Meijer v. Design Ideas - Complaint
Meijer v. Design Ideas - Complaint
Meijer v. Design Ideas - Complaint
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.
KCP-4565376-3
information in violation of the Copyright Act. DI sent similar threatening letters to Whitmors
customers, including Meijer and TJX. DI has threatened legal action against Plaintiffs if
Whitmor does not pay DI a one-time cash payment of $215,124.34.
In this action, Plaintiffs seek the Courts entry of a judgment declaring that their sale of
Whitmors Canary Clips clothes pins does not infringe DIs trademark or copyright and
Plaintiffs have not violated the Lanham Act, the Copyright Act, or any other laws.
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1.
2202 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 57, for the purpose of determining an actual controversy between the
parties, as hereinafter more fully appears.
PARTIES
2.
Upon information and belief, DI is an Illinois corporation with its principal place
The rights and disputes at issue in this action include rights arising under the
Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C 1051 et seq., and Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C 101 et seq.
7.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over DI because DI maintains continuous and
systematic contacts in the forum state and because DI has purposefully directed its activities at
the forum state and this litigation results from injuries that arose of or relate to those activities.
9.
10.
In Spring 2013, Whitmor commenced selling a clothes pin design under the mark
CANARY CLIPS.
11.
Whitmor sold Canary Clips to the Meijer supercenter retail chain and to TJX
which operates, inter alia, the T.J. Maxx retail store chain.
12.
registration dated May 29, 2013 for its clothes pin design sold under the mark SPARROW
CLIPS (Copyright Registration VA 1-867-185).
13.
DIs clothes pin design sold under the mark SPARROW CLIPS is a useful article.
14.
DIs copyright registration is invalid because the subject matter of the registration
is a useful article.
15.
Plaintiffs use of the CANARY CLIPS mark does not infringe DIs alleged mark
SPARROW CLIPS.
16.
On or about June 13, 2014, counsel for DI sent a letter to Whitmor in which DI
alleged that Whitmors sale of its Canary Clips clothes pins infringed DIs copyright and
trademark in violation of state and federal laws and demanded that Whitmor, its customers and
all affiliated with it immediately cease and desist from all reproduction, marketing, sales, and
3
distribution of the CANARY CLIPS (the Whitmor Cease and Desist Letter). A true and
accurate copy of the Whitmor Cease and Desist Letter is attached hereto as Exhibit A and
incorporated herein by this reference.
17.
On or about June 13, 2014, counsel for DI sent a letter to TJX in which DI alleged
that TJXs sale of Canary Clips infringed DIs copyright and trademark in violation of state
and federal laws and demanded that TJ Maxx and all affiliated with it immediately cease and
desist from all marketing, sales, and distribution of the CANARY CLIPS (the TJX Cease and
Desist Letter). A true and accurate copy of the TJX Cease and Desist Letter is attached hereto
as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference.
18.
alleged that Meijers sale of Canary Clips infringed DIs copyright and trademark in violation
of state and federal laws and demanded that Meijer and all affiliated with it immediately cease
and desist from all marketing, sales, and distribution of the CANARY CLIPS (the Meijer
Cease and Desist Letter). A true and accurate copy of the Meijer Cease and Desist Letter is
attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by this reference.
19.
On or about January 23, 2015, DI sent Whitmor another letter accusing Whitmor
21.
In the same letter dated January 23, 2015, DI accused Whitmors CEO and
President of knowing and willful infringement and claimed Meijer and Whitmor face financial
liability, jointly and severally, and Whitmors officer personally, of at least $344,867.73, a
figure that DI warned will likely rise.
22.
DI has threatened legal action against Whitmor and its customers if Whitmor does
An actual controversy exists between the parties hereto regarding Plaintiffs right
DIs actions have caused Plaintiffs to have a real and reasonable apprehension of
litigation instituted by DI, alleging willful infringement of DIs rights, including claims arising
under the Copyright and Lanham Acts and claims for actual damages, Whitmors profits,
Whitmors customers profits, including Meijer and TJX, statutory damages, and attorneys fees.
25.
As a direct and proximate cause of DIs actions, Plaintiffs have and will continue
to suffer damages.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court to enter judgment in their favor
and against DI as follows:
(A)
Declaring that Plaintiffs use of the CANARY CLIPS mark does not violate any
rights of DI under the Lanham Act or any other laws;
(B)
Declaring Plaintiffs Canary Clips do not infringe any valid copyright owned by
DI;
(C)
(D)
(E)
Declaring Plaintiffs did not otherwise violate the Copyright Act in any manner;
(F)
(G)
(H)
(I)
For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
JURY DEMAND
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38, Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial on all issues so
triable.
MILLER JOHNSON
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
By
6
MJ_DMS 26933801v1 29819-1
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C