Omm Imports v. YRS Group - Complaint

Case 1:18-cv-21705-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2018 Page 1 of 11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OMM IMPORTS, INC.

a Florida corporation, d/b/a ZERO GRAVITY, CIVIL CASE NO.:
Plaintiff,
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
v.
YRS GROUP, INC., a Nevada corporation,

d/b/a OPATRA USA,
Defendant.
COMPLAINT FOR WILLFUL PATENT INFRINGEMENT
Plaintiff, OMM IMPORTS, INC., a Florida corporation, d/b/a ZERO GRAVITY, files
this Complaint for Willful Patent Infringement against YRS GROUP, INC., a Nevada
corporation, d/b/a/ OPATRA USA, and states:
JURISDICTION, VENUE AND THE PARTIES
1. This is an action brought pursuant to the Patent Laws of the United States, 35
U.S.C. §§ 271, et. seq.
2. This Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to Title 28, United States Code,
Section 1331, as this case involves a federal question arising under the Constitution, laws or
treaties of the United States.
3. At all times material hereto, OMM IMPORTS, INC., a Florida corporation, d/b/a
ZERO GRAVITY (hereinafter “OMM”), had and has its principle address located in Miami-
Dade County, Florida.
4. Based on information and belief, at all times material hereto, YRS GROUP, INC.,
a Nevada corporation, d/b/a/ OPATRA USA (“OPATRA”), has and had its principal address
Page 1 of 11
located in Nevada, but has conducted business via interstate channels in this judicial district, and
is otherwise sui juris.
5. This action arises as a result of the infringing conduct of OPATRA, which
implicates interstate commerce.
6. Venue is proper in the Southern District of Florida pursuant to Title 28, United
States Code, Section 1391(c) and/or 1400(b) because a substantial part of the events giving rise
to the infringement claims at issue occurred within this judicial district, and OPATRA’s parent
company, Opatra, Ltd. is a foreign entity based in the United Kingdom.
7. All conditions precedent have been met, waived, or satisfied to bring this lawsuit.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
8. OMM was formed as a Florida corporation in 2014, and since then has been
focused, inter alia, on designing and developing the safest, most effective, and most uniquely
designed anti-aging facial products to deliver to consumers across the globe.
9. One such product designed and developed by OMM and marketed to consumers
is known as the Perfectio®, which is an FDA-cleared Class II medical device designed by OMM
offering consumers the ability to perform easy, pain free, high-end facial skin rejuvenation in the
comfort and privacy of their own homes. OMM offers the Perfectio® as well as the Perfectio®
Plus (collectively, the “Perfectio® line”). Both devices are identical from a design perspective,
but the Plus is a more powerful device.
10. The Perfectio® line promotes skin health through the use of light-emitting diodes
(LED), which emit light at red and infrared wavelengths.
11. At one time, red LED facial treatment was exclusively offered through doctor’s
offices and high-end spas, but OMM, though its Perfectio® line, became an industry leader by
Page 2 of 11
designing and bringing to market red light skin rejuvenation therapy for consumer home use.
12. Consumers who purchase a product from the Perfectio® line receive a Perfectio®
device, its charging base, electrical cord, user manual, warranty, and travel kit, all packaged and
delivered to their homes as follows:
See [Exhibit “B”, larger copies of all images attached throughout this Complaint].
13. On March 3, 2016, as a result of the sleek unique design aspects of the Perfectio®
line, OMM filed U.S. Design Patent Application No. 29/556,810 with the United States Patent
and Trademark Office (USPTO).
14. Thereafter, on July 11, 2017, the USPTO granted the foregoing application, and
issued U.S. Patent No. D791,960 (“the ‘960 Patent”) to OMM.
15. Some of the designs set forth in the ‘960 Patent include the following
perspectives, each depicting various aspects of the Perfectio® line:
Page 3 of 11
See [Exhibit “A”, a copy of the ‘960 Patent].
16. As is apparent from the foregoing images, FIG. 1 of the ‘960 Patent depicts a
front-elevation view of the patented design; FIG 2, FIG 3 and FIG 4 depict rear-elevation, right-
side and left-side views, respectively, of the same uniquely designed device.
17. The ‘960 Patented design, as embodied in the Perfectio® line, has garnered
overwhelming support and enthusiasm from consumers.
18. Unfortunately, as a direct result of such wide success, OMM has recently
discovered several entities promoting competing devices that infringe the claims of the ‘960
Patent.
