Wild Eye Designs v. Thai - Complaint

Case 1:15-cv-23093-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2015 Page 1 of 15
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOURTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION
WILD EYE DESIGNS, INC.
A FLORIDA CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
TONY THAI,
AN INDIVIDUAL AND PRIMEWARE, INC.
A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO.___________
JURY DEMANDED
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff, WILD EYE DESIGNS, INC., a Florida Corporation (hereinafter WILD
EYE or Plaintiff), sues Defendants, TONY THAI, an individual (hereinafter THAI
or Defendant) and PRIMEWARE, INC., a California Corporation, and alleges the
following:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1.
This is a civil action seeking a declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. 2201
and 2202 that (1) Defendant's U.S. design patent is invalid and unenforceable under the
Patent Act of 1952, 35 U.S.C. 1 et seq., because (a) of inequitable conduct before the
United States Patent and Trademark Office (hereinafter the USPTO); (b) Defendant's design
patent is invalid because the claimed design of the wine tote is not novel and obvious under 35
U.S.C. 103; (c) the patented design is primarily functional rather than ornamental; and (d)
1
Plaintiffs sales and offers to sell certain insulated handbags do not constitute patent
infringement of Defendant's U.S. design patent; and (2) Defendants have no trade dress rights
in their hand bag, and Plaintiffs hand bag does not violate any purported trade dress rights
claimed by Defendants.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2.
This action arises under the Patent Act of 1952, 35 U.S.C. 1 et seq., as
amended, the Lanham Act, and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.
3.
This Court has exclusive original jurisdiction over the subject matter of this
action. Exclusive jurisdiction for any action arising under any Act of Congress relating to
patents is conferred on U.S. district courts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1338(a).
4.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant pursuant to Florida Statute,
48.193, because Defendant is engaged in substantial and not isolated activity within this
state. Upon information and belief, Defendant sells his products, including insulated wine totes
that he claims embody the claim of the design patent at issue in this suit, to customers in Florida
and in this judicial district. Upon information and belief, in furtherance of its marketing and
sales of its insulated wine totes and other products, Defendant maintains relationships with
sales agents located in Florida. Additionally, Defendant forwarded its cease and desist letter
to Plaintiff in this judicial district.
5.
Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and (c)
and 1400(a) in that Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district, and because a
substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims alleged herein occurred in this judicial
district, including, but not limited to, the accused infringing conduct occurring in this judicial
2
district, and because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in the Southern District of
Florida.
THE PARTIES
6.
Plaintiff, WILD EYE DESIGNS, INC., is a Florida corporation having a
principal place of business located at 5380 N. Ocean Drive, Suite 3J, Eastpoint II, Singer
Island, Florida 33404. Plaintiff manufactures, offers for sale and sells novelty consumer
products, including insulated hand bags for carrying wine bottles.
7.
Defendant, TONY THAI is a natural person and resident of the State of
California with a last known address of 7481 Anaconda Avenue, Garden Grove, CA
92841.
8.
Defendant, PRIMEWARE, INC., is a California corporation having a principal
place of business in Orange County California with TONY THAI listed as the Agent for Service
of Process according to the business records from the California Secretary of State website.
9.
Plaintiff and Defendant Primeware, Inc. are competitors in that they both sell
novelty consumer products, including insulated hand bags for carrying wine bottles.
THE PATENT-IN-SUIT
10.
On or about April 4, 2013, Defendant Tony Thai filed a design patent application
with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (hereinafter the USPTO) claiming the
ornamental features of a bag for carrying wine and wine accessories entitled Wine Tote.
11.
On March 24, 2015, the USPTO duly and lawfully issued United States Design
Patent No. D724,836 ( hereinafter 836 patent) entitled Wine Tote, naming Plaintiff as the
sole inventor. See Exhibit 1 attached hereto for all purposes, which is a copy of the 836
patent. A representative drawing of the 836 design patent shows the basic ornamental features:
The features include two curved handles attached to the bag by rings that appear to be captured
by folded material that is sewn to the sides of a substantially trapezoidally shaped bag. In
