Amini Innovation v. Acme Furniture - Complaint

Case 2:18-cv-03626 Document 1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 1 of 17 Page ID #:1
1 Donald M. Cislo, Esq., No. 49,203

doncislo@cislo.com
2
Daniel M. Cislo, Esq., No. 125,378
3 dan@cislo.com
Mark D. Nielsen, Esq., No. 210,023
4 mnielsen@cislo.com
CISLO & THOMAS LLP
5 12100 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1700
Los Angeles, California 90025-7103
6 Telephone: (310) 979-9190
Telefax: (310) 394-4477
7
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
8 Amini Innovation Corporation
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12 AMINI INNOVATION ) Case No. 2:18-cv-03626
CORPORATION, a California )
13 corporation, ) COMPLAINT FOR:
)
14 Plaintiff, ) (1) FEDERAL COMMON LAW
) TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
15 )
vs. ) (2) STATE COMMON LAW
16 ) TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
17 )
ACME FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, ) (3) BREACH OF 2009
18 INC., a California corporation, JAMES ) SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
CHEN, an individual, and DOES 1-9, )
19 inclusive, ) (4) BREACH OF 2010
) SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
20 Defendants. )
) (5) DESIGN PATENT
21 ) INFRINGEMENT
)
22 )
(6) VIOLATION OF COURT
)
23 ) INJUNCTION
)
24 ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
25
26
27
28
1
For its Complaint, Plaintiff alleges as follows:
2
3
PARTIES
4
1. Plaintiff Amini Innovation Corporation (“Plaintiff” or “AICO”) is a
5
California corporation having its principal place of business at 8725 Rex Road,
6
Pico Rivera, California 90660. AICO has designed for it, markets, and sells unique
7
and original home furnishings. AICO’s furniture collections each have carefully
8
selected names. AICO displays and offers its furniture for sale at various trade
Facsimile: (310) 394-4477
9
shows.
10
2. Defendant Acme Furniture Industries, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Acme”) is
11
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025
a California corporation having a business address of Acme Furniture Industries,

CISLO & THOMAS LLP
12
12100 Wilshire BLVD.
Inc., 18895 East Arenth Avenue, City of Industry, California 91748.

Attorneys at Law
13
www.cislo.com
SUITE 1700
3. Defendant James Chen (“Chen”) is an individual believed to reside in

14
this judicial district, is Vice-President of Acme, and made numerous inaccurate
Telephone: (310) 979-9190
15
and/or false representations and warranties in prior settlement agreements between
16
AICO and Acme, authorized and/or ratified the breaches of the settlement
17
agreements described herein, and is believed to be personally directing and
18
benefiting from the infringing activities described herein.
19
4. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate or
20
otherwise of Defendants Does 1-9 inclusive, are unknown to AICO, who therefore
21
sues them by such fictitious names. AICO will seek leave to amend this complaint
22
to allege their true names and capacities when they have been ascertained. AICO is
23
informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the fictitiously named
24
Defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged and
25
that AICO’s damages as herein alleged were proximately caused by those
26
Defendants. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants Does 1-9 inclusive were the
27
agents, servants, employees or attorneys of their co-defendants, and in doing the
28
things hereinafter alleged were acting within the course and scope of their authority
2
1 as those agents, servants, employees or attorneys, and with the permission and
2 consent of their co-defendants.
3
4 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5 5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to
6 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) as it arises under Acts of Congress related to
7 patents, trademarks, and copyrights. The Court also has subject matter jurisdiction
8 over AICO’s federal trademark infringement claim pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1121.
Facsimile: (310) 394-4477
9 The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over AICO’s state common law trademark
10 infringement and breach of settlement claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, as the facts
11 regarding each of AICO’s claims arise from the same common nucleus of operative
CISLO & THOMAS LLP
12 facts.
Attorneys at Law
13
www.cislo.com
6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant Acme as it has
SUITE 1700
14 a regular and established place of business in this judicial district at and through
Telephone: (310) 979-9190
15 which it does substantial business in this judicial district in connection with the
16 accused actions described herein.
17 7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Chen in that Chen is believed
18 to be a resident of this judicial district and is believed to have committed the
19 unlawful acts alleged herein in this judicial district.
20 8. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
21 1391(b)(1), 1391(b)(2), and 1391(c) in that Defendant Acme is subject to personal
22 jurisdiction in this judicial district, resides in the this judicial district, and has a
23 regular and established business place of business in this judicial district and has
24 committed acts of infringement in this judicial district.
25 9. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
26 1391(b)(1) and 1391 (b)(2) as to Chen in that he is believed to reside in this judicial
27 district and he has committed acts of infringement in this judicial district, including
28 personally directing and authorizing the acts of infringement and other violative
3
1 acts referenced herein.

