IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION SALON SPA SUPPLY

LLC, a Georgia Corporation, Plaintiff, v. TOUSPA, LLC, a Georgia Corporation; MINH-TUAN NGOC HOANG, an Individual; and TRAN PHAM, an Individual, Defendants. Case No. _________________ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES, AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

COMES NOW Salon Spa Supply LLC, Plaintiff in the above-styled cause, by and through its undersigned counsel, and hereby brings this Verified Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages against Defendants, TOUSPA, LLC, Mr. MINH-TUAN NGOC HOANG (also known as TONY HOANG), and his spouse, Ms. TRAN PHAM. In support of its claims, Plaintiff respectfully shows this Honorable Court the following:

-1-

NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is a civil action at law and in equity for intentional breach of

contract, willful design patent infringement, and unfair competition, arising under the Patent Act, the Lanham Act, Georgia law, and common law. 2. Plaintiff, SALON SPA SUPPLY LLC, seeks (a) to enforce its

Partnership Interest Purchase Agreement (the Agreement) with Defendant TONY HOANG; (b) to recover liquidated damages, as agreed by the parties to the Agreement, in the amount of One Hundred Forty-Four Thousand Dollars ($ 144,000.00) arising out of TONY HOANGs intentional breach of the Agreement; (c) to recover compensatory and enhanced damages under the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. 271 et seq., for Defendants intentional copying and willful infringement of Plaintiffs patented base and foot bath for pedicure chairs; (d) to recover compensatory and treble damages for Defendants unfair competition; and (e) to recover its litigation expenses and attorneys fees arising out of Defendants pattern of dishonest, intentional, and bad faith conduct. THE PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, SALON SPA SUPPLY LLC, is a limited liability company

organized and existing under the laws of the State of Georgia and having a

-2-

principal office located at 1855 Beaver Ridge Circle, Suite A, Norcross, Georgia 30071-3800, in Gwinnett County, Georgia. 4. Defendant, TOUSPA, LLC, is a limited liability company organized

and existing under the laws of the State of Georgia and having a principal office located at 2245 Button Gwinnett Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30340-1516, in Gwinnett County, Georgia. Service of process may be effectuated by serving its registered agent, Defendant TRAN PHAM, at her home address (below), at TOUSPAs address, or at any other place and by any other means proper under Georgia law. 5. Defendant, MINH-TUAN NGOC HOANG (TONY HOANG), is a

Georgia resident who may be served with a summons and a copy of this Complaint at his last known address, 3714 Marlborough Drive, Tucker, Georgia 30084-8330, in DeKalb County, Georgia, or at any other place and by any means proper under Georgia law. 6. Defendant, TRAN PHAM, is a Georgia resident, an organizer of,

member of, and registered agent for Defendant TOUSPA, LLC, and the legal spouse of Defendant TONY HOANG, and she may be served with a summons and a copy of this Complaint at her last known address, 394 Hope Hollow Road, Loganville, Georgia 30052-2280, in Gwinnett County, Georgia, or at any other place and by any means proper under Georgia law.
-3-

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7. This action for patent infringement arises under the provisions of 35

U.S.C. 271 et seq. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over causes of action for patent infringement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338. 8. This action for unfair competition and false designation or origin

arises under the Lanham Act, 35 U.S.C. 1051 et seq. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over causes of action under the Lanham Act pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338, and Section 39 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1121. 9. This Court has jurisdiction over the common law claims in this action

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(a) , as the common law claims are so related to the federal claims that they form part of the same case or controversy and derive from a common nucleus of operative fact. 10. Defendant, TOUSPA, LLC, is subject to this Courts personal

jurisdiction because TOUSPA, LLC, is a resident corporate entity of the State of Georgia which has transacted business and committed tortious acts within this State including, at least, importing, making, using, offering to sell and/or selling products that are substantially similar imitations of Plaintiff SALON SPA SUPPLY LLCs patented products and/or Plaintiffs unique patented design.

-4-

11.

Defendant, TONY HOANG, is subject to this Courts personal

jurisdiction because Defendant TONY HOANG is a resident of the State of Georgia who has transacted business and committed tortious acts within this State including, at least, breach of contract and importing, making, using, offering to sell and/or selling products that are substantially similar imitations of Plaintiff SALON SPA SUPPLY LLCs patented products and/or Plaintiffs unique patented design. 12. Defendant, TRAN PHAM, is subject to this Courts personal

jurisdiction because Defendant TRAN PHAM is a resident of the State of Georgia who has transacted business and committed tortious acts within this State by importing, making, using, offering to sell and/or selling of products that are substantially similar imitations of Plaintiff SALON SPA SUPPLY LLCs patented products and/or Plaintiffs unique patented design. 13. Venue is proper in this Court under the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

1391 and 1400, because each Defendant has transacted business in this judicial district, and because each Defendant has committed and/or induced acts of patent infringement in this judicial district. 14. Venue is proper within the Atlanta Division because the conduct

described herein took place within the Atlanta Division of this judicial district.

-5-

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS Salon Spa Supply LLC 15. On or about April 9, 2008, SALON SPA SUPPLY, LLC, Plaintiff in

this action, was duly organized under the laws of the State of Georgia. 16. On or about May 2, 2008, Defendant, TONY HOANG, became the

owner of a one-fifth (twenty percent) interest in SALON SPA SUPPLY LLC. A true and correct copy of the Partnership Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit C. Plaintiffs Patented Tub Design 17. On or about August 31, 2010, U.S. Patent Number D622,858 S (the

858 Patent), entitled FEET BATHTUB, was duly and lawfully issued to Mr. Danny Jan, the named inventor of the subject matter claimed in the 858 Patent. A true and correct copy of the 858 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 18. Plaintiff SALON SPA SUPPLY LLC is the owner of all right, title,

and interest in and to the 858 Patent. 19. Plaintiffs commercial pedicure spa set known as the ZETA model is

one of Plaintiffs products that includes features of Plaintiffs patented base and foot bath. 20. Since as early as January of 2010, Plaintiff SALON SPA SUPPLY

LLC has been selling its base and foot bath product, including the ZETA model.
-6-

Plaintiffs patented ZETA model is depicted in photographs attached hereto as Exhibit B-1. Defendant TONY HOANGs Tortious and Bad Faith Conduct During His Part Ownership of Salon Spa Supply LLC 21. The Shipment: On or about September 3, 2010, Defendant TONY

HOANG shipped one of Plaintiffs ZETA pedicure spa sets to his father-in-law, Mr. Pham Thanh, in Vietnam. Mr. Pham Thanh is the father of Defendant, TRAN PHAM. A true and correct copy of the Commercial Invoice for this shipment is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 22. Defendant TONY HOANG made this shipment without the

knowledge of his fellow partners at Salon Spa Supply LLC, and without authorization by Salon Spa Supply LLC. 23. After Defendant TONY HOANG withdrew from the partnership, one

of the remaining partners found a copy of the Commercial Invoice (Exhibit D) for the shipment. 24. The Domain Name: On or about February 2, 2011, while still holding

an ownership interest in SALON SPA SUPPLY LLC, Defendant TONY HOANG registered the domain name, www.TOUSPA.com. A true and correct copy of the WHO-IS report for this domain name is attached hereto as Exhibit E.

-7-

25.

Company Assets and Data on Tonys Work Computer: During the

time period when Defendant TONY HOANG held an ownership interest in SALON SPA SUPPLY LLC, the company provided him with a company computer for his use. The information on this computer remained the property of SALON SPA SUPPLY LLC, which provided and paid for computer backup services in order to assure safekeeping of company information and data. 26. Near the end of the time period when Defendant TONY HOANG held

an ownership interest in SALON SPA SUPPLY LLC a few days before April 4, 2011 Defendant TONY HOANG accessed his company computer, made a copy of all or most of the company information stored on his company computer, and then destroyed the company information and data that had been stored on his company computer. 27. When confronted, Defendant TONY HOANG admitted making a

copy of all or most of the company information stored on his company computer. 28. When asked to return the company information that was once stored

on his company computer, Defendant TONY HOANG claimed that he had already deleted his copy of the company information.

