JAT v. JNC - Rule 11 Motion

Case 2:14-cv-04898-JVS-MRW Document 15 Filed 08/06/14 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:122

1 James Juo (State Bar No. 193852)

[email protected]

2 FULWIDER PATTON, LLP
Howard Hughes Center
3 6060 Center Drive, Tenth Floor
Los Angeles, California 90045
4 Telephone: (310) 824-5555
Facsimile: (310) 824-9696
Attorney for Defendants,
6 JNC WHEEL COLLECTION

7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 JAT WHEELS, INC.
CASE NO. CV14-04898 JFW (MRWx)
12
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION

UNDER RULE 11 AGAINST
PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT
d/b/a STR RACING
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
JNC WHEEL COLLECTION, and
Date: September 8, 2014

Time: 10:00 AM
1:30 P.M.
Ctrm: 16
10C
15 DOES 1 through 10,

16
Defendants.
Judge John F. Walter James V. Selna
17
18
19
20 TO THE COURT, PLAINTIFF AND ITS COUNSEL OF RECORD:

21
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on September 8, 2014, at 1:30 P.M., or as
22 soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in Courtroom 16 of the above Court,
23 located at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012-4701, in the Courtroom
24 of Judge John F. Walter, Defendant JNC WHEEL COLLECTION (Defendant or
25 JNC) will move and hereby does move for sanctions against Plaintiff JAT
26 WHEELS, INC. d/b/a STR RACING (Plaintiff or STR) and its counsel Tommy
27 Wang for violating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.
28
763311.1
1
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION UNDER RULE 11 AGAINST PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT
Case 2:14-cv-04898-JVS-MRW Document 15 Filed 08/06/14 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:123
Pursuant to Rule 11, this Motion is being served upon STR at least 21 days
2 prior to the filing of the Motion.

3
This Motion is made following the conference of counsel pursuant to
4 L.R. 7-3, which took place on July 7, 2013, and on subsequent dates thereafter.
5
This Motion is based on the instant Notice of Motion and Motion and the
6 accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, filed concurrently herewith,

7 as well as the pleadings and records on file in this matter, all matters of which the
8 Court may take judicial notice, any oral argument presented by counsel, and such
9 other evidence as may be requested or considered by the Court.
10
This is a frivolous lawsuit that should never have been brought. STR has
11 failed to conduct a competent pre-filing analysis before filing suit. The Court
12 should dismiss STRs Complaint, and award JNC its attorneys fees and expenses
13 incurred against STRs frivolous claims.
14
15 DATED: July 11, 2014
FULWIDER PATTON, LLP
16
17
18
19
By:
/s/ James Juo

James Juo
Attorneys for Defendant
JNC WHEEL COLLECTION
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
763311.1
2
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION UNDER RULE 11 AGAINST PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT
Case 2:14-cv-04898-JVS-MRW Document 15-1 Filed 08/06/14 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:124
[email protected]
4 Telephone: (310) 824-5555
Facsimile: (310) 824-9696

7
8
10
11 JAT WHEELS, INC.
12
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS RULE 11 MOTION
AGAINST PLAINTIFFS
COMPLAINT
d/b/a STR RACING
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14

16
Date: September 8, 2014

Time: 10:00 AM
1:30 P.M.
Ctrm: 16
10C
Defendants.
17
18
19
20
The motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 brought
21 by Defendant JNC Wheel Collection (JNC) against Plaintiff JAT Wheels, Inc.
22 d/b/a STR Racing (STR) is granted.
23
Rule 11 requires a court to determine (1) whether the complaint is legally or
24 factually baseless from an objective perspective, and (2) if the attorney has
25 conducted a reasonable and competent inquiry before signing and filing it. Holgate
26 v. Baldwin, 425 F.3d 671, 676 (9th Cir. 2005). A complaint is frivolous, and
27 sanctions are justified, if it is both baseless and made without a reasonable and
28
1 competent pre-filing inquiry. Id.; see also View Engg, Inc. v. Robotic Vision Sys.,
2 Inc., 208 F.3d 981, 984 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (applying Ninth Circuit law).
3
The complaint filed by STR contains false statements and frivolous claims.
4 For example, STR falsely states that it owns U.S. Design Patents, and attempts to
5 assert patent infringement based on pending patent applications that have not issued.
6 STR also falsely states that it owns a registered trademark, and improperly claims
7 that it owns the copyrights and ownership rights to certain unidentified photographs.
8
This case is but one of four patent infringement lawsuits that STR has
9 recently filed that are based on pending patent applications, instead of a patent
10 actually issued by the USPTO. STRs pattern of filing frivolous lawsuits based on
11 non-existent patent rights is an abuse of the judicial system. See Eon-Net, 653 F.3d
12 at 1326 (inferring that a patent lawsuit was filed in bad faith and for an improper
13 purpose because the plaintiffs case had indicia of extortion).
14
Counsels legal experience may be considered in determining whether a pre-
15 filing inquiry was reasonable or not. Huettig & Schromm, Inc. v. Landscape
16 Contractors Council of N. Cal., 790 F.2d 1421, 1426 (9th Cir. 1986); see also
17 Phonometrics Inc. v. Econ. Inns of Am., 349 F.3d 1356, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
18 STRs counsel, Tommy Wang, is a registered patent attorney who claims to have
19 extensive litigation and patent experience. As such, he should have been aware of
20 the fundamental flaws and false statements in STRs Complaint which he signed and
21 filed with this Court.
22
STR has failed to show that it had an objectively reasonable basis for its
23 asserted claims before filing suit, and STRs Complaint is hereby dismissed.
24
JNC is awarded its attorneys fees and costs in connection with this action as
25 a monetary sanction against both STR and its counsel Tommy Wang jointly to stop
26 this abuse of the judicial system. See Business Guides, Inc. v. Chiromatic Commns
27 Enters., Inc., 498 U.S. 533, 111 S. Ct. 922, 933, 112 L. Ed. 2d 1140 (1991); B&H
28 Med., LLC v. ABP Admin., Inc., 526 F.3d 257, 271 (6th Cir. 2008) (both the client
2
1 and the attorneys should have been well aware of the many fundamental
2 weaknesses in its case); Kendrick v. Zanides, 609 F. Supp. 1162, 1173 (N.D. Cal.
3 1985) (both the client and the attorney shared responsibility for litigation strategy);
4 Mercury Air Group, Inc. v. Mansour, 237 F.3d 542, 548 (5th Cir. 2001) (the purpose
5 of Rule 11 is to deter baseless filings, and the award of attorneys fees
6 approximates optimal deterrence); Judin v. United States, 110 F.3d 780, 785 (Fed.
7 Cir. 1997) (suggesting the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of
8 the filing of the [complaint], including a reasonable attorneys fee would be an
9 appropriate sanction under Rule 11); View Engg, 208 F.3d at 988 (affirming
10 $97,825.48 in attorneys fees against patentees counsel for failing to conduct a
11 proper pre-filing patent infringement analysis).
12
Within two weeks, JNC shall submit an accounting of its attorneys fees and
13 costs incurred in connection with this action.

