Sketchers v. Anthony L & S, LLC - Complaint

7/28/2019 Sketchers v. Anthony L & S, LLC - Complaint

1/56

:rlS'2\

Marshall A. Lerner (State Bar No. 55,224)mlerner@kleinberglerner com

2 Bradford E. Mattes (State Bar No. 159,004)3 bemattes@kleinberglerner com

KLEINBERG & LERNER, LLP4 187 5 Century Park East, Suite 11505 Los Angeles, California 90067-25016 Telephone: (310) 557-1511Facsimile: (310) 557-1540 MAY 2.82113789

10111213141516171819202122

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Skechers U.S.A., Inc. andSkechers U.S.A., Inc. IIUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA-WESTERN DIVISIONfKECHERS U.S.A., INC., a..

Delaware Corporation, andSKECHERS U.S.A., INC. II, aDelaware Corporation

~ Y . i J . . 3 7 6 S W ~ l ~ )- ) ...) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR:

Plaintiffs,v.

ANTHONY L & S, LLC, a NewYork Limited Liability Company,UNITED STATES POLO

)) (1))) (2))

ASSOCIATION, INC., an Iliinois )Corporation, USPA PROPERTIES, ) (3)INC., an Illinois Corporation, and )Does 1 - 10 inclusive, )

PATENT INFRINGEMENT [35 U.S.C. 271 ];FEDERAL UNFAIR COMPETITIONAND TRADE DRESS INFRINGEMENT[15 U.S.C. 1125(a)];COMMON LAW UNFAIRCOMPETITION

Defendants. ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL_______________________ )

'(

23242526

Plaintiffs Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II (collectively"Skechers") for their complaint against defendants Anthony L & S, LLC, United StatesPolo Association, Inc., USPA Properties, Inc. and Does 1-10 (collectively "defendants")allege as follows:

2728

;

1COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR: (I ) PATENT INFRINGEMENT, (2) FEDERAL UNFAIR COMPETITION ANDTRADE DRESS INFRINGEMENT, AND (3) COMMON LAW UNFAIR COMPETITION; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL


2/56

NATURE OF THE ACTION2 1. This is an action for design patent infringement, trade dress infringement,3 and unfair competition.4 2. Skechers is a world leader in designing cutting-edge footwear. It has5 invested and spent hundreds of millions of dollars creating and promoting its new shoe6 designs. One such new design is an ornamental outsole periphery, an example ofwhich7 is embodied in its GOwalk shoe. The GOwalk shoe and its outsole periphery have been8 heavily advertised on TV, in magazines, and the Internet. In approximately the last year9 alone, Skechers spent more than four million dollars ($4,000,000) advertising its GOwalk

10 shoe. The shoe has been featured in several widely aired television commercials and has11 been the subject of a number of magazine articles. The fame and popularity of the12 GOwalk shoe and its outsole periphery can be measured by the fact that more than five13 million (5,000,000) pairs of GOwalk shoes have been sold since the shoe has been on the14 market.15 3. In order to identify certain of its shoes, including the GOwalk shoe, as16 emanating from a single source, Skechers created a new and unique trade dress embodied17 in the outsole periphery of the shoe. An example of this trade dress is indicated in red18 outline in the following photograph:19202122232425262728

Skechers' GOwalk outsole periphery trade dress indicated in red outline



3/56


4/56

GOwalk outsole periphery trade dress. The outsole periphery of defendants' "U.S. Polo2 Assn." shoe in this regard is shown below.3456789101112131415161718192021

U.S. POLO ASSN. (Medial view)As can be seen, the outsole periphery of defendants' U.S. Polo Assn. shoe bears the samerepeating cleat or nub pattern used by Skechers as its GOwalk outsole periphery tradedress, i.e., the cleats or nubs that have a relatively straight periphery surface (indicated bywide green arrows) alternate with cleats or nubs that have a curved periphery surface(indicated by narrow red arrows). By using Skechers' GOwalk outsole periphery tradedress on defendants' shoes, defendants deceive consumers into buying defendants' shoesin the mistaken belief that defendants' shoes emanate from Skechers and are genuineSkechers shoes.