addition, the top and side are accessed through zippered openings.
CASE OR CONTROVERSY
12.
Prior to the issuance of the 836 patent, specifically, on or about August 6, 2014,
Defendant, through his legal counsel, sent Plaintiff a cease-and desist letter (hereinafter the
Letter) wherein Defendants accused Plaintiff of infringing the then-pending patent application
claim of his design patent application, accused Plaintiff of infringing Defendants trade dress
rights, and demanded that Plaintiff cease and desist making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or
importing the Freezer Hand Bag, including any other product that embodies the invention of
the Wine Tote, and demanded that Plaintiff provide assurances to Defendants that it had
4
complied with such demands. See Exhibit 2 attached hereto for all purposes, which is a copy
of the Letter.
13.
Plaintiff has a reasonable and immediate apprehension of suit in that it or its
customers or both of them will face claims of infringement of the '836 design patent if Plaintiff
continues to market, sell and offer to sell the accused hand bags.
14.
Plaintiff also has a reasonable and immediate apprehension of suit in that it or its
customers or both of them will face claims of trade dress infringement if Plaintiff continues to
sell its accused hand bags.
THE PRIOR ART
15.
Upon information and belief, Defendants were aware or should have been aware
of prior art having the ornamental features illustrated in its design patent, including some of the
prior art references described below titled Curved Handled Handbags with Ring Attachments
and Zippers, Portable Insulated Handbags, the Leather or Leather-like Handbag Handle,
and Design Patents For Insulated Handbags (hereinafter collectively referred to as the Prior
Art Information) as detailed below.
16.
hand bags.
Upon information and belief, Defendants were also aware of its own prior art
In its cease-and-desist letter, Defendants allege that many elements of the
[Defendant] products trade dress have acquired distinctiveness through Primewares substantial
and continuous use and display of the product in U.S. commerce. As such, consumers associate
Primeware with the source of the product. Hence, Defendants cease and desist letter admits to
having prior art.
Curved Handled Handbags with Ring Attachments and Zippers
17.
The basic design of the 836 design patent has been in existence more than a year
5
prior to April 2013 application date of the 836 patent, and MARC JACOBS, among others, have
sold, and offered for sale stam bags having very similar appearances as the ornamental features
shown in the 835 design patent.
18.
By way of example, this MARC JACOBS stam bag has been posted on the
internet since 2006:
As shown above, it includes curved handles attached to a trapezoidally shaped bag by rings that
are attached to the bag by folded over material that appears to be sewn to the sides of the bag.
There also appears an opening at the top and side. The side opening is accessed using a zipper.
19.
Upon information and belief, Defendants were aware that curved handled
handbags with ring attachments and zippers existed prior to the filing of the 836 patent and they
have been patented for their design features since at least as early as 2006. See U.S. Pat.
No.D533997 and printout from 2005 blog with the URL of:
http://forums.thefashionspot.com/f56/marcjacobsstambagseptember2005march2010a31612.html
attached hereto as Composite Exhibit 3.
Portable Insulated Handbags
6
20.
Upon information and belief, Defendants were aware that portable insulated
beverage carriers that approximate the shape of traditional handbags existed prior to the filing of
the 836 patent and they have been patented for functionality as utility patents since at least as
early as 1964. See U.S. Pat. Nos. 3262283, 4812054, and 7344028 attached hereto as Composite
Exhibit 4.
Leather or Leather-like Handbag Handle
21.
Upon information and belief, Defendants were aware that handbags with leather
or leather-like handles existed prior to the filing of the 836 patent and they have been patented
as design patents since at least as early as 1936. See U.S. Pat. No. D101705 attached hereto as
Exhibit 5.
Design Patents For Insulated Handbags
22.
Upon information and belief, Defendants were aware that design patents for the
niche market of insulated handbags for carrying beverages have been issued since at least as
early as 2005. See U.S. Pat. No. D509,062 attached hereto as Exhibit 6.
23.
Portable insulated handbags for carrying beverages have existed for at least 60
24.
Defendants had a duty to disclose relevant prior art, including the Prior Art
years.
Information to the USPTO upon the filing of the design application that ultimately issued to
become the 836 patent.
25.
Upon information and belief, Defendants did not disclose the aforementioned
Prior Art Information to the USPTO at the time the application that ultimately issued to become
the 836 patent was filed.
26.
Defendants, by their own admission in their cease-and-desist letter, had been

