Kenu v. Belkin - Complaint
Kenu v. Belkin - Complaint
Kenu v. Belkin - Complaint
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
COMPLAINT
Case3:15-cv-01429 Document1 Filed03/27/15 Page2 of 10
1 JURISDICTION
2 6. This is a civil action seeking damages and injunctive relief for patent infringement,
3 trade dress infringement, unfair competition under California Business and Professions Code
4 § 17200 et seq., and common law unfair competition.
5 7. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this Court has federal subject matter jurisdiction over
6 Kenu’s claims for patent and trade dress infringement. Further, this Court has subject matter
7 jurisdiction pursuant to the following statutes: 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) (Acts of Congress relating to
8 patents); 15 U.S.C. § 1121 et seq. (the Lanham Act); and 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (a) (supplemental
9 jurisdiction over state and common-law claims).
10 8. The Northern District of California has personal jurisdiction over Belkin because,
11 among other things, Belkin maintains its corporate headquarters in California, Belkin is engaged in
12 wrongful conduct within the state of California and in this District, including placing into commerce
13 infringing goods via Belkin’s websites including at www.belkin.com and through retailers, and
14 infringing upon Kenu’s patent and trade dress rights in this judicial district. Belkin has maintained
15 substantial, continuous, and systematic contacts with the state of California through its business
16 dealings and activities within and with residents of the state of California. Belkin’s conduct causes
17 injury to and is directed at Kenu and its intellectual property in the state of California and this
18 District. But for Belkin’s conduct, Kenu would not have suffered damage.
19 VENUE AND INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
20 9. Venue is proper within this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c) because Belkin
21 transacts business within this District and offers for sale in this District products that infringe Kenu’s
22 intellectual property rights. Pursuant to Local Rule 3-2(c), intellectual property actions are assigned
23 on a district-wide basis.
24 FACTS APPLICABLE TO ALL CLAIMS
25 10. Kenu is a successful mobile phone accessory business that designs, develops, and
26 distributes artistic and functional mobile phone accessories that are one of a kind in today’s
27 marketplace. One such product by Kenu is the AIRFRAMETM, a portable hands free in-car mount
28 for mobile devices.
3
COMPLAINT
Case3:15-cv-01429 Document1 Filed03/27/15 Page4 of 10
6 12. The AIRFRAMETM was released in 2013 and has already received acclaim for the
7 utility and elegant design. The AIRFRAMETM is sold through numerous merchandisers, retailers,
8 and stores nationwide, including Apple Stores, Target, T-Mobile, Sprint, and Staples, to name just a
9 few. Kenu also markets and sells its AIRFRAMETM product on the Internet, including through its
11 13. In addition to its common law rights, Kenu sought protection for its intellectual
12 property rights associated with the AIRFRAMETM product by filing for a patent.
13 14. On October 1, 2013, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued United
14 States Patent No. US D690,707 (the “’707 patent”), entitled “Dashboard Vent Mount for an
15 Electronic Device,” for a portable hands free in-car mount for mobile devices. See attached
16 Exhibit A.
18
19
20
21
22 16. On December 11, 2012, the inventors of the ‘707 patent, Kenneth Minn and David E.
23 Yao, assigned all of their patent rights in the ‘707 patent to Kenu, which has continuously held the
25 17. The trade dress associated with Kenu’s AIRFRAMETM product is distinctive, non-
27 18. The trade dress associated with Kenu’s AIRFRAMETM product signifies the source of
1 19. As a result of considerable efforts, Kenu’s customers, and the general public, have
2 come to recognize Kenu as an established and successful mobile phone accessory business.
3 20. Kenu’s AIRFRAMETM product is one of a kind.
4 21. Kenu’s AIRFRAMETM product is manufactured with high quality materials designed
5 to maximize product durability and customer satisfaction.
6 22. Kenu’s designs are its own intellectual property. No goods of this design existed
7 prior to Kenu’s designs and patent.
8 23. AIRFRAMETM is Kenu’s most sought after and sold product.
9 24. Kenu makes substantial revenue from the AIRFRAMETM product.
10 25. In or about late 2014, Belkin introduced its Vent Mount product, which competes
11 with Kenu’s AIRFRAMETM in the market for portable hands free in-car mounts for mobile or
12 smartphone devices.
13 26. On information and belief, Belkin manufactures and/or imports, or causes to be
14 manufactured and/or imported the Vent Mount product into the United States and the Northern
15 District of California.
16 27. On information and belief, Belkin owns, controls, and/or manages the website at
17 www.belkin.com.
18 28. Belkin exposes for sale, offers to sell, and sells the infringing Vent Mount, including
19 to residents in the Northern District of California, through the website www.belkin.com, and through
20 third parties including at the following URLs:
21 a. http://amzn.com/B00O5JARCI;
22 b. http://store.apple.com/us/product/HH0J2ZM/;
23 c. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1107008-REG; and
24 d. http://www.frys.com/product/8331667.