2
3 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
4
5 AICO’s Rights in its MONTE CARLO Trademark and Overture Headboard
6 10. AICO is a California corporation located in Pico Rivera, California
7 that has designed for it, markets, and sells home furnishings.
8 11. AICO’s popular Monte Carlo collection includes and/or has included
Facsimile: (310) 394-4477
9 numerous items of furniture including bedroom and dining room furniture, as well
10 as entertainment units, occasional tables, and other furniture items. AICO owns
11 state common law rights in the MONTE CARLO name in connection with the
CISLO & THOMAS LLP
12 above-referenced furniture by virtue of AICO’s continuous use in commerce

Attorneys at Law
13 throughout the United States, including California (and most, if not all, other
www.cislo.com
SUITE 1700
14 states). For the same reason AICO also has federal common law rights in the
Telephone: (310) 979-9190
15 MONTE CARLO mark in connection with furniture.

16 12. Representative photograph(s) of AICO’s Monte Carlo furniture
17 collection are attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
18 13. MONTE CARLO has been AICO’s trademark for furniture since
19 2001. AICO’s U.S. federal trademark registration for “Monte Carlo Collection”
20 (with “Collection” having been disclaimed) in International Class 20 (Reg. No.
21 3,273,274) issued on August 7, 2007. The registration recently lapsed (see, Exhibit
22 2, attached hereto), although AICO continues to use MONTE CARLO as a
23 trademark for furniture.
24 14. AICO was awarded U.S. Design Patent No. D674,630 (“‘630 Patent”)
25 for its Overture Headboard, which issued on January 22, 2013. Said patent is
26 attached hereto as Exhibit 3. The patent was duly and legally issued and assigned
27 to AICO.
28
4
1 History Between AICO and Acme and Acme’s Previous Transgressions

2 15. In or about late March of 2009, AICO learned, inter alia1, of Acme’s
3 use of the name “Monte Carlo” for certain of its furniture collections.
4 16. On or about April 1, 2009, AICO sent Acme a cease and desist letter
5 requesting, inter alia, that Acme cease all dealings in any furniture sold under the
6 “Monte Carlo” name, and for financial information in connection with Acme’s
7 sales of the same.
8 17. In May of 2009, AICO and Acme entered into a confidential
Facsimile: (310) 394-4477
9 settlement agreement that on its face appeared to resolve the differences between
10 the parties. The settlement agreement was signed on behalf of Acme by Defendant
11 Chen. Upon appropriate court order, the terms of the settlement agreement, though
CISLO & THOMAS LLP
12 confidential, are incorporated herein by reference, including paragraph 7 therein.

Attorneys at Law
13
www.cislo.com
18. In early September of 2009, in determining whether Acme (based on

SUITE 1700
14 the representations of Chen in the settlement agreement) had complied, and was
Telephone: (310) 979-9190
15 continuing to comply, with its obligations under the settlement agreement, AICO’s
16 research revealed that Acme had unashamedly continued to use the “Monte Carlo”
17 mark to sell furniture.
18 19. On or about September 9, 2009, counsel for AICO sent counsel for
19 Acme a letter demanding that Acme cease and desist from using, inter alia, the
20 mark “Monte Carlo” in connection with furniture. Because the terms of the
21 settlement agreement are confidential, and the September 9, 2009 letter refers to
22 certain terms of the settlement agreement, AICO, in an abundance of caution, has
23 chosen not to attach the letter as an exhibit hereto. A copy of the September 9,
24 2009 letter and its attachments are available upon request and appropriate court
25 order.
26
27 1
“Inter alia,” as used herein, refers to the fact that AICO has omitted references to
28 previous Acme violations that are not, to the best of AICO’s present knowledge,
recurring in connection with this current matter.
5
1 20. In response, on or about September 18, 2009, Acme (through counsel)

