AGL v. Lsil - Complaint

Case 2:15-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 03/23/15 Page 1 of 43 Page ID #:1
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP

Jeffrey K. Joyner (SBN 180485) (joynerj@gtlaw.com)
2 Jeffrey F. Yee (SBN 193123) (yeej@gtlaw.com)
1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
3 Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: (310) 586-7700
4 Facsimile: (310) 586-7800
1
Attorneys for Plaintiff

6 ATTILIO GIUSTI LEOMBRUNI S.p.A.
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
WESTERN DIVISION
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
ATTILIO GIUSTI LEOMBRUNI S.p.A.,

an Italian Societ per Azioni,
vs.
Plaintiff,
Lsil & Co., Inc., a New York corporation;

and Lori Silverman, an individual,
Defendants.
CASE No.:
2:15-cv-2128
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY

JUDGMENT AND DAMAGES
(1) Declaratory Judgment of NonInfringement
(2) Tortious Interference of
Contractual Relationship
(3) Unfair Competition under
California Business and
Professions Code 17200, et seq.
(4) Common Law Unfair
Competition
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND DAMAGES
Plaintiff Attilio Guisti Leombruni S.p.A. (AGL), by its undersigned counsel,
2 hereby brings the following complaint for declaratory judgment and damages against Lsil
3 & Co., Inc. (Lsil) and Lori Silverman (Silverman) (collectively Defendants) and
4 avers as follows:
NATURE OF THIS ACTION
5
6
1.
This is an action for declaratory judgment of non-infringement of
7 Defendants trademarks, including U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,362,523, and for
8 damages sustained by AGL resulting from Defendants tortious interference of AGLs
9 contractual relationship with its clients.
THE PARTIES
10
11
2.
AGL is an Italian Societ per Azioni located at Via Bettino Craxi 1, 63812
12 Montegranaro (FM), Italy.

13
3.
On information and belief, defendant Lsil is a New York corporation located
14 at 2 Greene Lane, White Plains, New York 10605.

15
4.
On information and belief, defendant Silverman is an individual residing in
16 the state of New York. On information and belief, defendant Silverman is the founder
17 and president of Lsil & Co., Inc.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
18
19
5.
This action arises under the Lanham Act of 1946. This Court has subject
20 matter jurisdiction over the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331and 1367(a) based on an
21 actual controversy between AGL and Defendants for claims under the Lanham Act of
22 1946, 15 U.S.C. 1051, et seq. AGL is seeking declaratory relief of non-infringement
23 pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202.
24
6.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims set forth in this
25 Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1367(a), and 15 U.S.C. 1121.

26
7.
Venue in this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)-(c).
27
8.
The Court has personal jurisdiction over Lsil because, on information and
28 belief, Lsils website at www.lsilandco.com regularly and systematically conducts

2
1 business in this judicial district by offering its product showroom through ShopTheFloor
2 located at www.shopthefloor.com, which is operated by Lsils representative
3 ShopTheFloor (also known as MagicOnline). ShopTheFloors corporate office is located
4 in this judicial district at 2501 Colorado Avenue, Suite 280, Santa Monica, California
5 90404.
6
9.
The Court has personal jurisdiction over Silverman because, on information
7 and belief, Silverman, as the president of Lsil, regularly and systematically directs and
8 manages Lsils business activities in this judicial district through Lsils representative
9 ShopTheFloor (also known as MagicOnline) located at 2501 Colorado Avenue, Suite
10 280, Santa Monica, California 90404.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
11
12
10.
AGL is a well-established footwear company with over 50 years of history
13 in creating footwear. Softness and the attention for a comfortable fit are the priorities for
14 every AGL footwear creation over the last 50 years.
15
11.
On information and belief, Silverman founded Lsil in 2012, which engages
16 in the business of footwear design. Lsils footwear make use of the most popular,
17 timeless patterns that have been fashionable for decades such as paisley, glen plaid,
18 zebra, polka dot, checkers and camouflage.
19
LSILS UNLAWFUL CONDUCT BY THREATENING AGLS CLIENTS
20
12.
On or about March 11, 2015, Defendants, through their counsel Maxim H.
21 Waldbaum of Eaton & Van Winkle LLP, sent a demand letter to AGL (AGL Demand
22 Letter, Exhibit A) alleging that AGLs Double Sole Oxford (offered for sale through
23 Nordstrom) and Lace Up Oxford Flats (offered for sale through Bloomingdales/Macys)
24 (collectively Accused Products) infringe Defendants allegedly protected CAMO
25 design sole. Defendants claimed that Silverman developed a complete line of protected
26 shoe sole designs and [n]o one but Ms. Silverman has any rights to these concepts,
27 designs and structures.
28
3
13.
Defendants set out in the AGL Demand Letter a list of Defendants U.S.
2 trademarks, U.S. design patents, pending U.S. design patent applications, and European
3 design patents. Upon information and belief, Defendants asserted that AGL allegedly
4 infringed U.S. patent applications and European design patents in the United States
5 knowing that neither the U.S. patent applications nor the European patents constitute
6 enforceable patent rights in the United States.
7
14.
Lsils assertions in the AGL Demand Letter were vague and ambiguous and
8 failed to identify any specific U.S. trademark registration or U.S. design patent that
9 provides any bases for its assertion that AGL has allegedly infringed such trademark or
10 patent.
11
15.
Defendants demanded AGL and its clients, including Nordstrom and
12 Bloomingdales, immediately discontinue selling the Accused Products. Defendants

