Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Hanesbrands v. Lululemon Athletica Canada

Hanesbrands v. Lululemon Athletica Canada

Ratings: (0)|Views: 56|Likes:
Published by PriorSmart
Official Complaint for Declaratory Judgement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01024-CCE-JLW: Hanesbrands Inc. v. Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, the Hon. CATHERINE C. EAGLES presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l9va for more info.
Official Complaint for Declaratory Judgement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01024-CCE-JLW: Hanesbrands Inc. v. Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, the Hon. CATHERINE C. EAGLES presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l9va for more info.

More info:

Published by: PriorSmart on Nov 17, 2013
Copyright:Public Domain

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/16/2013

pdf

text

original

 
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTMIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
HANESBRANDS INC.,Plaintiff,v.LULULEMON ATHLETICACANADA INC.,Defendant. _______________________________ ))))))))))Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-1024
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYJUDGMENT
JURY TRIAL DEMANDEDThrough counsel, Plaintiff Hanesbrands Inc. (“HBI” or “Plaintiff”) brings thislawsuit against Defendant lululemon athletica canada inc. (“lululemon” or “Defendant”),and alleges as follows:
THE PARTIES
1. HBI is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Marylandwith its principal place of business at 1000 East Hanes Mill Road, Winston-Salem, NorthCarolina, 27105. HBI sells branded apparel products such as T-shirts, bras, panties,men’s underwear, kids’ underwear, socks, hosiery, casualwear, and activewear, includingtank tops that incorporate an attached bra. HBI does business in the state of NorthCarolina and this judicial district.2. Upon information and belief, lululemon is a corporation organized under the laws of the Province of British Columbia, with its principal place of business at 400 – 1818 Cornwall Ave, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6J 1C7. Upon further information
 
2
and belief, lululemon does business in the state of North Carolina and this judicialdistrict.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. HBI brings its claims pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, codified at28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, and pursuant to the patent laws of the United States,including, but not limited to, 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 281, 284, and 285.4. Subject matter jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and1338(a).5. Upon information and belief, this Court has personal jurisdiction ovelululemon under at least N.C. G
EN
. S
TAT
. §1-75.4, as lululemon has sufficient contactswith North Carolina under the parameters of that statute. Upon information and belief,lululemon has purposefully advertised, sold, and distributed its products to customers in North Carolina and in this judicial district through retail stores, including one such retailstore located in Greensboro, North Carolina, as well as through its interactive website.Upon further information and belief, lululemon has also advertised, sold and distributedits products into the stream of commerce in the United States with the reasonable belief and expectation that such products would periodically flow into North Carolina and intothis judicial district.6. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, the United States District Court for theMiddle District of North Carolina is the appropriate venue for this action, as lululemon issubject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court, and, upon information and belief, a
 
3
substantial portion of the acts giving rise to the claims at issue in this litigation occurredin this district.
LULULEMON’S CLAIM THAT HBI AND TARGETINFRINGE THE ‘665 DESIGN PATENT
7. lululemon claims to be the sole owner of United States Design Patent No.D654,665S (the “‘665 Design Patent”).8. On October 30, 2013, lululemon sent a letter to HBI and its customer,Target, accusing them of making and selling tank tops (the “Accused Products”) thatinfringe the ‘665 Design Patent. Among other things, lululemon’s letter demanded thatHBI and Target: (a) immediately cease and desist manufacturing, importing, advertising,selling or distributing the Accused Products or any products similar thereto; (b) providenumerous representations and warranties confirming that all such activities had ceasedand would not recommence; (c) agree to a press release stating that HBI and Target haveinfringed the ‘665 Design Patent and would no longer be manufacturing and selling theAccused Products; (d) produce extensive documentation relating to the design,manufacturing, sales and inventory of the Accused Products; and (e) enter into a formalagreements stipulating to pay lululemon liquidated damages of $50 per garment for anyfuture sales of any allegedly infringing garments. (Ex. A, October 30, 2013 Letter fromlululemon).9. On behalf of itself and Target, HBI responded to lululemon’s cease anddesist letter on November 15, 2013, by, among other things, denying that the AccusedProducts infringe the ‘665 Design Patent, and conveying HBI’s intention to proceed with

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->