Deckers v. CKC - Complaint

Case 2:22-cv-03837 Document 1 Filed 06/03/22 Page 1 of 21 Page ID #:1
1 Brent H. Blakely (SBN 157292)

bblakely@blakelylawgroup.com
2 Jamie Fountain (SBN 316567)
jfountain@blakelylawgroup.com
3 BLAKELY LAW GROUP
1334 Parkview Avenue, Suite 280
4 Manhattan Beach, California 90266
Telephone: (310) 546-7400
5 Facsimile: (310) 546-7401
6 Attorneys for Plaintiff
Deckers Outdoor Corporation
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
DECKERS OUTDOOR ) CASE NO.:
11 CORPORATION, a Delaware )
Corporation, ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND
12 ) EQUITABLE RELIEF:
Plaintiff, )
13 ) 1. TRADE DRESS INFRINGEMENT
) UNDER THE LANHAM ACT
14 v. )
) 2. TRADE DRESS INFRINGEMENT
15 CKC Enterprises Inc. dba ROOLEE, a ) UNDER CALIFORNIA COMMON
Utah Corporation; and DOES 1-10, ) LAW
16 inclusive, )
) 3. UNFAIR COMPETITION IN
17 ) VIOLATION OF CAL. BUS. &
Defendants. ) PROF. CODE § 17200 et seq.
18 )
) 4. UNFAIR COMPETITION UNDER
19 ) CALIFORNIA COMMON LAW
)
20 ) 5. PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF
) U.S. PAT. NO. D867,731
21 )
)
22 ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
23
24 Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporation (“Deckers” or “Plaintiff”) for its
25 Complaint against Defendant CKC Enterprises, Inc. dba Roolee (“Roolee”) and
26 DOES 1-10 (collectively “Defendants”) alleges as follows:
27
28 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
29
1
30 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF
1 1. This action arises out of Defendants’ complicit and unlawful acts

2 constituting trade dress infringement and unfair competition in violation of the
3 Lanham Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. § 1051, et seq. (the “Lanham Act”), patent
4 infringement arising under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.
5 and violations of statutory and common law of the state of California.
6 2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the federal claims asserted
7 in this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) and supplemental jurisdiction over
8 Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because they are so related
9 to the federal claims that they form part of the same case or controversy.
10 3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants
11 conduct continuous and systematic business in this district, placed infringing products
12 in the stream of commerce directed to residents of this district, derived commercial
13 benefits from the sale of infringing products and caused injuries to Plaintiff within the
14 Central District of California.
15 4. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)-(c) because a substantial
16 part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims alleged occurred in this
17 judicial district and Plaintiff is located and has been injured in this judicial district,
18 and 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) because Defendants committed acts of infringement in this
19 judicial district.
20 THE PARTIES
21 5. Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporation is a corporation organized and
22 existing under the laws of the state of Delaware with an office and principal place of
23 business located in Goleta, California. Deckers designs and markets footwear products
24 under a number of well-known brands, including Teva® products covered by the
25 intellectual property asserted in this Complaint.
26 6. Upon information and belief, Defendant CKC Enterprises, Inc. dba
27 Roolee (“Roolee”) is a Utah corporation with an office and principal place of business
28 located at 165 W 1600 N, #110, Logan, Utah 84341.
29
2
1 7. Deckers is informed and believes that, together with Defendant Roolee,