8. Skechers has also invested substantial time, resources, and money indeveloping its proprietary Bikers Dream Come True trade dress. Based on these efforts,

22 since its introduction at least as early as May 2010, Skechers has domestically sold23 approximately six million (6,000,000) pairs of shoes that embody its Bikers Dream Come24 True trade dress.25262728

IllI IIllIll



5/56

9. Defendants copied Skechers ' proven-successful Bikers Dream Come True2 trade dress rather than taking a risk by trying to develop their own unproven trade dress.3 A sample ofSkechers' original Bikers Dream Come True trade dress is pictured below4 followed by a picture of defendants' shameless knockoffWanda shoe.56789

101112131415161718192021

Skechers Biker (Medial view)

U.S. Polo Assn. Wanda (Medial view)

PARTIES22 10. Plaintif f Skechers U.S.A., Inc. is a corporation duly organized and existing23 under the laws of the State ofDelaware with a principal place of business located at 22824 Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan Beach, California 90266.25 11. Plaintif fSkechers U.S.A., Inc. II is a corporation duly organized and26 existing under the laws of the State ofDelaware with a principal place of business locate27 at 228 Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan Beach, California 90266. Skechers U.S.A.,28 Inc. II is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Skechers U.S.A., Inc.

5COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR (I ) PATENT INFRINGEMENT, (2) FEDERAL UNFAIR COMPETITION ANDTRADE DRESS INFRINGEMENT, AND (3) COMMON LAW UNFAIR COMPETITION; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL


6/56

12. Defendant Anthony L&S, LLC is a New York limited liability company2 having an office and place of business at 1400 Broadway, Suite 405, New York, New3 York 10019.4 13. Defendant United States Polo Association, Inc. is a not-for-profit Illinois5 corporation having an office and place of business at 4037 Iron Works Parkway, Suite6 110, Lexington, Kentucky 40511.7 14. Defendant USPA Properties, Inc. is an Illinois corporation having an office8 and place of business at 771 Corporate Drive, Suite 430, Lexington, Kentucky 40503.9 USPA is a wholly-owned subsidiary ofUnited States Polo Association, Inc. USPA

10 manages the licensing program ofUnited States Polo Association, Inc.11 15. Defendants Does 1 - 10, inclusive, are sued herein under fictitious names.12 Their true names and capacities are unknown to Skechers. When their true names and13 capacities are ascertained, Skechers will amend this complaint by inserting their true14 names and capacities. Skechers is informed and believes and thereon alleges, that Does 115 - 10, and each of them are responsible in some manner for the occurrences alleged herein16 and that Skechers' damages were proximately caused by such defendants.17 JURISDICTION AND VENUE18 16. Jurisdiction in this Court arises under the patent laws of the United States,19 35 U.S.C. 271 and 289 and the provisions of 15 U.S.C. 1121 and 1125. This20 complaint also alleges violations of state law and common law. This Court has21 jurisdiction over these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1338(a) and (b), 1367(a), and22 1400(b).23 17. This Court has personal jurisdiction over defendants because they have24 committed one or more of the infringing acts complained of herein in California and in25 this district, they have regular places of business in California and in this district, and26 they do regular business in California and in this district.27 18. Venue in this Court is proper under the provisions of28 U.S.C. 1391(b)28 and (c) because a substantial part of the claims arose in this district.



7/56

23456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

SKECHERS' GOWALK OUTS OLE PERIPHERY DESIGN PATENTS19. The United States Patent and Trademark Office has acknowledged the novel

non-obvious, and ornamental appearance of the outsole periphery of the GOwalk shoe byissuing U.S. Patent, No. D661,880 (Exhibit 1, the "'880 patent") therefor to Skechers.Defendants' infringement of the '880 patent can be seen in the comparison below whichshows a sample figure from the '880 patent next to defendants' U.S. Polo Assn. shoe.

