Mobile Hi-Tech Wheels v. DFD Wheels - Complaint

Case 2:15-cv-01961 Document 1 Filed 03/17/15 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:1
1
2
3
4
5
6
EDWARD R. SCHWARTZ, CA Bar No. 147553

ers@cph.com
CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP
655 North Central Avenue, Suite 2300
Glendale, California 91203-1445
Telephone: (626) 795-9900
Facsimile: (626) 577-8800
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
MOBILE HI-TECH WHEELS
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MOBILE HI-TECH WHEELS,

Plaintiff,
12
13
vs.
14
DFD WHEELS,
Case No.
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
INFRINGEMENT, TRADEMARK
INFRINGEMENT, AND UNFAIR
COMPETITION
Defendant.
15
16
17
I.
18
JURISDICTION.
1.
This is an action for patent infringement in violation of the patent
19
laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. 1, et seq., infringement of an unregistered
20
trademark under 15 U.S.C. 1125, and unfair competition under the common law
21
of California.
22
2.
Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b), 1391(c)(2), and
23
1400(b) in that Defendant DFD Wheels is a corporation which is subject to the
24
Courts personal jurisdiction with respect to the present action.
25
II.
26
PARTIES.
3.
Plaintiff Mobile Hi-Tech Wheels (MHT) is a corporation
27
organized and existing under the laws of the State of California having a principal
28
place of business at 19200 South Reyes Avenue, Rancho Dominguez, California

-1-
90221.
4.
On information and belief, Defendant DFD Wheels (DFD) is a
corporation organized under the laws of the State of Texas having a principal
place of business at 2701 Lucas Drive, Arlington, Texas 76015.
III.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND.
5.
Since 1986, MHT has been engaged and is presently engaged in the
design and distribution of custom wheels for automobiles. MHTs products are
sold to automobile dealers and retail distributors of automobile wheels as well as
to ultimate consumers throughout the United States.
10
6.
On October 29, 2012, MHT filed an application, Serial No.
11
29/435,831, with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to
12
obtain a design patent on a novel design for the front face of a wheel, which
13
wheel MHT sells under the name MAVERICK. The application was filed in the
14
name of Arthur D. Hale, Jr., (Hale), the MAVERICK wheel designs inventor,
15
and was assigned to MHT. A patent matured from this application entitled
16
Vehicle-Wheel Front Face, Patent Number D686,963, issued on July 30, 2013
17
(the 963 Patent). A copy of the 963 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
7.
18
On October 29, 2012, MHT also filed an application, Serial No.
19
29/435,827 with the PTO to obtain a design patent on a novel design for a spoke
20
of the MAVERICK wheel. The application was filed in the name of Hale, and
21
was assigned to MHT. A patent matured from this application entitled, Spoke
22
Segment of a Vehicle Wheel, Patent Number D689,002, issued on September 3,
23
2013 (the 002 Patent). A copy of the 002 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit
24
B.
25
8.
MHT has sold wheels under the trademark DUB since 2003 and has
26
named one of its lines of wheels DUB. MHT uses its DUB mark both in block
27
letters and in a distinctive logo. The logo is widely used on MHTs promotional
28
material as well as on the center caps of MHTs DUB line of wheels and
-2-
represents a valuable goodwill which inures to the benefit of MHT . Printouts
showing such use of MHTs DUB logo are attached hereto as Exhibits C and D.
9.
Notwithstanding the rights of MHT in its MAVERICK wheel and
spoke designs, Defendant DFD has offered for sale and sold vehicle wheels which
embody the patented MAVERICK designs. A screen shot from the website of a
vendor of DFD showing DFDs infringing wheel is attached hereto as Exhibit E.
10.
Notwithstanding the rights of MHT in its DUB logo, DFD sells its
wheels with a stylized DFD logo which is a colorable imitation of MHTs DUB
logo. A printout showing the DFD logo is attached hereto as Exhibit F.
10
11.
DFDs offer for sale and sale of vehicle wheels which embody
11
MHTs product MAVERICK wheel designs as referenced in Paragraph 10
12
hereinabove was without the consent or authorization of MHT as was its use of
13
the logo which is confusingly similar to MHTs DUB logo.
14
12.
On December 8, 2014, counsel for MHT sent a letter to DFD
15
demanding that it cease its infringement of MHTs 963 and 002 patents and of
16
the DUB logo. A true copy of MHTs demand letter is attached hereto as Exhibit
17
G. The demand letter was returned to MHTs counsel unopened and marked
18
THE RECEIVER [DFD WHEELS] REFUSED DELIVERY.
19
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
20
(Patent Infringement)
21
22
23
13.
Plaintiff repeats and realleges herein the allegations contained in
Paragraphs 1 through 12 hereinabove.

14.
Defendant DFD has offered for sale and sold in this district and
24
elsewhere in the United States, vehicle wheels which infringe the claims of the
25
963 and 002 Patents.
26
15.
By their aforesaid acts, Defendant DFD has violated 35 U.S.C. 271
27
by its direct infringement of the 963 and 006 Patents and by its acts of inducing
28
others to infringe the 963 and 002 Patents.

