You are on page 1of 10

Case 3:15-cv-02030-JE

Document 1

Filed 10/28/15

Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
VERSATOP SUPPORT SYSTEMS, LLC
Plaintiff;
vs.
GEORGIA EXPO, INC. and
TOPFINGER EQUIPMENT (SHENZHEN)
CO., LTD.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.:______________________________
COMPLAINT FOR
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT AND
FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff, VersaTop Support Systems, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “VersaTop”), for its
complaint against Georgia Expo, Inc. (“Georgia Expo”) and Topfinger Equipment (Shenzhen) Co.,
Ltd. (“Topfinger”)(collectively, “Defendants”), states as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1.

This action is based upon copyright infringement and trademark infringement.
THE PARTIES

2.

Plaintiff VersaTop Support Systems, LLC is an Oregon corporation having its principal

place of business at 12801 NE Airport Way, Portland, Oregon 97230.
3.

Plaintiff designs, manufactures, and distributes proprietary support structures for displays

that are used at trade shows, entertainment, educational, political and promotional events (“the
Proprietary Support Structures”).
4.

Upon information and belief, defendant Georgia Expo is a Georgia Corporation having its

principal place of business at 4825 Kettle River Point, Suwanee, Georgia, 30024.
Page 1 -

Complaint for Copyright Infringement and False Designation of Origin

Case 3:15-cv-02030-JE

5.

Document 1

Filed 10/28/15

Page 2 of 10

Upon information and belief, defendant Georgia Expo imports and offers for sale in the

United States unauthorized copies of the Proprietary Support Structures.
6.

Upon information and belief, defendant Topfinger is a Chinese company having its

principal place of business at Room B304c, Building 1, Tian'an Cyber Park, Shenzhen,
Guangdong, China.
7.

Upon information and belief, defendant Topfinger distributes and offers for sale or import

unauthorized copies of the Proprietary Support Structures.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8.

This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338

because there are Federal questions arising under the copyright and trademark laws of the United
States.
9.

This Court also has personal jurisdiction over Defendants and venue is proper under at least

28 U.S.C. § 1391(c).
BACKGROUND
10.

For over five years, VersaTop has designed, manufactured and offered for sale the

Proprietary Support Structures. Those Structures include ball and crown couplers that each can be
inserted into the ends of poles, with the ball coupler constructed to be inserted into one of several
sockets formed in a crown coupler. Attached as Exhibits A and B are true and correct examples
of the Proprietary Support Structures, which VersaTop markets and sells under its trademarks
2.0™ and PIPE & DRAPE 2.0™.
11.

VersaTop first introduced the Proprietary Support Structures in June, 2010, has sold them

in interstate commerce since at least as early as April 28, 2011, both times long prior to

Page 2 -

Complaint for Copyright Infringement and False Designation of Origin

Case 3:15-cv-02030-JE

Document 1

Filed 10/28/15

Page 3 of 10

Defendants’ alleged acts, and has advertised and sold the Proprietary Support Structures in ever
increasing volumes throughout the United States and foreign countries since that time.
12.

VersaTop sells the Proprietary Support Structures (also referred to as “Products”) under

VersaTop’s trademarks 2.0™ and PIPE & DRAPE 2.0™, and has used those marks in interstate
commerce since April 28, 2011.
13.

Prior to the alleged acts of defendants, and as a result of advertising, widespread sales, care

and skill exercised by VersaTop in the manufacture of its 2.0™ and PIPE & DRAPE 2.0™ Products,
and the uniform high quality of the Products sold, and the public's acceptance thereof, VersaTop’s
Products have acquired an excellent reputation symbolizing valuable goodwill.
14.

On Oct. 26, 2015, VersaTop filed applications with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

to register the trademarks 2.0™ and PIPE & DRAPE 2.0™ on the Principal Register. Attached as
Exhibits C and D are true and correct copies of those U.S. Trademark Application Serial Nos.
86799997 and 86799998, respectively .
15.