-8-

The Partnership Interest Purchase Agreement between Defendant TONY HOANG and Plaintiff, Salon Spa Supply LLC (The Agreement) 29. On or about April 4, 2011, Plaintiff and Defendant TONY HOANG

entered into a Partnership Interest Purchase Agreement (the Agreement). A true and correct copy of the Partnership Interest Purchase Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 30. The Non-Competition Restriction: The Agreement includes specific

limitations on Defendant TONY HOANGs ability to engage in a business that is similar to Plaintiffs business. Specifically, paragraph 4 of the Agreement recites: 4. NON-COMPETITION. No Competition. For a period of one (1) year following the date [of] signing this agreement Seller [TONY HOANG] shall not directly or indirectly, either individually or with others, engage or have any interest, as an owner, employee, representative, agent, consultant or otherwise, in any business, which is own or have interest [sic] by family or immediately family members or relatives, that is similar to the business conducted by SSS, LLC [SALON SPA SUPPLY, LLC] within the twelve and 7/10th (12.7) miles radius from SSS, LLCs Norcross office. . Exhibit A, The Agreement, at 4, pages 2-3. 31. The Non-Disclosure Restriction: The Agreement includes specific

limitations on the disclosure of Confidential Information to any person not employed by SALON SPA SUPPLY, LLC. Paragraph 5 of the Agreement recites: 5. NON-DISCLOSURE [OF] CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. No Disclosure. Seller [TONY HOANG] shall not, at any time, use or disclose any Confidential Information to any
-9-

person not employed by SSS, LLC [SALON SPA SUPPLY, LLC] without the prior written authorization of SSS, LLC . The parties hereto stipulate that all Confidential Information is and will be important and material and does and will contribute significantly to the successful conduct of SSS, LLCs business and to its goodwill. . Confidential Information Definition. For purposes of this agreement, the term Confidential Information means information which not generally known in SSS, LLCs industry, which has been proprietary to SSS, LLC, and which been subject to efforts by SSS, LLC to maintain its confidentiality, . Exhibit A, The Agreement, at 5, page 3. 32. The Agreement to Return Company Assets and Data: The

Agreement requires Defendant TONY HOANG to return all company assets and data. Paragraph 6 of the Agreement recites: 6. Company Assets and Company Information. Seller [TONY HOANG] have to return [sic] all company assets and data related [to] or under Salon Spa Supply, LLC name. Data includes any customers, vendors, designings, drawings, company domains, hosting websites, all company access, and financial informations [sic]. Exhibit A, The Agreement, at 6, page 3. 33. Because the parties agreed that Plaintiffs damages from a potential

breach by Defendant would not be readily ascertainable, Defendant TONY HOANG and Plaintiff agreed upon and included a liquidated damages provision in the Agreement. Specifically, Defendant TONY HOANG acknowledged and agreed to pay liquidated damages in the amount of One Hundred Forty-four

- 10 -

Thousand Dollars ($ 144,000.00) in the event of his breach of any provision of the Agreement. Exhibit A, The Agreement, page 4. Defendant TONY HOANGs Tortious, Bad Faith, and Infringing Conduct, Including Breach of Multiple Provisions of the Agreement A. Breach of the Non-Competition Agreement 34. On or about May 16, 2011 just 42 days after the Agreement, and

during the one-year non-competition period Defendant TONY HOANGs spouse (Defendant TRAN PHAM) submitted the papers necessary to organize TOUSPA, LLC, in Georgia. Defendant TRAN PHAM listed herself as the sole officer and registered agent, and using an address in Loganville, Georgia, as the business address. A true and correct copy of the Certificate of Organization for this corporate entity is attached hereto as Exhibit F. 35. On or before May 16, 2011, and continuing thereafter during the

one-year non-competition period Defendant TONY HOANG engaged in the business of TOUSPA, LLC at a location within 12.7 miles of Plaintiffs Norcross office; including, specifically, at his personal residence which is located approximately 10.8 miles from Plaintiffs Norcross office. 36. On or before May 16, 2011, and continuing thereafter during the

one-year non-competition period Defendant TONY HOANG engaged in the business of TOUSPA, LLC at a location within 12.7 miles of Plaintiffs Norcross
- 11 -

office; including, specifically, at a facility leased or rented by TOUSPA, LLC, which is located approximately 5.3 miles from Plaintiffs Norcross office. B. Breach of the Non-Disclosure Agreement 37. Defendant TONY HOANG acknowledged and agreed that he shall

not, at any time, use or disclose any Confidential Information to any person not employed by SSS, LLC [SALON SPA SUPPLY, LLC] without the prior written authorization of SSS, LLC. The Agreement, Exhibit A at 5, page 3 (underlining added). 38. Plaintiffs Confidential Information includes information about

Plaintiffs patented base and foot bath design for pedicure chairs, including but not limited to the manufacturing process, mold specifications, materials, and dimensions. This Confidential Information is not generally known in the industry, is proprietary to Plaintiff, and has been subject to reasonable efforts by Plaintiff to maintain its confidentiality. 39. Defendant TONY HOANG has been and is currently using Plaintiffs

Confidential Information, without prior written authorization by Plaintiff, in order to unlawfully copy Plaintiffs products and to unlawfully and willfully infringe on Plaintiffs patented base and foot bath design.

- 12 -

40.

Defendant TONY HOANG has been and is currently disclosing to

others Plaintiffs Confidential Information, without prior written authorization by Plaintiff, in order to unlawfully copy Plaintiffs products and to unlawfully and willfully infringe on Plaintiffs patented base and foot bath design. For example, Defendant TONY HOANG, either alone or together with Defendants TRAN PHAM and/or TOUSPA LLC, has been and is now currently disclosing Plaintiffs Confidential Information to others, including one of TOUSPAs manufacturers: Nautran LLC located in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. A true and correct copy of a Bill of Lading is attached hereto as Exhibit J. C. Breach of the Duty to Return Company Assets and Data 41. Defendant TONY HOANG acknowledged and agreed that he must

return all company assets and data related [to] or under Salon Spa Supply, LLC name. Exhibit A, The Agreement, at 6, page 3. 42. Plaintiffs company assets and data includes the computer files that

were copied and retained for later use by Defendant TONY HOANG shortly before the Agreement was signed. 43. Plaintiffs company assets and data includes an example layout design

and floor plan for a spa. A true and correct copy of Plaintiffs Deluxe Nails & Spa floor plan is attached hereto as Exhibit K-1. Also, a true and correct copy of
- 13 -

an advertisement by Plaintiff which includes the Deluxe Nails & Spa floor plan is attached hereto as Exhibit K-2. 44. Defendant TONY HOANG, either alone or together with Defendants

TRAN PHAM and/or TOUSPA LLC, published a copy of Plaintiffs Deluxe Nails & Spa floor plan in an advertisement that was placed in Tr magazine. A true and correct copy of an advertisement in Tr magazine, dated 24 August 2012, featuring TOUSPAs unauthorized copy of Plaintiffs floor plan is attached hereto as Exhibit L. As shown in the advertisement, the title Deluxe Nails & Spa has been replaced with the text TOUSPA, LLC Conceptual Design. D. Willful Infringement of Plaintiffs Design Patent 45. Each Defendant, at all times relevant hereto, has had actual

knowledge of the 858 Patent and the subject matter claimed in the 858 Patent. 46. Since at least as early as April 2012, Defendant TONY HOANG,

either alone or together with Defendants TRAN PHAM and/or TOUSPA LLC, has been and is now currently willfully and directly infringing the 858 Patent and/or indirectly infringing the 858 Patent (by way of inducing infringement and/or contributing to the infringement) in the State of Georgia, in this judicial district, and elsewhere in the United States, by conduct that includes importing, making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling one or more products that infringe the 858
- 14 -

Patent, including but not limited to the TOUSPA M2 or Sage base and foot bath for pedicure chairs (hereinafter collectively referred to as the accused TOUSPA products). The accused TOUSPA products are depicted in photographs and advertisements attached hereto as Exhibits M-1 (the product in the center), M-2, and M-3. 47. On or about April 26, 2012, Defendant TONY HOANG, either alone

or together with Defendants TRAN PHAM and/or TOUSPA LLC, willfully and directly infringed the 858 Patent and/or indirectly infringed the 858 Patent (by way of inducing infringement and/or contributing to the infringement) in the State of Georgia, in this judicial district, by selling two (2) model M2 Pedicure Spa Tub products to Mr. Tuan Doan in Lawrenceville, Georgia. A true and correct copy of an Invoice is attached hereto as Exhibit N. Defendant TRAN PHAMs Tortious, Bad Faith, and Infringing Conduct 48. Upon information and belief, on or about September 3, 2010,

Defendant TRAN PHAM participated in the secret shipment to her father, Mr. Pham Thanh in Vietnam, of one of Plaintiffs commercial pedicure spa sets known as the ZETA model. A true and correct copy of the Commercial Invoice for this shipment is attached hereto as Exhibit D.

- 15 -

49.

On or about May 16, 2011, Defendant TRAN PHAM submitted the

papers necessary to organize TOUSPA, LLC, in Georgia. Defendant TRAN PHAM listed herself as the sole officer and registered agent. Defendant TRAN PHAM, either alone or together with her spouse, Defendant TONY HOANG, used the Loganville address (394 Hope Hollow Road, Loganville, Georgia 30052) for TOUSPA, LLC. A true and correct copy of the Certificate of Organization for this corporate entity is attached hereto as Exhibit F. 50. On or about May 16, 2011, and continuing thereafter, Defendant

TRAN PHAM engaged in or had an interest in the business of TOUSPA, LLC, in which a family member (her spouse, TONY HOANG) also had an ownership or other interest. 51. After the formation of TOUSPA, LLC, and continuing thereafter,

Defendant TRAN PHAM, without authorization by Plaintiff, used and/or disclosed to others Plaintiffs Confidential Information. 52. After the formation of TOUSPA, LLC, and continuing thereafter,

Defendant TRAN PHAM, has kept and maintained at least one copy of Plaintiffs company assets and data. 53. Since at least as early as April 2012, Defendant TRAN PHAM, either

alone or together with Defendants TONY HOANG and/or TOUSPA LLC, has
- 16 -

been and is now currently willfully and directly infringing the 858 Patent and/or indirectly infringing the 858 Patent. Defendant TOUSPA, LLCs Tortious, Bad Faith, and Infringing Conduct 54. Since at least about May 16, 2011, and continuing thereafter,

Defendant TOUSPA, LLC, has been engaged in a business that is similar to the business conducted by Plaintiff, SALON SPA SUPPLY LLC. 55. Defendant TOUSPA, LLC, without authorization by Plaintiff, has

used and/or disclosed to others Plaintiffs Confidential Information. 56. Defendant TOUSPA, LLC, has kept and maintained at least one copy

of Plaintiffs company assets and data. 57. Since at least as early as April 2012, Defendant TOUSPA LLC, either

alone or together with Defendants TONY HOANG and/or TRAN PHAM, has been and is now currently willfully and directly infringing the 858 Patent and/or indirectly infringing the 858 Patent. 58. Defendants are continuing to make, use, import, offer for sale, and/or

sell one or more products that infringe the 858 Patent and will continue to do so unless enjoined by this Court.