-3-
16.
Plaintiff has been damaged by the aforesaid infringement of the 963
and 002 Patents and will be irreparably damaged unless DFDs infringement is
enjoined by this Court. Plaintiff does not have an adequate remedy at law.
4
5
17.
On information and belief, DFDs infringement of the 963 and 002
Patents was willful.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Infringement of an Unregistered Trademark Under 15 U.S.C. 1125)
18.
9
10
Paragraphs 1 through 12 hereinabove.

19.
Notwithstanding MHTs prior-established use and rights in its DUB
11
logo, Defendant DFD has adopted and used its DFD logo in commerce and in
12
connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution and/or advertising of
13
vehicle wheels.
14
20.
DFDs logo is confusingly similar in appearance to MHTs DUB
15
logo and DFDs wheels are sold in direct competition with MHTs DUB wheels,
16
often being sold by the same retailers.
17
21.
Defendant DFDs use of the DFD logo in connection with the sale,
18
offering for sale, distribution and/or advertising of vehicle wheels is likely to
19
cause and, on information and belief, has caused and will continue to cause
20
confusion or mistake, and/or deception as to the affiliation, connection and/or
21
association with MHT and its DUB line of vehicles, or as to the origin,
22
sponsorship or approval of DFDs wheels by MHT in violation of 15 U.S.C.
23
1125, and infringes MHTs rights in its DUB logo.
24
25
26
22.
Defendants infringement of MHTs DUB logo is detrimental to the
goodwill and business reputation symbolized by MHTs DUB logo.

23.
On information and belief, Defendants acts alleged herein were
27
committed willfully and with knowledge that such unauthorized use of a
28
simulation of MHTs DUB logo was likely to cause confusion, or cause mistake,
-4-
or deceive purchasers to believe that MHT sponsored, endorsed, or authorized
Defendants wheels. Thus, a finding of an exceptional case within the meaning of
15 U.S.C. 1117 is warranted.
24.
Defendants willful and deliberate infringement of MHTs DUB logo
has caused and continues to cause MHT immediate and irreparable injury and
will continue to damage MHT and deceive the public unless enjoined by this
court.
8
9
25.
MHT has no adequate remedy at law as monetary damages are
inadequate to compensate MHT for the injuries cause by Defendant.
10
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
11
(Common Law Unfair Competition)
12
13
14
15
16
26.
Paragraphs 1 through 12 and 18-25 hereinabove.

27.
Defendants use of the DFD logo infringes MHTs exclusive
trademark rights in the DUB logo in violation of the common law of California.
28.
Defendants acts alleged above have caused, and if not enjoined, will
17
continue to cause irreparable and continuing harm to MHTs business, reputation,
18
and goodwill. MHT has no adequate remedy at law as monetary damages are
19
inadequate to compensate MHT for the injuries caused by Defendant.
20
21
22
29.
As a result of Defendants acts as alleged above, MHT has incurred
damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

30.
Defendants wrongful simulation of the DUB logo is deliberate,
23
willful, and in reckless disregard of MHTs trademark rights, entitling MHT to
24
the recovery of punitive damages.
25
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff MHT demands judgment as follows:
26
1.
That this Court adjudge and declare:
27
a.
that it has jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter
28
of this action;
-5-
1
2
b.
the DUB logo are valid and owned by MHT;
3
4
that United States Patent Nos. D686,963 and D689,002 and
c.
that Defendant DFD has infringed Plaintiffs patented
MAVERICK wheel and spoke designs; and
d.
that Defendant DFD has infringed MHTs DUB logo by its
use of the DFD logo.
2.
That Defendant DFD be required by mandatory injunction to deliver
to MHT for destruction:
a.
any and all wheels in Defendants possession, custody or
10
control embodying unauthorized use of the designs shown in United States Patent
11
Numbers D686,963 or D689,002, as well as all promotional literature and
12
packaging which display either of the infringing designs; and
13
b.
any and all uses of the DFD logo including but not limited to
14
vehicle wheel center caps as well as product material and packaging which
15
display the DUB logo.
16
3.
That Plaintiff be awarded damages covered by the acts of patent
17
infringement of Defendant in an amount not less than a reasonable royalty
18
pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 284 or in an amount equal to Defendants profits pursuant
19
to 35 U.S.C. 289, whichever is greater, and that such damages be trebled in
20
accordance with the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 284.
21
4.
That Plaintiff receive judgment for all damages and its lost profits
22
resulting from Defendants trademark infringement and that such damages be
23
trebled in accordance with the provisions of 15 U.S.C. 1117.
24
25
26
27
28
5.
That Plaintiff be awarded punitive damages as a result of
Defendants willful acts of unfair competition.

