Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 31

Case: 1:19-cv-01408 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/26/19 Page 1 of 31 PageID #:1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

NIKE, INC., an Oregon corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

PUTIAN QINGCHUNZHIJIA SPORTS GOODS CO., LTD. d/b/a ONEMIX, a China limited company and PU TIAN SHI QING CHUN ZHI JIA TI YU YONGPIN YOU XIAN GONG SI d/b/a ONEMIX, a China Corporation,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:19-cv-01408

COMPLAINT FOR:

(1) DESIGN PATENT INFRINGEMENT (2) TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT UNDER THE LANHAM ACT (3) FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN (4) DILUTION (5) COMMON LAW TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT & UNFAIR COMPETITION

JURY TRIAL REQUESTED

Plaintiff, NIKE, Inc. (“NIKE”), for its complaint against Defendants Putian Qingchunzhijia

Sports Goods Co., Ltd. and Pu Tian Shi Qing Chun Zhi Jia Ti Yu Yongpin You Xian Gong Si,

both d/b/a OneMix (Defendants are collectively referred to as “OneMix”), alleges as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. NIKE is the world’s leading designer, marketer and distributor of authentic athletic

footwear for a wide variety of sports and fitness activities.

2. NIKE invests heavily in research, design and development efforts, and those efforts

are key factors in NIKE’s success.

3. To protect its investments, NIKE files for and maintains design patents protecting

its valuable aesthetic designs. For example, NIKE owns design patents for its popular FLYKNIT

upper designs and its AIR MAX midsole and outsole designs, like the designs shown below.

Case: 1:19-cv-01408 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/26/19 Page 2 of 31 PageID #:2

Document #: 1 Filed: 02/26/19 Page 2 of 31 PageID #:2 4. NIKE also utilizes trademarks
Document #: 1 Filed: 02/26/19 Page 2 of 31 PageID #:2 4. NIKE also utilizes trademarks

4. NIKE also utilizes trademarks on nearly all of its products.

Having distinctive

marks that are readily identifiable is an important factor in creating a market for its goods, in

identifying its brands and the Company, and in distinguishing its goods from the goods of others.

5. NIKE has developed powerful trademark rights, such as its AIR MAX, FLYKNIT,

and FLYWIRE trademarks. NIKE developed its trademark rights through its continuous and long-

standing promotion of the marks, substantial sales of products bearing the marks, and consumer

recognition of the marks.

For example, NIKE has continuously promoted and sold footwear

bearing its AIR MAX trademark since 1987, including in connection with dozens of iconic shoe

designs and innovative footwear technologies.

As a result, NIKE’s AIR MAX trademark is not

only famous, it is one of the most recognizable and valuable trademarks in the world.

6. NIKE’s intellectual property rights, including its design patents and trademarks, are

important to its success and its competitive position. NIKE vigorously protects them against third-

party theft and infringement. It is for that reason that NIKE brings this lawsuit.

7. OneMix is a Chinese footwear brand created in 2013. The brand promotes and sells

footwear in the United States through its online retail store and through third party marketplaces,

such as Amazon.com and eBay.com.

8. Instead of competing fairly by offering its own footwear designs, OneMix promotes

and sells footwear with designs that are virtually identical to NIKE’s patented designs, such as the

midsole and outsole designs shown below.

2

Case: 1:19-cv-01408 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/26/19 Page 3 of 31 PageID #:3

Document #: 1 Filed: 02/26/19 Page 3 of 31 PageID #:3 9. Industry commentators have noticed
Document #: 1 Filed: 02/26/19 Page 3 of 31 PageID #:3 9. Industry commentators have noticed

9. Industry commentators have noticed OneMix’s unlawful and unfair conduct. For

example, a popular sneaker blog, KicksOnFire.com, reviewed OneMix footwear and a related

promotional video in a post titled “Wait, What? Get Ready For The Onemix Flyknit Air Max.” In

the post, KicksOnFire.com describes OneMix’s footwear as a copy of NIKE’s Flyknit Air Max:

Excerpt from https://www.kicksonfire.com/onemix-flyknit-air-max-nike-copy/
Excerpt from https://www.kicksonfire.com/onemix-flyknit-air-max-nike-copy/

10. The KicksOnFire.com post continues that OneMix’s footwear designs are not

limited to copies of Flyknit Air Max, but also include copies of other NIKE footwear designs:

3

Case: 1:19-cv-01408 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/26/19 Page 4 of 31 PageID #:4

Excerpt from https://www.kicksonfire.com/onemix-flyknit-air-max-nike-copy/
Excerpt from https://www.kicksonfire.com/onemix-flyknit-air-max-nike-copy/

11. Footwear consumers also recognize the substantial similarity between OneMix’s

footwear and NIKE’s patented designs.

