General Wire Spring v. Vevor - Complaint ( 289 Request For Trade Dress)

Case 3:20-cv-00087 Document 1 Filed 01/02/20 Page 1 of 23
1 Lauren M. Michals (State Bar No. 184473)

lmichals@nixonpeabody.com
2 Andrew H. Winetroub (State Bar No. 291847)
awinetroub@nixonpeabody.com
3 NIXON PEABODY LLP
One Embarcadero Center, 32nd Floor
4 San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: 415-984-8200
5 Fax: 415-984-8300
6 Steven W. Zoffer (Pro Hac Vice Pending)

szoffer@dmclaw.com
7 DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C.
Two PPG Place, Suite 400
8 Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Tel: 412-281-7272
9 Fax: 888-811-7144
10 Attorneys for Plaintiff

GENERAL WIRE SPRING COMPANY
11
12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14
15 GENERAL WIRE SPRING COMPANY, a Case No.

Pennsylvania corporation,
16 COMPLAINT FOR:
Plaintiff,
17 1. Trade Dress Infringement and
vs. Unfair Competition (15 U.S.C. §
18 1114 and § 1125(a));
VEVOR CORPORATION, a California 2. Trademark Infringement under
19 corporation, California Law;
3. Unfair Competition (Cal. Bus. &
20 Defendant. Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.); and
4. Injunctive Relief
21
22
COMPLAINT
23
AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, General Wire Spring Company, by its attorneys and for its
24
25 Complaint, alleges as follows:
26
27
28
1
COMPLAINT
1 THE PARTIES
2 1. Plaintiff General Wire Spring Company (“General Wire”) is a Pennsylvania
3 corporation having a place of business at 1101 Thompson Avenue, McKees Rocks, Pennsylvania,
4
15136.
5
2. Defendant Vevor Corporation (“Vevor”) is a California corporation with an entity
6
address and agent for service of process located at 1172 Murphy Avenue, Suite 237, San Jose,
7
8 California, 95131.
9 3. Defendant Vevor does business throughout the United States, within the state of
10 California, and within this Judicial District. Defendant Vevor markets and sells goods throughout
11
the United States, including California and this Judicial District.
12
13 NATURE OF THE ACTION, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

14 4. This is an action in law and equity arising under the Trademark and Unfair
15
Competition Laws of the United States (15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.) and the statutory and common
16
laws of the state of California.
17
5. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28
18
19 U.S.C. § 1338. This matter involves a federal question pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). Diversity
20 jurisdiction is established as this controversy arises between citizens of different states and
21 involves an amount in controversy in excess of the jurisdictional threshold of 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

22 Additionally, supplemental jurisdiction over the state statutory and common law claims exists
23
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1338(b) and 1367(a).
24
6. Intradistrict Assignment: Pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-2(c), intellectual property cases
25
are exempt from the division-specific venue rule. However, since the address of the Defendant is
26
27
28
2
COMPLAINT
1 located in Santa Clara County, this case should be assigned to the San Jose division pursuant to
2 Civil L.R. 3-2(e).
3
7. Venue is appropriate in this Judicial District pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1391(b)(1) as
4
all defendants are residents of this Judicial District.
5
FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
6
7 General Wire’s Mini Rooter
8 8. General Wire is a third generation family-owned business located in Southwestern
9 Pennsylvania that has been manufacturing and marketing various products, including springs, wire
10 forms, and a series of high quality American-made drain cleaning equipment since its founding in
11
1930.
12
9. Among the products offered by General Wire is a series of tool for cleaning piping,
13
tubing, and drains under its Mini Rooter® line.
14
15 10. The Mini Rooter® name is protected by United States Trademark Registration
16 Number 4372539 for devices for cleaning drains, namely, machines for cleaning drains. A true
17 and correct copy of the Mini Rooter Trademark certificate is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
18
11. Included in the Mini Rooter® line of products are the Mini Rooter XP and Mini
19
Rooter Pro (the “Mini Rooter Products”).
20
12. The Mini Rooter Products also consist of a distinctive and recognizable trade dress
21
in the unique shape, design features, and colors that embody the Mini Rooter brand.
22
23 13. The market recognition of the Mini Rooter brand and its corresponding trade dress
24 as quality and reliable goods has come at considerable expense to General Wire over the years.
25 14. For all times relevant hereto, General Wire has manufactured and sold the Mini
26
Rooter Products in the trade dress that are the subject of this claim.
27
28
3
COMPLAINT
1 15. The design of General Wire’s Mini Rooter Products embodies a singular and
2 inherently distinctive trade dress characterized by a general overall appearance and commercial
3
impression created through size, shape, color scheme, and non-functional design features.
4
16. The Mini Rooter XP trade dress includes the appearance of the commercial
5
embodiment of the Mini Rooter XP product, including the bright orange color, an easy-grip swept-
6
7 back folding handle, 8″ semi-pneumatic wheels, a unique Flexicore® Cable in the drum with two
8 distinctly-designed trapezoidal windows on the front and unique steel front hub casting on the
9 front of the drum, a distinctive spout design for the cable feed mechanism, and a frame design
10 featuring a motor roll bar and gusset braces at 45 degree angles located near the wheels.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Illustration 1: Mini Rooter XP Drain Cleaner
21
17. The Mini Rooter Pro trade dress includes the appearance of the commercial
22
embodiment of the Mini Rooter Pro product, including the bright orange color, a unique Flexicore®
23
Cable in the drum with two distinctly-designed trapezoidal windows on the front and unique steel
24
25 front hub casting on the front of the drum, the drum set at a distinctive angle, and a frame design
26 featuring gusset braces at 45 degree angles

