently distinctive, the MK
Trade Dress has acquired secondary meaning and has become a strong indicator of
Michael Kors, and the MICHAEL Michael Kors Collection, as a source of goods
bearing such trade dress.
32. As a direct result of the continuous and exclusive use of the MK Trade
Dress in interstate commerce, Michael Kors has established significant good will and
consumer expectation regarding the high quality and source of Michael Kors’s
merchandise including, inter alia, women’s accessories, displaying the MK Trade
Dress.
33. Michael Kors has dedicated substantial monetary expenditures and
resources to support its MICHAEL Michael Kors line, bearing the MK Trade Dress, by
way of extensive advertising and promotional efforts through diverse media in the
United States as well as internationally.
34. The Infringing Products produced, distributed, advertised and offered for
sale by Defendants bear nearly identical reproductions of the MK Trade Dress, such as
to cause a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship or approval by Michael
Kors of Defendants’ products. Indeed, use of the block letters “M” and “K” in the
manner shown on Defendants’ Infringing Products creates a high likelihood of
consumer confusion amongst consumers, which is especially damaging to the good
will established in the MK Trade Dress and Michael Kors’s reputation for high quality
luxury products.
Case 2:17-cv-01052 Document 1 Filed 02/09/17 Page 8 of 16 Page ID #:8
9
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
35. Defendants’ use of the MK Trade Dress is without Michael Kors’s
permission or authority and in total disregard of Michael Kors’s rights to control its
intellectual property.
36. Defendants’ use of the MK Trade Dress is likely to lead to and result in
confusion, mistake or deception, and is likely to cause the public to believe that
Defendants’ products are produced, sponsored, authorized, or licensed by or that are
otherwise connected or affiliated with Michael Kors, all to the detriment of Michael
Kors.
37. Michael Kors has no adequate remedy at law.
38. In light of the foregoing, Michael Kors is entitled to injunctive relief
prohibiting Defendants from using Michael Kors’s MK Trade Dress, or any designs
confusingly similar thereto, and to recover all damages, including attorneys’ fees, that
Michael Kors has sustained and will sustain, and all gains, profits and advantages
obtained by Defendants as a result of their infringing acts alleged above in an amount
not yet known, as well as the costs of this action.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Trademark Infringement of an Unregistered Trademark - 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (a))
39. Michael Kors incorporates herein by reference the averments of the
preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
40. The MK Common Law Trademark is an arbitrary mark and its distinctive
quality has achieved a high degree of consumer recognition and secondary meaning
nationwide.
41. Through many years of use in interstate commerce, Michael Kors has
established common law trademark protection for its inherently distinctive MK
Common Law Trademark used on Michael Kors’s women’s accessories in the
MICHAEL Michael Kors Collection including, inter alia, handbags, swing packs,
clutches, purses, totes and satchels.
Case 2:17-cv-01052 Document 1 Filed 02/09/17 Page 9 of 16 Page ID #:9
10
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
42. As a direct result of the continuous and exclusive use of the MK Common
Law Trademark in interstate commerce, Michael Kors has established significant good
will and consumer expectation regarding the high quality and source of Michael Kors’s
merchandise including, inter alia, women’s accessories, displaying said mark.
43. Michael Kors has dedicated substantial monetary expenditures and
resources to support its MICHAEL Michael Kors line, bearing the MK Common Law
Trademark, by way of extensive advertising and promotional efforts through diverse
media in the United States as well as internationally.
44. The Infringing Products produced, distributed, advertised and offered for
sale by Defendants bear nearly identical reproductions of the MK Common Law
Trademark, such as to cause a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship or
approval by Michael Kors of Defendants’ products. Indeed, use of the block letters
“M” and “K” in the manner shown on Defendants’ Infringing Products creates a high
likelihood of consumer confusion amongst consumers, which is especially damaging to
the good will established in the MK Common Law Trademark and Michael Kors’s
reputation for high quality luxury products.
45. Defendants’ use of the MK Common Law Trademark is without Michael
Kors’s permission or authority and in total disregard of Michael Kors’s rights to
control its intellectual property.
46. Defendants’ use of the MK Common Law Trademark is likely to lead to
and result in confusion, mistake or deception, and is likely to cause the public to
believe that Defendants’ products are produced, sponsored, authorized, or licensed by
or that are otherwise connected or affiliated with Michael Kors, all to the detriment of
Michael Kors.