- 17 -

COUNT 1 BREACH OF CONTRACT (Against Defendant, TONY HOANG) 59. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in all the

preceding paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein. 60. The Partnership Interest Purchase Agreement ( the Agreement)

executed on or about April 4, 2011, between Plaintiff and Defendant TONY HOANG is a valid and enforceable contract. 61. Plaintiff, SALON SPA SUPPLY LLC, has fully performed all of its

obligations under the Agreement. A. Breach of the Non-Competition Agreement 62. The Agreement includes specific limitations on Defendant TONY

HOANGs ability to engage in a business that is similar to Plaintiffs business. Specifically, paragraph 4 of the Agreement recites: 4. NON-COMPETITION. No Competition. For a period of one (1) year following the date [of] signing this agreement Seller [TONY HOANG] shall not directly or indirectly, either individually or with others, engage or have any interest, as an owner, employee, representative, agent, consultant or otherwise, in any business, which is own or have interest [sic] by family or immediately family members or relatives, that is similar to the business conducted by SSS, LLC [SALON SPA SUPPLY, LLC] within the twelve and 7/10th (12.7) miles radius from SSS, LLCs Norcross office. . Exhibit A, The Agreement, at 4, pages 2-3.
- 18 -

63.

Defendant TONY HOANG was contractually prohibited for one year

(between April 4, 2011, and April 4, 2012) from competing with Plaintiff by engaging in any business that is owned by family member or relative, or in which any family member of relative has an interest, that is similar to the business conducted by Plaintiff within a 12.7-mile radius of Plaintiffs Norcross office. 64. Defendant TONY HOANG breached his contractual duties to Plaintiff

by, during the one-year non-compete period, either directly or indirectly, engaging in a business (including TOUSPA, LLC) that was owned by a family member (including his spouse, TRAN PHAM) and that is similar to the business conducted by Plaintiff, within a 12.7-mile radius of Plaintiffs Norcross office. 65. On or about May 16, 2011 just 42 days after the Agreement, and

during the one-year non-competition period Defendant TONY HOANGs spouse (Defendant TRAN PHAM) submitted the papers necessary to organize TOUSPA, LLC, in Georgia. Defendant TRAN PHAM listed herself as the sole officer and registered agent, and using an address in Loganville, Georgia, as the business address. 66. Defendant TONY HOANG, either alone or together with his spouse,

Defendant TRAN PHAM, used the Loganville address (394 Hope Hollow Road,

- 19 -

Loganville, Georgia 30052) for TOUSPA, LLC, in a deliberate but failed attempt to circumvent the geographical limitation set forth in the Agreement. 67. The business of TOUSPA, LLC is similar to the business conducted

by Plaintiff, SALON SPA SUPPLY, LLC. 68. On or before May 16, 2011, and continuing thereafter during the

one-year non-competition period Defendant TONY HOANG participated in the planning, organization, formation, and/or operation of the business conducted by TOUSPA, LLC. 69. On or before May 16, 2011, and continuing thereafter during the

one-year non-competition period Defendant TONY HOANG engaged in or had an interest in the business of TOUSPA, LLC, in which a family member (his spouse TRAN PHAM) has an ownership or other interest. 70. On or before May 16, 2011, and continuing thereafter during the

one-year non-competition period Defendant TONY HOANG engaged in the business of TOUSPA, LLC at a location within 12.7 miles of Plaintiffs Norcross office; including, specifically, at his personal residence. Defendant TONY HOANGs residence address is approximately 10.8 miles (driving distance) from Plaintiffs Norcross office. Plaintiffs Norcross office is located at 1855 Beaver Ridge Circle, Suite A in Norcross, Georgia 30071-3800. Defendant TONY
- 20 -

HOANGs Tucker residence is located at 3714 Marlborough Drive in Tucker, Georgia 30084-8330. A true and correct copy of a map between Plaintiffs Norcross office and Hoangs Tucker residence is attached hereto as Exhibit G. 71. On or before May 16, 2011, and continuing thereafter during the

one-year non-competition period Defendant TONY HOANG engaged in the business of TOUSPA, LLC at a location within 12.7 miles of Plaintiffs Norcross office; including, specifically, at a facility leased or rented by TOUSPA, LLC. The TOUSPA facility is approximately 5.3 miles (driving distance) form Plaintiffs Norcross office. Plaintiffs Norcross office is located at 1855 Beaver Ridge Circle, Suite A in Norcross, Georgia 30071-3800. The TOUSPA facility is located at 2245 Button Gwinnet Drive in Atlanta, Georgia 30340-1516. A true and correct copy of a map between Plaintiffs Norcross office and the TOUSPA facility is attached hereto as Exhibit H. 72. During the one-year non-competition period, Defendant TONY

HOANG engaged in the business of TOUSPA, LLC by leasing, renting, or otherwise procuring space for TOUSPA at 2245 Button Gwinnet Drive in Atlanta, Georgia 30340-1516. 73. Within days of the expiration of the one-year non-competition period,

on or about Sunday, April 22, 2012, Defendant TOUSPA, LLC held a Grand
- 21 -

Opening Event at 2245 Button Gwinnet Drive in Atlanta, Georgia 30340-1516. A true and correct copy of an Event posted on TOUSPAs Facebook page is attached hereto as Exhibit I. 74. Also during the one-year non-competition period, upon information

and belief, Defendant TONY HOANG, either alone or together with Defendants TRAN PHAM and/or TOUSPA LLC, has been and is now currently directly infringing the 858 Patent and/or indirectly infringing the 858 Patent (by way of inducing infringement and/or contributing to the infringement) in the State of Georgia, in this judicial district, and elsewhere in the United States, by conduct that includes importing, making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling one or more products that infringe the 858 Patent, including but not limited to the TOUSPA M2 or Sage base and foot bath for pedicure chairs (hereinafter collectively referred to as the accused TOUSPA products). The accused TOUSPA products are depicted in photographs and advertisements attached hereto as Exhibits M-1 (center), M-2, and M-3. B. Breach of the Non-Disclosure Agreement 75. The Agreement includes specific limitations on the disclosure of

Confidential Information to any person not employed by SALON SPA SUPPLY, LLC. Specifically, paragraph 5 of the Agreement recites:
- 22 -

5. NON-DISCLOSURE [OF] CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. No Disclosure. Seller [TONY HOANG] shall not, at any time, use or disclose any Confidential Information to any person not employed by SSS, LLC [SALON SPA SUPPLY, LLC] without the prior written authorization of SSS, LLC . The parties hereto stipulate that all Confidential Information is and will be important and material and does and will contribute significantly to the successful conduct of SSS, LLCs business and to its goodwill. . Confidential Information Definition. For purposes of this agreement, the term Confidential Information means information which not generally known in SSS, LLCs industry, which has been proprietary to SSS, LLC, and which been subject to efforts by SSS, LLC to maintain its confidentiality, . Exhibit A, The Agreement, at 5, page 3. 76. Defendant TONY HOANG was contractually prohibited from using

or disclosing Plaintiffs Confidential Information, at any time, to any person not employed by Plaintiff, without the prior written authorization of Plaintiff. 77. Defendant TONY HOANG never requested Plaintiffs written

authorization to use or disclose Plaintiffs Confidential Information. 78. Defendant TONY HOANG never received any written authorization

by Plaintiff to use or disclose Plaintiffs Confidential Information. 79. Defendant TONY HOANG breached his contractual duties to Plaintiff

by using or disclosing Plaintiffs Confidential Information, at any time, to any person not employed by Plaintiff, without the prior written authorization of Plaintiff.
- 23 -

80.