7
marketing their bag for a long time, sufficient to allegedly create purported trade dress rights in
the bag, and yet, there is no evidence with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office that Defendants
disclosed any of their prior bag designs in the course of applying for the 836 design patent.
27.
Upon information and belief, there exists many other prior art references that
disclose the limited ornamental features claimed in the '836 design patent, either in whole or
in part.
28.
All conditions precedent to bringing this action have occurred or have been
waived.
29.
Plaintiff has retained undersigned counsel and is obligated to pay said counsel
a reasonable fee for their services.

COUNT I
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT PATENT IS UNENFORCEABLE BASED UPON
INEQUITABLE CONDUCT
30.
The allegations contained in paragraphs 1-29 above are hereby re-alleged as
if fully set forth herein.

31.
This is an action seeking declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201
and 2202 that the '836 design patent is unenforceable under the doctrine of inequitable
conduct.
32.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 1.56, each person and entity associated with the filing
or prosecution of a patent application has a duty to conduct business with the USPTO with
candor, good faith, and honesty.
33.
The duty of candor under 37 C.F.R. 1.56 imposes on each inventor named in
the application, each attorney who prepares or prosecutes the application, and each
8
individual associated with the assignee of the application, the duty to disclose to the USPTO
all information known to the inventor, attorney or individual to be material to patentability of
the invention described in the application.
34.
The Patent Applicants and their attorneys knew of their duty of candor to the
USPTO.
35.
Violation of the duty of candor through bad faith or intentional misconduct
during or after prosecution of the application subjects any patent issued therefrom to become
unenforceable.
36.
Upon information and belief, prior to the issuance of the '836 design patent on
March 24, 2015, Defendant knew or should have known about the aforementioned Prior Art
Information and specifically, the prior art that Defendants mentioned in their cease-and-desist
letter gave rise to the purported trade dress rights mentioned in that letter.
37.
Upon information and belief, the aforementioned Prior Art Information was
material to patentability with respect to the '836 design patent because there is a substantial
likelihood that a reasonable patent examiner would have considered the information important
in deciding whether to allow the Design Patent Application to issue as the '836 design patent.
38.
Upon information and belief, neither Defendant nor their attorneys disclosed the
aforementioned Prior Art Information to the USPTO, in violation of 37 C.F.R. 1.56.

39.
Upon information and belief, Defendants and/or their attorneys' failure to
disclose the aforementioned Prior Art Information to the USPTO was willful and with the intent
to mislead the USPTO.
40.
Therefore, the '836 Design Patent should be declared unenforceable because of
Defendant's and/or their attorneys' inequitable conduct.

9
COUNT II
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF PATENT INVALIDITY AND
UNENFORCEABILITY FOR LACK OF NOVELTY UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103
41.
The allegations contained in paragraphs 1-29 above are hereby re-alleged as if
fully set forth herein.

42.
This is an action for a declaratory judgment of patent invalidity under 35 U.S.C.
103 against Defendant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202.

43.
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 103, a person shall not be entitled to a patent if, inter
alia, "if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are
such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention
was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains."
44.
The differences between the ornamental features of the wine tote claimed in
'836 design patent and the prior art, including the aforementioned Prior Art Information,
are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art of insulated handbags.
45.
Therefore, the '836 design patent should be declared invalid in accordance
with 35 U.S.C. 103.

COUNT III
DECLARATION THAT PLAINTIFF DOES NOT INFRINGE THE '881 DESIGN
PATENT
46.

47.
This cause of action arises under 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202.
10
48.
Plaintiff does not make, use, offer to sell, or sell any product that has the
ornamental features required of the claims contained in the '836 design patent.
49.
Specifically, the most salient differences include the flat bottom portion of the
wine tote as shown in Fig. 9 of the 836 design patent as reproduced below and the risers that are
present in the insulated handbag sold by Plaintiff also reproduced below as well as the single
zippered side pocket as shown in Fig. 10 of the 836 design patent as reproduced below and the
double zippered side pocket that is present in the insulated handbag sold by Plaintiff also
reproduced below:
11
A review and comparison of the design patent drawing and the photograph of the accused
product show that there are substantial differences between the two, including, but not limited to,
(1) the shape of the design patent bag is trapezoidal, and the accused bag is substantially
rectangular; (2) the handles on the design patent bag are short and begin above the zippered
opening, and those on the accused bag begin well below the opening and are much longer; (3)
zippered opening on the side of the design patent drawing is short with no ornamentality
whatsoever, and the accused bag is longer with a elliptically shaped smile-like background
abutting the attachments for the handles; and (4) the bottom of the design patent drawing is
rectangular, and the accused bag is elliptical with studded risers.
50.
Plaintiff has not induced any third party to make, use, offer to sell, or sell any
product that has the ornamental features required of the claims contained in the '836 design
patent.
12
51.
Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that its marketing, distributing, selling or
offering to sell its insulated handbag does not infringe the '836 design patent, either directly, or
by active inducement or contributory infringement.
COUNT IV
DECLARATION THAT PLAINTIFF DOES NOT INFRINGE DEFENDANTS TRADE
DRESS
52.