For example, consumers on Amazon.com frequently

comment on the striking similarity between the designs:

Excerpt from https://www.amazon.com/ONEMIX-Running-Flyknit-Lightweight- Athletic/product-reviews/B07F71LJJQ
Excerpt from https://www.amazon.com/ONEMIX-Running-Flyknit-Lightweight-
Athletic/product-reviews/B07F71LJJQ

12. OneMix’s unlawful and unfair conduct is not limited to using NIKE’s patented

designs. OneMix also uses NIKE’s trademarks to promote its footwear. For example, as shown

below, OneMix uses the AIR MAX and FLYKNIT trademarks to promote its infringing footwear:

4

Case: 1:19-cv-01408 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/26/19 Page 5 of 31 PageID #:5

Excerpt from https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07F72RQ74/ref=twister_B07F72F7MK
Excerpt from https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07F72RQ74/ref=twister_B07F72F7MK

13. NIKE therefore brings this lawsuit to defend its investments in innovation and

design and to protect its valuable intellectual property rights.

5

Case: 1:19-cv-01408 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/26/19 Page 6 of 31 PageID #:6

NATURE OF LAWSUIT

14. This is an action for patent and trademark infringement arising under 35 U.S.C. §

101 et seq. and 15 U.S.C. § 1051, et seq., respectively.

NIKE owns exclusive rights in the

ornamental designs claimed in U.S. Design Patent Nos. D697,294, D694,501, D707,935,

D707,934, D636,571, each titled, “Shoe Outsole,” D702,424, D711,081, D709,681, each titled,

“Shoe Midsole,” and D762,966, D762,965, D718,036, D707,950, D636,588, each titled, “Shoe

Upper,” (collectively, the “NIKE Design Patents”).

NIKE also owns exclusive rights in U.S.

Trademark Nos. 1,508,348 for “AIR MAX,” 3,640,542 for “FLYWIRE,” and 4,393,310 for

“FLYKNIT,” (collectively, the “NIKE Trademarks”).

15. OneMix has used and continues to use the claimed designs of the NIKE Design

Patents and the NIKE Trademarks, without NIKE’s permission, for footwear that OneMix makes,

uses, offers for sale, sells, advertises, promotes, distributes, and/or imports into the United States.

16. NIKE seeks, among other relief, an injunction preventing OneMix from further

infringing the NIKE Design Patents and the NIKE Trademarks, and damages or a disgorgement

of OneMix’s profits from its infringements.

THE PARTIES

17. NIKE is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Oregon

with a principal place of business at One Bowerman Drive, Beaverton, Oregon 97005.

18. On information and belief, Putian Qingchunzhijia Sports Goods Co., Ltd. is a China

Limited Company having a place of business at East Rm. 301, No. 698, Xueyuan North Street,

Gongchen Street, Licheng District, Putian, Fujian, China.

6

Case: 1:19-cv-01408 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/26/19 Page 7 of 31 PageID #:7

19. On information and belief, Pu Tian Shi Qing Chun Zhi Jia Ti Yu Yongpin You

Xian Gong Si is a China Corporation having a place of business at Room 403, Layer 4, 108 Of

Xueyuan North Road, Licheng District, Putian City 351100 Fujian China.

20. On further information and belief, Defendants are related to and have and are doing

business under the following additional names: Putian Onemix E-Commerce Co., Ltd., Putian

Qingchunzhijia Sporting Goods Co., Ltd., Putian Qingchunzhijia Sports Equipment Co., Ltd., Pu

Tian Shi Qing Chun Zhi Jia Ti Yu Yong Pin You Xian Gong Si, Putian Youth House Sporting

Goods Co., Ltd., Putian Youth Home Sports Goods Co., Ltd., Putian Youth Home Sport Goods

Co., Ltd., Putian City Youth House Sporting Goods Co., Ltd., Youth House (Fujian) Sporing

Goods Co., Ltd., Putian Youth Sports Equipment Co., Ltd., Putian YoungSneaker Co., Ltd., and

Pu Tian Shi Mai Qu Mao Yi You Xian Gong Si.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

21. This action for design patent and trademark infringement arises under 35 U.S.C. §

101 et seq. and 15 U.S.C. § 1051, et seq., respectively.

22. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §

1121 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338, and 1367.

23. OneMix has and continues to advertise, offer for sale, and sell infringing footwear

designs to customers in the Unites States, including customers in the State of Illinois and in this

District.

24. This Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over OneMix based upon its contacts

with the forum in transacting and soliciting business in Illinois, including committing acts of

infringement by promoting, distributing, offering to sell and selling products covered by the NIKE

Design Patents and/or the NIKE Trademarks that give rise to this lawsuit here. Alternatively, to

7

Case: 1:19-cv-01408 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/26/19 Page 8 of 31 PageID #:8

the extent OneMix alleges it is not subject to personal jurisdiction in the courts of any state, this

Court has personal jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2).

25. Venue is proper in this judicial district under at least 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 because

OneMix transacts in and solicits business in this district, including, with respect to shoes that

infringe the NIKE Design Patents and/or NIKE Trademarks, and has committed and continues to

commit acts of patent infringement in this district including but not limited to selling and offering

to sell shoes that infringe one or more of NIKE’s Design Patents at issue in this case, and are

subject to personal jurisdiction in this district.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. NIKE’S DESIGN PATENTS

26. NIKE has taken steps to protect its innovative designs, including its footwear-

related designs.