14
SO ORDERED.
15
16 Date: ___________________
_______________________________
Judge John F. Walter
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[email protected]
4 Telephone: (310) 824-5555
Facsimile: (310) 824-9696

7
8
10
11 JAT WHEELS, INC.
12
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND

AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANTS MOTION UNDER
RULE 11 AGAINST PLAINTIFFS
COMPLAINT
d/b/a STR RACING
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
763006.1
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION UNDER RULE 11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
2
3
Page
I.
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
II.
STATEMENT OF FACTS................................................................................ 1
A.
The Parties ............................................................................................... 1
B.
STRs Complaint Against JNC Alleging Federal Trademark

Infringement, Patent Infringement, And Copyright Infringement.......... 2
1.
STRs Alleged U.S. Design Patents .......................................... 2
2.
STRs Alleged Registered Trademark ...................................... 3
3.
STRs Alleged Copyright.......................................................... 3
10
C.
11 III.
DISCUSSION.................................................................................................... 4
12
A.
Legal Standards Under Rule 11 .............................................................. 4
13
B.
STRs Claims For Patent Infringement Are Frivolous Because

STR Is Asserting Pending Patent Applications Instead of Patents ......... 5
C.
STRs Trademark Claims Are Frivolous ................................................ 6
14
15
STRs Refusal to Disclose the Pre-Filing Basis For Its Claims ............. 3
1.
STR Falsely Asserts That It Owns A Registered

Trademark ..................................................................................... 6
2.
STR Has Refused To Disclose the Pre-Filing Basis For Its

Other Trademark and Unfair Competition Claims ....................... 7
16
17
18
19
20
21 IV.
D.
STRs Copyright Claim Is Frivolous ...................................................... 7
E.
An Appropriate Sanction Is To Dismiss STRs Complaint, And

Award JNC Its Fees And Expenses ........................................................ 8
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 9
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
763006.1
i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
1
2
Page(s)
FEDERAL CASES
3
4
B&H Med., LLC v. ABP Admin., Inc.,

526 F.3d 257 (6th Cir. 2008) ................................................................................ 9
5 Business Guides, Inc. v. Chiromatic Commns Enters., Inc..
498 U.S. 533, 111 S. Ct. 922, 112 L. Ed. 2d 1140 (1991) ................................... 9
6
7
Cal. Architectural Bldg. Products, Inc. v. Franciscan Ceramics, Inc.,

818 F.2d 1466 (9th Cir. 1987) .............................................................................. 5
8 Cel-Tech Comms. & Cel-Comms., Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Tel. Co.,
20 Cal.4th 163 (1999) ........................................................................................... 7
9
10
Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.,

496 U.S. 384, 110 S. Ct. 2447, 110 L. Ed. 2d 359 (1990) ................................... 5
11 Eon-Net LP v. Flagstar Bancorp.,
653 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ........................................................................ 4, 8
12
13
Holgate v. Baldwin,
425 F.3d 671 (9th Cir. 2005) ................................................................................ 4
14 Huettig & Schromm, Inc. v. Landscape Contractors Council of N. Cal.,
790 F.2d 1421 (9th Cir. 1986) .............................................................................. 5
15
16
Judin v. United States,

110 F.3d 780 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .............................................................................. 8
17 Kendrick v. Zanides,
609 F. Supp. 1162 (N.D. Cal. 1985)..................................................................... 9
18
19
Mercury Air Group, Inc. v. Mansour,

237 F.3d 542 (5th Cir. 2001) ................................................................................ 8
20 Morris v. Wachovia Sec., Inc.,
448 F.3d 268 (4th Cir. 2006) ................................................................................ 5
21
22
Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.,

__ U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 1962 (2014) .................................................................... 7
23 Phonometrics Inc. v. Economy Inns of Am.,
349 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................ 5
24
25
Q-Pharma, Inc. v. Andrew Jergens Co.,

360 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 4
26 View Engg, Inc. v. Robotic Vision Sys., Inc.,
208 F.3d 981 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ...................................................................... 4, 5, 8
27
28
763006.1
ii
1 FEDERAL RULES AND STATUTES

2 15 U.S.C. 1114........................................................................................................ 6
3 15 U.S.C. 1116........................................................................................................ 6
4 17 U.S.C. 408.......................................................................................................... 7
5 17 U.S.C. 411.......................................................................................................... 7
6 35 U.S.C. 131.......................................................................................................... 5
7 35 U.S.C. 271.......................................................................................................... 5
8 35 U.S.C. 292.......................................................................................................... 5
9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 .............................................................................................. passim
10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 ....................................................................................................... 8
11
12 CALIFORNIA STATUTES
13 California Business and Professions Code 17200 .................................................. 7
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
763006.1
iii
1 I.
INTRODUCTION
The Complaint [ECF 1] filed by Plaintiff JAT Wheels, Inc. d/b/a STR Racing
3 (STR) against Defendant JNC Wheels Collection (JNC) is riddled with false
4 statements and frivolous claims.1 For example:
5
STR falsely states that it owns U.S. Design Patents [ECF 1 at 15],
and instead attempts to assert patent infringement based on pending
patent applications that have not issued;
STR falsely states that it owns a registered trademark [ECF 1 at

14];
10
11
STR improperly claims that it owns the copyrights and ownership

rights to [certain] photographs [ECF 1 at 19].
12
Even after being confronted with the many fundamental weaknesses in its
13 case (such as asserting non-existent patents) and the lack of any objectively
14 reasonable basis for its claims under Rule 11 (see Juo Exh. D), STR refused to
15 provide a substantive response (see Juo Exh. E), thereby forcing JNC to prepare this
16 motion for sanctions under Rule 11.
17 II.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
18
A.
19
STR is a distributer of automobile wheels. JNC also is a distributer of
The Parties
20 automobile wheels. Both parties normally sell wheels designed and manufactured
21 by others.
22
On December 9, 2013, a preliminary injunction was entered against STR for
23 selling wheels that infringed the design patent of a third party, Vossen Wheels. See
24 Order for Preliminary Injunction, Vossen Wheels, Inc. v. Toprich (U.S.A.), Inc., No.
25 13-7747 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2013), ECF No. 29 (see Juo Exh. F).
26
27
28
763006.1
A copy of STR's Complaint against JNC also is attached as Juo Exh. A.