2 noted that it had ceased using the offending references to the “Monte Carlo” mark.
3 As to the financial information requested by AICO in connection with the use of the
4 offending marks, including “Monte Carlo” by Acme, no information was provided
5 by Acme.
6 21. On or about October 2, 2009, counsel for AICO sent counsel for Acme
7 another letter regarding Acme’s refusal to provide financial information in
8 connection with, inter alia, Acme’s trademark violations, in which AICO reiterated
Facsimile: (310) 394-4477
9 its demands for financial information, and made additional demands for financial
10 information from Acme. Because the terms of the settlement agreement are
11 confidential, and the October 2, 2009 letter refers to certain terms of the settlement
CISLO & THOMAS LLP
12 agreement, AICO, in an abundance of caution, has chosen not to attach the letter as
Attorneys at Law
13 an exhibit hereto.
www.cislo.com
SUITE 1700
14 22. In an e-mail response dated October 7, 2009, counsel for Acme

Telephone: (310) 979-9190
15 indicated that Acme would cease using, or had ceased using, inter alia, all of the
16 offending trade marks, but Acme refused to provide any of the requested financial
17 information to AICO. AICO requested such information in good faith in hopes of
18 resolving the issues existing at the time without the need for involving the Court.
19 Acme, however, had refused to comply.
20 23. As a result of a lack of complete cooperation from Acme to remedy its
21 ongoing infringements and breach of the May 2009 settlement agreement, on
22 October 13, 2009, AICO filed suit in this Court against Acme and James Chen, and
23 received Case No. 2:09-cv-7427-PA-AJW. The Complaint in that matter contains
24 exhibits that demonstrate the above-referenced violations. Such exhibits have been
25 omitted herein to minimize volume and, as noted, to avoid disclosure of matter in
26 the confidential settlement agreement from May 2009.
27 24. In February of 2010, AICO and Acme entered into a second
28 confidential settlement agreement that on its face appeared to resolve the
6
1 differences between the parties. The settlement agreement was signed on behalf of
2 Acme by Defendant Chen, and Mr. Chen also signed the agreement in his personal
3 capacity. If need be, and upon appropriate court order, the terms of the settlement
4 agreement, though confidential, are incorporated herein by reference.
5 25. In addition to the settlement agreement, AICO and Acme also
6 submitted a Stipulation Permanent Injunction that was entered by the Court on
7 February 23, 2010 (Case No. 2:09-cv-7427-PA-AJW, Docket No. 26). In the
8 Stipulated Permanent Injunction entered by the Court, Acme was enjoined from,
Facsimile: (310) 394-4477
9 inter alia, selling furniture under the name “Monte Carlo” (or confusingly similar
10 names). A copy of the Permanent Injunction entered by the Court is attached hereto
11 as Exhibit 4.
CISLO & THOMAS LLP
12 26. In or about early 2018, it again came to AICO’s attention that Acme
Attorneys at Law
13 was again selling furniture under the name “Monte Carlo.” Such acts by Acme not
www.cislo.com
SUITE 1700
14 only constitute trademark infringement, but a breach of both of the previous

Telephone: (310) 979-9190
15 settlement agreements, and a violation of this Court’s Permanent Injunction.