Relevant to this dispute, NIKE owns all right, title, and interest in, and has the

right to sue and recover for past, present, and future infringement of, each of the NIKE Design

Patents identified in Table 1 from the date each patent duly and legally issued to NIKE. NIKE

attaches a copy of each NIKE Design Patent to this Complaint as indicated in Table 1.

Table 1: The NIKE Design Patents

 

U.S. Design Patent No.

Title

Issue Date

Complaint

Exhibit

D636,571 (the “’571 Patent”)

Shoe Outsole

April 26, 2011

1

D694,501 (the “’501 Patent”)

Shoe Outsole

December 3, 2013

2

D697,294 (the “’294 Patent”)

Shoe Outsole

January 14, 2014

3

D707,934 (the “’934 Patent”)

Shoe Outsole

July 1, 2014

4

D707,935 (the “’935 Patent”)

Shoe Outsole

July 1, 2014

5

D636,588 (the “’588 Patent”)

Shoe Upper

April 26, 2011

6

8

Case: 1:19-cv-01408 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/26/19 Page 9 of 31 PageID #:9

D707,950 (the “’950 Patent”)

Shoe Upper

July 1, 2014

7

D718,036 (the “’036 Patent”)

Shoe Upper

November 25, 2014

8

D762,965 (the “’965 Patent”)

Shoe Upper

August 9, 2016

9

D762,966 (the “’966 Patent”)

Shoe Upper

August 9, 2016

10

D702,424 (the “’424 Patent”)

Shoe Midsole

April 15, 2014

11

D709,681 (the “’681 Patent”)

Shoe Midsole

July 29, 2014

12

D711,081 (the “’081 Patent”)

Shoe Midsole

August 19, 2014

13

27. The NIKE Design Patents are presumed to be valid.

B. NIKE’S TRADEMARKS

28. As a result of continuous and long-standing promotion, substantial sales, and

consumer recognition, NIKE has developed powerful trademark rights.

29. In particular, through substantial and long-standing use, the mark AIR MAX has

become a famous trademark.

Today, AIR MAX is one of the most recognizable and valuable

trademarks in the world.

NIKE has continuously promoted and sold footwear bearing the AIR

MAX mark since at least 1987, including in connection with dozens of iconic shoe designs and

innovative footwear technologies over the years.

30. NIKE has also used the trademarks FLYWIRE and FLYKNIT in connection with

footwear as early as 2009 and 2012, respectively. As a result of NIKE’s promotion and continuous

use of these marks, and because consumers associate these marks with high-quality NIKE

footwear, FLYWIRE and FLYKNIT are valuable trademarks connected with NIKE.

31. NIKE owns federal trademark registrations for the marks AIR MAX, FLYWIRE,

and FLYKNIT.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office has examined applications to

register these marks and has registered these marks on the Principal Register in connection with

9

Case: 1:19-cv-01408 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/26/19 Page 10 of 31 PageID #:10

footwear in International Class 25.

NIKE owns all right, title, and interest in the registrations

identified in Table 2.

A copy of each registration certificate is attached to this Complaint as

indicated in Table 2.

32. NIKE also owns common law trademark rights in the marks in Table 2 as a result

of NIKE’s continuous and exclusive use of the marks for several years.

NIKE’s federal and

common law trademark rights in the marks are collectively hereafter referred to as the “NIKE

Trademarks.”

 

Table 2: NIKE TRADEMARKS

 

United States Trademark Reg. No.

Trademark

Trademark Registration Date

Complaint Exhibit

1,508,348

AIR MAX

October 11, 1988

14

3,640,542

FLYWIRE

June 16, 2009

15

4,393,310

FLYKNIT

August 27, 2013

16

33. The NIKE Trademarks are presumed to be valid.

34. The AIR MAX and FLYWIRE Trademarks are incontestable pursuant to 10 U.S.C.

§ 1065.

35. The AIR MAX and FLYKNIT Trademarks have become famous and well-known

indicators of the origin and quality of NIKE products, specifically footwear.

C. ONEMIX’S INFRINGING ACTIVITIES

36. OneMix promotes and sells athletic footwear to customers in the Unites States,

including customers in the State of Illinois and in this District.

37. Without NIKE’s authorization, OneMix has made, used, offered for sale, sold,

and/or imported into the United States footwear bearing designs that have the same or substantially

similar overall visual impression as the designs covered by the NIKE Design Patents (hereafter

collectively “Infringing Shoes”).

10

Case: 1:19-cv-01408 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/26/19 Page 11 of 31 PageID #:11

38. Without NIKE’s authorization, OneMix uses the NIKE Trademarks to promote and

sell the Infringing Shoes. On information and belief, OneMix intentionally uses infringing marks

in connection with the Infringing Shoes to create associations with NIKE.

