Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
BDI v. Walgreens - Complaint

BDI v. Walgreens - Complaint

Ratings: (0)|Views: 6 |Likes:
Published by slburstein
BDI v. Walgreens - Complaint
BDI v. Walgreens - Complaint

More info:

Published by: slburstein on Dec 01, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

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

07/23/2014

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION
 BUYER’S DIRECT INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. ) WALGREEN CO., ) Plaintiff Demands Trial by Jury ) Defendant. ) )
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Buyer’s Direct Inc. (“BDI”) brings this action against Walgreen Co. (“Walgreens” or “Defendant”) for infringing BDI’s design patent and misappropriating snoozies!
®
 trade dress, causing consumer confusion, and engaging in unfair competition. Because Defendant sold or offered for sale products infringing BDI’s patent, copied its trade dress, confused consumers and engaged in unfair competition (and continues to do so), BDI seeks damages, an accounting, the imposition of a constructive trust upon Defendant’s illegal  profits and injunctive relief.
 THE PARTIES
1.
 
BDI is a North Carolina corporation with its principal place of business in Wilson, North Carolina. 2.
 
Walgreens is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business and principal office at 300 Wilmot Road MS #3301, Deerfield, IL 60015, and may be served with  process through its registered agent, Corporation Service Company, 327 Hillsborough St., Raleigh, NC 27603.
5:13-cv-819
Case 5:13-cv-00819-FL Document 1 Filed 11/26/13 Page 1 of 12
 
2
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3.
 
This is an action for design patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271, trade dress infringement and unfair competition under § 43(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946, as amended (the “Lanham Act”), and unfair competition under North Carolina statutory and common law. 4.
 
This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338, and 15 U.S.C. § 1121. Because the state law claims are so related to BDI’s claims under federal law that they form part of the same case or controversy and derive from a common nucleus of operational facts, this Court has supplemental  jurisdiction over BDI’s claims based on state law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 5.
 
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Walgreens because it (a) has sold infringing  products and committed unfair competition in the state of North Carolina, within the Eastern District of North Carolina; (b) has purposefully directed its activities toward the state of North Carolina; and (c) has established systematic and continuous contacts with the state of North Carolina, including maintaining retail stores in the Eastern District of  North Carolina. 6.
 
Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400 because Walgreens has sold and offered to sell infringing products in this District, and Walgreens has a sufficient connection with the Eastern District of North Carolina to make venue  proper in this District, all as alleged in this Complaint.
BACKGROUND
7.
 
BDI is a supplier of retail products, including the patented foot-covering known as “snoozies!
®
” in the United States and in particular, North Carolina. BDI has achieved
Case 5:13-cv-00819-FL Document 1 Filed 11/26/13 Page 2 of 12
 
3 market success for snoozies!
®
 because of the distinctive and unique design of the snoozies!
®
 product. 8.
 
Since the fall of 2008, snoozies!
®
 have been offered for sale in many retail outlets and specialty retailers throughout North Carolina and in a number of different states. 9.
 
BDI has promoted and advertised snoozies!
®
 products in various trade publications and at trade shows that publicize and promote the sale of such retail soft goods. 10.
 
On August 18, 2009, United States Design Patent No. D598,183 (the “’183 Patent”), directed to the ornamental appearance of a slipper, was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ’183 Patent is attached as Exhibit A. 11.
 
On December 22, 2009, Marshall P. Bank, the sole inventor of the ’183 Patent, assigned all rights in the ’183 Patent to BDI. Since that date, BDI has been, and still is, the owner of the ’183 Patent. 12.
 
BDI is the exclusive authorized manufacturer and distributor of products embodying the design of the ’183 Patent in the retail market in the United States.
BDI’S CONTACT WITH WALGREENS AND WALGREENS’ INFRINGEMENT
 13.
 
In September of 2011, representatives from Walgreens and BDI began communicating about selling snoozies!
®
 in Walgreens stores. 14.
 
At that time, BDI provided Walgreens with written notice that BDI is the owner of the ’183 Patent and that the ’183 Patent covers the snoozies!
®
 line of products. 15.
 
In January of 2012, representatives from BDI and Walgreens engaged in further discussions regarding the sale of snoozies!
®
in Walgreens stores. In addition, BDI
Case 5:13-cv-00819-FL Document 1 Filed 11/26/13 Page 3 of 12

You're Reading a Free Preview

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