16 27. In addition to Acme double recidivism with respect to infringing
17 AICO’s “Monte Carlo” trademark, AICO also recently learned that Acme was
18 selling a bed having a headboard substantially similar to AICO’s design patented
19 Overture headboard. See, Exhibit 3, attached hereto.
20 28. At the end of the day, at the behest of, and through the guidance and
21 misrepresentations of, Chen, and perhaps others who may be added to this
22 complaint via amendment should further investigation and discovery warrant, Acme
23 has continued to target AICO by selling furniture substantially similar in
24 appearance to AICO’s furniture designs, and by using at least one AICO trademarks
25 to sell Acme’s own furniture.
26 29. On information and belief, Acme is aware that AICO has prominently
27 used its “Monte Carlo” name and mark for years.
28 30. In addition, on information and belief, Acme has likely attended
7
1 numerous trade shows in common with AICO over the past several years. On
2 information and belief, Acme, through its officers (including Chen and others)
3 and/or its sales representatives, have visited AICO’s showrooms at these trade
4 shows and observed AICO’s furniture designs and trade names in connection with
5 its “Monte Carlo” and “Overture” collections.
6 31. Accordingly, and in light of Acme’s and Chen’s previous conduct with
7 respect to “Monte Carlo” (and other items in the past) it is believed that Acme
8 systematically targeted AICO to copy because of AICO’s acclaim and success in
Facsimile: (310) 394-4477
9 the industry, thus permitting Acme to profit from using AICO’s names and/or
10 designs at AICO’s expense in this judicial district and elsewhere by virtue of using
11 AICO’s carefully conceived names and branding to divert sales from AICO, to
CISLO & THOMAS LLP
12 Acme’s own benefit. On information and belief, this use and misuse of AICO’s
Attorneys at Law
13 designs and trademarks by Acme has been done, and is being done, under the
www.cislo.com
SUITE 1700
14 direction and control of Defendant Chen (and perhaps others).

Telephone: (310) 979-9190
15 32. Acme’s unauthorized use of AICO’s “Monte Carlo” trademark, or

16 mark confusingly similar thereto, and unauthorized copying of AICO’s Overture
17 headboard design, has caused Acme to garner substantial profits based on an
18 intentional, willful decision by Acme (through Defendant Chen and perhaps others)
19 to use such a name and design as a means of profit.
20 33. The foregoing demonstrates that Acme’s trademark infringement and
21 design patent infringement are willful and intentional; and, that Acme has breached
22 both settlement agreements between the parties as well as this Court’s Injunction
23 Order. Because the settlement agreements are confidential, they are not attached
24 hereto.
25 34. If warranted by additional investigation and discovery, AICO reserves
26 the right to amend this Complaint to allege additional violations and breaches.
27
28
8
1 COUNT I - FEDERAL COMMON LAW TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

2 15 U.S.C. § 1051, ET SEQ.
3 35. AICO hereby repeats and incorporates herein the allegations set forth
4 in paragraphs 1 through 34 above.
5 36. AICO was the owner of United States Trademark Registration No.
6 3,273,274 for “Monte Carlo Collection” (“Collection” has been disclaimed) in
7 International Class 20 for furniture. This registration recently lapsed (see, Exhibit
8 2, attached hereto), although AICO continues to use the MONTE CARLO name
Facsimile: (310) 394-4477
9 and mark in connection with its furniture products. Thus, AICO enjoys common
10 law rights in the MONTE CARLO mark throughout the United States (including
11 under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)) in connection with furniture products, and such rights
CISLO & THOMAS LLP
12 are senior and superior to any rights which Defendants may claim in and to their
Attorneys at Law
13 infringing mark.
www.cislo.com
SUITE 1700
14 37. Defendant Acme, at the direction, control, and behest of Defendant