39. Without NIKE’s authorization, OneMix promotes, distributes, offers to sell, and

sells, footwear, including the Infringing Shoes, directly to end-user customers through its website

http://www.onemixsport.com and https://onemix.shop/, which reaches into the United States and

this judicial district. NIKE has attached captures of the OneMix website at Exhibit 17. Below is

an example screen shot from Exhibit 17.

Exhibit 17. Below is an example screen shot from Exhibit 17. 40. OneMix promotes, distributes, offers

40. OneMix promotes, distributes, offers to sell, and sells footwear, including the

Infringing Shoes, directly to end-user customers through third-party online resellers, including

Amazon, eBay, and Ali Express, which reach into the United States and this judicial district. NIKE

has attached captures of the Amazon, eBay and Ali Express websites showing examples of the

Infringing Shoes at Exhibits 18-20.

11

Case: 1:19-cv-01408 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/26/19 Page 12 of 31 PageID #:12

41. In Tables 3 through 15 below, NIKE compares specific examples of Infringing

Shoes to NIKE Design Patents. The tables show exemplary Infringing Shoes. NIKE also accuses

of infringement shoes bearing the same or substantially similar infringing designs, in all colorways.

Table 3: Comparison of ’571 Patent with Exemplary Infringing Shoes

Table 3: Comparison of ’571 Patent with Exemplary Infringing Shoes

’571 Patent Figures

Patent with Exemplary Infringing Shoes ’571 Patent Figures See Compl. Ex. 1 OneMix’s Exemplary Infringing Shoes

See Compl. Ex. 1

OneMix’s Exemplary Infringing Shoes

Patent Figures See Compl. Ex. 1 OneMix’s Exemplary Infringing Shoes ONEMIX Men’s Running Sport Shoes Waterproof

ONEMIX Men’s Running Sport Shoes Waterproof

Table 4: Comparison of ’501 Patent with Exemplary Infringing Shoes

Table 4: Comparison of ’501 Patent with Exemplary Infringing Shoes

’501 Patent Figures

Patent with Exemplary Infringing Shoes ’501 Patent Figures See Compl. Ex. 2 OneMix’s Exemplary Infringing Shoes

See Compl. Ex. 2

OneMix’s Exemplary Infringing Shoes

See Compl. Ex. 2 OneMix’s Exemplary Infringing Shoes ONEMIX Men’s Lightweight Air Cushion Outdoor Sports

ONEMIX Men’s Lightweight Air Cushion Outdoor Sports Running Shoes

Table 5: Comparison of ’294 Patent with Exemplary Infringing Shoes

Table 5: Comparison of ’294 Patent with Exemplary Infringing Shoes

’294 Patent Figures

Patent with Exemplary Infringing Shoes ’294 Patent Figures See Compl. Ex. 3 OneMix’s Exemplary Infringing Shoes

See Compl. Ex. 3

OneMix’s Exemplary Infringing Shoes

See Compl. Ex. 3 OneMix’s Exemplary Infringing Shoes ONEMIX Men’s Lightweight Air Cushion Outdoor Sports

ONEMIX Men’s Lightweight Air Cushion Outdoor Sports Running Shoes

12

Case: 1:19-cv-01408 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/26/19 Page 13 of 31 PageID #:13

Table 6: Comparison of ’934 Patent with Exemplary Infringing Shoes

Table 6: Comparison of ’934 Patent with Exemplary Infringing Shoes

’934 Patent Figures

Patent with Exemplary Infringing Shoes ’934 Patent Figures See Compl. Ex. 4 OneMix’s Exemplary Infringing Shoes

See Compl. Ex. 4

OneMix’s Exemplary Infringing Shoes

ONEMIX Men’s Basketball Shoes Athletic Sneakers Anti-Slip High Top Outdoor Sport

ONEMIX Men’s Basketball Shoes Athletic Sneakers Anti-Slip High Top Outdoor Sport

Table 7: Comparison of ’935 Patent with Exemplary Infringing Shoes ’935 Patent Figures OneMix’s Exemplary
Table 7: Comparison of ’935 Patent with Exemplary Infringing Shoes
’935 Patent Figures
OneMix’s Exemplary Infringing Shoes
ONEMIX Kids Sneaker Shoes for Boys/Girls
See Compl. Ex. 5

13

Case: 1:19-cv-01408 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/26/19 Page 14 of 31 PageID #:14

Table 8: Comparison of ’588 Patent with Exemplary Infringing Shoes

’588 Patent Figures

OneMix’s Exemplary Infringing Shoes

’588 Patent Figures OneMix’s Exemplary Infringing Shoes See Compl. Ex. 6 ONEMIX Men’s Running Sport Shoes

See Compl. Ex. 6

OneMix’s Exemplary Infringing Shoes See Compl. Ex. 6 ONEMIX Men’s Running Sport Shoes Waterproof Table 9:
OneMix’s Exemplary Infringing Shoes See Compl. Ex. 6 ONEMIX Men’s Running Sport Shoes Waterproof Table 9:

ONEMIX Men’s Running Sport Shoes Waterproof

Table 9: Comparison of ’950 Patent with Exemplary Infringing Shoes ’950 Patent Figures OneMix’s Exemplary
Table 9: Comparison of ’950 Patent with Exemplary Infringing Shoes
’950 Patent Figures
OneMix’s Exemplary Infringing Shoes
ONEMIX Kids Sneaker Shoes for Boys/Girls
See Compl. Ex. 7

14

Case: 1:19-cv-01408 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/26/19 Page 15 of 31 PageID #:15

Table 10: Comparison of ’036 Patent with Exemplary Infringing Shoes ’036 Patent Figures OneMix’s Exemplary
Table 10: Comparison of ’036 Patent with Exemplary Infringing Shoes
’036 Patent Figures
OneMix’s Exemplary Infringing Shoes
See Compl. Ex. 8
ONEMIX Women’s Woven Training Shoes
Table 11: Comparison of ’965 Patent with Exemplary Infringing Shoes ’965 Patent Figures OneMix’s Exemplary
Table 11: Comparison of ’965 Patent with Exemplary Infringing Shoes
’965 Patent Figures
OneMix’s Exemplary Infringing Shoes
ONEMIX Women’s Running Shoes, Air Cushion
Breathable Athletic Sneakers
See Compl. Ex. 9

15

Case: 1:19-cv-01408 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/26/19 Page 16 of 31 PageID #:16

Table 12: Comparison of ’966 Patent with Exemplary Infringing Shoes

Table 12: Comparison of ’966 Patent with Exemplary Infringing Shoes

’966 Patent Figures

Patent with Exemplary Infringing Shoes ’966 Patent Figures See Compl. Ex. 10 OneMix’s Exemplary Infringing Shoes

See Compl. Ex. 10

OneMix’s Exemplary Infringing Shoes

See Compl. Ex. 10 OneMix’s Exemplary Infringing Shoes ONEMIX Men’s Air Running Shoes, Light Gym Outdoor

ONEMIX Men’s Air Running Shoes, Light Gym Outdoor Walking Sneakers

Table 13: Comparison of ’424 Patent with Exemplary Infringing Shoes ’424 Patent Figures OneMix’s Exemplary
Table 13: Comparison of ’424 Patent with Exemplary Infringing Shoes
’424 Patent Figures
OneMix’s Exemplary Infringing Shoes
ONEMIX Men’s Air Cushion Outdoor Sports
Running Shoes
ONEMIX Men’s Lightweight Air Cushion Sport
Running Shoes
See Compl. Ex. 11

16

Case: 1:19-cv-01408 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/26/19 Page 17 of 31 PageID #:17

Table 14: Comparison of ’681 Patent with Exemplary Infringing Shoes ’681 Patent Figures OneMix’s Exemplary
Table 14: Comparison of ’681 Patent with Exemplary Infringing Shoes
’681 Patent Figures
OneMix’s Exemplary Infringing Shoes
ONEMIX Kids Sneaker Shoes for Boys/Girls
See Compl. Ex. 12
Table 15: Comparison of ’081 Patent with Exemplary Infringing Shoes ’081 Patent Figures OneMix’s Exemplary
Table 15: Comparison of ’081 Patent with Exemplary Infringing Shoes
’081 Patent Figures
OneMix’s Exemplary Infringing Shoes
ONEMIX Men’s Air Cushion Outdoor Sports
Running Shoes
ONEMIX Men’s Lightweight Air Cushion Sport
Running Shoes
See Compl. Ex. 13

17

Case: 1:19-cv-01408 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/26/19 Page 18 of 31 PageID #:18

42. In Table 16 below, NIKE provides examples of OneMix’s infringing uses of the

NIKE Trademarks to promote its Infringing Shoes.

The table shows exemplary infringing uses.

NIKE also accuses all of other uses by OneMix of the NIKE Trademarks to promote footwear.

Table 16: Comparison of NIKE Trademarks with Exemplary Infringing Shoes

NIKE’s

Asserted

Trademark

OneMix’s Exemplary Infringing Shoes

AIR MAX

U.S. Trademark

Reg. No.

1,508,348

See Compl. Ex.

14

Asserted Trademark OneMix’s Exemplary Infringing Shoes AIR MAX U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 1,508,348 See Compl. Ex.
Asserted Trademark OneMix’s Exemplary Infringing Shoes AIR MAX U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 1,508,348 See Compl. Ex.
Asserted Trademark OneMix’s Exemplary Infringing Shoes AIR MAX U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 1,508,348 See Compl. Ex.

18

Case: 1:19-cv-01408 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/26/19 Page 19 of 31 PageID #:19

Case: 1:19-cv-01408 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/26/19 Page 19 of 31 PageID #:19 19

19

Case: 1:19-cv-01408 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/26/19 Page 20 of 31 PageID #:20

Document #: 1 Filed: 02/26/19 Page 20 of 31 PageID #:20 FLYWIRE U.S. Trademark Reg. No.

FLYWIRE

U.S. Trademark

Reg. No.

3,640,542

See Compl. Ex.