1
But STR may have learned the wrong lesson from its initial experience with
2 patent infringement litigation.

3
On June 24, 2014, STR filed this lawsuit against JNC alleging, among other
4 claims, patent infringement based on pending patent applications rather than on

5 issued patents. [ECF 1]. On that same day, STR filed a lawsuit against Spec-1
6 Racing Wheels, Inc., alleging similar claims of patent infringement based on
7 pending patent applications. Complaint, JAT Wheels, Inc. d/b/a STR Racing v.
8 Spec-1 Racing Wheels, Inc., No. 14-4897 (C.D. Cal. Jun. 24, 2014), ECF No. 1
9 (copy attached as Juo Exh. H). The following week, STR filed two more patent
10 infringement lawsuits based on the pending patent applications. Complaint, JAT
11 Wheels, Inc. d/b/a STR Racing v. DB Motoring Group, Inc., No. 14-5097 (C.D. Cal.
12 Jul. 1, 2014), ECF No. 1 (copy attached as Juo Exh. I); Complaint, JAT Wheels, Inc.
13 d/b/a STR Racing v. Trade Union Intl, Inc., No. 14-5172 (C.D. Cal. Jul. 3, 2014),
14 ECF No. 1 (copy attached as Juo Exh. J). Thus, in the span of a week, STR has filed
15 four patent infringement lawsuits based on patent applications instead of an actual
16 patent.
17
B.
18
STRs Complaint Against JNC Alleging Federal Trademark

Infringement, Patent Infringement, And Copyright Infringement
19
STRs complaint against JNC, alleged a number of claims including patent
20 infringement, trademark infringement, and copyright infringement. [ECF 1].

21
1.
22
STRs Alleged U.S. Design Patents
In paragraph 15 of its Complaint, STR states that it owns U.S. Design
23 Patents. [ECF 1]. This is false. The numbers identified in STRs Complaint are
24 actually the application numbers for patent applications that STR filed with the
25 USPTO about a month before filing its Complaint.2 Juo Decl. at 2. These are not
26
2
They follow the numbering convention for design patent applications (which
currently begin with the numerical series prefix 29) instead of that for an issued
28 design patent (which begin with the letter "D"). Juo Decl. at 2 and 8.
27
763006.1
2
1 issued patents. There are no actual patents identified in or attached to STRs

2 Complaint.3
3
2.
STRs Alleged Registered Trademark
In paragraph 14 of its Complaint, STR states that it owns a registered
5 trademark whose registration number is 86256705. [ECF 1]. This is false. The
6 USPTO has not issued any such trademark registration to STR. The number
7 provided by STR is actual the serial number for a trademark application that
8 STR filed with the USPTO about two months before filing its Complaint. Juo Decl.
9 at 4 and 5; Juo Exhs. B and C. Although a trademark application for STR
10 RACING was filed on April 18, 2014, the records of the U.S. Patent and Trademark
11 Office (USPTO) clearly show that a trademark registration has not been issued.
12 Juo Exhs. B and C. There is no actual trademark registration identified in STRs
13 Complaint. Moreover, STR has refused to provide JNC with copies or samples of
14 the alleged infringement which STR relied upon for its pre-filing investigation for
15 its Complaint.
16
3.
17
STRs Alleged Copyright
In paragraph 19 of its Complaint, STR states that it owns the copyrights to
18 certain photographs, but fails to identify a copyright registration for those

19 photographs. [ECF 1]. Moreover, JNC is unaware of ever using any such
20 photographs whose copyright is owned by STR, and STR has refused to identify any
21 copyright registration, or to provide JNC with copies of the photographs or the
22 alleged infringement, which STR relied upon for its pre-filing investigation of
23 copyright infringement.
24
C.
25
On July 7, 2014, counsel for JNC telephoned counsel for STR to determine
STRs Refusal to Disclose the Pre-Filing Basis For Its Claims
26 the basis for STRs Complaint. Counsel for STR declined to engage in a verbal
27
This also is true of the three other patent infringement lawsuits filed by STR in this
28 district.
763006.1
3
1 discussion and instead requested that JNC send its questions in writing. About an
2 hour later, counsel for JNC sent an email pointing out false statements as well as
3 legally baseless claims in STRs Complaint, and requesting that STR disclose its
4 pre-filing basis for those claims under Rule 11. Juo Exh. D. For example, there is
5 no registered trademark, or any factual basis to assert any trademark infringement or
6 unfair competition; there are no patents, and no legal basis to assert patent
7 infringement based on a patent application; and there is no copyright registration, or
8 any factual basis to assert copyright infringement.
9
However, as previously discussed, STR refused to substantively respond to
10 the questions that it had requested be made in writing. Juo Exh. E.

11 III.
DISCUSSION
12
JNC does not believe that STR has any objectively reasonable legal or factual
13 basis for its claims against JNC. STR has not conducted a competent pre-filing
14 investigation under Rule 11, and certainly has not engaged in good faith discussions
15 with JNC to resolve this matter.
16
A.
17
Rule 11 requires a court to determine (1) whether the complaint is legally or
Legal Standards Under Rule 11
18 factually baseless from an objective perspective, and (2) if the attorney has
19 conducted a reasonable and competent inquiry before signing and filing it. Holgate
20 v. Baldwin, 425 F.3d 671, 676 (9th Cir. 2005). A complaint is frivolous, and
21 sanctions are justified, if it is both baseless and made without a reasonable and
22 competent pre-filing inquiry. Id.; see also View Engg, Inc. v. Robotic Vision Sys.,
23 Inc., 208 F.3d 981, 984 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (applying Ninth Circuit law).
24
While the law of the regional circuit applies to an award of Rule 11 sanctions,
25 courts apply Federal Circuit law to determine the reasonableness of a pre-filing

