Haworth v. Exemplis - Complaint

2:16-cv-10044-MAG-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 01/06/16 Pg 1 of 9
Pg ID 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
_________________________
HAWORTH, INC.,
Plaintiff,
Case No.
vs.
Hon.
EXEMPLIS CORPORATION,
COMPLAINT AND JURY

DEMAND
Defendant.
_______________________________________/
James Moskal (P41885)
Warner Norcross & Judd LLP
Attorney for Plaintiff
900 Fifth Third Center
111 Lyon Street, N.W.
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503
(616) 752-2000
_______________________________________/
Pg ID 2
Plaintiff complains against defendant as follows:

1.
This is an action for patent infringement under Title 35 of the
United States Code, as to which the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1338, and as to which venue lies under 28 U.S.C. 1400. This is also an action for
trade dress infringement under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125, as to which the
Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1338, and as to which venue lies
under 28 U.S.C. 1391.
2.
Plaintiff is a Michigan corporation having its principal place of
business in Holland, Michigan.

3.
Defendant is a California corporation. Defendant does business
as SitOnIt Seating, and defendant has committed substantial acts of infringement in

this judicial district.
4.
Plaintiff is an industry leader in the design and sale of office
chairs, among other products. One chair, known as plaintiffs Very Side chair
within its Very line of chairs, is the subject of plaintiffs United States Patent
No. D643,640 (the Patent), a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A.
5.
The Patent was duly issued on August 23, 2011, and plaintiff is
the owner of it by assignment of the inventors.
-2-
Pg ID 3
COUNT I
DESIGN PATENT INFRINGEMENT
6.
Plaintiff incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1-5 above.
7.
Defendant, without authority or license from plaintiff, has
intentionally made, used, offered to sell and sold chairs having product designs that
infringe the Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271(a). Upon information and
belief, defendant intentionally designed the infringing chairs to look like plaintiffs
Very chair. Defendant markets the infringing chairs under the product name
Rio.
8.
Exemplary comparisons of the patented design and the
infringing Rio design are set forth below.

HAWORTH 640 PATENT
RIO
-3-
-4-
Pg ID 4
9.
Pg ID 5
Defendants Rio chair infringes the Patent in at least the
following ways:
a.
Single one-piece molded back
b.
Two uprights on opposed sides of back
c.
Angled notch on rear surface of each upright
d.
Armrest pad proportion
e.
Vertical armrest cap proportion
f.
Armrest cap proportion
g.
Outward turning top of seat back
h.
Lower back opening shape
-5-
i.
Visible horizontal frame cross member
j.
Vertical downward angled rear legs
k.
Downward curling front seat edge
l.
Outwardly protruding rear seat edge
m.
Rear feet proportion
n.
Front feet proportion
o.
Overall size
p.
Frame proportion
q.
Gradual curving back
r.
Rearward curving top and bottom back edges
s.
Transitioning rear leg into armrest support
t.
Rearward extending armrest
u.
Cantilevered armrest
v.
Angled armrest from rear leg
w.
Back pivot point
x.
Cylindrical legs
y.
Angled lower rear leg
z.
Seat proportion
aa.
Back proportion
-6-
Pg ID 6
10.
Pg ID 7
Plaintiff provided written notice to defendant of defendants
infringement, but defendant has refused to cease its infringing activities.

11.
Defendant is a direct competitor of plaintiff, and defendants
infringement has irreparably harmed plaintiff. Defendant will continue to infringe

unless enjoined by the Court.
12.
Plaintiff is aware of the prosecution history of the Patent and
the decision in Pac. Coast Marine Windshields Ltd. v. Malibu Boats, LLC, 739
F.3d 694 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
That decision does not properly preclude this
infringement claim.
COUNT II
TRADE DRESS INFRINGEMENT
13.
Plaintiff incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1-12 above.
14.
For more than 30 years, plaintiff has continuously engaged in
the development, design, manufacture and sale of office chairs, and plaintiff has
become a premier source for office seating throughout the United States.
15.
For approximately six years, plaintiff has extensively promoted
its Very line of chairs in national marketing campaigns and other advertising,
expending substantial time, effort and funds.
significant sales.
-7-
These efforts have resulted in
16.
Pg ID 8
The configuration of plaintiffs Very line of chairs constitutes
protectable, non-functional trade dress, including, depending on the chair:

a.
The internal shape of the back opening
b.
The shape of the back
c.
The shape of the seat
d.
The angle of the arm
e.
The rearward extending armrest
17.
The Very trade dress has resulted in considerable consumer
recognition and goodwill for plaintiff, and it has acquired secondary meaning by
which the relevant public identifies the Very line of chairs with plaintiff. The trade
dress is distinctive and has acquired distinctiveness in the minds of consumers.
The trade dress is depicted in attached Exhibit B.
18.
Defendants marketing and sale of the Rio chair, as well as
other chairs in its Rio line, infringes plaintiffs trade dress, as a result of which
plaintiff has been damaged. The infringing line of chairs, which corresponds to the
chairs in the Very line, is depicted in the attached Exhibit C. Defendant sells the
infringing line of chairs through the same marketing channels used by plaintiff.
19.
Defendants marketing and sale of the Rio line of chairs has
caused and is likely to cause confusion concerning the source and origin of the
chair, or to cause mistake or to deceive.
-8-
20.
Pg ID 9
Defendants marketing and sale of the Rio line of chairs has
caused and is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the

affiliation, connection, or association of defendant with plaintiff or as to the origin,
sponsorship, or approval of the Rio line of chairs.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that the Court:
(a)
Enjoin defendant from infringing the Patent and plaintiffs trade
(b)
Award plaintiff damages and enhanced damages;
(c)
Award plaintiff interest, cost and attorney fees; and
(d)
Grant plaintiff all additional relief to which it is entitled.
dress;
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.
WARNER NORCROSS & JUDD LLP
Dated: January 6, 2016
By: s/ James Moskal

James Moskal (P41885)
Attorney for Plaintiff
900 Fifth Third Center
111 Lyon Street, N.W.
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503
(616) 752-2000
001030.165302 #13654787-1
-9-
2:16-cv-10044-MAG-RSW Doc # 1-1 Filed 01/06/16 Pg 1 of 8
EXHIBIT A
Pg ID 10
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 li 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Pg ID 11
US00D643640S
(12)
(54)
United States Design Patent
(10) Patent No.:
DeSanta et al.
(45)
OFFICE CHAIR
(75) Inventors: Simon DeSanta, Borgholzhausen (DE);

Nicolai Czumaj-Brant, Grand Rapids,
MI (US); Michael W. Welsh, Rockford,
MI (US)
(73) Assignee: Haworth, Inc., Holland, MI (US)
(**) Term:
14 Years
(21)
AppI. No.: 29/349,915
(22)
Filed:
May 19, 2010
Date of Patent:
US D643,640 S
** Aug. 23, 2011
D521,755 5 * 512006 Kinoshita etai. ..............

D558,478 S
1/2008 Rothe
D564,245 S
3/2008 Dauphin
*
D564,766 5
3/2008 Zimmermann et al . .......
D569,644 S
5/2008 Kuamzawa
*
D582,170 S
12/2008 Chi ................... .. ...........
*
2/2009 Valdiserri et al . ..............
D586,136 5
D589,271 5 * 3/2009 Neil ...............................
D597,33 I S * 8/2009 Neil ....................... ........
D599,126 S * 912009 Chen et al. .............. .......
9/2009 Kumazawa
D600,954 S
D607,653 S * 1/2010 Wilkinson etal. .............
D609,482 5 * 2/2010 Englisch et al. ........ .......
D613,087 S * 4/2010 Fujita . ............................
D618,469 S * 6/2010 Romero ............... ..........
D627,983 S * 11/2010 Wakasugi ctal...............
* cited by examiner
D6/366
D6/366
D6/366
D6/366
D6/366
D6/366
D6/366
D6/366
D6/366
D6/366
D6/366
D6/366
D6/366
Related U.S. Application Data