27
28
4
COMPLAINT
8 Illustration 2: Mini Rooter Pro Drain Cleaner
9 18. The Mini Rooter Products also use a distinctive method of attaching the various
10 cutters to the cable, via a slot and screw system.

11 19. The elements of General Wire’s trade dress are non-functional.
12
20. Continually since 1979 General Wire has made and sold in interstate commerce its
13
Mini-Rooter Products in their trade dress to identify the source of the Mini Rooter Products and to
14
distinguish them from those made and sold by others.
15
16 21. General Wire has prominently displayed its trade dress to distributors, retailers and
17 consumers through advertising, the internet, industry publications and points-of-sale.
18 22. General Wire has invested substantial time, resources, and money in making and
19
selling its Mini Rooter Products in their distinctive trade dress.
20
23. As a result of General Wire’s commercial activities as set forth herein, General
21
Wire’s trade dress has developed and now has a secondary and distinctive meaning to consumers
22
and the professional drain-cleaning industry. Specifically, General Wire’s trade dress has come to
23
24 indicate that the Mini Rooter Products come from or originate only with General Wire.
25
26
27
28
5
COMPLAINT
1 Vevor’s Infringing Products

2 24. General Wire recently discovered that the Defendant sells in interstate commerce a
3
series of drain cleaning devices (the “Infringing Products”) which infringe on General Wire’s
4
protected trade dress in its Mini Rooter Products.
5
25. Defendant’s Infringing Products so closely imitate and infringe General Wire’s
6
7 trade dress that consumers are likely to be confused as to the source or origin of the Defendant’s
8 products.
9 26. The Defendant’s Infringing Products present an identical overall commercial

10 impression to General Wire’s Mini Rooter Products, including but not limited to size, shape, color
11
scheme, and non-functional design features. Specifically, the Defendant has parroted the entire
12
shape and features of the Mini Rooter Products, and have only slightly attempted to change the
13
color of their product from orange to red. Crucially, the colored portions are identical to those on
14
15 the Mini Rooter Products.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Illustration 3: Defendant’s Infringing Product Copying Mini Rooter XP
26
27
28
6
COMPLAINT
1 27. Defendant sells models of their Infringing Products in both 75 foot and 100 foot
2 versions which copy the Mini Rooter XP trade dress almost exactly.
3
28. Defendant’s copying is particularly apparent in the design of the drum, including
4
the size, shape, and placement of the trapezoidal windows, and the casting around the cable feed,
5
which are unique to the Mini Rooter Products.
6
7 29. Defendant also copied the spout design of the feed mechanism, but, clearly not
8 understanding General Wire’s product, failed to include several springs that would allow the spout
9 to serve any real purpose.