Telephone: (310) 979-9190
15 Chen (and perhaps others), has again used in commerce the term “Monte Carlo,” as
16 a trademark in connection with its furniture in such a way as will likely cause
17 confusion or mistake, or will likely deceive the public in relation to Acme’s
18 products being associated or identified with or being the same as those of AICO.
19 As presently known, Defendants’ recent use of “Monte Carlo” in connection with
20 furniture appears to have taken place in 2017 and/or 2018.
21 38. Not only did AICO never consent to, or authorize, Defendant Acme’s
22 adoption or commercial use of the term “Monte Carlo” for sales of furniture, but
23 Acme and Chen have on several previous occasions agreed to cease all use of the
24 name “Monte Carlo” in connection with furniture. Furthermore, in 2010, this Court
25 previously enjoined Acme’s and Chen’s use of the name “Monte Carlo” in
26 connection with furniture. Defendant Acme (at the direction, control, and behest of
27 Defendant Chen and perhaps others) therefore has infringed AICO’s “Monte Carlo”
28 trademark in violation of AICO’s federal common law trademark rights under the
9
1 Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051, et seq., and possibly its registered rights as well,
2 before the registration lapsed.
3 39. AICO’s “Monte Carlo” trademark is very strong in light of at least
4 AICO’s long-term and continuous use of, and the substantial marketing and
5 promotion of, the “Monte Carlo” name in connection with furniture. Defendant
6 Acme’s use (at the direction, control, and behest of at least Chen) of the
7 confusingly similar and/or identical “Monte Carlo” mark in connection with
8 furniture thus creates a likelihood of confusion.
Facsimile: (310) 394-4477
9 40. At all times relevant to this action, including when Defendant Acme
10 (under the direction and control of at least Defendant Chen) re-adopted the “Monte
11 Carlo” mark, Defendants unequivocally knew of AICO’s prior adoption and
CISLO & THOMAS LLP
12 widespread commercial use of the “Monte Carlo” mark in connection with furniture
Attorneys at Law
13 products. In addition, Defendants had previously agreed on several occasions not

www.cislo.com
SUITE 1700
14 to use the “Monte Carlo” name and mark in connection with furniture, and were
Telephone: (310) 979-9190
15 even enjoined by this Court from doing so. Despite their agreement, and this
16 Court’s permanent injunction, Defendants brazenly violated this Court’s injunction
17 and breached two separate agreements with AICO in its use of the “Monte Carlo”
18 mark in connection with furniture. Accordingly, Defendants’ infringement of the
19 “Monte Carlo” mark is undeniably willful and deliberate.
20 41. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid acts of federal
21 common law (and possibly registered) trademark infringement, Defendants have
22 wrongfully and unjustly profited from AICO’s creativity and investment of time,
23 energy and money in connection with its marks. Defendants should therefore
24 disgorge all profits from the sale of their products under the “Monte Carlo” mark.
25 42. AICO has no control over the composition and quality of the goods
26 sold by Defendant Acme under the confusingly similar and/or identical “Monte
27 Carlo” mark by Defendant Acme. As a result, to the extent Defendant Acme’s
28 products and/or customer service are inferior to AICO’s, AICO’s valuable goodwill
10
1 developed at great expense and effort by AICO is being harmed by Defendants’

2 unauthorized use of the confusingly similar mark, and at risk of further damage.
3 43. The goodwill of AICO’s business under the “Monte Carlo” mark is of
4 enormous value, and AICO will suffer irreparable harm should Defendants’
5 infringement be allowed to continue to the great detriment of AICO’s reputation
6 and goodwill. Defendants’ infringement will continue unless again enjoined, and
7 also sanctioned by the Court for their brazen disregard of this Court’s injunction
8 entered in 2010.
Facsimile: (310) 394-4477
9
10 COUNT II – STATE COMMON LAW TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
CISLO & THOMAS LLP

Attorneys at Law
13
www.cislo.com
45. AICO owns and uses, and has since approximately 2001 used, the
SUITE 1700
14 MONTE CARLO mark and enjoys common law rights therein in California and
Telephone: (310) 979-9190
15 throughout the United States (including under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)) in connection

