Rain Design v. Spinido - Complaint

Case 3:17-cv-03681-JSC Document 1 Filed 06/27/17 Page 1 of 25
1 Dara Tabesh (SBN 230434)

dara.tabesh@ecotechlaw.com
2
ECOTECH LAW GROUP, PC
3 5 Third St., Suite 501
San Francisco, California 94103
4 Telephone: (415) 503-9164
Facsimile: (415) 651-8639
5
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION
9
RAIN DESIGN, INC., KOK HONG LYE, Case No.
10
11 Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT
12 v. Filed: June 26, 2017
13 SPINIDO, INC., GOMFFER, INC., and does Jury Trial Demanded
1-10, inclusive.
14
Defendants.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0
COMPLAINT
1 PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT
2 1. Plaintiffs Rain Design, Inc. (Rain Design) and Mr. Kok Hong Lye (Mr. Lye),
3 in his individual capacity, by and through their undersigned attorneys, file this Complaint
4 against Defendants Spinido, Inc. (Spinido) and Gomffer Inc. (Gomffer), and state as follows:
5 NATURE OF THE ACTION
6 2. This is an action at law and in equity for Trade Dress Infringement, Trademark
7 Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition and False Designation, violation of California Unfair
8 Competition law, Copyright Infringement, and Design Patent Infringement. In particular,
9 Defendants Spinido and Gomffer, both of which were, or are, on information and belief, opened
10 and controlled by a Chinese parent company otherwise without a formal presence in the United
11 States, have infringed and continue to infringe or otherwise violate Rain Designs and Mr. Lyes
12 rights, including but not limited Rain Designs rights in its trade dress, in Trademark
13 Registration No. 3358767 (Exhibit A), in United States copyright Registration No.
14 VA0002050622 (Exhibit B (showing copyright registration and deposited photographs included
15 with copyright registration), in California unfair competition law, and Rain Designs and Mr.
16 Lyes rights in United States Design Patent No. D559,850 (hereinafter the patent-in-suit)
17 (Exhibit C), which is owned by Plaintiff Lye and has been subject to a perpetual, exclusive
18 license of all substantial rights from Mr. Lye to Plaintiff Rain Design at least since the patent-in-
19 suit issued on January 15, 2008.1
20 3. In particular, Spinido and Gomffer have engaged in a large-scale attempt to copy
21 nearly every aspect of Rain Designs mStand product and associated business, including
22 copying the patent-protected design of the mStand, copying the logo used to identify the
23

1
24 Under the same license agreement, the application that gave rise to the patent-in-suit
was also exclusively licensed by Mr. Lye to Rain Design. The license agreement has been in full
25 force and effect since it was signed by both parties in 2003, at the start of the company. All
terms under the license have been satisfied, and the agreement has resulted in the following
26 other United States patents being exclusively licensed from Mr. Lye to Rain Design: D676450
S1 (issued Feb 19, 2013), D703214 S1 (issued Apr 22, 2014), D537436 S1 (issued Feb 27,
27 2007), D557698S1 (issued Dec 18, 2007), D559850S1 (issued Jan 15, 2008), D510357S1
(issued Oct 4 2005), D528102S1 (issued Sep 12, 2006), D576429S1 (issued Sep 9, 2008), and
28 D639815S1 (issued Jun 14, 2011).
1
COMPLAINT
1 mStand, copying the packaging used to distribute the mStand, and copying photographs of the
2 mStand while representing that the photographs were of Spinidos and/or Gomffers products.
3 Moreover, Spinido and Gomffer have deliberately made it impossible to reach either company
4 to provide notice of such facts, and have generally ignored any attempt to resolve these issues.
5 PARTIES
6 4. Plaintiff Rain Design is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
7 the State of California, having its headquarters and principal place of business at 1036 Ashby
8 Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94710, since April 2016, and prior to that, since April 2011, at 550 10th
9 St., San Francisco, CA 94103. Rain Designs business includes designing, manufacturing, and
10 selling computer, laptop, tablet, and smartphone stands, including the mStand, which is a laptop
11 stand that embodies the single claim of the patent-in-suit. (See Exhibit D; compare Exhibit C
12 with Exhibit D.)
13 5. Plaintiff Mr. Lye is a founder of Rain Design and has served and continues to
14 serve as a Chief Designer at Rain Design. Mr. Lye is the Rain Design member who took the
15 copyrighted photograph infringed by Defendants. Mr. Lye is also the owner of and sole named
16 inventor listed on the patent-in-suit, which has been, during its pendency, exclusively licensed,
17 with all significant rights, to Rain Design. (See Exhibit E.) Mr. Lye is a citizen of Singapore and
18 a resident of Singapore, though he does reside in California for up to about three months a year
19 to work with and at Rain Designs California office.
20 6. Defendant Spinido is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
21 State of Colorado. According to its website (http://www.spinidostore.com/ (last visited June 20,
22 2017)), Spinido markets and sells (and on information and belief, manufactures) various
23 technology accessories and/or office equipment, including but not limited to on its own website
24 and through third-party vendors and/or websites such as Amazon.com. Among these are: (1) its
25 TI-Station Laptop Aluminum Cooling Stand For Macbook and All Notebooks (both with swivel
26 base and without swivel base) (TI Station) (Exhibit F); and (2) its Spinido Premium
27 Exquisite Aluminum Laptop Stand and Adjustable Magnesium Phone Holder for All Laptops
28
2
COMPLAINT
1 and Phones (TI Combination2) (Exhibit G). (Collectively, these are referred to as the
2 Infringing Products). Each of the Infringing Products infringes the patent-in-suit, and each of
3 the packaging used to distribute the Infringing Products infringes Rain Designs trade dress.
4 7. According to the Colorado Secretary of State website, Spinidos current principal
5 place of business is at 305 W. South Ave, Woodland Park, CO 80863. Jinhua Chin is listed on
6 the Colorado Secretary of State website as the registered agent at that same address. Spinido, in
7 this incarnation, was formed as a corporation on October 21, 2016. In an earlier incarnation,
8 Spinido was formed as a corporation under the laws of the State of Colorado on February 28,
9 2014, and voluntarily dissolved on October 21, 2016. During that incarnation, Spinidos
10 principal place of business was at 36 South 18th Ave., Ste. A, Brighton, CO 80601. Then,
11 Xiaowei Chen was listed on the Colorado Secretary of State website as the registered agent at
12 that same address.
13 8. Defendant Gomffer is also a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
14 the State of Colorado. According to the Colorado Secretary of State, Gomffer, like the current
15 incarnation of Spinido, was formed on October 21, 2016. On information and belief, Gomffer
16 was formed, in part, to sell Spinido products on Amazon.com (i.e., Amazon USA) and similar
17 websites and services, because, after having been alerted by Rain Design of Spinidos infringing
18 activity, Amazon.com delisted Spinido and/or certain of Spinidos Infringing Products from its
19 United States website.
20 9. On information and belief, Spinido and Gomffer are alter egos.
21 10. Further, on information and belief, it may be the case that Gomffer was formed
22 and/or Spinido was reformed and/or reorganized in an attempt to avoid liability for a finding of
23 design patent infringement (by default judgment) against Spinido in a separate matter with
24 plaintiff 12 South (explained in further detail below). (See Exhibit H.)
25
26
2
As explained in further detail below, Gomffer sells this same product. Also, earlier
27 versions of the same Spinido product were expressly named the TI-Combination.
Accordingly, the Infringing Products also refers to all versions of these products sold by
28 both Spinido and Gomffer.
3
COMPLAINT
1 11. On information and belief, both Spinido and Gomffer were opened and/or are
2 funded, controlled by, and/or are subsidiaries of a Chinese parent company, ShenZhen Sheng
3 HaiNa Technology Co., Ltd. (ShenZhen), a company located at one point in China at Site 4A,
4 No. 7 FenChang, HuaHui Shi Jie, Hongli West Road, Lianhua Street, Futian District, Shenzhen
5 City, China. Indeed, both the pending Gomffer trademark application (Exhibit I) and the
6 Spinido trademark on its logo (Exhibit J) are owned by ShenZhen. (Compare Exhibit I with
7 Exhibit J.)
8 12. Like Spinido, Gomffer markets and sells (and on information and belief,
9 manufactures) various technology accessories and/or office equipment. On information and
10 belief, however, Gomffer sells Spinido products, including the TI-Combination. To date,
11 Gomffer does not appear to operate its own website, but rather, sells its products through
12 various third-party vendors and/or websites, such as Amazon.com or ebay.com. Among these
13 are its 2 in 1 Laptop and Phone Stand Holder for Apple MacBook and All Notebooks, iPhone
14 Series (Gomffers Laptop Stand with Phone Holder) (Exhibit K). On information and belief,
15 Gomffers Laptop Stand with Phone Holder is the same product as Spinidos TI-Combination.
16 (Compare Exhibit G with Exhibit K.) Notably, both products bear the same Spinido logo. (See
17 Exhibits G and K.)
18 13. Based on Plaintiffs investigation, neither Spinido nor Gomffer has a physical
19 presence in the United States. Rather, they simply sell and ship goods, on information and
20 belief, from China (and on information and belief, which are supplied by ShenZhen) into the
21 United States through on-line consumer websites and logistic/fulfillment service providers such
22 as Amazon.com, or using its own websites.
23 14. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of any Defendant sued
24 herein as Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and therefore sue these Defendants by such fictitious
25 names. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when
26 ascertained, including the true name and identity of any other corporate entity related to Spinido
27 and/or Gomffer that has infringed or misappropriated any of Plaintiffs patented design,
28
4
COMPLAINT
1 copyright registration, trademark registrations, trade dress, or other intellectual property right or
2 asset.
3 JURISDICTION
4 15. This is an action seeking damages and injunctive relief for copyright
5 infringement under the Copyright Act of the United States, 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq.
6 16. This is also an action for trade dress infringement seeking damages and
7 injunctive relief for trade dress infringement under the Lanham Act of the United States, 15
8 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.
9 17. This is also an action seeking damages and injunctive relief for design patent
10 infringement under the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. 101 et seq.
11 18. This is also an action seeking damages and injunctive relief for Federal Unfair
12 Competition and False Designation of Origin under the Lanham Act.
13 19. This is also an action seeking damages and injunctive relief for violation of
14 California Unfair Competition Law under 17200 et seq. of the California Business and
15 Profession Code.
16 20. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over these actions pursuant to 28
17 U.S.C. 1331; 28 U.S.C. 1332; 28 U.S.C. 1338(a); 28 U.S.C. 1338(b); and 28 U.S.C.
18 1367.
19 21. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Spinido and Gomffer for one or more of
20 the following reasons:
21 a. The exercise of personal jurisdiction over Spinido and Gomffer by this
22 Court is consistent with the Federal Due Process Clause, as Spinido and Gomffer have
23 each established minimum contacts with this forum such that the exercise of jurisdiction
24 over Spinido and Gomffer would not offend traditional notions of fair play and
25 substantial justice;
26 b. Spinido and Gomffer have done and continue to do business in the State
27 of California and in this District and with one or more residents of the State of California
28 and this District;