53.
This cause of action arises under 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202.
54.
Defendants cease-and-desist letter claims that they own trade dress rights in their
bag, but fail to describe what portions of their bag is protected by trade dress.
55.
Defendants cease-and-desist letter claims that portions of their bag are inherently
distinctive, but again fail to identify where those portions lie.

56.
There is no evidence that Defendants bag as acquired distinctiveness or that
consumers associate the decorative features of their bag with their company.
57.
Defendants bag has no trade dress rights, because the decorative aspects of their
bag can be found on dozens of others bags that pre-existed the creation of Defendants bags,
including, without limitation, those sold under the trademark MARC JACOBS.
58.
Plaintiff does not make, use, offer to sell, or sell any product that infringes on
Defendants purported trade dress as alleged in the Letter.

59.
Plaintiff has not induced any third party to make, use, offer to sell, or sell any
product that infringes on Defendants purported trade dress as alleged in the Letter.
60.
Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that its marketing, distributing, selling or
13
offering to sell its insulated handbag does not infringe Defendants purported trade dress,
either directly, or by active inducement or contributory infringement.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, WILD EYE DESIGNS, INC., prays for entry of a
judgment against Defendants, TONY THAI and PRIMEWARE, INC., declaring as follows:
1.
That Defendant's U.S. Design Patent No. D724,836 is invalid and unenforceable
because as a result of Defendant and the Patent Applicants' intentional failure to disclose
material prior art information to the USPTO prior to the issuance of the patent.
2.
That Defendant's U.S. Design Patent No. D724,836 is invalid because the
differences between the ornamental features of the wine tote claimed in '836 design patent and
the prior art, including the aforementioned Prior Art Information, are such that the subject matter
as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
ordinary skill in the art of portable insulated handbags.
3.
That Plaintiff's importation, use, sales of, and offers to sell its insulated handbag
do not constitute patent infringement of Defendant's U.S. Design Patent No. D724,836.
4.
That Defendants have no trade dress rights in their handbag.
5.
That Plaintiff's importation, use, sales of, and offers to sell its insulated handbag
do not constitute infringement of Defendants purported trade dress.

6.
That, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285, the Defendants be ordered to pay to
Plaintiff an award covering Plaintiff s attorneys' fees, costs, and other expenses incurred as
a result of this controversy.
7.
That the Court deem this case exceptional under both the Patent Act and the
14
Lanham Act, and thus award attorneys fees and costs under those Acts.
8.
That this Court grants such further and other relief as this Court deems just
and proper.
Dated: August18, 2015
Respectfully,
/s/Craig S. Kirsch, Esq.
Craig S. Kirsch, Esq.
FBN 26318
KIRSCH LAW FIRM
40 NE 1 Avenue, Suite 602
Miami, Florida 33132
Telephone: 305.416.4051
Fax: 786.217.6874
e-Service address: ckirsch@kirschlawfirm.com
15
Case 1:15-cv-23093-JAL Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2015 Page 1 of 1
and PRIMEWARE, INC.
EXHIBIT
1
EXHIBIT
2
GAGNON, PEACOCK
& VERBEKE P .C.
Attorneys and Counselors at Law
D .G. Gagnon
J.B. Peacock,Jr.
David :I-.!. Vereeke*
Aaron P. Peaco ck+
l\fichad P. Moore
Laura L. Pickens
Highland Park Tower, Second Floor

4245 N . Central Expressway
Suite 250, Lock Box 104
Dallas, Texas 75205
Telephone: (214) 824-1414
Telecopier: (214) 824-5490
www.GapsLegal.com
* Boord Catifi<d-Pmonol lnjury Tri.? 4w

Board Certified-Civil TriAJ Low
Tc..os Board of Legal Specr.Lizuion
Admitted in the US Patent&: Trademark Office
Auon P. Peocock
A2mn@GapsLaw.com
August 6, 2014
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL, FACSIMILE (800) 428-0520

and E-MAIL info@wildeyedesigns.com
Wild Eye Designs Inc.
1500 Military Road, Suite l 00
Kenmore, NY 14217
Re:
Infringement of Intellectual Property; Attorney Docket No. 14-050
To Whom It May Concern:

I represents Primeware, Inc., (hereinafter "Primeware") and Mr. Thai in intellectual
property matters. Pimeware designs, manufactures and markets unique, functional, innovative
and high quality products for use at picnics and other similar events.
On April 4, 2013, inventor Mr. Thai, an owner and manager of Primeware, filed a design
patent application entitled WINE TOTE in the United States Patent & Trademark Office
(USPTO), which was provided Application Serial No. 29/451,610. See Exhibit A attached hereto
which is a copy of the design patent application. It is expected to issue as a patent grant very
shortly.
Furthermore, Primeware possesses legal rights in the unique trade dress of the Wine Tote
(hereinafter "the product"). The look and feel as well as the shape and configuration of the
product have become associated in the minds of consumers with Primeware. Not only are many
elements of the product's trade dress inherently distinctive, many elements of the product' s trade
dress have acquired distinctiveness through Primeware's substantial and continuous use and
display of the product in U.S. commerce. As such, consumers associate Primeware with the
source of the product.
My attention has been directed to Wild Eye Designs, Inc., (hereinafter "your company")
and its manufacturing, marketing and/or selling of a device entitled "Freezer Hand Bag"
(hereinafter "Hand Bag"). See Exhibit B attached hereto which is a depiction of the Hand Bag
sold by your company. The Hand Bag embodies a design of the invention claimed in the '610
patent application, thereby infringing on the rights of my clients in the fort-coming patent grant.
Furthermore, the marketing and selling of the Hand Bag infringes on the trade dress rights of my
clients.
I hereby provide you and your company formal notice that manufacturing, marketing
and/or selling of the Hand Bag product or any other product that is substantially similar (' your
actions") is an infringement of my clients' intellectual property rights. First, your actions are an
infringement of my clients' rights in the forth-coming patent under 35 U.S.C. 271. 35 U.S.C.
284 and 289 permit my clients to recover their lost profits and/or reasonable royalties.
Furthermore, if your actions are shown to be willful, 35 U.S.C. 284 and 285 permit my clients
to obtain enhanced damages (i.e., treble damages) from you as well as to recover their attorneys'
fees from you. Second, your actions are an infringement of my client's trade dress rights under
Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a). Section 35(a) of the Lanham Act, 15
U.S.C. 1117, permits my client to recover their damages from your actions as well as your
company' s profits derived from the sale of the infringing item. Additionally, the Lanham Act
provides for enhanced damages (i.e., treble damages) from you and the recovery of attorneys'
fees from you.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, my clients wish to avoid the trouble and expense of
litigation, if it is possible to do so.
Accordingly, I demand that you:
1.
provide to me in writing your prompt, firm and unequivocal assurance that

your company has undertaken, or is immediately undertaking, all
necessary steps to cease-and-desist from all further sales of the Hand Bag;
2.
provide to me in writing your prompt, firm and unequivocal assurance that

your company has undertaken, or is immediately undertaking, all
necessary steps to cease-and-desist from all further activities in connection
wi9I the manufacturing, marketing, purchases, and/or sales of the Hand
Bag;
3.
provide to me an accurate and verifiable accounting showing:

the number of units of the Hand Bag sold by your company;
the sale price of each unit;
your company's profit per unit;
the number of unsold, undelivered or partially completed units
remained in the possession of your company and its agents; and
e. the number of units in transit to your company, so that I may fairly
consider such data in assessing the extent of the damages suffered by
my clients; and
a.
b.
c.
d.

August 6, 2014
Page 2 of 3
4.
provide to me the identities of manufacturers, trading partners and agents

who have been involved in the fabrication and/or manufacture of units of
the Hand Bag acquired by your company, together with the number of
units acquired and the acquisition price of those units.
I must receive your assurances by August 20, 2014. If you fail to so advise me of your
company's intentions by that date, my clients may, without further notice to you, take such
action as it deems advisable to assert its legal and equitable rights to protect its interests.
ely, /')
AaronP~
Encls.