13 further threatened to move for an injunction in the Federal Court against AGL and its
14 clients.
15
16.
In addition to the AGL Demand Letter, Defendants also sent a demand letter
16 dated March 11, 2015 to Bloomingdales (Bloomingdale Demand Letter, Exhibit B)

17 demanding Bloomingdales discontinue selling AGLs Lace Up Oxford Flats.
18 Defendants alleged that AGLs Lace Up Oxford Flats use s the concept, designs,
19 structure and exclusivity of Ms. Silverman and Ms. Silverman has vigorously marketed
20 her product in the United States so that her designs are distinctive to her. Defendants
21 reiterated in the Bloomindale Demand Letter that the rights Defendants were asserting
22 against AGL and Bloomingdales in the United States are all filings including the U.S.
23 design patent applications and the European patents. Defendants asserted in the
24 Bloomingdale Demand Letter that all filings include U.S. Trademark Registration No.
25 4,362,523. Defendants demanded in the Bloomingdale Demand Letter that unless your
26 continued selling of this shoe design in all your markets in catalogs and on the websites is
27 stopped immediately, an action will be brought in Court in the next 10 days.
28
4
17.
Defendant sent a similar demand letter dated March 11, 2015 to Nordstrom
2 (Nordstrom Demand Letter, Exhibit C) demanding Nordstrom discontinue selling

3 AGLs Double Sole Oxford. Defendants specifically identified U.S. Trademark
4 Registration No. 4,362,523 as being infringed.
5
18.
After receiving the Nordstrom Demand Letter, Nordstrom informed AGL
6 that Nordstrom, in response to the Nordstrom Demand Letter, decided to unpublish

7 AGLs Double Sole Oxford from its website at Nordstrom.com.
8
THE USPTO FOUND THAT THE CAMOUFLAGE DESIGN DOES NOT
FUNCTION AS A TRADEMARK TO INDICATE THE SOURCE OF
10
DEFENDANTS GOODS
11
19.
On information and belief, U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,362,523 was
12 registered on July 2, 2013 on the Supplemental Register, which consists of a camouflage

13 design on the outside of a high heeled shoe (Camouflage Design).
14
20.
On information and belief, Defendants initially filed the trademark
15 application for the Camouflage Design seeking registration on the Principal Register.
16 The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), however, issued a final
17 refusal to Defendants application because the proposed Camouflage Design is merely a
18 decorative or ornamental feature of the goods and it does not function as a trademark to
19 identify and distinguish applicants goods from those of others and to indicate the source
20 of applicants goods.
21
21.
After the USPTOs final refusal, Defendant amended to register the
22 Camouflage Design on the Supplemental Register.

23
COUNT ONE
24
(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of The Camouflage Design)
25
22.
AGL repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in
26 paragraphs 1-21 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

27
28
5
23.
An actual and justiciable case or controversy exists between AGL and
2 Defendants regarding the alleged infringement of the Camouflage Design by the Accused
3 Products.
4
24.
The Accused Products do not infringe the Camouflage Design because the
5 Camouflage Design is merely decorative or ornamental and does not function as a

6 trademark to identify and distinguish Defendants goods from those of others (including
7 the Accused Products) and to indicate the source of Defendants goods.
8
25.
The Accused Products do not infringe the Camouflage Design because
9 Defendants falsely claim protectable trademark right to the Camouflage Design.

