WS Acquisition v. Versa Yurt - Complaint

Todd R.
Johnston, OSB 992913

tjohnston@hershnerhunter.com
Hershner Hunter, LLP
675 Oak Street, Suite 400
Eugene, OR 97401
Telephone: (541) 686-8511
Facsimile: (541) 344-2025
Darius C. Gambino, Esq., PA Bar No. 83496

darius.gambino@saul.com
Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP
1500 Market Street, 38th Floor
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102
Telephone: (215) 972-7173
Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice to be Filed
Attorneys for Plaintiff
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION
WS ACQUISITION, LLC, d/b/a “Western Case No. 6:22-cv-00379

Shelter Systems,” an Oregon Limited Liability
Company;
Plaintiff WS Acquisition, LLC’s
Plaintiff,
COMPLAINT
v.
Trademark Infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1114)
VERSA YURT, LLC, a Delaware Limited Unfair Competition (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A))
Liability Company; and GFP ENTERPRISES, Unlawful Trade Practices (ORS 646.605 et seq.)
LLC, an Oregon Limited Liability Company;
Defendants. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff WS Acquisition, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “WSA”), for its Complaint against Versa
Yurt, LLC and GFP Enterprises, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”), alleges and avers as follows:
Page - 1 - COMPLAINT
39754008.1
THE PARTIES
1. WSA is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the
State of Oregon with its principal place of business at 830 Wilson Street, Eugene, Oregon 97402.
2. Upon information and belief, Defendant Versa Yurt, LLC (“Versa Yurt”) is a
limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its
principal place of business located at 900 Brookside Drive, Suite E, Richmond, California
94801.
3. Upon information and belief, Defendant GFP Enterprises, LLC (“GFP”) is a
limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Oregon, with its
principal place of business located at 307 West Sisters Park Drive, Sisters, Oregon 97759.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4. Through this Complaint, Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendants that arise,
inter alia, under the Lanham Act of 1946, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 1051, et seq., and the statutes
and common laws of the State of Oregon.
5. The Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s federal claims
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1338(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1121 and 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
6. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant GFP in that Defendant GFP
operates within the State of Oregon and within this Judicial District, and has sold, and is selling,
their products to customers throughout the State of Oregon, and throughout the United States.
7. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Versa Yurt in that Defendant
Versa Yurt has operations within the State of Oregon and within this Judicial District, and has
sold, and is selling, their products to customers throughout the State of Oregon, and throughout
the United States.
39754008.1
8. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) as a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims
herein occurred in this Judicial District. Venue is also proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(3), as
Defendants transact business in the District of Oregon, and are subject to personal jurisdiction in
this Judicial District.
BACKGROUND FACTS
9. Since 1988, Plaintiff and its predecessors-in-interest have designed, built and sold
portable and modular structures, such as tents, shelter systems and field support systems.
10. Plaintiff’s portable and modular structures support field applications that range
from temporary shelter systems like housing camps, to bases of operation, mobile field hospitals,
and much more.
11. Plaintiff owns the following United States Trademark Registrations (collectively,
the “WSA Marks”):
Mark Reg. No. Reg. Date Goods/Services