August 6, 2014
Page 3 of3
Exhibit A

ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
13-015
DESIGN PATENT APPLICATION
WINE TOTE
INVENTOR
Thai
United States citizen
Page 1 of4
COMPOSITE
EXHIBIT
3
8/17/2015
Case
MarcJacobsStamBag(September2005March2010)theFashionSpot
1:15-cv-23093-JAL Document
1-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2015 Page 42 of 79
UserName
HOW TO JOIN
Remember Me?
NEWS
STYLE
BEAUTY
CELEBRITIES
LIFE
VIDEO
WELLNESS
BUZZ
COMMUNITY
THE FASHION SPOT / the Finishing Touches / Handbags
MARC JACOBS STAM BAG (SEPTEMBER 2005 - MARCH 2010)

FAQ
CALENDAR
TODAY'S POSTS
SEARCH
RULES
LINKS
MOBILE
FORUM JUMP
PAGE 1 OF 435
HOW TO JOIN
THREAD TOOLS
tFSDefault
11
51
101
Last
DISPLAY MODES
1
08-09-2005
Luxx
boop
Marc Jacobs Stam Bag (September 2005 - March 2010)

This bag is getting quite a bit of attention of late. Perhaps because celeb bag freak Lindsay Lohan was
spotted wearing it but also since eLuxury is listing it as its latest "It Bag." Now I'm not so sure about that
but its certainly quite a quirky charming bag. Any bag named after Jessica Stam has at the very least
bonus points. Anyone here have it or thinking about getting it? I'm toying with the idea of getting it in
black. Like most of Marc's clothing has a very "grandma's closet" vibe and I really like that.
Mod Squad Member
Join Date: Aug 2005

Location: NYC
Gender: femme
Posts: 7,134
Autograph Collection
Nothing Less Than Unique. Nothing Short of Exceptional. Reserve Now.
Status: Online
1/6
8/17/2015
Case
35 Bob Haircuts That

Look Good on Everyone
The Worst Celebrity

Beach Bodies
This 9-Year-Old Model

Is Being Called the
"Most Beautiful Girl...
Hide Any Blemish With

These Top-Rated
Concealers
15 Classy Bridal
Hairstyles You Should
Try
Chop Chop! 17 Great

Short Pixie Hairstyles
15 Stunning Step-ByStep Makeup Ideas
Celebrity Parents & Kids

Invade The 'Kids Choice
Sports Awards'
08-09-2005
lduv143
rising star
i saw this bag at saks 2 weekends ago. i agree that it is very cute and has a nice vintagy-vibe. but,
the leather is very stiff and rough feeling. it is not soft like most other MJ bags. its much more
sturdy. honestly, i didnt enjoy the way it felt at all. when i touched it, it felt like i was exfoliating.
Join Date: Jan 2004

Location: michigan
Gender: femme
Posts: 136
08-09-2005
circoit
backstage pass
I've loved that bag ever since I first saw it on MJ's website. I am afraid it would be too heavy for my
liking (as all MJ bags are). I still love the style though.
Join Date: Apr 2005

Gender: femme
Posts: 632
08-09-2005
LilyGirl
fashion elite
Quote :
Originally Posted by lduv143
i saw this bag at saks 2 weekends ago. i agree that it is very cute and has a nice vintagy-vibe. but, the leather is very
stiff and rough feeling. it is not soft like most other MJ bags. its much more sturdy. honestly, i didnt enjoy the way it
felt at all. when i touched it, it felt like i was exfoliating.
Join Date: Mar 2005

Gender: femme
Posts: 2,570
I don't love the shiny pebbled leather either (MJ calls it "ice"), but note that some if not all the bags
including the stam can be ordered in smooth calf (but I believe only at the boutiques).
__________________
In the city there's a thousand things I want to say to you
2/6
8/17/2015
Case
08-09-2005
kare2711
trendsetter
I knew one such thread will pop up, sooner or later :p

Anyway, I do like the Stam. But don't particularly love it to want it immediately. I also don't think
the Stam is going to be *the* bag for long. It seems a passing faddish bag.
__________________
We tend to forget that happiness doesn't come as a result of getting something we don't have, but rather of recognizing and appreciating what
we do have.
Join Date: Apr 2005

Gender: femme
Posts: 1,322
08-09-2005
Caffeine
V.I.P.
QUOTE:
Originally Posted by kare2711
I knew one such thread will pop up, sooner or later :p

Anyway, I do like the Stam. But don't particularly love it to want it immediately. I also don't think the Stam is going to
be *the* bag for long. It seems a passing faddish bag.
Join Date: Jul 2005