On Oct. 26, 2015, VersaTop also filed an application for copyright registration of a

sculptural work entitled Ball Coupler. Attached as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of that
application, U.S. Copyright Registration Application Serial No. 1-2825060646.
16.

On Oct. 26, 2015, VersaTop also filed an application for copyright registration of a

sculptural work entitled Crown Coupler. Attached as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of that
application, U.S. Copyright Registration Application Serial No. 1-2812056811.
17.

On September 28, 2015, VersaTop personnel received a customer-inquiry email, a true and

correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit G. That email included an advertisement of Defendant
Georgia Expo stating it would be offering for sale in 2016, unauthorized copies of VersaTop’s
2.0™ and PIPE & DRAPE 2.0™ Products.

Page 3 -

Complaint for Copyright Infringement and False Designation of Origin

Case 3:15-cv-02030-JE

18.

Document 1

Filed 10/28/15

Page 4 of 10

On information and belief, Defendant Georgia Expo has advertised products labeled with

VersaTop’s trademarks 2.0™ and PIPE & DRAPE 2.0™. Attached as Exhibit H, is a true and
correct copy of a representative example of a Georgia Expo advertisement.
19.

Defendant Georgia Expo is not licensed to use VersaTop’s 2.0™ and PIPE & DRAPE 2.0™

trademarks, nor to use VersaTop’s Products.
20.

Defendant Georgia Expo is not licensed to sell VersaTop’s 2.0™ and PIPE & DRAPE 2.0™

trademarks, nor to sell VersaTop’s Products.
21.

Defendant Topfinger is not licensed to use VersaTop’s 2.0™ and PIPE & DRAPE 2.0™

trademarks, nor to use VersaTop’s Products.
22.

Defendant Topfinger is not licensed to sell VersaTop’s 2.0™ and PIPE & DRAPE 2.0™

trademarks, nor to sell VersaTop’s Products.
23.

On October 23, 2015, VersaTop personnel learned that Defendants Georgia Expo and

Topfinger were offering for sale products (“the Accused Products”) that are either: (i) identical to;
(ii) substantially similar to; or (iii) likely to cause consumer confusion or association with,
VersaTop’s 2.0™ and PIPE & DRAPE 2.0™ Products. Attached as Exhibits I-K are true and
correct copies of photographs showing that Defendant Georgia Expo offers the Accused Products
for sale. Attached as Exhibit L is an advertisement of Defendant Topfinger showing that it offers
the Accused Products.
COUNT I – COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
24.

VersaTop incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

25.

This count is for Copyright Infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501 et seq.

26.

VersaTop is the owner of copyright in the sculptural work entitled Ball Coupler (“the Ball

Coupler Word”), as shown in Exhibits A, B and E.

Page 4 -

Complaint for Copyright Infringement and False Designation of Origin

Case 3:15-cv-02030-JE

27.

Document 1

Filed 10/28/15

Page 5 of 10

Defendant Georgia Expo offers for sale the Accused Products that are either identical to,

or at least substantially similar to, the Ball Coupler Work.
28.

On information and belief, Defendant Georgia Expo is aware of and had access to the Ball

Coupler Work, because VersaTop has offered it for sale for over five years, and because
representatives of Georgia Expo have previously negotiated with VersaTop to distribute the
VersaTop Products on behalf of VersaTop.
29.

Defendant Topfinger offers for sale products that are either identical to, or at least

substantially similar to, the Ball Coupler Work.
30.

On information and belief, Defendant Topfinger is aware of and had access to the Ball

Coupler Work, because VersaTop has offered it for sale for over five years, and because Defendant
Topfinger is supplying the Accused Products to Defendant Georgia Expo.
31.

On information and belief, Defendants Georgia Expo and Topfinger worked together to

produce the Accused Products, and to offer them for sale in the United States.
32.

On information and belief, Defendants Georgia Expo and Topfinger committed the

aforesaid acts willfully.
33.

Defendants Georgia Expo and Topfinger are not licensed to use, copy, or sell VersaTop’s

Ball Coupler Work.
34.