10 30. Defendant also markets and sells a 50-foot version of its Infringing Product which
11
directly copies the trade dress of the Mini Rooter Pro, including but not limited to size, shape,
12
color scheme, and non-functional design features.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 Illustration 4: Defendant’s Infringing Product Copying Mini Rooter Pro
21 31. Defendant’s copying is again apparent in the angle and design of the drum,
22 including the size, shape, and placement of the trapezoidal windows, and the casting around the
23
cable feed, which are unique to the Mini Rooter Products. Defendant’s Infringing Product also
24
directly copies the Mini Rooter Pro’s frame design.
25
32. Defendant also ripped off General Wire’s method of attaching the cutters to the
26
27 cable.
28
7
COMPLAINT
1 33. Defendant’s blatant copying of General Wire’s trade dress for its Infringing
2 Products not only makes consumer confusion likely, but inevitable.
3
34. Defendant’s use of General Wire’s trade dress protected designs constitutes trade
4
dress infringement in violation of U.S. trademark law.
5
35. General Wire’s Mini Rooter Products compete directly with Defendant’s Infringing
6
7 Products.
8 36. Defendant markets its Infringing Products in the same or similar marketing
9 channels and channels of trade used by General Wire.

10 37. Specifically, Defendant offers its infringing products for sale on the internet, and
11
via a Vevor storefont on the online retailer Amazon.com. A copy of the screen printout from
12
Amazon is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
13
38. Defendant has unlawfully used and is currently unlawfully using General Wire’s
14
15 trade dress protected Mini Rooter Product designs on knock-off products made to appear to be
16 General Wire goods or have an affiliation, sponsorship, or other connection with General Wire.
17 39. Defendant has used and continues to use General Wire’s trade dress protected
18
designs on knock-off drain cleaners of inferior quality to take sales from General Wire and profit
19
from such infringing sale of goods.
20
Notice
21
40. General Wire wrote to Defendant on July 15, 2019 advising Defendant that General
22
23 Wire believed Defendant was infringing on General Wire’s rights and demanding that Defendant
24 cease and desist such infringing conduct. A copy of General Wire’s letter is attached hereto as
25 Exhibit C.
26
27
28
8
COMPLAINT
1 41. Despite attempts to deliver the letter to both Defendant’s business address and
2 registered agent designated with the California Secretary of State, the letter was returned as
3
undelivered.
4
42. Defendant’s infringing conduct continues through this date.
5
COUNT I: Trade Dress Infringement and Unfair Competition
6
7 43. The Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs
8 as if set forth herein.
9 44. The Defendant has made and sold in interstate commerce its Infringing Products in
10 a manner that embodies General Wire’s trade dress.
11
45. As a result of the Defendant’s conduct as set forth herein, consumers could be
12
confused and induced to purchase the Defendant’s Infringing Products, mistakenly believing them
13
to be Mini Rooter Products, thus depriving General Wire of the profits of sale.
14
15 46. By engaging in the conduct set forth herein, the Defendant is passing off their
16 Infringing Products as General Wire’s Mini Rooter Products, trading off and exploiting General
17 Wire’s reputation and goodwill, to General Wire’s detriment.

18
47. By engaging in the conduct set forth herein, the Defendant has infringed and
19
continues to infringe General Wire’s rights in its trade dress, in violation of Section 32 of the
20
Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114 and Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). The
21
Defendant’s conduct is likely to cause confusion – initially, post-sale, and otherwise – mistake,
22
23 and deception among consumers as to the affiliation, connection, or association of the Defendant
24 with General Wire and as to the origin, sponsorship, and approval of the Defendant’s Infringing
25 Products and commercial activities by General Wire. Such conduct also interferes with General
26
Wire’s right to use its trade dress to identify General Wire as the single source of the Mini Rooter
27
28
9
COMPLAINT
1 Products. The Defendant’s conduct as set forth herein also constitutes false designation of origin,
2 unfair competition, and false advertising in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.
3
§ 1125(a).
4
48. The Defendant’s conduct as set forth herein is wrongful, malicious, fraudulent,
5
deliberate, willful, and/or intentional.
6
7 49. The Defendant’s conduct as set forth herein is wrongful, malicious, fraudulent,
8 deliberate, willful, and/or intentional and has caused and will continue to harm the Plaintiff.
9 COUNT II: State Law Trademark Infringement