19. One such infringer is Defendant, OPATRA, which was originally formed as a
company based in the United Kingdom. Presumably based on the heavy consumer demand for
the product, OPATRA recently expanded its operations into the United States, and presently
markets throughout the country over the internet through, at least, http://www.us.opatra.com.
20. One product line marketed by OPATRA via its us.opatra.com web domain
presence is referred to as SYNERGY, which is promoted as “a Therapeutic device that combines
Page 4 of 11
LED light and heat therapy.” See [Exhibit “C”, a screenshot image from OPATRA’s website].
21. OPATRA sells a SYNERGY device, which corresponds to OMM’s Perfectio®,as
well as a recently launched SYNERGY Limited Edition device, which corresponds to OMM’s
Perfectio® Plus. (Collectively, the SYNERGY devices are referred to as the “SYNERGY line”)
22. OPATRA markets its competing SYNERGY line to target the exact same
consumers as OMM does through its Perfectio® line.
23. In fact, not only has OPATRA copied OMM’s unique patented design, but it has
also copied, almost word-for-word, OMM’s marketing video, as well as OMM’s packaging of
the Perfectio® line. See images below:
See also Composite Exhibit “B”.
24. In another effort to trade off of OMM’s Perfectio® devices, OPATRA falsely
marks its products as having been cleared by the FDA as a medical device, when, based on
information and belief, OPATRA has not obtained such clearance. See image below:
Page 5 of 11
(Emphasis added). See also Composite Exhibit “B”.
25. Additionally, and most importantly, OPATRA styled its device to look virtually
identical stylistically to the Perfectio® line and, more critically, to the claims of the ‘960 Patent.
For example, the following are some additional images of the infringing SYNERGY device:
26. In an effort to avoid this instant litigation, OMM contacted OPATRA to demand
an immediate cessation of all infringing activity. Such efforts were to no avail, as OPATRA
continues to engage in its unlawful conduct.
27. As such, OMM has been required to retain the undersigned counsel to pursue its
interests in this matter, and is obligated to pay the undersigned a reasonable attorneys’ fee for
their services, and to reimburse the undersigned for any costs incurred in connection with said
representation.
Page 6 of 11
COUNT I:
TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
28. Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers paragraphs one (1) through twenty-seven (27) as
if fully set forth herein.
29. This is an action, in part, for temporary and permanent injunctive relief pursuant
to Title 35, United States Code, Section 283, of the United States Patent Act. Said section
provides that this Court may “grant injunctions in accordance with the principles of equity to
prevent the violations of any right secured by patent, on such terms as the court deems
reasonable.”
30. As alluded to in more detail above, OPATRA has infringed, and continues to
infringe, on the claims of the ‘960 Patent by, at least, making, using, selling and/or offering for
sale the SYNERGY line devices.
31. This action also seeks temporary and permanent injunctive relief pursuant to
Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), for OPATRA’s trade dress infringement
and unfair competition.
32. As alluded to in more detail above, OPATRA has engaged in trade dress
infringement and unfair competition by, inter alia, copying OMM’s distinctive packaging that
OMM uses to sell its Perfectio® line.
33. Such refusal to honor OMM’s exclusive patent rights, and intentional copying of
OMM’s distinctive packaging, has caused, and will continue to cause, irreparable harm. Each
day that OMM is deprived of its earned intellectual property rights causes irreparable injury.
34. OMM has no adequate remedy at law, especially because the property at issue is
intellectual property.
Page 7 of 11
35. There is no remedy at law that can fully compensate OMM for the deprivation of
said intellectual property rights, and, in light of the facts of this case, there is a substantial
likelihood that OMM will succeed on the merits of the instant case.
WHEREFORE, OMM respectfully requests that the Court enter a temporary and
permanent injunction enjoining OPATRA, and all those in active concert and participation with
it, from using, making, selling, marketing, distributing, transferring, or otherwise infringing on
the claims of the ‘960 Patent and of OMM’s trade dress as more fully set forth above, together
with costs, attorneys’ fees, and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT II:
WILLFUL PATENT INFRINGEMENT
37. This is an action for patent infringement pursuant to Title 35, United States Code,
