Tomgal v. BH Fashion - Complaint

7/28/2019 Tomgal v. BH Fashion - Complaint

1/72

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

TOMGAL, LLC d/b/a ROBIN RUTH, :

:

Plaintiff, ::

v. :

:BH FASHION DESIGN INC.; :

ARKASH IMPORTS LLC; :

MOURDI FAKS; and ALBERT FAKS, ::

Defendants. :

Civil Action No. _____________

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Tomgal, LLC d/b/a Robin Ruth (Robin Ruth), for its Complaint against

Defendants, BH Fashion Design Inc., Arkash Imports LLC, Mourdi Faks, and Albert Faks

(collectively Defendants), alleges as follows:

THE PARTIES

1. Tomgal, LLC d/b/a/ Robin Ruth is a corporation organized and existing under thelaws of the State of Florida, having its principal place of business at 730 S. Powerline Rd. Bldg.

3, Suite 1, Deerfield Beach, FL 33442, and a place of business at 146-27 167th

Street, Jamaica,

NY 11434. Robin Ruth designs, manufactures, distributes and sells distinctive bags and

accessories that are imprinted with distinctive patterns that relate to a particular geographic area

(hereinafter City-State Products).

2. On information and belief, Defendant BH Fashion Design Inc. (BH Fashion) is acorporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York and having a

principal place of business at 234 Beach 101st Street, Rockaway Park, NY 11694.

Case 1:13-cv-03388-MKB-RML Document 1 Filed 06/13/13 Page 1 of 70 PageID #: 1


2/72

2

3. On information and belief, Defendant Arkash Imports LLC (Arkash) is acorporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York and having a

principal place of business at 234 Beach 101st Street, Rockaway Park, NY 11694.

4. On information and belief, Defendant Mourdi Faks is an individual who is an ownerand/or officer of BH Fashion and Arkash, has an address at 234 Beach 101st Street, Rockaway

Park, NY 11694, and is doing business as BH Fashion and Arkash in this Judicial District.

5. On information and belief, Defendant Albert Faks is an individual who is an ownerand/or officer of BH Fashion and Arkash, and has an address at 234 Beach 101st Street,

Rockaway Park, NY 11694, and is doing business as BH Fashion and Arkash in this Judicial

District.

6. On information and belief, Defendants Albert Faks and Mourdi Faks, individuallyand together, have controlled and continue to control the acts of BH Fashion and Arkash as

alleged herein, and each of the Defendants were and are, relative to the acts alleged, the agents of

each other, and each has and is acting within the scope, purpose, and authority of that agency and

with the knowledge, permission and consent of the other.

7. On information and belief, there has existed and continues to exist a unity of interestbetween each of the Defendants such that any individuality and separateness among each of the

Defendants has ceased, and each is the agent and alter-ego of the other in the acts alleged.

8. On information and belief, the acts of each Defendant were and continue to be donewith the permission, consent, knowledge and active inducement on the part of the other, and the

Defendants together acted and continue to act as co-conspirators and/or agents in the

performance of such acts.



3/72

3

9. On information and belief, Defendants import, manufacture, distribute, offer for saleand/or sell bags which infringe design patents and trade dress owned by Robin Ruth in

connection with its City-State Products (hereinafter Infringing Products). On information and

belief, Defendants sell Infringing Products within the State of New York and within this Judicial

District.

NATURE OF CLAIMS, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

10.This action arises under the Patent laws of the United States (35 U.S.C. 1 et. seq.),the Trademark and Unfair Competition laws of the United States (15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.), and

under the statutory law of the State of New York (N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law 349 et seq.) and the

common law of the State of New York.

11.Jurisdiction of this Court is founded upon 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1338(a) and (b), 15U.S.C. 1121, and the pendent jurisdiction of this Court.

12.Venue is proper within this Judicial District under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and (c), and1400 (b).

13.On information and belief, Defendant BH Fashion and Arkash have committed andcontinue to commit acts of patent and trade dress infringement and unfair competition in this

Judicial District.

14.On information and belief, Defendants Mourdi and Albert Faks, individually andthrough their active control of BH Fashion and Arkash, have committed and continue to commit

acts of patent and trade dress infringement and unfair competition in this Judicial District.