11
as if set forth herein.
12
51. The Defendant’s conduct as set forth herein is likely to cause consumer confusion,
13
to cause mistake, and to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of the Defendant
14
17 Wire’s right to use its trade dress to identify General Wire as the single source of the Mini Rooter
18
Products.
19
52. The Defendant’s conduct as set forth herein constitutes trademark infringement in
20
violation of California statutory and common law, particularly Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 14245.
21
53. The Defendant’s conduct as set forth herein is wrongful, malicious, fraudulent,
22
23 deliberate, willful, and/or intentional.
25 deliberate, willful, and/or intentional and has caused and will continue to harm the Plaintiff.
26
27
28
10
COMPLAINT
1 COUNT III: State Law Unfair Competition

3
4
56. The Defendant’s conduct as set forth herein is likely to cause consumer confusion,
5
to cause mistake, and to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of the Defendant
6
9 Wire’s right to use its trade dress to identify General Wire as the single source of the Mini Rooter
10 Products.
11
57. The Defendant’s conduct as set forth herein constitutes unfair competition and
12
palming off in violation of California statutory and common law, particularly Cal. Bus. & Prof.
13
Code § 17000, et. seq.
14
16 deliberate, willful, and/or intentional.
18
deliberate, willful, and/or intentional and has caused and will continue to harm the Plaintiff.
19
COUNT IV: Injunctive Relief
20
60. The Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs
21
22
23 61. Pursuant to Section 34 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1116, courts shall have the
24 power to grant injunctions to prevent the violation of any right protected by Subsection (a) of
25 Section 43 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125.
26
62. General Wire has demonstrated that Defendant violated its rights in the protected
27
28
11
COMPLAINT
1 trade dress of its Mini Rooter Products.

2 63. Defendant has, and continues to, market and sell its Infringing Products to
3
consumers in interstate commerce.
4
64. General Wire will suffer irreparable harm if Defendant is allowed to continue to
5
market and sell its knock-off, inferior versions of the Mini Rooter Products which will continue to
6
7 harm General Wire’s goodwill and reputation.
8 65. No adequate remedy at law exists to protect General Wire from future harm by
9 Defendant.
10
11 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
12 WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant as follows:
13 1. A judgment declaring that the Defendant has infringed General Wire’s trade dress,
14 has competed unfairly with General Wire, has injured General Wire’s business reputation by the
15
unauthorized use of General Wire’s trade dress, and has willfully violated the applicable laws of
16
the United States and of the states where the Defendant’s goods have been sold, all to the detriment
17
of General Wire;
18
19 2. For a judgment against Defendant awarding the Plaintiff damages and lost profits,
20 including:
21 (a) All damages sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of the Defendants’ unlawful
22
infringement of General Wire’s trade dress, together with interest on such damages
23
and that such damages be trebled, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 and 35 U.S.C. § 289;
24
(b) All profits derived by the Defendant from the sale of goods by the direct or indirect
25
use of General Wire’s trade dress or colorable imitations thereof, and that such
26
27 profits be trebled;
28
12
COMPLAINT
1 (c) All damages sustained by Plaintiff on account of trade dress infringement, unfair
2 competition, and any other damages suffered by Plaintiff as a result of the
3
Defendant’s conduct as set forth herein, and that such damages be trebled;
4
3. For an accounting of all Defendant’s profits from the conduct complained of herein;
5
4. For an injunction permanently enjoining Defendant from marketing or selling any
6
7 products which infringe on General Wire’s trade dress.
8 5. For an order directing the Defendants to pay punitive damages;
9 6. For an order directing the Defendants to pay restitution;

10 7. For an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 and 15 U.S.C. § 1117
11
or as otherwise permitted by law;
12
8. For an award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate
13
allowed by law;
14
15 9. For the costs and expenses of the suit herein; and
16 10. For such additional and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
17
18
Dated: January 2, 2020 NIXON PEABODY LLP
19
20
By: /s/ Andrew Winetroub
21
Andrew H. Winetroub
22 Lauren M. Michals
23 Attorneys for Plaintiff