Section 271, of the United States Patent Act.
38. As more fully set forth above, OPATRA has infringed, and continues to infringe,
the claims of the ‘960 Patent by, at least, making, using, offering for sale, and/or selling the
infringing devices marketed and sold under the SYNERGY line.
39. All such infringing conduct of OPATRA has occurred and was committed by
OPATRA in a willful, knowing, bad-faith, and brazen manner, evidenced not only by the clear
copying of OMM’s Perfectio® line, but also of the bold wholesale copying of OMM’s marketing
video and product packaging.
40. OPATRA’s actions have caused, and continue to cause, irreparable harm to OMM
to which there is no adequate remedy at law.
Page 8 of 11
WHEREFORE, OMM respectfully demands judgment against OPATRA for the full
amount of damages sustained, including, but not limited to, any and all remedies available
pursuant to the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, et. seq., which include, but
are not limited to, a reasonable royalty award, disgorgement of the profits received by OPATRA,
treble damages, costs, pre and post judgment interest at the maximum allowable rate, attorneys’
fees, and such other and further relief this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT III:
TRADE DRESS INFRINGEMENT/UNFAIR COMPETITION
42. This is an action for trade dress infringement and unfair competition pursuant to
15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
43. OMM packages its Perfectio® devices in a distinctive, non-functional manner.
Specifically, OMM sells its Perfectio® devices (i) in a rectangular box approximately 10’’ x 4.5’’
x 4.5’’; (ii) made from a shiny moire like fabric; (iii) which contains a diagonal opening on the
side, and a flat opening in the front, opening backwards; (iv) and which contains a felt interior,
(v) and in which the device is located in the bottom-center of the box, facing upwards, with the
LED face of the device facing outwards.
44. As a result of this unique packaging, consumers associate the distinctive
packaging with OMM.
45. Notwithstanding OMM’s valid and enforceable rights in and to the Perfectio®
trade dress, OPATRA uses identical packaging for its SYNERGY line, even including almost
identical verbiage on the back of its box regarding the description of the product and the
Page 9 of 11
“warnings” regarding use of the product.
46. The SYNERGY device is packaged in an identical gold moire like fabric used by
OMM in connection with its Perfectio® Plus device packaging, while the SYNERGY Limited
Edition is packaged in a silver moire like fabric, such as that used by OMM in connection with
its Perfectio® device, which OPATRA refers to as “rose gold.” Images comparing the packaging
of the competing products are shown below:
47. Moreover, OMM markets its Perfectio® devices, in part, with an approximately
four-minute long instructional video.
48. OPATRA has copied this video in substantial part, using almost the exact same
verbiage and graphics as appears in the Perfectio® video.
49. By using OMM’s trade dress without permission, OPATRA is unfairly benefiting
from OMM’s investment in the Perfectio® trade dress and the reputation, success, and goodwill
OMM has cultivated through its marketing, promotion, and sales of its Perfectio® devices.
50. OPATRA’s unauthorized use of OMM’s trade dress in connection with
advertising and offering its SYNERGY line for sale is likely to cause consumer confusion and
mistake, and to deceive consumers as to the source, origin, or affiliation of OPATRA’s products.
51. OPATRA’s actions constitute trade dress infringement, unfair competition and
false designation of origin in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
Page 10 of 11
52. Upon information and belief, OPATRA knew of OMM’s trade dress when it
designed its SYNERGY line. Accordingly, OPATRA’s infringement has been and continues to
be intentional and willful.
WHEREFORE, OMM respectfully demands judgment against OPATRA for the full
amount of damages sustained, including, but not limited to, any and all remedies available
pursuant to Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a,) which include, but are not
limited to, a reasonable royalty award, disgorgement of the profits received by OPATRA, treble
damages, costs, pre and post judgment interest at the maximum allowable rate, attorneys’ fees,
and such other and further relief this Court deems just and proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
OMM demands trial by jury of all issues so triable as a matter of law.
Dated this 30th day of April, 2018.
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Alexander D. Brown/

