Case 1:22-cv-01592-RDB Document 1 Filed 06/28/22 Page 1 of 9
`
`JEZIGN LICENSING, LLC
`287 Bowman Avenue,
`Purchase, NY 10577
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
`
` Case No.
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`v.
`
`
`BEBE HOLDINGS, INC.
`11901 Santa Monica Blvd, Ste 202
`Los Angeles, CA 90025
`Serve on: Resident Agent
`Registered Agent Solutions, Inc.
`9. E. Loockerman St. Suite 311
`Dover, Kent, DE, 19901
`
`and
`
`L.T.D. COMMODITIES, LLC
`200 Tristate Intl.
`Lincolnshire, IL 600690000
`Serve on: Resident Agent
`Illinois Corporation Service Company
`801 Adlai Stevenson Drive,
`Springfield, IL 62703
`
`and
`
`POSHMARK, INC.,
`203 Redwood Shores Parkway,
`8th Floor
`Redwood City, CA 94065
`Serve on: Resident Agent
`Incorporating Services, LTD.
`7801 Folsom Blvd #202
`Sacramento, CA 95826
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`For its Complaint, Jezign Licensing, LLC (“Jezign”) alleges as follows:
`Nature of This Action
`This is a design patent infringement action brought by Jezign against Bebe
`1.
`Holdings, Inc. (“Bebe”), L.T.D. Commodities LLC (“LTD”), and Poshmark Inc. (“Poshmark”)
`based on Defendants’ willful infringement of U.S. Design Patent No. D554,848 (“the ‘848
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`JEZIGN LICENSING, LLC
`287 Bowman Avenue,
`Purchase, NY 10577
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
`
` Case No.
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`v.
`
`
`BEBE HOLDINGS, INC.
`11901 Santa Monica Blvd, Ste 202
`Los Angeles, CA 90025
`Serve on: Resident Agent
`Registered Agent Solutions, Inc.
`9. E. Loockerman St. Suite 311
`Dover, Kent, DE, 19901
`
`and
`
`L.T.D. COMMODITIES, LLC
`200 Tristate Intl.
`Lincolnshire, IL 600690000
`Serve on: Resident Agent
`Illinois Corporation Service Company
`801 Adlai Stevenson Drive,
`Springfield, IL 62703
`
`and
`
`POSHMARK, INC.,
`203 Redwood Shores Parkway,
`8th Floor
`Redwood City, CA 94065
`Serve on: Resident Agent
`Incorporating Services, LTD.
`7801 Folsom Blvd #202
`Sacramento, CA 95826
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`For its Complaint, Jezign Licensing, LLC (“Jezign”) alleges as follows:
`Nature of This Action
`This is a design patent infringement action brought by Jezign against Bebe
`1.
`Holdings, Inc. (“Bebe”), L.T.D. Commodities LLC (“LTD”), and Poshmark Inc. (“Poshmark”)
`based on Defendants’ willful infringement of U.S. Design Patent No. D554,848 (“the ‘848
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01592-RDB Document 1 Filed 06/28/22 Page 2 of 9
`
`patent”). Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the ‘848 patent, which was
`issued November 13, 2007, is entitled “Illuminated shoe lower”, and was owned by Jezign until
`its expiration on November 13, 2021.
`
`
`Jurisdiction and Venue
`Jezign is a New York company with a principal place of business in Silver Spring,
`
`2.
`Maryland.
`Defendant Bebe is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in
`3.
`Los Angeles, California.
`Defendant LTD is an Illinois company with a principal place of business in
`4.
`Lincolnshire, Illinois.
`Defendant Poshmark is a California corporation with a principal place of business
`5.
`in Redwood City, California.
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
`6.
`
`1338.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because each regularly
`7.
`conducts business in Maryland and have incurred the liability complained of herein in Maryland
`by virtue of sales to consumers through an interactive website.
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(2).
`8.
`Factual Background
`Jezign is an innovative footwear company specializing in illuminated footwear.
`9.
`Since at least 2000, Jezign and/or its affiliates have been perfecting the design and technology of
`its unique illuminated footwear. Jezign’s shoes and patent differ from previous patents and
`shoes as a result of the design and placement of the illumination system, whereas other patents
`and shoes have a different design and placement of their lights.
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Bebe is a corporation that produces,
`10.
`manufactures, and or licenses Bebe shoes.
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01592-RDB Document 1 Filed 06/28/22 Page 3 of 9
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants LTD and Poshmark sells Bebe shoes via
`11.
`its online website.
