Schwarzmann LLC v. Battah - Complaint (New Case)

Case 0:19-cv-62276-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2019 Page 1 of 15
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
SCHWARZMANN, LLC,
a Florida limited liability
company,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ANTOUNE E. BATTAH, JR.,

an individual,
IMPERIAL USA HANS KRUG, INC.,
d/b/a HANS KRUG
a Florida corporation, and
IMPERIAL USA, LTD.,
d/b/a HANS KRUG
a North Carolina limited
company,
Defendants.
________/
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Schwarzmann, LLC (“Plaintiff”), by and through undersigned counsel,
hereby files its Complaint against Antoune E. Battah, Jr., (“Battah”), Imperial USA Hans
Krug, Inc. (“Hans Krug FL”), and Imperial USA, Ltd. (“Hans Krug NC”), (collectively
“Defendants”) and alleges as follows:
THE PARTIES
1. Plaintiff, Schwarzmann, LLC, is a limited liability company organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Florida, with an address at 360 North Congress
Ave., Delray Beach, FL 33445.
2. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Antoune E. Battah, Jr. is an
individual, is a principal officer of Hans Krug FL and Hans Krug NC, and is the motivating
and driving force behind the acts complained of herein, with the authority to supervise
1
and control the infringing and tortious acts of the Defendants.
3. Upon information and belief, Defendant Imperial USA Hans Krug, Inc. is a
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, with an address
at 190 Glades Rd., Suite A, Boca Raton, FL 33432.
4. Upon Information and belief, Defendant Imperial USA, Ltd. is a limited
company organized and existing under the laws of the State of North Carolina, with an
address at 5808 Long Creek Park Drive, Suite A, Charlotte NC 28269.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. This is an action for injunctive and other relief under the Lanham Act, 15
U.S.C. § 1051, et seq., the Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. § 101, et seq., and the patent laws of the
United States, 35 U.S.C. §1, et seq.
6. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331,
1338, and 1367.
7. Upon information and belief, personal jurisdiction is proper in that:
a. Defendant Hans Krug FL is incorporated in Florida;
b. Defendant Hans Krug NC has operated, conducted, engaged in, or
carried on a business venture, and has engaged in substantial and not isolated
activity within this state, and within the Southern District of Florida;
c. Defendant Battah has operated, conducted, engaged in, or carried on
a business venture, and has engaged in substantial and not isolated activity within
this state, and within the Southern District of Florida; and
d. the Defendants have committed tortious acts within this state, and
within the Southern District of Florida, including the acts complained of herein.
8. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1400(b) because Defendant Hans Krug
2
FL resides within the Southern District of Florida, and Defendants Battah and Hans Krug
NC, upon information and belief, have committed acts of infringement within the
Southern District of Florida, and have a regular and established place of business within
the Southern District of Florida, namely, via the related entity Hans Krug FL.
9. Venue is also proper under 28 U.S.C. §§1391 because a substantial part of
the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred within the Southern District of
Florida, and a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated
within the Southern District of Florida.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
10. Michael Schlütter is a principal of Schwarzmann, as well as its designer.
11. Over his career, Mr. Schlütter has attained renown and recognition for his
furniture and interior designs.
12. Mr. Schlütter’s first contact with the defendants occurred sometime prior to
2013 when the Defendants sought a license to use some of Mr. Schlütter’s original designs
for its kitchen and living room portfolio.
13. Specifically, Mr. Schlütter provided consultation services to develop
showroom installations for Defendant Battah, including for the conception and planning
of the Defendants’ Charlotte showroom.
14. Mr. Schlütter submitted invoices for the consultation services that he
provided, and he was compensated based on these invoices. No additional consideration
was exchanged, other than for Mr. Schlütter’s services.
15. Furthermore, no writing was executed between the parties which
memorialized the terms of the relationship. Accordingly, Mr. Schlütter and Schwarzmann
retained all ownership interests in and to the original designs that he conceived of in
3
connection with his engagement by the Defendants and/or that were already conceived
of and offered for use by the Defendants in connection with Mr. Schlütter’s design
consultation services.
16. These original designs are embodied in various renderings and plans, the
copyrights for which have been duly registered by Schwarzmann, as follows:
a. U.S. Copyright Registration No. VA 2-093-559 entitled “HK Showroom
Kitchen”
b. U.S. Copyright Registration No. VA 2-092-902 entitled “Schoolmeester
Kitchen”
c. U.S. Copyright Registration No. VA 2-093-552 entitled “Schwarzmann-
Battah Residence”
d. U.S. Copyright Registration No. VA 2-091-734 entitled “Wall Unit WU501.”
(hereafter collectively referred to as “Schwarzmann’s Copyrighted Designs”). Copies of
the Certificates of Registration and corresponding deposit materials for each registration
are attached hereto as Composite Exhibit A.
17. Given Mr. Schlütter’s status as an independent contractor, and the fact that
no writing was executed between the parties to affect Mr. Schlütter’s right, title, and