ALEXANDER D. BROWN, ESQ.
FLA. BAR NO. 752665
abrown@conceptlaw.com
ADAM S. GOLDMAN, ESQ.
FLA. BAR. NO. 86761
agoldman@conceptlaw.com
THE CONCEPT LAW GROUP, P.A.

6400 N. Andrews Ave., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309
T: 754.300.1500
F: 754.300.1501
Counsel for Plaintiff
Page 11 of 11
Case 1:18-cv-21705-KMM Document
JS 44 (Rev. 06/17) FLSD Revised 06/01/2017 1-1 COVER
CIVIL EnteredSHEET
on FLSD Docket 04/30/2018 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 OMM IMPORTS, INC. DEFENDANTS YRS GROUP, INC., a Nevada corporation, d/b/a
a Florida corporation, d/b/a ZERO GRAVITY OPATRA USA,
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Miami-Dade County County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Clark County
(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)
Alexander D. Brown, Esq., The Concept Law Group, P.A., 6400 N.
Andrews Ave, Suite 500, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309, 754-300-1500
(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: DOCKET NUMBER:
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 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, et. seq
LENGTH OF TRIAL via 5-10 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
JURY DEMAND: Yes No
ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE & CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
April 30, 2018
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT IFP JUDGE MAG JUDGE
Save As... Print Reset

Case 1:18-cv-21705-KMM Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2018 Page 2 of 2
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.
EXHIBIT A
COMPOSITE
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
4/1/2018Case 1:18-cv-21705-KMM Opatra - OPATRA 1-5
Document SYNERGY RED LIGHT
Entered onHEATING
FLSD THERAPEUTIC DEVICE
Docket 04/30/2018 Page 2 of 3
EN (/_synergy?language=EN&currency=USD) FR (/_synergy?language=FR&currency=EUR)
SYNE R GY BY O PATR A
OPATRA, S YN ERGY T HE O PATRA S YN ERGY IS A T HERAPEUTIC

LED LIGHT AN D HEAT THERAPY . T HE TWO
DEV IC E THAT C OM BIN ES
WAV ELEN GTHS IN FRA RED AN D RED LIGHT ARE WELL RESEARC HED TO
IN PROV E THE APPEAREN C E OF THE SK IN AN D HELP REDUC E PAIN .
USES: T HE O PATRA S YN ERGY C AN BE USED ON ALL AREAS OF THE
FAC E IN C LUDIN G BODY .

0
Checkout (/Checkout/Checkout.aspx)

Log In (/Controls/Login.aspx?frame=true)

Sign Up (/Controls/NewAccount.aspx)
N.AS P X)
PX)
SYNERGY BY OPATRA RECOMMENDED

PRODUCTS
The Opatra Synergy is a Therapeutic device that combines LED light and
heat therapy. The two wavelengths infra red and red light are well
(SYNERGY)
researched to inprove the appearence of the skin and help reduce pain.
OPATRA SYNERGY
GOLD
USES: 5,490.00 $
The Opatra Synergy can be used on all areas of the face including body.

WARNINGS:

- Do not use to treat your eyelids or aim the device directly into your
eye, doing this could cause serious eye injury.

- Do not use the device if you are under the age of 18.

- Do not use if you are pregnant.