GATEKEEPER 6,123,012 Aug. 11, 2020 “Portable,
interoperable tents to
support all-hazard,
bio-terrorism, and
general healthcare
incidents”
[GK20 TRADE DRESS] 6,270,091 Feb. 16, 2021 “portable,
support all-hazard,
bio-terrorism, and
general healthcare
incidents”
39754008.1
Mark Reg. No. Reg. Date Goods/Services
[GK1935 TRADE DRESS] 6,270,092 Feb. 16, 2021 “portable,
support all-hazard,
bio-terrorism, and
general healthcare
incidents”
Plaintiff’s GateKeeper 20 Trade Dress
12. Plaintiff’s GateKeeper 20 (“GK20”) shelter product was first introduced in 1988.
13. Since 1988, the GK20 has had the same basic shape and design; some images of
the GK20 are shown below.
14. Since 1988, the GK20 has always included design elements which make it unique
and recognizable in the shelter industry, including: (a) an octagonal roof, (b) eight substantially
rectangular walls that form an octagon, (c) a rectangular door formed in one of the walls, and (d)
a rectangular window formed in one of the walls (the “GK20 Trade Dress”).
15. The GK20 Trade Dress is purely aesthetic and non-functional.
16. Since the GK20 shelter was introduced in 1988, Plaintiff as actively marketed and
promoted the unique features of the GK20 Trade Dress to customers, through ‘look for’
advertising and otherwise.
39754008.1
17. The GK20 shelter has been a hugely successful product line for Plaintiff, due in
large part to the unique and eye-catching design embodied by the GK20 Trade Dress.
18. The GK20 Trade Dress has acquired distinctiveness and secondary meaning
through over thirty (30) years of continuous and exclusive use by Plaintiff with customers and
potential customers.
19. The GK20 Trade Dress does not confer any functional benefits to the associated
shelter that cannot be achieved through alternative designs which do not include the purely
aesthetic features of the GK20 Trade Dress.
20. Plaintiff obtained a U.S. Trademark Registration on the GK20 Trade Dress, which
is United States Trademark Registration 6,270,091 (the “‘091 Registration”).
21. The ‘091 Registration was issued February 16, 2021 and relates to goods such as
“portable, interoperable tents to support all-hazard, bio-terrorism, and general healthcare
incidents.” A copy of the Registration Certificate for the ‘091 Registration is attached hereto as
Exhibit 1. The Drawing from the ‘091 Registration is reproduced below.
22. The ‘091 Registration is valid and subsisting, and claims use of the mark since at
least as early as July 31, 1988.
39754008.1
23. Plaintiff sells hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of GK20 shelter structures
that embody the GK20 Trade Dress each year in the United States.
24. Plaintiff has expended and continues to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars
annually to advertise and promote the GK20 Trade Dress and related goods.
25. The GK20 Trade Dress is distinctive and had become famous long prior to the
acts of Defendants complained of herein as a result of Plaintiff’s long and continuous use of the
GK20 Trade Dress; its substantial sales, advertising and promotional activities under that mark;
and Plaintiff’s substantial presence in the marketplace.
26. The GK20 Trade Dress is well and favorably known and represents the source
and origin of Plaintiff’s goods and services sold in association therewith.
27. Plaintiff sells its high quality tents, shelter systems and parts therefor in
connection with the GK20 Trade Dress throughout the United States.
28. The strength of the GK20 Trade Dress is one of Plaintiff’s most valuable
corporate assets.
Plaintiff’s GateKeeper 1935 Trade Dress
29. Plaintiff’s GateKeeper 1935 (“GK1935”) shelter product was first introduced in
1988.
30. Since 1988, the GK1935 has had the same basic shape and design; some images
of the GK1935 are shown below.
39754008.1
31. Since 1988, the GK1935 has always included design elements which make it
unique and recognizable in the shelter industry, including: (a) an elongated octagonal roof, (b)
eight substantially rectangular walls that form an elongated octagon, (c) a rectangular door
formed in one of the walls, and (d) a rectangular window formed in one of the walls (the
“GK1935 Trade Dress”).
32. The GK1935 Trade Dress is purely aesthetic and non-functional.
33. Since the GK1935 shelter was introduced in 1988, Plaintiff as actively marketed
and promoted the unique features of the GK1935 Trade Dress to customers, through ‘look for’
advertising and otherwise.
34. The GK1935 shelter has been a hugely successful product line for Plaintiff, due in
large part to the unique and eye-catching design embodied by the GK1935 Trade Dress.
35. The GK1935 Trade Dress has acquired distinctiveness and secondary meaning
through over thirty (30) years of continuous and exclusive use by Plaintiff with customers and
potential customers.
36. The GK1935 Trade Dress does not confer any functional benefits to the
associated shelter that cannot be achieved through alternative designs which do not include the
purely aesthetic features of the GK1935 Trade Dress.
37. Plaintiff obtained a U.S. Trademark Registration on the GK1935 Trade Dress,
which is United States Trademark Registration 6,270,092 (the “‘092 Registration”).
38. The ‘092 Registration was issued February 16, 2021 and relates to goods such as
“portable, interoperable tents to support all-hazard, bio-terrorism, and general healthcare
incidents.” A copy of the Registration Certificate for the ‘092 Registration is attached hereto as
Exhibit 2. The Drawing from the ‘092 Registration is reproduced below.
39754008.1
39. The ‘092 Registration is valid and subsisting, and claims use of the mark since at
least as early as July 31, 1988.
40. Plaintiff sells hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of GK1935 shelter
structures that embody the GK1935 Trade Dress each year in the United States.
41. Plaintiff has expended and continues to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars
annually to advertise and promote the GK1935 Trade Dress and related goods.
42. The GK1935 Trade Dress is distinctive and had become famous long prior to the
acts of Defendants complained of herein as a result of Plaintiff’s long and continuous use of the
GK1935 Trade Dress; its substantial sales, advertising and promotional activities under that
mark; and Plaintiff’s substantial presence in the marketplace.
43. The GK1935 Trade Dress is well and favorably known and represents the source
and origin of Plaintiff’s goods and services sold in association therewith.
44. Plaintiff sells its high quality tents, shelter systems and parts therefor in
connection with the GK1935 Trade Dress throughout the United States.
45. The strength of the GK1935 Trade Dress is one of Plaintiff’s most valuable
corporate assets.
39754008.1
Defendant Versa Yurt
46. Defendant Versa Yurt, according to its website (https://Versa Yurt.com/), allows
individuals and organizations to “[r]apidly deploy temporary operations, housing, and facilities
that help you prepare for, respond to, and recover from the largest disasters including wildfires,
hurricanes and earthquakes.”
47. Versa Yurt sells several shelter products including: (a) the “RS1935 Portable
Field Shelter,” (b) the “RS1414 Portable Field Shelter,” and (c) the “RS1919 Portable Field
Shelter” (collectively, the “VY Infringing Products”); images of each one of the VY Infringing
Products are shown below. True and correct copies of various pages from Versa Yurt’s website
advertising the VY Infringing Products are attached here to as Exhibit 3.
39754008.1
48. Upon information and belief, Versa Yurt purchases the VY Infringing Products
from one or more domestic manufacturers, and/or one or more manufacturers located in China,
and receives the VY Infringing Products through a facility located in Sisters, Oregon.
49. Upon information and belief, Versa Yurt knows that that VY Infringing Products
are unauthorized copies of Plaintiff’s GK20 and GK1935 shelters, and that the VY Infringing
Products appropriate the unique design elements of the GK20 Trade Dress and GK1935 Trade
Dress, all in violation of Plaintiff’s intellectual property rights.
50. Versa Yurt’s infringing acts violate Plaintiff’s rights in the ‘091 Registration and
the ‘092 Registration.
51. Upon information and belief, Versa Yurt had knowledge that the GK20 shelter
was subject to protection under Plaintiff’s intellectual property rights prior to introducing one or
more of the VY Infringing Products.
52. Upon information and belief, Versa Yurt had knowledge that the GK1935 shelter
was subject to protection under Plaintiff’s intellectual property rights prior to introducing one or
more of the VY Infringing Products.
Defendant GFP
53. Defendant GFP, according to its website (https://gfpenterprises.com/), is a
“private sector wildland firefighting company that provides multiple government agencies with
39754008.1
twenty-person hand crews and private industry with wildland fire engines to aid in the
suppression of wildland forest fires.”
54. GFP also, again according to its website, provides goods and services such as
“emergency mobile services, [] base camp solutions and emergency management,” and supplies
“rapid deployment base camps and semi-permanent base camps…”.
55. GFP appears to sell several shelter products including an octagonal structure, and
an elongated octagonal structure (collectively, the “GFP Infringing Products”); images of the
GFP Infringing Products are shown below. True and correct copies of various pages from GFP’s
website advertising the GFP Infringing Products are attached here to as Exhibit 4.
39754008.1
56. Upon information and belief, GFP purchases the GFP Infringing Products from a
manufacturer in China and imports them into the United States through a facility located in
Sisters, Oregon.
57. Upon information and belief, GFP is a supplier of shelter structures to Versa Yurt,
the two entities share a common supplier, and/or are connected in some manner. GFP’s Chief
Executive Officer (Donald R. Pollard) provides a testimonial for Versa Yurt on the main ‘splash’
page of Versa Yurt’s website (https://Versa Yurt.com/); an image of that testimonial is
reproduced below.
58. Upon information and belief, GFP knows that that GFP Infringing Products are
unauthorized copies of Plaintiff’s GK20 and GK1935 shelters, and that the GFP Infringing
Products appropriate the unique design elements of the GK20 Trade Dress and GK1935 Trade
Dress, all in violation of Plaintiff’s intellectual property rights.
59. GFP’s infringing acts violate Plaintiff’s rights in the ‘091 Registration and the
‘092 Registration.
60. Upon information and belief, GFP had knowledge that the GK20 shelter was
subject to protection under Plaintiff’s intellectual property rights prior to introducing one or more
of the GFP Infringing Products.
39754008.1
61. Upon information and belief, GFP had knowledge that the GK1935 shelter was
subject to protection under Plaintiff’s intellectual property rights prior to introducing one or more
of the GFP Infringing Products.
COUNT I
(Trademark Infringement Under Section 32 Of The Lanham Act)
62. Plaintiff hereby restates and incorporates the allegations of foregoing Paragraphs
1-61.
63. Plaintiff owns all right, title and interest in and to the ‘091 Registration, covering
aspects of the GK20 Trade Dress.
64. Plaintiff owns all right, title and interest in and to the ‘092 Registration, covering
aspects of the GK1935 Trade Dress.
65. Defendants are improperly and willfully infringing the ‘091 and ‘092
Registrations in interstate commerce through the advertising, promotion, sale and distribution of
the VY Infringing Products and GFP Infringing Products (collectively, the “Infringing
Products”).
66. The Infringing Products are counterfeit copies of Plaintiff’s authentic GK20 and
GK1935 shelter products.
67. Defendants’ use in interstate commerce of the product designs that are virtually
identical to the product configurations described in the ‘091 and ‘092 Registrations is likely to
cause confusion or deception of consumers as to the source, origin, or sponsorship in violation of
Section 32 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1114). Particularly, customers are likely to purchase
Defendants’ counterfeit Infringing Products believing them to be those of Plaintiff, thereby
resulting in a loss of goodwill and sales to Plaintiff.
39754008.1
68. Defendants’ conduct constitutes trademark infringement, and/or induces or
contributes to acts of trademark infringement, in violation of Section 32 of the Lanham Act, 15
U.S.C. § 1114.
69. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has been, and is
likely to be, substantially injured in its business including harm to its goodwill and reputation
and the loss of revenues and profits.
70. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law, and unless enjoined by this Court,
Defendants will continue to engage in such acts of trademark infringement, to the irreparable
damage and injury of Plaintiff.
71. Upon information and belief, Defendants have engaged in the above-referenced
acts of trademark infringement with full knowledge of Plaintiff’s exclusive rights in one or more
of the ‘091 and ‘092 Registrations, and Defendants continue in such acts of intentional
infringement, thus making this case exceptional and entitling Plaintiff to an award of treble its
actual damages, plus attorneys’ fees in bringing and maintaining this action.
COUNT II
(Unfair Competition By False Designation Of Origin
Under Section 43(a) Of The Lanham Act)
1-71.
73. The trade dress shown in the ‘091 and ‘092 Registrations operates as an indicator
of source and/or origin, and has acquired distinctiveness via secondary meaning.
74. The GK20 Trade Dress operates as an indicator of source and/or origin, and has
acquired distinctiveness via secondary meaning.