5
COMPLAINT
1 c. Spinido and Gomffer direct, into the State of California and into this
2 District, commerce, goods, and advertising;
3 d. Spinido and Gomffer have offered, and continue to offer, products, the
4 sale and/or offer of sale of which constitutes patent infringement in the State of
5 California and in this District; and
6 e. Spinido and Gomffer have committed tortious injury to Rain Designs
7 business operations within the State of California and in this District.
8 22. Rain Design owns a perpetual, exclusive license to the patent-in-suit. By the
9 terms of the original License Agreement between Rain Design and Mr. Lye (Exhibit E), the
10 patent-in-suit, as well as the application that gave rise to the patent-in-suit, were, among all
11 (then) current and future patents and patent applications, licensed to Rain Design.
12 VENUE
13 23. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 and 1400 because
14 Spinido and Gomffer have transacted and continue to transact business within the Northern
15 District of California, and have sold and continues to offer for sale products for which sales and
16 offers to sell constitute patent infringement, trade dress infringement, copyright infringement,
17 violations of California Unfair Competition Law, and violations of Federal Unfair Competition
18 and False Designation laws.
19 BACKGROUND AND RELEVANT FACTS
20 24. Rain Design is a marketplace leader and innovator in the field of electronic-
21 related products and accessories, including stands for laptop computers, notebooks, and
22 smartphones. Rain Design focuses on creating innovative accessories designed primarily for
23 Apple products (e.g., MacBook, iPad, and iPhone) that enhance the experience of using
24 computer products, including Apple products, for its customers.
25 25. Rain Design is well known in the marketplace for its originality in the design and
26 the quality of its products that it produces and sells, including winning awards such as Apples
27 Macworld Best in Show in 2011 for a similar product (i.e., an iPad stand). Rain Design has
28
6
COMPLAINT
1 been designing, producing, and selling accessories for Apple and other computer products since
2 2003.
3 26. One of Rain Designs products is an aluminum laptop stand for laptop computers
4 named the mStand.
5 27. Given the novelty and originality of the design that became embodied in Rain
6 Designs mStand product, Mr. Lye sought and obtained design patent protection for this design.
7 28. On January 15, 2008, United States Design Patent No. D559,850 (i.e., the patent-
8 in-suit) was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. This
9 patent has remained, and continues to be, in full force since that time.
10 29. Since its issuance, Rain Design has been the exclusive licensee of the patent-in-
11 suit, holding all substantial rights in and to the patent-in-suit, including the right to bring this
12 action, to collect past and present damages, and to obtain injunctions, for any past and present
13 infringement of the patent-in-suit.
14 30. The patent-in-suit covers the ornamental design for the mStand.
15 31. Rain Design has extensively promoted, advertised, and used the mStand design
16 of the patent-in-suit in a variety of media outlets throughout the United States, and has been
17 featured by and in a variety of consumer or media outlets throughout the United States. Among
18 these are its own website, raindesigninc.com, as well as Amazon.com, various magazines and
19 websites (including but not limited to MacWorld Magazine, Mac Directory, Mac Observer,
20 CNET.com), various trade shows (including but not limited to MacWorld (San Francisco, CA),
21 CES (Las Vegas, NV), IFA (Berlin, Germany), ASMC (Austin, TX), Distree (APAC), and
22 Distree (Latin America), and various distributor and reseller websites (including Ingram Micro,
23 Walmart.com, Apple.com, B&H, BestBuy.com, Staples.com, officedepot.com, etc.), and by
24 Rain Designs distributor network (see http://www.raindesigninc.com/where-to-buy.html (last
25 visited June 20, 2017)). As of June 21, 2017, the mStand has accumulated at least 2,966 reviews
26 on Amazon.com since April 2007, of which about 86% are 5-star reviews. In addition, the
27 mStand has earned several awards, including but not limited to: 5-Star award by Applegazette in
28
7
COMPLAINT
1 2008; 5-Star Editors Choice by Macworld UK in 2011; and Best Laptop Stand Award by
2 Bestadvisor in 2017.
3 32. The mStand has undoubtedly been a commercial success, with its distinctive
4 design providing differentiation from other competitors designs. Unfortunately, Spinido and
5 Gomffer seek to avail themselves of this success by copying not only the product, but its unique
6 and distinctive packaging.
7 33. Indeed, Rain Design sells the mStand with unique and distinctive packaging
8 associated with Rain Design and the mStand brand, which includes each of three multi-faceted
9 designs labeled on each of three sides of the box in which the mStand is packaged. (Exhibits L-
10 N (photographs of each of one side of the box in which the mStand is packaged). Spinidos TI-
11 Station includes three trade-dress infringing designs on the box in which the TI Station is
12 packaged. (Compare Exhibits L-N (showing Rain Designs trade dress) with Exhibits O-Q,
13 respectively (showing Spinidos trade-dress infringing designs).) Likewise, Spinidos TI-
14 Combination includes three trade-dress infringing designs on the box in which the TI-
15 Combination is packaged. (Compare Exhibits L-N with Exhibits R-T (showing Spinidos trade-
16 dress infringing designs), respectively.)
17 34. Spinidos trade dress is designed to be confusingly similar to the reasonable
18 customer, who will confuse Spinidos trade dress for Rain Designs.
19 35. Because Gomffer sells the same product as Spinidos TI-Combination, Exhibits
20 R-T also reflect Gomffers infringement of Rain Designs trade dress.
21 36. With respect to a first side of Rain Designs packaging (Exhibit L), a
22 corresponding first side of the packaging for the TI-Station (Exhibit O), and a corresponding
23 first side for the packaging for the TI-Combination (Exhibit R), Spinidos (and/or Gomffers)
24 packaging is deliberately confusingly similar with Rain Designs packaging for at least the
25 following reasons:
26 Each bears a company logo on the top right corner of the box side.
27 Each bears the same stylized logo of a computer monitor, and below it the same
28 stylized drawing of a platform for the monitor, with the product name disposed
8
COMPLAINT
1 inside the monitor (in the same font). Notably, Rain Design owns a registered
2 trademark to this logo. (See Trademark Registration No. 3358767 (Exhibit A).)
3 Accordingly, Spinidos and/or Gomffers use of the same logo with its own
4 product name used instead of mStand, in the same stylized font, is confusingly
5 similar to Rain Designs trademark from the perspective of the reasonable
6 consumer, and thus constitutes trademark infringement under federal law.
7 Each bears the phrase Designed to uplift (in the same font) below the mStand
8 logo.
9 Each bears the same MacLife Editors Choice award language (in the same
10 font) and corresponding MacLife logo on the left side of the display.
11 Each bears the same Macworld logo on the left side of the display.
12 Each bears the same quote (in the same font) on the left side of the display: The
13 [product name] is perhaps the most attractive stand Ive seen. Its definitely the
14 sturdiest. The quote is also presented with the same stylized quotation marks
15 around that quote. Notably, this quote is about Rain Designs product, not
16 Spinido of Gomffers product, and is copied from a 2007 MacWorld Review of
17 the mStand. (See Exhibit U.)
18 Each uses a back perspective view photograph of the corresponding product with
19 an Apple computer laptop disposed thereon, with a black background.
20 Significantly, the TI-Station box uses an exact copy of the same photograph Rain
21 Design uses of its product in use. (Compare Exhibit L with Exhibit O; see also
22 Exhibit B (showing deposit copy of photograph).) Rain Design owns a registered
23 copyright to this photograph. Accordingly, Spinidos and/or Gomffers actions in
24 this regard also constitute copyright infringement.
25 Each employs the same color scheme.
26 37. With respect to a second side of Rain Designs packaging (Exhibit M), a
27 corresponding second side of the packaging for the TI-Station (Exhibit P), and a corresponding
28 second side for the packaging for the TI-Combination (Exhibit S), Spinidos (and/or Gomffers)
9
COMPLAINT
1 packaging is deliberately confusingly similar with Rain Designs packaging for at least the
2 following reasons:
3 Each bears a perspective view photograph of the product taken from a similar
4 angle without a laptop or other computer device disposed thereon, against a white
5 background.
6 Surrounding this photograph on each of the box sides is a series of seven
7 identical quotes: (1) Tilt design brings screen closer; (2) Raised screen meets
8 eye level for better posture; (3) Increases screen height by about 6 inches (15.3
9 cm), (4) Cable organizer behind hides away messy cables,3 (5) Keyboard stash
10 clears up desk area when not in use, (6) Single piece aluminum design
11 provides solid stability, and (7) Aluminum panel cools laptop by acting as heat
12 sink.
13 Each bears an insert of a back-perspective view photograph of the product with a
14 laptop disposed thereon. Significantly, the TI-Station box uses an exact copy of
15 the same photograph Rain Design uses of its product in use, both of which
16 include a back view of the mStand product and laptop disposed thereon set next
17 to a back view of an iMac computer. (Compare Exhibit M with Exhibit P; see
18 also Exhibit B (showing deposit copy of the same photograph).) Rain Design
19 owns a registered copyright to this photograph. Accordingly, Spinidos and/or
20 Gomffers actions in this regard also constitute copyright infringement.
21 Each uses the same quote in the same font at the bottom of the packaging:
22 [Product name] features. Designed to match Apples notebooks, TI-Station is
23 made from a single solid piece of aluminum with sand-blasted silver anodized
24 finish. [Product name] transforms your notebook4 into a stylish and stable
25 workstation.
26

27 3
The TI-Combination packaging includes additional language (emphasis added to show
added language): Cable organizer behind hides away messy cables of your laptop and phone.
28 4
The TI-Combination also incudes the additional language: and phone . . . .
10
COMPLAINT
2 38. With respect to a third side of Rain Designs packaging (Exhibit N), a
3 corresponding third side of the packaging for the TI-Station (Exhibit Q) and a corresponding
4 third side for the packaging for the TI-Combination (Exhibit T), Spinidos packaging is
5 deliberately confusingly similar with Rain Designs packaging for at least the following reasons:
6 Each displays a large drawing of two horizontally joined circular regions with a
7 drawing inside the left circular region showing a user working on a laptop
8 without the laptop stand with opaque dots showing areas of strain or stress that
9 result from not using the product; and a drawing on the right side showing a user
10 using the product, and thus avoiding such areas of strain or stress. Notably, the
11 drawings used for the mStand (see Exhibit N) and the TI-Station (see Exhibit Q)
12 are copies of each other, while the drawing for the TI-Combination is
13 substantially similar, but shows a woman instead of a man.
14 Each bears the same quote in the same font beneath each of the two circular
15 regions of the drawing: Working on a laptop can strain your eyes, neck, back
16 and arms. Prolonged strain may lead to health problems or injury; and [Product
17 name] reduces the strain by raising the laptop screen to your eye level for better
18 posture and view.
19 Each shows a photograph of the product in use on the left end of the box side.
20 Each shows the same quote at the bottom of the box side: All ergonomic
21 guidelines recommend placing the screen at eye level, and keeping your back,
22 forearms and wrists straight. These can be achieved by using your laptop with
23 [Product name], an external keyboard and a mouse. [Product name] helps you
24 work comfortably every day.
26 39. In recognition of the commercial success of the design embodied in the patent-in-
27 suit, Spinido began manufacturing and selling Spinidos Infringing Products in competition with
28 Rain Design, and later, Gomffer began doing the same.