GENERAL WIRE SPRING COMPANY
24
25
26
27
28
13
COMPLAINT
Exhibit A
^wvtefc states of &meriC/>

®mteb States; patent anb tErabemark (Office Ht
MINI-ROOTER
Reg. No. 4,372,539 GENERAL WIRE SPRING CO. (PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION)
1101 THOMPSON AVENUE
Registered July 23, 2013 MCKEES ROCKS, PA 15136
Int. CI.: 7 FOR: DEVICES FOR CLEANING DRAINS, NAMELY, MACHINES FOR CLEANING DRAINS,
IN CLASS 7 (U.S. CLS. 13, 19, 21, 23, 31, 34 AND 35).
TRADEMARK FIRST USE 10-0-1979; IN COMMERCE 10-0-1979.
PRINCIPAL REGISTER THE MARK CONSISTS OF STANDARD CHARACTERS WITHOUT CLAIM TO ANY PAR
TICULAR FONT, STYLE, SIZE, OR COLOR.
SEC. 2(F).
SER. NO. 85-820,017, FILED 1-10-2013.
PAUL E. FAHRENKOPF, EXAMINING ATTORNEY
Acting Director of the United States Patent «iid Tmdetnark OfJke

REQUIREMENTS TO MAINTAIN YOUR FEDERAL

TRADEMARK REGISTRATION
WARNING: YOUR REGISTRATION WILL BE CANCELLED IF YOU DO NOT FILE THE

DOCUMENTS BELOW DURING THE SPECIFIED TIME PERIODS.
Requirements in the First Ten Years*

What and When to File:
• First Filing Deadline: You must file a Declaration of Use (or Excusable Nonuse) between the
5th and 6th years after the registration date. See 15 U.S.C. §§1058, 1141k. If the declaration is
accepted, the registration will continue in force for the remainder of the ten-year period, calculated
from the registration date, unless cancelled by an order of the Commissioner for Trademarks or a
federal court.
• Second Filing Deadline: You must file a Declaration of Use (or Excusable Nonuse) and an
Application for Renewal between the 9th and 10th years after the registration date.*
See 15 U.S.C. §1059.
Requirements in Successive Ten-Year Periods*

What and When to File:
• You must file a Declaration of Use (or Excusable Nonuse) and an Application for Renewal between
every 9th and lOth-year period, calculated from the registration date.*
Grace Period Filings*
The above documents will be accepted as timely if filed within six months after the deadlines listed above
with the payment of an additional fee.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will NOT send you any future notice or
reminder of these filing requirements.
*ATTENTION MADRID PROTOCOL REGISTRANTS: The holder of an international registration with

an extension of protection to the United States under the Madrid Protocol must timely file the Declarations
of Use (or Excusable Nonuse) referenced above directly with the USPTO. The time periods for filing are
based on the U.S. registration date (not the international registration date). The deadlines and grace periods
for the Declarations of Use (or Excusable Nonuse) are identical to those for nationally issued registrations.
See 15 U.S.C. §§1058,1141k. However, owners of international registrations do not file renewal applications
at the USPTO. Instead, the holder must file a renewal of the underlying international registration at the
International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization, under Article 7 of the Madrid Protocol,
before the expiration of each ten-year term of protection, calculated from the date of the international
registration. See 15 U.S.C. §1141j. For more information and renewal forms for the international registration,
see http://www.wipo.int/madrid/en/.
NOTE: Fees and requirements for maintaining registrations are subject to change. Please check the
USPTO website for further information. With the exception of renewal applications for registered
extensions of protection, you can file the registration maintenance documents referenced above online
at http://www.uspto.gov.
Page: 2/RN# 4,372,539