39754008.1
76. The ‘091 Registration for the GK20 shelter trade dress is valid and subsisting and,
the mark has been in continuous and exclusive use throughout the United States, by Plaintiff,
since at least as early as July 31, 1988.
77. The mark shown in the ‘091 Registration is distinctive in the minds of the relevant
purchasers of Plaintiff’s goods and services as being associated exclusively with Plaintiff.
78. The ‘092 Registration for the GK1935 trade dress is valid and subsisting and, the
mark has been in continuous and exclusive use throughout the United States, by Plaintiff, since
at least as early as July 31, 1988.
79. The mark shown in the ‘092 Registration is distinctive in the minds of the relevant
purchasers of Plaintiff’s goods and services as being associated exclusively with Plaintiff.
81. The GK20 Trade Dress has been in continuous and exclusive use throughout the
United States, by Plaintiff, since at least as early as July 31, 1988.
82. The GK20 Trade Dress is non-functional and distinctive in the minds of the
relevant purchasers of Plaintiff’s goods and services as being associated exclusively with
Plaintiff.
84. The GK1935 Trade Dress has been in continuous and exclusive use throughout
the United States, by Plaintiff, since at least as early as July 31, 1988.
85. The GK1935 Trade Dress is non-functional and distinctive in the minds of the
relevant purchasers of Plaintiff’s goods and services as being associated exclusively with
Plaintiff.
39754008.1
86. Defendants, through their use of the marks shown in the ‘091 and ‘092
Registrations, have without authorization, in connection with their goods and/or services in
commerce, made or contributed to the making of false designations of origin, false or misleading
descriptions of fact, and/or false or misleading representations of fact, which are likely to cause
confusion, mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection or association of Defendants
with Plaintiff, and/or as to the origin, sponsorship or approval of Defendants’ goods and/or
services, in violation of Section 43(a)(1)(A) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A)).
87. Defendants, through their use, display and copying of the GK20 Trade Dress,
have without authorization, in connection with their goods and/or services in commerce, made or
contributed to the making of false designations of origin, false or misleading descriptions of fact,
and/or false or misleading representations of fact, which are likely to cause confusion, mistake,
or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection or association of Defendants with Plaintiff, and/or
as to the origin, sponsorship or approval of Defendants’ goods and/or services, in violation of
Section 43(a)(1)(A) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A)).
88. Defendants, through their use, display and copying of the GK1935 Trade Dress,
have without authorization, in connection with their goods and/or services in commerce, made or
contributed to the making of false designations of origin, false or misleading descriptions of fact,
and/or false or misleading representations of fact, which are likely to cause confusion, mistake,
or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection or association of Defendants with Plaintiff, and/or
as to the origin, sponsorship or approval of Defendants’ goods and/or services, in violation of
Section 43(a)(1)(A) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A)).
89. Consumers are likely to purchase the Infringing Products believing that
Defendants are affiliated, connected or associated with Plaintiff, resulting in a loss of goodwill to
Plaintiff.
39754008.1
90. Defendants’ acts as set forth herein constitute unfair competition, and/or induce or
contribute to acts of unfair competition.
91. Defendant’s unfair acts have been committed in bad faith and with the intent to
cause confusion, mistake and/or to deceive.
93. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law because the marks shown in the ‘091 and
‘092 Registrations, the GK20 Trade Dress, and the GK1935 Trade Dress are unique and
represent to the public Plaintiff’s identity, reputation, and goodwill, such that damages alone
cannot fully compensate Plaintiff for Defendants’ misconduct.
94. Unless enjoined by this Court, Defendants and those acting in concert with them
will continue to infringe Plaintiff’s intellectual property rights in the marks shown in the ‘091
and ‘092 Registrations, and in the GK20 Trade Dress and GK1935 Trade Dress, to Plaintiff’s
irreparable injury. This threat of future injury to Plaintiff’s business identity, goodwill, and
reputation requires injunctive relief to prevent Defendants’ continued use of the marks shown in
the ‘091 and ‘092 Registrations, and in the GK20 Trade Dress and GK1935 and/or marks and
product configurations confusingly similar thereto, and to ameliorate and mitigate Plaintiff’s
injuries.
acts of unfair competition with knowledge of Plaintiff’s exclusive rights in the marks shown in
the ‘091 and ‘092 Registrations, and in the GK20 Trade Dress and GK1935, and Defendants will
continue in such acts unless enjoined by this Court.
39754008.1
COUNT III
(Oregon Common Law Unfair Competition)
1-95.
97. Plaintiff owns and enjoys common law trademark rights in the marks shown in
the ‘091 and ‘092 Registrations, and in the GK20 Trade Dress and GK1935, in the State of
Oregon, and throughout the United States.
98. The marks shown in the ‘091 and ‘092 Registrations, and in the GK20 Trade
Dress and GK1935, operate as indicators of source and/or origin, particularly when used in
interstate commerce. Moreover, the marks shown in the ‘091 and ‘092 Registrations, and in the
GK20 Trade Dress and GK1935, have acquired distinctiveness via secondary meaning.
99. Defendants, through their use, display and copying of the marks shown in the
‘091 and ‘092 Registrations, and in the GK20 Trade Dress and GK1935, have without
authorization, in connection with their goods and/or services in commerce, made or contributed
to the making of false designations of origin, false or misleading descriptions of fact, and/or false
or misleading representations of fact, which are likely to cause confusion, mistake, or to deceive
as to the affiliation, connection or association of Defendants with Plaintiff, and/or as to the
origin, sponsorship or approval of Defendants’ goods and services in violation of the common
law of the State of Oregon.
100. Consumers are likely to purchase the Infringing Products believing that
Defendants are affiliated, connected or associated with Plaintiff, resulting in a loss of goodwill to
Plaintiff.
101. Defendants’ acts as set forth herein constitute unfair competition, and/or induce or
contribute to acts of unfair competition.
39754008.1
102. Defendants’ unfair acts have been committed in bad faith and with the intent to
cause confusion, mistake and/or to deceive.
104. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ acts of unfair competition are, and have
been, oppressive, fraudulent and malicious, thus entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages.
105. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law because the marks shown in the ‘091 and
‘092 Registrations, and in the GK20 Trade Dress and GK1935, are unique and represent to the
public Plaintiff’s identity, reputation, and goodwill, such that damages alone cannot fully
compensate Plaintiff for Defendants’ misconduct.
106. Unless enjoined by this Court, Defendants and those acting in concert with them
will continue to infringe Plaintiff’s intellectual property rights in the marks shown in the ‘091
and ‘092 Registrations, and in the GK20 Trade Dress and GK1935, to Plaintiff’s irreparable
injury. This threat of future injury to Plaintiff’s business identity, goodwill, and reputation
requires injunctive relief to prevent Defendants’ continued use of the marks shown in the ‘091
and ‘092 Registrations, and in the GK20 Trade Dress and GK1935, and/or product
configurations confusingly similar thereto, and to ameliorate and mitigate Plaintiff’s injuries.
acts of unfair competition with knowledge of Plaintiff’s exclusive intellectual property rights in
the ‘091 and ‘092 Registrations, and in the GK20 Trade Dress and GK1935, and Defendants will
continue in such acts unless enjoined by this Court.
////
////
39754008.1
COUNT IV
(Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices [Oregon Statute ORS § 646.605 et seq.])
1-107.
109. Defendants’ actions referenced above constitute unlawful trade practices under
Oregon Statute ORS § 646.605 et seq.
110. Defendants have willfully engaged in unlawful trade practices under Oregon
Statute ORS § 646.608(a-c) by, inter alia: (a) passing off Plaintiff’s products as its own, (b)
causing a likelihood of confusion and/or misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship,
approval of Defendants’ goods and/or services, and (c) causing a likelihood of confusion or of
misunderstanding as to affiliation, connection, or association with, or certification by, Plaintiff.
111. Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from selling,
offering for sale, distributing, or advertising the Infringing Products, which are confusingly
similar in visual appearance to Plaintiff’s GK20 and GK1935 shelter products.
112. Defendants have willfully intended to trade on the recognition, and harm, the
reputation of Plaintiff’s rights in the visual appearance of the GK20 and GK1935 shelter
products.
113. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful trade practices, Plaintiff has suffered and
continues to suffer actual injury to the economic value of the GK20 and GK1935 shelter
products.
114. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law, and if Defendants’ actions are not
enjoined, Plaintiff will continue to suffer irreparable harm and injury to its goodwill and
reputation.
39754008.1
115. Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Oregon Statute
ORS § 646.638(3).
COUNT V
(Unjust Enrichment)
1-115.
117. Plaintiff invested substantial time, labor and money in the design and production
of the GK20 and GK1935 shelter products, including the GK20 Trade Dress and GK1935 Trade
Dress.
118. Defendants have wrongfully misappropriated the unique features of the GK20
Trade Dress and GK1935 Trade Dress, and have profited from and received certain other
benefits as a result of such wrongful misappropriation.
119. Defendants have been unjustly enriched at Plaintiff’s expense.
120. It would be inequitable to allow Defendants to retain the profits and other benefits
it acquired through its wrongful actions.
121. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to restitution in the amount of Defendants’ unjust
enrichment.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, as well as its employees
and/or agents, as follows:
A. Entry of a judgment that:
1. Defendants have infringed Plaintiff’s federal trademark rights in the ‘091
and ‘092 Registrations;
39754008.1
2. Defendants’ sale of the Infringing Products constitutes unfair competition
under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act;
3. Defendants have infringed Plaintiff’s common law trademark rights in the
marks shown in the ‘092 and ‘092 Registrations, and in the GK20 Trade Dress and
GK1935 Trade Dress;
4. Defendants’ sale of the Infringing Products constitutes common law unfair
competition;
5. Defendants’ sale of the Infringing Products violates Oregon Statute ORS §
646.605 et seq.;
6. Defendants have been unjustly enriched by the sale of the Infringing
Products.
B. Entry of judgment that Defendants’ acts of trademark infringement, unfair
competition and design patent infringement detailed herein have been, and continue to be, willful
and deliberate.
C. Entry of preliminarily and permanent injunctions enjoining Defendants, their
agents, servants and employees, and those people in active concert or participation with it from:
1. using, infringing, contributing to, or inducing infringement of the
Plaintiff’s registered and common law trademarks, service marks and trade dress,
including but not limited to the ‘091 and ‘092 Registrations, the GK20 Trade Dress, and
the GK1935 Trade Dress;
2. using any false designation, description or representation regarding the
source or sponsorship of its goods and/or services, or stating or implying that Defendants
or their agents are connected with the goods and/or services of Plaintiff, thereby
damaging Plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation;
39754008.1
3. causing a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding as to the source or
sponsorship of Defendants’ business and/or Defendants’ goods or services, including but
not limited to causing a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding as to Defendants’
affiliation, connection or association with Plaintiff or any of Plaintiff’s goods and/or
services; and
4. otherwise infringing Plaintiff’s common law and registered trademarks
and service marks, or otherwise unfairly competing with Plaintiff.
D. Entry of judgment requiring Defendants to offer up for destruction all articles,
displays, advertisements, labels, signs, prints, packages, packaging, wrappers, receptacles,
brochures, catalogs, plates, molds, uniforms, and logo items in its possession or control
(including but not limited to all products and marketing materials associated with the Infringing
Products) which display a mark product which is identical to, or confusingly similar with,
Plaintiff’s marks and protected product configuration trade dress, as provided by Section 36 of
the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1118).
E. Entry of judgment requiring Defendants to file with the Court and to serve upon
Plaintiff’s counsel within thirty (30) days after entry of any injunction or order issued herein, a
written report, under oath, setting forth in detail the manner in which it has complied with such
injunction or order pursuant to Section 34 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §1116(a)).
F. Entry of judgment:
1. awarding Plaintiff such actual damages as it has sustained by reason of
Defendants’ acts of trademark infringement in violation of Section 32 of the Lanham Act
(15 U.S.C. §1114) (including, but not limited to, a disgorgement of Defendants’ profits,
Plaintiff’s lost profits, and the costs of this action);
39754008.1
2. awarding treble damages for such trademark infringement;
3. awarding Plaintiff its attorney’s fees in bringing and maintaining this
action, which should be deemed exceptional, for such trademark infringement; and
4. requiring Defendants to account to Plaintiff for any and all profits derived
by it from sales of the Infringing Products, and to compensate Plaintiff for all damages
sustained by reason of such trademark infringement and the other acts complained of
herein; all pursuant to Section 35 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C.
§1117).
G. Entry of judgment:
1. awarding Plaintiff such actual damages as it has sustained by reason of
Defendants’ acts of unfair competition in violation of Section 43(a)(1)(A) of the Lanham
Act (15 U.S.C. §1125(a)(1)(A)) (including, but not limited to, a disgorgement of
Defendants’ profits, Plaintiff’s lost profits, and the costs of this action);
2. awarding Plaintiff treble its actual damages or such acts of unfair
competition;
3. awarding Plaintiff its attorney’s fees in bringing and maintaining this
action, which should be deemed exceptional, for such acts of unfair competition; and
4. requiring Defendants to account to Plaintiff for any and all profits derived
by it from sales of the Infringing Products, and to compensate Plaintiff for all damages
sustained by reason of such acts of unfair competition and the other acts complained of
herein; all pursuant to Section 35 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §1117).
H. Entry of judgment ordering Defendants to compensate Plaintiff for the advertising
or other expenses necessary to dispel any confusion caused by Defendants’ trademark
infringement, unfair competition and other unlawful acts (including but not limited to the costs
39754008.1
of an appropriate corrective advertising campaign), pursuant to Section 35 of the Lanham Act
(15 U.S.C. §1117).
I. Entry of judgment awarding Plaintiff such damages as it has sustained by reason
of Defendants’ acts of common law unfair competition, including but not limited to
compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and/or punitive damages.
J. Entry of judgment awarding Plaintiff such damages as it has sustained by reason
of Defendants’ deceptive trade practices pursuant to Oregon Statute ORS § 646.605 et seq., and
awarding Plaintiff damages in amount to be determined at trial, including attorneys’ fees and
costs pursuant to Oregon Statute ORS § 646.638(3).
K. Entry of judgment awarding Plaintiff the amount of Defendants’ unjust
enrichment.
L. Affording Plaintiff such further and other relief as this Court may deem just and
proper.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff hereby requests and demands trial by jury on all claims so triable.
Dated: March 9, 2022 HERSHNER HUNTER, LLP
By /s/Todd R. Johnston
Todd R. Johnston, OSB 992913
tjohnston@hershnerhunter.com
SAUL EWING ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP

DARIUS C. GAMBINO, ESQ.
PA Bar. No. 83496
darius.gambino@saul.com
Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice to be Filed
Of Attorneys for Plaintiff WS Acquisition, LLC
39754008.1
Reg. No. 6,270,091 WS Acquisition, LLC (OREGON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY)
830 Wilson Street
Registered Feb. 16, 2021 Eugene, OREGON 97402
Int. Cl.: 22 CLASS 22: portable, interoperable tents to support all-hazard, bio-terrorism, and
general healthcare incidents
Trademark
FIRST USE 3-31-1988; IN COMMERCE 7-31-1988
Principal Register
The mark consists of of a three-dimensional configuration of a temporary building that
has an octagonal shaped roof. The roof is formed of eight triangular shaped panels that
come together at a circular member in the center of the roof. The building has eight
rectangular shaped sidewalls that together also form an octagon. Every other sidewall
includes a rectangular window. The building has a rectangular shaped double door and a
bottom rectangular threshold. The elements shown in dashed lines in the drawing (the
interior of the sidewall windows, the windows on the doors, the door handle and the
door rivets) do not form part of the mark.
SEC.2(F)
SER. NO. 88-920,671, FILED 05-18-2020
EXHIBIT 1
Page 1
REQUIREMENTS TO MAINTAIN YOUR FEDERAL TRADEMARK REGISTRATION
WARNING: YOUR REGISTRATION WILL BE CANCELLED IF YOU DO NOT FILE THE

DOCUMENTS BELOW DURING THE SPECIFIED TIME PERIODS.
Requirements in the First Ten Years*

What and When to File:
• First Filing Deadline: You must file a Declaration of Use (or Excusable Nonuse) between the 5th and 6th
years after the registration date. See 15 U.S.C. §§1058, 1141k. If the declaration is accepted, the
registration will continue in force for the remainder of the ten-year period, calculated from the registration
date, unless cancelled by an order of the Commissioner for Trademarks or a federal court.
• Second Filing Deadline: You must file a Declaration of Use (or Excusable Nonuse) and an Application
for Renewal between the 9th and 10th years after the registration date.* See 15 U.S.C. §1059.
Requirements in Successive Ten-Year Periods*

• You must file a Declaration of Use (or Excusable Nonuse) and an Application for Renewal
between every 9th and 10th-year period, calculated from the registration date.*
Grace Period Filings*
The above documents will be accepted as timely if filed within six months after the deadlines listed above with the
payment of an additional fee.
*ATTENTION MADRID PROTOCOL REGISTRANTS: The holder of an international registration with an

extension of protection to the United States under the Madrid Protocol must timely file the Declarations of Use (or
Excusable Nonuse) referenced above directly with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The
time periods for filing are based on the U.S. registration date (not the international registration date). The
deadlines and grace periods for the Declarations of Use (or Excusable Nonuse) are identical to those for nationally
issued registrations. See 15 U.S.C. §§1058, 1141k. However, owners of international registrations do not file
renewal applications at the USPTO. Instead, the holder must file a renewal of the underlying international
registration at the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization, under Article 7 of the
Madrid Protocol, before the expiration of each ten-year term of protection, calculated from the date of the
international registration. See 15 U.S.C. §1141j. For more information and renewal forms for the international
registration, see http://www.wipo.int/madrid/en/.
NOTE: Fees and requirements for maintaining registrations are subject to change. Please check the
USPTO website for further information. With the exception of renewal applications for registered
extensions of protection, you can file the registration maintenance documents referenced above online at
http://www.uspto.gov.
NOTE: A courtesy e-mail reminder of USPTO maintenance filing deadlines will be sent to trademark
owners/holders who authorize e-mail communication and maintain a current e-mail address with the
USPTO. To ensure that e-mail is authorized and your address is current, please use the Trademark
Electronic Application System (TEAS) Correspondence Address and Change of Owner Address Forms
available at http://www.uspto.gov.
Page: 2 of 2 / RN # 6270091
EXHIBIT 1
Page 2
Reg. No. 6,270,092 WS Acquisition, LLC (OREGON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY)
830 Wilson Street
Registered Feb. 16, 2021 Eugene, OREGON 97402
Int. Cl.: 22 CLASS 22: portable, interoperable tents to support all-hazard, bio-terrorism, and
general healthcare incidents
Trademark
FIRST USE 3-31-1988; IN COMMERCE 7-31-1988
Principal Register
The mark consists of a three-dimensional configuration of a temporary building that has
an elongated octagonal shaped roof. The roof is formed of three triangular shaped
panels on each side that come together at circular members on opposite ends of the roof.
The building has eight rectangular shaped sidewalls that together also form an elongated
octagon. Every sidewall includes a rectangular window. The building has a rectangular
shaped double door and a bottom rectangular threshold. The elements shown in dashed
lines in the drawing (the interior of the sidewall windows, the windows on the doors,
and the door handle) do not form part of the mark.
SEC.2(F)
SER. NO. 88-920,695, FILED 05-18-2020
EXHIBIT 2
Page 1
REQUIREMENTS TO MAINTAIN YOUR FEDERAL TRADEMARK REGISTRATION
WARNING: YOUR REGISTRATION WILL BE CANCELLED IF YOU DO NOT FILE THE