11
COMPLAINT
1 40. On information and belief, Spinido copied the design of the patent-in-suit and/or
2 the mStand, which embodies the patent-in-suit.5 Indeed, the design of Spinidos TI-Station is the
3 same as or substantially the same as the design embodied in the patent-in-suit and/or the mStand
4 design. The designs are so similar, as to be nearly identical, such that the ordinary observer
5 would be so deceived by the substantial similarity between the designs so as to be induced to
6 purchase Spinidos product while believing it to be substantially the same as the design
7 protected by patent-in-suit. Indeed, the only differences between the products appear to be non-
8 ornamental, such as the presence of the Spinido logo identifying the product source as Spinido,
9 and the hole in the back of Spinidos product (and the mStand) used for the functional purpose
10 of receiving a computer wire.
11 41. Likewise, Spinidos TI-Combination (also sold by Gomffer) infringes the patent-
12 in-suit. The laptop stand portion of Spinidos TI-Combination is the same or substantially the
13 same design as the design protect by the patent-in-suit and the mStand design, but includes an
14 attached, retractable, separate smartphone holder that can be removed from the laptop stand
15 portion of the product. The only substantial difference between the laptop stand portions of
16 these designs is the presence of functional grooves that allow for retractability of the attached
17 smartphone holder. As such, because Spinidos TI-Combination fully embodies the single claim
18 of the patent-in-suit, Spinidos TI-Combination is also an infringing product.
19 42. Since 2014, according to the Colorado Secretary of State, Spinidos principal
20 office was located at 36 South 18th Avenue, Suite A, Brighton, CO 80601.
21 43. This address was confirmed by Spinido as its then principal office on December
22 29, 2015, when Spinido filed a Statement Curing Delinquency with the Colorado Secretary of
23 State.
24 44. Additionally, Spinido continues to list the above-referenced principal office
25 address and email address as its contact information for the trademark of its Spinido logo,
26 which it continues to use to advertise its products. Spinidos correspondence on that trademark
27
5
Not surprisingly, Spinido copies other Rain Design products for which design patent
28 applications are currently pending.
12
COMPLAINT
1 registration was listed as Spinido Inc., Excellence Century Room 709-710, 7/F,T (in China).
2 Further, ShenZhen is listed as the owner of that trademark.
3 45. Based on this information, Rain Design sent a cease-and-desist letter (Exhibit V)
4 by Certified U.S. Mail, dated October 15, 2015, to Spinido, to two addresses: (1) 36 South 18th
5 Avenue, Suite A, Brighton, CO 80601, to the attention of agent for service Xiaowei Chen,
6 which was the then-listed address listed on the Colorado Secretary of State website, and (2)
7 Spinido Inc., Excellence Century Room 709-710, 7/F,T, which is the correspondence address (in
8 China) listed for Spinido in its trademark registration. The letter outlined Spinidos infringement
9 of the patent-in-suit, as alleged herein and, among other things, demanded the Spinido stop
10 making, using, offering to sell, or selling infringing products within the United States.
11 46. Both letters were returned as undeliverable. To date, Spinido has not responded
12 to these letters.
13 47. At about the same time this letter was sent to Spinido, Rain Design reached out
14 to Amazon.com to inform the company and provide evidence of Spinidos use of the
15 Amazon.com United States website to facilitate violation of Rain Designs rights, including the
16 infringement of the patent-in-suit. Soon thereafter, Amazon.com removed the infringing Spinido
17 products from its United States website and revoke Spinidos sellers rights thereon.
18 48. On July 29, 2016, ShenZhen, via its attorney, faxed a letter to Rain Design
19 employee Harvey Tai, demanding that Rain Design withdraw its complaints to Amazon.com in
20 the United States, because its seller privileges had been revoked. (Exhibit W.) Though the letter
21 identified two infringing Spinido products, the attorney stated that he represents ShenZhen.
22 49. On November 25, 2016, Rain Designs distributor in the United Kingdom
23 received notice that Rain Design had been delisted from Amazon UK.
24 50. On January 13, 2016, after much effort in trying to determine the bases for the
25 delisting, Rain Design was informed that this delisting was due to Spinidos allegations that a
26 recently registered design of Spinido, covering a new laptop stand, was being infringed by Rain
27 Designs mStand product via the Amazon UK website. On information and belief, when Spinido
28 had been informed that it had certain selling privileges suspended on Amazon US due to Rain
13
COMPLAINT
1 Designs claim of patent infringement to Amazon US, Spinido sought to retaliate by taking
2 seemingly analogous action with Amazon UK.
3 51. Once Rain Design explained, with evidence, to representatives at Amazon UK,
4 that not only did Rain Design not infringe Spinidos design registration, but that if it did, Rain
5 Designs product, which had been available since 2007, must be prior art to that design
6 registration, which would render it invalid. Accordingly, on February 14, 2016, Amazon UK
7 returned to Rain Design its right to conduct its business on the Amazon UK website.
8 52. By this time, Rain Design learned that Spinido had reorganized on October 21,
9 2016, and accordingly, had listed a new address on the Colorado Secretary of State website. In
10 an abundance of caution, Rain Design sent the letter to the earlier address, to the new address
11 (305 W. South Ave., Woodland Park, CO 80863), with a Jinhua Chen listed as the agent for
12 service of process), and to a home address in California for Jinhua Chen that was disclosed in
13 Spinidos publicly available corporate filings with the Colorado Secretary of State (506 N.
14 Garfield Ave. #210, Alhambra, CA 92801). This letter, like the earlier letter, asserted Plaintiffs
15 rights in the patent-in-suit and demanded that Spinido cease and desist all infringing activity.
16 Notably, when sending the letter from a United States Postal Office in San Francisco,
17 California, a postal worker noted that the address used for Spinidos agent for service of process
18 (i.e., 305 W. South Ave., Woodland Park, CO 80863) did not exist according to its records.
19 These letters were all returned as undeliverable.
20 53. On February 2, 2017, after having determined that Spinido was continuing its
21 infringement of Rain Designs product by offering and selling Spinidos Infringing Products
22 through its own online store, Rain Design sent another set of cease-and-desist letter to Spinido
23 at various addresses, asserting its rights. (Exhibit X.) These letters were all returned as
24 undeliverable.
25 54. Because Spinido appeared to be a subsidiary of ShenZhen, on February 21, 2017,
26 Rain Design sent a follow-up cease-and-desist letter to ShenZhen at its address listed on the
27 United States Trademark Office website for its Spinido logo trademark. (Exhibit Y.) That letter
28 was also returned as undeliverable, and to date, Spinido has not responded to it.
14
COMPLAINT
1 55. Like the earlier letters, all three sets of these letters were returned as
2 undeliverable, and to date, Spinido has not responded to any of them.
3 56. On or about May 10, 2017, Rain Design discovered that Spinido and/or
4 ShenZhen had started a new company, Gomffer, and was selling (including selling on
5 Amazon.com, even though Spinido appears to be the same company as, an alter ego of, or
6 related to Gomffer) a product that appeared to be the same as Spinidos TI-Combination.
7 Indeed, the Gomffer product also bore the Spinido logo. Further, after researching the company,
8 Rain Design discovered that the trademark to the Gomffer name was, like the trademark for the
9 Spinido logo, owned by ShneZhen. On information and belief, ShenZhen and/or Spinido created
10 Gomffer and organized it under the State Laws of Colorado to circumvent Amazon.com
11 preventing the sale of Spinidos infringing products, to avoid any liability associated with the
12 Spinido brand, and to continue selling its knock-off products without consequence.
13 57. On or about May 17, 2017, in anticipation of bringing this lawsuit, Rain Designs
14 attorney attempted to reach ShenZhens attorney (see Exhibit W) by phone.6 Rain Designs
15 attorney called twice in consecutive days, the second time leaving a voice-mail asking for a
16 response as to whether the attorney also represented Spinido and/or Gomffer with respect to
17 ShenZhens attorneys earlier facsimile to Rain Design. ShenZhens attorney never returned
18 these calls.
19 58. As alleged herein, each of the Infringing Products has a design that is the same or
20 substantially the same as the protected design of the patent-in-suit and Rain Designs mStand
21 product. With respect to Spinidos TI-Station, the designs are so similar as to be nearly identical
22 such that an ordinary observer would be so deceived by the substantial similarity between the
23 designs so as to be induced to purchase Spinidos products believing them to be substantially the
24 same as the design protected by the patent-in-suit. With respect to Spinido and Gomffers TI-
25 Combination, which upon information and belief are the same product, the laptop stand portion
26

