Man Wah v. Raffel - Fourth Amended Complaint

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
RAFFEL SYSTEMS, LLC,

Case No. 2:18-cv-01765
Plaintiff,
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
v.
MAN WAH HOLDINGS LTD., INC.,

MAN WAH (USA) INC., AND
XYZ COMPANIES 1-10.
Defendants.
FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Raffel Systems, LLC (“Raffel” or “Plaintiff”), by its undersigned counsel, and
for its Complaint against Defendants Man Wah Holdings Limited, Inc., Man Wah (USA) Inc.,
and XYZ Companies 1-10 (collectively “Defendants”).
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This is a civil action for patent infringement, false marking, trade dress
infringement, unfair competition and false designation of origin, trade dress dilution, false
representation of fact, and misappropriation under federal law and Wisconsin state law resulting
from: (i) Defendants’ unauthorized manufacturing, causing to be manufactured, selling, offering
for sale, and/or importing into the United States counterfeit cup holder products made to imitate
Raffel’s cup holder products with the intent to deceive consumers as to their origin;
(ii) Defendants’ false marking of counterfeit cup holder products; (iii) Defendants’
manufacturing, causing to be manufactured, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing into the
United States cup holder products and theater seating arrangements containing the cup holder
Case 2:18-cv-01765-NJ Filed 10/11/19 Page 1 of 55 Document 108

products which are not authorized by Raffel; (iv) Defendants’ manufacturing, causing to be
manufactured, selling, offering for sale, importing into the United States, and/or distributing,
without Raffel’s authorization, cup holder products which blatantly infringe an issued cup holder
design patent owned by Raffel; and (v) Defendants’ manufacturing, causing to be manufactured,
selling, offering for sale, importing into the United States, and/or distributing, without Raffel’s
authorization, switches which blatantly infringe an issued switch design patent owned by Raffel.
2. Raffel’s claims arise under the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.
(the “Lanham Act”), the patent laws of the United States 35 U.S.C. §§101, et seq., federal
common law, and under Wisconsin statutory law.
3. Raffel seeks to enjoin Defendants from the continued distribution of counterfeit
products, which pose a threat to consumer safety and to Raffel’s reputation, and seeks monetary
and punitive damages for Defendants’ unlawful importation, offer for sale, sale, and distribution
of counterfeit cup holder products and Defendants’ unauthorized and illegal acts.
PARTIES
4. Raffel is incorporated under the laws of the state of Wisconsin and has its
principal address at N112 W14600 Mequon Road, Germantown, WI 53022.
5. Upon information and belief, Man Wah Holdings Ltd. (“Man Wah Holdings”) is a
foreign corporation incorporated with limited liability in Bermuda, with a registered office at
Canon’s Court, 22 Victoria Street, Hamilton HM 12, Bermuda. Man Wah Holdings has a
principal place of business at 1st Floor, Wah Lai Industrial Center, 10-14 Kwei Tei Street, Fotan,
New Territories, Hong Kong. On information and belief, Man Wah Holdings is the sole owner or
owns a controlling interest in Man Wah (USA), Inc., a Nevada corporation whose listed
registered agent is Silver State Legal, 4625 West Nevso Drive, Suite 2, Las Vegas, NV 89103.

6. Upon information and belief, Man Wah (USA), Inc. is a corporation organized
under the laws of the State of Nevada with its principal place of business at 688 North Main
Street, High Point, NC 27260. Upon information and belief, Man Wah (USA), Inc. also operates
under, does business as, or uses the name “Cheers” or “Cheers / Man Wah (USA), Inc.” Man
Wah Holdings Limited, Inc. and Man Wah (USA) Inc. are herein referred to collectively as
“Man Wah” or “Defendants."
7. Upon information and belief, Man Wah is acting in conjunction with various
Defendant XYZ Companies whose identities are not presently known. If Defendant XYZ
Companies identities become known, the Complaint herein will be amended to include the
names of these companies.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8. Raffel’s claims arise under the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.
(the “Lanham Act”), the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§101, et seq., federal
common law and Wisconsin state law. Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction over the subject
matter pursuant to at least 15 U.S.C. § 1121(a), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, and 1338(a) and (b). This
Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Raffel’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
9. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because events giving rise to
the causes of action alleged herein occurred and are occurring in this district. Defendants’
counterfeit products were purchased by independent, third party, bona fide purchasers who were
fooled into thinking the counterfeit products were made by Raffel. These third party purchasers
of counterfeit products contacted Raffel regarding defects, failures, and/or other non-working
conditions of the counterfeit products. The third party purchases sent the counterfeit products to
Raffel, demanding repair or replacement of the defective, counterfeit products at Raffel’s
expense. Upon inspecting the products, Raffel personnel determined that they were not made by

Raffel, although the counterfeit products were marked with Raffel’s patent numbers. The
products themselves were articles of furniture made by Defendants and include one or more of
Raffel’s cup holders and/or switches. Defendants have, without the consent of Raffel, falsely
marked their counterfeit products with the numbers of United States patents that are wholly
owned and controlled by Raffel. As a result, Defendants are deceiving and inducing the public to
believe that the counterfeit products are Raffel’s products. Defendants do business in Wisconsin
and within this district and/or have otherwise established contacts with Wisconsin making the
exercise of personal jurisdiction proper. Defendants market, distribute, and/or sell counterfeit
products throughout the United States, including to customers within this judicial district.
Defendants market, distribute, and/or sell products that infringe one or more patents owned by
Raffel throughout the United States, including to customers within this judicial district.
Defendants derive substantial revenue from infringing and counterfeit products provided to
customers, distributors and/or vendors residing in Wisconsin and in this district.
10. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to at least 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)
and (c) and 1400: Defendant Man Wah Holdings Limited, Inc. is a foreign corporation. Injuries
from Defendants’ actions have been and will continue to be felt in this district. A substantial part
of the events and omissions giving rise to the claims herein have occurred in this district.
Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this district.
BACKGROUND FACTS
11. Raffel is a manufacturing company with a range of products in the seating,
bedding, and industrial marketplaces.
12. Raffel competes in various seating, bedding, and industrial markets. Raffel makes
and markets cup holders, including Raffel’s Home Theatre and Integrated Cup Holder products.

13. Raffel has protected its technologies and designs through a broad range of
intellectual property rights. Raffel holds over sixty patents related to seating arrangement
components.
14. Raffel is the owner by assignment of all right, title, and interest in and to U.S.
Patent. No. 7,766,293 (hereinafter “the ‘293 Patent”) entitled “Lighted Cup Holder for Seating
Arrangements,” issued on August 3, 2010. A true and complete copy of the ‘293 Patent is
attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 1.
Arrangements,” issued on May 6, 2014. A true and complete copy of the ‘505 Patent is attached
to the Complaint as Exhibit 2.
Arrangements,” issued on March 10, 2015. A true and complete copy of the ‘882 Patent is
Arrangements,” issued on August 21, 2018. A true and complete copy of the ‘968 Patent is
Patent. No. 10,299,603 (hereinafter “the ‘603 Patent”) entitled “Lighted Cup Holder for seating
arrangements,” issued on May 28, 2019. A true and complete copy of the ‘603 Patent is attached
to the Complaint as Exhibit 5.

Patent. No. D643,252 (hereinafter “the ‘252 Patent”) entitled “Cup Holder,” issued on August
16, 2011. A true and complete copy of the ‘252 Patent is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 6.
Patent. No. D821,986 (hereinafter “the ‘986 Patent”) entitled “Switch,” issued on July 3, 2018. A
true and complete copy of the ‘986 Patent is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 21.
21. For many years, Raffel has continuously engaged in the development,
manufacture, and sale of theater and integrated cup holder products. Raffel created unique,
distinctive, and non-functional designs for its integrated cup holder products.
22. Raffel also holds trade dress rights relating to the source-identifying features of its
integrated cup holder designs. Raffel has extensively and continuously promoted and sold its
integrated cup holders for years, throughout in the United States generally and throughout
Wisconsin specifically. Through that extensive and continuous promotion and use, Raffel’s
designs have become well-known indicators of the origin and quality of Raffel’s cup holder
products. Raffel’s cup holder designs have also acquired substantial secondary meaning in the
marketplace.
23. Raffel sells a variety of integrated cup holder products, including cup holders with
the model numbers: “ICH LR TS BLK DIMP MW,” “ICH LR HR TS BLK DIMP MW,” and
others model numbers (see Exhibit 19), each of which possesses an ornamental design
encompassed by Raffel’s ‘252 Patent and trade dress rights. Hereinafter these cup holder
products are referred to as “Integrated Cup Holder (ICH) Products.” Raffel has invested
substantially in the design, development, manufacture, and marketing of Raffel’s ICH Products.
24. Raffel sells additional proprietary cup holder products referred to as “CHB cup
holder products” (see Exhibit 7 at pages 8-10).

25. Raffel has expended significant resources in advertising and marketing the ICH
and CHB Products.
26. Raffel has enjoyed significant sales of the ICH Products throughout the United
States, including to customers in the state of Wisconsin. Raffel’s ICH Products are, and have
been, the top-selling cup holder product in the motion furniture industry for over eight (8) years.
Raffel’s ICH Products are, and have been, essential components in many of the top-selling
motion furniture pieces over the last eight (8) years, including the revolutionary “transformer”-
style sofa, which is retailed by the vast majority of retail furniture outlets in the United States.
Raffel’s ICH Products are used by over thirty (30) furniture manufacturers.
27. Raffel’s ICH Products’ designs have distinctive and non-functional features that
identify to consumers that the origin of the ICH Products is Raffel. As a result of Raffel’s
continuous and exclusive use of its ICH Products, its marketing, advertising, and sales of the
products, its enforcement of its intellectual property rights in the products, and the highly
valuable goodwill and substantial secondary meaning acquired as a result, Raffel owns trade
dress rights in the designs and appearances of the ICH Products. Looking at the overall
appearance of Raffel’s ICH products and the visually indistinguishable counterfeit cup holder
products at issue in this case (See, e.g., Exhibit 7 at pages 1-7), as a consumer or user would in
the marketplace, there are a number of arbitrary and non-functional design features that serve as
an indication of source including, for example, the shape, design and color of the rim of the cup
holder, the shape, design and color of the cup holder portion of the cup holder, the shape, design,
position, color and size of the extended portion of the rim of the cup holder, the shape, design,
position, color and size of the dimples within the extended portion of the rim, the shape, design,
position, color and size of icons within the dimples including the color of the icons when the cup
is powered on and the icons are illuminated, the shape, position, color, and size of the light ring

including the color of the light ring when the cup is powered on and the ring is illuminated, and
the shape, design, position, color and size of labels on the cup holder. For example, the shiny
silver color of the interior and exterior of the cup holder in combination with the black color of
the rim at the top of the cup holder, an elongated C-shaped extension of the rim that is
approximately one-third the circumference of the rim and approximately doubles the width of the
rim at the location of the C-shaped extension, five circular dimples evenly spaced within the
elongated C-shaped extension of the rim, icons within the dimples, and labels on the bottom
exterior portion of the cup holder that are of a specific design, shape, position, size and color that
include text of a certain font, color and size that include model number, purchase order and date
codes, and U.S. Patent Numbers, may each be considered trade dress features. The prominent
and inherently distinctive, non-functional, trade dress features distinguish Raffel’s ICH products
from competitor cup holder products in the marketplace. Consumers have come to associate
these designs with Raffel. Raffel’s trade dress rights in the designs and appearances of its ICH
Products are collectively referred to as “Raffel’s Trade Dress.”
28. The ‘293 Patent, the ‘505 Patent, the ‘882 Patent, the ‘968 Patent, the ‘603 Patent
the ‘252 Patent, and the ‘986 Patent are presumed to be valid pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 282(a).
29. Raffel has enjoyed commercial success in the furniture industry via selling its
patented cup holder products, selling its patented switches, and via licensing various third parties
to use technology encompassed by Raffel’s intellectual property.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS – DEFENDANTS’ UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES
30. Without Raffel’s permission, Defendants are making, using, offering for sale,
selling, importing and/or distributing cup holder products and seating arrangements (e.g., theater
seating arrangements) containing cup holder products that are falsely marked to indicate that the
cup holder products are manufactured by, originate from, are authorized by, and/or are licensed

from Raffel (referred to herein as “Counterfeit Cup Holder Products”). At least some fraction of
the cup holders and seating arrangements sold by Defendants are not made by Raffel, are not
authorized by or licensed from Raffel, and do not originate from Raffel in any way.
31. Specifically, Defendants are making, using, offering for sale, selling, importing
and/or distributing Counterfeit Cup Holder Products that, unless disassembled to identify that
they are not authentic Raffel products, are verbatim copies or very close imitations of Raffel’s
proprietary cup holder products.
32. Affixed to Defendants’ Counterfeit Cup Holder Products is a label that is an exact
imitation of a label that Raffel affixes to its proprietary cup holders. The label recites the model
number (MOD#) of the product and the purchase order number (PO#) of the product, followed
by its manufacture date, along with the relevant number(s) of the U.S. Patent(s) that cover
Raffel’s products. The patent numbers listed in the Defendants’ Counterfeit Cup Holder Products
identify patents wholly owned by Raffel. Upon information and belief, Defendants have
undertaken these illegitimate actions with both the ICH and CHB Cup Holder Products.
33. Also affixed to Defendants’ Counterfeit Cup Holder Products is an inspection
sticker that is an exact imitation of the inspection sticker Raffel affixes to its proprietary cup
holder products. A comparison of an authentic cup holder proprietary to Raffel and a
Defendants’ Counterfeit Cup Holder Product is attached hereto as Exhibit 7.
34. Defendants are making, using, offering for sale, selling, importing, and/or
distributing falsely marked, Counterfeit Cup Holder Products with the intent to fraudulently
deceive consumers into believing that the cup holder products are Raffel products.
35. Defendants have deceived consumers to believe that Defendants’ Counterfeit Cup
Holder Products are Raffel products.

36. On September 7, 2018, Raffel was contacted by an employee of Flatrock
Furniture, Pulaski TN, regarding a cup holder that had failed in a “Cheers Power Recliner”
manufactured by Man Wah. The Flatrock employee requested a replacement cup holder. Upon
Raffel’s inspection of the failed cup holder, Raffel identified the cup holder as a counterfeit. See
Exhibit 8. Exhibit 8 is a series of photographs showing the defective “Cheers Power Recliner”
that was shipped from Flatrock Furniture to Raffel for repair. Included in Exhibit 8 is a series of
photographs depicting the defective Counterfeit Cup Holder and its associated electronic
controls.
37. The failed cup holder in the Cheers Power Recliner manufactured by Man Wah is
an exact copy of Raffel’s proprietary cup holder model “ICH LR TS BLK DIMP MW.” Affixed
to Defendants’ Counterfeit Cup Holder Product was a label identical to a label that Raffel affixes
to its proprietary cup holders that recites the model number (MOD#) and the purchase order
number (PO#), followed by the manufacture date, and the numbers of the relevant U.S. patents
covering the product. The patent numbers listed identify patents wholly owned by Raffel. Also
affixed to Defendants’ Counterfeit Cup Holder Product was an inspection sticker identical to the
inspection sticker Raffel affixes to its proprietary cup holders. See the second page, middle
photograph of Exhibit 8.
38. The employee of Flatrock Furniture believed the Counterfeit Cup Holder Product
to be a Raffel cup holder. The employee of Flatrock Furniture contacted Raffel to have the
defective, Counterfeit Cup Holder repaired or replaced, again thinking that the cup holder was
made by Raffel. The cup holder was not made by Raffel.
39. The Cheers Power Recliner contained a second, different, Counterfeit Cup Holder
Product. This second Counterfeit Cup Holder was also a slavish copy of Raffel’s proprietary cup
holder model “PN ICH S BLK LP DIMP MW.” This cup holder design includes a light ring
10

controlled by a switch located in the first counterfeit cup holder. Affixed to the second
Counterfeit Cup Holder Product was a label identical to a label that Raffel affixes to its
proprietary cup holders. Again, this label recites the model number (MOD#), the purchase order
number (PO#), the date of manufacture, and the relevant U.S. Patent numbers. The patent
numbers listed identify patents wholly owned by Raffel. Also affixed to second Defendants’
Counterfeit Cup Holder Product was an inspection sticker identical to the inspection sticker
Raffel affixes to its proprietary cup holders. See Exhibit 8.
40. Upon Raffel’s inspection of Defendants’ Counterfeit Cup Holder Products, Raffel
observed that there had been an electrical failure that caused charring and burning of the cup
holder apparatus, including failure of a circuit board to which Defendants’ Counterfeit Cup
Holder Products were attached through electrical cords. See Exhibit 18.
41. Both of Defendants’ Counterfeit Cup Holder Products present in the Cheers
Power Recliner were made and sold with the intent to fraudulently deceive purchasers into
believing that Defendants’ Counterfeit Cup Holder Products are Raffel products.
42. By Defendants’ acts, purchasers of the Cheers Power Recliner were falsely led to
believe that Defendants’ Counterfeit Cup Holder Products present in the Cheers Power Recliner
were Raffel cup holder products.
43. On September 18, 2018, Raffel received a phone call from a consumer requesting
two replacement cup holders for a sofa marketed and sold to him under the “Pulsar” brand name.
The Pulsar brand is manufactured by Man Wah. The consumer purchased the Pulsar-brand sofa
from Value City Furniture, Glen Burnie, MD. Raffel requested the consumer send the cup
holders to Raffel. According to the consumer, the cup holders had failed to work.
11

44. Upon Raffel’s inspection of the failed cup holders, Raffel identified the cup
holders present in the Pulsar furniture as Counterfeit Cup Holder Products. See Exhibit 9, which
is a series of photographs of the failed cup holders described in paragraph 42.
45. The failed Counterfeit Cup Holder Products present in the Pulsar-brand sofa
manufactured by Man Wah were copies of Raffel’s proprietary cup holder model “ICH LR HR
TS BLK DIMP MW.” Affixed to Defendants’ Counterfeit Cup Holder Products was a label
identical to a label that Raffel affixes to its proprietary cup holders. Again, the label recites the
model number (MOD#), the purchase order number (PO#), the date of manufacture date, and the
relevant U.S. patent numbers. The listed patent numbers identify patents owned by Raffel. Also
affixed to Defendants’ Counterfeit Cup Holder Products was an inspection sticker identical to the
inspection sticker Raffel affixes to its proprietary cup holders.
46. The customer that purchased the Pulsar sofa believed Defendants’ Counterfeit
Cup Holder Products were Raffel cup holders as evidenced by the fact that he contacted Raffel
when the Counterfeit Cup Holder Products failed.
47. Both Counterfeit Cup Holder Products present in the Pulsar sofa were made and
sold with the intent to fraudulently deceive purchasers into believing that the cup holder products
are Raffel products.
48. Purchasers of the Pulsar sofa believed that Defendants’ Counterfeit Cup Holder
Products present in the Pulsar sofa were Raffel cup holder products.
49. On September 24, 2018, Raffel purchased a Man Wah Pulsar Dual Power Sofa
from Value City Furniture, 22 Mountain Road, Glen Burnie, MD 21060. The following are the
specifics of this particular Man Wah Pulsar Dual Power Sofa:
Value City SKU – 1787969
Name of Piece of Furniture – Pulsar Dual Power Sofa
12

Model Number – X9990M-L32ETL-PB
Manufacture Date – Manufactured by Man Wah (Cheers) on 5/31/2018.
50. The Pulsar Sofa was delivered by Value City to Raffel. Upon inspection, Raffel
identified that the sofa contained two counterfeit “ICH LR HR TS BLK DIMP MW” cup holders
(Counterfeit Cup Holder Products) See Exhibit 10, which is a series of photographs of the
Counter Cup Holders found in the Pulsar Dual Power Sofa.
51. The Counterfeit Cup Holder Products present in the Pulsar Sofa manufactured by
Man Wah are near-verbatim copies of Raffel’s proprietary cup holder model “ICH LR HR TS
BLK DIMP MW.” Affixed to each of the Counterfeit Cup Holder Products was a label identical
to the label Raffel affixes to its proprietary cup. The label recites the model number (MOD#), the
purchase order number (PO#), the date of manufacture, and the numbers of the relevant U.S.
patents. The patent numbers listed identify patents owned by Raffel. Also affixed to each
Counterfeit Cup Holder Product was an inspection sticker identical to the inspection sticker
Raffel affixes to its proprietary cup holders.
52. Both Counterfeit Cup Holder Products present in the Pulsar sofa were made and
sold with the intent to fraudulently deceive purchasers into believing that the cup holder products
are Raffel products.
53. On October 1, 2018, Raffel purchased a Man Wah Transporter Power Recline
sofa from Steinhafels Furniture, W231 N1013 County Hwy F, Waukesha, WI 53186. The
following are the specifics of this Man Wah Transporter Power Recline sofa:
Steinhafel SKU – 392302560
Name of Piece of Furniture – Transporter Power Recline Sofa
Model Number – X9990M
Manufacture Date – Manufactured by Man Wah (Cheers), July 2018.

13

54. The Transporter sofa contained two integrated cup holders. Raffel identified the
right side facing (RSF) cup holder as an authentic Raffel “ICH LR HR TS BLK DIMP MW” cup
holder. Raffel identified the left side facing (LSF) cup holder as a counterfeit “ICH LR HR TS
BLK DIMP MW” cup holder. See Exhibit 11, which is a series of photographs of the
Transporter-brand sofa and the cup holders integrated into the sofa.
55. The Counterfeit Cup Holder Product in the Transporter sofa manufactured by
Man Wah is a near-verbatim copy Raffel’s proprietary cup holder model “ICH LR HR TS BLK
DIMP MW.” Affixed to the Counterfeit Cup Holder Product was a label identical to the label
that Raffel affixes to its proprietary cup holders. As in the other counterfeit products, the label
recites the model number (MOD#), the purchase order number (PO#), the date of manufacture,
and the numbers of the relevant U.S. patents. The patent numbers listed identify patents owned
by Raffel. Also affixed to each Counterfeit Cup Holder Product was an inspection sticker
identical to the inspection sticker Raffel affixes to its proprietary cup holders.
56. The Counterfeit Cup Holder Product present in the Transporter sofa was made
and sold with the intent to fraudulently deceive purchasers into believing that the cup holder
product is a Raffel product.
selling, and/or importing components utilized in conjunction with Defendants’ Counterfeit Cup
Holder Products that are marked to indicate that the components are manufactured by, originate
from, are authorized by, and/or licensed from Raffel. These components are referred to herein as
“Counterfeit Components.” The Counterfeit Components are not Raffel’s, are not authorized by
Raffel, do not originate from Raffel in any way, nor from a party authorized by Raffel.
14

58. Defendants are making, using, offering for sale, selling, importing and/or
distributing counterfeit cord harnesses (hereinafter “Counterfeit Cord Harness(es)” that are
verbatim or near-verbatim copies Raffel’s cord harnesses. Affixed to each Counterfeit Cord
Harness is a label that is a slavish copy of a label that Raffel affixes to its cord harness
component. Both Raffel’s bona fide label and the counterfeit label recite the model number
(MOD#), the purchase order number (PO#), and the date of manufacture.
59. On October 1, 2018, Raffel purchased a Man Wah Transporter Power Recline
sofa from Steinhafels Furniture, W231 N1013 County Hwy F, Waukesha, WI 53186. The
following are the specifics of this piece of furniture:
Steinhafel SKU – 392302560
Name of Piece of Furniture – Transporter Power Recline Sofa
Model Number – X9990M
Manufacture Date – Manufactured by Man Wah (Cheers), July 2018.
60. As described above, the Transporter sofa contained one authentic Raffel “ICH LR
HR TS BLK DIMP MW” cup holder and one Counterfeit Cup Holder Product (a counterfeit
“ICH LR HR TS BLK DIMP MW” cup holder). (See paragraphs 52-55, above, and Exhibit 11).
61. The Transporter sofa contained two separate, Counterfeit Cord Harnesses, one
attached to the authentic Raffel cup holder and one attached to the Counterfeit Cup Holder
Product. (See Exhibit 12, which is a series of photos of the Counterfeit Cord Harnesses).
62. Defendants are making, using, offering for sale, selling, importing and/or
distributing the Counterfeit Cord Harnesses with the intent to fraudulently deceive consumers
into believing that the Counterfeit Cord Harnesses are Raffel products.
63. Defendants sell a line of furniture known as Oaklyn. During the summer of 2019,
Raffel discovered that Defendants’ Oaklyn line of furniture at Macy’s contain Counterfeit CHB
15

Cup Holder Products which were made to exactly imitate Raffel’s proprietary cup holder model
nos. CHB R2ULBA 01 MW and CHB SBA 01 MW.
64. Affixed to at least some of the Counterfeit CHB Cup Holder Products is a label
identical to a label that Raffel affixes to its proprietary cup holders that recites model number
(MOD#) and purchase order number (PO#) followed by manufacture date. Also affixed to the
Counterfeit CHB Cup Holder Products is an inspection sticker identical to the inspection sticker
Raffel affixes to its proprietary cup holders.
65. Thus, it appears Defendants not only copied Raffel’s product but also its labeling.
66. Attached as Exhibit 7 (page 8) is a picture of a sofa (Style/Description 5325L32
EHT PM Sofa BRWN Leather) manufactured by Man Wah sold at Macy’s Furniture Gallery,
1200 N Meacham Road, Schaumberg, IL 60173 on July 4, 2019. The Right Side Facing (RSF)
arm of the sofa contained a Counterfeit CHB Cup Holder Product (copy of Raffel’s CHB
R2ULBA 01 MW cup holder). The Left Side Facing (LSF) arm of the sofa contained an
authentic Raffel CHB R2ULBA 01 MW cup holder. The appearances of the Counterfeit CHB
Cup Holder Product and the authentic Raffel CHB R2ULBA 01 MW cup holder were
indistinguishable when looking at the cup holders as installed in the sofa. However, when
removed, the Counterfeit CHB Cup Holder Product was identifiable by the absence of Raffel’s
patent numbers embossed on the bottom of the Counterfeit CHB Cup Holder Product (compared
to authentic, Raffel CHB R2ULBA 01 MW cup holders that have Raffel’s patent numbers
embossed on the bottom). Thus, this sofa contained an authentic Raffel CHB R2ULBA 01 MW
cup holder comingled with a Counterfeit CHB Cup Holder Product.
67. Attached as Exhibit 7, page 10 is a picture of a chair (Style UX5325 L1-1EH)
manufactured by Man Wah sold at Macy’s Furniture Gallery, 1200 N Meacham Road,
Schaumberg, IL 60173 on July 5, 2019. The Left Side Facing (LSF) arm of the chair contained a
16

Counterfeit CHB Cup Holder Product (copy of Raffel’s CHB R2ULBA 01 MW cup holder). The
Right Side Facing (RSF) arm of the chair contained a Counterfeit CHB Cup Holder Product
(copy of Raffel’s CHB SBA 01 MW cup holder).
68. Upon information and belief, Defendants intentionally concealed the Counterfeit
CHB Cup Holder Products from Raffel and the Court during discovery and after the Court issued
an injunction against Defendants relating to their Counterfeit ICH Cup Holder Products.
69. To be sure, Defendants did not disclose the Counterfeit CHB Cup Holder
Products to Raffel or the Court.
70. Instead, Raffel had to discover the Counterfeit CHB Cup Holder Products through
their own efforts.
71. Defendants were obligated to disclose the Counterfeit CHB Cup Holder Products
during discovery.
72. Upon information and belief, Defendants may have copied additional Raffel
proprietary products but have refused to voluntarily disclose that information to Raffel and / or
the Court.
73. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ counterfeiting scheme included the
following steps.
74. First, Defendants would request and receive certain products from Raffel.
75. Upon information and belief, Defendants would then take Raffel’s products,
without Raffel’s knowledge, permission or authorization, to third-party Chinese manufacturers
that would copy the product within 3 days and have full-scale production capabilities for the
product within 7 days.
17

76. Next, Defendants would then order a small percentage of the products from Raffel
while obtaining the vast majority of inferior, defect-prone and cheaper counterfeit products from
a third-party Chinese manufacturer.
77. Defendants are not authorized to manufacture, sell, offer to sell, import and/or
distribute products that fall within the scope of one or more claims of the Asserted Patents.
selling, and/or importing cup holder products and seating arrangements (e.g., theater seating
arrangements) containing cup holder products that constitute direct infringement of one or more
claims of the Asserted Patents and/or induces or contributes to indirect infringement of the
Asserted Patents by Defendants and/or Defendants’ distributors, vendors, retailers, and/or
customers.
79. Upon information and belief, Man Wah is a producer and supplier in the home
furnishings and home theater seating industry that makes, sells, offers to sell, imports, and
distributes a variety of home furnishing goods containing integrated cup holder products.
80. Upon information and belief, Defendant Man Wah made, used, sold, offered for
sale, imported and/or distributed a wide variety of items including home furnishing goods
containing cup holder products including, but not limited to, Man Wah’s furniture products
including power recline home theater chairs, loveseats, and sofas sold under the “Cheers” brand
name, under the “Pulsar” brand name, under the “Transporter” brand name, under the “Nicholas”
brand name, and under other brand names to be identified, in the United States, in Wisconsin,
and in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
81. Upon information and belief, Man Wah has infringed (literally and/or under the
doctrine of equivalents) and continues to infringe at least one claim of the ‘293 Patent by
making, importing, selling, and/or offering to sell Man Wah’s Cheers-, Pulsar-, Transporter-, and
18

Nicholas-branded seating products, each of which contain one or more cup holder apparatuses
covered by at least claims 1, 10, and 12 of the ‘293 Patent, within the United States, and/or by
contributing to or inducing such infringement.
82. Claim 1 of the ‘293 Patent recites:
1. A lighted cup holder apparatus for a seating arrangement, the

apparatus comprising:
at least one lighted cup holder having a cup holder body and a light-
producing light source, with the cup holder body being adapted for attachment
to the seating arrangement and having a cup receptacle therein, and the light-
producing light source being disposed within the receptacle for illuminating the
receptacle;
and a lighted element disposed within the cup receptacle and
operatively connected to the light source for receiving light from the light
source and illuminating the receptacle; wherein the lighted element comprises
an elongated member of translucent material having the light source attached
thereto;
wherein the cup holder body includes a substantially tubular sidewall,
substantially closed at a lower end thereof by a bottom wall, and open at a top
end thereof, such that the tubular sidewall and bottom wall define the cup
holding receptacle, and wherein the side wall or the bottom wall include one or
more slots or holes therethrough;
wherein the lighted element is attached within the receptacle adjacent
to the bottom wall of the cup holder body and mounted upon a mounting
surface, the tubular sidewall is stepped inward adjacent to the bottom wall to
form the mounting surface.
83. Man Wah’s seating arrangement products including Cheers-, Pulsar-,
Transporter-, and Nicholas-branded seating products each include a lighted cup holder apparatus
comprising at least one lighted cup holder having a cup holder body and a light-producing light
source, with the cup holder body being adapted for attachment to the seating arrangement and
having a cup receptacle therein, and the light-producing light source being disposed within the
receptacle for illuminating the receptacle.
84. The lighted cup holder apparatus of Man Wah’s Cheers-, Pulsar-, Transporter-,
and Nicholas-branded seating products each have a lighted element disposed within the cup
receptacle and operatively connected to the light source for receiving light from the light source
19

and illuminating the receptacle, wherein the lighted element comprises an elongated member of
translucent material having the light source attached thereto.
and Nicholas-branded seating products each have a cup holder body that includes a substantially
tubular sidewall, substantially closed at a lower end thereof by a bottom wall, and open at a top
end thereof, such that the tubular sidewall and bottom wall define the cup holding receptacle, and
wherein the side wall or the bottom wall include one or more slots or holes therethrough.
and Nicholas-branded seating products each have the lighted element attached within the
receptacle adjacent to the bottom wall of the cup holder body and mounted upon a mounting
surface, the tubular sidewall being stepped inward adjacent to the bottom wall to form the
mounting surface.
87. Exemplary pieces of Man Wah’s Cheers-, Pulsar-, Transporter-, and Nicholas-
branded seating products are shown in Exhibit 13.
88. The Claim Chart attached as Exhibit 14 describes how Man Wah’s Cheers-,
Pulsar-, Transporter-, and Nicholas-branded seating products infringe at least Claims 1, 10, and
12 of the ‘293 Patent.
importing, selling, and/or offering to sell Man Wah’s Cheers-, Pulsar-, Transporter-, and
covered by at least claims 1, 2, and 3 of the ‘505 Patent, within the United States, and/or by
contributing to or inducing such infringement.
20

A cup holder apparatus for a seating arrangement, the apparatus

comprising:
a) a cup holder body adapted for attachment to the seating
arrangement and having a cup receptacle therein, wherein the cup holder
body includes a substantially tubular sidewall, substantially closed at a lower
end thereof by a bottom wall, and open at a top end thereof, such that the
tubular sidewall and bottom wall define the cup holding receptacle; and
b) a flange extending substantially radially outward from the tubular
side wall at the open top end of the cup holder, wherein the flange comprises
a control switch, wherein the control switch is operatively linked to and
controls:
i) a powered reclining mechanism of the seating arrangement,
or
ii) a massaging mechanism of the seating arrangement.
91. Man Wah’s seating arrangement products including Cheers-, Pulsar-,
Transporter-, and Nicholas-branded seating products each include a cup holder apparatus
comprising a cup holder body adapted for attachment to the seating arrangement and having a
cup receptacle therein, wherein the cup holder body includes a substantially tubular sidewall,
substantially closed at a lower end thereof by a bottom wall, and open at a top end thereof, such
that the tubular sidewall and bottom wall define the cup holding receptacle.
92. Each cup holder apparatus integral to Man Wah’s Cheers-, Pulsar-, Transporter-,
and Nicholas-branded seating products has a flange extending substantially radially outward
from the tubular side wall at the open top end of the cup holder that includes a control switch that
is operatively linked to and controls a powered reclining mechanism or a massage mechanism of
the seating arrangement.
93. A control switch present in the flange of a cup holder apparatus attached to a Man
Wah seating arrangement such as a Cheers-, Pulsar-, Transporter-, and Nicholas-branded seating
arrangement is an integral component of the entire seating arrangement product in that the
21

control switch is operatively linked to and controls a power recline component of the seating
arrangement or a massage component of the seating arrangement.
Pulsar-, Transporter-, and Nicholas-branded seating products infringe at least Claims 1, 2, and 3
of the ‘505 Patent.
importing, selling, and/or offering to sell Man Wah’s Cheers-, Pulsar-, Transporter-, and
covered by at least Claims 1, 2, 3, 12, and 13 of the ‘882 Patent, within the United States, and/or
by contributing to or inducing such infringement.
A cup holder apparatus for a seating arrangement, the apparatus

comprising:
a) a cup holder body adapted for attachment to the seating
arrangement and having a cup receptacle therein wherein the cup holder
body includes a substantially tubular sidewall, substantially closed at a
lower end thereof by a bottom wall, and open at a top end thereof, such that
the tubular sidewall and bottom wall define the cup holding receptacle; and
b) a flange extending substantially radially outward from the tubular
side wall at the open top end of the cup holder, wherein the flange comprises
a control switch that is operatively linked to and controls a component of the
seating arrangement other than the cup holder apparatus.
98. Man Wah’s seating arrangement products, including Cheers-, Pulsar-,
Transporter-, and Nicholas-branded seating products, each include a cup holder body adapted for
attachment to the seating arrangement and having a cup receptacle therein wherein the cup
22

holder body includes a substantially tubular sidewall, substantially closed at a lower end thereof
by a bottom wall, and open at a top end thereof, such that the tubular sidewall and bottom wall
define the cup holding receptacle.
99. Each cup holder apparatus integral to Man Wah’s Cheers, Pulsar, Transporter, and
Nicholas seating products has a flange extending substantially radially outward from the tubular
side wall at the open top end of the cup holder, wherein the flange comprises a control switch
that is operatively linked to and controls a component of the seating arrangement other than the
cup holder apparatus.
Wah seating arrangement such as a Cheers, Pulsar, Transporter, and Nicholas seating
arrangement is an integral component of the entire seating arrangement product in that the
control switch is operatively linked to and controls a component of the seating arrangement such
as a power recline component of the seating arrangement, a massage component of the seating
arrangement, or a light producing light source of the seating arrangement.
Pulsar-, Transporter-, and Nicholas-branded seating products infringe at least Claims 1, 2, 3, 12,
and 13, of the ‘882 Patent.
doctrine of equivalents) and continues to infringe the ‘968 Patent by importing, selling, and/or
offering to sell Man Wah’s Cheers, Pulsar, Transporter, and Nicholas seating products, each of
which is a movie theater seating arrangement covered by at least claims 9, 10, 11, and 13, of the
‘968 Patent, within the United States, and/or by contributing to or inducing such infringement.
23

9. A movie theater seating arrangement comprising a cup holder apparatus, the

cup holder apparatus comprising
a) a cup holder body adapted for attachment to the seating arrangement and
having a cup receptacle therein, wherein the cup holder body includes a substantially
tubular sidewall, closed or substantially closed at a lower end thereof by a bottom wall,
and open at a top end thereof, such that the tubular sidewall and bottom wall define the
cup holding receptacle; and
b) a flange extending substantially radially outward from the top end of the cup
holder body, wherein the flange comprises a control switch that is operatively linked to
and controls a component of the seating arrangement other than the cup holder apparatus.
105. Man Wah’s seating arrangement products, including the Cheers-, Pulsar-,
Transporter-, and Nicholas-branded seating products, are each theater seating arrangements
containing a cup holder apparatus comprising a cup holder body adapted for attachment to the
seating arrangement and having a cup receptacle therein wherein the cup holder body includes a
substantially tubular sidewall, substantially closed at a lower end thereof by a bottom wall, and
open at a top end thereof, such that the tubular sidewall and bottom wall define the cup holding
receptacle.
106. Each cup holder apparatus integral to Man Wah’s Cheers, Pulsar, Transporter, and
Nicholas theater seating products has a flange extending substantially radially outward from the
top end of the cup holder body, wherein the flange comprises a control switch that is operatively
linked to and controls a component of the seating arrangement other than the cup holder
apparatus.
Wah theater seating arrangement, such as a Cheers-, Pulsar-, Transporter-, and Nicholas-branded
seating arrangement, is an integral component of the entire theater seating arrangement product
in that the control switch is operatively linked to and controls a component of the theater seating
arrangement such as a power recline component of the theater seating arrangement, a massage
24

component of the theater seating arrangement, or a light producing light source of the theater
seating arrangement
109. The Claim Chart attached as Exhibit 17 describes how Man Wah’s Cheers, Pulsar,
Transporter, and Nicholas theater seating products infringe each of Claims 9, 10, 11, and 13, of
the ‘968 Patent.
110. Upon information and belief, Man Wah, without Raffel’s authorization, made,
used, offered for sale, sold, and/or imported a wide variety of items including, inter alia, Man
Wah’s Cheers-, Pulsar-, Transporter-, and Nicholas-branded seating products (the “Accused Cup
Holder Design Products”), each of which include a cup holder having a design that violates the
claim Raffel’s ‘252 Patent.
111. Upon information and belief, the overall appearance of the design of the ‘252
Patent and the corresponding cup holder designs of the Accused Cup Holder Design Products are
substantially the same.
112. Upon information and belief, an ordinary observer will perceive the overall
appearance of the design of the ‘252 Patent and the corresponding cup holder designs of the
Accused Cup Holder Design Products to be substantially the same.
113. Table 1 below illustrates Man Wah’s infringement of the ‘252 Patent by
comparing figures of the ‘252 patent with exemplary images of infringing products.
25

Table 1: Comparison of ‘252 Patent With Exemplary Infringing Products
‘252 Patent Figures Man Wah seating arrangements
marketed and sold under “Cheers,”
“Pulsar,” “Transporter,” “Nicholas,”
and other brands containing Accused
Cup Holder Design Products
FIG. 1
FIG. 3
26

FIG. 4
FIG. 5
27

FIG. 8
114. Upon information and belief, Man Wah intended to copy the design covered by
the ‘252 Patent.
115. Man Wah has infringed and continue to infringe claim 1 of the ‘252 Patent by
making, using, importing, selling, and/or offering to sell Accused Cup Holder Design Products
within the United States.
116. Man Wah has purposefully marketed, offered for sale, sold, and distributed, and
continues to market, offer for sale, sell, and distribute Accused Cup Holder Design Products that
violate Raffel’s rights, including the rights protected by the ‘252 patent and Raffel’s Trade Dress.
Upon information and belief, Man Wah also is making or having made and/or importing
infringing Accused Cup Holder Design Products into the United States. Man Wah’s products are
confusingly similar imitations of Raffel’s products. Man Wah’s actions have all been without the
authorization of Raffel.
28

117. As a result of Man Wah’s activities related to the infringing Accused Cup Holder
Design Products, there is a strong likelihood of confusion between Man Wah and their products
on the one hand, and Raffel and its products on the other hand.
118. Raffel used Raffel’s Trade Dress extensively and continuously before Man Wah
began marketing, selling, offering to sell, importing or distributing Man Wah’s infringing
Accused Cup Holder Design Products. Raffel’s Trade Dress acquired secondary meaning in the
United States and in the State of Wisconsin before Man Wah commenced unlawful use of
Raffel’s Trade Dress.
119. Upon information and belief, Man Wah, acting alone and acting in concert with
and through agents and/or intermediaries, has used or sold Counterfeit Cup Holder Products
including falsely marked Counterfeit Cup Holder Products, within this judicial district and have
placed such products in the stream of commerce with knowledge that the likely destination of the
Counterfeit Cup Holder Products is within this judicial district and throughout the United States.
120. Upon information and belief, Man Wah, without Raffel’s authorization, made,
used, offered for sale, sold, and/or imported a wide variety of items including, inter alia, Man
Wah seating products including Zach Leather Power Sofa products, Cheers-branded seating
products (e.g., including Cheers products sold under Dallas Collection, The McCarthy Leather
Collection, Manning Collection, Banner Collection, Bradley Collection, Glenn Collection, Brant
Collection; Megan Collection, Motion High Back Collection, Contemporary Power Reclining
Collection, The Cheers Living Room Sectional, The Cheers Living Room Dual Reclining
Loveseat, The Cheers Sectional, and others to be discovered), the Genella Collection, and Brant
Collection, and other collections to be discovered (the “Accused Switch Design Products”), each
seating arrangement containing a switch having a design that violates Raffel’s ‘986 Patent.
29

121. Upon information and belief, the overall appearance of the design of the ‘986
Patent and the corresponding switch designs of the Accused Switch Design Products are
substantially the same.
122. Upon information and belief, an ordinary observer will perceive the overall
appearance of the design of the ‘986 Patent and the corresponding switch designs of the Accused
Switch Design Products to be substantially the same.
123. Table 2 below illustrates Man Wah’s infringement of the ‘986 Patent by
comparing figures of the ‘986 patent with exemplary images of infringing products.

‘252 Patent Figures Man Wah’s Accused Switch Design
Products (e.g., Zach Leather Power
Sofa, Cheers seating products, and
Genella and Brant Collection
products
FIG. 1
FIG. 2
30

FIG. 5
FIG. 6
124. Upon information and belief, Man Wah intended to copy the design covered by
the ‘986 Patent.
125. Man Wah has infringed and continues to infringe claim 1 of the ‘986 Patent by
making, using, importing, selling, and/or offering to sell the Accused Switch Design Products
within the United States.
126. Upon information and belief, Man Wah has infringed and continues to infringe
one or more claims of the ‘293 Patent with knowledge and/or reckless disregard amounting to
willful and intentional infringement.
31

the ‘252 Patent with knowledge and/or reckless disregard amounting to willful and intentional
infringement.
the ‘986 Patent with knowledge and/or reckless disregard amounting to willful and intentional
infringement.
and through agents and/or intermediaries, has used or sold infringing products within this judicial
district and have placed products infringing one or more claims of the ‘293 Patent in the stream
of commerce with knowledge that the likely destination of the infringing products is within this
judicial district and throughout the United States.
and through agents and/or intermediaries, have used or sold infringing products within this
judicial district and have placed products infringing one or more claims of the ‘505 Patent in the
stream of commerce with knowledge that the likely destination of the infringing products is
within this judicial district and throughout the United States.
32

judicial district and have placed products infringing the ‘252 Patent in the stream of commerce
with knowledge that the likely destination of the infringing products is within this judicial district
and throughout the United States.
judicial district and have placed products infringing the ‘986 Patent in the stream of commerce
with knowledge that the likely destination of the infringing products is within this judicial district
and throughout the United States.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(False Marking Under 35 U.S.C. § 292)
138. Raffel restates and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 137 above as though set forth
fully herein.
139. In violation of 35 U.S.C. § 292, Defendants falsely marked their Counterfeit Cup
Holder Products by affixing thereto United States patent numbers that are wholly owned and
33

controlled by Raffel for the purpose of counterfeiting and/or deceiving the public into believing
that the Counterfeit Cup Holder Products are made, offered for sale, sold, or imported into the
United States by or with the consent of Raffel.
Holder Products by affixing thereto an exact imitation of a label that Raffel affixes to its
proprietary cup holders that recites the model number (MOD#), the purchase order number
(PO#), the date of manufacture, and the relevant U.S. patent numbers identifying patents wholly
owned by Raffel, for the purpose of counterfeiting and/or deceiving the public into believing that
the Counterfeit Cup Holder Products are made, offered for sale, sold, or imported into the United
States by or with the consent of Raffel.
Holder Products by affixing thereto an exact imitation of an inspection sticker Raffel affixes to
its proprietary cup holder products for the purpose of counterfeiting and/or deceiving the public
into believing that the Counterfeit Cup Holder Products are made, offered for sale, sold, or
imported into the United States by or with the consent of Raffel.
142. In violation of 35 U.S.C. § 292, Defendants falsely marked their Counterfeit Cord
Harnesses by affixing thereto an exact imitation of a label that Raffel affixes to its cord harness
components that recites Raffel model numbers (MOD#) and purchase order numbers (PO#),
followed by date of manufacture, for the purpose of counterfeiting and/or deceiving the public
into believing that the Counterfeit Cord Harnesses are made, offered for sale, sold, or imported
into the United States by or with the consent of Raffel.
143. Raffel has been competitively harmed in commerce by Defendants’ false marking
because it has deceived customers, and may persuade future customers and potential customers,
into believing that Defendants’ Counterfeit Cup Holder Products, which are marketed and sold
34

competitively with Raffel’s cup holder products, are Raffel products or are authorized by Raffel,
when in fact neither is true.
144. Raffel has also been competitively harmed in commerce by Defendants’ false
marking because consumers have identified Defendants’ Counterfeit Cup Holder Products as
being Raffel products. Defendants’ Counterfeit Cup Holder Products have failed and thus pose a
serious risk to consumer safety,
145. Defendants’ false marking has caused and will continue to cause irreparable harm
to Raffel unless Defendants are enjoined by this Court from any further making, offering for
sale, sales, using, or importation into the United States of Defendants’ Counterfeit Cup Holder
Products and Defendants’ Counterfeit Cord Harnesses. Raffel has no adequate remedy at law.
146. Under 35 U.S.C. § 292(b), Raffel is entitled to recover any damages adequate to
compensate it for the competitive injury resulting from Man Wah’s false marking.
147. As demonstrated by the facts described herein, this is an exceptional case under
35 U.S.C. § 285, and Raffel is entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees. The Court should
also impose a fine upon Defendants of $500.00 per offense for false marking pursuant to 35
U.S.C. § 292(a).
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Infringement of the ‘252 Patent Under 35 U.S.C. § 271)
fully herein.
149. Defendants, without authorization from Raffel, have made, used, offered for sale,
sold, and/or imported in or into the United States, and continue to make, use, offer for sale, sell,
and/or import in or into the United States, products that infringe the ‘252 Patent.
35

150. Defendants’ infringement of the ‘252 Patent has been and continues to be willful
and deliberate.
151. Defendants’ infringement will continue unless enjoined by this Court.
152. As a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants’ infringement of the ‘252
Patent, Raffel has suffered, is suffering, and unless enjoined by the Court, will continue to suffer
injury, for which Raffel is entitled to damages pursuant to at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 281, 284, 285,
and 289 of an amount to be proved at trial.
irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law, and for which Raffel is entitled to
injunctive relief pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Trade Dress Infringement Under § 43 of the Lanham Act, 15, U.S.C. § 1125(a))
fully herein.
155. Defendants’ offers to sell, sales, distribution and/or importation of the infringing
products violate § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) by infringing Raffel’s Trade
Dress. Defendants’ use of Raffel’s Trade Dress and/or colorable imitations thereof has caused
confusion, mistake, or deception as to the affiliation, connection, and/or association of
Defendants with Raffel and as to the origin, sponsorship, and/or approval of the infringing
products, at least by creating the false and misleading impression that the infringing products are
manufactured by, authorized by, or otherwise associated with Raffel.
156. Defendants’ use of Raffel’s Trade Dress and/or colorable imitations thereof is
likely to continue to cause confusion, mistake, or deception as to the affiliation, connection,
36

and/or association of Defendants with Raffel and as to the origin, sponsorship, and/or approval of
the infringing products, at least by creating the false and misleading impression that the
infringing products are manufactured by, authorized by, or otherwise associated with Raffel.
157. Raffel’s Trade Dress is entitled to protection under the Lanham Act. Raffel’s
Trade Dress includes unique, distinctive, and non-functional designs. Raffel has extensively and
continuously promoted and used its Trade Dress in the United States. Through that extensive
and continuous use, Raffel’s Trade Dress has become a well- known indicator of the origin and
quality of Raffel’s ICH Products. Raffel’s Trade Dress has also acquired substantial secondary
meaning in the marketplace. Moreover, Raffel’s Trade Dress acquired this secondary meaning
before Defendants commenced their unlawful use of Raffel’s Trade Dress in connection with the
infringing products.
158. Defendants’ use of Raffel’s Trade Dress has caused and, unless enjoined, will
continue to cause substantial and irreparable injury to Raffel for which Raffel has no adequate
remedy at law, including at least substantial and irreparable injury to the goodwill and reputation
for quality associated with Raffel’s Trade Dress, with Raffel and Raffel’s ICH Products.
159. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ use of Raffel’s Trade Dress has been
intentional, willful, and malicious. Defendants’ bad faith is evidenced at least by the similarity of
Defendants’ Counterfeit Cup Holder Products to Raffel’s Trade Dress, as demonstrated in, for
example, Exhibits 7 through 13, and in Table 1, above, by Defendants’ willful and malicious
false marking of Defendants’ Counterfeit Cup Holder Products, and by Defendants’ continuing
disregard for Raffel’s rights. The following arbitrary and non-functional design features are trade
dress features that serve as an indication of source: the shiny silver color of the interior and
exterior of the cup holder in combination with the black color of the rim at the top of the cup
holder, an elongated C- shaped extension of the rim that is approximately one-third the
37

circumference of the rim and approximately doubles the width of the rim at the location of the C-
shaped extension, five circular dimples evenly spaced within the elongated C-shaped extension
of the rim, icons within the dimples, and labels on the bottom exterior portion of the cup holder
that are of a specific design, shape, position, size and color that include text of a certain font,
color and size that include model number, purchase order and date codes, and U.S. Patent
Numbers. These prominent and inherently distinctive, non-functional trade dress features
distinguish Raffel’s ICH products from competitor cup holder products in the marketplace.
Defendants intentionally copied features of Raffel’s Trade Dress in order that Defendants’
Counterfeit Cup Holder Products be visually indistinguishable from Raffel’s ICH cup holders
(See, e.g., Exhibit 7).
160. Raffel is entitled to injunctive relief, and Raffel is entitled to recover at least
Defendants’ profits, Raffel’s actual damages, enhanced damages, costs, and reasonable attorney
fees under at least 15 U.S.C. §§ 1125(a), 1116, and 1117.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Unfair Competition and False Designation of Origin Under § 43 of the Lanham Act, 15,
U.S.C. § 1125(a))
fully herein.
products, in direct competition with Raffel, violate § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.
§ 1125(a) and constitute unfair competition and false designation of origin, at least because
Defendants have obtained an unfair advantage as compared to Defendants’ use of Raffel’s Trade
Dress and because such uses have actually caused consumer confusion as to the origin and/or
sponsorship/affiliation of the infringing products, and may continue to cause such confusion at
38

least by creating the false and misleading impression that the infringing products are
manufactured by, authorized by, or otherwise associated with Raffel.
continuously promoted and used its Trade Dress in the United States. Through that extensive
and continuous use, Raffel’s Trade Dress has become a well- known indicator of the origin and
quality of Raffel’s ICH Products. Raffel’s Trade Dress has also acquired substantial secondary
meaning in the marketplace. Moreover, Raffel’s Trade Dress acquired this secondary meaning
before Defendants commenced their unlawful use of Raffel’s Trade Dress in connection with the
infringing products.
disregard for Raffel’s rights.
39

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Trade Dress Dilution Under § 43 of the Lanham Act, 15, U.S.C. § 1125(a))
fully herein.
products violate § 43(c) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c).
Trade Dress includes unique, distinctive, and non-functional designs. Raffel’s Trade Dress has
acquired distinctiveness through Raffel’s extensive and continuous promotion and use of
Raffel’s Trade Dress in the United States. Through that extensive and continuous use, Raffel’s
Trade Dress has become a famous well-known indicator of the origin and quality of Raffel’s ICH
Products throughout the United States, and is widely recognized by consumers as a designation
of the source of Raffel and Raffel’s ICH Products. Raffel’s Trade Dress has also acquired
substantial secondary meaning in the marketplace. Moreover, Raffel’s Trade Dress became
famous and acquired this secondary meaning before Defendants commenced their unlawful use
of Raffel’s Trade Dress in connection with the infringing products.
170. Defendants’ use of Raffel’s Trade Dress is likely to cause, and has caused,
dilution of Raffel’s Trade Dress, at least by eroding the public’s exclusive identification of
Raffel’s Trade Dress with Raffel and Raffel’s ICH Products, by lessening the capacity of
Raffel’s Trade Dress to identify and distinguish Raffel’s ICH Products, by associating Raffel’s
Trade Dress with products of inferior quality, and by impairing the distinctiveness of Raffel’s
famous Trade Dress.
40

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
fully herein.
176. Specifically, the Counterfeit ICH Cup Holders infringe claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 11
and 16 of the ‘603 Patent, and the Counterfeit CHB Cup Holders infringe claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10,
11 and 16 of the ‘603 Patent.
and deliberate.
41

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Common Law Misappropriation)
fully herein.
products violate, in direct competition with Raffel, constitute common law misappropriation.
183. Raffel created the products covered by Raffel’s Trade Dress through extensive
time, labor, effort, skill, and money. Defendants have wrongfully used Raffel’s Trade Dress,
and/or colorable imitations thereof in competition with Raffel and gained a special advantage
because Defendants were not burdened with the expenses incurred by Raffel. Defendants have
commercially damaged Raffel, at least by causing consumer confusion as to origin and/or
sponsorship/affiliation of the infringing products, by creating the false and misleading
impression that the infringing products are manufactured by, authorized by, or otherwise
associated with Raffel, by falsely marking Defendants’ Counterfeit Cup Holder Products, and by
taking away sales that Raffel would have made.
42

184. Raffel’s Trade Dress is entitled to protection under the common law. Raffel’s
continuously promoted and used Raffel’s Trade Dress for years in the United States and the State
of Wisconsin. Through that extensive and continuous use, Raffel’s Trade Dress has become a
well-known indicator of the origin and quality of Raffel’s ICH Products. Raffel’s Trade Dress
has also acquired substantial secondary meaning in the marketplace. Moreover, Raffel’s Trade
Dress acquired this secondary meaning before Defendants commenced their unlawful use of
Raffel’s Trade Dress in connection with the infringing products.
continue to cause substantial and irreparable commercial injury to Raffel for which Raffel has no
adequate remedy at law, including at least substantial and irreparable injury to the goodwill and
reputation for quality associated with Raffel’s Trade Dress, Raffel, and Raffel’s ICH Products.
Moreover, as a result of its misappropriation, Defendants have profited and, unless such conduct
is enjoined by this Court, will continue to profit by misappropriating the time, effort, and money
that Raffel invested in establishing the reputation and goodwill associated with Raffel’s Trade
Dress, with Raffel, and Raffel’s ICH Products.
186. Defendants’ misappropriation of Raffel’s Trade Dress has been intentional,
willful, and malicious. Defendants’ bad faith is evidenced at least by the similarity of
187. Raffel is entitled to injunctive relief, and Raffel is also entitled to recover at least
Raffel’s damages, Defendants’ profits, punitive damages, costs, and reasonable attorney fees.
43

EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Unjust Enrichment)
fully herein.
products violate, in direct competition with Raffel, constitute unjust enrichment, at least because
Defendants have wrongfully obtained benefits at Raffel’s expense. Defendants have also, inter
alia, operated with an undue advantage.
190. Raffel created the products covered by Raffel’s Trade Dress through extensive
time, labor, effort, skill, and money. Defendants have wrongfully used and are wrongfully using
Raffel’s Trade Dress, and/or colorable imitations thereof, in competition with Raffel, and have
gained and are gaining a wrongful benefit by undue advantage through such use. Defendants
have not been burdened with the expenses incurred by Raffel, yet Defendants are obtaining the
resulting benefits for their own business and products.
191. Raffel’s Trade Dress is entitled to protection under the common law. Raffel’s
continuously promoted and used Raffel’s Trade Dress for years in the United States and the State
of Wisconsin. Through that extensive and continuous use, Raffel’s Trade Dress has become a
well-known indicator of the origin and quality of Raffel’s ICH Products. Raffel’s Trade Dress
has also acquired substantial secondary meaning in the marketplace. Moreover, Raffel’s Trade
Dress acquired this secondary meaning before Defendants commenced their unlawful use of
Raffel’s Trade Dress and colorable imitations thereof in connection with the infringing products.
192. Defendants’ use of Raffel’s Trade Dress, and/or colorable imitations thereof, has
caused and, unless enjoined, will continue to cause substantial and irreparable commercial injury
44

to Raffel for which Raffel has no adequate remedy at law, including at least substantial and
irreparable injury to the goodwill and reputation for quality associated with Raffel’s Trade Dress,
with Raffel, and Raffel’s ICH Products. Raffel accumulated this goodwill and reputation through
extensive time, labor, effort, skill, and investment. Defendants have wrongfully obtained and are
wrongfully obtaining a benefit at Raffel’s expense by taking undue advantage and free-riding on
Raffel’s efforts and investments, and enjoying the benefits of Raffel’s hard-earned goodwill and
reputation.
193. Defendants’ unjust enrichment at Raffel’s expense has been intentional, willful,
and malicious. Defendants’ bad faith is evidenced at least by the similarity of Defendants’
Counterfeit Cup Holder Products to Raffel’s Trade Dress, as demonstrated in, for example,
Exhibits 7 through 13, and in Table 1, above, by Defendants’ willful and malicious false marking
of Defendants’ Counterfeit Cup Holder Products, and by Defendants’ continuing disregard for
Raffel’s rights.
194. Raffel is entitled to injunctive relief, and Raffel is also entitled to recover at least
Defendants’ profits.
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
fully herein.
45

and deliberate.
TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

fully herein.
203. The Counterfeit CHB Cup Holders infringe claims 1, 3, 5, 8 and 10 of the ‘505
Patent and, as stated above, the Counterfeit ICH Cup Holders infringe claims 1, 2 and 3 of the
‘505 Patent.
and deliberate.
46

ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

fully herein.
210. The Counterfeit CHB Cup Holders infringe claims 1, 3, 5 and 12 of the ‘882
Patent and, as stated above, the Counterfeit ICH Cup Holders infringe claims 1, 2, 3, 12 and 13
of the ‘882 Patent.
and deliberate.
47

TWELFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

fully herein.
217. The Counterfeit CHB Cup Holders infringe claims 9 and 13 of the ‘968 Patent
and, as stated above, the Counterfeit ICH Cup Holders infringe claims 9, 10, 11 and 13 of the
‘968 Patent.
and deliberate.
48

THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Breach of Contract)
fully herein.
223. Defendants ordered specific products from Raffel. The specific product
information is attached hereto as Exhibit 20.
224. Raffel accepted Defendants’ order, thereby creating a binding agreement between
the parties for the manufacture of these products.
225. Raffel made the requested products and attempted delivery to Defendants.
226. There was and is no problem with the products; they conform to the specifications
provided by Defendants.
227. Recently, during the pendency of this lawsuit, Defendants have improperly
refused to accept delivery of the products.
228. Defendants never inspected the products and had no basis for refusing delivery of
the products ordered and made by Raffel.
229. Defendants have not provided any basis for refusing delivery of the products
ordered and made by Raffel.
230. Defendants have refused to pay Raffel for these products.
231. Defendants have refused the products in order to pressure Raffel to dismiss its
current lawsuit against Defendants.
49

232. Defendants have materially breached the parties’ agreement with respect to these
products.
233. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ breach of contract, Raffel has
suffered monetary damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
FOURTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing)
fully herein.
235. Defendants promised to pay Raffel for specifically ordered products.
236. Raffel made the requested products and has attempted to deliver them to
Defendants.
237. Defendants are refusing to accept or pay for the products in order to bring
financial pressure on Raffel.
238. Defendants are refusing to accept or pay for the products in order to pressure
Raffel to drop this lawsuit.
239. Defendants’ actions are not made in good faith and are in breach of their implied
duties of good faith and fair dealing owed to Raffel.
240. Defendants’ actions caused harm to Raffel resulting in damages in an amount to
be determined at trial.
FIFTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
fully herein.
50

and deliberate.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Raffel respectfully prays that upon trial on the merits this Court render
Judgment in Raffel’s favor and against Defendants Man Wah Holdings Limited, Inc. and Man
Wah (USA) Inc. as follows:
A. Judgment that Defendants have (i) falsely marked Defendants’ products in
violation of 35 U.S.C. § 292; (ii) directly infringed and are directly infringing, the ‘252
Patent, the ‘293 Patent, the ‘505 Patent, the ‘882 Patent, the ‘968 Patent, the ‘603 Patent,
and the ‘986 Patent in violation of § 271 of Title 35 in the United States Code;
(iii) contributed to and are continuing to contribute to infringement of the ‘252 Patent, the
‘293 Patent, the ‘505 Patent, the ‘882 Patent, the ‘968 Patent, the ‘603 Patent, and the ‘986
51

Patent in violation of § 271 of Title 35 in the United States Code; (iv) infringed Raffel’s
Trade Dress in violation of § 1125(a) of Title 15 in the United States Code; (v) engaged in
unfair competition and false designation of origin in violation of § 1125(a) of Title 15 in
the United States Code; (vi) diluted Raffel’s Trade Dress in violation of § 1125(c) of Title
15 in the United States Code; (vii) engaged in common law misappropriation; and
(viii) been unjustly enriched at Raffel’s expense, and that these wrongful activities by
Defendants were willful;
B. Immediate injunctive relief and a permanent injunction prohibiting
Defendants and each of their managers, agents, employees, servants, attorneys, successors
and assigns, and all others in privity or acting in concert with any of them, from using
Raffel’s U.S. Patent Numbers, model number (MOD#), purchase order number (PO#) or
any other label that Raffel utilizes to identify a product as a Raffel product, on
Defendants’ products;
C. An injunction against further infringement of the ‘252 Patent, the ‘293 Patent,
the ‘505 Patent, the ‘882 Patent, the ‘603 Patent, the ‘968 Patent, and the ‘986 Patent, further
infringement of Raffel’s Trade Dress, further dilution of Raffel’s Trade Dress, further acts of
unfair competition, misappropriation, and unjust enrichment by Defendants and each of their
managers, agents, employees, servants, attorneys, successors and assigns, and all others in
privity or acting in concert with any of them, including at least from selling, offering to sell,
distributing, importing, or advertising the infringing products, or any other products that use a
copy, reproduction, or colorable imitation of Raffel’s Trade Dress including without limitation
Raffel’s U.S. patent numbers, model numbers (MOD#), or purchase order numbers (PO#),
pursuant to at least 35 U.S.C. § 283, and 15 U.S.C. § 1116;
52

D. An Order directing Defendants to recall all infringing products sold and/or
distributed and provide a full refund for all recalled infringing products;
E. An Order directing the destruction of (i) all infringing products, including all
recalled infringing products, and (ii) any other products that use Raffel’s Trade Dress
including Raffel’s U.S. patent numbers, model numbers (MOD#), or purchase order numbers
(PO#) in Defendants’ possession or control.
F. An Order directing Defendants to publish a public notice providing proper
attribution of Raffel’s Trade Dress to Raffel, and to provide a copy of this notice to all
customers, distributors, and/or others from whom the infringing products are recalled;
G. An Order barring importation of infringing and/or counterfeit products and/or
colorable imitations thereof into the United States, and barring entry of the infringing products
and/or colorable imitations thereof into any customhouse of the United States, pursuant to at
least 15 U.S.C. § 1125(b);
H. An award of damages adequate to compensate Raffel for the patent
infringements that have occurred pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, or an award of
Defendants’ profits from their patent infringements pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 289,
whichever is greater, together with prejudgment interest and costs and reasonable
attorney fees, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285.
I. An award of Defendants’ profits, Raffel’s actual damages, enhanced
damages, exemplary damages, costs and expenses incurred in bringing and prosecuting this
action, prejudgment and post judgment interest, and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to at
least 15 U.S.C. §§ 1125(a), 11125(c), 1116, and 1117 and Wis. Stat. § 100.18(11);
J. The Court fine Defendants $500.00 for each and every offense of false
marking and award one-half of such fine to Raffel;

53

K. An award of damages to compensate Raffel for Defendants’ actions
including but not limited to compensatory damages, general damages, incidental damages,
consequential damages and expectation damages;
L. Pre- and post-judgment interest of all amounts awarded at the maximum
rate allowed by law; and
M. For general and such further and other relief, at law or in equity, as to
which Raffel may show itself justly entitled.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Raffel hereby demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.
DATED: October 11, 2019

MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP
By: /s/ John C. Scheller

John C. Scheller, #1031247
Michelle L. Dama, #1041809
One South Pinckney Street, Suite 700
P.O. Box 1806
Madison, WI 53701-1806
Telephone: 608.257.3501
Facsimile: 608.283.2275
[email protected]
[email protected]
CASIMIR JONES, S.C.
Tyler J. Sisk, SBN 1054892

David A. Casimir, SBN 1036453
2275 Deming Way, Suite 310
Middleton, WI 53562
Telephone: 608.662.1277
Facsimile: 608.662.1276
E-Mail: [email protected]
[email protected]
54

DEWITT LLP
Joseph T. Leone, SBN 1018149

2 East Mifflin Street, Suite 600
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: 608.395.6743
Facsimile: 608.252.9243
E-Mail: [email protected]
Attorneys For Plaintiff Raffel Systems, LLC
55

Man Wah v. Raffel - Fourth Amended Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Man Wah v. Raffel - Fourth Amended Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Man Wah v. Raffel - Fourth Amended Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the nature of the action?

What is the nature of the action?

What parties are involved in the case?

What parties are involved in the case?

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

RAFFEL SYSTEMS, LLC,

MAN WAH HOLDINGS LTD., INC.,

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

and XYZ Companies 1-10 (collectively “Defendants”).

NATURE OF THE ACTION

from: (i) Defendants’ unauthorized manufacturing, causing to be manufactured, selling, offering

Case 2:18-cv-01765-NJ Filed 10/11/19 Page 1 of 55 Document 108

common law, and under Wisconsin statutory law.

3. Raffel seeks to enjoin Defendants from the continued distribution of counterfeit

principal address at N112 W14600 Mequon Road, Germantown, WI 53022.

Case 2:18-cv-01765-NJ Filed 10/11/19 Page 2 of 55 Document 108

“Man Wah” or “Defendants."

names of these companies.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Raffel, demanding repair or replacement of the defective, counterfeit products at Raffel’s

Case 2:18-cv-01765-NJ Filed 10/11/19 Page 3 of 55 Document 108

customers, distributors and/or vendors residing in Wisconsin and in this district.

Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this district.

11. Raffel is a manufacturing company with a range of products in the seating,

bedding, and industrial marketplaces.

Case 2:18-cv-01765-NJ Filed 10/11/19 Page 4 of 55 Document 108

attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 1.

to the Complaint as Exhibit 2.

attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 3.

attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 4.

to the Complaint as Exhibit 5.

Case 2:18-cv-01765-NJ Filed 10/11/19 Page 5 of 55 Document 108

holder products” (see Exhibit 7 at pages 8-10).

Case 2:18-cv-01765-NJ Filed 10/11/19 Page 6 of 55 Document 108

and CHB Products.

Case 2:18-cv-01765-NJ Filed 10/11/19 Page 7 of 55 Document 108

Products are collectively referred to as “Raffel’s Trade Dress.”

to use technology encompassed by Raffel’s intellectual property.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS – DEFENDANTS’ UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES

Case 2:18-cv-01765-NJ Filed 10/11/19 Page 8 of 55 Document 108

proprietary cup holder products.

33. Also affixed to Defendants’ Counterfeit Cup Holder Products is an inspection

holder products. A comparison of an authentic cup holder proprietary to Raffel and a

Defendants’ Counterfeit Cup Holder Product is attached hereto as Exhibit 7.

Holder Products are Raffel products.

Case 2:18-cv-01765-NJ Filed 10/11/19 Page 9 of 55 Document 108

made by Raffel. The cup holder was not made by Raffel.

Case 2:18-cv-01765-NJ Filed 10/11/19 Page 10 of 55 Document 108

Raffel affixes to its proprietary cup holders. See Exhibit 8.

were Raffel cup holder products.

Case 2:18-cv-01765-NJ Filed 10/11/19 Page 11 of 55 Document 108

is a series of photographs of the failed cup holders described in paragraph 42.

inspection sticker Raffel affixes to its proprietary cup holders.

when the Counterfeit Cup Holder Products failed.

are Raffel products.

specifics of this particular Man Wah Pulsar Dual Power Sofa:

Value City SKU – 1787969

Name of Piece of Furniture – Pulsar Dual Power Sofa