15

Document #: 1 Filed: 02/26/19 Page 20 of 31 PageID #:20 FLYWIRE U.S. Trademark Reg. No.
Document #: 1 Filed: 02/26/19 Page 20 of 31 PageID #:20 FLYWIRE U.S. Trademark Reg. No.

20

Case: 1:19-cv-01408 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/26/19 Page 21 of 31 PageID #:21

Document #: 1 Filed: 02/26/19 Page 21 of 31 PageID #:21 FLYKNIT U.S. Trademark Reg. No.
Document #: 1 Filed: 02/26/19 Page 21 of 31 PageID #:21 FLYKNIT U.S. Trademark Reg. No.

FLYKNIT

U.S. Trademark

Reg. No.

4,393,310

See Compl. Ex.

16

21

Case: 1:19-cv-01408 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/26/19 Page 22 of 31 PageID #:22

Document #: 1 Filed: 02/26/19 Page 22 of 31 PageID #:22 43. On information and belief,

43. On information and belief, OneMix knew of the NIKE Design Patents and the

NIKE Trademarks before it began making, using, offering to sell, promoting, distributing, selling,

and/or importing Infringing Shoes into the United States.

44. On information and belief, OneMix continued making, using, offering to sell,

promoting, distributing, selling, and/or importing Infringing Shoes into the United States with

22

Case: 1:19-cv-01408 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/26/19 Page 23 of 31 PageID #:23

knowledge of the NIKE Design Patents and the NIKE Trademarks.

45. The overall appearance of the designs of the NIKE Design Patents and the

corresponding designs of OneMix’s Infringing Shoes are substantially the same.

46. An ordinary observer will perceive the overall appearance of the designs of the

NIKE Design Patents and the corresponding designs of OneMix’s Infringing Shoes to be

substantially the same.

47. Industry commentators and consumers describe OneMix’s Infringing Shoes as

imitations and copies that “look strikingly similar—if not exact replicas—to” NIKE’s patented

designs. See Exhibit 21.

COUNT I (Patent Infringement of the NIKE Design Patents under 35 U.S.C. § 271)

48.

NIKE

re-alleges and

incorporates by reference the allegations set

paragraphs 1 through 47 of this Complaint.

forth in

49. OneMix has infringed and continues to infringe each of NIKE’s Design Patents at

least by making, using, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing into the United States the

Infringing Shoes, which are covered by the claims of one or more of the NIKE Design Patents.

50. OneMix’s acts of infringement have been without express or implied license by

NIKE, are in violation of NIKE’s rights, and will continue unless enjoined by this Court.

51. On information and belief, OneMix’s infringement of each of NIKE’s Design

Patents has been, and continues to be, deliberate, intentional, and willful.

52. On information and belief, this is an exceptional case in view of OneMix’s unlawful

activities, including OneMix’s deliberate, intentional, and willful infringement.

53. NIKE has been, is being, and will continue to be injured and has suffered, is

suffering, and will continue to suffer injury and damages for which it is entitled to relief under at

23

Case: 1:19-cv-01408 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/26/19 Page 24 of 31 PageID #:24

least 35 U.S.C. §§ 281, 284, 285, and 289.

54. OneMix also has caused, is causing, and will continue to cause irreparable harm to

NIKE for which there is no adequate remedy at law for which NIKE is entitled to injunctive relief

under at least 35 U.S.C. § 283.

COUNT II (Trademark Infringement under Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act, 35 U.S.C. § 1114)

55.

NIKE

re-alleges and

incorporates by reference the allegations set

Paragraphs 1 through 47 of this Complaint.

forth in

56. OneMix has knowingly used and continues to use in commerce the NIKE

Trademarks, including reproductions, copies, or colorable imitations thereof, in connection with

footwear OneMix manufactures, advertises, promotes, and/or sells in the United States.

57. OneMix has used the NIKE Trademarks with the knowledge of, and the intent to

call to mind and create a likelihood of confusion with regard to, and/or to trade off NIKE’s fame

and the registered NIKE Trademarks.

58. The NIKE Trademarks are federally registered and are entitled to protection under

both federal law and common law.

59. OneMix’s use of the NIKE Trademarks (a) constitutes trademark infringement; (b)

is likely to confuse, mislead, or deceive customers, purchasers, and members of the general public

as to the origin, source, sponsorship, or affiliation of OneMix and NIKE and/or OneMix’s products

and NIKE’s products; and (c) is likely to cause such people to believe, in error, that OneMix’s

products have been authorized, sponsored, approved, endorsed, or licensed by NIKE, or that

OneMix is in some way affiliated with NIKE.

60. NIKE has no control over the nature and quality of the goods or services OneMix

offers, and NIKE’s reputation and goodwill will be damaged—and the value of the NIKE

24

Case: 1:19-cv-01408 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/26/19 Page 25 of 31 PageID #:25

Trademarks jeopardized—by OneMix’s continued use of the NIKE Trademarks and colorable

imitations thereof. Because of the likelihood of confusion, any defects, objections, or faults found

with OneMix’s products will negatively reflect upon and injure the reputation that NIKE has

established for the products and services it offers in connection with the NIKE Trademarks.