26 patent infringement investigation made by a party and its attorney. See Q-Pharma,
27 Inc. v. Andrew Jergens Co., 360 F.3d 1295, 1299-1301 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Eon-Net
28 LP v. Flagstar Bancorp., 653 F.3d 1314, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
763006.1
4
Before filing a patent lawsuit, a competent pre-filing infringement analysis by
2 the lawyer must conclude that there is a reasonable basis for a finding of
3 infringement of at least one claim of each patent so asserted. View Engg., 208
4 F.3d at 984. Counsels legal experience may be considered in determining whether
5 a pre-filing inquiry was reasonable or not. Huettig & Schromm, Inc. v. Landscape
6 Contractors Council of N. Cal., 790 F.2d 1421, 1426 (9th Cir. 1986); see also
7 Phonometrics Inc. v. Econ. Inns of Am., 349 F.3d 1356, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
8
Furthermore, a reasonable pre-filing inquiry requires that the lawyer seek
9 credible information rather than proceed on mere suspicions or supposition for the
10 claims being asserted in the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b); Cooter & Gell v.
11 Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 401-2, 110 S. Ct. 2447, 2459, 110 L. Ed. 2d 359
12 (1990); Cal. Architectural Bldg. Products, Inc. v. Franciscan Ceramics, Inc., 818
13 F.2d 1466, 1472 (9th Cir. 1987). The complaint must be well-founded with
14 evidentiary support for its factual contentions from an objective prospective. Fed.
15 R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3); Morris v. Wachovia Sec., Inc., 448 F.3d 268, 277 (4th Cir. 2006)
16 (Factual allegations fail to satisfy Rule 11(b)(3) when they are unsupported by any
17 information obtained prior to filing.).
18
19
20
B.
STRs Claims For Patent Infringement Are Frivolous Because STR

Is Asserting Pending Patent Applications Instead of Patents
An invention is not patented merely by filing a patent application. The
21 USPTO does not issue a patent until after it is examined. 35 U.S.C. 131
22 (Examination of application). Patent pending is not the same as patented. 35
23 U.S.C. 292 (False marking). There must be an issued patent before one can
24 assert patent infringement. 35 U.S.C. 271 (Infringement of patent). Without an
25 issued patent, there are no enforceable patent rights.
26
27
28
763006.1
5
Case 2:14-cv-04898-JVS-MRW Document 15-2 Filed 08/06/14 Page 10 of 13 Page ID

#:136
This is a fundamental aspect of patent law that every patent attorney knows.
2 Counsel for STR, Tommy Wang,4 is a registered patent attorney, yet he signed
3 STRs Complaint asserting claims of patent infringement based on pending patent
4 applications (while obscuring that fact by falsely referring to them as U.S. Design
5 Patents or Patents in STRs Complaint). With no issued patent, there is utterly
6 no basis for STRs claims of patent infringement. STR has refused to disclose any
7 legal or factual basis to support its frivolous claims of patent infringement based on
8 pending patent applications. Sanctions against STR and its counsel, Tommy Wang,
9 who signed its frivolous Complaint asserting non-existent patents, are appropriate
10 and warranted.
11
C.
12
STRs Trademark Claims Are Frivolous

1.
13
STR Falsely Asserts That It Owns A Registered Trademark
In its Complaint, STR falsely states that it owns a registered trademark.
14 [ECF 1 at 14]. In reality, STR has only filed a trademark application which is
15 still pending with the USPTO. There is no registered trademark.
16
STRs Count I asserting claims of federal trademark infringement and
17 trademark counterfeiting under 15 U.S.C. 1114 and 1116, respectively, requires a

18 registered trademark. With no issued trademark registration, there is no basis for
19 these claims. STR has refused to disclose any legal or factual basis to support its
20 claims of trademark infringement and counterfeiting based on a pending trademark
21 application. Because there is no good faith basis for asserting these causes of action,
22 sanctions against STR and its counsel, Tommy Wang, who signed its frivolous
23 Complaint falsely asserting a registered trademark, are appropriate and warranted.
24
25
26
On his law firms website, Mr. Wang touts that he "is a Registered Patent Attorney
who is licensed to practice law in California, the U.S. District Court for the Central
27 District of California, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office with extensive
experience representing clients in federal and state courts throughout the country."
28 Juo Exh. K.
763006.1
6

#:137
2.
STR Has Refused To Disclose the Pre-Filing Basis For Its

Other Trademark and Unfair Competition Claims
In view of the frivolous nature of STRs patent claims, and its false statement
4 about owning a registered trademark, JNC demanded that STR disclose the pre5 filing basis for its other trademark and unfair competition claims. This included
6 STRs claims for false designation of origin, federal trademark dilution,5 federal
7 unfair competition, California common law unfair competition, and the Unfair
8 Competition Law (UCL) under California Business and Professions Code
9 17200.6
10
STR, however, has refused to do so. A reasonable inference for STRs
11 refusal is that STR had no objectively reasonable basis for asserting its claims
12 against JNC. Sanctions against STR and its counsel, Tommy Wang, who signed its
13 frivolous Complaint, are appropriate and warranted.
14
D.
15
In its Complaint, STR fails to assert that it owns a copyright registration
STRs Copyright Claim Is Frivolous
16 which is a prerequisite for filing a copyright infringement lawsuit. Petrella v.

17 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., __ U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 1962, 1977 (2014) (citing 17
18 U.S.C. 408(b), 411(a)).
19
In view of the aforementioned frivolous nature of STRs patent claims and its
20 false statement regarding owning a registered trademark, JNC demanded that STR
21 disclose the pre-filing basis for its copyright infringement claim, such as an
22 identification of the copyright registration, and copies of the photograph in question
23 and the alleged infringement.
24
25
There also appears to be no basis to assert that the STR RACING mark is
26 famous under 15 U.S.C. 1125(c)(2)) (setting forth various factors to consider).

6
A UCL claim under Section 17200 requires an unlawful business act or practice,
27 namely a business practice that violates another law. Cel-Tech Comms. & Cel-
Comms., Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Tel. Co., 20 Cal.4th 163, 180 (1999). There
28 appears to be no basis for STRs allegations that JNC has violated any law.
763006.1
7

#:138
Because STR has refused to do so, a reasonable inference is that STR had no
2 objectively reasonable basis for its claims against JNC, so sanctions against STR
3 and its counsel, Tommy Wang, who signed its frivolous Complaint improperly
4 asserting copyright infringement, are appropriate and warranted.
5
6
7
E.
An Appropriate Sanction Is To Dismiss STRs Complaint, And

Award JNC Its Fees And Expenses
This case is but one of four patent infringement lawsuits that STR has
8 recently filed that are based on pending patent applications, instead of a patent
9 actually issued by the USPTO. STRs pattern of filing frivolous lawsuits based on
10 false and non-existent patent rights is an abuse of the judicial system which has the
11 indicia of extortion. See Eon-Net, 653 F.3d at 1326 (inferring that a patent lawsuit
12 was filed in bad faith and for an improper purpose because the plaintiffs case had
13 indicia of extortion).
14
The Court should dismiss STRs Complaint under Rule 41(b) because of
15 STRs failure to comply with Rule 11.