Defendants Georgia Expo and Topfinger have, by their aforesaid actions, willfully

infringed the Ball Coupler Work in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 501(a).
35.

VersaTop has no adequate remedy at law.
COUNT II – COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

36.

VersaTop incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

37.

This count is for Copyright Infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501 et seq.

Page 5 -

Complaint for Copyright Infringement and False Designation of Origin

Case 3:15-cv-02030-JE

38.

Document 1

Filed 10/28/15

Page 6 of 10

VersaTop is the owner of copyright in the sculptural entitled Crown Coupler, as shown in

Exhibits A, B and F.
39.

Defendant Georgia Expo offers for sale the Accused Products that are either identical to,

or at least substantially similar to, the Crown Coupler Work.
40.

On information and belief, Defendant Georgia Expo is aware of and had access to the

Crown Coupler Work, because VersaTop has offered it for sale for over five years, and because
representatives of Defendant Georgia Expo have negotiated with VersaTop to distribute the
VersaTop Products on behalf of VersaTop.
41.

Defendant Topfinger offers for sale the Accused Products that are either identical to, or at

least substantially similar to, the Crown Coupler Work.
42.

On information and belief, Defendant Topfinger is aware of and had access to the Crown

Coupler Work, because VersaTop has offered it for sale for over five years, and because Defendant
Topfinger is supplying the Accused Products to Defendant Georgia Expo.
43.

On information and belief, Defendants Georgia Expo and Topfinger worked together to

produce the Accused Products and to offer them for sale in the United States.
44.

On information and belief, Defendants Georgia Expo and Topfinger committed the

aforesaid acts willfully.
45.

Defendants Georgia Expo and Topfinger are not licensed to use, copy, or sell VersaTop’s

copyrighted works.
46.

Defendants Georgia Expo and Topfinger have, by their aforesaid actions, willfully

infringed the Crown Coupler Work in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 501(a).
47.

VersaTop has no adequate remedy at law.

Page 6 -

Complaint for Copyright Infringement and False Designation of Origin

Case 3:15-cv-02030-JE

Document 1

Filed 10/28/15

Page 7 of 10

COUNT III – FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN
48.

VersaTop incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

49.

This count is for trademark infringement and false designation of origin arising under the

Lanham Trademark Act of July 5, 1946, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. and particularly § 1125(a)
thereof.
50.

As shown in Exhibits A-C, VersaTop owns the trademark 2.0TM for couplers, accessories

and related goods for the construction of trade show booths, stages for entertainment, educational,
political, and promotional events, consulting services for the construction of trade show booths,
stages for entertainment, educational, political, and promotional events.
51.

Also as shown in Exhibit C, VersaTop has used the 2.0TM trademark in commerce since

April 28, 2011, well prior to any of defendants’ aforesaid, alleged acts.
52.

Defendant Georgia Expo offers for sale the Accused Products in the United States using

the 2.0TM trademark.
53.

Defendant Georgia Expo markets its goods to the same U.S. customers and in the same

trade channels as Plaintiff VersaTop.
54.

Defendant Georgia Expo’s advertisements, as shown in Exhibit G, willfully misrepresent

the source of its goods and have caused actual confusion amongst VersaTop’s customers.
55.

Defendant Topfinger offers for import and sale in the United States products using the

2.0TM trademark.
56.

Defendant Topfinger markets its goods to the same U.S. customers and in the same trade

channels as Plaintiff VersaTop.

Page 7 -

Complaint for Copyright Infringement and False Designation of Origin

Case 3:15-cv-02030-JE

57.

Document 1

Filed 10/28/15

Page 8 of 10

Defendant Topfinger’s advertisements, as shown in Exhibit L, willfully misrepresent the

source of its goods and are likely to cause confusion amongst VersaTop’s customers, or association
with VersaTop.
58.

By reason of defendants’ aforesaid, alleged acts, VersaTop has suffered damages, and

unless defendants are promptly restrained from continuing their wrongful acts, the irreparable
injury which plaintiffs are suffering will continue and will increase.
59.