16 with furniture products and such rights are senior and superior to any rights which
17 Defendants may claim in and to their infringing marks.
18 46. Defendants’ use of the confusingly similar and/or identical “Monte
19 Carlo” mark in commerce is intentionally designed to mimic AICO’s trademark for
20 similar products so as to likely cause confusion and/or having already caused
21 confusion regarding the source of Defendant Acme’s products, in that purchasers
22 thereof will be likely to associate or have associated such products with, as
23 originating with, or as approved by AICO, all to the detriment of AICO.
24 47. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid acts of state common
25 law trademark infringement, Defendants have wrongfully and unjustly profited
26 from AICO’s creativity and investment of time, energy and money in connection
27 with its marks. Defendants should therefore disgorge all profits from the sale of
28 their products under the “Monte Carlo” mark.
11
1 48. Defendants’ infringement will continue unless again enjoined, and also
2 sanctioned by the Court for their brazen disregard of this Court’s injunction entered
3 in 2010.
4
5 COUNT III – BREACH OF 2009 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
8 50. AICO and Acme entered into a settlement agreement in May of 2009,
Facsimile: (310) 394-4477
9 the terms of which are confidential, but upon appropriate court order, are
10 incorporated herein by reference.
11 51. The settlement agreement was the product of significant negotiations
CISLO & THOMAS LLP
12 and consideration flowed to both AICO and Acme. The settlement agreement was
Attorneys at Law
13 signed on behalf of Acme by Defendant Chen.

www.cislo.com
As such, a valid contractual

SUITE 1700
14 arrangement exists between AICO and Acme.

Telephone: (310) 979-9190
15 52. AICO has fully performed all of its obligations under the settlement
16 agreement.
17 53. Acme has materially breached the settlement agreement by virtue of
18 the activities described herein.
19 54. As a direct result of Acme’s breach of the 2009 settlement agreement,
20 AICO has been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial, including with respect
21 to the terms of paragraph 7 of the settlement agreement, as well as an award of
22 attorneys’ fees and costs in bringing this claim.
23
24 COUNT IV – BREACH OF 2010 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
27 56. AICO and Acme, as well as Chen, entered into a settlement agreement
28 in February of 2010, the terms of which are confidential, but upon appropriate court
12
1 order, are incorporated herein by reference.

2 57. The settlement agreement was the product of significant negotiations
3 and consideration flowed to both AICO and Acme/Chen. The settlement agreement
4 was signed on behalf of Acme by Defendant Chen, and Chen also signed it in his
5 individual capacity. As such, a valid contractual arrangement exists between AICO
6 and Acme, as well as Chen.
7 58. AICO has fully performed all of its obligations under the settlement
8 agreement.
Facsimile: (310) 394-4477
9 59. Acme and Chen have materially breached the settlement agreement by
10 virtue of the activities described herein.
11 60. As a direct result of Acme’s breach of the 2010 settlement agreement
CISLO & THOMAS LLP
12 and injunction of this court, AICO has been damaged in an amount to be proven at
Attorneys at Law
13 trial, as well as an award of attorneys’ fees and costs in bringing this claim.
www.cislo.com
SUITE 1700
14
Telephone: (310) 979-9190
15 COUNT V – DESIGN PATENT INFRINGEMENT–

16 35 U.S.C. § 101 ET SEQ.
17 61. AICO repeats and alleges each and every allegation contained in
18 paragraphs 1 through 60 of this Complaint, and incorporates them herein.
19 62. AICO’s ‘630 Patent (see, Exhibit 3, attached hereto) has at all relevant
20 times subsequent to its issue date been fully enforceable and is now fully
21 enforceable.
22 63. Subsequent to the issuance of the ‘630 Patent, Defendants (at the
23 behest, instruction, and consent of Chen, perhaps among others) have infringed said
24 patent by making, using, importing, offering to sell, and/or selling, and continuing
25 to make, use, import, offer to sell and/or sell products that come within the scope of
26 the claim of the patent, and that come within a range of equivalents of the claim of
27 the patent, and/or contributing to the infringing activities of others. The accused
28 product was the headboard in what was previously referred to as Acme’s “Monte
13
1 Carlo” bedroom collection, but which was very recently changed to the “Lucca”
2 bedroom. See, Exhibit 5, attached hereto.
3 64. The making, using, importing, offering to sell, and/or selling of
4 infringing products by Defendants, and/or contributing to the infringing activities of
5 others, has been without authority or license from AICO and is in violation of
6 AICO’s rights, thereby infringing the ‘630 Patent.
7 65. For the reasons stated elsewhere herein, Defendants’ infringement of
8 AICO’s ‘630 Patent has been willful, with knowledge, and in disregard for the
Facsimile: (310) 394-4477
9 exclusive rights of AICO set forth in its patent set forth herein.
10 66. The amount of money damages which AICO has suffered due to
11 Defendants’ acts of infringement cannot be determined without an accounting of
CISLO & THOMAS LLP
12 Defendants’ profits, and it is thus subject to proof at trial.