2 other individuals and entities currently named as DOES 1-10 may also be responsible
3 in one manner or another for the wrongs alleged herein, in that at all relevant times,
4 each one (including Roolee) was the agent and servant of the others and acting within
5 the course and scope of said agency and employment. These other individuals and
6 entities are sued under fictitious names DOES 1-10 because their true names and
7 capacities are currently unknown to Deckers. Deckers will seek leave to amend this
8 Complaint when the true names and capacities of DOES 1-10 are ascertained.
9 ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
10 A. Deckers’ Teva® Brand
11 8. Deckers has been engaged in the design, distribution, marketing, offering
12 for sale, and sale of footwear since 1975. Deckers owns and markets its footwear
13 products under several distinctive trademarked brands, including Teva®,
14 Koolaburra®, UGG®, Sanuk®, and HOKA®.
15 9. Deckers’ Teva® brand is well-known and recognized as the original
16 outdoor sport sandal in the United States. Since 1984, when the Teva® brand was
17 founded, the popularity of Teva® footwear has steadily grown in the U.S. and around
18 the world. Teva® footwear has been and remains highly coveted today by consumers
19 as one of the most popular and recognizable symbols of the freedom to roam and
20 explore the outdoors in comfort.
21 10. Since 1984, Teva® sandals have become the ultimate archetype for
22 comfortable outdoor sandals. Since then, the popularity of Teva® footwear has grown
23 exponentially, with celebrities such as Solange, Elle Fanning, and Kendall Jenner
24 among a myriad of others regularly seen wearing Teva® footwear, including the
25 Teva® Hurricane Drift sandals.
26 11. The world-wide recognition as a “premium” brand and the overwhelming
27 popularity of the Teva® brand is due to Deckers’ continuous commitment to quality,
28 sustainability, and excellence. Today, Deckers’ footwear products under the Teva®
29
3
1 brand are widely available and sold to consumers in every state, including California,
2 through authorized retailers on the internet and in brick-and-mortar stores , as well as
3 directly from Deckers on the internet at www.teva.com.
4 B. Defendants’ Infringing Activities
5 12. This lawsuit arises from Defendants’ design, manufacture, importation,
6 distribution, advertisement, marketing, offering for sale, and sale in the U.S. of certain
7 footwear products that infringe upon Deckers’ “Hurricane Drift Trade Dress” and U.S.
8 Pat. No. D867,731(the “Accused Products”).
9 13. Upon information and belief, Roolee is a competitor of Deckers, and
10 Defendants introduced the Accused Products into the stream of commerce to exploit
11 Deckers’ goodwill and the reputation of the Teva® Hurricane Drift.
12 14. Upon information and belief, Roolee imports, manufactures, designs,
13 advertises, markets, distributes, offers for sale, and/or sells footwear under its
14 “ROOLEE” brand, including to those within this judicial district.
15 15. Upon information and belief, Defendants imported into the U.S.,
16 advertised, marketed, offered for sale, and/or sold at least the Accused Products
17 identified as ROOLEE brand and are marketed, advertised, offered for sale, and sold
18 by Roolee under the name “Haven Sandal” – an exemplar of which is shown in the
19 photograph below - through Roolee’s website (www.roolee.com) to consumers
20 nationwide, including consumers located within this judicial district.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 Examples of Accused Product
28 16. Upon information and belief, Defendants may have sold additional
29
4
1 products that infringe upon Deckers’ design patents and trade dresses. Deckers will
2 seek leave to amend as additional information becomes available through discovery.
3 17. Upon information and belief, Defendants have acted in bad faith and
4 Defendants’ unlawful acts have misled and confused, and were intended to cause
5 confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive consumers as to the affiliation,
6 connection, or association of the Accused Products with Deckers, and/or the origin,
7 sponsorship, or approval of the Accused Products by Deckers.
8 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
9 (Trade Dress Infringement - 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a))
10 18. Deckers incorporates by reference each and every one of the preceding
11 paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
12 19. In 2019, Deckers introduced the Teva® Hurricane Drift, marketed and
13 featuring the design elements protected under the “Hurricane Drift Trade Dress.” The
14 Hurricane Drift Trade Dress is unique and inherently distinctive, and comprised of the
15 following non-functional elements:
16 a. An open-toe sandal;
17 b. A sole having a tread pattern;
18 c. Multiple straps including a toe strap, an instep strap, a heel strap