DOCUMENTS BELOW DURING THE SPECIFIED TIME PERIODS.
Requirements in the First Ten Years*

• First Filing Deadline: You must file a Declaration of Use (or Excusable Nonuse) between the 5th and 6th
years after the registration date. See 15 U.S.C. §§1058, 1141k. If the declaration is accepted, the
registration will continue in force for the remainder of the ten-year period, calculated from the registration
date, unless cancelled by an order of the Commissioner for Trademarks or a federal court.
• Second Filing Deadline: You must file a Declaration of Use (or Excusable Nonuse) and an Application
for Renewal between the 9th and 10th years after the registration date.* See 15 U.S.C. §1059.
Requirements in Successive Ten-Year Periods*

• You must file a Declaration of Use (or Excusable Nonuse) and an Application for Renewal
between every 9th and 10th-year period, calculated from the registration date.*
Grace Period Filings*
The above documents will be accepted as timely if filed within six months after the deadlines listed above with the
payment of an additional fee.
*ATTENTION MADRID PROTOCOL REGISTRANTS: The holder of an international registration with an

extension of protection to the United States under the Madrid Protocol must timely file the Declarations of Use (or
Excusable Nonuse) referenced above directly with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The
time periods for filing are based on the U.S. registration date (not the international registration date). The
deadlines and grace periods for the Declarations of Use (or Excusable Nonuse) are identical to those for nationally
issued registrations. See 15 U.S.C. §§1058, 1141k. However, owners of international registrations do not file
renewal applications at the USPTO. Instead, the holder must file a renewal of the underlying international
registration at the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization, under Article 7 of the
Madrid Protocol, before the expiration of each ten-year term of protection, calculated from the date of the
international registration. See 15 U.S.C. §1141j. For more information and renewal forms for the international
registration, see http://www.wipo.int/madrid/en/.
NOTE: Fees and requirements for maintaining registrations are subject to change. Please check the
USPTO website for further information. With the exception of renewal applications for registered
extensions of protection, you can file the registration maintenance documents referenced above online at
http://www.uspto.gov.
NOTE: A courtesy e-mail reminder of USPTO maintenance filing deadlines will be sent to trademark
owners/holders who authorize e-mail communication and maintain a current e-mail address with the
USPTO. To ensure that e-mail is authorized and your address is current, please use the Trademark
Electronic Application System (TEAS) Correspondence Address and Change of Owner Address Forms
available at http://www.uspto.gov.
Page: 2 of 2 / RN # 6270092
EXHIBIT 2
Page 2
39756463.1
EXHIBIT 3
Page 1
39756463.1
EXHIBIT 3
Page 2
39756463.1
EXHIBIT 3
Page 3
39756463.1
EXHIBIT 3
Page 4
39756463.1
EXHIBIT 3
Page 5
Downloaded March, 7, 2022
39756463.1
EXHIBIT 3
Page 6
SAFETY, PERFORMANCE, PROFESSIONALISM.
A Proven Emergency Service Provider with Excellent

Performance History
GFP sets a high standard for a Type 2 IA crew. They have raised the bar for all fire contract crews with a crew that needs
limited supervision and performs outstanding work.
– U.S. Forest Service Annual Contractor Performance Review
EXHIBIT 4
Page
GFP Enterprises, LLC is a private sector wildland firefighting company that provides multiple government agencies with 1
twenty-person
hand crews and private industry with wildland fire engines to aid in the suppression of wildland forest fires. Our firefighters have fought
fires in every Western State and many Eastern States, from the Oregon Coast Range to Glacier National Park in Montana, Yellowstone
National Park in Wyoming to the Los Padres National Forest near Ojai California, to the foothills of the Appalachian Mountains in
Kentucky. Our personnel have been dispatched to fires as early as February and as late as December. We have performed work on small
initial attack fires to large complex fire over 500 thousand acres.
Over the years, we have established ourselves as a premier emergency response solution provider. Our services include emergency mobile
services, specializing in base camp solutions and emergency management. We have worked on a wide variety of ALL HAZARD DISASTER
AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROJECTS with high degrees of logistical complexity, including multiple full service base camps for FEMA,
and State governments in response to hurricanes or other natural disasters. Our breadth of service offerings combined with our highly
experienced and qualified workers provide a one-stop solution for the public and private sector alike.
We have international experience as well, having deployed equipment and/or personnel to some of the most remote areas in the world.
Among them includes projects in Papua New Guinea, Chile, Panama, and Wainwright, Alaska. We have performed on high level projects for
the private sector, state, and federal agencies where complex logistics and supply chain requirements are mission critical and time
sensitive. We have supplied and setup rapid deployment base camps and semi-permanent base camps and provided all design, logistics,
and operations from start to finish. Please contact us if you are in need of a solution for remote work force housing or base camp services.
Our in-house staff of professionals can assist with providing an efficient and affordable solution from design, supply and logistics,
installation, management, and demobilization.
Dispatch Sites:
200 Hawthorne Ave., SE, Suite D-480, Salem, OR 97301 – 541-967-8425
307 West Sisters Park Dr., Sisters, OR 97759 – 541-549-8167
6799 Airport Rd., Redding CA 96001 – 530-364-2564
Dispatch and Procurement:
541-549-8167 (office)
EXHIBIT 4
Page 2