16
Furthermore, an award of attorneys fees and expenses is appropriate when an
17 attorney has failed to make a reasonable investigation of the facts and the law before
18 filing a complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2); see also Mercury Air Group, Inc. v.
19 Mansour, 237 F.3d 542, 548 (5th Cir. 2001) (the purpose of Rule 11 is to deter
20 baseless filings, and the award of attorneys fees approximates optimal
21 deterrence); Judin v. United States, 110 F.3d 780, 785 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (suggesting
22 the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the
23 [complaint], including a reasonable attorneys fee would be an appropriate sanction
24 under Rule 11); View Engg, 208 F.3d at 988 (affirming $97,825.48 in attorneys
25 fees against patentees counsel for failing to conduct a proper pre-filing patent
26 infringement analysis). As previously discussed, STR has refused to disclose any
27 information regarding whether its pre-filing investigation was competent or not.
28
763006.1
8

#:139
A monetary sanction should be levied against both STR and its counsel to
2 stop this abuse of the judicial system. See Business Guides, Inc. v. Chiromatic
3 Commns Enters., Inc., 498 U.S. 533, 111 S. Ct. 922, 933, 112 L. Ed. 2d 1140
4 (1991); B&H Med., LLC v. ABP Admin., Inc., 526 F.3d 257, 271 (6th Cir. 2008)
5 (both the client and the attorneys should have been well aware of the many
6 fundamental weaknesses in its case); Kendrick v. Zanides, 609 F. Supp. 1162, 1173
7 (N.D. Cal. 1985) (both the client and the attorney shared responsibility for litigation
8 strategy).
9
Should the Court award JNC its attorneys fees and costs, JNC requests two
10 weeks in which to prepare and submit an accounting of its attorneys fees and costs
11 incurred in connection with this litigation.
12 IV.
CONCLUSION
13
This is a frivolous lawsuit that should never have been brought. From all
14 indications, STR has failed to conduct a competent pre-filing analysis before filing
15 suit. JNC attempted to dissuade STR from its reckless and damaging course, but to
16 no avail. STRs Complaint should be dismissed, and JNC is entitled to an award of
17 its attorneys fees and expenses.
18
19 DATED: July 11, 2014
FULWIDER PATTON, LLP
20
21
22
23
By:
/s/ James Juo

James Juo
Attorneys for Defendant
JNC WHEEL COLLECTION
24
25
26
27
28
763006.1
9
[email protected]
4 Telephone: (310) 824-5555
Facsimile: (310) 824-9696

7
8
10
11 JAT WHEELS, INC.
12
DECLARATION OF JAMES JUO IN

SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS
MOTION UNDER RULE 11
AGAINST PLAINTIFFS
COMPLAINT
d/b/a STR RACING
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14

16
Defendants.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF JAMES JUO IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION UNDER RULE 11 AGAINST PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT
I, James Juo, hereby declare as follows:
1.
I am a registered patent attorney with the law firm of Fulwider Patton
3 LLP, and I am duly licensed to practice law in the state of California. I represent
4 Defendant JNC Wheel Collection in the above-identified matter. Unless otherwise
5 indicated, I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein, and, if called as a
6 witness, could and would testify to the following matters.
7
2.
Attached as Exhibit A is a copy of the Complaint filed by STR in this
8 action on June 24, 2014. The Exhibits A, C, E, G, and I attached to STRs

9 Complaint are not design patents, but are filing receipts for design patent
10 applications filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in late
11 May 2014. For example, the numbering convention for design patents is to begin
12 the patent number with a letter prefix, namely the letter D. The numbers
13 identified in STRs Complaint, however, all begin with the number 29 which is
14 the current two-digit series prefix for design patent applications. The patent
15 infringement claims in STRs Complaint are not based on actual patents.
16
3.
Attached as Exhibit B is a printed record from the Trademark
17 Electronic Search System (TESS) maintained by the USPTO for U.S. trademark
18 application serial no. 86256705 filed on April 18, 2014, for the STR RACING mark.
19 STRs Complaint states that STR owns a registered trademark and that the STR
20 Trademark registration number is 86256705. This is not a trademark registration
21 number, but instead appears to be a trademark application serial number, and there
22 is no indication that the USPTO has issued a trademark registration for this
23 application.
24
4.
Attached as Exhibit C is a printed record from the Trademark Status &
25 Document Retrieval (TSDR) system maintained by the USPTO for U.S. trademark
26 application serial no. 86256705 filed on April 18, 2014. There is no indication that
27 the USPTO has issued a trademark registration for this application. Instead, under
28 Status, the TSDR record states, New application will be assigned to an
1 examining attorney approximately 3 months after filing date. Thus, application