19 and a tether strap between the toe strap and instep strap, the tether strap being
20 asymmetric and extending only on the lateral side of the sandal;
21 d. Multiple solid triangles connecting the instep strap to the heel
22 strap, and a single solid triangle connecting the toe strap to the tether strap; and
23 e. The straps, triangles and sole being singularly molded together.
24 20. The Hurricane Drift Trade Dress, which is a composite of the above-
25 referenced features, is non-functional in its entirety, visually distinctive, and unique in
26 the footwear industry; examples of its distinctive appearance as a whole are shown in
27 the photographs below:
28
29
5
1
2
3
4
5 21. The design of the Hurricane Drift Trade Dress is neither essential to its
6 use or purpose, nor does it affect the cost or quality of the shoe. There are numerous
7 other shoe designs available that are equally feasible and efficient, none of which
8 necessitate copying or imitating the Hurricane Drift Trade Dress. The combination of
9 features comprising the Hurricane Drift Trade Dress provides no cost advantages to
10 the manufacturer or utilitarian advantages to the consumer. These features, in
11 combination, serve only to render Teva® Hurricane Drift sandals, the embodiment of
12 the Hurricane Drift Trade Dress, as a distinct product originating solely from Deckers.
13 22. Teva® Hurricane Drift sandals, the embodiment of the Hurricane Drift
14 Trade Dress, is one of the most well-recognized and commercially successful styles of
15 Teva® brand of footwear products, having been featured in many of Deckers’
16 advertising and promotional materials as well as in various trade publications. Teva®
17 Hurricane Drift sandals have received a large volume of unsolicited media attention,
18 for example, through various celebrities seen wearing Teva® Hurricane Drift sandals
19 and graced the pages of many popular magazines nationwide and internationally.
20 23. Deckers has spent substantial time, effort, and money in designing,
21 developing, advertising, promoting, and marketing the Teva® brand and its line of
22 footwear embodying the Hurricane Drift Trade Dress. Deckers spends millions of
23 dollars annually on advertising of Teva® products, including footwear embodying the
24 Hurricane Drift Trade Dress.
25 24. Due to its extensive sales, and significant advertising and promotional
26 activities, Deckers’ Hurricane Drift Trade Dress has achieved widespread acceptance
27 and recognition among the consuming public and trade throughout the United States.
28 Indeed, Deckers has sold millions of dollars’ worth of Teva® Hurricane Drift sandals,
29
6
1 the embodiment of the Hurricane Drift Trade Dress. Accordingly, the Hurricane Drift
2 Trade Dress has achieved a high degree of consumer recognition and secondary
3 meaning, which serves to identify Deckers as the exclusive source of footwear
4 featuring said trade dress.
5 25. Upon information and belief, Defendants are competitors of Deckers and
6 Defendants introduced Accused Products into the stream of commerce in an effort to
7 exploit Deckers’ goodwill and the reputation of the Teva® Hurricane Drift sandals.
8 26. The Accused Products manufactured, imported, distributed, advertised,
9 offered for sale, and/or sold by Defendants bear confusingly similar reproductions of
10 the Hurricane Drift Trade Dress, such as to cause a likelihood of confusion as to the
11 source, sponsorship or approval by Deckers of the Accused Products.
12 27. Defendants’ use of the Hurricane Drift Trade Dress is without Deckers’
13 permission or authorization, and in total disregard of Deckers’ rights to control its
14 intellectual property. There are numerous other shoe designs in the footwear industry,
15 none of which necessitate copying or imitating the Hurricane Drift Trade Dress.
16 28. Defendants’ use of the Hurricane Drift Trade Dress is likely to lead to
17 and result in confusion, mistake, or deception, and is likely to cause the public to
18 believe that Accused Products are produced, sponsored, authorized, or licensed by or
19 are otherwise connected or affiliated with Deckers.
20 29. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing acts, Deckers has
21 suffered and will continue to suffer significant injuries in an amount to be determined
22 at trial. Deckers is entitled to recover all damages, including attorneys’ fees, that it
23 has sustained and will sustain, and all gains, profits and advantages obtained by
24 Defendants as a result of its infringing acts.
25 30. Furthermore, unless Defendants’ unlawful acts are enjoined by this
26 Court, there is no adequate remedy at law that can fully compensate Deckers for the
27 harm caused by Defendants’ infringement, which is ongoing. Accordingly, Deckers is
28 entitled to injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from continuing to infringe the
29
7
1 Hurricane Drift Trade Dress, or any designs confusingly similar thereto.