(62) Division of application No. 29/307,666, filed on May
2,2008, now Pat. No. Des. 618,004.
(51) LOC (9) Cl . .................................................. 06-01
(52) U.S. Cl . ........................................................ D6/366
(58) Field of Classification Search ...........D6/374-376,
D6/379-380, 364-367, 334-336, 358, 356,
D6/500-502; 297/451,1, 447.1, 411.2, 41127,
297/411.28, 284.4, 45221, 452.29, 452.64,
297/445.1, 446.1
See application file for complete search history.
(56)
References Cited
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
D213,438 S
3/1969 Koch
4,648,653 A
3/1987 Rowland
D344,418 S
2/1994 Favaretto
D374,129 S
10/1996 Timmons
D433,578 S
11/2000 Saul
3/2006 Leistetal,
D516,830 S
Primary Examiner - Caron D Veynar

AssistantExaminer Abraham Bahta
(74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm - Flynn, Theil, Boutell &
Tanis, P.C.
(57)
CLAIM
The ornamental design for an office chair, as shown and
described.
DESCRIPTION
FIG. 1 is a left, front perspective view of an office chair
showing our new design;
FIG. 2 is a left, rear perspective view thereof;
FIG. 3 is a front view thereof;
FIG. 4 is a rear view thereof;
FIG. 5 is a top view thereof; and,
FIG. 6 is a left side view thereof.
1 Claim, 6 Drawing Sheets
U.S. Patent
Aug. 23, 2011
Sheet 1 of 6
FIG. 1
Pg ID 12
[IS P643,649 S
U.S. Patent
Aug. 23, 2Oij
Pg ID 13
Sheet 2 of 6
US D6439 64 0
Plo 2
U.S. Patent
Aug. 23, 2011
Sheet 3 of 6
FIG. 3
Pg ID 14
US 0643,640 S
U.S. Patent
Aug. 23, 2011
Sheet 4 of 6
FIG. 4
Pg ID 15
US D643,640 S
U.S. Patent
Aug. 23, 2011
Sheet of 6
FIG. 5
Pg ID 16
US D643,640 S
U.S. Patent
Aug. 23, 2011
Sheet 6 of 6
FIG. 6
Pg ID 17
Us D643,640 S
EXHIBIT B
Pg ID 18
Pg ID 19
Pg ID 20
Pg ID 21
65
C
S
5:
ii.
62
c
Qr)
>1_Li
>!
Pg ID 22
Pg ID 23
IE'
Pg ID 24
ly
uJ
>
LY
Li
;;
'- I
>
Pg ID 25
Pg ID 26
Pg ID 27
WE
_________
4.
-x
SE
Pg ID 28
Pg ID 29

r
Ii
Pg ID 30
t4.r
Pg ID 31
-a
I
F
.1
L3
I
-F
4 i
Fr
U
2'
U
U
&
II
4
ill
Ut,
Pg ID 32
h
3It-
It
It
34
It
4133
P2
cc
t C
ID
41 3 14
p
It!
014
3 .5
3-.
H-
U')
HU
U
U
p
Cc
nfl
:3
C
LL.
5,0
-I
F
Ii
HI
1;
LU
41
It. It
H
<U
LtJ
LL
PIt
5
It
HAWDRTH
For more information call 800 44 2600 or ol 6 s93 3000
Download additional copies at hawoith corn
I his brocliute is punted on ESC certified 02 (0 paper,
ma icEectured with electricity Ili t ic form of rene cable
energy (wind hydra biogas) and contains a minimum
5130e poet consumer recovered fiber Ego isa global
benchmark for responsible forest maccageinenc
55 iea,,
[:2
MIx
U2
owe'
1_SC F000074503
Haworth is ieg steied trademark of Haworth Inc

Printed in USA oHawortli, Inc 2011 711 Itein toteS
laesorsh son, Haworth Europe tom Haworch Asia corn
Pg ID 33
EXHIBIT C
Pg ID 34
Pg ID 35
Pg ID 36
!I
U -
(n
Qj
a
J
(Th
fl
09
QJO11 i
ft
Efl
H__i H
op
(-.1
'-
--wit
C-
0
rm
c_)
Pg ID 37
Pg ID 38
L)
(1)
C-,
CU
HFh
CE
Pg ID 39
Pg ID 40
Pg ID 41
Li)
C 0
IT
-I--i
_3
Q)
IL
i_
WI
Pg ID 42
o -o
Ct 03
La
L4_
Qil
Oh
Pg ID 43
Pg ID 44
8
8
18
Co
18
18
18
IIU
Features
4-leg and wire rod multipurpose stacking chair and
caf stools, light task chair and task steel models
Transitional design
ARC Technology' (Active Rebound Control)
weight assisted flexback
Pg ID 45
Options
FRAME TYPE
4-Leg
27 caf Stool
30' caf Stool
Light Task
Task Stool
BACK & SEAT