,. ..,,,/ \ ,-,, ' I \

,, I ' \/ \ / \,, " '\. _______ ......-" \,, ~ / ' ......... ...________________________ .,.__, , \,,.. ' \_________________________,.. ..- \; " :I I, lI II I

~ ' - - - : x ; A ' ~ __; : _ifnl __)_\l'l __ ~ k e c h e r ~ PERIPHERY Design Patent No. D661,880 (Medial view)

IllIl l

U.S. Polo Assn. (Medial view)



8/56

20. The United States Patent and Trademark Office has acknowledged the novel2 non-obvious, and ornamental appearance of the outsole periphery of the GOwalk shoe by3 issuing U.S. Patent, No. D 680,309 (Exhibit 2, the "'309 patent") therefor to Skechers.4 Defendants' infringement of the '309 patent can be seen in the comparison below which5 shows a sample figure from the '309 patent next to defendants' U.S. Polo Assn. shoe.6789

10111213141516171819202122232425 Il l26 Ill27 Il l28 Il l

Skechers PERIPHERY Design Patent No. D680,309 (Medial view)

U.S. POLO ASSN. (Medial view)



9/56

SKECHERS' GOWALK OUTSOLE PERIPHERY TRADE DRESS2 21. The trade dress embodied in the outsole periphery of the GOwalk shoe is3 shown in comparison to the U.S. Polo Assn. shoe below.456789

IOIII21314I5I6I7I8I9202I222324

S k e c h e r ~ G O w a ~ Periphery (Medial view)

U.S. Polo Assn. (Medial view)

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION(Design Patent Infringement, Patent No. US D661,880 S)

25 22. Skechers realleges and incorporates by reference the full text of all of the26 foregoing numbered paragraphs, photographs and figures as though each such paragraph,27 photograph and figure has been fully set forth hereat.28 Il l

9COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR (I) PATENT INFRINGEMENT, (2) FEDERAL UNFAIR COMPETITION ANDTRADE DRESS INFRINGEMENT, AND (3) COMMON LAW UNFAIR COMPETITION; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL


10/56

23. On June 19, 2012, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued2 United States Patent, Patent No. US D661,880 S, the '880 patent. At all times since the3 date of issue ofthe '880 patent, Skechers has been, and currently is, the exclusive owner4 of the entire right, title and interest in and to the '880 patent. Skechers' ownership of the5 '880 patent includes without limitation the exclusive right to enforce the '880 patent, the6 exclusive right to file actions based on infringement of the '880 patent, and the exclusive7 right to recover damages or other monetary amounts for infringement of the '880 patent8 and to be awarded injunctive relief pertaining to the '880 patent. Skechers has owned the9 '880 patent at all times during defendants' infringement of the '880 patent.

10 24. Defendants have been, and presently are, infringing the '880 patent within11 this judicial district and elsewhere by making and selling shoes that embody the patented12 invention disclosed in the '880 patent. Defendants' infringement of the '880 patent is13 willful. Defendants' infringing shoes are referred to as "U.S. Polo Assn." Defendants'14 U.S. Polo Assn. shoe is shown above and in Exhibit 3. Defendants will continue to15 manufacture and import their U.S. Polo Assn. shoes unless enjoined by this Court.16 25. The outsole periphery of defendants' U.S. Polo Assn. shoe so closely17 resembles the invention disclosed in the '880 patent that an ordinary observer would be18 deceived into purchasing the U.S. Polo Assn. shoe in the mistaken belief that it includes19 the invention disclosed in the '880 patent. Defendants' U.S. Polo Assn. shoe infringes the20 '880 patent in violation of35 U.S.C. 271 and 289.21 26. Due to Defendants' infringement of the '880 patent, Skechers has suffered, is22 suffering, and will continue to suffer irreparable injury for which Skechers has no23 adequate remedy at law. Skechers is therefore entitled to a permanent injunction against24 defendants' further infringing conduct.25 27. Defendants have profited and are profiting from their infringement ofthe26 '880 patent and Skechers has been and is being damaged and losing profit by such27 infringement. Skechers is therefore entitled to recover damages from defendants and the28 total profit derived from such infringement, all in an amount to be proven at trial.