27 6
Until around this time, Rain Designs attorney had mistakenly thought that the
facsimile (Exhibit W) had been sent by ShenZhen, not ShenZhens attorney, and thus had not
28 attempted to reach ShenZhens attorney until this date.
15
COMPLAINT
1 of the design is so similar as to be nearly identical such that an ordinary observer would be so
2 deceived by the substantial similarity between the designs so as to be induced to purchase
3 Spinido or Gomffers products believing them to be substantially the same as the design
4 protected by the patent-in-suit.
5 59. Plaintiffs have not granted a license or any other authorization to Spinido and/or
6 Gomffer to make, use, offer, sell, or import products that embody the design patented in the
7 patent-in-suit and which is proprietary to Plaintiffs, particularly in relation to Rain Designs
8 mStand product.
9 60. In spite of the rights of Plaintiffs, Spinido and/or Gomffer willfully and
10 knowingly infringed on Plaintiffs rights, including their rights under the patent-in-suit.
11 61. Plaintiffs have been damaged by Spinido and/or Gomffers wrongful and
12 infringing conduct, including, without limitation to, suffering actual damages.
13 62. Likewise, Plaintiffs have been damaged by, inter alia, Spinidos and/or
14 Gomffers acts that constitute trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, copyright
15 infringement, and violation of California and Federal Unfair Competition laws.
16 63. Rain Design has seen a reduction in sales of its mStand product since Spinidos
17 and/or Gomffers Infringing Products entered the marketplace.
18 64. Spinido and/or Gomffer use the same or similar channels to sell their competing
19 products, including Amazon.com.
20 65. Spinido and/or Gomffers wrongful conduct and infringing activities will
21 continue unless enjoined by this Court.
22 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
23 TRADE DRESS INFRINGEMENT
24 66. Rain Design hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in
25 Paragraphs 1-65 above, as if fully set forth herein.
26 67. Rain Design is the owner of all right and title to the distinctive trade dress
27 associated with the mStand, including the trade dress reflected in the mStands packaging.
28
16
COMPLAINT
1 68. The trade dress embodied in the mStand products trade dress has acquired
2 secondary meaning, and is not functional.
3 69. In addition, based on extensive and consistent advertising, promotion, and sales
4 throughout the United States, the mStand product trade dress has acquired distinctiveness and
5 enjoys secondary meaning among consumers, identifying Rain Design as the source of these
6 products.
7 70. Rain Designs promotion of the distinctive mStand product trade dress has
8 resulted in Rain Designs acquisition of valuable, legally protected rights in the mStand
9 products trade dress, as well as considerable customer goodwill.
10 71. Defendants Infringing Products misappropriated the Rain Design trade dress by
11 mimicking a combination of several elements of that trade dress.
12 72. Defendants manufacture and distribution of the Infringing Products
13 incorporating Plaintiffs designs that mimic a combination of several elements of the mStand
14 products trade dress is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive the
15 consumer as to the affiliation, connection, or association of Spinido and/or Gomffer with Rain
16 Design, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval by Rain Design of Spinidos and/or
17 Gomffers goods, services, or commercial activities.
18 73. Defendants manufacture and/or distribution of the their Infringing Products
19 incorporating Plaintiffs designs that mimic a combination of several elements of the Rain
20 Design products trade dress enable Defendants to benefit unfairly from Rain Designs
21 reputation and success, thereby giving Defendants Infringing Products sales and commercial
22 value they would not otherwise have.
23 74. Defendants knew of Rain Designs products trade dress when they designed
24 their Infringing Products and packaging. Accordingly, Defendants infringement has been and
25 continues to be intentional, willful, and without regard to Rain Designs products trade dress.
26 75. Rain Design has been and will continue to be irreparably harmed and damaged
27 by Defendants conduct. The amount of monetary damages to Plaintiffs cannot be ascertained at
28
17
COMPLAINT
1 this time but is in excess of $75,000. Moreover, Rain Design lacks an adequate remedy at law to
2 compensate for this harm and damage.
3 76. Rain Design is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants
4 have gained profits by virtue of their infringement of the mStand products trade dress.
5 77. Plaintiff has also sustained damages as a direct and proximate result of
6 Defendants infringement of the mStand product trade dress in an amount to be proven at trial.
7 78. Because Defendants actions have been willful, Rain Design is entitled to treble
8 its actual damages or Defendants profits, whichever is greater, and to an award of costs, and,
9 this being an exceptional case, reasonable attorney fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117(a).
10 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
11 TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
12 79. Rain Design hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in
14 80. Defendants use of the mStand logo trademark, as set forth herein, will likely
15 cause confusion or mistake and deceive the public into believing that Defendants Infringing
16 Products originate from, are affiliated with, or are sponsored by, Rain Design in violation of 15
17 U.S.C. 1114 and 1125(a).
18 81. Defendants have willfully, wantonly, and intentionally used Rain Designs
19 registered trademark.
20 82. The infringing conduct of Defendants has caused, and likely will continue to
21 cause, both irreparable harm and monetary damages to Plaintiffs. The amount of monetary
22 damages to Plaintiffs cannot be ascertained at this time but is in excess of $75,000.
23 83. Unless this Court restrains Defendants from further infringing conduct, Rain
24 Design will continue to suffer irreparable harm, for which it has no adequate remedy at law.
25 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
26 VIOLATION OF FEDERAL UNFAIR COMPETITION
27 AND FALSE DESIGNATION LAW
28
18
COMPLAINT
1 84. Plaintiffs hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in
3 85. Defendants acts, as described herein, are likely to cause confusion or mistake or
4 to deceive customers as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of Defendants Infringing
5 Products by Rain Design in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).
6 86. Upon information and belief, Defendants acts of unfair competition, as
7 described herein, are deliberate and willful and were undertaken with the intent to
8 misappropriate the goodwill and reputation associated with the mStand.
9 87. Defendants acts of infringement have caused both irreparable harm and
10 monetary damage to Plaintiffs in an amount that cannot be ascertained at this time but is in
11 excess of $75,000, and, unless restrained, will cause further irreparable harm, leaving Plaintiffs
12 with no adequate remedy at law. By their foregoing acts, Defendants have deceived and
13 confused members of the public, and they are likely to continue to do so unless restrained and
14 enjoined by the Court.
15 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
16 VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA UNFAIR COMPETITIONLAW
17 UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW
20 89. Defendants acts, as described above, are likely to cause confusion or mistake or
21 to deceive consumers as to the affiliation, connection, or association of Defendants with Rain
22 Design as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of Defendants goods by Rain Design in
23 violation of 17200 et seq. of the California Business and Profession Code.
24 90. Upon information and belief, Defendants acts of unfair competition, as
25 described above, are deliberate and willful and undertaken with the intent to misappropriate the
26 goodwill and reputation associated with Rain Designs trademark and trade dress.
27 91. Defendants acts of infringement have caused both irreparable harm and
28 monetary damage to Rain Design in an amount that cannot be ascertained at this time but is in
19
COMPLAINT
1 excess of $75,000, and, unless restrained, will cause further irreparable harm, leaving Rain
2 Design with no adequate remedy at law. By their foregoing acts, Defendants have deceived and
3 confused members of the public, and they are likely to continue to do so until restrained and
4 enjoined by the Court.
5 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
6 DESIGN PATENT INFRINGEMENT
9 93. Plaintiffs attempted to provide actual notice to Spinido of its infringement of the
10 patent-in-suit, as early as October 20, 2015. Spinido was further apprised of its infringement of
11 the patent-in-suit when it became aware that Amazon US had removed its sellers rights due to
12 Rain Designs complaint to Amazon US that certain of Spinidos products, including the TI-
13 Station, were infringing the patent-in-suit. Spinido has been further informed by the filing of
14 this Complaint.
15 94. In spite of such notice, Spinido and/or Gomffer have continued its infringement
16 of the patent-in-suit.
17 95. Spinido and/or Gomffer has infringed and continues to infringe the patent-in-suit
18 by making, using, offering to sell, or selling in the United States, including the State of
19 California and within this District, products infringing the ornamental design covered by the
20 patent-in-suit, in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271, including but not limited to each of Spinidos
21 Infringing Products.
22 96. Spinido and/or Gomffer infringes the patent-in-suit because, in the eye of an
23 ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, the design of the patent-in-
24 suit and the design of the Infringing Products are substantially the same, the resemblance being
25 such as to deceive such an ordinary observer, inducing him to purchase one supposing it to be
26 the other.
27
28
20
COMPLAINT
1 97. Spinido and/or Gomffers acts of infringement of the patent-in-suit were
2 undertaken without authority, permission, or license from Plaintiffs. Spinidos and/or Gomffers
3 infringing activities violate 35 U.S.C. 271.
4 98. Spinidos and/or Gomffers infringement has damaged and continues to damage
5 and injure Plaintiffs. The injury to Plaintiffs is irreparable and will continue unless and until
6 Spinido is enjoined from further infringement.
7 99. Plaintiffs are entitled to a complete accounting of all revenue and profits derived
8 by Spinido and/or Gomffer from the unlawful conduct alleged herein, including, without
9 limitation, Spinidos total profit pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 289. The amount of monetary damages
10 to Plaintiffs cannot be ascertained at this time but is in excess of $75,000.
11 100. Spinido and/or Gomffer have engaged and are currently engaged in willful and
12 deliberate infringement of the patent-in-suit. Such willful and deliberate infringement justifies
13 the damages to be assessed pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284 and further qualifies this action as an
14 exceptional case supporting an award of reasonable attorney fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285
15 and 15 U.S.C. 1117(a).
16 101. Plaintiffs are entitled to a permanent injunction preventing Spinido from further
17 infringing the patent-in-suit.
18 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
19 COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
22 103. Rain Design includes its copyrighted photos on the mStand packaging boxes, as
23 well as in certain of its advertisements.
24 104. Rain Design registered these copyrighted photos with the United States
25 Copyright Office, effective June 3, 2017. This copyright registration bears the registration
26 number VA2050622.
27 105. Spinido and/or Gomffer infringed Rain Designs copyright by incorporating
28 these photographs of the mStand onto the packaging for at least their TI-Station and TI-
21
COMPLAINT
1 Combination products, as well as in certain advertisements, willfully, knowingly, and without
2 consent, authorization, approval, or license by Rain Design.
3 106. By this unlawful copying, use, and distribution, Spinido and/or Gomffer have
4 violated Rain Designs exclusive rights under 17 U.S.C. 106.
5 107. Spinido and/or Gomffer have realized unjust profits, gains and advantages as a
6 proximate result of its infringement.
7 108. Spinido and/or Gomffer will continue to realize unjust profits, gains and
8 advantages as a proximate result of its infringement as long as such infringement is permitted to
9 continue.
10 109. Rain Design is entitled to an injunction restraining Spinido and/or Gomffer from
11 engaging in any further such acts in violation of the United States copyright laws. Unless
12 Spinido and/or Gomffer are enjoined and prohibited from infringing Rain Designs copyright,
13 and unless all Infringing Products and materials are seized, Spinido and/or Gomffer will
14 continue to intentionally infringe Rain Designs registered copyright.
15 110. As a direct and proximate result of Spinidos and/or Gomffers direct and willful
16 copyright infringement, Rain Design has suffered, and will continue to suffer, monetary loss to
17 its business, reputation, and goodwill. Rain Design is entitled to recover from Spinido and/or
18 Gomffer, in an amount to be determined at trial, the damages sustained and will sustain, and any
19 gains, profits, and advantages obtained by Spinido and/of Gomffer as a result of Spinidos
20 and/or Gomffers acts of infringement and Spinidos and/or Gomffers use and publication of
21 the copied materials. The amount of monetary damages to Plaintiffs cannot be ascertained at this
22 time but is in excess of $75,000.
23 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
24 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Rain Design and Mr. Kok Hong Lye pray for the following
25 relief:
26 a) A judgment entered in favor of Rain Design on its claim that Spinido and
27 Gomffer have infringed Rain Designs trade dress for its mStand product.
28 b) A judgment entered in favor of Rain Design on its claim that Spinido and
22
COMPLAINT
1 Gomffer have infringed Rain Designs registered trademark on its mStand products logo.
2 c) A judgment entered in favor of Rain Design on its claim that Spinido and
3 Gomffer are liable for Federal Unfair Competition and False Designation under the Lanham
4 Act.
5 d) A judgment entered in favor of Rain Design on its claim that Spinido and
6 Gomffer are liable for violation of Californias Unfair Competition Law.
7 e) A judgment entered in favor of Rain Design and Mr. Kok Hong Lye on their
8 claim that Spinido and Gomffer are liable for design patent infringement.
9 f) A judgment entered in favor of Rain Design on their claim that Spinido and
10 Gomffer are liable for copyright infringement.
11 g) A permanent injunction enjoining Spinido and Gomffer, their respective officers,
12 directors, agents, and employees, and all those in concert or participation with either of them
13 who receive notice of judgment by personal service or otherwise, from advertising or otherwise
14 marking any of their products or product packaging or advertisement with Rain Designs trade
15 dress and trademark.
16 h) A permanent injunction enjoining Spinido and Gomffer, their respective officers,
17 directors, agents, and employees, and all those in concert or participation with either of them
18 who receive notice of judgment by personal service or otherwise, from making, importing,
19 using, selling, and offering to sell infringing products practicing the patent-in-suit and from
20 otherwise infringing, contributing to infringement of, and actively inducing infringement of the
21 patent-in-suit; and
22 i) A judgment and order that Spinido and Gomffer each deliver to Plaintiffs for
23 destruction all proto-types, sales literature, customer literature, or products used in the
24 infringement of the patent-in-suit;
25 j) A judgment and order that Spinido and Gomffer each make an accounting to
26 Plaintiffs and each pay over to Plaintiffs the extent of Spinidos and Gomffers total profit and
27 revenue realized and derived from their infringements of the patent-in-suit, and actual damages
28 to Plaintiffs in an amount not less than a reasonable royalty for Spinidos and Gomffers
23
COMPLAINT
6/26/2017 Case 3:17-cv-03681-JSC Trademark
DocumentElectronic1-1
Search Filed
System (TESS)
06/27/17 Page 1 of 2
UnitedStatesPatentandTrademarkOffice
Home|SiteIndex|Search|FAQ|Glossary|Guides|Contacts|eBusiness|eBizalerts|News|Help
Trademarks>TrademarkElectronicSearchSystem(TESS)