Please note that U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP), a bureau of the Department of
Homeland Security, maintains a trademark recordation system for marks registered at the
United States Patent and Trademark Office. Parties who register their marks on the Principal
Register may record these marks with CBP, to assist CBP in its efforts to prevent the
importation of goods that infringe registered marks. The recordation database includes
information regarding all recorded marks, including images of these marks. CBP officers
monitor imports to prevent the importation of goods bearing infringing marks, and can access
the recordation database at each of the 317 ports of entry.
CBP's Intellectual Property Rights e-Recordation (TPRR) system, located at

https;//apps.cbp.gov/e-recordations/, allows right holders to electronically file IPR
recordation applications, thus significantly reducing the amount of time normally required to
process paper applications. Some additional beneBts of the system include:
• Elimination of paper applications and supporting documents.
• Copies of the certificate issued by the registering agency (U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office or the Copyright Office) are retained by the right holder, not submitted to
CBP.
• Payment by credit card (preferred), check or money order.
• Ability to upload images of the protected work or trademark, thus o"bviating the need
to send samples to CBP.
• Reduced time from filing of the application to enforcement by field personnel.

Information about how to obtain a recordation, and about CBP's Intellectual Property Rights
border enforcement program, is available at CBP's web site, www.cbp.gov.
WARNING FROM THE USPTO

CONCERNING UNOFFICIAL TRADEMARK SOLICITATIONS
Please be aware that private companies not associated with the United States' Patent and
Trademark Office (USPTO) often use trademark application and registration information from
the USPTO's databases to mail or e-mail trademark-related solicitations. These may include
offers* (1) for legal services, (2) for trademark monitoring services; (3) to record trademarks with
U.S. Customs and Border Protection; and (4) to "register" trademarks in a private registry.
These companies may use names that resemble the USPTO name, including, for example, one or
more of the terms "United States," "U.S.," "Trademark," "Patent," "Registration," "Office," or
"Agency." Increasingly, some companies attempt to make their solicitations mimic the look of
official government documents rather than the look of a typical commercial or legal solicitation
by emphasizing official government data like the USPTO application serial number, the
registration number, the International Class(es), filing dates, and other information that is
publicly available from USPTO records. Many refer to other government agencies and sections
of the U.S. Code. Most require "fees" to be paid.
Some applicants and registrants have reported paying fees to these private companies,
mistakenly thinking that they were paying required fees to the USPTO. So, be sure to read
trademark-related communications carefully before making a decision about whether to respond.
All official correspondence will be from the "United States Patent and Trademark Office"
in Alexandria, VA, and if by e-mail, specifically from the domain "@uspto.gov."
If you receive a trademark-related solicitation that you believe is deceptive, you may file an on
line consumer complaint with the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC"), at www.FTC.gov.
Although the 1TC does not resolve individual consumer complaints, it may institute, as the
nation's consumer protection agency, investigations and prosecutions based on widespread
complaints about particular companies or business practices. In addition, the USPTO encourages
recipients of deceptive trademark-related solicitations to contact their states' consumer protection
authorities. Many, if not all, states have the authority to issUe investigative subpoenas and file
complaints against companies engaged in deceptive practices directed toward state residents.
For further information about, as well as several examples of, these non-USPTO solicitations,