11/56

23456789

IOIII2I3I4I5I6I7I8I9202I22232425262728

0SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Design Patent Infringement, Patent No. US D680,309 S)28. Skechers realleges and incorporates by reference the full text of all of the

foregoing numbered paragraphs, photographs and figures as though each such paragraph,photograph and figure has been fully set forth hereat.

29. On April23, 2013, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issuedUnited States Patent, Patent No. US D680,309 S, the '309 patent. At all times since thedate of issue of the '309 patent, Skechers has been, and currently is, the exclusive ownerof the entire right, title and interest in and to the '309 patent. Skechers' ownership of the'309 patent includes without limitation the exclusive right to enforce the '309 patent, theexclusive right to file actions based on infringement of the '309 patent, and the exclusiveright to recover damages or other monetary amounts for infringement of the '309 patentand to be awarded injunctive relief pertaining to the '309 patent. Skechers has owned the'309 patent at all times during defendants' infringement of the '309 patent.

30. Defendants have been, and presently are, infringing the '309 patent withinthis judicial district and elsewhere by making and selling shoes that embody the patentedinvention disclosed in the '309 patent. Defendants' infringement of the '309 patent iswillful. Defendants' infringing shoes are referred to as "U.S. Polo Assn." Defendants'U.S. Polo Assn. shoe is shown above and in Exhibit 3. Defendants will continue tomanufacture and import their U.S. Polo Assn. shoes unless enjoined by this Court.

31. The outsole periphery of defendants' U.S. Polo Assn. shoe so closelyresembles the invention disclosed in the '309 patent that an ordinary observer would bedeceived into purchasing the U.S. Polo Assn. shoe in the mistaken belief that it includesthe invention disclosed in the '309 patent. Defendants' U.S. Polo Assn. shoe infringes the'309 patent in violation of35 U.S.C. 271 and 289.

32. Due to defendants' infringement of the '309 patent, Skechers has suffered, issuffering, and will continue to suffer irreparable injury for which Skechers has no

11COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR (1) PATENT INFRINGEMENT, (2) FEDERAL UNFAIR COMPETITION ANDTRADE DRESS INFRINGEMENT, AND (3) COMMON LAW UNFAIR COMPETITION; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL


12/56

23456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

0adequate remedy at law. Skechers is therefore entitled to a permanent injunction againstdefendants' further infringing conduct.

33. Defendants have profited and are profiting from their infringement of the'309 patent and Skechers has been and is being damaged and losing profit by suchinfringement. Skechers is therefore entitled to recover damages from defendants and thetotal profit derived from such infringement, all in an amount to be proven at trial.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION(GOwalk Outsole Periphery Trade Dress- Federal Unfair Competition

and Trade Dress Infringement; 15 U.S.C. 1125(a))34. Skechers realleges and incorporates by reference the full text of all of the

foregoing numbered paragraphs, photographs and figures as though each such paragraph,photograph and figure has been fully set forth hereat.