2 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
3 (Trade Dress Infringement – California Common Law)
6 32. Defendants’ infringement of the Hurricane Drift Trade Dress also
7 constitutes trade dress infringement under common law of the state of California.
8 33. The Accused Products manufactured, imported, distributed, advertised,
9 offered for sale, and/or sold by Defendants bear confusingly similar reproductions of
10 the Hurricane Drift Trade Dress, such as to cause a likelihood of confusion as to the
11 source, sponsorship or approval by Deckers of the Accused Products. Defendants’
12 unauthorized use of the Hurricane Drift Trade Dress has caused and is likely to cause
13 confusion as to the source of Accused Products among consumers.
16 at trial. Deckers is entitled to recover all damages, including attorneys’ fees, that it
17 has sustained on account of Defendants’ infringement, and all gains, profits and
18 advantages obtained by Defendants as a result of its unlawful acts.
19 35. Defendants’ unlawful acts were willful, deliberate, and intended to cause
20 confusion among the public, taken in reckless disregard of Deckers’ rights. As such,
21 an award of exemplary and punitive damages is necessary in an amount sufficient to
22 deter similar misconduct in the future.
25 damages caused by Defendants’ infringement, which is ongoing. Accordingly,
26 Deckers is entitled to injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from continuing to
27 infringe the Hurricane Drift Trade Dress, or any designs confusingly similar thereto.
28 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
29
8
1 (Unfair Competition in Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et. seq.)
4 38. Defendants’ misappropriation and unauthorized use of the Hurricane
5 Drift Trade Dress to promote the Accused Products is likely to confuse or mislead
6 consumers into believing that such products are authorized, licensed, affiliated,
7 sponsored, and/or approved by Deckers, constituting deceptive, unfair, and fraudulent
8 business practices and unfair competition in violation of the California Unfair
9 Business Practices Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et. seq.
10 39. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ deceptive, unfair, and
11 fraudulent business practices were willfully undertaken with full knowledge of the
12 Hurricane Drift Trade Dress and with the intent to misappropriate Deckers’ goodwill
13 and reputation established in the Teva® Hurricane Drift.
16 at trial. Deckers is entitled to all available relief provided for under the California
17 Unfair Business Practices Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et. seq., including an
18 accounting and disgorgement of all illicit profits that Defendants made on account of
19 its deceptive, unfair, and fraudulent business practices. Furthermore, because Deckers
20 has no adequate remedy at law for Defendants’ ongoing unlawful conduct, Deckers is
21 entitled to injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from unfair competition.
22 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
23 (Unfair Competition – California Common Law)
26 42. Defendants’ misappropriation and unauthorized use of the Hurricane
27 Drift Trade Dress to promote the Accused Products also constitutes unfair competition
28 in violation of common law of the state of California.
29
9
1 43. Deckers has expended substantial time, resources and effort in creating
2 and developing Teva® footwear, including the Teva® Hurricane Drift, the
3 embodiment of the Hurricane Drift Trade Dress, which consumers recognize as
4 originating from Deckers.
5 44. Upon information and belief, Defendants introduced Accused Products
6 into the stream of commerce in order to exploit Deckers’ goodwill and the reputation
7 established in the Teva® Hurricane Drift for Defendants’ own pecuniary gain.
8 Defendants’ unauthorized use of the Hurricane Drift Trade Dress resulted in
9 Defendants unfairly benefitting from Deckers’ goodwill and the reputation established
10 in the Teva® Hurricane Drift.
11 45. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ unlawful acts are willful,
12 deliberate, and intended to cause confusion among the public and taken in reckless
13 disregard of Deckers’ rights. As such, an award of exemplary and punitive damages is
14 necessary in an amount sufficient to deter similar misconduct in the future.
17 at trial. Deckers is entitled to recover all damages, including attorneys’ fees, that