10
26.
AGL is entitled to a judgment declaring that the Accused Products do not,
11 and will not infringe the Camouflage Design; and because the Camouflage Design does
12 not function as a trademark, U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,362,523 should be
13 cancelled pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1119.
14
COUNT TWO
15
(Tortious Interference of Contractual Relationship)
16
27.

18
28.
Defendants knew the existence of a contractual/beneficial relationship
19 between AGL and its clients, including Nordstrom and Bloomingdales/Macys.

20
29.
Defendants intend to induce AGLs clients to breach their
21 contractual/beneficial relationship with AGL by falsely claiming infringement by the

22 Accused Products, inducing AGLs clients to discontinue selling AGLs products, as
23 evidenced by the Nordstrom Demand Letter and Bloomingdale Demand Letter. Indeed,
24 Nordstrom has discontinued selling the Accused Products in response to the Nordstrom
25 Demand Letter.
26
30.
As a result of Defendants statements to AGLs clients, AGL suffered and is
27 suffering damages including harm to its reputation, loss of sales and related expenses in
28 an amount to be determined at trial.
6
31.
Because Defendants statements were willful, fraudulent, and malicious,
2 AGL is entitled to punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

3
32.
Defendants conduct has injured AGL and, unless enjoined, will continue to
4 cause great, immediate, and irreparable injury to AGL.

5
33.
AGL is therefore entitled to injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from
6 claiming the Camouflage Design as trademark and making statements that are fraudulent,
7 malicious, misleading, or deceptive to any of AGLs clients.
8
COUNT THREE
(Unfair Competition Under California Business and
10
Professions Code 17200, et seq.)
11
34.

13
35.
Defendants knew the Camouflage Design does not function as a trademark
14 and has been finally rejected by the USPTO for registration on the Principle Register, yet
15 Defendants have knowingly and intentionally claimed protectable trademark rights to the
16 Camouflage Design to hamper competition.
17
36.
The aforesaid acts by Defendants are unlawful and are likely to cause injury
18 to AGLs reputation and result in Defendants unfairly competing with AGL in violation
19 of California Business and Professions Code 17200, et seq. (Californias Unfair
20 Competition Law, the UCL)
21
37.
Defendants conduct has injured AGL and, unless enjoined, will continue to
22 cause great, immediate, and irreparable injury to AGL.

23
38.
AGL is therefore entitled to injunctive relief and an order for restitutionary
24 disgorgement of all of Defendants ill-gotten gains pursuant to California Business and

25 Professions Code 17203.
26
27
28
7
COUNT FOUR
(Common Law Unfair Competition)
39.

5
40.
The aforesaid acts by Defendants are unlawful and likely to cause injury to
6 AGLs reputation and constitute unfair competition under the common law of the State of
7 California.
8
41.
Defendants acts have caused damage to AGLs goodwill and reputation and
9 has caused pecuniary damage to AGL in an amount to be proven at trial

10
42.
The aforesaid acts were done in an intentional, malicious, and oppressive
11 manner. Accordingly, AGL is entitled to punitive damages in an amount to be

12 determined at trial.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
13
WHEREFORE, AGL prays for judgment as follows:
14
15
A.
That judgment be entered in favor of AGL.
16
B.
Declaring that the Accused Products do not infringe and will not infringe
17 Defendants Camouflage Design (U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,362,523).

18
C.
Declaring that the Camouflage Design cannot function as trademark and its
19 U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,362,523 be cancelled pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1119.

20
D.
Immediately and permanently enjoining Defendants, their officers, directors,
21 agents, servants, employees, representatives, attorneys, related companies, successors,

22 assigns, and all others in active concert or participation with them from claiming the
23 Camouflage Design as trademark and making statements that are fraudulent, malicious,
24 misleading, or deceptive to any of AGLs clients.
25
E.
Immediately and permanently enjoining Defendants, their officers, directors,
26 agents, servants, employees, representatives, attorneys, related companies, successors,

27 assigns, and all others in active concert or participation with them from contacting AGLs
28 clients, and ordering Defendants to retract all prior demands that AGLs clients.
8
F.
Awarding AGL damages adequate to compensate for lost profits and
2 reputation damage caused by Defendants tortious interference with