Plastic
Plastic Back,
Upholstered Seat
upholstered Back
i &Seet
ARM PAD COLOR i BASE
ARMS
Armless
Black
Fixed i Fog
FRAME COLOR
Glides
casters
Black
Silver
(not available
br stools)
Exceptional support and comfort

Fully upholstered, upholstered seat or plastic
47 plastic shell colors
PIER OPTIONS
Ganging Bracket
Stacking cart
2 frame finishes with matching arm pads

Built-in pull handle
Clean-out space
Stacks 4 on floor, S on the optional cart
300 lbs. weight capacity
Lifetime Warranty
All options and 1,000's of textiles ship in 2, 5 or
10 days
Specifications
ii
iii
It
Dim ansi one are in inches.
logical use of/lieproduct(s) offered. ma textiles, frame

.J., accessoris and optionsdepirted are subjed to chane without noted. Refer to the cut Price Guide or contact
customer Support tar the most up-to-date product inennatton and specifications.
The imeges usedwithin this webette or documentrepresent the
GREENGUARD

Haworth v. Exemplis - 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

Haworth v. Exemplis - Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2:16-cv-10044-MAG-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 01/06/16 Pg 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

COMPLAINT AND JURY

2:16-cv-10044-MAG-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 01/06/16 Pg 2 of 9

Plaintiff complains against defendant as follows:

This is an action for patent infringement under Title 35 of the

Plaintiff is a Michigan corporation having its principal place of

business in Holland, Michigan.

Defendant is a California corporation. Defendant does business

as SitOnIt Seating, and defendant has committed substantial acts of infringement in

Plaintiff is an industry leader in the design and sale of office

the owner of it by assignment of the inventors.

2:16-cv-10044-MAG-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 01/06/16 Pg 3 of 9

Plaintiff incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1-5 above.

Defendant, without authority or license from plaintiff, has

Exemplary comparisons of the patented design and the

infringing Rio design are set forth below.

2:16-cv-10044-MAG-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 01/06/16 Pg 4 of 9

2:16-cv-10044-MAG-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 01/06/16 Pg 5 of 9

Defendants Rio chair infringes the Patent in at least the

Single one-piece molded back

Two uprights on opposed sides of back

Angled notch on rear surface of each upright

Armrest pad proportion

Vertical armrest cap proportion

Armrest cap proportion

Outward turning top of seat back

Lower back opening shape

2:16-cv-10044-MAG-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 01/06/16 Pg 6 of 9

Visible horizontal frame cross member

Vertical downward angled rear legs

Downward curling front seat edge

Outwardly protruding rear seat edge

Rear feet proportion

Front feet proportion

Gradual curving back

Rearward curving top and bottom back edges

Transitioning rear leg into armrest support

Rearward extending armrest

Angled armrest from rear leg

Back pivot point

Angled lower rear leg

2:16-cv-10044-MAG-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 01/06/16 Pg 7 of 9

Plaintiff provided written notice to defendant of defendants

infringement, but defendant has refused to cease its infringing activities.

Defendant is a direct competitor of plaintiff, and defendants

infringement has irreparably harmed plaintiff. Defendant will continue to infringe

Plaintiff is aware of the prosecution history of the Patent and

That decision does not properly preclude this

Plaintiff incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1-12 above.

For more than 30 years, plaintiff has continuously engaged in

For approximately six years, plaintiff has extensively promoted

These efforts have resulted in

2:16-cv-10044-MAG-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 01/06/16 Pg 8 of 9

The configuration of plaintiffs Very line of chairs constitutes

protectable, non-functional trade dress, including, depending on the chair:

The internal shape of the back opening

The shape of the back

The shape of the seat

The angle of the arm

The rearward extending armrest

The Very trade dress has resulted in considerable consumer

Defendants marketing and sale of the Rio chair, as well as

Defendants marketing and sale of the Rio line of chairs has