Plaintiffs Confidential Information includes information about

Plaintiffs patented base and foot bath design for pedicure chairs, including but not limited to the manufacturing process, mold specifications, materials, and dimensions. This Confidential Information is not generally known in the industry, is proprietary to Plaintiff, and has been subject to reasonable efforts by Plaintiff to maintain its confidentiality. 81. Defendant TONY HOANG stipulated in the Agreement that

Plaintiffs Confidential Information is important and material, and that it contributes significantly to Plaintiffs business and its good will. Specifically, paragraph 5 of the Agreement recites: The parties hereto stipulate that all Confidential Information has been acquired by SSS, LLC at great expense and substantial effort and is and will be important and material and does and will contribute significantly to the successful conduct of SSS, LLCs business and to its goodwill. . Exhibit A, The Agreement, at 5, page 3. 82. Defendant TONY HOANG has been and is currently using Plaintiffs

Confidential Information, without prior written authorization by Plaintiff, in order to unlawfully copy Plaintiffs products and to unlawfully and willfully infringe on Plaintiffs patented base and foot bath design. 83. For example, Defendant TONY HOANG, on or about September 3,

2010, shipped one of Plaintiffs ZETA pedicure spa sets to his father-in-law, Mr.
- 24 -

Pham Thanh in Vietnam, for the purpose of copying it and deliberately infringing the 858 Patent. This conduct is part of an insidious and continuing pattern of conduct by Defendant TONY HOANG that includes both using and disclosing Plaintiffs Confidential Information unlawfully and for his own gain. 84. Defendant TONY HOANG has been and is currently disclosing to

others Plaintiffs Confidential Information, without prior written authorization by Plaintiff, in order to unlawfully copy Plaintiffs products and to unlawfully and willfully infringe on Plaintiffs patented base and foot bath design. For example, Defendant TONY HOANG, either alone or together with Defendants TRAN PHAM and/or TOUSPA LLC, has been and is now currently disclosing Plaintiffs Confidential Information to others, including one of TOUSPAs manufacturers: Nautran LLC located in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. A true and correct copy of a Bill of Lading is attached hereto as Exhibit J. C. Breach of the Duty to Return Company Assets and Data 85. The Agreement requires Defendant TONY HOANG to return all

company assets and data. Paragraph 6 of the Agreement recites: 6. Company Assets and Company Information. Seller [TONY HOANG] have to return [sic] all company assets and data related [to] or under Salon Spa Supply, LLC name. Data includes any customers, vendors, designings, drawings, company domains, hosting websites, all company access, and financial informations [sic]. Exhibit A, The Agreement, at 6, page 3.
- 25 -

86.

Defendant TONY HOANG was contractually obligated to return to

Plaintiff any and all company assets and data in his possession, custody, or control. 87. Defendant TONY HOANG admitted to making a copy of all or most

of the company information stored on his company computer. 88. Defendant TONY HOANG breached his contractual duties to Plaintiff

by refusing or failing to return to Plaintiff any and all company assets and data in his possession, custody, or control. 89. Plaintiffs company assets and data includes the computer files that

were copied and retained for later use by Defendant TONY HOANG shortly before the Agreement was signed. 90. Plaintiffs company assets and data includes an example layout design

and floor plan for a spa. A true and correct copy of Plaintiffs Deluxe Nails & Spa floor plan is attached hereto as Exhibit K-1. Also, a true and correct copy of an advertisement by Plaintiff which includes the Deluxe Nails & Spa floor plan is attached hereto as Exhibit K-2. 91. Defendant TONY HOANG, either alone or together with Defendants

TRAN PHAM and/or TOUSPA LLC, published a copy of Plaintiffs Deluxe Nails & Spa floor plan in an advertisement. A true and correct copy of one of TOUSPAs advertisements featuring the floor plan is attached hereto as Exhibit L.
- 26 -

As shown in the advertisement, the title Deluxe Nails & Spa has been replaced with the text TOUSPA, LLC Conceptual Design. Otherwise, no changes were made to Plaintiffs original floor plan. 92. Plaintiff SALON SPA SUPPLY LLC is the owner of all right, title,

and interest in the original work of authorship that is known as the Deluxe Nails & Spa floor plan and shown in Exhibit K-1 and Exhibit K-2. 93. Defendants drawing entitled TOUSPA, LLC Conceptual Design as

shown in Exhibit L is an unauthorized copy of Plaintiffs Deluxe Nails & Spa floor plan. 94. None of the Defendants has any right, title, or interest in an

unauthorized copy of Plaintiffs Deluxe Nails & Spa floor plan. 95. Defendants publication of the TOUSPA, LLC Conceptual Design in

an advertisement proves conclusively that Defendant TONY HOANG, either alone or together with Defendants TRAN PHAM and/or TOUSPA LLC, has breached the Agreement by continuing to possess a copy of Plaintiffs Deluxe Nails & Spa floor plan, in violation of HOANGs obligation to return all company assets and data related [to] or under Salon Spa Supply, LLC name. 96. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant TONY HOANGs

breach of at least three provisions of the Agreement (a) the non-competition

- 27 -

provision, (b) the non-disclosure provision, and (c) the duty to return company assets and data the Plaintiff SALON SPA SUPPLY LLC has been and is continuing to be irreparably harmed, damaged, and injured, and will continue to sustain harm, damage, and injury unless Defendants conduct is restrained by this Court. 97. By accepting substantial payments of money in exchange for his

promise to honor the commitments he made in the Agreement with Plaintiff, Defendant TONY HOANG is legally and equitably estopped from seeking to avoid those very commitments. 98. Allowing Defendant TONY HOANG to keep the substantial

payments of money he received while avoiding the commitments, which formed the basis of the Agreement and those payments, would cause substantial and detrimental harm to Plaintiff. 99. Injustice and harm to Plaintiff can only be avoided by enforcing the

promise made by Defendant TONY HOANG to honor the commitments in the Agreement and to continue to otherwise honor all his contractual obligations to Plaintiff.

- 28 -

100. Defendant TONY HOANG acknowledged in the Agreement that he has had a reasonable and adequate opportunity from his receipt of this document to review it. Exhibit A, The Agreement, page 4. 101. Defendant TONY HOANG was advised by his partners about his opportunity to obtain independent counsel to advise him about the Agreement. 102. The injury caused by a breach of the Agreement would be difficult or impossible to accurately estimate. 103. Tony Hoang Agreed the Damages Would Not Be Readily Ascertainable: Defendant TONY HOANG acknowledged and agreed that, if he breached any provision of the Agreement, Plaintiffs damages would not be readily ascertainable. By signing this Agreement, Seller [TONY HOANG] agrees that if Seller were to breach any provisions of this Agreement, SSS, LLC [SALON SPA SUPPLY, LLC] would suffer damages that are not readily ascertainable. . Exhibit A, The Agreement, page 4. 104. Tony Hoang Agreed to Pay Liquidated Damages: Because the parties agreed that Plaintiffs damages from a potential breach by Defendant would not be readily ascertainable, Defendant TONY HOANG and Plaintiff agreed upon and included a liquidated damages provision in the Agreement. Specifically, Defendant TONY HOANG acknowledged and agreed to pay liquidated damages

- 29 -

in the amount of One Hundred Forty-four Thousand Dollars ($ 144,000.00) in the event of his breach of any provision of the Agreement. Accordingly, in addition to [other remedies] for breach of this Agreement, Seller [TONY HOANG] agrees that in the event of a breach of this Agreement by the Seller, Seller shall pay back to SSS, LLC [SALON SPA SUPPLY, LLC] One Hundred Forty-Four thousands [sic] dollars in this agreement. . Exhibit A, The Agreement, page 4. 105. The parties intended to provide for liquidated damages as an estimate of the probable losses resulting from a potential breach, rather than as a penalty (to either party). 106. The sum agreed upon by the parties represents a reasonable estimate of the probable losses resulting from a potential breach. 107. Tony Hoang Agreed to Submit to Immediate Injunctive Relief Without Proof of Harm: Defendant TONY HOANG acknowledged and agreed that (a) the remedy at law for breach of any provision of the Agreement would be inadequate, and (b) Plaintiff SALON SPA SUPPLY, LLC, shall be entitled to injunctive relief for any breach or threatened breach of the Agreement without proof of any actual damages. The Seller [TONY HOANG] further agrees that the remedy at law for breach of any of the above agreements is inadequate and that SSS, LLC [SALON SPA SUPPLY, LLC] shall be entitled, in addition to other such remedies as it may have, to injunctive relief for any breach or threatened breach of this agreement without proof of any
- 30 -

actual damages that may have been or may be caused to the Company [SALON SPA SUPPLY, LLC] by such breach or threatened breach. Exhibit A, The Agreement, page 4. 108. Accordingly, because Defendant TONY HOANG has breached at least three provisions of the Agreement (a) the non-competition provision, (b) the non-disclosure provision, and (c) the duty to return company assets and data the Plaintiff SALON SPA SUPPLY LLC is lawfully and contractually entitled to immediate injunctive relief and to immediate recovery of the liquidated damages in the amount of One Hundred Forty-four Thousand Dollars ($ 144,000.00). WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, SALON SPA SUPPLY LLC, respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in its favor and against Defendant TONY HOANG on the Complaint and enter an order as follows: A. Finding that Defendant TONY HOANG breached his Agreement with Plaintiff, including at least (a) the non-competition provision, (b) the nondisclosure provision, and/or (c) the duty to return company assets and data. B. Awarding to Plaintiff the liquidated damages in the amount of One Hundred Forty-four Thousand Dollars ($ 144,000.00). C. Enjoining Defendants from using or disclosing Plaintiffs Confidential Information. D. Ordering Defendants return all company assets and data, including any and all copies of such information. E. Ordering Defendants to pay Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys fees and costs incurred in enforcing the terms and provisions of the Agreement. F. proper. Granting such other and further relief as this Court deems just and