Attorneys at Law
13
www.cislo.com
67. AICO is entitled to a complete accounting of all revenue and profits

SUITE 1700
14 derived by Defendants from the unlawful conduct alleged herein.

Telephone: (310) 979-9190
15 68. The harm to AICO arising from Defendants’ acts of infringement of

16 AICO’s ‘630 Patent is not fully compensable by money damages. Rather, AICO
17 has suffered and continues to suffer irreparable harm which has no adequate
18 remedy at law and which will continue unless Defendants’ conduct is enjoined.
19 69. AICO is therefore also entitled to a preliminary injunction, to be made
20 permanent on entry of the judgment, preventing Defendants from further acts of
21 infringement.
22
23 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
24 WHEREFORE, AICO demands judgment against Defendants, as follows:
25 A. For an order permanently enjoining Defendant Acme, and its officers,
26 directors, agents, servants, attorneys, and employees and all other persons acting in
27 concert with them, and Defendant James Chen from: (1) committing any further
28 acts of trademark infringement, including using the “Monte Carlo” name in
14
1 connection with any furniture or furniture-related products (such as bedding); (2)

2 using any term that is likely to be confused with the “Monte Carlo” mark asserted
3 herein in connection with any furniture products or furniture-related products (such
4 as bedding); (3) representing directly or indirectly in any form or manner
5 whatsoever that any product it offers for sale is associated with, affiliated with, or
6 approved by AICO when, in fact, it is not; (4) from committing any other acts
7 calculated to cause customers and prospective customers to believe that Defendant
8 Acme’s goods are AICO’s; and/or, (5) passing off or inducing or enabling others to
Facsimile: (310) 394-4477
9 sell or pass off any non-AICO product as an AICO product or as a product

10 endorsed or approved by AICO;
11 B. For an order permanently enjoining Defendant Acme, and its officers,
CISLO & THOMAS LLP
12 directors, agents, servants, attorneys, and employees and all other persons acting in
Attorneys at Law
13 concert with them, and Defendant James Chen from making, using, importing,
www.cislo.com
SUITE 1700
14 offering to sell, and/or selling its Monte Carlo/Lucca headboard, any other product
Telephone: (310) 979-9190
15 within the scope of AICO’s ‘630 Patent, and/or any colorably similar imitations
16 thereof;
17 C. For an order directing Defendants to file with this Court and to serve
18 on the Plaintiff within thirty (30) days after service on Defendants of the
19 injunction(s) granted herein, or such extended period as the Court may direct, a
20 report in writing, under oath, setting forth in detail the manner and form in which
21 Defendants have complied with the injunction and order of the Court;
22 D. For an order seizing and impounding all accused products;
23 E. For an order finding Defendants in contempt of this Court’s prior
24 permanent injunction in regards to the MONTE CARLO trademark;
25 F. For a judgment to be entered for AICO against Defendants in an
26 amount equal to the profits Defendants made in connection with their sales of
27 products that infringe the ‘630 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 289 to be proven at
28 trial;
15
1 G. For a judgment to be entered for AICO against Defendants for breach

2 of the aforementioned settlement agreement, accounting of sales for damages
3 calculation, including payment by Defendants to AICO of AICO’s attorneys’ fees
4 and costs in connection with the breach of settlement claims;
5 H. For a judgment that Defendants have willfully and deliberately
6 infringed AICO’s trademark and patent rights, such that AICO is entitled to a
7 determination that this is an exceptional case under the Lanham Act and Patent Act,
8 entitling AICO to an award of attorneys’ fees under both the Lanham Act and
Facsimile: (310) 394-4477
9 Patent Act;
10 I. For a judgment awarding to AICO prejudgment and postjudgment
11 interest until the award is fully paid; and,
CISLO & THOMAS LLP
12 J. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and
Attorneys at Law
13 equitable under the circumstances.