Location: North Williamsburg,
NY
Agree. I also think that this bag will be on sale months later. The bag is very structured, and the
lining is suede. I tried it on and it's a little too heavy for me, but the smaller version is alright.
Gender: femme
Posts: 3,728
09-09-2005
PrincessImp.
Of too many minds
It's interesting enought to warrant attention and I think the large version is nicer than the smaller
one. Something about its "Chanel-ish" look bothers me though..I wouldn't pay full price for it, but I
might consider it if it's on sale
__________________
{*princessimp.blogspot.com*}
Join Date: Dec 2004

Gender: femme
Posts: 6,685
09-09-2005
youngprof
rising star
Join Date: Aug 2005

Posts: 188
I bought this bag in the textured leather in black as soon as it was available - I think it is gorgeous! I
agree with the other posters, though, it is a heavy bag, but I just love it.
I very much love the fact that you can take the chain off and just have a simple satchel, or leave the
chain on and get a lot of flash.
I love the other colors it comes in (the blue is especially nice), but I am not regretting going for the
black. I think it goes well with my style, a mix of vintage and modern.
3/6
8/17/2015
Case
09-09-2005
Luxx
boop
Ooh wonderful youngprof! Your bag sounds great, I'd love to see a picture
What are your thoughts on the leather? And is the bag large enough to cart around everyday
essentials?
Mod Squad Member
Join Date: Aug 2005

Location: NYC
Gender: femme
Posts: 7,134
Status: Online
10
09-09-2005
youngprof
rising star
Join Date: Aug 2005
I didn't think the leather was stiff, but it is thick and the quilting gives it a lot of "body", so it has a
nice sturdiness that I like.
It is a good size bag - you could definitely carry your stuff for all day in there. I had originally
thought of getting this bag, with the idea of using it as an evening bag:
Posts: 188
But I just like the larger size better, more fits, and the option of using the top handles or the chain
handle is nice. Also, I think the large bag is more of a statement, more modern looking, while still
maintaining that nice vintage-y vibe that I like.
11
09-09-2005
i_love_chloe
rising star
I saw this bag in Harvey Nichols a few weeks ago. I only noticed it because the sales assistant
showed it to me as being the bag that's going to be (and I quote) "much bigger" than the
Paddington. I think I offended him when I held it and said "thanks, but it's not me." I was curious to
see when this thread would come up though.
Personally, I don't like it. I saw the large size. It weighs a bloody ton, I wasn't even sure it was
leather and it looks like someone's oversized wash bag (albeit a fancy wash bag.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Last edited by i_love_chloe; 09-09-2005 at 12:47 PM.
Gender: femme
Posts: 158
4/6
8/17/2015
Case
12
09-09-2005
pietonne
For those of you who have tried it on, can you fit the leather handles over your shoulder?
rising star
Join Date: Jul 2005

Gender: femme
Posts: 118
13
09-09-2005
youngprof
rising star
QUOTE:
Join Date: Aug 2005
Originally Posted by pietonne
Posts: 188
For those of you who have tried it on, can you fit the leather handles over your shoulder?
You might be able to, but I couldn't (wearing work clothes). The leather handles are definitely
"hand-carry" handles. (Think MJ Venetia.)
14
09-09-2005
LilyGirl
fashion elite
I found the stam handles fit easily over my shoulder, but probably not with a coat. they must be
longer than the venetia handles which I can't fit over my shoulder at all.
__________________
In the city there's a thousand things I want to say to you
Join Date: Mar 2005

Gender: femme
Posts: 2,570
15
09-09-2005
Luxx
boop
My impatience strikes again. Both the Mercer Street MJ boutique and the Bleeker Street one were
sold out of the black Stam so I've ordered it from eLuxury. Hopefully it will arrive sometime next
week and I'll post pictures and what not.
QUOTE:
Mod Squad Member
I only noticed it because the sales assistant showed it to me as being the bag that's going to be (and I quote) "much
bigger" than the Paddington.
Join Date: Aug 2005

Location: NYC
Gender: femme
Posts: 7,134
Sales associates can be so odd. There's really nothing about this bag that screams (at least to me)
"It". I personally love it but it does seem like the kind of bag that would have a limited appeal. I
wonder how these kind of statements get started even with well known bags like the Spy or the
Paddington. Its so strange, one minute you see a bag in a magazine or on a website and the next
minute it is being called the next big thing.
5/6
8/17/2015
Case
Status: Online
PAGE 1 OF 435
11
51
101
Last
RETURN TO HANDBAGS
Previous Thread | Next Thread
TAGS
2005, 2010, bag, jacobs, marc, march, september, stam