- 31 -

COUNT 2 BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND DUTY OF LOYALTY TO HIS PARTNERS AND TO SALON SPA SUPPLY LLC (Against Defendant, TONY HOANG) 109. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in all the preceding paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein. 110. On or about May 2, 2008, Defendant, TONY HOANG, became the owner of a one-fifth (twenty percent) interest in SALON SPA SUPPLY LLC. A true and correct copy of the Partnership Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 111. Defendant TONY HOANG had a confidential relationship with Plaintiff, SALON SPA SUPPLY LLC, in which he was privy to proprietary, confidential, and trade secret information, including but not limited to Plaintiffs original and unique tub designs, Plaintiffs manufacturers, importers, and suppliers, Plaintiffs costs, pricing, profit, and financial information, Plaintiffs business and marketing strategies, and Plaintiffs lists of current and prospective customers. 112. Defendant TONY HOANG owed to Plaintiff a variety of fiduciary duties, including a duty of loyalty, a duty of good faith, and a duty of fair dealing. 113. While a trusted partner with Plaintiff, Defendant TONY HOANG knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and without justification breached his fiduciary duties to Plaintiff when, on or about September 3, 2010, he shipped one of
- 32 -

Plaintiffs ZETA pedicure spa sets to his father-in-law, Mr. Pham Thanh in Vietnam, for the purpose of copying Plaintiffs patented design, and for the purpose of competing unfairly with Plaintiff, for his own financial gain. 114. While a trusted partner with Plaintiff, Defendant TONY HOANG knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and without justification breached his fiduciary duties to Plaintiff when, on or about February 2, 2011, he registered the domain name, www.TOUSPA.com, as part of his plan and for the purpose of competing unfairly with Plaintiff for his own financial gain. A true and correct copy of the WHO-IS report for this domain name is attached hereto as Exhibit E. 115. While a trusted partner with Plaintiff, Defendant TONY HOANG knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and without justification breached his fiduciary duties to Plaintiff when, near the end of the time period when he still held an ownership interest in Plaintiff a few days before April 4, 2011 he accessed his company computer, made a copy of all or most of the company information stored on his company computer, and then destroyed the company information and data that had been stored on his company computer. 116. Since Defendant TONY HOANG executed the Agreement with Plaintiff, Defendant TONY HOANG has knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and without justification breached his fiduciary duties to Plaintiff by, among other
- 33 -

conduct: (a) intentionally and unlawfully breaching the non-competition provision of the Agreement; (b) using and disclosing to others Plaintiffs Confidential Information without permission, in violation of the Agreement; (c) refusing and failing to return company assets and data, in violation of the Agreement; (d) intentionally and willfully infringing Plaintiffs exclusive patent rights by intentionally copying Plaintiffs patented base and foot bath design for pedicure chairs; and (e) unfairly competing with Plaintiff, all for his own financial gain. 117. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant TONY HOANGs breach of his fiduciary duties, Plaintiff has suffered and is continuing to be suffer severe irreparable harm, financial and otherwise. 118. Defendant TONY HOANGs breach of his fiduciary duties makes him liable to Plaintiff for compensatory and punitive damages. 119. Defendant TONY HOANGs conduct has caused harm to Plaintiffs good will and to Plaintiffs business and commercial relations. 120. Defendant TONY HOANG has acted with malice and reckless disregard for Plaintiffs rights. 121. Defendant TONY HOANGs conduct shows a willful and malicious indifference to Plaintiffs rights and an entire want of care for Plaintiff and for the public.
- 34 -

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, SALON SPA SUPPLY LLC, respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in its favor and against Defendant TONY HOANG on the Complaint and enter an order as follows: A. Awarding to Plaintiff compensatory damages caused by Defendant TONY HOANGs unlawful conduct, in an amount to be proven at trial. B. Awarding to Plaintiff punitive and exemplary damages, as permitted by statute, arising from Defendant TONY HOANGs intentional and malicious conduct. C. Ordering Defendant TONY HOANG to pay Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys fees and costs incurred in enforcing the terms and provisions of the Agreement. D. proper. Granting such other and further relief as this Court deems just and COUNT 3 AIDING AND ABETTING HOANGS BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND DUTY OF LOYALTY (Against Defendants, TOUSPA, LLC and TRAN PHAM) 122. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in all the preceding paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein. 123. Defendant TOUSPA, LLC has aided and abetted, and continues to aid and abet, Defendant TONY HOANGs breach of fiduciary duties to Plaintiff, as set forth herein.

- 35 -

124. Defendant TRAN PHAM has aided and abetted, and continues to aid and abet, Defendant TONY HOANGs breach of fiduciary duties to Plaintiff, as set forth herein. 125. Upon information and belief, on or about September 3, 2010, Defendant TRAN PHAM participated in the secret shipment to her father, Mr. Pham Thanh in Vietnam, of one of Plaintiffs commercial pedicure spa sets known as the ZETA model. A true and correct copy of the Commercial Invoice for this shipment is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 126. Upon information and belief, Defendant TRAN PHAM participated in the secret shipment to her father with actual knowledge that her spouse, Defendant TONY HOANG, intended to and made the shipment without the knowledge of his fellow partners at Salon Spa Supply LLC, and without authorization by Salon Spa Supply LLC. 127. On or about May 16, 2011, Defendant TRAN PHAM submitted the papers necessary to organize TOUSPA, LLC, in Georgia. Defendant TRAN PHAM listed herself as the sole officer and registered agent. Defendant TRAN PHAM, either alone or together with her spouse, Defendant TONY HOANG, used the Loganville address (394 Hope Hollow Road, Loganville, Georgia 30052) for TOUSPA, LLC, in a deliberate but failed attempt to circumvent the geographical
- 36 -

limitation set forth in the Agreement. A true and correct copy of the Certificate of Organization for this corporate entity is attached hereto as Exhibit F. 128. On or about May 16, 2011, and continuing thereafter, Defendant TRAN PHAM engaged in or had an interest in the business of TOUSPA, LLC, in which a family member (her spouse, TONY HOANG) also had an ownership or other interest, thereby aiding and abetting Defendant TONY HOANGs breach of his non-competition obligation in the Agreement. 129. After the formation of TOUSPA, LLC, and continuing thereafter, Defendant TRAN PHAM, without authorization by Plaintiff, used and/or disclosed to others confidential information about the Plaintiffs patent tub design and manufacture, thereby aiding and abetting Defendant TONY HOANGs breach of his non-disclosure obligation in the Agreement. 130. After the formation of TOUSPA, LLC, and continuing thereafter, Defendant TRAN PHAM, has kept and maintained at least one copy of Plaintiffs company assets and data, thereby aiding and abetting Defendant TONY HOANGs breach of his duty to return company assets and data to Plaintiff. 131. Defendant TOUSPA, LLC, without authorization by Plaintiff, used and/or disclosed to others confidential information about the Plaintiffs patent tub

- 37 -

design and manufacture, thereby aiding and abetting Defendant TONY HOANGs breach of his non-disclosure obligation in the Agreement. 132. Defendant TOUSPA, LLC, has kept and maintained at least one copy of Plaintiffs company assets and data, thereby aiding and abetting Defendant TONY HOANGs breach of his duty to return company assets and data to Plaintiff. 133. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants conduct and intentional aid provided in furtherance of TONY HOANGs breach of his fiduciary duties, Plaintiff has suffered and is continuing to be suffer severe irreparable harm, financial and otherwise. 134. Defendants conduct and intentional aid provided in furtherance of TONY HOANGs breach of his fiduciary duties makes Defendants liable to Plaintiff for compensatory and punitive damages. 135. Defendants conduct has caused harm to Plaintiffs good will and to Plaintiffs business and commercial relations. 136. Defendants has acted with malice and reckless disregard for Plaintiffs rights. 137. Defendants conduct shows a willful and malicious indifference to Plaintiffs rights and an entire want of care for Plaintiff and for the public.

- 38 -

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, SALON SPA SUPPLY LLC, respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in its favor and against Defendants TOUSPA, LLC and TRAN PHAM on the Complaint and enter an order as follows: A. Awarding to Plaintiff compensatory damages caused by Defendants unlawful conduct, in an amount to be proven at trial. B. Awarding to Plaintiff punitive and exemplary damages, as permitted by statute, arising from Defendants intentional and malicious conduct. C. Ordering Defendants to pay Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys fees and costs incurred in enforcing the terms and provisions of the Agreement. D. proper. Granting such other and further relief as this Court deems just and COUNT 4 TORTIOUS INTEREFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS (Against Defendants, TOUSPA, LLC and TRAN PHAM) 138. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in all the preceding paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein. 139. Defendant TOUSPA, LLC has intentionally and tortiously interfered with Plaintiffs business relations, including its Agreement with Defendant TONY HOANG. 140. Defendant TRAN PHAM has intentionally and tortiously interfered with Plaintiffs business relations, including its Agreement with Defendant TONY HOANG.
- 39 -

141. On or about May 16, 2011, and continuing thereafter, Defendant TRAN PHAM engaged in or had an interest in the business of TOUSPA, LLC, in which a family member (her spouse, TONY HOANG) also had an ownership or other interest, thereby interfering with Plaintiffs contractual relations with Defendant TONY HOANG. 142. After the formation of TOUSPA, LLC, and continuing thereafter, Defendant TRAN PHAM, without authorization by Plaintiff, used and/or disclosed to others confidential information about the Plaintiffs patent tub design and manufacture, thereby interfering with Plaintiffs contractual relations with Defendant TONY HOANG. 143. After the formation of TOUSPA, LLC, and continuing thereafter, Defendant TRAN PHAM, has kept and maintained at least one copy of Plaintiffs company assets and data, thereby interfering with Plaintiffs contractual relations with Defendant TONY HOANG. 144. Defendant TOUSPA, LLC, without authorization by Plaintiff, used and/or disclosed to others confidential information about the Plaintiffs patent tub design and manufacture, thereby interfering with Plaintiffs contractual relations with Defendant TONY HOANG.