interest in and to Schwarzmann’s Copyrighted Designs, Defendant Battah, at best,
obtained an implied license for the limited purpose contemplated by the parties, namely,
the use of the designs as single installations. See, Exhibit B for examples of the
installations produced by Defendants according to Schwarzmann’s Copyrighted Designs,
as depicted in Defendants’ catalog and showroom.
18. The parties also agreed, and a course of dealing developed, to credit Mr.
Schlütter as the designer of Schwarzmann’s Copyrighted Designs. See, Exhibit C, an
4
excerpt of a magazine article from early in the parties’ relationship in which Mr. Schlütter
is correctly identified as the designer of Schwarzmann’s Copyrighted Designs.
19. Later in 2013, Mr. Schlütter, along with his business partner Marlon Carias,
incorporated Schwarzmann, LLC as a new venture to offer design services in Delray
Beach, Florida.
20. Additionally, on or around that time, Messrs. Schlütter and Carias
conceived of, and began preparations to produce, an ornamental and highly distinctive
bookcase, a work of art which is entitled “Localumentum.”
21. In connection with the newly formed Schwarzmann venture, Mr. Schlütter,
via a related German entity, contacted Hanak, a highly regarded European furniture
manufacturer, and entered into an agreement with Hanak to construct Schwarzmann’s
designs. This included the prototype and development work to manufacture a high-
quality commercial embodiment of the Localumentum bookshelf.
22. Schwarzmann invested substantial time, money, and efforts in developing
its relationship with Hanak.
23. Schwarzmann is the owner, by operation of law and assignment, of U.S.
Design Patent No. D722,459 (“the ‘459 Patent”) which was duly and lawfully issued on
February 17, 2015, for the ornamental design of its innovative Localumentum bookcase,
as shown and described therein (hereafter, “Schwarzmann’s Patented Design”). See,
Exhibit D.
DEFENDANTS’ ACTIONS
24. At some point during the course of Schwarzmann’s interactions with Hanak,
upon information and belief, Defendant Battah discovered Schwarzmann’s relationship
with Hanak, and took steps to improperly interfere with that relationship.
5
25. To wit, several months after signing an agreement with Schwarzmann for
the supply of furniture, and just as work on the commercial prototype of Schwarzmann’s
Patented Design was complete, Hanak notified Schwarzmann that all orders made by
Schwarzmann must “go with the express consent of Hans Krug.” Moreover, Hanak
delivered all Schwarzmann designs in its possession to Hans Krug, which included the
commercial prototype of Schwarzmann’s Patented Design.
26. Upon information and belief, Hanak’s about-face was spurred by improper
influences asserted by Defendant Battah.
27. The loss of Schwarzmann’s supplier relationship caused a number of
consequential damages, including delays, as Schwarzmann looked for a new supplier
which could manufacture designs according to its stringent quality standards.
28. While Schwarzmann had been determined to focus its efforts on proceeding
with its own pursuits, more recently Schwarzmann discovered that Defendants have been
using, displaying, importing, offering for sale, and/or selling Schwarzmann’s Patented
Design as if it were a Hans Krug design, including display of Schwarzmann’s Patented
Design on the Defendants’ showroom floors and prominent placement of Schwarzmann’s
Patented Design in the Defendants’ national advertising campaign. See, Composite
Exhibit E, depicting the Defendants’ display of the infringing bookcase in commercial
advertising and within its showroom (hereafter “the Infringing Bookcase”).
29. The Defendants have unfairly profited from Schwarzmann’s own time and
monetary efforts to develop Schwarzmann’s Patented Design.
30. The Defendants’ past and continuous use, display, marketing, promoting,
importing, offering for sale, and/or selling of Schwarzmann’s Patented Design further
constitutes a deliberate and willful scheme to infringe upon the ‘049 Patent, without
6
Plaintiff’s consent.
31. Moreover, as can be seen in Exhibit E, the Defendants have applied a false
and misleading designation of origin to the Infringing Bookcase, namely, “HANS KRUG,”
Defendants’ own trademark.
32. Because the Infringing Bookcase originated from Schwarzmann’s
manufacturer, the application of a false or misleading designation of origin constitutes
reverse passing off under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act.
33. This act of reverse passing off was performed with the specific knowledge
that the goods at issue did not originate with Defendants, and that the affixation of “HANS
KRUG” to the Infringing Bookcase would case a likelihood of confusion as to the source
of the Infringing Bookcase, and would falsely or misleadingly designate the origin of the
Infringing Bookcase.
34. Defendant Battah has specific knowledge that the Infringing Bookcase
originated from Schwarzmann’s manufacturer, and was not of Defendants’ own
manufacturing origin, due to Defendant Battah’s involvement with Hanak’s termination
of Schwarzmann’s supply agreement.
35. Accordingly, the act of reverse passing off complained of herein was done
willfully, intentionally, and with bad faith.
36. Schwarzmann has also discovered that Defendants have exceeded the terms
of the implied copyright license by failing to attribute Mr. Schlütter as the author of the
Schwarzmann’s Copyrighted Designs. Indeed, the Defendants have even credited “HANS
KRUG” and/or Mr. Battah at varying times as the author of Schwarzmann’s Copyrighted
Designs.
37. The Defendants have also exceeded the terms of the implied license by
7
creating unpermitted copies and derivative works of Schwarzmann’s Copyrighted
Designs, including additional and unpermitted showroom and customer installations.