35. Skechers has acquired exclusive and protectable trade dress rights embodiedin its GOwalk outsole periphery trade dress. By the acts and omissions set forth above,defendants are violating Lanham Act 43(a), 15 U.S.C. 1125(a) and are unfairlycompeting with Skechers. Defendants' use in commerce of the GOwalk outsoleperiphery on their U.S. Polo Assn. shoe constitutes a false designation of origin and afalse and misleading representation of fact which is likely to cause confusion, and tocause mistake, and to deceive by wrongly suggesting that defendants' U.S. Polo Assn.shoe has some affiliation, connection, or association with Skechers. Such use bydefendants of their U.S. Polo Assn. shoe is also likely to cause confusion, and to causemistake, and to deceive as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of defendants' U.S. PoloAssn. shoe. Such use by defendants of their U.S. Polo Assn. shoe constitutes trade dressinfringement in violation of Lanham Act 43(a), 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).

36. Defendants have infringed, and continue to infringe, Skechers' GOwalkoutsole periphery trade dress. Defendants' U.S. Polo Assn. shoe infringes Skechers'GOwalk outsole periphery trade dress.



13/56

37. Defendants' conduct is likely to cause confusion, mistake and deception2 among the general purchasing public, and interfere with Skechers' ability to sell and3 profit from its GOwalk outsole periphery trade dress.4 38. Defendants' conduct as described above is also likely to harm or extinguish5 the current ability of Skechers' GOwalk outsole periphery trade dress to indicate that that6 trade dress emanates from a single source. Defendants' conduct as described above7 harms the goodwill and reputation associated with Skechers' GOwalk outsole periphery8 trade dress.9 39. Skechers has suffered, is suffering, and will continue to suffer irreparable10 injury for which Skechers has no adequate remedy at law. Skechers is therefore entitled11 to a permanent injunction against defendants' further infringing conduct.12 40. Defendants have profited and are profiting from such trade dress13 infringement and unfair competition, and Skechers has been and is being damaged and14 losing profit by such infringement and unfair competition. Skechers is therefore entitled15 to recover damages and profits from defendants in an amount to be proved at trial as a16 consequence of defendants' violations ofLanham Act 43(a), 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).17 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION18 (Bikers Dream Come True Trade Dress- Federal Unfair Competition and Trade19 Dress Infringement; 15 U.S.C. 1125(a))20 41. Skechers realleges and incorporates by reference the full text of all of the21 foregoing numbered paragraphs, photographs and figures as though each such paragraph,22 photograph and figure has been fully set forth hereat.23 42. Skechers has acquired exclusive and protectable trade dress rights embodied24 in its Bikers Dream Come True shoe. By the acts and omissions set forth above,25 defendants are violating Lanham Act 43(a), 15 U.S.C. 1125(a) and are unfairly26 competing with Skechers. Defendants' copying and use in commerce of Skechers'27 Bikers Dream Come True trade dress constitutes a false designation oforigin and a false28 and misleading representation of fact which is likely to cause confusion, and to cause



14/56

23456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

mistake, and to deceive by wrongly suggesting that defendants' Wanda shoe has someaffiliation, connection, or association with Skechers' Bikers Dream Come True shoe.Such use by defendants of their Wanda shoe is also likely to cause confusion, and tocause mistake, and to deceive as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of defendants'Wanda shoe. Such use by defendants of their Wanda shoe constitutes trade dressinfringement in violation ofLanham Act 43(a), 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).

43. Defendants have infringed, and continue to infringe, Skechers' Bikers DreamCome True trade dress. Defendants' Wanda shoe infringes Skechers' Bikers DreamCome True trade dress. Defendants' Wanda shoe is shown above and in Exhibit 4.

44. Defendants' conduct is likely to cause confusion, mistake and deceptionamong the general purchasing public, and interfere with Skechers' ability to sell andprofit from its Bikers Dream Come True trade dress.

45. Defendants' conduct as described above is also likely to harm or extinguishthe current ability of Skechers' Bikers Dream Come True trade dress to indicate that thattrade dress emanates from a single source. Defendants' conduct as described aboveharms the goodwill and reputation associated with the Bikers Dream Come True tradedress.

46. Skechers has suffered, is suffering, and will continue to suffer irreparableinjury for which Skechers has no adequate remedy at law. Skechers is therefore entitledto a permanent injunction against defendants' further infringing conduct.