EXHIBIT 4
Page 3
Papua New Guinea – Rapid Deployment Base Camp
EXHIBIT 4
Page 4
Panama – Semi-Permanent Work Force Housing Base Camp
1,000 Person Base Camp
“Your staff did a tremendous job and should be commended. Just wanted to extend my gratitude and give
appreciation to GFP’s hard work during the time we were there.”
– Logistics Chief, Maryland Incident Management Team
EXHIBIT 4
Page 5
EMPLOYMENT
TRAINING SCHEDULE & REGISTRATION
AVAILABILITY
FAQ
CONTACT US
Copyright 2022 © gfpenterprises.com
EXHIBIT 4
Page 6
01ÿ33ÿÿÿ45678ÿ93 ÿ !ÿ"# $
%&6ÿ01ÿ33ÿ'(7()ÿ'0761ÿ2&663ÿ456ÿ3&6ÿ(5701843(05ÿ'0534(566ÿ&616(5ÿ56(3&61ÿ169)4'6ÿ501ÿ2@99)68653ÿ3&6ÿ7()(5Aÿ456ÿ2617('6ÿ07ÿ9)646(5A2ÿ01ÿ03&61ÿ949612ÿ42ÿ16B@(166ÿCDÿ)4EFÿ6G'693ÿ42ÿ
9107(666ÿCDÿ)0'4)ÿ1@)62ÿ07ÿ'0@138ÿÿ%&(2ÿ7018Fÿ49910766ÿCDÿ3&6ÿ0@6('(4)ÿH0576165'6ÿ07ÿ3&6ÿI5(366ÿ134362ÿ(5ÿ169368C61ÿPQ3Fÿ(2ÿ16B@(166ÿ701ÿ3&6ÿ@26ÿ07ÿ3&6ÿH)61Rÿ07ÿH0@13ÿ701ÿ3&6ÿ
9@19026ÿ07ÿ(5(3(43(5Aÿ3&6ÿ'(7()ÿ60'R63ÿ2&6638ÿÿÿÿSTUUÿWXTY`abYWcXTÿcXÿXUdYÿefgUÿchÿYiWTÿhc`pqr
s8tuvwxy$" yxy$"
ÃÄÿÅÆÇÀÈÉÈÁÈ¿»Êÿ¹¹¾ ã¼ÓÉºÿäÀÓÁÊÿ¹¹¾Ñÿº»ÌÿåæÔÿÝ»Á¼ÓçÓÈÉ¼ÉÊÿ¹¹¾
tvH0@53Dÿ07ÿ562(665'S6UdbUeY
ÿ07ÿ(123ÿ(2366ÿ)4(53(77 ¹º»¼ÿ¾¿À»ÁÂ
ÿWXÿaqTqÿefWXYWhhÿbfTUTr
H0@53Dÿ07ÿ562(665'6ÿ07ÿ(123ÿ(2366ÿ67656453
SWXÿaqTqÿefWXYWhhÿbfTUTÿcXr
% s%ÿ
ÿÿ H%s ÿH11FÿI1ÿ%ÿH%sÿÿ
%5H%ÿÿÿs8
tv330156D2ÿShdÿXedfgÿfhhfiigÿejhÿYfkflmnjfÿXodpfr 330156D2SWqÿrjnsjr
Ë¿ÌÌÿÍÎÿÏ¿Ð»ÉÁ¿»ÑÿÒ¼ÓÉÐ»¼ÓÿÒÀ»Á¼ÓÊÿ¹¹Ô
ÕÖ×ÿØºÙÿÄÁÓ¼¼ÁÊÿÚÛÜÜÊÿÝÀÞ¼»¼ÊÿØÍÿßÖÛÜàÑÿ×ÛàáÕâÕáâ×àà
tÿÿux""ÿÿvw!"$ySekexfÿejÿydzÿjÿcjfÿ{n|ÿcjk}r tÿ$~ y"#wÿÿw!ywxÿwx!$"Seekjheÿxcjfÿefjÿ{nÿydz
Shnÿfi}ÿbeifiÿcjk}r
ÿjÿcjfÿ{n|ÿqnÿekejqqÿ
|ÿqnÿfqfjhejrÿ
I818ÿ076158653 è 66614)ÿ@623(05 w$ w$
)4(53(77 SaqTqÿgnfjdfjÿXnÿeÿee}r H(3(65ÿ07ÿ%&(2ÿ13436 s5'019014366ÿn1(5'(94)ÿ)4'6 3 3
07ÿ@2(5622ÿs5ÿ%&(2ÿ13436
I818ÿ076158653 3 (7612(3D H(3(65ÿ07ÿ503&61ÿ13436 s5'019014366ÿejh1(5'(94)ÿ)4'6
67656453 SWjhxefÿbfjimlÿnqÿeefiÿjÿWfdÿWWWr 07ÿ@2(5622ÿs5ÿ503&61ÿ13436
H(3(65ÿ01ÿ1@C6'3ÿ07ÿ4 016(A5ÿ43(05
016(A5ÿH0@531D
tÿÿyx$w! ÿÿ"w$Sekexfÿejÿydzÿjÿcjfÿ{n|ÿcjk}r H)('Rÿ&616ÿ701ÿ43@16ÿ07ÿ1@(3ÿH066ÿ62'1(93(0528
y$!x$ $!$" ! $w! w yx$ uxy!ww$ $# !ÿ"$x$w$ "
9ÿs52@145'6 w !"yxÿyvw! w !"yxÿyvw! ÿ1@Aÿ56)4366ÿ16(@16 3ÿ9964)ÿÿI1Hÿ Qÿ4)26ÿH)4(82ÿ'3
9ÿ41(56 9ÿ(19)456 ÿ612054)ÿs5@1Dÿÿ 07ÿ109613DÿÿI1Hÿ 3ÿ(3&614E4) Qÿ@(ÿ%48ÿ4ÿI1Hÿ
9ÿ())61ÿ'3 ÿ(19)456ÿ106@'3 106@'3ÿ(4C()(3D P9ÿ3&61 ÿI1HÿQ QP44
39ÿ6A03(4C)6ÿs5231@8653 (4C()(3D Qÿ64)3&ÿH416 399ÿ13436ÿ56499013(058653
9ÿ56'0761Dÿ07ÿ76194D8653
9ÿ224@)3Fÿ(C6)ÿ &4184'6@3('4) w!w
y$ !$ÿ$wx
!#$" 39ÿ53(31@23
ÿ5701'68653ÿ07ÿ0@6A8653 1)45661 612054)ÿs5@1D 9ÿH09D1(A&32 39ÿ45R2ÿ456ÿ45R(5A
ÿ66('416ÿ'3 9ÿ66614)ÿ89)0D612 106@'3ÿ(4C()(3D 9ÿ43653 39ÿH08861'6
0 ÿ56'0761Dÿ07ÿ674@)366
13@6653ÿ0452
(4C()(3D
39ÿ41(56
ÿ2C62302ÿ612054)
s5@1Dÿ106@'3 ÿ43653ÿCC167(4366
6Eÿ1@Aÿ99)('43(05
39ÿ6901343(05
3Q9ÿ54'R63661ÿs57)@65'66ÿ456
4G')@662ÿ6361452 3ÿ41(56ÿ106@'3 (4C()(3D è 39ÿ%1466841R H011@93ÿ1A45(43(052
ÿ56'0761Dÿ07ÿ76194D8653 (4C()(3D w !"yxÿw!w !$ xu! 9ÿ67656ÿ%1466ÿ16'1632ÿ 39ÿH052@861ÿH166(3
07ÿ6361452ÿ6567(32 9ÿ0301ÿ6&(')6 Q9ÿ3&61ÿ14@6 Q9ÿ4(1ÿ4C01ÿ134564162 '3ÿ07ÿ9ÿ 4ÿI1Hÿÿ01ÿP
9ÿ130'R&0)6612ÿ1@(32 ÿ0301ÿ6&(')6 Qÿ%1@3&ÿ(5ÿ656(5A '3 3ÿ%6)69&056ÿH052@861
P9ÿ3&61ÿH05314'3 106@'3ÿ(4C()(3D 9ÿ3&61ÿ612054) Q9ÿ4C01454A68653 "xÿ" w!$ 1036'3(05ÿ'3
PÿH05314'3ÿ106@'3ÿ(4C()(3D
9ÿ3&61ÿ612054) 109613Dÿ484A6 56)43(052 ÿsÿ4P77 3P9ÿH4C)6143ÿ%
Pÿ145'&(26 s5@1D ÿ109613Dÿ484A6 Q39ÿ54()E4Dÿ4C01ÿ'3 ÿ)4'Rÿ@5Aÿ4P 9ÿ16'@1(3(62H08806(3(62
ÿ612054)ÿs5@1Dÿ 106@'3ÿ(4C()(3D Qÿ48()Dÿ456ÿ66('4) ÿsHsÿ4394A G'&45A6
66('4)ÿ4)914'3('6 6476ÿ'3 3ÿ11sÿ%(3)6ÿs P9ÿ3&61ÿ1343@301Dÿ'3(052
! xÿw!w !$ ÿ!#$" w!"y !ÿw $$y" QP9ÿ3&61ÿ4C01ÿ(3(A43(05 ÿ51sÿ4394A PÿA1('@)3@14)ÿ'32
9ÿ456ÿH05668543(05 339ÿ3&61ÿH(7()ÿ5(A&32 #uuÿ QPÿ89)0D66ÿ563(168653 Pÿ57(10586534)ÿ433612
9ÿ016')02@16 33ÿ03(5A 3ÿ)(65ÿ634(566 s5'086ÿ16'@1(3Dÿ'3 !xÿ$xÿ"w$" Pÿ166608ÿ07ÿs5701843(05
9ÿ5653ÿ6426ÿÿ6'38653 33ÿ89)0D8653 9ÿ03(052ÿ30ÿ4'436 Q9ÿ%4G62ÿ4I818ÿ)4(53(77 '3
39ÿ%0132ÿ30ÿ456 33ÿ0@2(5A 165365'6 01ÿ67656453 Pÿ1C(3143(05
3ÿ%013ÿ106@'3ÿ(4C()(3D ''0880643(052 9ÿ65614) Qÿs51%&(16ÿ413D PPÿ68(5(23143(76ÿ10'66@16
P9ÿ))ÿ3&61ÿ564)ÿ109613D 33ÿ8618ÿE(24C()(3(62ÿ 643&ÿ654)3D !x$y ÿI1HÿQ9P '3567(6Eÿ01ÿ9964)ÿ07
89)0D8653 3ÿ43@14)(43(05ÿ99)('43(05ÿ A65'Dÿ6'(2(05
33ÿ8618ÿE(24C()(3(62ÿ 39ÿ45648@2ÿÿ3&61 33&61ÿs88(A143(05 P9ÿH0523(3@3(054)(3Dÿ07
3&61 9ÿH(7()ÿ5(A&32 '3(052 13436ÿ1343@362
33ÿ6@'43(05 ÿ1(205ÿH056(3(05
9ÿH(7()ÿ634(566ÿ
H056(3(052ÿ07ÿ
H057(568653
tÿÿ!ySekexfÿejÿydzÿjÿcjfÿ{n|ÿcjk}r
1(A(54) 5680766ÿ7108 56845666ÿ7108 356(5234366ÿ01 %1452761166ÿ7108 @)3(6(231('3 ÿÿ@)3(6(231('3
è
10'666(5Aÿ13436ÿH0@13 996))436ÿH0@13ÿ 56096566 503&61ÿ(231('3 (3(A43(05ÿÿ (3(A43(05ÿ
Silfxq}r %1452761 (16'3ÿ()6
H(36ÿ3&6ÿI818ÿH(7()ÿ1343@36ÿ@5661ÿE&('&ÿD0@ÿ416ÿ7()(5Aÿ¡¢£ÿ¥£¦ÿ§¨¦©ÿª«¬¨®¨§¦£̈¥¯°ÿ¦¯¦«¦©ÿ«¥°©ÿ®±̈©¬¨¦²r
tÿÿxw" ÿÿx$y 1 à×ÿéÄ¾ÿààê×
(67ÿ662'1(93(05ÿ07ÿ'4@26
ËÓºÌ¼ëºÓÙÿì»íÓÈ»Þ¼ë¼»ÁÑÿé»íºÈÓÿ¾¿ëç¼ÁÈÁÈ¿»Ñÿé»îºïíÀîÿËÓºÌ¼ÿÔÓºÆÁÈÆ¼É
tÿÿ! ³w "$ ÿy HH´ÿsÿ%s1ÿs1ÿÿx""ÿx$y xyÿµ HH´ÿ¶1ÿ05)Dÿ(7ÿ66845666ÿ(5ÿ'089)4(53
wxy$ I5ÿ5IÿFÿ858H788ÿ ì»ðÀ»ÆÁÈñ¼ÿÍ¼îÈ¼í vw!ÿ xy è ¶62 0
tÿÿ! x$ ÿx" t"vÿSTffÿjioxnjir·
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿxy 0I H´%ÿI5
% 1s%I5ÿÿ%%5¶ÿÿ5H5
òºÓÆÐÿßÊÿêÜêê
!ÿ ÿw" ÿy
5Hs%ÿ̧ I% ¶sÿs 0I 8ÿ0I
01ÿ334ÿ56789ÿ4ÿÿÿ!ÿ"ÿ#!8!$ÿ0%&!
'()012ÿ00013ÿ42ÿ&57)06)#0ÿ#1'60
ÿd
66e6fg6dh6f6ÿi6j6ÿkg
66ÿl2!
min&4!%&ÿ3ÿ6666666666ÿ
opÿrstuvwvxvyz{ÿ||}{ÿ~ÿowxzÿpxÿpwxw{ÿ
zÿyzÿvvx~ÿvvvxÿsyz