See, Exhibit F, depicting unpermitted works known to Plaintiff as of the filing date of this
Complaint.
38. The Defendants have therefore abused the privilege of the license to the
detriment of Schwarzmann, and violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, by exceeding the scope of the license and by creating the impression that
Schwarzmann did not author Schwarzmann’s Copyrighted Designs and/or that
Schwarzmann is the one who has misappropriated Schwarzmann’s Copyrighted Designs.
39. Accordingly, on or about November 5, 2018, Mr. Schlutter and
Schwarzmann terminated any and all licenses the Defendants may have obtained relative
to Schwarzmann’s Copyrighted Designs by delivering notice in writing via express mail to
the Defendants’ Florida headquarters.
40. Despite receipt of this notice, the Defendants persist in their unauthorized
use, copying, and display of Schwarzmann’s Copyrighted Designs, the installations
prepared from Schwarzmann’s Copyrighted Designs, and the continued preparation of
derivative works.
COUNT I – COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
41. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1
through 40 as if fully set forth herein.
42. All statutory conditions precedent to the institution and maintenance of the
instant action have been performed or have occurred.
43. Defendants have been infringing Schwarzmann’s Copyrighted Works,
under 17 U.S.C. §§ 106 and 501 by preparing derivative works, exceeding the scope of its
8
implied license by preparing such derivative works and failing to credit Mr. Schlutter, and
continuing to reproduce and display Schwarzmann’s Copyrighted Works publicly after
termination of the implied license.
44. The Defendants’ aforesaid acts have been deliberate, willful, and intentional
violations of Plaintiff’s rights for the purpose of commercial gain, and were done so
knowingly without the authorization of Schwarzmann, and with full knowledge of
Schwarzmann’s rights.
45. Defendants’ aforesaid acts have caused and will continue to cause
substantial and irreparable injury to Schwarzmann unless such acts are restrained by this
Court.
46. Schwarzmann has no adequate remedy at law.
47. By reason of Schwarzmann’s irreparable injury resulting from Defendants’
aforesaid acts, Schwarzmann is entitled to a preliminary and permanent injunction.
Schwarzmann is further entitled to recover its actual damages in an amount as proven at
trial along with its costs.
48. Schwarzmann demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
COUNT II – VICARIOUS COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT BY DEFENDANT
BATTAH
50. Defendant Battah has been and is inducing infringement of Schwarzmann’s
Copyrighted Works by actively and knowingly inducing at least Hans Krug FL and Hans
Krug NC to exceed the scope of the implied license, continue to reproduce Schwarzmann’s
Copyrighted Works, prepare derivative works based upon Schwarzmann’s Copyrighted
9
Works, and display Schwarzmann’s Copyrighted Works publicly.
51. Defendant Battah has the right to control the infringing activity, as the
principal of Hans Krug FL and Hans Krug NC, and derives financial and commercial
benefit from the infringement.
52. Defendant Battah’s infringement has been and continues to be knowing,
intentional, and willful.
53. Defendant Battah’s aforesaid actions have caused and will cause great and
irreparable injury to Schwarzmann, and unless said acts are restrained by this Court, they
will be continued and Schwarzmann will continue to suffer great and irreparable injury.
aforesaid acts, Schwarzmann is entitled to a preliminary and permanent injunction.
Schwarzmann is further entitled to recover its actual damages in an amount as proven at
trial, along with its costs.
COUNT III – FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN AND REVERSE PASSING
OFF UNDER § 43(a) OF THE LANHAM ACT, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
58. Defendants have been displaying the Infringing Bookcase, which is an
actual embodiment of Schwarzmann’s Patented Design, in its showrooms and in national
advertising campaigns as if it were Defendants’ design, with no attempt to attribute its
origin to Plaintiff.
59. The Infringing Bookcase originated with Schwarzmann, as the Defendants
10
obtained the bookcase directly and improperly from Schwarzmann’s own manufacturer.
60. The Defendants have been falsely designating the origin of Schwarzmann’s
Patented Design as if it were the Defendants’ own design.
61. Defendants’ aforesaid actions are likely to cause confusion, or to cause
mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association, between the parties,
as to the origin of Schwarzmann’s Patented Design.
62. The Defendants’ false designation of origin has harmed Schwarzmann, as
Schwarzmann has been deprived of the advertising value of its name and the good will
that it would have accrued had the public been aware of the actual origin of the bookcase.
Additionally, the false designation of origin has induced purchasers to purchase
additional products from the Defendants, causing further diversion of trade and profits
from Schwarzmann.
63. Defendants’ display of Schwarzmann’s Patented Design in its showrooms
and national advertising campaigns constitutes reverse passing off.
64. Defendants’ aforesaid actions were intentional, willful, and carried out in
bad faith. Defendant Battah has specific knowledge that the Infringing Bookcase
originated from Schwarzmann’s manufacturer, and intentionally applied a false
designation of origin to cause a likelihood of confusion as to the origin of the Infringing
Bookcase, or as to sponsorship or affiliation between the parties.
65. Defendants’ aforesaid actions have caused and will cause great and