Defendants’ aforesaid, alleged acts constitute false designation of origin in violation of

15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
60.

VersaTop has no adequate remedy at law.
COUNT IV – FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN

61.

VersaTop incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

62.

This count is for trademark infringement and false designation of origin arising under the

Lanham Trademark Act of July 5, 1946, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. and particularly § 1125(a)
thereof.
63.

As shown in Exhibits A and C, VersaTop owns the trademark PIPE & DRAPE 2.0 TM for

couplers, accessories and related goods for the construction of trade show booths, stages for
entertainment, educational, political, and promotional events, consulting services for the
construction of trade show booths, stages for entertainment, educational, political, and promotional
events.
64.

Also as shown in Exhibit B, VersaTop has used the PIPE & DRAPE 2.0TM trademark in

commerce since April 28, 2011, well prior to any of defendants’ aforesaid, alleged acts.
65.

Defendant Georgia Expo offers for sale the Accused Products in the United States using

the PIPE & DRAPE 2.0TM trademark.

Page 8 -

Complaint for Copyright Infringement and False Designation of Origin

Case 3:15-cv-02030-JE

66.

Document 1

Filed 10/28/15

Page 9 of 10

Defendant Georgia Expo markets its goods to the same U.S. customers and in the same

trade channels as Plaintiff VersaTop.
67.

Defendant Georgia Expo’s advertisements, as shown in Exhibit G, willfully misrepresent

the source of its goods and have caused actual confusion amongst VersaTop’s customers.
68.

Defendant Topfinger offers for import and sale in the United States products using the

2.0TM trademark.
69.

Defendant Topfinger markets its goods to the same U.S. customers and in the same trade

channels as Plaintiff VersaTop.
70.

Defendant Topfinger’s advertisements, as shown in Exhibit L, willfully misrepresent the

source of its goods and are likely to cause confusion amongst VersaTop’s customers, or association
with VersaTop.
71.

By reason of defendants’ aforesaid, alleged acts, VersaTop has suffered damages, and

unless defendants are promptly restrained from continuing their wrongful acts, the irreparable
injury which plaintiffs are suffering will continue and will increase.
72.

Defendants’ aforesaid, alleged acts constitute false designation of origin in violation of

15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
73.

VersaTop has no adequate remedy at law.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that:

a)

Defendants be found to have infringed VersaTop’s copyrights;

b)

Defendants committed their infringing acts willfully;

c)

VersaTop be awarded compensatory, and enhanced damages for Defendants’ willful

copyright violations;

Page 9 -

Complaint for Copyright Infringement and False Designation of Origin

Case 3:15-cv-02030-JE

d)

Document 1

Filed 10/28/15

Page 10 of 10

Defendants be found to have committed false designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. §

1125(a) by their unauthorized use of VersaTop’s 2.0™ and PIPE & DRAPE 2.0™ trademarks;
e)

Defendants committed their infringing acts willfully;

f)

VersaTop be awarded compensatory, and enhanced damages for Defendants’ willful

trademark violations;
g)

Defendants be preliminarily and permanently enjoined from infringing VersaTop’s

copyrights and from committing false designation of origin with respect to VersaTop’s trademarks;
h)

Plaintiff be awarded attorneys’ fees and costs for Defendants’ trademark violations; and

i)

VersaTop be granted such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff demands a jury on all issues properly tried before a jury.
Respectfully submitted,

Dated: 10/28/2015

___/s/ David P. Cooper_________
David P. Cooper, Bar No. 880367
Owen W. Dukelow, Bar No. 96235
Desmond J. Kidney, Bar No. 131558
Kolisch Hartwell, P.C.
520 S.W. Yamhill Street
200 Pacific Building
Portland, Oregon 97204
Telephone: (503) 224-6655
E-mail: cooper@khpatent.com
E-mail: owen@khpatent.com
E-mail: desmond@khpatent.com
Attorneys for Versatop Support Systems, LLC

Page 10 -

Complaint for Copyright Infringement and False Designation of Origin