789@AB@CCDEF
89 #!8!$ÿ0%&!ÿ(9s
wÿux{ÿ||}{ÿÿÿvvx~ÿvvvxÿsyzÿ
z~ÿÿzxvww{ÿ||}{ÿzÿyzÿvvx~ÿvvvxÿ
syz

GHCHAI9ABDEF
PQRRSTPÿVTÿWÿXVYV`ÿWXaVST
0bÿDGHCHAI9ABcEÿA9eHÿ9AIÿ9IIfHEEF wÿux{ÿ||}
syÿÿ}yyxvyzÿuwxÿ}yz{ÿvwx~ÿrzx
}yyxvyzÿuwxÿ}zx
ÿzÿpx
ovvzxyz{ÿÿÿ¡
0ÿ$"g !&ÿ5"ÿh77ÿ3!$7iÿ"p"!&ÿq9
r!&5!ÿÿi"qÿ"3&74ÿ748!%7ÿ3ÿ&5!ÿÿÿqÿ5&ÿ%&!pÿ&57ÿi"qÿqÿ47%7!87iÿ!&ÿsÿ4ÿ4ÿi"qÿ!3ÿq
"47ÿ&57ÿ'!&7iÿ&"&7ÿ4ÿ"ÿ'!&7iÿ&"&7ÿ"p7%qtÿ4ÿ"ÿ33!%74ÿ4ÿ7u$q77ÿ3ÿ&57ÿ'!&7iÿ&"&7ÿi7%4!h7iÿ!ÿv7i9ÿ69ÿ#!89
w9ÿÿ5"5ÿ4ÿ5xÿsÿqÿ&ÿ7487ÿÿ&57ÿu$"!&!33ÿ"ÿ"g74ÿ&ÿ&57ÿ"&&"%57iÿ%u$"!&ÿ4ÿ"ÿ&!ÿi74ÿ6$7ÿÿ3
&57ÿv7i74"$ÿ6$7ÿ3ÿ#!8!$ÿw4%7i479ÿÿ057ÿ"g74ÿ4ÿ&!ÿ&ÿh7ÿ7487iÿÿ&57ÿu$"!&!33ÿ4ÿu$"!&!33yÿ"&&47qt
g57ÿ"7ÿ"iÿ"ii47 ÿ"47b
)3ÿqÿ3"!$ÿ&ÿ47uitÿip7&ÿhqÿi73"$&ÿg!$$ÿh7ÿ7&747iÿ"p"!&ÿqÿ34ÿ&57ÿ47$!73ÿi7"i7iÿ!ÿ&57ÿ%u$"!&9ÿ
ÿ"$ÿ&ÿ3!$7ÿq4ÿ"g74ÿ4ÿ&!ÿg!&5ÿ&57ÿ%4&9
ÿÿ
2"&7b
@A9BfHÿCÿ8HfÿfÿGHBÿ8Hf
01ÿ334ÿ56789ÿ4ÿÿÿ!ÿ"ÿ#!8!$ÿ0%&!ÿ5'"(7ÿ
#!8!$ÿ0%&!ÿ)9tuvvwxywzz{|}
01223ÿ23ÿ5617896
@ABCDÿDFGHCIPÿDBIQRSÿPIHÿTFÿUCRFSÿVCHBÿHBFÿGIQWHÿQPRFDDÿWFXQCWFSÿTYÿ̀FSaÿbaÿcCdaÿeaÿfÿ@Rgg
hi!ÿÿpqÿrstuvÿxyÿstÿtsÿvÿyÿts
"ÿq7%7!87ÿÿ7ÿÿrtv 9
ÿ7q"$$ÿ7q87ÿ&i7ÿÿÿ&i7ÿ!!8!"$ÿ"&ÿrtv
ÿrtv ÿq
ÿ$7p&ÿ&i7ÿÿ"&ÿ&i7ÿ!!8!"$ÿq7!7%7ÿqÿ"$ÿ$"%7ÿpÿ"7ÿ!&iÿrstuv
dÿ"ÿ7qÿpÿ!&"$7ÿ"(7ÿ"ÿ!%q7&!ÿiÿq7!7ÿ&i7q7d
ÿrtv dÿ"ÿ"!$7ÿ"ÿ%ÿ&ÿ&i7ÿ!!8!"$ÿ$"&ÿeÿ"q7 ÿq
ÿ7q87ÿ&i7ÿÿÿrstuvÿxyÿst dÿiÿ!
ÿ7!("&7ÿÿ$"ÿ&ÿ"%%7&ÿ7q8!%7ÿpÿq%7 ÿÿ7i"$pÿpÿrstuvÿxyÿxfgtshtxs
ÿrtv ÿq
ÿq7&q7ÿ&i7ÿÿ7i7%&7ÿ7%"7 ÿq
1&i7qÿrjvyk
9
lÿp77ÿ"q7ÿm pqÿ&q"87$ÿ"ÿm pqÿ7q8!%7dÿpqÿ"ÿ&&"$ÿpÿm z~zz 9
ÿ7%$"q7ÿ7qÿ7"$&ÿpÿ7qnqÿ&i"&ÿ&i!ÿ!pq"&!ÿ!ÿ&q79
o"&7p
qvfvfrjÿjgstfv
sfsvÿstuvÿtsÿv
qvfvfrjÿtfvjj
0!&!"$ÿ!pq"&!ÿq7("q!(ÿ"&&7&7ÿ7q8!%7dÿ7&%p
01ÿ334ÿ56789ÿ4ÿÿÿ!ÿ"ÿ#!8!$ÿ0%&!
'()012ÿ00013ÿ42ÿ&57)06)#0ÿ#1'60
ÿd
66e6fg6dh6f6ÿi6j6ÿkg
66ÿl2!
min&4!%&ÿ3ÿ6666666666ÿ
opÿrstuvwvxvyz{ÿ||}{ÿ~ÿowxzÿpxÿpwxw{ÿ
zÿyzÿvvx~ÿvvvxÿsyz