irreparable injury to Schwarzmann, and unless said acts are restrained by this Court, they
will be continued and Schwarzmann will continue to suffer great and irreparable injury.
11
aforesaid actions, Schwarzmann is entitled to a preliminary and permanent injunction.
Schwarzmann is further entitled to recover the Defendants’ profits, its actual damages in
an amount as proven at trial, along with its costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.
COUNT IV – DESIGN PATENT INFRINGEMENT
69. Plaintiff incorporates herein each and every allegation set forth in
Paragraphs 1 through 40 as if fully set forth herein.
70. Defendants’ aforesaid acts, including the unauthorized manufacture,
import, use, sales, and/or offering for sale of goods embodying the design as disclosed
and claimed in the ‘459 Patent, i.e., Schwarzmann’s Patented Design, constitute
infringement of the ‘459 Patent. The acts of infringement include the import, display,
offers for sale, and sale of the Infringing Bookcase.
71. To wit, upon comparison of the Infringing Bookcase, depicted in Composite
Exhibit E, with Schwarzmann’s Patented Design, depicted in the ‘459 Patent, it becomes
clear than an ordinary observer, familiar with the scope and content of any alleged prior
art, giving such attention as an observer ordinarily gives, would be deceived into believing
that the Infringing Bookcase is the same as Schwarzmann’s Patented Design.
72. Defendants’ aforesaid acts have deprived Plaintiff of sales that Plaintiff
otherwise would have made, entitling Plaintiff to the profits of Defendant in addition to
other available remedies.
73. Defendants’ aforesaid acts have caused and will cause great and irreparable
injury to Plaintiff, and unless said acts are restrained by this Court, they will be continued
and Plaintiff will continue to suffer great and irreparable injury.
74. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
12
aforesaid actions, Schwarzmann is entitled to a preliminary and permanent injunction.
Schwarzmann is further entitled to recover the Defendants’ profits, its actual damages in
an amount as proven at trial, along with its costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays:
A. That this Court will adjudge Schwarzmann’s Copyrighted Designs to have
been infringed, in violation of Schwarzmann’s rights under 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.
B. That this Court will adjudge that the Defendants’ aforesaid acts constitute
false designation of origin and reverse passing off under 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.
C. That this Court will adjudge that the Defendants’ aforesaid acts constitute
unjust enrichment under the common law of the State of Florida.
D. That this Court will adjudge that the ‘459 Patent is valid, enforceable, and
has been infringed as a direct and proximate result of the acts of Defendant as set forth
herein, in violation of Plaintiff’s rights under 35 U.S.C. §1, et seq.
E. That Defendants, and all of their officers, directors, agents, servants,
employees, attorneys, successors, and assigns, and all persons in active concert or
participation therewith, be permanently enjoined and restrained from further
manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale and/or import of Schwarzmann’s Patented Design
as well as Schwarzmann’s Copyrighted Designs.
F. That Defendant be required to deliver to Plaintiff all of Schwarzmann’s
Patented Designs and Schwarzmann’s Copyrighted Designs in its possession, custody, or
control, along with all plates, molds, matrices, plans and other means of making the
13
aforesaid items.
G. That Defendants be directed to file with this Court and to serve upon
Plaintiff within ten (10) days after service of the injunction issued in this action, a written
report, under oath, setting forth in detail the manner of compliance with the above.
H. That Schwarzman recover its actual damages and costs associated with
Defendants’ infringement of Schwarzmann’s Copyrighted Designs.
I. That Schwarzmann recover damages adequate to compensate it for the
Defendants’ patent infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the
use made of the Plaintiff’s Patented Design by Defendant, and in addition to the amount
of actual damages found, such sums shall be in an amount three (3) times the amount of
the actual damages found pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §284.
J. That Plaintiff have and recover the profits of Defendant derived from the
use of the infringing designs under the ‘049 Patent, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §289.
K. That Schwarzmann be awarded punitive damages under the law of the state
of Florida.
L. That Schwarzmann have and recover both pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest on each and every damage award.
M. That the Court find this case to be exceptional and award Plaintiff its
reasonable attorney fees incurred in this action, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1117, 35 U.S.C.
§285, and as otherwise authorized.
N. That Schwarzmann have and recover its taxable costs and disbursements
herein, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1117, 17 U.S.C. § 505 and as otherwise authorized.
O. That the Court retain jurisdiction of this action for the purpose of enabling
Schwarzmann to apply to the Court at any time for such further orders and interpretation
14
or execution of any order entered in this action; for the modification of any such order for
the enforcement or compliance therewith and for the punishment of any violations
thereof.
P. That Schwarzmann have and recover such further relief as the Court may
deem just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: September 12, 2019 By: s/ W. John Eagan
John Cyril Malloy, III