47. Defendants have profited and are profiting from such trade dressinfringement and unfair competition, and Skechers has been and is being damaged andlosing profit by such infringement and unfair competition. Skechers is therefore entitledto recover damages and profits from defendants in an amount to be proved at trial as aconsequence of defendants' violations ofLanham Act 43(a), 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).

IllIllIll



15/56

2345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION(Common Law Unfair Competition)

48. Skechers realleges and incorporates by reference the full text of all of theforegoing numbered paragraphs, photographs and figures as though each such paragraph,photograph and figure has been fully set forth hereat.

49. Defendants are willfully, fraudulently, oppressively, maliciously andunlawfully attempting to pass off, and are passing off, their infringing footwear as thoseapproved and/or authorized by Skechers.

50. Defendants' use in commerce of the U.S. Polo Assn. shoe and the Wandashoe continues to confuse and deceive consumers as to the source of origin of the goodsand services for which Skechers has invested substantial time, effort and money indeveloping and further damages Skechers' goodwill and reputation.

51. Defendants have been palming off their goods as Skechers' goods.Consumers have been and continue to be confused as to whether defendants' U.S. PoloAssn. shoe and defendants' Wanda shoe are affiliated with Skechers.

52. The damage suffered by Skechers is irreparable and will continue unlessdefendants are restrained by this Court from the commission of these acts.

53. Defendants' willful, deliberate and malicious conduct constitutes unfaircompetition with Skechers.

54. Such conduct by defendants is the sole reason for defendants' ability tomarket and sell their unauthorized copies of shoes that embody Skechers' GOwalkoutsole periphery trade dress and Bikers Dream Come True trade dress.

55. Defendants are being unjustly enriched through such flagrantly unlawfulconduct and should be punished therefor.

56. Skechers has no adequate remedy at law in that the continuing nature of theunfair competition will result in irreparable harm to Skechers should defendants not beenjoined from their acts ofunfair competition.



16/56

57. A complete recitation of the damages suffered by Skechers as a result of this2 unfair competition must await discovery of defendants' books and records.3 REQUEST FOR RELIEF4 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II5 respectfully demand a judgment against defendants as follows:6 1. A judgment declaring that defendants have:7 a. Infringed Skechers' '880 and '309 patents;8 b. Infringed Skechers' GOwalk outsole periphery trade dress;9 c. Infringed Skechers' Bikers Dream Come True trade dress;

I 0 d. Competed unfairly with Skechers;II e. Injured Skechers' business reputation by the unauthorized use of Skechers'I2 GOwalk outsole periphery trade dress;13 f. Willfully violated the applicable laws of the United States and of the statesI4 where defendants' goods have been sold, all to the detriment of Skechers;I5 2. That the defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys,I6 assigns and all persons in active concert with or participation with them be forthwithI7 preliminarily and thereafter permanently enjoined and restrained from:I8 a. Infringing or inducing infringement of the '880 and '309 patents;I9 b. Infringing or inducing infringement of Skechers' GOwalk outsole periphery20 trade dress or Skechers' Bikers Dream Come True trade dress;2I c. Using Skechers' GOwalk outsole periphery trade dress or Bikers Dream Come22 True trade dress, alone or in combination with any other elements, to advertise23 or identify defendants' goods or services;24 d. Unfairly competing with Skechers in any manner whatsoever;25 e. Causing likelihood of confusion, or injury to Skechers' business and to the26 reputation of Skechers' marks, symbols, labels, or forms of advertising or27 promotion;28 f. Engaging in any acts or activities directly or indirectly calculated to trade upon