2 serial no. 86256705 is not expected to even be assigned to an trademark examiner
3 for examination until mid-July 2014.
4
5.
Attached as Exhibit D is a copy of an email dated July 7, 2014 from
5 myself as counsel for JNC, to Tommy Wang, counsel for plaintiff JAT Wheels, Inc.
6 d/b/a STR Racing. This email was sent about an hour after a telephone conversation
7 with Mr. Wang in which I had identified myself as counsel for Defendant JNC, and
8 questioned Mr. Wang about the basis for the claims in STRs Complaint. Mr. Wang
9 requested that I send him something in writing rather than engage in a verbal
10 discussion. This July 7 email attached as Exhibit D is a copy of that writing
11 requested by Mr. Wang.
12
6.
Attached as Exhibit E is a copy of an email dated July 8, 2014 from
13 Tommy Wang, counsel for STR, to me as counsel for JNC. In this July 8 email, Mr.
14 Wang declined to address the substance of the issues raised in the email that he had
15 requested from me.
16
7.
Attached as Exhibit F is a copy of an Order for Preliminary Injunction
17 issued against STR in Vossen Wheels, Inc. v. Toprich (U.S.A.), Inc., No. 13-7747, by
18 Judge Audrey B. Collins of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
19 California on December 9, 2013.
20
8.
Attached as Exhibit G is a copy of U.S. Design Patent No. D681,541
21 which was the patent-in-suit in Vossen Wheels, Inc. v. Toprich (U.S.A.), Inc. The
22 numbering convention for design patents is to begin the patent number with a letter
23 prefix, namely the letter D. Also, as shown on the face of the design patent, the
24 application number for a design patent application begins with a two-digit numerical
25 series prefix. For U.S. Design Patent No. D681,541, its application had 29 as its
26 series prefix.
27
28
9.
Attached as Exhibit H is a copy of a Complaint filed by STR in JAT
2 Wheels, Inc. d/b/a STR Racing v. Spec-1 Racing Wheels, Inc., No. 14-4897 in the
3 U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 24, 2014.
4
10.
Attached as Exhibit I is a copy of a Complaint filed by STR in JAT
5 Wheels, Inc. d/b/a STR Racing v. DB Motoring Group, Inc., No. 14-5097 in the U.S.
6 District Court for the Central District of California on July 1, 2014.
7
11.
Attached as Exhibit J is a copy of a Complaint filed by STR in JAT
8 Wheels, Inc. d/b/a STR Racing v. Trade Union Intl, Inc., No. 14-5172 in the U.S.
9 District Court for the Central District of California July 3, 2014.
10
12.
Attached as Exhibit K is a biographical profile of Tommy Wang
11 printed from the Yang & Wang website at http://www.yangwanglaw.com/tommy12 ZDQJ. The first paragraph of his profile states he is a Registered Patent Attorney
13 who is licensed to practice law in California, the U.S. District Court for the Central
14 District of California, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office with extensive
15 experience representing clients in federal and state courts throughout the country.
16
17
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
18 correct. Executed on July 11, 2014.

19
20
21
__________________
James Juo
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 2:14-cv-04898-JFW-MRW Document 1 Filed 06/24/14 Page 1 of 69 Page ID #:7
EXHIBIT A
Page 1 of 69

Plaintiff, JAT WHEELS, Inc. a California Corporation, dba STR Racing
(hereinafter Plaintiff), hereby files this Complaint against Defendant JNC
WHEEL COLLECTION (hereinafter Defendant), and DOES 1 to 10, and alleges
as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. Plaintiff files this action to combat the willful sale of unlicensed and
counterfeit products (hereinafter Infringing Products) bearing the
Plaintiffs exclusive Trademark and utilizing the Plaintiffs exclusive
design patents, and unauthorized use of Plaintiffs copyrighted
10
photographs. The Defendant is a corporation specializing in the research,
11
manufacture and sales of aftermarket automobile wheels.
12
2. Plaintiff seeks a Permanent Injunction, damages, costs, and attorneys fees
13
as authorized by the Lanham Act, the patent laws of the United States,
14
Title 35, United States Code, Californias common law, and California
15
Business & Professions Code.
16
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
17
3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 (federal
18
question) and 28 U.S.C. 1338(a) (action arising under an Act of
19
Congress relating to patents or trademarks).
20
4. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant since Defendant has
21
committed acts of trademark infringement and unfair competition in this
22
district and/or Defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with this
23
district to such that the exercise of jurisdiction over Defendant by this
24
Court does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial
25
justice. Among other things, Defendant has advertised, offered to sell and
26
JAT WHEELS INC.S COMPLAINT
2
EXHIBIT A
Page 2 of 69

sold products that infringe Plaintiffs Trademark rights to consumers
within this judicial district, knowing or having reason to know that
consumers, including those within this judicial district, would purchase
said goods from Defendant, believing that they were authentic goods
produced by and/or associated with Plaintiff or its authorized licensees.
5. Further, this Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs California state
statutory and common law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367.
6. Supplemental jurisdiction exists over Defendant because on information
and belief, Defendant conducts business in California and in this judicial
10
district, has purposefully availed itself to California and in this judicial
11
district, or has otherwise availed itself of the privileges and protections of
12
the law of the State of California, such that this Courts assertion of
13
jurisdiction over Defendant does not offend traditional notions of fair play
14
and due process.
15
7. Venue is proper within the Central District of California pursuant to 28
16
U.S.C. 1391(b) and 1400(a) because on information and belief, a
17
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim
18
occurred in this judicial district, and has caused damages to Plaintiff in
19
this district.
20
21
THE PARTIES
8. Plaintiff, JAT WHEELS, INC., dba STR Racing, is a California
22
corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of
23
California, and whose office is located at address 2107-D W.
24
Commonwealth Ave. #392, Alhambra, California 91803.
25
26
3
EXHIBIT A
Page 3 of 69

9. Upon information and belief, Defendant, JNC WHEELS COLLECTION,
is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of California, having its principal
place of business at 4525 Whittier Blvd, Los Angeles CA 90022.
10. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or
otherwise, of Defendants herein named DOES 1-10, inclusive are
unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff therefore sues said Defendants by such
fictitious names. When the true names and capacities of said Defendants
have been ascertained, Plaintiff will amend this pleading accordingly.
10
11. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant and DOES 1-10, inclusive sued
11
herein by fictitious names are jointly, severally and concurrently liable
12
and responsible with the named Defendant upon the causes of action
13
hereinafter set forth.
14
12. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times
15
mentioned herein Defendant, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, and each of
16
them, were the agents, servants, and employees of every other Defendant
17
and the acts of each Defendant, as alleged herein, were performed within
18
the course and scope of that agency, service or employment.

FACTS
19
20
21
13. Plaintiff owns the exclusive rights to numerous patents, copyrighted and
trademarked properties.
22
14. Plaintiff owns and holds the exclusive rights, title, and interest to market
23
and sell merchandise bearing the STR Trademark (the STR Trademark
24
or Trademark). Plaintiff registered its trademark on April 18, 2014 with
25
26
4
EXHIBIT A
Page 4 of 69

the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The STR Trademark
registration number is 86256705.
15. Plaintiff is the owner of all right, title and interest in the following U.S.
Design Patents: 1) Application No. 29,492,155 (the 155 patent); 2)
Application No. 29,492,156 (the 156 patent); 3) Application No.
29,492,157 (the 157 patent); 4) Application No. 29,492,158 (the 158
patent); and 5) Application No. 29,492,159 (the 159 patent),
(collectively, the Design Patents).
16. As a result of Defendants unlawful infringement of the Plaintiffs
10
Design Patents, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer damages.
11
Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendant the damages suffered as a
12
result of Defendants unlawful acts.
13
17. In or around May 2014, Plaintiff discovered that Defendant was
14
manufacturing and selling automobile parts on the Internet that infringed
15
on Plaintiffs Design Patents. Some of these parts also bore Plaintiffs
16
STR Trademark.
17
18. Defendant uses the STR Trademark in connection with its aftermarket
18
automobile parts that are in direct competition with Plaintiffs aftermarket
19
automobile parts. Defendant has used Plaintiffs trademark in its
20
advertising for such products and services, thereby competing unfairly
21
with Plaintiff, infringing upon Plaintiffs trademark rights, and improperly
22
trading on the goodwill established by Plaintiff.
23
19. In or around May 2014, Plaintiff published photographs to its website
24
displaying its aftermarket automobile parts. Plaintiff owns the copyrights
25
and ownership rights to these photographs.
26
5
EXHIBIT A
Page 5 of 69