`
`
`COUNT I
`Infringement of U.S. Design Patent No D554,848
`Jezign lawfully owned U.S. Design Patent No. D554,848 and held all rights, title,
`12.
`and interest in the patent. The patent-in-suit was valid, enforceable, and in full force and effect
`during the time of Defendants’ infringement.
`The claimed design of the patent-in-suit is shown in Figures 1-9 of the patent.
`13.
`Representative images are below:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01592-RDB Document 1 Filed 06/28/22 Page 4 of 9
`
`Bebe offered and/or licensed products including but not limited to the Sport
`14.
`Krysten, Sport Keene, and Light-Up Boots for sale via online retailers (“the Infringing
`Products”). Images of the infringing products shoes are shown below:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01592-RDB Document 1 Filed 06/28/22 Page 5 of 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In the eye of the ordinary observer familiar with the relevant prior art, giving such
`15.
`attention as a purchaser usually gives, the claimed design of the patent-in-suit and the design of
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01592-RDB Document 1 Filed 06/28/22 Page 6 of 9
`
`the infringing products are substantially the same, such that the ordinary observer would be
`deceived into believing that the design of the infringing products is the design claimed in the
`patent-in-suit.
`Defendants have directly infringed the patent-in-suit by making, using, licensing,
`16.
`offering to sell, selling and/or importing shoes, including but not limited to the infringing
`products, having substantially the same ornamental design as the design claimed in the patent-in-
`suit, in violation of 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(a) and 289.
`Defendants had actual knowledge of the patent-in-suit since at least the date on
`17.
`which Defendant received service of the complaint in this action.
`Upon information and belief, Defendants sold, offered to sell, distributed and
`18.
`marketed shoes that infringe the patent-in-suit to end consumers and/or resellers with the intent
`that these parties will use, market, offer to sell and/or sell the products in the United States in a
`manner that infringes the patent-in-suit.
`Upon information and belief, Defendants knew or should have known that the
`19.
`use, marketing, offering to sell, and selling of the infringing products by Defendants or its
`resellers and/or customers would directly infringe on the patent-in-suit.
`Defendants’ direct and induced infringement of the patent-in-suit has caused
`20.
`damage to Jezign.
`Defendants’ direct and induced infringement has also caused irreparable harm to
`21.
`Jezign.
`Upon information and belief, Defendants’ acts of infringement have been
`22.
`undertaken with knowledge of the patent-in-suit. Such acts constitute willful infringement and
`make this case exceptional pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285, and entitle Jezign to enhanced
`damages and reasonable attorney fees.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01592-RDB Document 1 Filed 06/28/22 Page 7 of 9
`
`Prayer for Relief
`Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:
`An Order directing an accounting to determine Defendants’ profits resulting from
`A.
`their unlawful activities;
`An Order awarding Jezign compensation for any and all damages, injury or harm
`B.
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 289;
`An Order directing Defendants to pay full restitution and/or disgorgement of all
`C.
`profits, including any lost profits, and benefits that may have been obtained by Defendant as a
`result of its wrongful conduct pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 289;
`An Order awarding Jezign treble damages resulting from Defendants’ willful and
`D.
`intentional conduct pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 289;
`An Order awarding Jezign punitive and exemplary damages;
`E.
`F.
`An Order awarding Jezign its reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees, and a
`Declaration that this case is “exceptional” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285; and
`Such further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
`G.
`
`
`Dated: June 27, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/ William N. Sinclair
`
`William N. Sinclair (Bar No. 28833)
`bsinclair@silvermanthompson.com
`Ilona Shparaga (Bar No. 21494)
`ishparaga@silvermanthompson.com
`SILVERMAN|THOMPSON|SLUTKIN|
`WHITE
`400 East Pratt Street, Suite 900
`Baltimore, Maryland 21202
`(410) 385-2225 (t)
`(410) 547-2432 (f)
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01592-RDB Document 1 Filed 06/28/22 Page 8 of 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Stephen M. Lobbin
`
`Stephen M. Lobbin (pho hac to be filed)
`SML Avvocati P.C.
`888 Prospect Street, Suite 200
`San Diego, California 92037
`T: 949.636.1391
`E: sml@smlavvocati.com
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01592-RDB Document 1 Filed 06/28/22 Page 9 of 9
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMAND
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b)(1) and (c), Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial on all
`the issues in this action so triable of right by a jury.
`
`
`Dated: June 27, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ William N. Sinclair
`
`William N. Sinclair (Bar No. 28833)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