18 Deckers has sustained on account of Defendants’ unfair competition, and all gains,
19 profits and advantages obtained by Defendants as a result of its unlawful acts.
20 Furthermore, because Deckers has no adequate remedy at law for Defendants’
21 ongoing unlawful conduct, Deckers is entitled to injunctive relief prohibiting
22 Defendants from unfair competition.
23 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
24 (Patent Infringement – U.S. Pat. No. D867,731)
27 48. In order to protect its valuable brands, Deckers owns a number of patents
28 covering various styles of footwear it markets, including the Teva® Hurricane Drift
29
10
1 described herein. These patents include U.S. Pat. No. D867,731 (“the ’731 Patent”)
2 issued on November 26, 2019, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as
3 Exhibit A and incorporated herein.
4 49. Deckers is the owner by assignment of all rights, title and interest in and
5 to the ’731 Patent issued in November 2019 and Deckers marked substantially all
6 footwear products embodying the design of the ’731 Patent with “Patent Pending”
7 and/or “Patent # D867,731” on a product label in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 287,
8 putting Defendants on notice of the’731 Patent.
9 50. Defendants have produced, imported into the U.S., distributed,
10 advertised, marketed, offered for sale, and/or sold within the United States the
11 Accused Products which bear a design substantially similar to the ornamental design
12 of the ’731 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271.
13 51. Deckers has not granted a license or given Defendants any form of
14 permission to the ’731 Patent and Defendants’ infringement of the ’731 Patent is
15 without Deckers’ permission or authority and in total disregard of Deckers’
16 intellectual property rights.
19 at trial. Deckers is entitled to recover all damages sustained on account of
20 Defendants’ infringement, and all gains, profits and advantages obtained by
21 Defendants under 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 289.
22 53. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ infringing acts were willful,
23 deliberate, and taken in reckless disregard of the ’731 Patent despite having been put
24 on notice through Deckers’ patent marking. Defendants took these actions knowing
25 the objectively high likelihood that such actions constituted infringement of the ’731
26 Patent. As Defendants’ willful acts render this an exceptional case, Deckers is entitled
27 to enhanced damages and reasonable attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
29
11
2 harm caused by Defendants’ infringement of the ’731 Patent, which is ongoing.
3 Accordingly, Deckers is entitled to injunctive relief under 35 U.S.C. § 283 prohibiting
4 Defendants from continuing to infringe the ’731 Patent.
5 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
6 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporation respectfully prays for
7 judgment against Defendant CKC Enterprises, Inc. dba Roolee and DOES 1-10 as
8 follows:
9 1. A judgment that Defendants infringed Deckers’ Hurricane Drift Trade
10 Dress and U.S. Pat. No. D867,731;
11 2. An order permanently enjoining and restraining Defendants, their agents,
12 servants, employees, officers, associates, and all persons acting in concert with any of
13 them from infringing Deckers’ intellectual property at issue, including but not limited
14 to infringing acts such as:
15 a. manufacturing, importing, advertising, marketing, promoting,
16 supplying, distributing, offering for sale, or selling Accused Products or any
17 other products that bear an identical or confusingly similar design as Deckers’
18 Hurricane Drift Trade Dress;
19 b. manufacturing, importing, advertising, marketing, promoting,
20 supplying, distributing, offering for sale, or selling Accused Products or any
21 other products that infringe the ’731 Patent;
22 c. engaging in any other activity constituting unfair competition with
23 Deckers, or acts and practices that deceive consumers, the public, and/or trade,
24 including without limitation, the use of designations and design elements used
25 or owned by or associated with Deckers; and
26 d. committing any other act which falsely represents or which has
27 the effect of falsely representing goods and services of Defendants are
28
29
12
1 licensed, authorized, offered, produced, sponsored, or in any other way