6.
That
Defendant
pay
Plaintiff
interest
on
all
infringement damages.
7.
That Plaintiff have and recover its costs in this action including
-6-
prejudgment
attorneys fees.
8.
just and proper.
DATED: March 16, 2015
That Plaintiff have such other or further relief as the Court may deem
5
6
Respectfully submitted,
By /s/ Edward R. Schwartz
Edward R. Schwartz
Attorneys for Plaintiff,

MOBILE HI-TECH WHEELS
8
9
10
SES PAS1346439.1-*-03/17/15 11:12 AM
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-7CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP
Case 2:15-cv-01961 Document 1-1 Filed 03/17/15 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:8
Exhibit A
Page 8
Exhibit A
Page 9
Exhibit A
Page 10
Exhibit A
Page 11
Exhibit B
Page 12
Exhibit B
Page 13
Exhibit B
Page 14
Exhibit C
Page 15
Exhibit C
Page 16
Exhibit D
Page 16
Exhibit E
Page 17
Exhibit F
Page 18
Exhibit G
Page 19
Exhibit G
Page 20
Exhibit G
Page 21
Exhibit G
Page 22
Exhibit G
Page 23
Exhibit G
Page 24
Exhibit G
Page 25
Exhibit G
Page 26
Exhibit G
Page 27
Exhibit G
Page 28
Exhibit G
Page 29

Mobile Hi-Tech Wheels v. DFD Wheels - 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

Mobile Hi-Tech Wheels v. DFD Wheels - Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:15-cv-01961 Document 1 Filed 03/17/15 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:1

EDWARD R. SCHWARTZ, CA Bar No. 147553

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MOBILE HI-TECH WHEELS,

This is an action for patent infringement in violation of the patent

laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. 1, et seq., infringement of an unregistered

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b), 1391(c)(2), and

1400(b) in that Defendant DFD Wheels is a corporation which is subject to the

Courts personal jurisdiction with respect to the present action.

Plaintiff Mobile Hi-Tech Wheels (MHT) is a corporation

place of business at 19200 South Reyes Avenue, Rancho Dominguez, California

CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP

Case 2:15-cv-01961 Document 1 Filed 03/17/15 Page 2 of 7 Page ID #:2

On information and belief, Defendant DFD Wheels (DFD) is a

place of business at 2701 Lucas Drive, Arlington, Texas 76015.

sold to automobile dealers and retail distributors of automobile wheels as well as

to ultimate consumers throughout the United States.

On October 29, 2012, MHT filed an application, Serial No.

On October 29, 2012, MHT also filed an application, Serial No.

Segment of a Vehicle Wheel, Patent Number D689,002, issued on September 3,

CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP

Case 2:15-cv-01961 Document 1 Filed 03/17/15 Page 3 of 7 Page ID #:3

represents a valuable goodwill which inures to the benefit of MHT . Printouts

Notwithstanding the rights of MHT in its MAVERICK wheel and

vendor of DFD showing DFDs infringing wheel is attached hereto as Exhibit E.

logo. A printout showing the DFD logo is attached hereto as Exhibit F.

MHTs product MAVERICK wheel designs as referenced in Paragraph 10

the logo which is confusingly similar to MHTs DUB logo.

On December 8, 2014, counsel for MHT sent a letter to DFD

THE RECEIVER [DFD WHEELS] REFUSED DELIVERY.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Plaintiff repeats and realleges herein the allegations contained in

Paragraphs 1 through 12 hereinabove.

963 and 002 Patents.

By their aforesaid acts, Defendant DFD has violated 35 U.S.C. 271

others to infringe the 963 and 002 Patents.

CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP

Case 2:15-cv-01961 Document 1 Filed 03/17/15 Page 4 of 7 Page ID #:4

Plaintiff has been damaged by the aforesaid infringement of the 963

On information and belief, DFDs infringement of the 963 and 002

Patents was willful.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Infringement of an Unregistered Trademark Under 15 U.S.C. 1125)

Plaintiff repeats and realleges herein the allegations contained in

Paragraphs 1 through 12 hereinabove.

Notwithstanding MHTs prior-established use and rights in its DUB

DFDs logo is confusingly similar in appearance to MHTs DUB

often being sold by the same retailers.

offering for sale, distribution and/or advertising of vehicle wheels is likely to

confusion or mistake, and/or deception as to the affiliation, connection and/or

sponsorship or approval of DFDs wheels by MHT in violation of 15 U.S.C.

1125, and infringes MHTs rights in its DUB logo.

Defendants infringement of MHTs DUB logo is detrimental to the

goodwill and business reputation symbolized by MHTs DUB logo.

On information and belief, Defendants acts alleged herein were

committed willfully and with knowledge that such unauthorized use of a

CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP

Case 2:15-cv-01961 Document 1 Filed 03/17/15 Page 5 of 7 Page ID #:5

or deceive purchasers to believe that MHT sponsored, endorsed, or authorized

Defendants wheels. Thus, a finding of an exceptional case within the meaning of

15 U.S.C. 1117 is warranted.

Defendants willful and deliberate infringement of MHTs DUB logo

MHT has no adequate remedy at law as monetary damages are