please visit the page on the www.USPTO.gov website entitled "WARNING: Non-USPTO
Solicitations That May Resemble Official USPTO Communications "
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
JS-CAND 44 (Rev. 07/19) Case 3:20-cv-00087 Document 1-1 Filed 01/02/20 Page 1 of 2
CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS-CAND 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law,
except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved in its original form by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the Clerk of
Court to initiate the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
GENERAL WIRE SPRING COMPANY, a Pennsylvania corporation VEVOR CORPORATION, a California corporation
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff ALLEGHENY COUNTY County of Residence of First Listed Defendant SANTA CLARA
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Nixon Peabody LLP, One Embarcadero Center, 32nd
Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111, Tel: (415) 984-8200
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
PTF DEF PTF DEF
1 U.S. Government Plaintiff 3 Federal Question Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4
(U.S. Government Not a Party)
of Business In This State
Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
2 U.S. Government Defendant 4 Diversity of Business In Another State
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6
Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure of 422 Appeal 28 USC § 158 375 False Claims Act
120 Marine Property 21 USC § 881 423 Withdrawal 28 USC 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury – Product
130 Miller Act Liability 690 Other § 157 § 3729(a))
315 Airplane Product Liability
140 Negotiable Instrument 367 Health Care/ LABOR PROPERTY RIGHTS 400 State Reapportionment
320 Assault, Libel & Slander
150 Recovery of Pharmaceutical Personal 410 Antitrust
330 Federal Employers’ 710 Fair Labor Standards Act 820 Copyrights
Overpayment Of Injury Product Liability 430 Banks and Banking
Liability 720 Labor/Management 830 Patent
Veteran’s Benefits 368 Asbestos Personal Injury 450 Commerce
340 Marine Relations 835 Patent─Abbreviated New
151 Medicare Act Product Liability
345 Marine Product Liability 740 Railway Labor Act Drug Application 460 Deportation
152 Recovery of Defaulted PERSONAL PROPERTY 470 Racketeer Influenced &
350 Motor Vehicle 751 Family and Medical 840 Trademark
Student Loans (Excludes 370 Other Fraud Corrupt Organizations
355 Motor Vehicle Product Leave Act
Veterans) 371 Truth in Lending SOCIAL SECURITY
Liability 790 Other Labor Litigation 480 Consumer Credit
153 Recovery of 380 Other Personal Property 861 HIA (1395ff)
360 Other Personal Injury 791 Employee Retirement 485 Telephone Consumer
Overpayment Damage Income Security Act 862 Black Lung (923) Protection Act
of Veteran’s Benefits 362 Personal Injury -Medical
Malpractice 385 Property Damage Product 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 490 Cable/Sat TV
160 Stockholders’ Suits Liability IMMIGRATION
864 SSID Title XVI 850 Securities/Commodities/
190 Other Contract 462 Naturalization Exchange
CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 865 RSI (405(g))
195 Contract Product Liability Application
440 Other Civil Rights 890 Other Statutory Actions
HABEAS CORPUS 465 Other Immigration FEDERAL TAX SUITS
196 Franchise 891 Agricultural Acts
441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee Actions 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff or
REAL PROPERTY 442 Employment 893 Environmental Matters
510 Motions to Vacate Defendant)
210 Land Condemnation Sentence 895 Freedom of Information
443 Housing/ 871 IRS–Third Party 26 USC
Accommodations Act
220 Foreclosure 530 General § 7609
445 Amer. w/Disabilities– 896 Arbitration
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 535 Death Penalty
Employment 899 Administrative Procedure
240 Torts to Land OTHER
446 Amer. w/Disabilities–Other Act/Review or Appeal of
245 Tort Product Liability 540 Mandamus & Other Agency Decision
290 All Other Real Property 448 Education
550 Civil Rights 950 Constitutionality of State
555 Prison Condition Statutes
560 Civil Detainee–
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