789@AB@CCDEF
89 #!8!$ÿ0%&!ÿ(9s
wÿux{ÿ||}{ÿÿÿvvx~ÿvvvxÿsyzÿ
z~ÿÿzxvww{ÿ||}{ÿzÿyzÿvvx~ÿvvvxÿ
syz

GHCHAI9ABDEF
PQRRSTPÿVTÿWÿXVYV`ÿWXaVST
0bÿDGHCHAI9ABcEÿA9eHÿ9AIÿ9IIfHEEFÿ zxvww{ÿ||}
syÿyz~ÿÿy~{ÿvwx~ÿrzx
ÿyy~vsÿ~
pvwxw{ÿÿÿ
0ÿ$"g !&ÿ5"ÿh77ÿ3!$7iÿ"p"!&ÿq9
r!&5!ÿÿi"qÿ"3&74ÿ748!%7ÿ3ÿ&5!ÿÿÿqÿ5&ÿ%&!pÿ&57ÿi"qÿqÿ47%7!87iÿ!&ÿsÿ4ÿ4ÿi"qÿ!3ÿq
"47ÿ&57ÿ'!&7iÿ&"&7ÿ4ÿ"ÿ'!&7iÿ&"&7ÿ"p7%qtÿ4ÿ"ÿ33!%74ÿ4ÿ7u$q77ÿ3ÿ&57ÿ'!&7iÿ&"&7ÿi7%4!h7iÿ!ÿv7i9ÿ69ÿ#!89
w9ÿÿ5"5ÿ4ÿ5xÿsÿqÿ&ÿ7487ÿÿ&57ÿu$"!&!33ÿ"ÿ"g74ÿ&ÿ&57ÿ"&&"%57iÿ%u$"!&ÿ4ÿ"ÿ&!ÿi74ÿ6$7ÿÿ3
&57ÿv7i74"$ÿ6$7ÿ3ÿ#!8!$ÿw4%7i479ÿÿ057ÿ"g74ÿ4ÿ&!ÿ&ÿh7ÿ7487iÿÿ&57ÿu$"!&!33ÿ4ÿu$"!&!33yÿ"&&47qt
g57ÿ"7ÿ"iÿ"ii47 ÿ"47b
)3ÿqÿ3"!$ÿ&ÿ47uitÿip7&ÿhqÿi73"$&ÿg!$$ÿh7ÿ7&747iÿ"p"!&ÿqÿ34ÿ&57ÿ47$!73ÿi7"i7iÿ!ÿ&57ÿ%u$"!&9ÿ
ÿ"$ÿ&ÿ3!$7ÿq4ÿ"g74ÿ4ÿ&!ÿg!&5ÿ&57ÿ%4&9
ÿÿ
2"&7b
@A9BfHÿCÿ8HfÿfÿGHBÿ8Hf
01ÿ334ÿ56789ÿ4ÿÿÿ!ÿ"ÿ#!8!$ÿ0%&!ÿ5'"(7ÿ
#!8!$ÿ0%&!ÿ)9tuvvwxywzz{|}
01223ÿ23ÿ5617896
@ABCDÿDFGHCIPÿDBIQRSÿPIHÿTFÿUCRFSÿVCHBÿHBFÿGIQWHÿQPRFDDÿWFXQCWFSÿTYÿ̀FSaÿbaÿcCdaÿeaÿfÿ@Rgg
hi!ÿÿpqÿrstuvÿxyÿstÿtsÿvÿyÿts
"ÿq7%7!87ÿÿ7ÿÿrtv 9
ÿ7q"$$ÿ7q87ÿ&i7ÿÿÿ&i7ÿ!!8!"$ÿ"&ÿrtv
ÿrtv ÿq
ÿ$7p&ÿ&i7ÿÿ"&ÿ&i7ÿ!!8!"$ÿq7!7%7ÿqÿ"$ÿ$"%7ÿpÿ"7ÿ!&iÿrstuv
dÿ"ÿ7qÿpÿ!&"$7ÿ"(7ÿ"ÿ!%q7&!ÿiÿq7!7ÿ&i7q7d
ÿrtv dÿ"ÿ"!$7ÿ"ÿ%ÿ&ÿ&i7ÿ!!8!"$ÿ$"&ÿeÿ"q7 ÿq
ÿ7q87ÿ&i7ÿÿÿrstuvÿxyÿst dÿiÿ!
ÿ7!("&7ÿÿ$"ÿ&ÿ"%%7&ÿ7q8!%7ÿpÿq%7 ÿÿ7i"$pÿpÿrstuvÿxyÿxfgtshtxs
ÿrtv ÿq
ÿq7&q7ÿ&i7ÿÿ7i7%&7ÿ7%"7 ÿq
1&i7qÿrjvyk
9
lÿp77ÿ"q7ÿm pqÿ&q"87$ÿ"ÿm pqÿ7q8!%7dÿpqÿ"ÿ&&"$ÿpÿm z~zz 9
ÿ7%$"q7ÿ7qÿ7"$&ÿpÿ7qnqÿ&i"&ÿ&i!ÿ!pq"&!ÿ!ÿ&q79
o"&7p
qvfvfrjÿjgstfv
sfsvÿstuvÿtsÿv
qvfvfrjÿtfvjj
0!&!"$ÿ!pq"&!ÿq7("q!(ÿ"&&7&7ÿ7q8!%7dÿ7&%p

WS Acquisition v. Versa Yurt - 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

WS Acquisition v. Versa Yurt - Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Todd R.

Johnston, OSB 992913

Darius C. Gambino, Esq., PA Bar No. 83496

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR DISTRICT OF OREGON

WS ACQUISITION, LLC, d/b/a “Western Case No. 6:22-cv-00379

Defendants. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

3. Upon information and belief, Defendant GFP Enterprises, LLC (“GFP”) is a

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

and common laws of the State of Oregon.

the United States.

this Judicial District.

and much more.

the “WSA Marks”):

Mark Reg. No. Reg. Date Goods/Services

Plaintiff’s GateKeeper 20 Trade Dress

the GK20 are shown below.

15. The GK20 Trade Dress is purely aesthetic and non-functional.

advertising and otherwise.

aesthetic features of the GK20 Trade Dress.

is United States Trademark Registration 6,270,091 (the “‘091 Registration”).

“portable, interoperable tents to support all-hazard, bio-terrorism, and general healthcare

Exhibit 1. The Drawing from the ‘091 Registration is reproduced below.

least as early as July 31, 1988.

and Plaintiff’s substantial presence in the marketplace.

and origin of Plaintiff’s goods and services sold in association therewith.

Plaintiff’s GateKeeper 1935 Trade Dress

of the GK1935 are shown below.

“GK1935 Trade Dress”).

32. The GK1935 Trade Dress is purely aesthetic and non-functional.

advertising and otherwise.

purely aesthetic features of the GK1935 Trade Dress.

which is United States Trademark Registration 6,270,092 (the “‘092 Registration”).

“portable, interoperable tents to support all-hazard, bio-terrorism, and general healthcare

Exhibit 2. The Drawing from the ‘092 Registration is reproduced below.

least as early as July 31, 1988.

40. Plaintiff sells hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of GK1935 shelter

mark; and Plaintiff’s substantial presence in the marketplace.

and origin of Plaintiff’s goods and services sold in association therewith.

hurricanes and earthquakes.”

advertising the VY Infringing Products are attached here to as Exhibit 3.

Dress, all in violation of Plaintiff’s intellectual property rights.

the ‘092 Registration.

more of the VY Infringing Products.

more of the VY Infringing Products.

53. Defendant GFP, according to its website (https://gfpenterprises.com/), is a

suppression of wildland forest fires.”

“rapid deployment base camps and semi-permanent base camps…”.

page of Versa Yurt’s website (https://Versa Yurt.com/); an image of that testimonial is

Dress, all in violation of Plaintiff’s intellectual property rights.

of the GFP Infringing Products.

of the GFP Infringing Products.

aspects of the GK20 Trade Dress.

aspects of the GK1935 Trade Dress.

GK1935 shelter products.

cause confusion or deception of consumers as to the source, origin, or sponsorship in violation of

Defendants’ counterfeit Infringing Products believing them to be those of Plaintiff, thereby

resulting in a loss of goodwill and sales to Plaintiff.

contributes to acts of trademark infringement, in violation of Section 32 of the Lanham Act, 15

and the loss of revenues and profits.

damage and injury of Plaintiff.

acquired distinctiveness via secondary meaning.

acquired distinctiveness via secondary meaning.