15.On information and belief, Defendants BH Fashion, Arkash, Mourdi Faks, and AlbertFaks are subject to personal jurisdiction in this District because they reside in this Judicial

District, and purposefully engaged in, and continue to engage in, activities giving rise to claims



4/72

4

for patent and trade dress infringement and unfair competition in this Judicial District which are

directed at the residents of New York in this Judicial District.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Robin Ruths City-State Products

16.At all times relevant herein, Robin Ruth has been engaged in the business ofdesigning, manufacturing, marketing, distributing and selling a line of bags and accessories of

varying styles, with each bag and accessory item characterized, in part, by a unique and

distinctive repeating pattern containing the name of a particular geographic area or city, where

the repeating pattern may appear in a unique and distinct font of a single color, except for one

instance where the name of the area or city appears in a different and contrasting color (Classic

Robin Ruth Trade Dress). Robin Ruth distributes and sells goods bearing the Classic Robin

Ruth Trade Dress worldwide, throughout the United States, and including within this Judicial

District, principally through retail stores, souvenir shops, airports, and on the Internet.

17.The Classic Robin Ruth Trade Dress has been applied to numerous styles of bags andaccessories, including a Tote Bag, a Neck Wallet and a Hobo Bag. Images of these bags bearing

the Classic Robin Ruth Trade Dress are attached hereto as Exhibit A1-A3. Images of the Neck

Wallet bearing the Classic Robin Ruth Trade Dress are attached hereto as Exhibit A4. Images of

the Hobo Bag bearing the Classic Robin Ruth Trade Dress are attached hereto as Exhibit A5.

18.The Classic Robin Ruth Trade Dress is non-functional, fanciful, distinctive, well-recognized, and represents the source of Robin Ruths products sold in association therewith and

the substantial goodwill of Robin Ruth throughout the United States, including in this Judicial

District. The Classic Robin Ruth Trade Dress constitutes valid trade dress and Robin Ruth owns

exclusive rights to it.



5/72

5

19.Robin Ruths new, non-obvious, and ornamental design for the Tote Bag is thesubject of U.S. Design Patent No. D586,118 for a Handbag, which issued on February 10,

2009 (the 118 Patent). A true and correct copy of the 118 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit

B. Robin Ruth is the owner by assignment of all right, title, and interest in the 118 Patent.

20.Robin Ruths new, non-obvious, and ornamental design for the Neck Wallet is thesubject of U.S. Design Patent No. D597,304 for Neck Wallets, which issued on August 4,

2009 (the 304 Patent). A true and correct copy of the 304 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit

C. Robin Ruth is the owner by assignment of all right, title, and interest in the 304 Patent.

21.Robin Ruth has also designed and is manufacturing, marketing, distributing and

selling a bag known as the City Bag, characterized, in part, by a unique and distinctive repeating

pattern containing the name of a particular geographic area or city where the individual lines of

text share the same unique and distinctive font but vary in size, orientation, and related hue

(City Bag Trade Dress).

22.Robin Ruth distributes and sells goods bearing the City Bag Trade Dress worldwide,throughout the United States, and including within this Judicial District. Images of the City Bag

bearing the City Bag Trade Dress are attached hereto as Exhibits A6-A7.

23.The City Bag Trade Dress is non-functional, fanciful, distinctive, well-recognized,and represents the source of Robin Ruths products sold in association therewith and the

substantial goodwill of Robin Ruth throughout the United States, including in this Judicial

District. The City Bag Trade Dress constitutes valid trade dress and Robin Ruth owns exclusive

rights to it.

24.Robin Ruths new, non-obvious, and ornamental design for the City Bag is thesubject of U.S. Design Patent No. D612,597 for a Handbag, which issued on March 30, 2010



6/72

6

(the 597 Patent). A true and correct copy of the 597 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit D.

Robin Ruth is the owner by assignment of all right, title, and interest in the 597 Patent.

25.Robin Ruth has also designed and is manufacturing, marketing, distributing andselling bags known as the Repeat Color Hobo Bag, characterized, in part, by a unique and

distinctive repeating pattern containing the name of a particular geographic area or city, where

each line of the repeating pattern shares the same unique and distinctive font and appears in one

of several repeating colors (Repeat Color Hobo Bag Trade Dress).

26.Robin Ruth distributes and sells goods bearing the Repeat Color Hobo Bag TradeDress worldwide, throughout the United States, and including within this Judicial District.

Images of the Repeat Color Hobo Bag bearing the Repeat Color Hobo Bag Trade Dress are

attached hereto as Exhibit A8-A9.