(collagen)
-Do not use if you have history of light triggered seizures.
Opatra Collagen
Mask
- Do not use if you have any light sensitive disease or are taking any 300.00 $
light sensitive drugs.
Select
size: 0
Price: 5,490.00 $
Select quantity:
ADD TO CART
http://www.us.opatra.com/_synergy 1/2
4/1/2018Case 1:18-cv-21705-KMM Opatra - OPATRA 1-5
Document SYNERGY RED LIGHT
Entered onHEATING
FLSD THERAPEUTIC DEVICE
Docket 04/30/2018 Page 3 of 3
Terms and Conditions (http://www.opatra.com/terms-

conditions)
EN (/_synergy?language=EN&currency=USD) FR (/_synergy?language=FR&currency=EUR)
Become a Retailer ()
Privacy Policy (http://www.opatra.com/privacy-policy)
Shipping ()
A liates ()
Returns ()
Subscribe NOW and get 10% OFF!
e-mail address SUBSCRIBE
(https://www.facebook.com/dialog/oauth
client_id=430469840480865&redirect_uri=http://us.opatra.com/Controls/FbLoginHandler.aspx&state=sdzssbpab
 (www.facebook.com)  (www.twitter.com) 
(www.googleplus.com)  (www.pinterest.com) 
(www.youtube.com)
© 2015, Opatra by Flow Concept.
All rights reserved
http://www.us.opatra.com/_synergy 2/2

Omm Imports v. YRS Group - Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Omm Imports v. YRS Group - Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:18-cv-21705-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2018 Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

OMM IMPORTS, INC.

YRS GROUP, INC., a Nevada corporation,

COMPLAINT FOR WILLFUL PATENT INFRINGEMENT

corporation, d/b/a/ OPATRA USA, and states:

JURISDICTION, VENUE AND THE PARTIES

U.S.C. §§ 271, et. seq.

treaties of the United States.

Dade County, Florida.

is otherwise sui juris.

5. This action arises as a result of the infringing conduct of OPATRA, which

implicates interstate commerce.

company, Opatra, Ltd. is a foreign entity based in the United Kingdom.

designed anti-aging facial products to deliver to consumers across the globe.

but the Plus is a more powerful device.

(LED), which emit light at red and infrared wavelengths.

delivered to their homes as follows:

and Trademark Office (USPTO).

issued U.S. Patent No. D791,960 (“the ‘960 Patent”) to OMM.

perspectives, each depicting various aspects of the Perfectio® line:

See [Exhibit “A”, a copy of the ‘960 Patent].

overwhelming support and enthusiasm from consumers.

presence is referred to as SYNERGY, which is promoted as “a Therapeutic device that combines

21. OPATRA sells a SYNERGY device, which corresponds to OMM’s Perfectio®,as

consumers as OMM does through its Perfectio® line.

the Perfectio® line. See images below:

See also Composite Exhibit “B”.

(Emphasis added). See also Composite Exhibit “B”.

See also Composite Exhibit “B”.

continues to engage in its unlawful conduct.

if fully set forth herein.

sale the SYNERGY line devices.

and unfair competition.

OMM uses to sell its Perfectio® line.

if fully set forth herein.

Section 271, of the United States Patent Act.

infringing devices marketed and sold under the SYNERGY line.

video and product packaging.

to which there is no adequate remedy at law.

if fully set forth herein.

43. OMM packages its Perfectio® devices in a distinctive, non-functional manner.

LED face of the device facing outwards.

44. As a result of this unique packaging, consumers associate the distinctive

packaging with OMM.

“warnings” regarding use of the product.

of the competing products are shown below:

See also Composite Exhibit “B”.

four-minute long instructional video.

verbiage and graphics as appears in the Perfectio® video.

50. OPATRA’s unauthorized use of OMM’s trade dress in connection with

be intentional and willful.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

OMM demands trial by jury of all issues so triable as a matter of law.

Dated this 30th day of April, 2018.

/s/ Alexander D. Brown/

THE CONCEPT LAW GROUP, P.A.

Counsel for Plaintiff

Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

Save As... Print Reset

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet

OPATRA, S YN ERGY T HE O PATRA S YN ERGY IS A T HERAPEUTIC