47. Michael Kors has no adequate remedy at law.
48. In light of the foregoing, Michael Kors is entitled to injunctive relief
prohibiting Defendants from using Michael Kors’s MK Common Law Trademark, or
any designs confusingly similar thereto, and to recover all damages, including
Case 2:17-cv-01052 Document 1 Filed 02/09/17 Page 10 of 16 Page ID #:10
11
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
attorneys’ fees, that Michael Kors has sustained and will sustain, and all gains, profits
and advantages obtained by Defendants as a result of their infringing acts alleged
above in an amount not yet known, as well as the costs of this action.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Common Law Trademark Infringement)
49. Michael Kors incorporates herein by reference the averments of the
preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
50. The MK Block Trade Dress and MK Common Law Trademark have
achieved a high degree of consumer recognition and secondary meaning nationwide
and within the state of California.
51. Defendants’ infringement of the MK Trade Dress and MK Common Law
Trademark constitutes common law trade dress and trademark infringement in
violation of the common law of the state of California.
52. By virtue of the acts complained of herein, Defendants have caused a
likelihood of confusion among the purchasing public in this Judicial District and
elsewhere, in its unauthorized use of the MK Trade Dress and MK Common Law
Trademark on its own products.
53. Defendants’ acts are willful, deliberate, and intended to confuse the public
and to injure Michael Kors.
54. Michael Kors has no adequate remedy at law to compensate it fully for
the damages that have been caused and which will continue to be caused by
Defendants’ infringing conduct, unless they are enjoined by this Court.
55. The conduct herein complained of was extreme, outrageous, and was
inflicted on Michael Kors in reckless disregard of Michael Kors’s rights. Said conduct
was despicable and harmful to Michael Kors and as such supports an award of
exemplary and punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish and make an
example of Defendants, and to deter them from similar such conduct in the future.
Case 2:17-cv-01052 Document 1 Filed 02/09/17 Page 11 of 16 Page ID #:11
12
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
56. In light of the foregoing, Michael Kors is entitled to injunctive relief
prohibiting Defendants from infringing the MK Block Trade Dress and MK Common
Law Trademark, or any designs confusingly similar thereto, and to recover all
damages, including attorneys’ fees, that Michael Kors has sustained and will sustain,
and all gains, profits and advantages obtained by Defendants as a result of their
infringing acts alleged above in an amount not yet known, and the costs of this action.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Unfair Competition California Unfair Business Practices Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof.
Code, § 17200, et. seq. as to All Defendants)
57. Michael Kors incorporates herein by reference the averments of the
preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
58. Defendants’ appropriation, adoption and use of the MK Block Trade
Dress and MK Common Law Trademark in connection with the sale and offering for
sale of handbags and related products is likely to confuse or mislead consumers into
believing that Defendants’ goods are authorized, licensed, affiliated, sponsored, and/or
approved by Michael Kors, thus constituting a violation of the California Unfair
Business Practices Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200, et. seq.
59. The deceptive, unfair and fraudulent practices set forth herein have been
undertaken with knowledge by Defendants willfully with the intention of causing harm
to Michael Kors and for the calculated purpose of misappropriating Michael Kors’s
goodwill and business reputation.
60. Defendants’ use of Michael Kors’s MK Block Trade Dress and MK
Common Law Trademark has deprived Michael Kors of the right to control the use of
its intellectual property.
61. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful infringement,
Michael Kors has suffered damages and will continue to suffer damages in an amount
that is not presently ascertainable but will be proven at trial. Michael Kors is entitled to
Case 2:17-cv-01052 Document 1 Filed 02/09/17 Page 12 of 16 Page ID #:12
13
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
all available relief provided for in California Unfair Business Practices Act, Cal. Bus.
& Prof. Code, § 17200, et. seq. including permanent injunctive relief.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Unfair Competition Under California Common Law As to All Defendants)
62. Michael Kors incorporates herein by reference the averments of the
preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
63. Defendants’ infringement of the MK Block Trade Dress and MK
Common Law Trademark constitutes unfair competition in violation of the common
law of the state of California.
64. Defendants are competitors of Michael Kors and have copied Michael
Kors’s MK Block Trade Dress and MK Common Law Trademark in an effort to
exploit Michael Kors’s reputation in the market.
65. Defendants’ infringing acts were intended to capitalize on Michael Kors’s
goodwill associated with the MK Block Trade Dress and MK Common Law
Trademark for Defendants’ own pecuniary gain. Michael Kors has expended
substantial time, resources and effort to obtain an excellent reputation for the Michael
Kors Products. As a result of Michael Kors’s efforts, Defendants are now unjustly
enriched and are benefiting from property rights that rightfully belong to Michael
Kors.