1 Original 2 Removed from 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from 6 Multidistrict 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District (specify) Litigation–Transfer Litigation–Direct File
VI. CAUSE OF Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.; 15 U.S.C. § 1125
ACTION
Brief description of cause:
Trade dress infringement and unfair competition.
VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, Fed. R. Civ. P. JURY DEMAND: Yes No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S), JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER

IF ANY (See instructions):
IX. DIVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT (Civil Local Rule 3-2)
(Place an “X” in One Box Only) SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND SAN JOSE EUREKA-MCKINLEYVILLE
DATE 1/2/2020 SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD /s/ Andrew H. Winetroub

JS-CAND 44 (rev. 07/19) Case 3:20-cv-00087 Document 1-1 Filed 01/02/20 Page 2 of 2
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS-CAND 44
Authority For Civil Cover Sheet. The JS-CAND 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and
service of pleading or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved in its original form by the Judicial
Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the Clerk of Court to initiate the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is
submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I. a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the “defendant” is the location of the tract of land involved.)
c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section “(see attachment).”
II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which requires that jurisdictions be shown in
pleadings. Place an “X” in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
(1) United States plaintiff. Jurisdiction based on 28 USC §§ 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
(2) United States defendant. When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an “X” in this box.
(3) Federal question. This refers to suits under 28 USC § 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code
takes precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
(4) Diversity of citizenship. This refers to suits under 28 USC § 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)
III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS-CAND 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above.
Mark this section for each principal party.
IV. Nature of Suit. Place an “X” in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is
sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerk(s) in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than
one nature of suit, select the most definitive.
V. Origin. Place an “X” in one of the six boxes.
(1) Original Proceedings. Cases originating in the United States district courts.
(2) Removed from State Court. Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 USC § 1441. When the
petition for removal is granted, check this box.
(3) Remanded from Appellate Court. Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
(4) Reinstated or Reopened. Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
(5) Transferred from Another District. For cases transferred under Title 28 USC § 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
(6) Multidistrict Litigation Transfer. Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 USC
§ 1407. When this box is checked, do not check (5) above.
(8) Multidistrict Litigation Direct File. Check this box when a multidistrict litigation case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.
Please note that there is no Origin Code 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to changes in statute.
VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC § 553. Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service.
VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an “X” in this box if you are filing a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS-CAND 44 is used to identify related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
IX. Divisional Assignment. If the Nature of Suit is under Property Rights or Prisoner Petitions or the matter is a Securities Class Action, leave this
section blank. For all other cases, identify the divisional venue according to Civil Local Rule 3-2: “the county in which a substantial part of the
events or omissions which give rise to the claim occurred or in which a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated.”
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

General Wire Spring v. Vevor - Complaint ( 289 Request For Trade Dress)

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

General Wire Spring v. Vevor - Complaint ( 289 Request For Trade Dress)

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Case 3:20-cv-00087 Document 1 Filed 01/02/20 Page 1 of 23

1 Lauren M. Michals (State Bar No. 184473)

6 Steven W. Zoffer (Pro Hac Vice Pending)

10 Attorneys for Plaintiff

12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15 GENERAL WIRE SPRING COMPANY, a Case No.

25 Complaint, alleges as follows:

13 NATURE OF THE ACTION, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

21 involves an amount in controversy in excess of the jurisdictional threshold of 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

7 General Wire’s Mini Rooter

8 8. General Wire is a third generation family-owned business located in Southwestern

26 featuring gusset braces at 45 degree angles

8 Illustration 2: Mini Rooter Pro Drain Cleaner

10 cutters to the cable, via a slot and screw system.

17 consumers through advertising, the internet, industry publications and points-of-sale.

1 Vevor’s Infringing Products

9 26. The Defendant’s Infringing Products present an identical overall commercial

15 the Mini Rooter Products.

9 to serve any real purpose.

20 Illustration 4: Defendant’s Infringing Product Copying Mini Rooter Pro

9 channels and channels of trade used by General Wire.

8 as if set forth herein.

17 Wire’s reputation and goodwill, to General Wire’s detriment.

9 COUNT II: State Law Trademark Infringement

23 deliberate, willful, and/or intentional.

1 COUNT III: State Law Unfair Competition

16 deliberate, willful, and/or intentional.

1 trade dress of its Mini Rooter Products.

7 harm General Wire’s goodwill and reputation.

11 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

12 WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant as follows:

7 products which infringe on General Wire’s trade dress.

8 5. For an order directing the Defendants to pay punitive damages;

9 6. For an order directing the Defendants to pay restitution;

15 9. For the costs and expenses of the suit herein; and

23 Attorneys for Plaintiff

^wvtefc states of &meriC/>

TRADEMARK FIRST USE 10-0-1979; IN COMMERCE 10-0-1979.

SER. NO. 85-820,017, FILED 1-10-2013.

PAUL E. FAHRENKOPF, EXAMINING ATTORNEY

Acting Director of the United States Patent «iid Tmdetnark OfJke

REQUIREMENTS TO MAINTAIN YOUR FEDERAL

WARNING: YOUR REGISTRATION WILL BE CANCELLED IF YOU DO NOT FILE THE

Requirements in the First Ten Years*

Requirements in Successive Ten-Year Periods*

Grace Period Filings*

*ATTENTION MADRID PROTOCOL REGISTRANTS: The holder of an international registration with

Page: 2/RN# 4,372,539

CBP's Intellectual Property Rights e-Recordation (TPRR) system, located at

• Payment by credit card (preferred), check or money order.

• Reduced time from filing of the application to enforcement by field personnel.

WARNING FROM THE USPTO

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

VIII. RELATED CASE(S), JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER

DATE 1/2/2020 SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD /s/ Andrew H. Winetroub

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS-CAND 44

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen