PC, LLC v. Schedule A - Complaint

Case: 1:23-cv-03501 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/02/23 Page 1 of 28 PageID #:1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
PC, LLC,
Plaintiff,
V. No. 23-cv-3501
THE PARTNERSHIPS AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS
IDENTIFIED IN SCHEDULE "A",
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
PC, LLC ("Plaintiff'), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby files this
Complaint for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, offering for sale and
selling counterfeit goods in violation of Plaintiff's exclusive rights, design patent infringement,
copyright infringement, violations of the Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and civil
conspiracy against the Partnerships and Uninco1porated Associations Identified m
Schedule "A" (together, "Defendants"). In suppo1i hereof, Plaintiff states as follows:
I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This Comi has original subject matter jurisdiction over the claims in this action
pursuant to the provisions of the Lanham Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051, et seq., the Patent
Act, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., the Federal Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101, et seq, 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a)
(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This Comi has jurisdiction over the claims in this action that arise under
the laws of the State of Illinois pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because the state law claims are
so related to the federal claims that they fo1m pa1i of the same case or controversy and derive from
a common nucleus of operative facts.
1
2. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, and this Court may
properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendants, since each Defendant directly targets
business activities toward consumers in the United States, including Illinois, through their
operation of or assistance in the operation of the fully interactive, commercial internet stores
operating under the Defendant domain names and/or the Defendant Internet Stores identified in
Schedule A. Specifically, each of the Defendants directly reaches out to do business with Illinois
residents by operating or assisting in the operation of one or more commercial, interactive e-
commerce stores that sell products using counterfeit versions of Plaintiff’s federally registered
trademark, and/or sell products featuring Plaintiff’s patented design, and/or sell products using or
bearing infringing versions of Plaintiff’s federally registered copyrighted works directly to Illinois
consumers. In short, each Defendant is committing tortious acts in Illinois, is engaging in interstate
commerce, and has wrongfully caused Plaintiff substantial injury in the State of Illinois
II. INTRODUCTION
3. Plaintiff filed this action to combat online infringers and counterfeiters who trade
upon Plaintiff’s reputation and goodwill by selling and/or offering for sale unauthorized and
unlicensed counterfeit and infringing products using counterfeit versions of Plaintiff’s federally
registered trademarks REDACTED (U.S. Reg. No. REDACTED ) and REDACTED (U.S. Reg. No.
REDACTED ) (the “REDACTED Trademarks”), and/or by making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or
importing into the United States for subsequent sale or use unauthorized and unlicensed product
that infringe REDACTED LLC’s patented designs (U.S. Reg. Nos. US REDACTED and US
REDACTED ) (the “REDACTED Designs”), and/or by using Plaintiff’s copyrighted photographs and texts
(U.S. Reg. Nos. REDACTED and REDACTED ) (the “REDACTED Works”) in connection with
the sale and advertising of the infringing products, attached as Group Exhibit 1. The Defendants
2
created internet stores (the “Defendant Internet Stores” or the “Stores”) by the dozens and designed
them to appear to be selling genuine copies of Plaintiff’s REDACTED branded
products when in fact the Stores are selling counterfeit versions to unknowing customers, and/or
making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing into the United States for subsequent
sale or use infringing products to unknowing consumers.
4. The Defendant Internet Stores share unique identifiers, such as similar design
elements of the infringing product offered for sale and, on information and belief, these similarities
suggest that the Defendant Internet Stores share common manufacturing sources, thus establishing
the Defendants’ counterfeiting and infringing operations arise out of the same transaction,
occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences. Defendants have gone to great lengths to avoid
liability by concealing both their identities and the full scope and interworking of their
counterfeiting operation, including changing the names of their Stores multiple times, opening new
Stores, helping their friends open Stores, and making subtle changes to their products. Plaintiff has
been forced to file this action to combat Defendants’ willful infringement of Plaintiff’s registered
trademarks, patented designs, and copyrighted works, as well as to protect unknowing consumers
from purchasing infringing products over the internet. Plaintiff has been and continues to be
irreparably damaged both through consumer confusion, dilution, and tarnishment of its valuable
trademarks as a result of Defendants’ actions and seek injunctive and monetary relief, and from
loss of its lawful patent rights to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering for sale, and
importing its patented designs.
3
and product demonstration videos to educate consumers on both its products and trademarked
name. Its websites and social media feature original content, reviews, and testimonials for the
REDACTED
Products.
7. Plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacturing, distributing, and retailing
these high-quality REDACTED products within the Northern District of Illinois under the Federally
registered trademarks REDACTED Defendants’ sales of the counterfeit
product in violation of Plaintiff’s intellectual property rights are irreparably damaging Plaintiff.
8. Plaintiff’s brand, symbolized by the REDACTED Trademarks, is a recognized brand of
drinkewear products. The REDACTED Trademarks are distinctive and identify the merchandise as
REDACTED
goods originating from the Plaintiff. The registration for the Trademarks constitutes
prima facie evidence of its validity and of Plaintiff’s exclusive right to use the REDACTED Trademarks
pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1057(b). The REDACTED Trademarks have been continuously used and never
abandoned since their first use.
9. Plaintiff uses the REDACTED Trademarks to identify its goods. The Trademarks are
distinct when they are applied to Plaintiff’s goods, signaling to the purchaser and consumer that
the products are from Plaintiff and are made and manufactured to Plaintiff’s original specifications
and standards.
10. Since its initial launch of the original REDACTED branded
products, as of its first use in commerce in REDACTED respectively, Plaintiff’s trademarks have
been the subject of substantial and continuous marketing and promotion by the Plaintiff throughout
the United States and, due to its strong internet presence, throughout the entire world. Plaintiff has
and continues to widely promote and market its trademarks to customers and the general public,
and on Plaintiff’s website. Genuine and authentic REDACTED branded
5
common design elements, the same or similar counterfeit products that they offer for sale, similar
counterfeit product descriptions, the same or substantially similar shopping cart platforms,
accepted payment methods, check-out methods, lack of contact information, and identically or
similarly priced counterfeit products and volume sale discounts. As such, the Defendant Internet
Stores establish a logical relationship between them and suggest that Defendants’ illegal operations
arise out of the same transaction or occurrence. The tactics used by Defendants to conceal their
identities and the full scope of their counterfeiting operation make it virtually impossible for
Plaintiff to learn the precise scope and the exact interworking of their counterfeit network. If
Defendants provide additional credible information regarding their identities, Plaintiff will take
appropriate steps to amend the Complaint.
IV. THE DEFENDANTS’ UNLAWFUL CONDUCT
17. The success of Plaintiff’s brand has resulted in significant infringment and
counterfeiting. Consequently, Plaintiff has identified numerous marketplace listings on
eCommerce platforms such as, but not limited to, REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED , which include the Defendant Aliases and
which have been offering for sale, completing sales, and exporting illegal products to consumers
in this Judicial District and throughout the United States. Defendants have persisted in creating the
Defendant Aliases. E-commerce sales, including e-commerce internet stores like those of
Defendants, have resulted in a sharp increase in the shipment of unauthorized products into the
United States. See Exhibit 2, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Intellectual Property Rights
Seizure Statistics, Fiscal Year 2021. According to Customs and Border Patrol’s (“CBP”) report,
over 90% of all CBP intellectual property seizures were smaller international mail and express
9
shipments (as opposed to large shipping containers). Id. Approximately 60% of CBP seizures
originated from mainland China and Hong Kong. Id. Counterfeit and pirated products account for
billions of dollars in economic losses, resulting in tens of thousands of lost jobs for legitimate
businesses and broader economic losses, including lost tax revenue.
18. Groups of counterfeiters, such as Defendants here, are typically in communication
with each other. They regularly participate in QQ.com chat rooms, and also communicate through
websites such as sellerdefense.cn, kaidianyo.com and kuajingvs.com, where they discuss tactics
for operating multiple accounts, evading detection, pending litigation, and potential new lawsuits.
19. Counterfeiting rings take advantage of the anonymity provided by the internet,
which allows them to evade enforcement efforts to combat counterfeiting. For example,
counterfeiters take advantage of the fact that marketplace platforms do not adequately subject new
sellers to verification and confirmation of their identities, allowing counterfeiters to “routinely use
false or inaccurate names and addresses when registering with these Internet platforms.” See
Exhibit 3, Daniel C.K. Chow, Alibaba, Amazon, and Counterfeiting in the Age of the Internet, 41
Nw. J. Int’l. L. & Bus. 24 (2020). Additionally, “Internet commerce platforms create bureaucratic
or technical hurdles in helping brand owners to locate or identify sources of counterfeits and
counterfeiters.” Id. at 25. Therefore, with the absence of regulation, Defendants may and do garner
sales from Illinois residents by setting up and operating e-commerce internet stores that target
United States consumers using one or more aliases, offer shipping to the United States, including
Illinois, accept payment in U.S. dollars, and, on information and belief, have sold counterfeit
products to residents of Illinois.
20. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, the Defendants in this
action have had full knowledge of Plaintiff’s ownership of the REDACTED design patents, copyrights,
10
and trademarks, including its exclusive right to use and license such intellectual property and their
associated goodwill. Defendants’ Internet Stores also use the same pictures to advertise their
infringing product that Plaintiff uses on its webpage and other online marketplaces to sell and
advertise its genuine and original REDACTED Products, sowing further confusion among potential
purchasers.
21. Defendants go to great lengths to conceal their identities by using multiple fictitious
names and addresses to register and operate their massive network of Defendant Internet Stores.
Other Defendant domain names often use privacy services that conceal the owners’ identity and
contact information. Upon information and belief, Defendants regularly create new websites and
online marketplace accounts on various platforms using the identities listed in Schedule A of this
Complaint, as well as other unknown fictitious names and addresses. Such Defendant Internet
Store registration patterns are one of the many common tactics used by the Defendants to conceal
their identities, the full scope and interworking of their massive counterfeiting operation, and to
avoid being shut down.
22. The infringing products for sale in the Defendant Internet Stores bear similarities
and indicia of being related to one another, suggesting that the infringing products were
manufactured by and come from a common source and that, upon information and belief,
Defendants are interrelated.
23. Upon information and belief, Defendants also deceive unknowing customers by
using the REDACTED Trademarks without authorization within the content, text, and/or metatags of
their websites and marketplace storefronts to attract various search engines on the Internet looking
for websites relevant to consumer searches for Plaintiff’s REDACTED branded
products. Additionally, upon information and belief, Defendants use other unauthorized search
11
engine optimization tactics and social media spamming so that the Defendant Internet Stores
listings show up at or near the top of relevant search results after others are shut down. As such,
Plaintiff also seeks to disable Defendant domain names owned by Defendants that are the means
by which the Defendants could continue to sell counterfeit products.
24. Defendants’ use of the REDACTED Works and Trademarks on or in connection with
the advertising, marketing, distribution, offering for sale, and sale of the infringing products is
likely to cause and has caused confusion, mistake, and deception by and among consumers and is
irreparably harming Plaintiff.
25. Defendants, without authorization or license from Plaintiff, knowingly and
willfully used and continue to use the REDACTED Works and Trademarks in connection with the
advertisement, offer for sale, and sale of the counterfeit products, through, inter alia, the internet.
The infringing products are not REDACTED branded products of the Plaintiff.
Plaintiff did not manufacture, inspect, or package the infringing products and did not approve the
counterfeit products for sale or distribution. Each of the Defendants’ Internet Stores offers shipping
to the United States, including Illinois, and, on information and belief, each Defendant has sold
counterfeit products into the United States, including Illinois.

REDACTED
26. Defendants’ use of the Works and Trademarks in connection with the
advertising, distribution, offer for sale, and sale of infringing products, including the sale of
infringing products into Illinois, is likely to cause and has caused confusion, mistake, and
deception by and among consumers and is irreparably harming Plaintiff.
27. Upon information and belief, Defendants are an interrelated group of infringers
working in active concert to knowingly and willfully manufacture, import, distribute, offer for
sale, and sell Infringing Products in the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or
12
FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN (15 U.S.C. § 1125)
38. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 37.
39. Defendant’s promoting, marketing, offering for sale, and selling of infringing and
counterfeit products has created and is creating a likelihood of confusion, mistake, and deception
among the general public as to the affiliation, connection, or association with Plaintiff or the origin,
REDACTED
sponsorship, or approval of Defendants’ counterfeit version of Plaintiff’s unique branded
products.
40. By using Plaintiff’s trademarks in connection with the sale of counterfeit products,
Defendants create a false designation of origin and a misleading representation of the fact as to the
origin and sponsorship of the counterfeit product. By their use of Plaintiff’s original photographs
and texts in association with the offer and sale of the counterfeit product, Defendants seek to
further confuse the relevant public as to the source or sponsorship of their goods by Plaintiff.
41. Defendants’ false designation of origin and misrepresentation of fact as to the origin
and/or sponsorship of the counterfeit product to the general public is a willful violation of Section
43 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125.
42. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law and, if Defendants’ actions are not enjoined,
Plaintiff will continue to suffer irreparable harm to its reputation and the goodwill of its brand.
COUNT III
VIOLATION OF ILLINOIS UNIFORM DECEPTIVE

TRADE PRACTICES ACT (815 ILCS § 510/1, et seq.)
15
50. Defendants have been and are infringing Plaintiff’s Design Patents by making,
using, selling, or offering for sale in the United States, or importing into the United States,
including within this judicial district, the accused products in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
51. Defendants have infringed Plaintiff’s Design Patents through the aforesaid acts and
will continue to do so unless enjoined by this Court. Defendants’ wrongful conduct has caused
Plaintiff to suffer irreparable harm resulting from the loss of its lawful patent rights to exclude
others from making, using, selling, offering for sale, and importing the patented invention. Plaintiff
is entitled to injunctive relief pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283.
52. Defendants have infringed Plaintiff’s Design Patents because in the eye of an
ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, the ornamental designs of
Plaintiff’s Design Patents and the overall design features of Defendants’ products are substantially
the same, if not identical, with resemblance such as to deceive an ordinary observer, inducing such
observer to purchase and Infringing Product supposing to be Plaintiff’s product protected by
Plaintiff’s Design Patents.
53. Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate for the
infringement, including Defendant’s profits pursuant to 35 U.S.C § 289. Plaintiff is entitled to
recover any other damages as appropriate pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284.
COUNT V
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT (17 U.S.C. § 501(a))
17
55. Plaintiff’s works have significant value and have been produced and created at
considerable expense. Plaintiff is the owner of each original work, and all works at issue have been
registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. See, Exhibit 1.
56. Plaintiff, at all relevant times, has been the holder of the pertinent exclusive rights
infringed by Defendants, as alleged hereunder, including but not limited to the copyrighted
Plaintiff’s works, including derivative works.
57. Upon information and belief, Defendants had access to the works through
Plaintiff’s normal business activities. After accessing Plaintiff’s works, Defendants wrongfully
created copies of the copyrighted Plaintiff’s works without Plaintiff’s consent and engaged in acts
of widespread infringement through publishing and distributing the Plaintiff’s works via online
websites and digital markets in connection with the marketing of their counterfeit
products. Indeed, every photograph and text used by Defendants is virtually identical to the
original Plaintiff’s works.
58. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants further
infringed Plaintiff’s copyrights by making or causing to be made derivative works from Plaintiff’s
works by producing and distributing reproductions without Plaintiff’s permission.
59. Defendants, without the permission or consent of Plaintiff, have published online
infringing derivative works of Plaintiff’s works. Defendants have violated Plaintiff’s exclusive
rights of reproduction and distribution. Defendants’ actions constitute an infringement of
Plaintiff’s exclusive rights protected under the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 101, et seq.).
60. Further, as a direct result of the acts of copyright infringement, Defendants have
obtained direct and indirect profits they would not otherwise have realized but for their
18
distribution, marketing, advertising, shipping, offer for sale, or sale of counterfeit products in
violation of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 ILCS § 510, et seq.
66. The intent, purpose, and objective of the conspiracy and the underlying
combination of unlawful acts and misconduct committed by the Defendants was to undermine
Plaintiff and its business by unfairly competing against it as described above.
67. The Defendants each understood and accepted the foregoing scheme and agreed to
do their respective part, to further accomplish the foregoing intent, purpose, and objective. Thus,
by entering the conspiracy, each Defendant has deliberately, willfully, and maliciously permitted,
encouraged, and/or induced all the foregoing unlawful acts and misconduct.
68. As a direct and proximate cause of the unlawful acts and misconduct undertaken
by each Defendant in furtherance of the conspiracy, Plaintiff has sustained, and unless each
Defendant is restrained and enjoined, will continue to sustain severe, immediate, and irreparable
harm, damage, and injury for which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:
A. That Defendants, their affiliates, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys,
confederates, and all other persons acting for, with, by, through, under, or in active concert with
them be temporarily preliminary, and permanently enjoined and restrained from:
i. Using Plaintiff’s trademarks in any manner in connection with the
distribution, marketing, advertising, offering for sale, or sale of any product that is not a
genuine product of Plaintiff, or is not authorized by Plaintiff to be sold in connection with
Plaintiff’s trademarks;
20
ii. Passing off, inducing, or enabling others to sell or pass off any product as a
genuine Plaintiff’s product or any other product produced by Plaintiff that is not Plaintiff’s
or not produced under the authority, control, or supervision of Plaintiff and approved by
Plaintiff for sale under Plaintiff’s trademarks and associated with or derived from
Plaintiff’s trademarks;
iii. Making, using, selling, and/or importing to the United States for retail sale
or resale any products that infringe Plaintiff’s Design Patents
iv. Committing any acts calculated to cause consumers to believe that
Defendants’ counterfeit product is those sold under the authority, control, or supervision
of Plaintiff, or are sponsored by, approved of, or otherwise connected with Plaintiff,
including without limitation through use of Plaintiff’s original photographs texts in
connection with the offer or sale of counterfeit products;
v. Further infringing Plaintiff’s trademarks and damaging Plaintiff’s
goodwill;
vi. Otherwise competing unfairly with Plaintiff in any manner;
vii. Shipping (including drop-shipping), delivering, holding for sale,
transferring, or otherwise moving, storing, distributing, returning, or otherwise disposing
of, in any manner, products or inventory not manufactured by or for Plaintiff, nor
authorized by Plaintiff to be sold or offered for sale, and which bear any Plaintiff’s
trademarks, or any reproductions, counterfeit copies, or colorable imitations thereof;
viii. Using, linking to, transferring, selling, exercising control over, or otherwise
owning the Defendant Internet Stores, or any other domain name or online marketplace
21
account that is being used to sell or is how Defendants could continue to sell counterfeit
product;
ix. Operating and/or hosting websites at the Defendant Internet Stores of any
other domain names registered or operated by Defendants that are involved in the
distribution, marketing, advertising, offering for sale, or sale of any product bearing the
Plaintiff’s trademarks or reproduction, counterfeit copy, or colorable imitation thereof that
is not a genuine product or not authorized by Plaintiff to be sold in connection with the
Plaintiff’s trademarks; and,
x. Registering any additional domain names that use or incorporate any
portion of the Plaintiff’s trademarks; and,
B. That Defendants, their affiliates, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys,
confederates, and all persons acting for, with, by through, under, or in active concert with them be
temporarily, preliminarily, and permanently enjoined and restrained from:
i. Displaying images protected by the Plaintiff’s trademarks in connection
with the distribution, advertising, offer for sale and/or sale of any product that is not a
genuine product of Plaintiff’s or is not authorized by Plaintiff to be sold in connection with
the Plaintiff’s trademarks; and
ii. Shipping, delivering, holding for same, distributing, returning, transferring,
or otherwise moving, storing, or disposing of in any manner products or inventory not
manufactured by or for Plaintiff, not authorized by Plaintiff to be sold or offered for sale,
and protected by the Plaintiff’s Trademarks or any reproductions, counterfeit copies, or
colorable imitation thereof; and,
22
C. That Defendants, within fourteen (14) days after service of judgment with notice of
entry thereof upon them, be required to file with the Court and serve upon Plaintiff a written report
under oath setting forth in detail the manner and form in which Defendants have complied with
any and all injunctive relief ordered by this Court;
D. Entry of an Order that, upon Plaintiff’s request, those in privity with Defendants
and those with notice of the injunction, including any online marketplaces such as: REDACTED
; payment
processors such as PayPal, Stripe, Payoneer; social media platforms such as: Facebook, YouTube,
LinkedIn, Twitter; Internet search engines such as Google, Bing, and Yahoo; webhosts for the
Defendants Domain Names, and domain name registrars, that are provided with notice of the
injunction, cease facilitating access to any or all webstores through which Defendants engage in
the sale of counterfeit products using the Plaintiff’s trademarks; shall:
i. Disable and cease providing services for any accounts through which
Defendants engage in the sale of counterfeit Plaintiff’s REDACTED

branded product using Plaintiff’s trademarks, including any accounts associated with the
Defendants listed on Schedule A;
ii. Disable and cease displaying any advertisements used by or associated with
Defendants in connection with the sale of counterfeiting and infringing counterfeit product
using Plaintiff’s trademarks; and,
iii. Take all steps necessary to prevent links to the Defendant Online Stores
identified in Schedule A from displaying in search results, including, but not limited to,
removing links to the Defendant Online stores from any search index; and,
23
E. That each Defendant account for and pay to Plaintiff all profits realized by
Defendants by reason of Defendants’ unlawful acts herein alleged, and that the amount of damages
for infringement of Plaintiff’s trademarks be increased by a sum not exceeding three times the
amount thereof as provided by 15 U.S.C. § 1117;
F. For Judgment in favor of Plaintiff against Defendants that they have: (a) willfully
infringed Plaintiff’s trademarks in its federally registered trademarks pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1114;
and (b) otherwise injured the business reputation and business of Plaintiff by Defendants’ acts and
conduct set forth in this Complaint;
G. For Judgment in favor of Plaintiff against Defendants for actual damages or
statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117, at the election of Plaintiffs, in an amount to be
determined at trial;
H. In the alternative, that Plaintiff be awarded statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
§ 1117(c)(2) of $2,000,000 for each and every use of Plaintiff’s Trademarks;
I. That Defendants, their affiliates, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys,
confederates, and all persons acting for, with, by, through, under or in active concert with them be
temporarily, preliminarily, and permanently enjoined and restrained from:
i. making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing into the United States for
subsequent sale or use any products not authorized by Plaintiff and that include any
REDACTED
reproduction, copy or colorable imitation of the design claimed in the
Designs;
ii. aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in infringing upon
REDACTED
the Designs; and
24
iii. effecting assignments or transfers, forming new entities or associations or utilizing
any other device for the purpose of circumventing or otherwise avoiding the
prohibitions set forth in Subparagraphs (a) and (b).
J. Entry of an Order that, upon Plaintiff’s request, those with notice of the injunction,
including, without limitation, any online marketplace platforms such as REDACTED
; payment
Defendants Domain Names, and domain name registrars shall disable and cease displaying any
advertisements used by or associated with Defendants in connection with the sale of goods that
REDACTED
infringe the ornamental design claimed in the Designs;
K. That Plaintiff be awarded such damages as it shall prove at trial against Defendants
that are adequate to compensate Plaintiff for Defendants’ infringement of Plaintiff’s Designs, but
in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the Defendants,
together with interest and costs, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284;
L. That the amount of damages awarded to Plaintiff to compensate Plaintiff for

REDACTED
infringement of the Designs be increased by three times the amount thereof, as provided by
35 U.S.C. § 284;
M. In the alternative, that Plaintiff be awarded complete accounting of all revenue and
REDACTED
profits realized by Defendants from Defendants’ infringement of the Designs, pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 289;
25
N. That Defendants, their affiliates, officers, agents, employees, attorneys, and all
persons acting for, with, by, through, under, or in active concert with them be temporarily,
preliminarily, and permanently enjoined and restrained from:

REDACTED
i. using the Works or any reproductions, copies, or colorable
imitations thereof in any manner with the distribution, marketing, advertising, offering for
sale, or sale of any product that is not an authorized REDACTED Products or is not authorized
by Plaintiff to be sold in connection with the REDACTED Works;
ii. passing off, inducing, or enabling others to sell or pass off any product or
not produced under the authorization, control, or supervision of Plaintiff and approved by
Plaintiff for sale under the REDACTED Works;
iii. further infringing the REDACTED Works and damaging Plaintiff’s goodwill;
iv. shipping, delivering, holding for sale, transferring or otherwise moving,
storing, distributing, returning, or otherwise disposing of, in any manner, products or
inventory not authorized by Plaintiff to be sold or offered for sale, and which directly use
REDACTED REDACTED
the Works and which are derived from Plaintiff’s copyrights in the
Works; and
v. using, linking to, transferring, selling, exercising control over, or otherwise
owning the Defendant Internet Stores, or any other online marketplace account that is being
used to sell products or inventory not authorized by Plaintiff which are derived from
Plaintiff’s copyrights in the REDACTED Works;
O. Entry of an Order that, upon Plaintiff’s request, those in privity with Defendants
and those with notice of the injunction, including any online marketplaces such as: REDACTED
26
REDACTED ; payment
Defendants Domain Names, and domain name registrars, that are provided with notice of the
injunction, cease facilitating access to any or all webstores through which Defendants engage in
the sale of infringing products using the Plaintiff’s copyrights; shall:
i. disable and cease providing services for any accounts through which
Defendants engage in the sale of products not authorized by Plaintiff which reproduce the REDACTED
REDACTED
Works or are derived from the Works, including any accounts associated with the
Defendants listed on Schedule A;
ii. disable and cease displaying any advertisements used by or associated with
Defendants in connection with the sale of products not authorized by Plaintiff which are
derived from the REDACTED Works; and
iii. take all steps necessary to prevent links to the Defendant accounts identified
on Schedule A from displaying in search results, including, but not limited to, removing
links to the Defendant accounts from any search index;
P. For Judgment in favor of Plaintiff against Defendants that they have: a) willfully
infringed Plaintiff’s rights in her federally registered copyrights pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §501; and
b) otherwise injured the business reputation and business of Plaintiff by Defendants’ acts and
conduct set forth in this Complaint;
Q. For Judgment in favor of Plaintiff against Defendants for actual damages or
statutory damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §504, at the election of Plaintiff, in an amount to be
determined at trial;
27
R. That Plaintiff be awarded its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and,
S. That Plaintiff be awarded any and all other relief that this Court deems equitable
and just.
Plaintiff demands trial by jury as to all causes of action so triable.
Dated: June 2, 2023 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ James E. Judge

Zareefa B. Flener (IL Bar No. 6281397)
James E. Judge (IL Bar No. 6243206)
Flener IP Law, LLC
77 W. Washington St., Ste. 800
Chicago, IL 60602
(312) 724-8874
[email protected]
28

PC, LLC v. Schedule A - Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PC, LLC v. Schedule A - 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

PC, LLC v. Schedule A - Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 1:23-cv-03501 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/02/23 Page 1 of 28 PageID #:1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

THE PARTNERSHIPS AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

conspiracy against the Partnerships and Uninco1porated Associations Identified m

Schedule "A" (together, "Defendants"). In suppo1i hereof, Plaintiff states as follows:

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

a common nucleus of operative facts.

residents by operating or assisting in the operation of one or more commercial, interactive e-

them to appear to be selling genuine copies of Plaintiff’s REDACTED branded

sale or use infringing products to unknowing consumers.

importing its patented designs.

7. Plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacturing, distributing, and retailing

registered trademarks REDACTED Defendants’ sales of the counterfeit

8. Plaintiff’s brand, symbolized by the REDACTED Trademarks, is a recognized brand of

abandoned since their first use.

10. Since its initial launch of the original REDACTED branded

and on Plaintiff’s website. Genuine and authentic REDACTED branded

appropriate steps to amend the Complaint.

IV. THE DEFENDANTS’ UNLAWFUL CONDUCT

counterfeiting. Consequently, Plaintiff has identified numerous marketplace listings on

eCommerce platforms such as, but not limited to, REDACTED

businesses and broader economic losses, including lost tax revenue.

18. Groups of counterfeiters, such as Defendants here, are typically in communication

products to residents of Illinois.

avoid being shut down.

Defendants are interrelated.

for websites relevant to consumer searches for Plaintiff’s REDACTED branded

by which the Defendants could continue to sell counterfeit products.

irreparably harming Plaintiff.

25. Defendants, without authorization or license from Plaintiff, knowingly and

counterfeit products into the United States, including Illinois.

deception by and among consumers and is irreparably harming Plaintiff.

FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN (15 U.S.C. § 1125)

paragraphs 1 through 37.

43 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125.

VIOLATION OF ILLINOIS UNIFORM DECEPTIVE

paragraphs 1 through 42.

is entitled to injunctive relief pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283.

observer to purchase and Infringing Product supposing to be Plaintiff’s product protected by

Plaintiff’s Design Patents.

53. Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate for the

infringement, including Defendant’s profits pursuant to 35 U.S.C § 289. Plaintiff is entitled to

recover any other damages as appropriate pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284.

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT (17 U.S.C. § 501(a))

paragraphs 1 through 53.

registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. See, Exhibit 1.

Plaintiff’s works, including derivative works.

original Plaintiff’s works.

works by producing and distributing reproductions without Plaintiff’s permission.

rights of reproduction and distribution. Defendants’ actions constitute an infringement of

Plaintiff and its business by unfairly competing against it as described above.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:

A. That Defendants, their affiliates, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys,

them be temporarily preliminary, and permanently enjoined and restrained from:

i. Using Plaintiff’s trademarks in any manner in connection with the

genuine product of Plaintiff, or is not authorized by Plaintiff to be sold in connection with

or resale any products that infringe Plaintiff’s Design Patents

iv. Committing any acts calculated to cause consumers to believe that