20. Without Plaintiffs consent, Defendant sporadically, but consistently, used
Plaintiffs copyrighted images to promote and sell the Infringing Products
on Defendants website.
21. Defendants infringing activities have caused damages to Plaintiff by
causing customer confusion as to the source of the STR Trademark. In
addition, Defendants use of the aforementioned Design Patent and STR
Trademark has and continues to dilute Plaintiffs goodwill in its products
and business that it has invested significant time and resources.
22. On information and belief, Defendants infringement of one or more of
10
the Plaintiffs Patents is willful and deliberate, therefore entitling Plaintiff
11
to enhanced damages and reasonable attorney fees and costs.
12
23. On information and belief, Defendant intends to continue their unlawful
13
infringing activity, and Plaintiff continues to and will continue to suffer
14
irreparable harmfor which there is no adequate remedy at lawunless
15
Defendant is enjoined by this Court.
16
COUNT I- FEDERAL TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AND
17
TRADEMARK COUNTERFEITING
18
24. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges, as set forth herein, the allegations
19
contained in paragraphs 1 through 23, and brings the following claim for
20
trademark infringement pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1114 against the
21
Defendant.
22
25. Plaintiff owns or is licensee of the exclusive rights to the STR
23
Trademark. The trademark registration is in full force and effect and is
24
owned by the Plaintiff or Plaintiffs licensors.
25
26
6
EXHIBIT A
Page 6 of 69

26. Plaintiff, and/or those under its authority, manufactures, sells, and
distributes all of its advertising and products in conformity with the
provisions of the United States Trademark law.
27. Despite having actual and constructive notice of the Plaintiff and/or its
licensors federal registration rights, prior common law and statutory
rights to the STR Trademark, Defendant has adopted and used the STR
Trademark in conjunction with the sale of merchandise in the State of
California and interstate commerce.
28. Defendant has distributed, sold, or offered for sale merchandise
10
displaying Plaintiffs Trademark without Plaintiffs authorization.
11
Defendants distribution, sale, or offer for sale of merchandise bearing
12
Plaintiffs Trademark in California and interstate commerce has and will
13
cause the likelihood of confusion, deception, and mistake in that
14
consumers will conclude that the products sold by the Defendant are
15
authorized, sponsored, approved, or associated with the Plaintiff.
16
29. Defendants use in commerce of Plaintiffs Trademark in conjunction
17
with the sale of merchandise is an infringement of Plaintiffs registered
18
STR Trademark in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1114(1).
19
30. Defendant committed the acts alleged herein intentionally, fraudulently,
20
maliciously, willfully, wantonly, and oppressively with the intent to injure
21
the Plaintiff and its business.
22
31. The Plaintiff has suffered damages as a result of the Defendants acts.
23
32. The Infringing Products bearing the Plaintiffs Trademark that the
24
Defendants manufactured, sold, distributed, or offered for sale constitutes
25
a counterfeit product pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1116(d).
26
7
EXHIBIT A
Page 7 of 69

33. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117, Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of (1)
Defendants profits; (2) Plaintiffs damages, including lost profits; and (3)
costs of the action. Plaintiff is further entitled to trebled damages above
the amount of actual damages in a sum of not more than three times the
amount of actual damages. Defendants intentional and deceitful actions
make this a case in which the Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorneys
fees.
8
9
34. By reason of the aforementioned acts by Defendant, Plaintiff has suffered

and will continue to suffer irreparable damage, in an amount to be
10
determined, and damages will continue unless and until enjoined by Order
11
of this Court.
12
COUNT II- FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN [15 U.S.C.
13
1125(a)/Lanham Act 43(a)]
14
15
contained in paragraphs 1 through 34 and brings the following claim for
16
false designation of origin pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1125(a) and the
17
Lanham Act 43(a) against the Defendant.
18
36. Defendant has used Plaintiffs registered STR Trademark in commerce in
19
connection with its own goods, where use is likely to cause confusion, or
20
to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the origin, sponsorship, association or
21
approval of such goods.
22
37. By utilizing the Plaintiffs Trademark in its advertising for, and in
23
connection with its products, Defendant has misrepresented and falsely
24
described to the general public the origin and the source of the products
25
26
8
EXHIBIT A
Page 8 of 69

offered for sale. Further, it creates a likelihood of confusion, mistake or
deception to the ultimate purchaser as to the source of the products.
38. For example, Defendant markets, conducts business, and publicly
represents that the STR Trademark is associated or connected to the
Defendants business thereby creating a false designation of origin of
Plaintiffs brand of goods and services.
39. The confusion, mistake, or deception referred to herein arises out of the
aforementioned acts of Defendant and the acts of the Defendant constitute
false designation of origin and unfair competition in violation of 15
10
11
U.S.C. 1125(a) and Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act.