2 associated with Deckers;
3 3. An order requiring Defendants to recall from any distributors and
4 retailers and to deliver to Deckers for destruction any Accused Products, including the
5 means of making such products;
6 4. An order requiring Defendants to file with this Court and serve on
7 Deckers within thirty (30) days after entry of the injunction, a report in writing and
8 under oath setting forth the manner in which Defendants complied with the injunction;
9 5. An order for an accounting of all gains, profits and advantages derived by
10 Defendants on account of the unlawful acts complained of herein pursuant to 15
11 U.S.C. § 1117(a), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et. seq., and any other applicable
12 federal statute or California state and common law;
13 6. An award of damages equal to Defendants’ profits and all damages
14 sustained by Deckers as a result of Defendants’ wrongful acts;
15 7. An award of damages equal to treble Defendants’ profits or Deckers’
16 damages, whichever is greater, on account of Defendants’ willful infringement;
17 8. An award of punitive damages and Deckers’ costs, attorneys’ fees, and
18 interest as allowed under all applicable federal statutes and California state laws; and
19 9. All other relief that the Court may deem just and proper.
20
21 Dated: June 3, 2022 BLAKELY LAW GROUP
22
23 By: _/s/ Jamie Fountain
________________
Brent H. Blakely
24 Jamie Fountain
Attorneys for Plaintiff
25 Deckers Outdoor Corporation
26
27
28
29
13
1
2 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
3 Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff
4 Deckers Outdoor Corporation hereby demands a trial by jury as to all claims in this
5 Civil Action.
6
7 Dated: June 3, 2022 BLAKELY LAW GROUP
8
9 By: Jamie Fountain
_/s/ ____________
Brent H. Blakely
10 Jamie Fountain
Attorneys for Plaintiff
11 Deckers Outdoor Corporation
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
14
USOOD867731S
(12) United
Steele
States Design Patent ((4510)) Date
Patent No.: US D867,731 S
of Patent: ** Nov. 26 , 2019
( 54 ) FOOTWEAR UPPER AND MIDSOLE 5,561,919 A * 10/1996 Gill A43B 3/12
36 / 11.5
(71) Applicant: Deckers Outdoor Corporation , Goleta , D376,472 S * 12/1996 Hatfield D2/ 976
D376,895 S * 12/1996 Cook A43B 3/126
CA (US ) D2/916
6,606,803 B1 * 8/2003 Ritter A43B 3/126
( 72 ) Inventor: Cori Steele , Santa Barbara , CA (US ) 36 / 11.5
D757,405 S * 5/2016 Labarbera A43B 3/126
( 73 ) Assignee : Deckers Outdoor Corporation , Goleta , D2/916
CA (US )
OTHER PUBLICATIONS
(**) Term : 15 Years
Teva Catalog, “ Thin Blue Line” , see various models on pp . 34-35,
(21) Appl. No.: 29 /663,512 38-39 , 49, 54 , 57-58 of catalog Spring 2012 .
(22 ) Filed : Sep. 17 , 2018 * cited by examiner
(51) LOC (12 ) Cl. 02-04 Primary Examiner Rashida C. Walshon
(52) U.S. Ci. (74 ) Attorney, Agent, or Firm Greer, Burns & Crain ,
USPC D2 /916 Ltd.
(58 ) Field of Classification Search CLAIM
USPC D2/896–900 , 903 , 916–925 , 943 , 946 , (57)
D2 / 969, 971, 976 The ornamental design for a footwear upper and midsole, as
??? A43B 3/12; A43B 3 /122–128 shown and described .
See application file for complete search history . DESCRIPTION
(56 ) References Cited
FIG . 1 is a front perspective view of a footwear upper and
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS midsole showing my new design ;
12/1988 Thatcher
FIG . 2 is a side elevational view thereof;
4,793,075 A FIG . 3 is an opposite side elevational view thereof;
5,205,054 A 4/1993 York , Jr. A43B 3/126
36 / 11.5 FIG . 4 is a front elevational view thereof;
D336,717 S * 6/1993 Allen , III A43B 3/12 FIG . 5 is a rear elevational view thereof;
D2 /973 FIG . 6 is a top plan view thereof; and ,
5,228,216 A * 7/1993 Sargeant A43B 3/126 FIG . 7 is a bottom plan view thereof.
36 / 11.5 The broken lines in FIGS. 1-7 represent portions of the
5,438,767 A * 8/1995 Stein A43B 3/12 footwear that form no part of the claimed design . The broken
36 / 11.5
D363,814 S * 11/1995 Tsujino D2/916 lines which define the bounds of the claimed design form no
D364,497 S * 11/1995 Schelling D2/916 part thereof.
5,533,278 A * 7/1996 Stein A43B 3/12
36 / 11.5 1 Claim , 6 Drawing Sheets
U.S. Patent Nov. 26 , 2019 Sheet 1 of 6 US D867,731 S
1 1
1 1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
.
FIG
1
--
--
??
}
} --
FIG
.
2
--
-
}1
>
}
1
{1
}
1
---
-
1
1
1 3
.
FIG
1
-
---
--
-
--
wa
1
1
---
---
5
.
FIG
?
--
--
--
11
--
--
.
FIG
4
-
S.
--
6
.
FIG
1
1 ***
1
1
ch
}
1
}
1
;
1
1
??
th 7
.
FIG
-- }
-- 1
-
1
1
1 1
!
}
*
1
**
} *

Deckers v. CKC - Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Deckers v. CKC - Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:22-cv-03837 Document 1 Filed 06/03/22 Page 1 of 21 Page ID #:1

1 Brent H. Blakely (SBN 157292)

1 1. This action arises out of Defendants’ complicit and unlawful acts

1 7. Deckers is informed and believes that, together with Defendant Roolee,

1 Hurricane Drift Trade Dress, or any designs confusingly similar thereto.

1 licensed, authorized, offered, produced, sponsored, or in any other way

U.S. Patent Nov. 26 , 2019 Sheet 1 of 6 US D867,731 S

U.S. Patent Nov. 26 , 2019 Sheet 2 of 6 US D867,731 S

U.S. Patent Nov. 26 , 2019 Sheet 3 of 6 US D867,731 S

U.S. Patent Nov. 26 , 2019 Sheet 4 of 6 US D867,731 S

U.S. Patent Nov. 26 , 2019 Sheet 5 of 6 US D867,731 S

U.S. Patent Nov. 26 , 2019 Sheet 6 of 6 US D867,731 S

You might also like