27.The Repeat Color Hobo Bag Trade Dress is non-functional, fanciful, distinctive, well-recognized, and represents the source of Robin Ruths products sold in association therewith and

the substantial goodwill of Robin Ruth throughout the United States, including in this Judicial

District. The Repeat Color Hobo Bag Trade Dress constitutes valid trade dress and Robin Ruth

owns exclusive rights to it.

28.Robin Ruth products bear distinctive hang tags containing original, unique, anddistinctive design elements including a black and white bisected rectangle displaying a logo on

one side and a bar code on the other side, and a black and white circular medallion bearing a

logo. Defendants Infringing Products bear hang tags with the same elements. Photographs of the

Robin Ruth hang tag as compared to the BH Fashion Design hang tag are attached as Exhibit E.

The unique design features of Robin Ruths hang tags have become well-known to the



7/72

7

purchasing public as an indication of a quality Robin Ruth product, to which BH Fashion Design

has misappropriated for use in their hang tags on the Infringing Products.

29.Robin Ruth has expended substantial sums of money in advertising and promoting itsline of bags and accessories bearing its distinctive trade dress styles. As a result, the product line

has become a cultural phenomenon and has enjoyed substantial recognition by consumers,

becoming well and favorably known to the purchasing public and widely recognized as

indicating the source or origin of Robin Ruths products. The London Tote Bag was featured

on CBS News as a part of a gift set celebrating President Obamas visit to the Queen of England.

Reality television personalities Kate Gosselin and Nicole Snooki Polizzi were photographed

carrying the New York Tote Bag, and the Dalai Lama was photographed wearing a Robin

Ruth cap bearing the Amsterdam Classic Robin Ruth Trade Dress.

DEFENDANTS ACTS OF INFRINGEMENT

30.On information and belief, Defendants market and sell within this Judicial DistrictInfringing Products which copy Robin Ruths line of bags and embody Robin Ruths trade dress

and patented inventions, including for the Tote Bags, Neck Wallets, Hobo Bags, City Bags and

Gradated Color Hobo Bags, without authorization from Robin Ruth. Photographs of Infringing

Products of BH Fashion are attached hereto as Exhibit F. A copy of an Arkash catalog showing

Infringing Products are attached hereto as Exhibits G1-G9, and photographs of Infringing

Products of Arkash are attached hereto as Exhibits G10-G11.

31.Robin Ruth maintains a website for advertising, promoting and selling its products.Excerpts from Robin Ruths website are attached as Exhibit H. Arkash has maintained a website

for advertising, promoting and selling its products which is identical to, and directly competitive

with, Robin Ruths website. Excerpts from Arkashs website are attached as Exhibit I. On



8/72

8

information and belief, Arkash directly copied Robin Ruths website and such copying forms a

part of Arkashs infringement as alleged herein.

32.Defendants Infringing Products are competitive with Robin Ruths products and, oninformation and belief, are offered for sale and sold to consumers through the same channels of

trade.

33.By trading on Robin Ruths valuable goodwill, Defendants have caused and are likelyto cause confusion, mistake, and deception of purchasers and potential purchasers as to the

source or origin of the Defendants products and as to the existence of an association,

connection, or relationship between Robin Ruth and Defendants.

34.On information and belief, Defendants infringement has been willful and deliberate,with full knowledge of Robin Ruths rights, and designed specifically to trade upon the

enormous goodwill associated with Robin Ruths trade dress and to capitalize on Robin Ruths

initiative.

35.Defendants actions have damaged and are likely to damage the superior reputationand goodwill of Robin Ruth.

36.Robin Ruth is being irreparably injured and monetarily damaged by Defendants acts.Robin Ruth has no adequate remedy at law.

COUNT 1 PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. D586,118, D597,304 AND D612,597

37.Robin Ruth repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-36 above,as though fully set forth herein.

38.This cause of action arises under the United States Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. 1, et seq.39.The 118 Patent, the 304 Patent, and the 597 Patent are valid and enforceable.



9/72

9

40.By the acts alleged herein, BH Fashion and the individual defendants have infringedat least one claim of the 118 Patent, the 304 Patent, and the 597 Patent, without Robin Ruths

authorization or consent.

41.By the acts alleged herein, Arkash and the individual defendants have infringed atleast one claim of the 597 Patent, without Robin Ruths authorization or consent.

42.On information and belief, Defendants infringement has been intentional and willful,making this an exceptional case.