61. OneMix’s acts alleged above have caused, and if not enjoined, will continue to

cause, irreparable and continuing harm to NIKE’s Trademarks, its business, reputation, and

goodwill. NIKE has no adequate remedy at law as monetary damages are inadequate to compensate

NIKE for the injuries caused by OneMix.

62. As a direct and proximate result of OneMix’s conduct, NIKE has suffered damages

to the valuable NIKE Trademarks and other damages in an amount to be proved at trial.

63. OneMix’s infringement of NIKE’s Trademarks is deliberate, willful, fraudulent,

and without any extenuating circumstances and constitutes a knowing use of the NIKE Trademarks

and an exceptional case within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a).

64. NIKE is entitled to injunctive relief and NIKE is also entitled to recover OneMix’s

profits, actual damages, enhanced profits and damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under

15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1116, and 1117.

COUNT III (False Designation of Origin/Unfair Competition under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a))

65.

NIKE

re-alleges and

incorporates by reference the allegations set

Paragraphs 1 through 47 of this Complaint.

forth in

66. OneMix’s use of the NIKE Trademarks to promote, offer to sell, and sell Infringing

Shoes violates Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).

25

Case: 1:19-cv-01408 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/26/19 Page 26 of 31 PageID #:26

67. The NIKE Trademarks are federally registered and are entitled to protection under

both federal and common law.

NIKE has extensively and continuously promoted and used the

NIKE Trademarks for years in the United States and worldwide.

Through that extensive and

continuous use, the NIKE Trademarks have become well-known indicators of the origin and quality

of NIKE footwear.

68. OneMix’s use of the NIKE Trademarks constitutes a false designation of origin that

is likely to cause consumer confusion, mistake, or deception as to the origin, sponsorship, or

approval of the Infringing Shoes by creating the false and misleading impression that the Infringing

Shoes are manufactured by, authorized by, or otherwise associated with NIKE.

69. OneMix’s use of the NIKE Trademarks has caused, and unless enjoined, will

continue to cause substantial and irreparable injury to NIKE for which NIKE has no adequate

remedy at law, including at least substantial and irreparable injury to the goodwill and reputation

for quality associated with the NIKE Trademarks.

70. On information and belief, OneMix’s use of the NIKE Trademarks has been

intentional and willful.

71. NIKE is entitled to injunctive relief, and NIKE is also entitled to recover OneMix’s

profits, actual damages, enhanced profits and damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under

15 U.S.C. §§ 1125(a), 1116, and 1117.

COUNT IV (Dilution under Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act, 35 U.S.C. § 1125(c))

72.

NIKE

re-alleges and

incorporates by reference the allegations set

Paragraphs 1 through 47 of this Complaint.

forth in

73. The AIR MAX and FLYKNIT trademarks have become famous throughout the

United States as a result of the duration, extent, and geographical reach of advertising and publicity,

26

Case: 1:19-cv-01408 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/26/19 Page 27 of 31 PageID #:27

the amount, volume, and geographical extent of NIKE’s sales and trading areas, their channels of

trade, their degree of recognition, and registration of the AIR MAX and FLYKNIT trademarks.

74. Because NIKE’s products bearing the AIR MAX and FLYKNIT trademarks have

gained a reputation synonymous with fashion, quality, styling, and authenticity, the AIR MAX and

FLYKNIT trademarks have gained substantial renown.

75. On information and belief, the AIR MAX and FLYKNIT trademarks became

famous before OneMix began infringing the marks.

76. OneMix has used and continues to use in commerce the AIR MAX and FLYKNIT

trademarks in connection with the advertisement, promotion, and sale of OneMix’s products.

77. OneMix’s use of the AIR MAX and FLYKNIT trademarks, and colorable

imitations thereof, is likely to cause, has caused, and continues to cause irreparable injury to and

dilution of the distinctive quality of the AIR MAX and FLYKNIT trademarks in violation of

NIKE’s rights under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c).

78. OneMix’s wrongful use of the AIR MAX and FLYKNIT trademarks is likely to

cause dilution by blurring and whittling away of the distinctiveness and fame of the AIR MAX and

FLYKNIT Trademarks.

79. OneMix’s wrongful use of the AIR MAX and FLYKNIT trademarks is likely to

cause dilution by tarnishment by harming NIKE’s reputation.

80. OneMix’s acts alleged above have caused, and if not enjoined, will continue to

cause, irreparable and continuing harm to the AIR MAX and FLYKNIT trademarks, and NIKE’s

business, reputation, and goodwill.

NIKE has no adequate remedy at law because monetary

damages are inadequate to compensate for the injuries OneMix is causing.

27

Case: 1:19-cv-01408 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/26/19 Page 28 of 31 PageID #:28

81. As a direct and proximate result of OneMix’s conduct, NIKE has suffered damages

to the valuable AIR MAX and FLYKNIT trademarks and other damages in an amount to be proved

at trial.

82. OneMix’s wrongful use of the AIR MAX and FLYKNIT trademarks is deliberate

and constitutes a willful intent to trade on the recognition of the AIR MAX and FLYKNIT

trademarks, making this an exceptional case within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1117.