Florida Bar No. 964,220
jcmalloy@malloylaw.com
W. John Eagan
jeagan@malloylaw.com
Jonathan R. Woodard
jwoodard@malloylaw.com
MALLOY & MALLOY, P.L.

2800 S.W. Third Avenue
Miami, Florida 33129
Telephone: (305) 858-8000
Facsimile: (305) 858-0008
Attorneys for Plaintiff,

Schwarzmann, LLC
15
Case 0:19-cv-62276-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2019 Page 1 of 31
COMPOSITE EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT F
Case 0:19-cv-62276-XXXX Document
JS 44 (Rev. 06/17) FLSD Revised 06/01/2017 1-7 COVER
CIVIL EnteredSHEET
on FLSD Docket 09/12/2019 Page 1 of 2
The JS 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 by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose
of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.) NOTICE: Attorneys MUST Indicate All Re-filed Cases Below.
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS Schwarzmann, LLC, DEFENDANTS Antoune E. Battah, Jr., individual, Imperial
a Florida limited liability corporation, USA Hans Krug, Inc., d/b/a Hans Krug, Imperial USA, Ltd., d/b/a
Hans Krug
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Palm Beach 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)
John Cyril Malloy, III and W. John Eagan - Malloy & Malloy, P.L.
2800 S.W. Third Avenue, Miami, Florida 33129
Tel. (305) 858-8000
(d) Check County Where Action Arose: MIAMI- DADE MONROE BROWARD PALM BEACH MARTIN ST. LUCIE INDIAN RIVER OKEECHOBEE HIGHLANDS
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)
1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4
of Business In This State
2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6

Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act
120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729 (a))
140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ 400 State Reapportionment
150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 430 Banks and Banking
151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability 830 Patent 450 Commerce
152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 835 Patent – Abbreviated 460 Deportation
New Drug Application
Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product 840 Trademark 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excl. Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY Corrupt Organizations
153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 710 Fair Labor Standards 861 HIA (1395ff) 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud Act 862 Black Lung (923) 490 Cable/Sat TV
160 Stockholders’ Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 850 Securities/Commodities/
190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal 740 Railway Labor Act 864 SSID Title XVI Exchange
195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage 751 Family and Medical 865 RSI (405(g)) 890 Other Statutory Actions
196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage Leave Act 891 Agricultural Acts
362 Personal Injury - Product Liability 790 Other Labor Litigation 893 Environmental Matters
Med. Malpractice 791 Empl. Ret. Inc. 895 Freedom of Information
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS Security Act FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act
210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff 896 Arbitration
220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee or Defendant) 899 Administrative Procedure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 871 IRS—Third Party 26 Act/Review or Appeal of
Sentence USC 7609
240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Other: Agency Decision
Accommodations
245 Tort Product Liability 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 530 General IMMIGRATION 950 Constitutionality of State
Statutes
290 All Other Real Property Employment 535 Death Penalty 462 Naturalization Application
446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration
Other 550 Civil Rights Actions
448 Education 555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee –
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
1 Original 2 Removed 3 Re-filed 4 Reinstated 5 Transferred from 6 Multidistrict 7 Appeal to 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding from State (See VI or another district Litigation
District Judge Litigation 9 Remanded from
Appellate Court
Court below) Reopened (specify) Transfer
from Magistrate – Direct
Judgment File
VI. RELATED/ (See instructions): a) Re-filed Case YES NO b) Related Cases YES NO
RE-FILED CASE(S) JUDGE: Altman DOCKET NUMBER: 18-cv-81515
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and Write a Brief Statement of Cause (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
VII. CAUSE OF ACTION 15 U.S.C. §1051 et seq.; 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq., 35 U.S.C. 1 et seq. for patent, trademark, and copyright
infringement
LENGTH OF TRIAL via five days estimated (for both sides to try entire case)
VIII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER F.R.C.P. 23 Unspecified
JURY DEMAND: Yes No
ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE & CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
September 12, 2019
s/ W. John Eagan
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT IFP JUDGE MAG JUDGE
Save As... Print Reset

JS 44 (Rev. 06/17) FLSD Revised 06/01/2017
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44
Authority For Civil Cover Sheet

The JS 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 by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating 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 Rule 8(a), F.R.C.P., 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.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an “X” in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 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. Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 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; federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.)
III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.
IV. Nature of Suit. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature
of suit code that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
V. Origin. Place an “X” in one of the seven boxes.
Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441. When the
petition for removal is granted, check this box.
Refiled (3) Attach copy of Order for Dismissal of Previous case. Also complete VI.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or multidistrict
litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. When this
box is checked, do not check (5) above.
Appeal to District Judge from Magistrate Judgment. (7) Check this box for an appeal from a magistrate judge’s decision.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (8) Check this box if remanded from Appellate Court.
VI. Related/Refiled Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases or re-filed cases. Insert the docket numbers and the
corresponding judges name for such cases.
VII. 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
VIII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an “X” in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the dollar amount (in thousands of dollars) 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.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the
SouthernDistrict
__________ Districtof
of__________
Florida
)
)
SCHWARZMANN, LLC )
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
ANTOUNE E. BATTAH, JR., IMPERIAL USA HANS )
KRUG, INC., d/b/a HANS KRUG, and )
IMPERIAL USA, LTD., d/b/a HANS KRUG )
)
Defendant(s) )
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Antoune E. Battah, Jr.

3211 South Ocean Boulevard, Apt. 703
Highland Beach, FL 33487
A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are: John Cyril Malloy, III
W. John Eagan
Malloy & Malloy, P.L.
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .
’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or
’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or
’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date) ; or
’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or
’ Other (specify):
.
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ 0.00 .
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date:
Server’s signature
Printed name and title
Server’s address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:
Print Save As... Reset


for the
SouthernDistrict
of__________
Florida
)
)
SCHWARZMANN, LLC )
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
)
Defendant(s) )
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Imperial USA Hans Krug, Inc.
d/b/a Hans Krug
190 Glades Road, Suite A
Boca Raton, Florida 33432
W. John Eagan
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
.
Date:
Server’s address


for the
SouthernDistrict
of__________
Florida
)
)
SCHWARZMANN, LLC )
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
)
Defendant(s) )
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Imperial USA, Ltd.