66. Defendants’ acts are willful, deliberate, and intended to confuse the public
and to injure Michael Kors.
67. Michael Kors has no adequate remedy at law to compensate it fully for
the damages that have been caused and which will continue to be caused by
Defendants’ infringing conduct, unless they are enjoined by this Court.
68. The conduct herein complained of was extreme, outrageous, and was
inflicted on Michael Kors in reckless disregard of Michael Kors’ rights. Said conduct
was despicable and harmful to Michael Kors and as such supports an award of
Case 2:17-cv-01052 Document 1 Filed 02/09/17 Page 13 of 16 Page ID #:13
14
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
exemplary and punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish and make an
example of Defendants, and to deter them from similar such conduct in the future.
69. In light of the foregoing, Michael Kors is entitled to injunctive relief
prohibiting Defendants from infringing the MK Block Trade Dress and MK Common
Law Trademark, or any designs confusingly similar thereto, and to recover all
damages, including attorneys’ fees, that Michael Kors has sustained and will sustain,
and all gains, profits and advantages obtained by Defendants as a result of their
infringing acts alleged above in an amount not yet known, and the costs of this action.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Michael Kors, L.L.C. respectfully prays that this
Court enter judgment in its favor and against Defendants as follows:
1. A Judgment that Defendants have infringed Michael Kors’s MK Trade
Dress and MK Common Law Trademark and that said infringement was willful;
2. An order granting permanent injunctive relief restraining and enjoining
Defendants, their agents, servants, employees, officers, associates, attorneys, and all
persons acting by, through, or in concert with any of them from infringing upon
Michael Kors’s MK Trade Dress and MK Common Law Trademark, including, but not
limited to:
a. manufacturing, importing, advertising, marketing, promoting,
supplying, distributing, offering for sale, or selling the Infringing Products or any other
products which bear Michael Kors’s MK Block Trade Trade Dress and MK Common
Law Trademark or any designs confusingly similar thereto;
b. engaging in any other activity constituting unfair competition with
Michael Kors, or acts and practices that deceive consumers, the public, and/or trade,
including without limitation, the use of designations and design elements used or
owned by or associated with Michael Kors; and
c. committing any other act which falsely represents or which has the
effect of falsely representing that the goods and services of Defendants are licensed by,
Case 2:17-cv-01052 Document 1 Filed 02/09/17 Page 14 of 16 Page ID #:14
15
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
authorized by, offered by, produced by, sponsored by, or in any other way associated
with Michael Kors;
3. Ordering Defendants to recall from any distributors and retailers and to
deliver to Michael Kors for destruction or other disposition all remaining inventory of
all Infringing Products and related items, including all advertisements, promotional
and marketing materials therefore, as well as means of making same;
4. Ordering Defendants to file with this Court and serve on Michael Kors
within thirty (30) days after entry of the injunction a report in writing, under oath
setting forth in detail the manner and form in which Defendants have complied with
the injunction;
5. Ordering an accounting by Defendants of all gains, profits and advantages
derived from their wrongful acts pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a);
6. Awarding Michael Kors all of Defendants’ profits and all damages
sustained by Michael Kors as a result of Defendants’ wrongful acts, and such other
compensatory damages as the Court determines to be fair and appropriate;
7. Awarding enhanced damages in the Court’s discretion as a result of
Defendants’ willful infringement;
8. Finding that this is an exceptional case under 15 U.S.C. § 1117 and
awarding attorneys’ fees there under;
9. Awarding applicable interest, costs, disbursements and attorneys’ fees;
10. Awarding Michael Kors punitive damages in connection with its claims
under California state and common law; and
11. Such other relief as may be just and proper.
Dated: February 9, 2017 BLAKELY LAW GROUP
By: /s/ Cindy Chan___________ Brent H. Blakely Cindy Chan Attorneys for Plaintiff Michael Kors, L.L.C.
Case 2:17-cv-01052 Document 1 Filed 02/09/17 Page 15 of 16 Page ID #:15
16
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Michael
Kors, L.L.C. hereby demands a trial by jury as to all claims in this litigation.
Dated: February 9, 2017 BLAKELY LAW GROUP
By: /s/ Cindy Chan___________ Brent H. Blakely Cindy Chan Attorneys for Plaintiff Michael Kors, L.L.C.
Case 2:17-cv-01052 Document 1 Filed 02/09/17 Page 16 of 16 Page ID #:16