83. NIKE is entitled to injunctive relief, and NIKE is also entitled to recover OneMix’s

profits, actual damages, enhanced profits and damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under

15 U.S.C. §§ 1125(c), 1116, and 1117.

COUNT V (Common Law Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition)

84.

NIKE

re-alleges and

incorporates by reference the allegations set

Paragraphs 1 through 47 of this Complaint.

forth in

85. NIKE was the first to use the NIKE Trademarks. As a result of NIKE’s continuous

promotion and sales of products bearing the NIKE Trademarks for many years, the NIKE

Trademarks have become widely known, and NIKE has been identified in the public mind as the

manufacturer of the products to which the NIKE Trademarks are applied.

86. As a result of the experience, care, and service of NIKE in producing the products

to which the NIKE Trademarks are applied, these products have become widely known and have

acquired a worldwide reputation for fashion, quality, styling, and authenticity. Moreover, the NIKE

Trademarks have come to symbolize NIKE’s reputation for quality and excellence.

87. OneMix, with knowledge of and with intentional disregard of NIKE’s rights,

continues to advertise, promote, and sell products using the NIKE Trademarks or colorable and

confusing imitations thereof. OneMix’s acts are likely to cause, have caused, and will continue to

28

Case: 1:19-cv-01408 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/26/19 Page 29 of 31 PageID #:29

cause confusion as to the source of origin or certification of NIKE’s products and/or services.

Additionally, OneMix’s acts are likely to cause, have caused, and will continue to cause

misunderstanding as to affiliation with NIKE and NIKE’s products and/or services.

88. OneMix’s acts alleged above have caused, and if not enjoined will continue to

cause, irreparable and continuing harm to NIKE’s Trademarks, its business, reputation, and

goodwill.

NIKE has no adequate remedy at law because monetary damages are inadequate to

compensate NIKE for the injuries cause by OneMix.

89. On information and belief, OneMix’s use of the NIKE Trademarks has been

intentional and willful.

90. NIKE is entitled to injunctive relief, and NIKE is also entitled to recover OneMix’s

profits, actual damages, punitive damages, costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, NIKE respectfully requests that the Court grant the following relief:

1. A judgment that OneMix has (i) willfully infringed the NIKE Design Patents in

violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a); (ii) willfully infringed the NIKE Trademarks in violation of 15

U.S.C. § 1114; (iii) willfully used false designations of origin/unfair competition in violation of

15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (iv) willfully diluted the AIR MAX and FLYKNIT Trademarks in violation

of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c); and (v) willfully violated NIKE’s common law rights in the NIKE

Trademarks;

2. A permanent injunction enjoining OneMix, and all persons or entities acting as

agents or in concert with OneMix, from infringing each of the NIKE Design Patents and colorable

imitations thereof;

29

Case: 1:19-cv-01408 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/26/19 Page 30 of 31 PageID #:30

3. A permanent injunction against further infringement, false designation of origin,

unfair competition, and dilution of the NIKE Trademarks by OneMix and all persons or entities

acting as agents or in concert with OneMix;

4. A judgment and order requiring OneMix to pay NIKE all damages caused by

OneMix’s infringement of each of the NIKE Design Patents (but in no event less than a reasonable

royalty) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, or the total profit made by OneMix from its infringement of

each of the NIKE Design Patents pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 289;

5. An order directing the destruction of all Infringing Shoes in OneMix’s possession

or control, including the destruction of all advertising materials related to the Infringing Shoes in

OneMix’s possession or control, including on the Internet;

6. A judgment and order requiring OneMix to pay NIKE supplemental damages or

profits for any continuing post-verdict infringement up until the entry of the final judgment, with

an accounting, as needed;

7. A judgment and order requiring OneMix to pay NIKE increased damages up to

three times the amount found or assessed pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284;

8. An award of OneMix’s profits, actual damages, enhanced profits and damages,

costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1116, and 1117 for OneMix’s

trademark infringements and dilution;

9. A judgment and order requiring OneMix to pay NIKE pre-judgment and post-

judgment interest on any damages or profits awarded;

10. A determination that this action is an exceptional case pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285;

11. An award of NIKE’s attorneys’ fees for bringing and prosecuting this action;

30

Case: 1:19-cv-01408 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/26/19 Page 31 of 31 PageID #:31

12. An award of NIKE’s costs and expenses incurred in bringing and prosecuting this

action; and

13. Such further and additional relief as this Court deems just and proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

NIKE hereby demands a jury for all issues so triable.

DATED: February 26, 2019

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Christopher Renk

Christopher J. Renk Michael J. Harris Janice V. Mitrius Novaira T. Paul Banner & Witcoff, Ltd. 71 S. Wacker Dr. Suite 3600 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 463-5000 Facsimile: (312) 465-5001 CRenk@bannerwitcoff.com MHarris@bannerwitcoff.com JMitrius@bannerwitcoff.com NPaul@bannerwitcoff.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff, NIKE, Inc.

31