POSTING RULES
You may not post new threads

You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off
FAQ
CONTACT US
FORUM HOME
MEMBERS LIST
COMMUNITY RULES
CALENDAR
TODAY'S POSTS
TERMS & CONDITIONS
SEARCH
CLEAR COOKIES
SITEMAP
PRIVACY STATEMENT
TOP
ADCHOICES
Search
ALL TIMES ARE GMT -5. THE TIME NOW IS 10:55 AM.
POWERED BY VBULLETIN
COPYRIGHT 2000 - 2015, JELSOFT ENTERPRISES LTD.
THEFASHIONSPOT.COM IS A PROPERTY OF TOTALLYHER MEDIA, LLC, AN EVOLVE MEDIA LLC COMPANY. 2015 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
tFSDefault
6/6
COMPOSITE
EXHIBIT
4
EXHIBIT
5
EXHIBIT
6

Wild Eye Designs v. Thai - Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Wild Eye Designs v. Thai - Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:15-cv-23093-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2015 Page 1 of 15

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CIVIL ACTION NO.___________

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

This is a civil action seeking a declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. 2201

Case 1:15-cv-23093-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2015 Page 2 of 15

Case 1:15-cv-23093-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2015 Page 3 of 15

Plaintiff, WILD EYE DESIGNS, INC., is a Florida corporation having a

Defendant, TONY THAI is a natural person and resident of the State of

Defendant, PRIMEWARE, INC., is a California corporation having a principal

Case 1:15-cv-23093-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2015 Page 4 of 15

Case 1:15-cv-23093-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2015 Page 5 of 15

Plaintiff has a reasonable and immediate apprehension of suit in that it or its

Case 1:15-cv-23093-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2015 Page 6 of 15

internet since 2006:

Case 1:15-cv-23093-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2015 Page 7 of 15

Defendants, by their own admission in their cease-and-desist letter, had been

Case 1:15-cv-23093-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2015 Page 8 of 15

a reasonable fee for their services.

The allegations contained in paragraphs 1-29 above are hereby re-alleged as

if fully set forth herein.

This is an action seeking declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201

Case 1:15-cv-23093-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2015 Page 9 of 15

Violation of the duty of candor through bad faith or intentional misconduct

aforementioned Prior Art Information to the USPTO, in violation of 37 C.F.R. 1.56.

Upon information and belief, Defendants and/or their attorneys' failure to

Therefore, the '836 Design Patent should be declared unenforceable because of

Defendant's and/or their attorneys' inequitable conduct.

Case 1:15-cv-23093-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2015 Page 10 of 15

The allegations contained in paragraphs 1-29 above are hereby re-alleged as if

fully set forth herein.

This is an action for a declaratory judgment of patent invalidity under 35 U.S.C.

103 against Defendant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202.

Therefore, the '836 design patent should be declared invalid in accordance

with 35 U.S.C. 103.

The allegations contained in paragraphs 1-29 above are hereby re-alleged as if

fully set forth herein.

This cause of action arises under 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202.

Case 1:15-cv-23093-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2015 Page 11 of 15

Case 1:15-cv-23093-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2015 Page 12 of 15

Case 1:15-cv-23093-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2015 Page 13 of 15

Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that its marketing, distributing, selling or

The allegations contained in paragraphs 1-29 above are hereby re-alleged as if

fully set forth herein.

This cause of action arises under 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202.

distinctive, but again fail to identify where those portions lie.

There is no evidence that Defendants bag as acquired distinctiveness or that

Defendants purported trade dress as alleged in the Letter.

Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that its marketing, distributing, selling or

Case 1:15-cv-23093-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2015 Page 14 of 15

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

That Defendants have no trade dress rights in their handbag.

do not constitute infringement of Defendants purported trade dress.

That, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285, the Defendants be ordered to pay to

Case 1:15-cv-23093-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2015 Page 15 of 15

Case 1:15-cv-23093-JAL Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2015 Page 1 of 1

Case 1:15-cv-23093-JAL Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2015 Page 1 of 2

and PRIMEWARE, INC.

Case 1:15-cv-23093-JAL Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2015 Page 2 of 2

Case 1:15-cv-23093-JAL Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2015 Page 1 of 2

Case 1:15-cv-23093-JAL Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2015 Page 2 of 2

Case 1:15-cv-23093-JAL Document 1-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2015 Page 1 of 79

Case 1:15-cv-23093-JAL Document 1-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2015 Page 2 of 79

Case 1:15-cv-23093-JAL Document 1-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2015 Page 3 of 79