25 29. On information and belief, Belkin markets and advertises the Vent Mount product
26 throughout the United States and in the Northern District of California using advertisements such as
27 the following:
28 ///
5
COMPLAINT
Case3:15-cv-01429 Document1 Filed03/27/15 Page6 of 10
1 a. http://www.belkin.com/uk/p/P-F8M879/; and
2 b. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4_FbJb-QX4.
3 30. Kenu purchased the Vent Mount, representative pictures of which are provided
4 below:
5
9 31. The Vent Mount available from Belkin violates Kenu’s patent and trade dress rights.
10 32. Kenu’s ‘707 patent covers the Vent Mount manufactured, imported, exposed for sale,
12 33. The Vent Mount violates Kenu’s trade dress rights in its AIRFRAMETM product by
13 causing confusion among ordinary consumers as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or approval
15 34. Representative side-by-side comparisons of the AIRFRAMETM and Vent Mount are
16 provided below:
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
COMPLAINT
Case3:15-cv-01429 Document1 Filed03/27/15 Page7 of 10
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
COMPLAINT
Case3:15-cv-01429 Document1 Filed03/27/15 Page8 of 10
1 35. Belkin’s willful and deliberate actions have caused significant harm to Kenu. Kenu
2 has lost customers and revenue due to the illegal and infringing product being put in to the stream of
3 commerce by Belkin.
4 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
PATENT INFRINGEMENT
5 35 U.S.C. § 271(a)
6 36. Kenu restates and incorporates all previous allegations of this Complaint by reference
8 37. Belkin has infringed upon the rights of Kenu’s ‘707 patent by making, exposing for
9 sale, offering to sell, selling, and importing the Vent Mount in the United States.
10 38. Belkin will continue to infringe the ‘707 patent unless enjoined by this Court.
11 39. Belkin’s acts are willful, in disregard of, and with indifference to, the rights of Kenu.
12 40. As a direct and proximate cause of the infringement by Belkin, Kenu is entitled to
13 damages, reasonable royalties and lost profits in amounts to be proven at trial, enhanced damages,
14 and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285. Additionally, Belkin is liable to Kenu to
15 the extent of its total profit, but not less than $250, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 289.
18 41. Kenu restates and incorporates all previous allegations of this Complaint by reference
19 as though set forth in full.
20 42. Belkin has engaged in infringement of Kenu’s trade dress rights in its AIRFRAMETM
21 product by placing into commerce the Vent Mount.
22 43. Belkin has offered and sold the Vent Mount, despite knowledge that the Vent Mount
23 being offered and sold is likely to cause confusion among ordinary consumers as to the source,
24 sponsorship, affiliation, or approval of Kenu’s AIRFRAMETM product.
25 44. Belkin’s acts are willful, in disregard of, and with indifference to the rights of Kenu.
26 45. As a direct and proximate cause of the infringement by Belkin, Kenu is entitled to
27 damages, reasonable royalties and lost profits in amounts to be proven at trial, enhanced damages,
28 and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117.
8
COMPLAINT
Case3:15-cv-01429 Document1 Filed03/27/15 Page9 of 10
15 49. Kenu restates and incorporates all previous allegations of this Complaint by reference
16 as though set forth in full.
17 50. The above described acts and omissions, including, but not limited to, Belkin’s
18 continued infringement of Kenu’s design patent, and their infringement of Kenu’s trade dress rights,
19 constitute Unfair Competition at Common Law.
20 51. By reason of these wrongful acts and omissions by Belkin, Kenu has suffered and
21 will suffer damage. Additionally, these wrongful acts and omissions by Belkin have caused, and
22 unless restrained and enjoined by this Court will continue to cause serious irreparable injury and
23 damage to Kenu.
24 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1 4. Belkin’s total profit, but not less than $250, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 289;
2 5. Enhanced damages;
3 6. Kenu’s attorney’s fees and costs as provided by law; and
4 7. Such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.
5 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
6 In accordance with Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Kenu respectfully
7 demands a jury trial of all issues triable to a jury in this action.
8
9 Dated: March 27, 2015 NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP
10
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
COMPLAINT
Case3:15-cv-01429 Document1-1 Filed03/27/15 Page1 of 5
EXHIBIT A
Case3:15-cv-01429 Document1-1 Filed03/27/15 Page2 of 5
IIIIII 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
USOOD690707S
11111111111
c12) United States Design Patent (10) Patent No.: US D690, 707 S
Minn et al. (45) Date of Patent: ** Oct. 1, 2013
US D690, 707 S
Page 2
FIG.1
FIG.3
FIG. 7 FIG. 8
Case3:15-cv-01429 Document1-1 Filed03/27/15 Page5 of 5
r:- r~~
FIG. 11 FIG. 12 FIG. 13
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff San Francisco County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Los Angeles
(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)
See Attachment
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)
1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4
of Business In This State
2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State