17/56

23456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

Skechers' GOwalk outsole periphery trade dress or Bikers Dream Come True\trade dress or the reputation or goodwill ofSkechers, or in any way to compete

unfairly with Skechers;3. For a judgment directing that any shoes, goods, labels, emblems or packaging i

the possession or under the control of defendants which infringe the '880 patent or '309patent or any colorable imitation or facsimile thereof, but not emanating from Skechers,be delivered up and destroyed within 10 days of entry of udgment, and that allinstrumentalities used in the production of such shoes, goods, labels, emblems orpackaging, including any and all items, objects, tools, machines, and equipment used insuch production, be delivered up and destroyed within 10 days of entry of udgment;

4. For a judgment directing defendants to recall all infringing goods and any othermaterials sold, distributed, advertised or marketed which infringe the '880 patent and/or'309 patent or any colorable imitation or facsimile thereof, but not emanating fromSkechers;

5. For a judgment against defendants awarding Skechers damages, lost profits,reasonable royalties, and other monetary amounts including without limitation:

a. All damages sustained by Skechers as a result of defendants' unlawfulinfringement of the '880 patent and/or '309 patent, together with appropriateinterest on such damages and that such damages be trebled, pursuant to 35u.s.c. 284;

b. Defendants' total profit from defendants' sales of footwear that infringes the'880 patent and/or '309 patent, and all other remedies provided by 35 U.S.C. 289;

c. All remedies provided for by 15 U.S.C. 1117 (a), including but not limited toall damages sustained by Skechers as a result of defendants' unlawfulinfringement of the Skechers' GOwalk outsole periphery trade dress and BikersDream Come True trade dress together with appropriate interest on suchdamages and that such damages be trebled;



18/56

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

d. All remedies provided for by 15 U.S.C. 1117 (a), including but not limited toall profits derived by each of the defendants from the sale of goods by the director indirect use of any of shoes that embody Skechers' GOwalk outsoleperiphery trade dress or Skechers' Bikers Dream Come True trade dress or anycolorable imitations or facsimiles thereof, and that such profits be trebled;

e. All damages sustained by Skechers on account ofunfair competition, lostbusiness opportunities and any other damage suffered by Skechers as a result ofdefendants' acts described in this complaint, and that such damages be trebled;

6. For an order directing defendants to pay punitive damages to Skechers;7. For an order directing defendants to pay restitution to Skechers;8. For an award of attorneys' fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117;9. For an award ofpre-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law;10. For the costs of suit herein; and11. For such additional and further relief that the Court may deem just and proper

under the circumstances.

May24, 2013 By:

Kleinberg & Lerner, LLP

Marshall A. LernerBradford E. MattesAttorneys for Plaintiffs Skechers U.S.A., Inc.and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II

18COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR: (1) PATENT INFRINGEMENT, (2) FEDERAL UNFAIR COMPETITION ANDTRADE DRESS INFRINGEMENT, AND (3) COMMON LAW UNFAIR COMPETmON; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL


19/56

01 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL2 Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure and Local Rule 38-3 1, plaintiffs Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II demand a trial by jury of4 any and all issues triable of right by a jury pursuant to the Seventh Amendment to the5 United States Constitution or as given by a statute of the United States.678

Kleinberg & Lerner, LLP

9 May 24, 201310

By:Marshall A. LernerBradford E. Mattes11

1213141516171819202122232425262728

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Skechers U.S.A., Inc.and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II

19COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR: (1) PATENT INFRINGEMENT, (2) FEDERAL UNFAIR COMPETITION ANDTRADE DRESS INFRINGEMENT, AND (3) COMMON LAW UNFAIR COMPETITION; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL


20/56


21/56


22/56


23/56


24/56


25/56


26/56


27/56


28/56


29/56


30/56


31/56


32/56


33/56


34/56


35/56


36/56


37/56


38/56


39/56


40/56


41/56


42/56


43/56


44/56


45/56


46/56


47/56


48/56


49/56


50/56


51/56


52/56


53/56


54/56


55/56


56/56

Sketchers v. Anthony L & S, LLC - Complaint

Documents

Transcript of Sketchers v. Anthony L & S, LLC - Complaint