- 40 -

145. Defendant TOUSPA, LLC, has kept and maintained at least one copy of Plaintiffs company assets and data, thereby interfering with Plaintiffs contractual relations with Defendant TONY HOANG. 146. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants conduct of interfering with Plaintiffs business and contractual relations, Plaintiff has suffered and is continuing to be suffer severe irreparable harm, financial and otherwise. 147. Defendants conduct has caused harm to Plaintiffs good will and to Plaintiffs business and commercial relations. 148. Defendants has acted with malice and reckless disregard for Plaintiffs rights. 149. Defendants conduct shows a willful and malicious indifference to Plaintiffs rights and an entire want of care for Plaintiff and for the public. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, SALON SPA SUPPLY LLC, respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in its favor and against Defendants TOUSPA, LLC and TRAN PHAM on the Complaint and enter an order as follows: A. Awarding to Plaintiff compensatory damages caused by Defendants unlawful conduct, in an amount to be proven at trial. B. Awarding to Plaintiff punitive and exemplary damages, as permitted by statute, arising from Defendants intentional and malicious conduct. C. Ordering Defendants to pay Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys fees and costs incurred in enforcing the terms and provisions of the Agreement.

- 41 -

D. proper.

Granting such other and further relief as this Court deems just and COUNT 5 WILLFUL DESIGN PATENT INFRINGEMENT (Against All Defendants)

150. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in all the preceding paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein. 151. On or about August 31, 2010, U.S. Patent Number D622,858 S (the 858 Patent), entitled FEET BATHTUB, was duly and lawfully issued to Mr. Danny Jan, the named inventor of the subject matter claimed in the 858 Patent. A true and correct copy of the 858 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 152. On or about May 12, 2012, Mr. Danny Jan assigned his interest in the 858 Patent to Plaintiff, SALON SPA SUPPLY, LLC. 153. Plaintiff SALON SPA SUPPLY LLC is the owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the 858 Patent. 154. The 858 Patent is valid and enforceable. 155. As shown in Figure 6 of the 858 Patent, the features on the floor of the foot bath, including the location of the floor drain, are illustrated using dashed lines, which indicates that those features are not part of the design being claimed.

- 42 -

156. Plaintiffs commercial pedicure spa set known as the ZETA model is one of Plaintiffs products that includes features of Plaintiffs patented base and foot bath. 157. Since as early as January of 2010, Plaintiff SALON SPA SUPPLY LLC has been selling its base and foot bath product, including the ZETA model. Plaintiffs patented ZETA model is depicted in photographs attached hereto as Exhibit B-1. 158. Each Defendant, at all times relevant hereto, has had actual knowledge of the 858 Patent and the subject matter claimed in the 858 Patent. 159. Since at least as early as April 2012, Defendants, TOUSPA LLC, TONY HOANG, and TRAN PHAM, have been and are now currently willfully and directly infringing the 858 Patent and/or indirectly infringing the 858 Patent (by way of inducing infringement and/or contributing to the infringement) in the State of Georgia, in this judicial district, and elsewhere in the United States, by conduct that includes importing, making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling one or more products that infringe the 858 Patent, including but not limited to the TOUSPA M2 or Sage base and foot bath for pedicure chairs (hereinafter collectively referred to as the accused TOUSPA products). The accused

- 43 -

TOUSPA products are depicted in photographs and advertisements attached hereto as Exhibits M-1 (center), M-2, and M-3 (left side). 160. The accused TOUSPA products include the base and foot bath shown in the center of the photograph attached hereto as Exhibit M-1, which is a true and correct copy of a photograph posted on TOUSPAs Facebook page. 161. The accused TOUSPA products include the base and foot bath shown in the photograph attached hereto as Exhibit M-2, which is a true and correct copy of a photograph posted on TOUSPAs Facebook page. 162. The accused TOUSPA products include the base and foot bath models shown on the left side of the one-page advertisement attached hereto as Exhibit M-3, which is a true and correct copy of a one-page advertisement posted on TOUSPAs Facebook page. 163. The accused TOUSPA products, such as the base and foot bath models shown on the left side of Exhibit M-3, are being offered for sale and sold by Defendant TOUSPA LLC at a price that is approximately twenty percent (20%) less than Plaintiffs price. 164. On or about April 26, 2012, Defendants, TOUSPA LLC, TONY HOANG, and TRAN PHAM, willfully and directly infringed the 858 Patent and/or indirectly infringed the 858 Patent (by way of inducing infringement and/or
- 44 -

contributing to the infringement) in the State of Georgia, in this judicial district, by selling two (2) model M2 Pedicure Spa Tub products to Mr. Tuan Doan in Lawrenceville, Georgia. A true and correct copy of an Invoice is attached hereto as Exhibit N. 165. The single claim of the 858 Patent recites, The ornamental design for a feet bathtub, as shown and described. 166. The accused TOUSPA products infringe the single claim of the 858 Patent, and defendants are liable for infringement, in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271, because, in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, the accused TOUSPA products and Plaintiffs patented design are substantially the same. For example,

Plaintiffs Patented Base and Foot Bath. See also, Exhibit B, The 858 Patent, Figure 1.

The Accused TOUSPA Product: Defendants M2 Base and Foot Bath. See also, Exhibits M-1, M-2, and M-3.

- 45 -

167. Because each Defendant, at all times relevant hereto, has had actual knowledge of the 858 Patent and the subject matter claimed in the 858 Patent, each Defendants conduct constitutes a knowing and willful infringement of the 858 Patent. Accordingly, this is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. 285. 168. Because Defendant TONY HOANG, on or about September 3, 2010, shipped one of Plaintiffs ZETA pedicure spa sets to his father-in-law, Mr. Pham Thanh in Vietnam, for the purpose of copying it and deliberately infringing the 858 Patent, Defendant TONY HOANGs conduct constitutes a knowing and willful infringement of the 858 Patent. Accordingly, this is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. 285. 169. At the direction of and with instructions from Defendant TONY HOANG, Mr. Pham Thanh in Vietnam used Plaintiffs patented ZETA product to make one or more molds, for the specific purpose of manufacturing pedicure bases and foot baths that are deliberate copies of Plaintiffs patented ZETA product. 170. The accused TOUSPA products, including the M2 or Sage base and foot bath, are deliberate copies of Plaintiffs patented ZETA base and foot bath. 171. The overall length of the base of Plaintiffs patented ZETA product is approximately 120 cm.
- 46 -

172. The overall length of the base of the accused TOUSPA M2 product is also approximately 120 cm. 173. The overall height of the base of Plaintiffs patented ZETA product is approximately 39 cm. 174. The overall height of the base of the accused TOUSPA M2 product is also approximately 39 cm. 175. The overall width of the base of Plaintiffs patented ZETA product, near the foot bath, is approximately 60 cm. 176. The overall width of the base of the accused TOUSPA M2 product, near the foot bath, is also approximately 60 cm. 177. The height of the foot bath bottom, above the floor, of Plaintiffs patented ZETA product is approximately 36 cm. 178. The height of the foot bath bottom, above the floor, of the accused TOUSPA M2 product is also approximately 36 cm. 179. The inside width of the foot bath, at the front, of Plaintiffs patented ZETA product is approximately 36 cm. 180. The inside width of the foot bath, at the front, of the accused TOUSPA M2 product is also approximately 36 cm.

- 47 -

181. The inside width of the foot bath, at the rear, of Plaintiffs patented ZETA product is approximately 38 cm. 182. The inside width of the foot bath, at the rear, of the accused TOUSPA M2 product is also approximately 38 cm. 183. The diagonal distance across the foot bath, to the outer edges, of Plaintiffs patented ZETA product is approximately 67.5 cm. 184. The diagonal distance across the foot bath, to the outer edges, of the accused TOUSPA M2 product is also approximately 67.5 cm. 185. The diagonal distance across the foot bath, to the inside edges, of Plaintiffs patented ZETA product is approximately 48.5 cm. 186. The diagonal distance across the foot bath, to the inside edges, of the accused TOUSPA M2 product is also approximately 48.5 cm. 187. The inside length of the foot bath, near the center, of Plaintiffs patented ZETA product is approximately 41 cm. 188. The inside length of the foot bath, near the center, of the accused TOUSPA M2 product is also approximately 41 cm. 189. The depth of the foot bath of Plaintiffs patented ZETA product is approximately 27 cm at the drain end, and approximately 24 cm at the opposite end.
- 48 -

190. The depth of the foot bath of the accused TOUSPA M2 product is also approximately 27 cm at the drain end, and approximately 24 cm at the opposite end. 191. The distance from the inner side of the foot bath to the first curvilinear change in thickness of Plaintiffs patented ZETA product is approximately 4 cm. 192. The distance from the inner side of the foot bath to the first curvilinear change in thickness of the accused TOUSPA M2 product is also approximately 4 cm. 193. The width of the indentation for the spray nozzle on the rim of the foot bath of Plaintiffs patented ZETA product is approximately 6 cm. 194. The width of the indentation for the spray nozzle on the rim of the foot bath of the accused TOUSPA M2 product is also approximately 6 cm. 195. The distance from the bottom edge of the base to the first curvilinear change in thickness, near the front, of Plaintiffs patented ZETA product is approximately 13 cm. 196. The distance from the bottom edge of the base to the first curvilinear change in thickness, near the front, of the accused TOUSPA M2 product is also approximately 13 cm.