43.Defendants will, on information and belief, continue to commit patent infringe asalleged unless and until they are enjoined by this Court. Robin Ruth has been and is likely to

continue to be irreparably injured unless Defendants are enjoined. Robin Ruth has no adequate

remedy at law and is thus damaged in an amount that is yet to be determined.

COUNT 2 TRADE DRESS INFRINGEMENT IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 43(a) OF

THE LANHAM ACT, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)


45.This cause of action arises under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).

46.Defendants acts as alleged herein are likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deceptionof purchasers and potential purchasers as to the origin, sponsorship, approval, or association of

Defendants products by Robin Ruth in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.

1125(a).

47.By the acts alleged herein, Defendants have used false designations of origin andfalse and misleading descriptions and representations, which misrepresent the nature,

characteristics, and qualities of the Infringing Products and falsely describe the origin,



10/72

10

sponsorship, approval, or association by Robin Ruth of Defendants Infringing Products, in

violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).

48.By the acts alleged herein, Defendants have used false and misleading descriptions,which suggest that the Infringing Products emanate from Robin Ruth. This causes confusion and

mistake, deceives and misleads the purchasing public, trades upon Robin Ruths goodwill and

high quality reputation, and improperly appropriates to Defendants the valuable rights of Robin

Ruth.

49.Defendants wrongful acts constitute trade dress infringement in violation of Section43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).

50.Defendants wrongful acts will continue to cause irreparable injury to Robin Ruth andinfringe upon Robin Ruths trade dress in the future unless and until they are enjoined by this

Court. Robin Ruth has been and is likely to continue to be injured unless Defendants are

enjoined. Robin Ruth has no adequate remedy at law and is thus damaged in an amount that is

yet to be determined.

COUNT 3 UNFAIR COMPETITION, FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN AND

FALSE DESCRIPTION AND REPRESENTATION IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 43(a)

OF THE LANHAM ACT, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)


52.This cause of action arises under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).

53.By the acts alleged herein, Defendants have used a false designation of origin that islikely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception of purchasers and potential purchasers as to the



11/72

11

origin, sponsorship, approval, or association of the Infringing Products by Robin Ruth in


54.By the acts alleged herein, Defendants have used false designations of origin andfalse and misleading descriptions and representations, which misrepresent the nature,

characteristics, and qualities of the Infringing Products and falsely describe the origin,

sponsorship, approval, or association by Robin Ruth of Defendants Infringing Products, in


55.By the acts alleged herein, Defendants have caused confusion, mistake, anddeception, and have misled the purchasing public, traded upon Robin Ruths high quality

reputation, and improperly appropriated to themselves the valuable rights of Robin Ruth.

56.Defendants wrongful acts constitute unfair competition and use in commerce of falsedesignations of origin and false and/or misleading descriptions or representations, tending to

describe and/or represent, in a false and misleading fashion, Defendants Infringing Products as

those of Robin Ruth in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).

57.Defendants wrongful acts will continue to cause irreparable injury to Robin Ruthunless and until they are enjoined by this Court. Robin Ruth has been and is likely to continue to

be injured unless Defendants are enjoined. Robin Ruth has no adequate remedy at law and is thus

damaged in an amount that is yet to be determined.

COUNT 4 NEW YORK COMMON LAW UNFAIR COMPETITION


59.This cause of action is for unfair competition and arises under the common law of theState of New York.



12/72

12

60.Defendants acts as alleged herein are likely to deceive or to confuse the trade and thegeneral public as to the source or origin of Defendants Infringing Products and as to the

existence of a relationship between Robin Ruth and Defendants.

61.On information and belief, Defendants are acting in a manner such as to deceptivelyand/or fraudulently pass off its goods as those of Robin Ruth and to capitalize on the initiative

and goodwill of Robin Ruth.

62.Because of Defendants use of Robin Ruths distinctive trade dress and websitedesign, ordinary persons acting with reasonable care are likely to mistake Defendants goods for

those of Robin Ruth.

63.Defendants, through their unfair competition and false designations of origin, haveunfairly competed with Robin Ruth by use of unfair and improper business practices, in violation

of the common law of the state of New York.

64.Robin Ruth has and is being irreparably damaged by such acts, and damage willcontinue unless Defendants acts are enjoined. Robin Ruth has no adequate remedy at law and is

thus damaged in an amount that is yet to be determined.