3 contractual/beneficial relationship and unfair competition.
4
G.
Awarding AGL costs and attorneys fees;
H.
Awarding AGL pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on any monetary
6 awards;
7
I.
Awarding AGL punitive damages; and
J.
Granting AGL any other and further relief as the Court deems just and
9 proper.
10
11
12

Jeffrey K. Joyner
Jeffrey F. Yee
DATED: March 23, 2015
13
14
15
16
17
By:
/s/ Jeffrey F. Yee

Jeffrey F. Yee
ATTILIO GIUSTI LEOMBRUNI S.p.A.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
1
2
3
4
5
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to Rule 38(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., Plaintiff ATTILIO GIUSTI LEOMBRUNI
S.p.A. demands a trial by jury of any issue triable by a jury.
Jeffrey K. Joyner
Jeffrey F. Yee
DATED: March 23, 2015
6
7
8
9
By:
/s/ Jeffrey F. Yee

Jeffrey F. Yee
ATTILIO GIUSTI LEOMBRUNI S.p.A.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C

AGL v. Lsil - Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AGL v. Lsil - 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

AGL v. Lsil - Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:15-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 03/23/15 Page 1 of 43 Page ID #:1

GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ATTILIO GIUSTI LEOMBRUNI S.p.A.,

Lsil & Co., Inc., a New York corporation;

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY

Case 2:15-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 03/23/15 Page 2 of 43 Page ID #:2

Plaintiff Attilio Guisti Leombruni S.p.A. (AGL), by its undersigned counsel,

NATURE OF THIS ACTION

This is an action for declaratory judgment of non-infringement of

12 Montegranaro (FM), Italy.

On information and belief, defendant Lsil is a New York corporation located

14 at 2 Greene Lane, White Plains, New York 10605.

On information and belief, defendant Silverman is an individual residing in

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

25 Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1367(a), and 15 U.S.C. 1121.

Venue in this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)-(c).

28 belief, Lsils website at www.lsilandco.com regularly and systematically conducts

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND DAMAGES

Case 2:15-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 03/23/15 Page 3 of 43 Page ID #:3

The Court has personal jurisdiction over Silverman because, on information

AGL is a well-established footwear company with over 50 years of history

On information and belief, Silverman founded Lsil in 2012, which engages

LSILS UNLAWFUL CONDUCT BY THREATENING AGLS CLIENTS

On or about March 11, 2015, Defendants, through their counsel Maxim H.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND DAMAGES

Case 2:15-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 03/23/15 Page 4 of 43 Page ID #:4

Defendants demanded AGL and its clients, including Nordstrom and

12 Bloomingdales, immediately discontinue selling the Accused Products. Defendants

16 dated March 11, 2015 to Bloomingdales (Bloomingdale Demand Letter, Exhibit B)

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND DAMAGES

Case 2:15-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 03/23/15 Page 5 of 43 Page ID #:5

2 (Nordstrom Demand Letter, Exhibit C) demanding Nordstrom discontinue selling

After receiving the Nordstrom Demand Letter, Nordstrom informed AGL

6 that Nordstrom, in response to the Nordstrom Demand Letter, decided to unpublish

THE USPTO FOUND THAT THE CAMOUFLAGE DESIGN DOES NOT

FUNCTION AS A TRADEMARK TO INDICATE THE SOURCE OF

On information and belief, U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,362,523 was

12 registered on July 2, 2013 on the Supplemental Register, which consists of a camouflage

On information and belief, Defendants initially filed the trademark

After the USPTOs final refusal, Defendant amended to register the

22 Camouflage Design on the Supplemental Register.

(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of The Camouflage Design)

AGL repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in

26 paragraphs 1-21 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND DAMAGES

Case 2:15-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 03/23/15 Page 6 of 43 Page ID #:6

An actual and justiciable case or controversy exists between AGL and

5 Camouflage Design is merely decorative or ornamental and does not function as a

The Accused Products do not infringe the Camouflage Design because

9 Defendants falsely claim protectable trademark right to the Camouflage Design.

AGL is entitled to a judgment declaring that the Accused Products do not,

(Tortious Interference of Contractual Relationship)

AGL repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in

17 paragraphs 1-26 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

Defendants knew the existence of a contractual/beneficial relationship

19 between AGL and its clients, including Nordstrom and Bloomingdales/Macys.

Defendants intend to induce AGLs clients to breach their