- 49 -

197. The width of the foot rest of Plaintiffs patented ZETA product is approximately 14.5 cm. 198. The width of the foot rest of the accused TOUSPA M2 product is also approximately 14.5 cm. 199. The overall height, length, and curved shape of the foot rest of the accused TOUSPA M2 product is identical to the overall height, length, and curved shape of the foot rest of Plaintiffs patented ZETA product. 200. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants infringement, Plaintiff SALON SPA SUPPLY LLC has been and is continuing to be irreparably harmed, damaged, and injured, and will continue to sustain harm, damage, and injury unless Defendants conduct is restrained by this Court. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in its favor and against Defendants on the Complaint and enter an order as follows: A. Finding that Defendants have infringed the 858 Patent; and

B. Ordering Defendants to pay compensatory damages to Plaintiff in an amount at least equal to, at Plaintiffs option, either: (i) Plaintiffs lost profits, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty, plus costs and expenses, together with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowable by law, according to proof at trial, as provided under 35 U.S.C. 284, or (ii) Defendants total profits, plus costs and expenses, together with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowable by law, according to proof at trial, as provided under 35 U.S.C. 289; and

- 50 -

C. Awarding to Plaintiff enhanced damages resulting from the knowing, deliberate, and willful nature of Defendants prohibited conduct, undertaken with actual knowledge by each Defendant, as provided under 35 U.S.C. 284; and D. Finding that this is an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 285 and awarding to Plaintiff its reasonable attorneys fees; and E. Entering a permanent injunction enjoining and restraining Defendants, and all those acting in concert with them, from engaging in conduct that infringes, induces infringement, or contributes to the infringement of Plaintiffs exclusive rights in the 858 Patent; and F. Directing each Defendant to file with the Court and serve on Plaintiff, within thirty (30) days after entry of any injunction (preliminary, interlocutory, and/or final) a report in writing under oath setting forth in detail the manner and form in which each Defendant has complied with the injunction; and G. proper. Granting such other and further relief as this Court deems just and COUNT 6 UNFAIR COMPETITION AND FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN, IN VIOLATION OF THE LANHAM ACT (Against All Defendants) 201. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in all the preceding paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein. 202. By selling products that copy Plaintiffs products and Plaintiffs unique patented design, Defendants have misappropriated Plaintiffs trade dress and falsely represented the origin of the accused TOUSPA Products. Thus, Defendants conduct of importing, making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling
- 51 -

the accused TOUSPA Products is causing and is likely to continue to cause confusion, deception, and mistake by creating the false and misleading impression that Defendants products are affiliated, connected, or associated with Plaintiff or have the sponsorship, endorsement, or approval of Plaintiff, all in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1125(a). 203. From at least as early as January of 2010 and continuing to the present, Plaintiff SALON SPA SUPPLY LLC has been selling its patented base and foot bath product, including the ZETA model, as well as its ZETA foot bath product by itself and with other bases. 204. From at least as early as January of 2010 and continuing to the present, Plaintiff SALON SPA SUPPLY LLC has devoted substantial time, money, and effort promoting and marketing its patented base and foot bath product, as well as its ZETA foot bath product by itself and with other bases. 205. Because of Plaintiffs substantial, continuous, and exclusive efforts promoting, advertising, marketing, and selling its patented base and foot bath product, including the ZETA model, as well as its foot bath product alone and with other bases, Plaintiff SALON SPA SUPPLY LLC has acquired exclusive and enforceable trade dress rights in (1) Plaintiffs patented base and foot bath product,

- 52 -

including the ZETA model, and (2) Plaintiffs ZETA foot bath product, by itself and with any base. 206. Plaintiffs trade dress is strong and well known to the public as an exclusive source identifier of Plaintiffs unique and attractive designs, as well as Plaintiffs high-quality and reliable products incorporating those designs, including the ZETA model. Accordingly, Plaintiff has developed valuable good will as well as strong common law trade dress rights through the United States, including Georgia, in its well-known and distinctive trade dress. 207. Defendants conduct, performed with actual knowledge of Plaintiffs exclusive rights, demonstrates an intentional, willful, and bad-faith intent to (1) trade on the goodwill of Plaintiffs distinctive trade dress; and (2) cause confusion, deception, and mistake in the minds of Plaintiffs customers and potential customers by implying a non-existent affiliation or relationship between Defendants and Plaintiff, to the great and irreparable injury of Plaintiff. Defendants have acted knowingly and have been unjustly enriched by such conduct. 208. Because Defendants unfair competition is causing and is likely to continue causing substantial injury to the public and to Plaintiff, Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief and is entitled to recover Defendants trebled profits associated
- 53 -

with the infringement, Plaintiffs damages, and Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys fees in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 1116 and 1117. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, SALON SPA SUPPLY LLC, respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in its favor and against Defendants on the Complaint and enter an order as follows: A. Enjoining and restraining Defendants and all their subsidiaries, divisions, agents, officers, employees, representatives, successors, assigns, attorneys, and all other persons acting for, with, by, through, or under authority from Defendants, from (1) using any copy, reproduction, or colorable imitation or simulation of (a) Plaintiffs patented base and foot bath products, including the ZETA model, or (b) Plaintiffs ZETA foot bath product by itself or in combination with any base, in connection with any goods or services offered by Defendants; and (2) using any trademark, service mark, trade dress, name, logo, or source designation of any kind that is a copy, reproduction, or colorable imitation or simulation of, or confusingly similar to, or in any way similar to Plaintiffs trademarks, service marks, trade dress elements, names, or logos; and (3) engaging in any other conduct that will cause, or is likely to cause, confusion, mistake, deception, or public misunderstanding as to the affiliation, connection, association, origin, sponsorship or approval of Defendants goods or services with or by Plaintiff; and (4) otherwise infringing upon Plaintiffs distinctive trade dress, or unfairly competing with Plaintiff in any manner whatsoever. B. Compelling Defendants to account to Plaintiff for any and all profits derived by Defendants through their infringement, and to pay Plaintiff for all damage caused, including pre-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowable by law, under 15 U.S.C. 1117(a) and under the common law; and

- 54 -

C. Awarding treble damages to Plaintiff in the amount of three times the profits resulting from Defendants infringement, unfair competition, and false designation of origin of services; and D. Awarding statutory damages to Plaintiff, if it so elects; and

E. Awarding to Plaintiff punitive damages in an amount such as the Court shall find to be just, according to the willful and deliberate infringement by the Defendants; and F. Awarding to Plaintiff all costs of this action and all its reasonable attorneys fees in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 1117(a); and G. Ordering Defendants to deliver-up for safekeeping during the pendency of this civil action, and for destruction upon entry of judgment: (1) all products, including but not limited to the accused TOUSPA products identified herein, that are confusingly similar to (a) Plaintiffs patented base and foot bath products, including the ZETA model, or (b) Plaintiffs ZETA foot bath product by itself or in combination with any base; and (2) all tooling, plates, molds, and other materials that are specifically designed to manufacture products that are confusingly similar to (a) Plaintiffs patented base and foot bath products, including the ZETA model, or (b) Plaintiffs ZETA foot bath product by itself or in combination with any base; and (3) any and all other materials that are causing or are likely to continue to cause confusion, deception, and mistake by creating the false and misleading impression that Defendants products are affiliated, connected, or associated with Plaintiff or have the sponsorship, endorsement, or approval of Plaintiff. H. Directing each Defendant to file with the Court and serve on Plaintiff, within thirty (30) days after entry of any injunction (preliminary, interlocutory, and/or final) a report in writing under oath setting forth in detail the manner and form in which each Defendant has complied with the injunction; and
- 55 -

I. proper.

Granting such other and further relief as this Court deems just and COUNT 7

UNFAIR COMPETITION AND DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES, IN VIOLATION OF THE GEORGIA UNIFORM DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT (Against All Defendants) 209. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in all the preceding paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein. 210. The foregoing willful and deliberate acts of Defendants constitute unfair competition and deceptive trade practices in Georgia, because Defendants have caused a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval, or certificate of goods, in violation of O.C.G.A. 10-1372(a)(2). 211. The foregoing willful and deliberate acts of Defendants constitute unfair competition and deceptive trade practices in Georgia, because Defendants have caused a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to the affiliation, connection, or association with or certification by another, in violation of O.C.G.A. 10-1-372(a)(3). 212. The foregoing willful and deliberate acts of Defendants constitute unfair competition and deceptive trade practices in Georgia, because Defendants
- 56 -

have represented that goods have the sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefit, or qualities that they do not have, in violation of O.C.G.A. 10-1-372(a)(5). 213. The foregoing willful and deliberate acts of Defendants constitute unfair competition and deceptive trade practices in Georgia, because Defendants have engaged in other conduct that creates a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding, in violation of O.C.G.A. 10-1-372(a)(12). 214. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants unlawful and unfairly competitive conduct, Plaintiff SALON SPA SUPPLY LLC has been and is continuing to be irreparably harmed, damaged, and injured, and will continue to sustain harm, damage, and injury unless Defendants conduct is restrained by this Court. 215. Defendants have intentionally and willfully engaged in trade practices, each of them knowing such trade practices to be deceptive. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, SALON SPA SUPPLY LLC, respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in its favor and against Defendants on the Complaint and enter an order as follows: A. Ordering Defendants to forever cease its unfair competition activity and to otherwise comply with all injunctive relief, temporary and permanent, granted by this Court. B. Ordering Defendants to pay all costs of this action, pursuant to O.C.G.A. 10-1-373(b)(2).
- 57 -