www.cislo.com
SUITE 1700
14
Respectfully submitted:
Telephone: (310) 979-9190
15
16 CISLO & THOMAS LLP
17 Dated: April 30, 2018 By: s/Donald M. Cislo
18 Donald M. Cislo, Esq.
Daniel M. Cislo, Esq.
19 Mark D. Nielsen, Esq.
20
Attorneys for Plaintiff, AMINI
21
INNOVATION CORPORATION
22 \\Srv-db\tmdocs\09-22314\Complaint - Acme II.doc
23
24
25
26
27
28
16
1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff AICO hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues raised by the
2
Complaint.
3
4
Respectfully submitted:
5
6 CISLO & THOMAS LLP
7 Dated: April 30, 2018 By: s/Donald M. Cislo
8 Donald M. Cislo, Esq.
Daniel M. Cislo, Esq.
Facsimile: (310) 394-4477
9 Mark D. Nielsen, Esq.

10
Attorneys for Plaintiff, AMINI
11
INNOVATION CORPORATION
CISLO & THOMAS LLP
12
\\Srv-db\tmdocs\09-22314\Complaint - Acme II.doc

Attorneys at Law
13
www.cislo.com
SUITE 1700
14
Telephone: (310) 979-9190
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17
Case 2:18-cv-03626 Document 1-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 1 of 28 Page ID #:18
Exhibit 1

Amini Innovation v. Acme Furniture - 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

Amini Innovation v. Acme Furniture - Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:18-cv-03626 Document 1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 1 of 17 Page ID #:1

1 Donald M. Cislo, Esq., No. 49,203

a California corporation having a business address of Acme Furniture Industries,

Inc., 18895 East Arenth Avenue, City of Industry, California 91748.

3. Defendant James Chen (“Chen”) is an individual believed to reside in

1 acts referenced herein.

12 above-referenced furniture by virtue of AICO’s continuous use in commerce

15 MONTE CARLO mark in connection with furniture.

1 History Between AICO and Acme and Acme’s Previous Transgressions

12 confidential, are incorporated herein by reference, including paragraph 7 therein.

18. In early September of 2009, in determining whether Acme (based on

1 20. In response, on or about September 18, 2009, Acme (through counsel)

14 22. In an e-mail response dated October 7, 2009, counsel for Acme

14 only constitute trademark infringement, but a breach of both of the previous

15 settlement agreements, and a violation of this Court’s Permanent Injunction.

14 direction and control of Defendant Chen (and perhaps others).

15 32. Acme’s unauthorized use of AICO’s “Monte Carlo” trademark, or

1 COUNT I - FEDERAL COMMON LAW TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

14 37. Defendant Acme, at the direction, control, and behest of Defendant

13 products. In addition, Defendants had previously agreed on several occasions not

1 developed at great expense and effort by AICO is being harmed by Defendants’

12 in paragraphs 1 through 43 above.

15 throughout the United States (including under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)) in connection

13 signed on behalf of Acme by Defendant Chen.

As such, a valid contractual

14 arrangement exists between AICO and Acme.

1 order, are incorporated herein by reference.

15 COUNT V – DESIGN PATENT INFRINGEMENT–

12 Defendants’ profits, and it is thus subject to proof at trial.

67. AICO is entitled to a complete accounting of all revenue and profits

14 derived by Defendants from the unlawful conduct alleged herein.

15 68. The harm to AICO arising from Defendants’ acts of infringement of

1 connection with any furniture or furniture-related products (such as bedding); (2)

9 sell or pass off any non-AICO product as an AICO product or as a product

1 G. For a judgment to be entered for AICO against Defendants for breach

13 equitable under the circumstances.

1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

9 Mark D. Nielsen, Esq.

\\Srv-db\tmdocs\09-22314\Complaint - Acme II.doc

You might also like