COUNT 5 DECEPTIVE ACTS AND PRACTICES IN VIOLATION OF N.Y. GEN. BUS.

LAW 349ET SEQ.


66.This cause of action arises under Section 349 et seq. of the New York ConsolidatedLaws.

67.Because of Defendants acts alleged herein, ordinary persons acting with reasonablecare are likely to mistake Defendants Infringing Products for the genuine goods of Robin Ruth.



13/72

13

68.Defendants unauthorized acts alleged herein constitute unlawful, unfair andfraudulent business practices.

69.Defendants unauthorized acts as alleged herein include deceptive, untrue, andmisleading advertisements, confusing the public into believing that Robin Ruth is responsible

for, endorses, or sponsors Defendants Infringing Products.

70.Robin Ruth has and is being irreparably damaged by such acts, and damage willcontinue unless Defendants acts are enjoined. Robin Ruth has no adequate remedy at law and is

thus damaged in an amount that is yet to be determined.

WHEREFORE, Robin Ruth demands judgment:

A. Adjudging and decreeing that Defendants have unlawfully infringed the 118 Patent,the 304 Patent, and the 597 Patent and have misappropriated Robin Ruths trade dress rights;

B. Preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents, servants,employees and attorneys and all those in active concert or participation with any of them:

1. from importing, distributing, advertising, promoting, selling, and/or offering tosell any product which infringes any claim of the 118 Patent, the 304 Patent, or

the 597 Patent, or which embodies a design that imitates the Classic Robin Ruth

Trade Dress, the City Bag Trade Dress, or the Repeat Color Hobo Bag Trade

Dress, or any colorable variation thereof, unless the product emanates from or is

authorized by Robin Ruth; and

2. from falsely representing or suggesting that Defendants products are affiliatedwith, related to, or sponsored by Robin Ruth or suggesting any connection with it;



14/72

14

C. Requiring Defendants to pay their profits to Robin Ruth, any damages sustained byRobin Ruth as a result of Defendants acts, and Robin Ruths costs for the action, and attorneys

fees, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284, 289, and 15 U.S.C. 1117(a);

D. Requiring that all product labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles, andadvertisements of Defendants bearing the Classic Robin Ruth Trade Dress, the City Bag Trade

Dress, the Repeat Color Hobo Bag Trade Dress, and any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or

colorable imitation thereof, and all plates, molds, matrices and other means of making the same,

be delivered up to Plaintiff for destruction, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1118;

E.

Requiring Defendants to pay to Robin Ruth three times the amount of actual

damages, and reasonable attorneys fees and costs, because of the exceptional nature of this case,

pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285, 15 U.S.C. 1117(a), and/or N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law 349 et seq.; and

F. Granting such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.JURY DEMAND

Robin Ruth requests a trial by jury in this matter.

Dated: June 13, 2013 Respectfully submitted,

s/ Wendy E. Miller _

Wendy E. Miller (WM-1982)COOPER & DUNHAM LLP

30 Rockefeller Plaza, 20th

Fl.

New York, NY 10112Tel: (212) 278-0400

Fax: (212) 371-0525

[email protected]



15/72

Case0:10-cv-60215-DLGDocument21-1EnteredonFLSDDocket04/09/2010Page26o 28Exhibit A-3


.cuc0.,....

X0~tn0'>( I)coIJ )co>c( I)u

ttJExhibit A-1


16/72

Case0:10cv60215DLG

Document211

EnteredonFLSDDocket04/09/2010

Page27of

28

Exh

ibitA-4

Case 1:13-cv-03388-MKB-RML Document 1 Filed 06/13/13 Page 16 of 70 P

Canvas Bags 11 .2X 16 1nch

8 ~ V 0 0 l A BNYOOI C 8NY001 1: SNYOOl f BN

8NY001 J BN'IOOI K. SNYOOIN llN 1'00 l X I>NYOO I Q

Exhib

it

A-2


17/72

Case0:10-cv-60215-DLGDocument21-1EnteredonFLSDDocket04/09/2010Page28o 28Exhibit A-5


--~

( I )co>cco( .)( I )Q)Ei= ~.0~

Exhibit A-3


18/72

Exhibit A-2



19/72


Roun eo Bag

61 ' , ,, f

t ~ . . . 'I ' ~ ' ' Nr)O ~ T O f t

Exhibit A-5


20/72


1ty ags-819

0 4 V ~ 0 1 ,., ou c

n B"'T' I. YSIJI l i

Exhibit A-6


21/72

Exhibit A-7



22/72


Exhibit A-8


23/72

Exhibit A-9



24/72

Exhibit B-1

Case 1:13-cv-03388-MKB-RML Document 1 Filed 06/13/13 Page 24 of 70 PageID #: 24111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

c12) United States Design PatentShabi

(54) HANDBAG(75) Inventor: Yaniv Shabi, Forest Hills, NY (US)(73) Assignee: Tomgal LLC, Delray Beach, FL (US)(**) Term: 14 Years(21) Appl. No.: 29/278,270(22) Filed: Mar. 23, 2007(51) LOC (9) Cl. .................................................. 03-01(52) U.S. Cl. ....................................................... D3/234(58) Field of Classification Search . .. ... ... ... .. ... D3/230,D3/232-234 , 238, 240-246, 318, 324; 150/100,150/103-104, 107-110, 118-119See application file for complete search history.(56) References Cited

U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTSD244,914 S * 7/1977 Nicol ........................ .. D9/704D453,070 S * 112002 Jacobs ......................... D3/234

OTHER PUBLICATIONS4 imprint tote bags item E (sarasota beach club), p. 64 [online].4imprint, Summer 2006 [retrieved Jul. 16, 2008]. Retrieved from theInternet: http:/ c a t a l o g s . g o o g l e . c o m / c a t a l o g s ? i d ~ m k r D L q 2 x 0 3 Y C

& p g ~ P A 6 4 & d q ~ t o t e + b a g . *These are pictures of handbags offered for sale by Robin Ruth in aRobin Ruth Catalog with dates underneath each handbag when theywere first offered for sale-Jun. 30, 2006 thru Nov. 29, 2006.* cited by examiner

USOOD586118S

(10) Patent No.: US D586,118 S** Feb. 10, 200945) Date of Patent:

Primary Examiner-Holly H Baynham(74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm-Jon A. Gibbons; FleitGibbons Gutman Bongini & Bianco P.L.(57) CLAIMThe ornamental design for a handbag, as shown anddescribed.

DESCRIPTION

FIG. 1 is a top plan view of a first embodiment of a handbagwith the city ORLANDO, showing our new design;FIG. 2 is a top plan view of a second embodiment of ahandbag with the city NEWYORK, showing our new design;FIG. 3 is a top plan view of a third embodiment of a handbagwith the city LAS VEGAS, showing our new design;FIG. 4 is a top plan view of a fourth embodiment of a handbagwith the city CHICAGO, showing ou r new design;FIG. 5 is a top plan view of a fifth embodiment of a handbagwith the city LOS ANGLES, showing our new design; and,FIG. 6 is a top plan view of a sixth embodiment of a handbagwith the city SAN FRANCISCO, showing our new design.The broken lines in FIGS. 1-6 are included for the purpose ofillustrating a portion of he handbag that forms no part of heclaimed design.

1 Claim, 6 Drawing Sheets


25/72

Exhibit B-2


U.S. Patent Feb.10,2009 Sheet 1 of 6 US D586,118 S

... , : : ~ s ~ : -, ......: i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

,::::::::.


26/72

Exhibit B-3




27/72

Exhibit B-4


U.S. Patent Feb.10,2009 Sheet 3 of 6

,:::::::::

:::Y{:( ~ : - - - ~ ~ }..... ., ,-. ...

.=:.:_::.._. :, : :, : ,:- ._ ._..___ .. ._ ..~ = ~ x ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J : = : ,

US D586,118 S

~ ~ ~ ~ { ~ : : : : : : : ~ )

= : : ~ I ~:::::::})


28/72

Exhibit B-5




29/72

Exhibit B-6


U.S. Patent Feb.10,2009 Sheet 5 of 6

( ! : - ~ ? J )u... ~ : : : f J,, ,....

\ . \ _ . _ . ~ l : : UC . \ . : : ~ }..............

: : ~ ~ { { ~ ; ~ : ~ : : : ~ : ~ ~ : :--.........(f:-!.?-J)::c::}:::::::1)

(f:.f,?j),.. ...

L : . _ . _ . ~ l : : U:::::::'})U. }:::U

US D586,118 S

:\ : : : : : : : ! ~

Vl::::-LU--lLU ~CJ) ~z ~

Documents

Tomgal v. BH Fashion - Complaint