C. Ordering Defendants to pay all of Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys fees, pursuant to O.C.G.A. 10-1-373(b)(2). D. proper. Granting such other and further relief as this Court deems just and COUNT 8 PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Against All Defendants) 216. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in all the preceding paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein. 217. In accordance with the Courts authority to grant injunctive relief, Plaintiff SALON SPA SUPPLY LLC seeks the issuance of preliminary and permanent injunctions upon hearing and trial, respectively. 218. Specifically, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter preliminary and permanent injunctions against Defendants, TOUSPA, LLC, TONY HOANG, and TRAN PHAM, and all those acting in concert with them, (1) enjoining them from using or disclosing Plaintiffs Confidential Information, and (2) ordering them to return all of Plaintiffs company assets and data. 219. Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief because Defendants are currently using and disclosing Plaintiffs Confidential Information, Defendants have refused to return Plaintiffs company assets and data, and Defendants are
- 58 -

using Plaintiffs information, assets, and data to knowingly and willfully infringe the 858 Patent. Plaintiff will be further and irreparably harmed if this conduct is allowed to continue. Defendants bad faith conduct, as set forth herein, demonstrates that Defendants will continue their unlawful and infringing conduct unless enjoined by this Court. 220. Injunctive relief is an appropriate remedy under the circumstances because money damages will be inadequate to compensate Plaintiff for the unfair advantage gained by Defendants (and Plaintiffs competitors) as a result of Defendants continuing use and disclosure to others of Plaintiffs Confidential Information, Defendants continuing use of Plaintiffs company assets and data, and Defendants continuing and willful infringement of Plaintiffs exclusive patent rights. 221. Defendant TONY HOANG agreed that money damages would be inadequate. Specifically, on page 4 of the Agreement: The Seller [TONY HOANG] further agrees that the remedy at law for breach of any of the above agreements is inadequate . Exhibit A, The Agreement, page 4. 222. Moreover, Injunctive relief is an appropriate remedy under the circumstances because Defendant TONY HOANG agreed that, in the event of his

- 59 -

breach or a threatened breach, Plaintiff would be entitled to immediate injunctive relief without proof of harm. Specifically, on page 4 of the Agreement: The Seller [TONY HOANG] further agrees that the remedy at law for breach of any of the above agreements is inadequate and that SSS, LLC [SALON SPA SUPPLY, LLC] shall be entitled, in addition to other such remedies as it may have, to injunctive relief for any breach or threatened breach of this agreement without proof of any actual damages that may have been or may be caused to the Company [SALON SPA SUPPLY, LLC] by such breach or threatened breach. Exhibit A, The Agreement, page 4 (underlining added). 223. Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief because Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. 224. Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief because there is a substantial likelihood of Plaintiffs success on the merits. 225. Defendant TONY HOANG already signed the Agreement with Plaintiff, promising that he would not use or disclose Plaintiffs Confidential Information without prior written authorization, and that he would return Plaintiffs company assets and data. 226. Defendant TONY HOANG also acknowledged his understanding that any breach or threatened breach of any obligation in the Agreement would subject him to an immediate injunction. 227. In direct violation of his Agreement, Defendant TONY HOANG, individually and in concert with others, has been and continues using and
- 60 -

disclosing to others Plaintiffs Confidential Information, and has been and continues keeping and using Plaintiffs company assets and data. 228. Defendants have used and are continuing to use Plaintiffs information, assets, and data to start and maintain their own business, TOUSPA, LLC, for the purpose of competing unfairly with Plaintiff. 229. Moreover, Defendants have used and are continuing to use Plaintiffs information, assets, and data for the purpose of knowingly and willfully infringing Plaintiffs patent rights. 230. Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief because the risk of continuing harm to Plaintiff outweighs any possible harm that injunctive relief might inflict on Defendants. Plaintiff will be harmed because money damages will be inadequate to compensate Plaintiff for the unfair advantage gained by Defendants (and other competitors) because of Defendants unlawful conduct and willful patent infringement. The issuance of an injunction poses no countervailing risk of harm to Defendants. 231. Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief because the public interest will not be disserved or adversely affected by granting the requested relief. To the contrary, the public interest will be well served by an injunction at least because Defendants infringing products are causing consumer confusion among the public,
- 61 -

and are likely to continue causing confusion, deception and mistake among members of the consuming public unless enjoined by this Court. 232. Plaintiff is willing in principle to post a bond, but requests that any bond imposed by the Court be nominal in light of the absence of a risk of harm to Defendants from the issuance of a preliminary injunctions. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, SALON SPA SUPPLY LLC, respectfully requests that this Court issue a preliminary injunction as follows: A. Enjoining Defendant from using or disclosing Plaintiffs Confidential Information; B. Ordering Defendants to return all of Plaintiffs company assets and data, including any and all copies of such information; C. Ordering Defendants to produce for immediate inspection all computers, electronic media, and other storage devices that are capable of storing all or part of the Plaintiffs company assets and data; D. Ordering Defendants, after inspection and return to Plaintiff, to delete all of Plaintiffs company assets and data from their computers, electronic media, and other storage devices; E. Finding, in its role as the trier of fact, that Defendants have acted with bad faith, and pursuant to O.C.G.A. 13-6-11 ordering Defendants to pay all the litigation expenses and attorneys fees incurred by Plaintiff in seeking this injunctive relief; F. Directing each Defendant to file with the Court and serve on Plaintiff, within thirty (30) days after entry of a preliminary injunction, a report in writing and under oath setting forth in detail the manner and form in which each Defendant has complied with the injunction; and

- 62 -

G. proper.

Granting such other and further relief as this Court deems just and COUNT 9 DEFENDANTS BAD FAITH CONDUCT ENTITLES PLAINTIFF TO AN AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES AND EXPENSES UNDER O.C.G.A. 13-6-11 (Against All Defendants)

233. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in all the preceding paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein. 234. Each Defendant has acted in bad faith, has been stubbornly litigious, or has caused Plaintiff unnecessary trouble and expense. 235. Defendant TONY HOANG acted in bad faith, while he was a trusted partner of Plaintiff, when he secretly shipped one of Plaintiffs patented ZETA products to Vietnam to be copied, when he registered a domain name for his own purposes, and when he made a copy of Plaintiffs company information that was stored on his computer, and kept it, for his own purposes. 236. Defendant TONY HOANG acted in bad faith when he intentionally breached at least three provisions of the Agreement; specifically, (a) the noncompetition provision, (b) the non-disclosure provision, and (c) the duty to return company assets and data.

- 63 -

237. Defendant TONY HOANG cannot genuinely dispute the fact that he breached the Agreement. 238. Defendant TRAN PHAM acted in bad faith when she started a competing business (namely TOUSPA, LLC) in which Defendant TONY HOANG as also engaged, thereby aiding and abetting Defendant TONY HOANGs breach of at least three provisions of his Agreement with Plaintiff, and also interfering Plaintiffs contractual and business relations. 239. Defendant TOUSPA, LLC, by and through its officers and agents, acted in bad faith when it permitted Defendant TONY HOANG to participate in its operations and thereby engage in a competing business, thereby aiding and abetting Defendant TONY HOANGs breach of at least three provisions of his Agreement with Plaintiff, and also interfering Plaintiffs contractual and business relations. 240. Both Defendants, TRAN PHAM and TOUSPA, LLC, acted in bad faith by knowingly and willfully infringing the 858 Patent. 241. Defendants conduct before the filing of this Complaint shows a pattern of dishonest and conscious wrongdoing. 242. Defendants, together and separately, have intentionally and willfully breached TONY HOANGS contract with Plaintiff, breached HOANGS fiduciary
- 64 -

duty and duty of loyalty to Plaintiff, tortiously interfered with Plaintiffs contractual relations, and knowingly and willfully infringed Plaintiffs patent rights all with the conscious, purposeful, and dishonest purpose of unfairly competing with Plaintiff for Defendants own financial gain. 243. Defendants conduct shows a callous disregard for Plaintiff, Plaintiffs business, and Plaintiffs property rights. 244. Defendants acted to improve their own financial gain and to injure Plaintiff. 245. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants unlawful and bad-faith conduct before this cause of action was filed, Plaintiff has incurred unnecessary trouble and expense. 246. There is no bona fide controversy that Defendants acted in bad faith. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, SALON SPA SUPPLY LLC, respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in its favor and against Defendants on the Complaint and enter an order as follows: A. Ordering Defendants to pay all litigation expenses and reasonable attorneys fees incurred by Plaintiff in this action. B. During this action, whenever this Court sits as the trier of fact, entering a finding of fact that Defendants have acted with bad faith, and ordering Defendants to pay all litigation expenses and reasonable attorneys fees incurred by Plaintiff. C. proper. Granting such other and further relief as this Court deems just and
- 65 -