TESSwaslastupdatedonMonJun2605:21:07EDT2017

Logout Pleaselogoutwhenyouaredonetoreleasesystemresourcesallocatedforyou.
Start
ListAt: OR
Jump
torecord: Record1outof2
(Usethe"Back"buttonoftheInternetBrowsertoreturnto
TESS)
WordMark MSTAND
Goodsand IC009.US021023026036038.G&S:Computerstandsspeciallydesignedforholdingacomputer,printer
Services andaccessories.FIRSTUSE:20070313.FIRSTUSEINCOMMERCE:20070313
MarkDrawing
(3)DESIGNPLUSWORDS,LETTERS,AND/ORNUMBERS
Code
DesignSearch 26.03.21Ovalsthatarecompletelyorpartiallyshaded
Code 26.11.21Rectanglesthatarecompletelyorpartiallyshaded
Trademark LETS1MAsingleletter,multiplesofasingleletterorincombinationwithadesign
SearchFacility SHAPESGEOMETRICGeometricfiguresandsolidsincludingsquares,rectangles,quadrilateralsand
Classification polygons
Code SHAPESOVALSOvalfiguresordesignsincludingincompleteovalsandoneormoreovals
SerialNumber 77140505
FilingDate March26,2007
CurrentBasis 1A
OriginalFiling
1A
Basis
Publishedfor
October9,2007
Opposition
Registration
3358767
Number
RegistrationDate December25,2007
Owner (REGISTRANT)RainDesign,Inc.CORPORATIONCALIFORNIA55010thStSanFranciscoCALIFORNIA
94103
Descriptionof Colorisnotclaimedasafeatureofthemark.Themarkconsistsofasolidrectanglewithslightlyrounded
Mark cornersandwiththeliteralelement"mstand"centeredinsidecenteredbelowandapartfromtherectangleis
asolidoblongshapedfigurethatisslightlyshorterinwidththantherectangle.
TypeofMark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showeld?f=doc&state=4810:z1o28r.4.1 1/2
Search Filed
System (TESS)
06/27/17 Page 2 of 2
AffidavitText SECT15.SECT8(6YR).
Live/Dead
LIVE
Indicator
|.HOME|SITEINDEX|SEARCH|eBUSINESS|HELP|PRIVACYPOLICY
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showeld?f=doc&state=4810:z1o28r.4.1 2/2
Case 3:17-cv-03681-JSC Document 1-2 Filed 06/27/17 Page 1 of 5
USO0D559850S
(12) United States Design Patent (10) Patent N0.: US D559,850 S

Lye (45) Date of Patent: *9: Jan. 15, 2008
(54) LAPTOP STAND D409,992 S * 5/1999 Mockett .................. .. D14/451

D436,760 S * 1/2001 Dow . ... .. . . . . . . .. D6/474
(76) Inventor: Kok Hong Lye, 262 7th St., San D451,306 S * 12/2001 Dow ......................... .. D6/474
Francisco, CA (US) 94103 D483,767 S 12/2003 Green et a1.

2005/0269477 A1* 12/2005 Chen et a1. .......... .. 248/34603
(**) Term: 14 Years

OTHER PUBLICATIONS
(21) Appl. No.: 29/271,417 mStand, copyright 2003, http://www.raindesigninc .com/
mstandireviews .htrnl .*
(22) Filed: Jan. 17, 2007
* cited by examiner
(51) LOC (8) Cl. ............................................... .. 14-03
Primary Examiner4Cathron Brooks
(52) US. Cl. ................................................... .. D14/447
Assistant ExamineriAngela J Lee
(58) Field of Classi?cation Search ............. .. D14/316,
D14/356, 375, 376, 432, 434, 439, 447, 448, (57) CLAIM
D14/451, 452, 457, 460, 328, 324, 405; D6/300,
D6/310, 311, 312, 419, 449, 512, 513; D19/20, The ornamental design for a laptop stand, as shown and
D19/89, 90, 91; 108/10, 28, 32, 6; 248/442.2, described.
248/454, 457,460,371, 447, 393, 398, 127,
248/133, 136, 178.1, 455, 349.1, 346.03, DESCRIPTION
248/176.1, 346.06, 346.04, 346.07, 346.01,
248/441.1, 917, 918, 919, 920, 921, 922, FIG. 1 is a perspective View of a laptop stand showing my
248/923, 924; 361/683, 686 new design;
See application ?le for complete search history. FIG. 2 is a right side elevational View thereof;
(56) References Cited FIG. 3 is a top plan View thereof;
FIG. 4 is a left side elevational View thereof;
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
FIG. 5 is a front elevational View thereof; and,
D290,706 S * 7/1987 Peart et a1. .............. .. D14/451
FIG. 6 is a back elevational View thereof.
D321,293 S * 11/1991 Kucsak ...................... .. D6/419
D344,076 S 2/1994 Zahabi
5,358,208 A * 10/1994 Moseley et a1. ....... .. 248/441.1 1 Claim, 3 Drawing Sheets
U.S. Patent Jan. 15,2008 Sheet 1 0f 3 US D559,850 S

U.S. Patent Jan. 15, 2008 Sheet 2 of3 US D559,850 S

U.S. Patent Jan. 15, 2008 Sheet 3 of3 US D559,850 S

Case
Case3:17-cv-03681-JSC
1:16-cv-02651-LMM Document
Document1-8
1 Filed
Filed07/21/16
06/27/17 Page
Page11of
of20
22
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
TWELVE SOUTH, LLC,

)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
) CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
SPINIDO, INC., ) _______________________
)
)
Defendant. )
)
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
COMES NOW Twelve South, LLC (Twelve South), and files this
Verified Complaint against the above named Defendant Spinido, Inc. (Spinido),
hereby alleging as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. This action arises as a result of Spinido's infringement of United
States Design Patent No. D713,399 (399 Patent), attached as EXHIBIT A, in
violation of the Patent Act of the United States and Spinido's unfair and deceptive
acts and practices in violation of Georgia's Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
Twelve South seeks damages for Spinido's infringement and other wrongful
1
Case
Document1-8
1 Filed
Filed07/21/16
06/27/17 Page
Page22of
of20
22
conduct, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, a permanent injunction barring
Spinido from further tortious actions, and other appropriate relief.
THE PARTIES
2. Plaintiff Twelve South is a limited liability company organized and
existing under the laws of the State of South Carolina, with its principal place of
business at 357 North Shelmore Blvd., Suite 200, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina
29464.
3. Defendant Spinido, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under
the laws of the State of Colorado, having a principal place of business at 36 South
18th Avenue, Suite A, Brighton, Colorado 80601. Spinido's registered agent,
Xiaowei Chen, can be served with summons and process at 36 South 18th Avenue,
Suite A, Brighton, Colorado 80601.
JURISDICTION
4. This is an action for design patent infringement arising under the
Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. 101 et seq., and for unfair and deceptive trade practices
arising under Georgia's Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, O.C.G.A. 10
1370, et seq. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. 1331; 28 U.S.C. 1332; 28 U.S.C. 1338(a); 28 U.S.C. 1338(b);
and 28 U.S.C. 1367.
2
Case
Document1-8
1 Filed
Filed07/21/16
06/27/17 Page
Page33of
of20
22
5. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Spinido for one or more of
the following reasons:
a. The exercise of personal jurisdiction over Spinido by this Court is
consistent with the Federal Due Process Clause as Spinido has established
minimum contacts with this forum such that the exercise of jurisdiction over
Spinido would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice;
b. Spinido has done and continues to do business in the State of Georgia
and with one or more residents of the State of Georgia;
c. Spinido directs into the State of Georgia, commerce, goods, and
advertising;
d. Spinido has offered, and continues to offer, products constituting
patent infringement and products that constitute unfair and deceptive trade
practices relating to this complaint in the State of Georgia; and
e. Spinido has committed tortious injury to Twelve South and to Twelve
South's business operations within this District.
VENUE
6. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 because
Spinido has transacted and continues to transact business within this District, has
sold and continues to offer for sale products that constitute infringement, and has
3
Case
Document1-8
1 Filed
Filed07/21/16
06/27/17 Page
Page44of
of20
22
sold and continues to offer for sale products within this District that constitute
unfair and deceptive trade practices, which are a substantial part of the events
giving rise to this action.
BACKGROUND FACTS
7. Twelve South is a marketplace innovator in the field of electronic
related products and accessories. Twelve South creates innovative accessories
designed exclusively for Apple products that enhance, protect, and personalize the
experience of using Apple products for its customers.
8. Twelve South is well known in the marketplace for its originality in
the design and the quality of its products that it produces and sells. Twelve South
has been designing, producing, and selling accessories exclusively for Apple
products since 2009.
9. One of Twelve South's products is a metal pedestal for charging and
hands free use of iPhones, iPads, and other products chargeable via a Lightning
cable called the HiRise. The HiRise can assist with hands-free calls and eye-
level FaceTime sessions or to keep an iPhone or iPad fully charged while
streaming music or movies.
10. Given the novelty and originality of the HiRise design, Twelve South
sought and obtained design patent protection. On September 16, 2014, United
4
Case
Document1-8
1 Filed
Filed07/21/16
06/27/17 Page
Page55of
of20
22
States Design Patent No. D713,399 was duly and legally issued by the United
States Patent and Trademark Office. The '399 Patent has remained, and continues
to be, in full force since that time.
11. Twelve South is the exclusive licensee of the '399 Patent with all
substantial rights in and to the '399 Patent, including the right to bring this action
for any past and present infringement of the '399 Patent, to collect past and present
damages, and to obtain injunctions.
12. The '399 Patent covers the ornamental design for the HiRise.
13. Twelve South has extensively promoted, advertised, and used the
HiRise design of the '399 Patent in a variety of media outlets throughout the United
States including Amazon.com, the Consumer Electronic Show and on its website,
TwelveSouth.com. These advertisements have distinguished the HiRise from other
products offered by Twelve South's competitors.
14. The HiRise has been commercially successful with its distinctive
design providing differentiation to other competitors' designs.
15. Since creating the HiRise, Twelve South has sold 454,949 units
totaling $8,125,441.28 in overall value.
5
Case
Document1-8
1 Filed
Filed07/21/16
06/27/17 Page
Page66of
of20
22
SPINIDO'S RESIDENCE AND ON-LINE PRESENCE
16. According to the Colorado Secretary of State, Spinido's principal
office is located at 36 South 18th Avenue, Suite A, Brighton, CO 80601, United
States.
17. 36 South 18th Avenue, Suite A, Brighton, CO 80601, United States
was confirmed by Spinido's as its principal office on December 29, 2015 when
Spinido filed a Statement Curing Delinquency with the Colorado Secretary of
State. A true and correct copy of the Statement Curing Delinquency is attached
hereto as EXHIBIT B.
18. Additionally, Spinido lists the above-referenced principal office
address and email address as its contact information for the trademark Spinido.
19. Accordingly, on February 26, 2016, Twelve South sent a Cease and
Desist Letter to Spinido by email to cadmon@cadmon.net, and Federal Express to
its principal office address in Brighton, Colorado.
20. However, the Federal Express correspondence was returned as
undeliverable. To date, Spinido has not responded in any manner to Twelve
South's February 26, 2016 Letter or delivered email.
21. Based on information related to Spinido's domain name registration,
the registrant organization is Shenzhen Sheng Haina Technology Co., Ltd, a

6
Case
Document1-8
1 Filed
Filed07/21/16
06/27/17 Page
Page77of
of20
22
company located in Guang Dong, China. The corresponding telephone number
clearly relates to an international number, +86.075529363306. Finally, the related
email address is baoziyanglx@126.com.
22. Based on Plaintiff's initial investigation, Spinido does not have any
physical presence in the United States and simply sells and ships goods from China
into the United States through on-line consumer websites such as Amazon.com.
SPINIDO'S INFRINGEMENT AND OTHER WRONGFUL CONDUCT
23. In recognition of the commercial success of the '399 Patent design,
Spinido began manufacturing and selling its TI-SET docking/charging station in
competition with Twelve South.
24. Spinido copied the HiRise design of the '399 Patent and Spinido's TI-
SET design can be characterized as a knock-off of Twelve South's HiRise
product.
25. The design of the TI-SET is the same or substantially the same as the
design of the '399 Patent and the HiRise. The designs are so similar, as to be
nearly identical, such that the ordinary observer would be so deceived by the
substantial similarity between the designs so as to be induced to purchase Spinido's
product while believing it to be substantially the same as the design protected by
the '399 Patent.