d/b/a Hans Krug
5808 Long Creek Park Drive, Suite A
Charlotte, North Carolina 28269
W. John Eagan
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
.
Date:
Server’s address

Schwarzmann LLC v. Battah - Complaint (New Case)

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Schwarzmann LLC v. Battah - Complaint (New Case)

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Case 0:19-cv-62276-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2019 Page 1 of 15

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

ANTOUNE E. BATTAH, JR.,

Plaintiff, Schwarzmann, LLC (“Plaintiff”), by and through undersigned counsel,

“Defendants”) and alleges as follows:

1. Plaintiff, Schwarzmann, LLC, is a limited liability company organized and

Ave., Delray Beach, FL 33445.

2. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Antoune E. Battah, Jr. is an

and control the infringing and tortious acts of the Defendants.

at 190 Glades Rd., Suite A, Boca Raton, FL 33432.

4. Upon Information and belief, Defendant Imperial USA, Ltd. is a limited

address at 5808 Long Creek Park Drive, Suite A, Charlotte NC 28269.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

United States, 35 U.S.C. §1, et seq.

1338, and 1367.

7. Upon information and belief, personal jurisdiction is proper in that:

a. Defendant Hans Krug FL is incorporated in Florida;

b. Defendant Hans Krug NC has operated, conducted, engaged in, or

c. Defendant Battah has operated, conducted, engaged in, or carried on

this state, and within the Southern District of Florida; and

8. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1400(b) because Defendant Hans Krug

9. Venue is also proper under 28 U.S.C. §§1391 because a substantial part of

within the Southern District of Florida.

10. Michael Schlütter is a principal of Schwarzmann, as well as its designer.

furniture and interior designs.

for its kitchen and living room portfolio.

13. Specifically, Mr. Schlütter provided consultation services to develop

of the Defendants’ Charlotte showroom.

provided, and he was compensated based on these invoices. No additional consideration

was exchanged, other than for Mr. Schlütter’s services.

15. Furthermore, no writing was executed between the parties which

copyrights for which have been duly registered by Schwarzmann, as follows:

a. U.S. Copyright Registration No. VA 2-093-559 entitled “HK Showroom

b. U.S. Copyright Registration No. VA 2-092-902 entitled “Schoolmeester

c. U.S. Copyright Registration No. VA 2-093-552 entitled “Schwarzmann-

d. U.S. Copyright Registration No. VA 2-091-734 entitled “Wall Unit WU501.”

(hereafter collectively referred to as “Schwarzmann’s Copyrighted Designs”). Copies of

are attached hereto as Composite Exhibit A.

interest in and to Schwarzmann’s Copyrighted Designs, Defendant Battah, at best,

installations produced by Defendants according to Schwarzmann’s Copyrighted Designs,

as depicted in Defendants’ catalog and showroom.

Schlütter as the designer of Schwarzmann’s Copyrighted Designs. See, Exhibit C, an

is correctly identified as the designer of Schwarzmann’s Copyrighted Designs.

incorporated Schwarzmann, LLC as a new venture to offer design services in Delray

20. Additionally, on or around that time, Messrs. Schlütter and Carias

bookcase, a work of art which is entitled “Localumentum.”

manufacturer, and entered into an agreement with Hanak to construct Schwarzmann’s

quality commercial embodiment of the Localumentum bookshelf.

22. Schwarzmann invested substantial time, money, and efforts in developing

its relationship with Hanak.

23. Schwarzmann is the owner, by operation of law and assignment, of U.S.

as shown and described therein (hereafter, “Schwarzmann’s Patented Design”). See,

upon information and belief, Defendant Battah discovered Schwarzmann’s relationship

commercial prototype of Schwarzmann’s Patented Design.

influences asserted by Defendant Battah.

27. The loss of Schwarzmann’s supplier relationship caused a number of

consequential damages, including delays, as Schwarzmann looked for a new supplier

which could manufacture designs according to its stringent quality standards.

Design as if it were a Hans Krug design, including display of Schwarzmann’s Patented

Design on the Defendants’ showroom floors and prominent placement of Schwarzmann’s

Patented Design in the Defendants’ national advertising campaign. See, Composite

Exhibit E, depicting the Defendants’ display of the infringing bookcase in commercial

advertising and within its showroom (hereafter “the Infringing Bookcase”).