7
Case
Document1-8
1 Filed
Filed07/21/16
06/27/17 Page
Page88of
of20
22
26. In February of 2016, Twelve South asserted its rights in the HiRise
design against Spinido through written communication, which among other things,
demanded the Spinido stop making, using, offering to sell, or selling the TI-SET
within the United States.
27. Spinido, to date, has not responded to Twelve South's demand.
28. A side-by-side comparison of the '399 patented design, the exemplary
specimens of the HiRise, and Spinido's TI-SET product is shown below--the
photograph of the exemplary TI-SET was taken from Amazon.com:
'399 Patent Twelve South -- HiRise Spinido -- TI-SET
8
Case
Document1-8
1 Filed
Filed07/21/16
06/27/17 Page
Page99of
of20
22
29. As shown in Paragraph 28, the TI-SET has a design that is the same or
substantially the same as the protected design of the '399 Patent and Twelve
South's HiRise product. The designs are so similar as to be nearly identical such
that an ordinary observer would be so deceived by the substantial similarity
between the designs so as to be induced to purchase Spinido's products believing
them to be substantially the same as the design protected by the '399 Patent.
30. Twelve South has not granted a license or any other authorization to
Spinido to make, use, offer, sell, or import products that embody the design
patented in the '399 Patent and which is proprietary to Twelve South, particularly
in relation to its HiRise product.
31. In spite of the rights of Twelve South, Spinido willfully and
knowingly infringed on Twelve South's rights, including its rights under the '399
Patent. Further, Spinido committed wrongful acts that constitute unfair and
deceptive trade practices in relation to the TI-SET docking station and the design
of the HiRise.
32. Twelve South has been damaged by Spinido's wrongful and infringing
conduct, including, without limitation to, suffering actual damages.
33. Spinido is the only other entity known to Twelve South producing a
product which infringes the '399 Patent.

9
Case
Document1-8
1 Filed
Filed07/21/16
06/27/17 Page
Page10
10of
of20
22
34. Twelve South has seen a substantial reduction in sales of its HiRise
product since Spinido's infringing TI-SET product entered the marketplace.
35. Spinido primarily sells its infringing TI-SET product through
Amazon.com which is the same marketplace utilized by Twelve South for sales of
its HiRise products.
36. By manufacturing and selling the TI-SET with a design that is the
same as, or substantially similar to, Twelve South's unique and distinctive design
from its HiRise product, protected by the '399 Patent, Spinido willfully and
knowingly caused a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding as to the
sponsorship and approval of the TI-SET being offered and sold by Spinido. Such
wrongful conduct also caused a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding as to
the affiliation, connection, or association of the TI-SET product with Twelve South
and its HiRise product.
37. Spinido did nothing to discourage consumers from believing that the
TI-SET was sponsored, approved, or sold in affiliation, connection, or association
with Twelve South despite knowing of Twelve South's rights. Spinido's wrongful
actions and practices in connection with the TI-SET were and are deceptive to
consumers and others including Twelve South.
10
Case
Document1-8
1 Filed
Filed07/21/16
06/27/17 Page
Page11
11of
of20
22
38. Spinido's wrongful manufacturing and selling of the TI-SET was not
discovered by Twelve South until approximately February of 2016.
39. Spinido's wrongful conduct and infringing activities will continue
unless enjoined by this Court.
COUNT I
INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES DESIGN PATENT NO. D713,399
40. Twelve South hereby incorporates by reference the allegations
contained in Paragraphs 1 - 39 above as if fully set forth herein.
41. Twelve South provided actual notice to Spinido of its infringement, as
early as February 26, 2016. Spinido has been further informed by the filing of this
Complaint.
42. In spite of such notice, Spinido has continued its infringement of the
'399 Patent.
43. Spinido has and continues to infringe on the '399 Patent by making,
using, offering to sell, or selling in the United States, including the State of
Georgia and within this District, products infringing the ornamental design covered
by the '399 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271, including but not limited to
Spinido's TI-SET product.
11
Case
Document1-8
1 Filed
Filed07/21/16
06/27/17 Page
Page12
12of
of20
22
44. Spinido infringes the '399 Patent because, in the eye of an ordinary
observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, the design of the '399
Patent and the design of the TI-SET product are substantially the same, the
resemblance being such as to deceive such an ordinary observer, inducing him to
purchase one supposing it to be the other.
45. Spinido's acts of infringement of the '399 Patent were undertaken
without authority, permission, or license from Twelve South. Spinido's infringing
activities violate 35 U.S.C. 271.
46. Spinido's infringement has damaged and continues to damage and
injure Twelve South. The injury to Twelve South is irreparable and will continue
unless and until Spinido is enjoined from further infringement.
47. Twelve South is entitled to a complete accounting of all revenue and
profits derived by Spinido from the unlawful conduct alleged herein, including
without limitation, Spinido's total profit pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 289.
48. Spinido has engaged and is currently engaged in willful and deliberate
infringement of the '399 Patent. Such willful and deliberate infringement justifies
the damages to be assessed pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284 and further qualifies this
action as an exceptional case supporting an award of reasonable attorney's fees
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285.

12
Case
Document1-8
1 Filed
Filed07/21/16
06/27/17 Page
Page13
13of
of20
22
49. Twelve South is entitled to a permanent injunction preventing Spinido
from further infringing the '399 Patent.
COUNT II
VIOLATION OF GEORGIA'S UNIFORM DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT
51. Spinido began manufacturing and selling the TI-SET with a design
that copied, and was substantially similar to, Twelve South's proprietary and
distinctive design utilized on the HiRise and protected by the '399 Patent. Twelve
South first discovered Spinido's wrongful actions with respect to the TI-SET
design in February of 2016.
52. Spinido's making, using, offering to sell, and selling of TI-SET
causes a likelihood of confusion and misunderstanding as to the source,
sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods associated with TI-SET, including
without limitation, that Twelve South has approved or sponsored the TI-SET.
Spinido's making, using, offering to sell, and selling the TI-SET also causes a
likelihood of confusion and misunderstanding as to the affiliation, connection, or
association with Twelve South. Spinido's actions are deceptive to the consumer
13
Case
Document1-8
1 Filed
Filed07/21/16
06/27/17 Page
Page14
14of
of20
22
and other persons. Such wrongful actions are in violation of Georgia's Uniform
Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
53. Spinido's wrongful actions have been undertaken without permission
or authorization from Twelve South.
54. Spinido's wrongful actions have caused Twelve South to suffer
damages. The injury to Twelve South from such wrongful actions is irreparable
and will continue unless and until Spinido is enjoined from further and continued
wrongful acts.
55. Twelve South is entitled to recover its actual damages due to Spinido's
use and employment of such unfair and deceptive actions and practices.
56. Twelve South is entitled to recover its reasonable attorney's fees and
costs as provided by Georgia's Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, O.C.G.A.
10-1-373(b).
57. Twelve South is further entitled to a permanent injunction preventing
Spinido from further unfair and deceptive trade practices, and any other relief as
this Court considers necessary and proper.
14
Case
Document1-8
1 Filed
Filed07/21/16
06/27/17 Page
Page15
15of
of20
22
COUNT III
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
59. As more fully set forth in Twelve South's Brief in Support of Motion
for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, the actions of
Spinido are greatly and irreparably damaging to Twelve South and will continue to
be greatly and irreparably damaging to Twelve South unless enjoined by this
Court, as a result of which Twelve South is without an adequate remedy at law.
60. As such, Twelve South seeks both a temporary restraining order and a
permanent injunction against Spinido for its tortious infringement of the '399
Patent.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Twelve South prays for the following relief:
a) A judgement entered in favor of Twelve South on its claim that
Spinido has infringed on the '399 Patent and has violated the Georgia Uniform
Deceptive Trade Practices Act;
15
Case
Document1-8
1 Filed
Filed07/21/16
06/27/17 Page
Page16
16of
of20
22
b) A permanent injunction enjoining Spinido, its respective officers,
directors, agents, and employees and all those in concert or participation with it
who receive notice of judgment by personal service or otherwise, from:
i. making, importing, using, selling, and offering to sell infringing
products practicing the '399 Patent and from otherwise infringing,
contributing to infringement of, and actively inducing infringement of
the '399 Patent; and
ii. holding out in any manner whatsoever that Spinido or Spinido's
products, such as the TI-SET, are in any way sponsored, approved,
sourced, certified, affiliated, connected, or associated with Twelve
South or Twelve South's products;
c) A judgment and order that Spinido deliver to Twelve South for
destruction all proto-types, sales literature, customer literature, or products used in
the infringement of the '399 Patent and in violation of the Georgia Uniform
Deceptive Trade Practices Act;
d) A judgment and order that Spinido make an accounting to Twelve
South and pay over to Twelve South:
i. the extent of Spinido's total profit and revenue realized and derived
from its infringement of the '399 Patent, and actual damages to

16
Case
Document1-8
1 Filed
Filed07/21/16
06/27/17 Page
Page17
17of
of20
22
Twelve South in an amount not less than a reasonable royalty for
Spinido's infringement;
ii. all damages suffered by Twelve South in accordance with the law
pursuant to O.C.G.A. 101373, and other applicable laws; and
e) An award of costs of this action together with Twelve South's
reasonable attorney's fees in accordance with O.C.G.A. 101373, pursuant to
35 U.S.C. 285 for this case being exceptional, and as permitted under other
applicable laws;
f) An award of interest, including pre-judgement interest, on all
damages; and
g) An award to Twelve South of such further relief as this Court deems
just and proper.
DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
Twelve South hereby demands a trial by jury as to all issues so triable.
[Signature Line on Following Page]
17
Case
Document1-8
1 Filed
Filed07/21/16
06/27/17 Page
Page18
18of
of20
22
Respectfully submitted this 21st day of July, 2016.
/s/ L. Clint Crosby

BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, L. Clint Crosby
CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC Georgia Bar No. 197877
Suite 1600, Monarch Plaza Sabrina L. Atkins
3414 Peachtree Rd. NE Georgia Bar No. 567762
Atlanta, Georgia 30326 Counsel for Twelve South, LLC
Ph. 404-577-6000
Fax 404-221-6501
ccrosby@bakerdonelson.com
satkins@bakerdonelson.com
18
Case
Document1-8
1 Filed
Filed07/21/16
06/27/17 Page
Page19
19of
of20
22
CERTIFICATION OF FONT
The undersigned hereby certifies that he has prepared the within and
foregoing document in accordance with LR 5.1, NDGA, and LR 7.1(D), NDGA.
Specifically, counsel certifies that he has used 14-point Times New Roman as the
font in these documents except for footnotes, which are in 10-point Times New
Roman.
This 21st day of July, 2016.
/s/ L. Clint Crosby

BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, L. Clint Crosby
CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC Georgia Bar No. 197877
Suite 1600, Monarch Plaza Sabrina L. Atkins
3414 Peachtree Rd. NE Georgia Bar No. 567762
Atlanta, Georgia 30326 Counsel for Twelve South, LLC
Ph. 404-577-6000
Fax 404-221-6501
ccrosby@bakerdonelson.com
satkins@bakerdonelson.com
19
Case
Document1-8
1 Filed
Filed07/21/16
06/27/17 Page
Page20
20of
of20
22
Case
1:16-cv-02651-LMMDocument
Document1-8
15 Filed
Filed06/27/17
11/29/16 Page
Page21
1 of 22
2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
TWELVE SOUTH, LLC,
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
) CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
SPINIDO, INC., ) 1:16-cv-02651-LMM
)
)
Defendant.
)
DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

AGAINST DEFENDANT SPINIDO, INC.
The Clerk of Court having entered default against Defendant Spinido, Inc. m
the above-captioned action on November 2, 2016 and Plaintiff Twelve South, LLC
having now requested a default judgment against Spinido, Inc., and having properly
supported its request, and based upon all pleadings and other matters of record;
JUDGMENT IS HEREBY ENTERED for Plaintiff Twelve South, LLC and
against Defendant Spinido, Inc. as follows:
A. Defendant Spinido, Inc., and its principals, officers, directors,
shareholders, employees, affiliates, agents, successors and assigns, are ENJOINED
and RESTRAINED from making, using, selling, or offering for sale within the
Case
1:16-cv-02651-LMMDocument
Document1-8
15 Filed
Filed06/27/17
11/29/16 Page
Page22
2 of 22
2
United States, or importing into the United States, any product that infringes any of
the claims of United States Patent No. D713,399 (the "'399 Patent")(including
Spinido's TI-SET product) until the expiration of the '399 Patent;
B. Plaintiff Twelve South, LLC shall have a duly licensed process server
formally serve a copy of this Order on Spinido, Inc. at its registered place of
business no later than 30 days after the date of this Order. A certificate of service
shall be filed with the Court.
C. Spinido, Inc. is further notified that any act by it in violation of any of
the terms of this Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction may be considered
and prosecuted as contempt of this Court.
D. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to construe, enforce, or implement
this Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction upon application of any party.
\>\UY\."'S N\oCV\ fu< 1 'tt.!tw4 0 (J '1s A.LLowt.\'\

LJ\ '(y\()O\.
SO ORDERED in Atlanta, Georgia, this J..'1 day of Nov, 2016.
onorable Leigh Marti May

United States District ourt Judge
2
Search Filed
System (TESS)
06/27/17 Page 1 of 2

TESSwaslastupdatedonTueMay1602:21:57EDT2017

Record1outof1
TESS)
WordMark SPINIDO
Goodsand IC009.US021023026036038.G&S:Batteries,electricCabinetsforloudspeakersCasesformobilephones
Services CellphonebatterychargersDisplayscreenprotectorsforprovidingshadeandprivacyspeciallyadaptedto
electronicdevices,namely,smartphonesHeadphonesMobilephonesMobiletelephoneaccessories,namely,belt
clipsSmartphonesTabletcomputer.FIRSTUSE:20100301.FIRSTUSEINCOMMERCE:20100801
Mark
Drawing (3)DESIGNPLUSWORDS,LETTERS,AND/ORNUMBERS
Code
Design 26.01.06Circles,semiSemicircles
Search 26.01.09CircleshavinganimalsasaborderCircleshavinggeometricfiguresasaborderCircleshavinghumans
Code asaborderCircleshavingobjectsasaborderCircleshavingplantsasaborderGeometricfigures,objects,
humans,plantsoranimalsformingorborderingtheperimeterofacircle.
26.01.31CirclesfiveormoreFiveormorecircles
27.03.01Geometricfiguresformingletters,numeralsorpunctuation
Serial
86273797
Number
FilingDate May7,2014
Current
1A
Basis
Original
1A
FilingBasis
Published
for March17,2015
Opposition
Registration
4746448
Number
Registration
June2,2015
Date
Owner (REGISTRANT)Spinidoinc.CORPORATIONCOLORADO36SOUTH18THAVENUE,SUITEABRIGHTON
COLORADO80601
(LASTLISTEDOWNER)SHENZHENSHENGHAINATECHNOLOGYLTDCORPORATIONCHINAHONGLI
ROADW.,LIANHUACOMMUNITY,FUTIAN,DISTRICTLOT4A,DIVISION7,FLOWERWORLDSHENZHEN
CHINA518000
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showeld?f=doc&state=4809:2j8pev.2.1 1/2
Search Filed
System (TESS)
06/27/17 Page 2 of 2
Assignment ASSIGNMENTRECORDED
Recorded
Description Thecolor(s)grey,andlightgreenis/areclaimedasafeatureofthemark.Themarkconsistsofthestylizedword
ofMark "SPINIDO"ingreywithasemicirclecomprisedofsmallercirclesinlightgreenarchingovertheletters"INI"in
"SPINIDO"andformingthedotofeachletter"I".Thewhiteinthedrawingrepresentsbackgroundortransparent
areasandisnotclaimedasafeatureofthemark.
Typeof
TRADEMARK
Mark
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead
LIVE
Indicator
Document Electronic Search System
1-10 Filed(TESS)
06/27/17 Page 1 of 1

TESSwaslastupdatedonTueMay1602:21:57EDT2017

Record1outof1
TESS)
WordMark GOMFFER
Goodsand IC009.US021023026036038.G&S:BatteriesCasesformobilephonesCellphonebatterychargersDisplay
Services screenprotectorsforprovidingshadeandprivacyspeciallyadaptedtoelectronicdevices,namely,smartphones
HeadphonesMobilephonesMobiletelephoneaccessories,namely,beltclipsSmartphonesTabletcomputer
CabinetsforloudspeakersCasesformobilephones
Standard
Characters
Claimed
Mark
Drawing (4)STANDARDCHARACTERMARK
Code
Serial
87368674
Number
FilingDate March13,2017
Current
1B
Basis
Original
Filing 1B
Basis
Owner (APPLICANT)ShenzhenShangWeiYangTechnologyCo.,Ltdlimitedcompany(ltd.)CHINARoom402,13Buildings,
XiJiaoXinCunLinXia,GansuCHINA731100
Typeof
TRADEMARK
Mark
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead
LIVE
Indicator
October 20, 2015
Spinido Inc.
36 S. 18th Ave., Ste. A
Brighton, CO 80601
ATTN: Registered Agent
(Xiaowei Chen)
Spinido Inc.
Excellence Century
Room 709-710, 7/F,T
Shenzhen, China
RE: Infringement of Rain Design, Inc.s patent
To whom it may concern at the above-listed entities:
This letter concerns potential claims for patent infringement against Spinido Inc., and its
representatives, assigns, agents, clients, manufacturers, distributors, and customers (collectively,
Spinido). It has come to the attention of our client, Rain Design, Inc. (Rain Design), that
Spinido is infringing a patent owned by Rain Design. To the extent that this letter addresses
certain patent law concepts, we suggest you confer with an attorney to evaluate our clients
potential legal claims.
Rain Design owns a right of exclusive use to United States Patent Number D559,850
(the 850 Patent), a design patent entitled Laptop Stand. The 850 Patent issued on January
15, 2008, to Kok Hon Lye, a chief designer for Rain Design. A copy of the 850 Patent is
included as Exhibit A to this letter. Rain Design has, since its issuance, retained an exclusive
license to the 850 Patent.
As you know, Spinido develops, markets, and sells products called the Spinido TI-
Station Premium Quality Aluminum Cooling Laptop stand and the Spinido TOP-Station 360
Degree Rotation Premium Quality Aluminum Cooling Laptop stand (collectively, the Infringing
Products), which are stands intended to be used to support laptop computers. The Infringing
Products have been advertised and sold on various Internet sales websites, including but not
limited to Amazon.com and Ebay.com. Copies of images of the Infringing Products from the
Amazon.com website are included as Exhibits B (TI-Station) and C (TOP-station) to this letter.
Please note that we have already initiated the process of having the Infringing Products removed
from the Amazon.com due to the infringements described herein.
EcoTech Law Group, P.C. 333 First St. Ste. C, San Francisco, CA 94105
Email: dara.tabesh@ecotechlaw.com Phone: 415.595.9208 Fax: 415.651.8639
2|Page
A side-by-side comparison of Figure 1 of the 850 Patent (Exhibit A) with the Infringing
Products (Exhibits B and C) clearly shows that the Infringing Products infringe the claim of the
850 Patent. Indeed, the similarity is so striking that one must assume that Spinido directly
copied its design from Rain Designs patent (or more likely, as explained below, from Rain
Designs own mStand product). Please be informed that any entity that makes, uses, sells, or
imports a product that embodies the 850 Patent is liable to Rain Design for infringement of that
patent under 35 U.S.C. 271.
Moreover, Rain Design markets and sells a product, the mStand, that embodies the 850
Patent. The mStand is also intended to be used to support laptop computers. Copies of two pages
from Rain Designs website (http://www.raindesigninc.com) showing the mStand are included as
Exhibits D and E to this letter. A side-by-side comparison of the mStand (Exhibits D and E) with
the 850 Patent (Exhibit A) clearly shows that the mStand embodies the 850 Patent. Further,
please note that Exhibit D, which is a copy of a page from Rain Designs website page devoted
to the mStand (https://www.raindesigninc.com/mstand.html) is marked Patented in the bottom
right corner of the page. This mark provides notice to the public and to would-be infringers
under 35 U.S.C. 287 that the mStand is patented under United States law. Because of this
notice, and because the Infringing Parties market products that directly competes with sales of
the mStand, Rain Design is entitled to its lost profits, i.e., any profits generated from the sales of
the Infringing Products from the date of the 850 Patents issuance, January 15, 2008, to the
present, as well as any future sales.
Under the circumstances described above, should Rain Design choose to bring suit, it will
likely also collect treble damages and attorney fees for willful patent infringement under 35 U.S.C.
284. As mentioned above, given the stark similarities between the 850 Patent disclosure and the
Infringing Products, the discovery process is likely to reveal, or the court may reasonably infer,
direct copying by Spinido of the 850 Patent disclosure. And even if direct copying is not found,
Spinido would nevertheless be found liable for willful infringement for any infringement that
occurs after receipt of this letter.
While Rain Design believes that the patent and trademark infringements set forth above are
clear and would likely result in findings of direct and willful infringement, Rain Design would
prefer to resolve this matter without taking any legal action. Should this matter be resolved
promptly, Rain Design is willing to forego any lost profits and/or reasonable royalties for sales of
the Infringing Products to date. If, however, the infringing activity continues, Rain Design is
prepared to move forward immediately against Spinido and/or any other applicable party if
necessary to protect its intellectual property rights and business interests under both federal and
state statutes and under the laws affording personal and long-arm jurisdiction.
Based upon the foregoing, Rain Design hereby demands that Spinido and/or its
representatives, assigns, clients, and customers, immediately: (i) cease and desist making, using,
selling, and/or importing the Infringing Products or any other product that infringes the 850
Patent, and (ii) remove from its website and any third-party website used to sell the Infringing
3|Page
Products all advertising, marketing, or promotional materials for the Infringing Products or any
other product that infringes the 850 Patent.
As noted above, Spinido appears to rely heavily on amazon.com for its sales. Because
amazon.com may not have realized it is selling infringing products on its website, we have
already contacted Amazon.coms legal department, as it certainly recognizes the implication of
advertising your Infringing Products.
Within two weeks of receipt of this letter, please confirm in writing that you have
complied with the demands set forth herein.
If you have any question or concern, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
/Dara Tabesh/
Dara Tabesh
EcoTech Law Group, P.C.
ecotechiOWPc
February 2, 2017
Spinido Inc.
36 S. 18th Ave., Suite A
Brighton, CO 80601
Spinido Inc.
Attn: Jinhua Chen (Agent for Service)
305 W. South Ave.
Woodland Park, CO 80863
Jinhua Chen
506 N. Garfield Ave. #210
Alhambra, CA 91801
RE: Continued Willful Infringement of Rain Design, Inc.'s patent by Spinido Inc.
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter follows up on my October 20, 2015 letter to Spinido, wherein I set forth
Spinido's clear infringement of United States Patent No. D559,850, to which my client, Rain
Design, Inc. ("Rain Design") owns an exclusive license.
Despite my letter of over a year ago, which provided notice to Spinido of its infringement
of Rain Design's patent, and despite having been prevented by Amazon.com from continuing
such infringing activity through the Amazon.com website, it has come to our attention that
Spinido has escalated its willful infringement by opening an online store to' sell its infringing
products.
Specifically, at least the following products sold on that online store infringe Rain
Design's above-mentioned patent by, in part, being offered for sale by Spinido:
(1) TI-Station Laptop Aluminum Cooling Stand For Macbook and All Notebooks (both
with swivel base and without swivel base): offered for sale at
http://www.spinidostore.com/tistation-laptop-aluminum-cooling-stand-for-macbook
and-all-notebooks-silver-p-215 .html (last checked Feb. 2, 2017);
(2) Exquisite Aluminum Cooling Laptop stand for Apple Macbook and All Notebooks:
offered for sale at http://www.spinidostore.com/exquisite-aluminum-cooling-laptop
stand-for-apple-macbook-and-all-notebooks-p-223.html (last checked Feb. 2, 2017);
and
EcoTech Law Group, P.C. 5 Third St. Ste. 501, San Francisco, CA 94103
JS-CAND 44 (Rev. 06/17) Case 3:17-cv-03681-JSC Document 1-26 Filed 06/27/17 Page 1 of 2
CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS-CAND 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law,
except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved in its original form by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the Clerk of
Court to initiate the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
Rain Design, Inc.; Lye, Kok Hong Spinido, Inc., Gomffer, Inc., Does 1-10, inclusive
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Alameda, CA County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
EcoTech Law Group, P.C. (Dara Tabesh); 5 Third St. Ste. C, San
Francisco, CA 94103; 415-503-9164
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an X in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
PTF DEF PTF DEF
1 U.S. Government Plaintiff 3 Federal Question Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4
(U.S. Government Not a Party)
of Business In This State
Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
2 U.S. Government Defendant 4 Diversity of Business In Another State
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6
Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in One Box Only)

CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure of 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act
120 Marine Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 28 USC 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury Product
130 Miller Act Liability 690 Other 157 3729(a))
315 Airplane Product Liability
140 Negotiable Instrument 367 Health Care/ 400 State Reapportionment
320 Assault, Libel & Slander LABOR PROPERTY RIGHTS
150 Recovery of Pharmaceutical Personal 410 Antitrust
330 Federal Employers 710 Fair Labor Standards Act 820 Copyrights
Overpayment Of Injury Product Liability 430 Banks and Banking
Liability 720 Labor/Management 830 Patent
Veterans Benefits 368 Asbestos Personal Injury 450 Commerce
340 Marine Relations 835 PatentAbbreviated New
151 Medicare Act Product Liability
345 Marine Product Liability 740 Railway Labor Act Drug Application 460 Deportation
152 Recovery of Defaulted PERSONAL PROPERTY 470 Racketeer Influenced &
350 Motor Vehicle 751 Family and Medical 840 Trademark
Student Loans (Excludes 370 Other Fraud Corrupt Organizations
355 Motor Vehicle Product Leave Act
Veterans) 371 Truth in Lending SOCIAL SECURITY
Liability 790 Other Labor Litigation 480 Consumer Credit
153 Recovery of 380 Other Personal Property 861 HIA (1395ff)
360 Other Personal Injury 791 Employee Retirement 490 Cable/Sat TV
Overpayment Damage Income Security Act 862 Black Lung (923) 850 Securities/Commodities/
of Veterans Benefits 362 Personal Injury -Medical
Malpractice 385 Property Damage Product 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange
160 Stockholders Suits Liability IMMIGRATION
864 SSID Title XVI 890 Other Statutory Actions
190 Other Contract 462 Naturalization
CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 865 RSI (405(g)) 891 Agricultural Acts
195 Contract Product Liability Application
440 Other Civil Rights HABEAS CORPUS 893 Environmental Matters
196 Franchise 465 Other Immigration FEDERAL TAX SUITS
441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee Actions 895 Freedom of Information
870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff or
REAL PROPERTY 442 Employment Act
510 Motions to Vacate Defendant)
210 Land Condemnation Sentence 896 Arbitration
443 Housing/ 871 IRSThird Party 26 USC
220 Foreclosure Accommodations 530 General 7609 899 Administrative Procedure
445 Amer. w/Disabilities Act/Review or Appeal of
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 535 Death Penalty
Employment Agency Decision
240 Torts to Land OTHER
446 Amer. w/DisabilitiesOther 950 Constitutionality of State
245 Tort Product Liability 540 Mandamus & Other Statutes
290 All Other Real Property 448 Education
550 Civil Rights
555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an X in One Box Only)

1 Original 2 Removed from 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from 6 Multidistrict 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District (specify) LitigationTransfer LitigationDirect File
VI. CAUSE OF Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
35 U.S.C. section 271
ACTION
Brief description of cause:
Among other causes, Defendants infringe U.S. design patent owned by one Plaintiff and exclusively licensed to the other Plaintiff.
VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, Fed. R. Civ. P. JURY DEMAND: Yes No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S), JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER

IF ANY (See instructions):
IX. DIVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT (Civil Local Rule 3-2)
(Place an X in One Box Only) SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND SAN JOSE EUREKA-MCKINLEYVILLE
DATE 06/27/2017 SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD /DARA TABESH/
Print Save As... Reset

JS-CAND 44 (rev. 07/16) Case 3:17-cv-03681-JSC Document 1-26 Filed 06/27/17 Page 2 of 2
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS-CAND 44
Authority For Civil Cover Sheet. The JS-CAND 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and
service of pleading or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved in its original form by the Judicial
Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the Clerk of Court to initiate the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is
submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I. a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the defendant is the location of the tract of land involved.)
c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section (see attachment).
II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which requires that jurisdictions be shown in
pleadings. Place an X in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
(1) United States plaintiff. Jurisdiction based on 28 USC 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
(2) United States defendant. When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an X in this box.
(3) Federal question. This refers to suits under 28 USC 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code
takes precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
(4) Diversity of citizenship. This refers to suits under 28 USC 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)
III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS-CAND 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above.
Mark this section for each principal party.
IV. Nature of Suit. Place an X in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is
sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerk(s) in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than
one nature of suit, select the most definitive.
V. Origin. Place an X in one of the six boxes.
(1) Original Proceedings. Cases originating in the United States district courts.
(2) Removed from State Court. Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 USC 1441. When the
petition for removal is granted, check this box.
(3) Remanded from Appellate Court. Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
(4) Reinstated or Reopened. Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
(5) Transferred from Another District. For cases transferred under Title 28 USC 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
(6) Multidistrict Litigation Transfer. Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 USC
1407. When this box is checked, do not check (5) above.
(8) Multidistrict Litigation Direct File. Check this box when a multidistrict litigation case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.
Please note that there is no Origin Code 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to changes in statute.
VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553. Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service.
VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an X in this box if you are filing a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS-CAND 44 is used to identify related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
IX. Divisional Assignment. If the Nature of Suit is under Property Rights or Prisoner Petitions or the matter is a Securities Class Action, leave this
section blank. For all other cases, identify the divisional venue according to Civil Local Rule 3-2: the county in which a substantial part of the
events or omissions which give rise to the claim occurred or in which a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

Rain Design v. Spinido - 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

Rain Design v. Spinido - Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 3:17-cv-03681-JSC Document 1 Filed 06/27/17 Page 1 of 25

1 Dara Tabesh (SBN 230434)

5 NATURE OF THE ACTION

8 Competition law, Copyright Infringement, and Design Patent Infringement. In particular,

14 VA0002050622 (Exhibit B (showing copyright registration and deposited photographs included

19 suit issued on January 15, 2008.1

20 3. In particular, Spinido and Gomffer have engaged in a large-scale attempt to copy

12 with Exhibit D.)

19 to work with and at Rain Designs California office.

4 7. According to the Colorado Secretary of State website, Spinidos current principal

12 that same address.

19 United States website.

20 9. On information and belief, Spinido and Gomffer are alter egos.

24 plaintiff 12 South (explained in further detail below). (See Exhibit H.)

9 manufactures) various technology accessories and/or office equipment. On information and

17 Exhibits G and K.)

22 as Amazon.com, or using its own websites.

8 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.

10 infringement under the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. 101 et seq.

12 Competition and False Designation of Origin under the Lanham Act.

20 the following reasons:

21 a. The exercise of personal jurisdiction over Spinido and Gomffer by this

28 and this District;

2 District, commerce, goods, and advertising;

5 California and in this District; and

6 e. Spinido and Gomffer have committed tortious injury to Rain Designs

7 business operations within the State of California and in this District.

18 and False Designation laws.

19 BACKGROUND AND RELEVANT FACTS

24 computer products, including Apple products, for its customers.

4 named the mStand.

13 infringement of the patent-in-suit.

23 Walmart.com, Apple.com, B&H, BestBuy.com, Staples.com, officedepot.com, etc.), and by

24 Rain Designs distributor network (see http://www.raindesigninc.com/where-to-buy.html (last

6 and distinctive packaging.

13 respectively (showing Spinidos trade-dress infringing designs).) Likewise, Spinidos TI-

16 dress infringing designs), respectively.)

17 34. Spinidos trade dress is designed to be confusingly similar to the reasonable

20 R-T also reflect Gomffers infringement of Rain Designs trade dress.

5 similar to Rain Designs trademark from the perspective of the reasonable

6 consumer, and thus constitutes trademark infringement under federal law.

16 Spinido of Gomffers product, and is copied from a 2007 MacWorld Review of

17 the mStand. (See Exhibit U.)

19 an Apple computer laptop disposed thereon, with a black background.

22 Exhibit B (showing deposit copy of photograph).) Rain Design owns a registered

23 copyright to this photograph. Accordingly, Spinidos and/or Gomffers actions in

24 this regard also constitute copyright infringement.

25 Each employs the same color scheme.

6 Surrounding this photograph on each of the box sides is a series of seven

13 Each bears an insert of a back-perspective view photograph of the product with a

17 to a back view of an iMac computer. (Compare Exhibit M with Exhibit P; see

19 owns a registered copyright to this photograph. Accordingly, Spinidos and/or

20 Gomffers actions in this regard also constitute copyright infringement.

22 [Product name] features. Designed to match Apples notebooks, TI-Station is

1 Each employs the same color scheme.

13 substantially similar, but shows a woman instead of a man.

18 posture and view.

24 work comfortably every day.

25 Each employs the same color scheme.

28 Rain Design, and later, Gomffer began doing the same.

5 would be so deceived by the substantial similarity between the designs so as to be induced to

10 of receiving a computer wire.

18 of the patent-in-suit, Spinidos TI-Combination is also an infringing product.

20 office was located at 36 South 18th Avenue, Suite A, Brighton, CO 80601.