40. Upon information and belief, the aforesaid acts of the Defendant were
12
undertaken willfully with the intention of causing confusion, mistake or
13
deception. Plaintiff is entitled, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117, to recovery
14
of: (1) Defendants profits; (2) Plaintiffs damages, including lost profits;
15
and (3) costs of the action. Plaintiff is further entitled to treble damages
16
above the amount of actual damages in a sum not more than three times
17
the amount of actual damages. Defendants intentional and deceitful
18
actions make this a case in which the Plaintiff is entitled to an award of
19
attorneys fees.
20
21
22
determined, which damage will continue unless and until enjoined by
23
Order of this Court.
24
25
26
9
EXHIBIT A
Page 9 of 69

#:153
COUNT III- FEDERAL TRADEMARK DILUTION [15 U.S.C. 1125(c)]
42. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges, as if set forth herein, the allegations
trademark dilution pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1125(c) against the Defendant.
43. Plaintiffs registered Trademark is distinctive, well known and famous.
44. Defendant is diluting the distinctiveness of Plaintiffs Trademark by
marketing and selling inferior goods bearing marks virtually identical or
confusingly similar to Plaintiffs registered Trademark. Upon information
and belief, Defendant has engaged in the conduct alleged in these claims,
10
willfully intending to trade on Plaintiffs reputation and/or to cause
11
dilution of the reputable and distinctive Trademark owned by Plaintiff.
12
45. Defendant markets, conducts business, and publicly represents that the
13
Trademark is associated or connected to the Defendants business thereby
14
creating a false designation of origin of Plaintiffs brand of goods and
15
services. Thus, Defendants acts violate 15 U.S.C. 1125(c).
16
46. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants trademark dilution,
17
Plaintiff has and will continue to suffer damages to its business, reputation
18
and good will, and the loss of royalties and profits that Plaintiff would
19
have made but for Defendants acts. Upon information and belief,
20
Defendants acts of infringement have also resulted in substantial profits
21
for the Defendant. The amount of these damages will be proven at trial.
22
23
24
25
COUNT IV-FEDERAL COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

contained in paragraphs 1 through 46.
26
10
EXHIBIT A
Page 10 of 69

#:154
1
2
48. Plaintiffs were and are the exclusive holder of all rights, title and interest
in their photographs, as separate and distinct works.
49. Defendant has infringed and is infringing the copyrighted photographs by
unlawfully reproducing and using such photographs in violation of the
United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 106.
50. Defendants infringement was and is willful, in bad faith, and executed
with full knowledge of Plaintiffs copyright, and in conscious disregard
for Plaintiffs exclusive rights in the protected work.
9
10
11
51. Defendants deliberate infringement of Plaintiffs copyrights has greatly

and irreparably damaged Plaintiff.
52. Defendants production of infringing products and copyrighted material,
12
and Defendants wrongful conduct, have deprived and continue to deprive
13
the Plaintiff of their opportunity of expanding their goodwill. Plaintiff is
14
entitled to an injunction restraining Defendant, its officers, agents, and
15
employees, and all persons acting in concert with it, from engaging in any
16
further acts in violation of the copyright laws.
17
53. Plaintiff is further entitled to recover the damages, including attorneys
18
fees, they have sustained and will sustain, and any gains, profits, and
19
advantages obtained by Defendant as a result of Defendants acts of
20
infringement alleged above. At present, the amount of such damages,
21
gains, profits, are in an amount to be determined.
22
23
24
COUNT V- INFRINGEMENT OF THE 155 PATENT

25
26
11
EXHIBIT A
Page 11 of 69

#:155
55. Plaintiff is the owner of all right, title, and interest in the 155 patent,
titled STR513 Wheel Design duly and properly issued by the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office on May 29, 2014. A copy of the 155 patent
is attached as Exhibit A.
56. Defendants have been and/or are directly infringing and/or inducing
infringement of and/or contributory infringing the 155 patent by, among
other things, making, using, offering to sell or selling in the United States,
or importing into the United States, products that are covered by the
design patent, including, by way of example and not limitation, the
10
11
JNC003 wheel, attached as Exhibit B.

57. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that
12
Defendants infringement of the 155 patent has been and continues to be
13
intentional, willful, and without regard to Plaintiffs rights. Plaintiff is
14
informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants
15
infringement of the 155 patent is and has been intentional, deliberate, and
16
willful at least because it had knowledge of the 155 patent through direct
17
or indirect communications with Plaintiff and/or as a result of its
18
participation in the aftermarket automobile parts industry.
19
20
Defendant has gained profits by virtue of its infringement of the 155
21
Patent.
22
23
59. Plaintiff has sustained damages as a direct and proximate result of

Defendants infringement of the 155 Patent.
24
25
26
12
EXHIBIT A
Page 12 of 69

#:156
COUNT VI- INFRINGEMENT OF THE 156 PATENT
1
2
3
4
is attached as Exhibit C.
10
11
12
13
JNC005 wheel, attached as Exhibit D.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Patent.
25
26
13
EXHIBIT A
Page 13 of 69

#:157
1
2
3
4
5
6

COUNT VII- INFRINGEMENT OF THE 157 PATENT
is attached as Exhibit E.
10
11
12
13
14
15
JNC006 wheel, attached as Exhibit F.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
14
EXHIBIT A
Page 14 of 69

#:158
Patent.
4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
is attached as Exhibit G.
13
14
15
16
17
18
JNC026 wheel, attached as Exhibit H.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
15
EXHIBIT A
Page 15 of 69

#:159
Patent.
6
7
8
9
10
11

12
13
14
is attached as Exhibit I.
15
16
17
18
19
20
JNC012 wheel, attached as Exhibit J.
21
22
23
24
25
26
16
EXHIBIT A
Page 16 of 69

#:160
Patent.
7
8
9
10

COUNT VI-FEDERAL UNFAIR COMPETITION [15 U.S.C. 1125(a)]
11
12
unfair competition pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1125(a) against the Defendant.
13
85. As a direct result of the Plaintiffs longstanding use, sales, advertising,
14
and marketing, Plaintiffs Trademark has acquired a secondary and
15
distinctive meaning among the public who have come to identify
16
Plaintiffs Trademark with the Plaintiff and its respective products.
17
86. Plaintiff is informed and believes that thereon alleges that as early as May
18
of 2014, Defendant has infringed Plaintiffs Trademark rights by
19
marketing and selling goods bearing marks virtually identical or
20
confusingly similar to the recognized and distinctive registered
21
Trademark, owned by Plaintiff.
22
87. The Infringing Products and related merchandise that the Defendant has
23
sold and distributed duplicates and appropriates Plaintiffs Trademark and
24
deludes and confuses the public into believing that the Plaintiff approved,
25
26
17
EXHIBIT A
Page 17 of 69

#:161
authorized, or sponsored the products and related merchandise sold,
offered for sale, or distributed by the Defendant.
88. Defendant, by misappropriating and using the likenesses of Plaintiffs
Trademark in connection with the sale of products and related
merchandise, is misrepresenting and will continue to misrepresent and
falsely describe to the general public the origin and sponsorship of their
products. Defendant has caused such products to enter into interstate
commerce willfully with full knowledge of the falsity of the designation
of their origin and description and representation in an effort to mislead
10
the purchasing public into believing that their products are authorized or
11
emanate from the Plaintiff.
12
89. Defendants actions, as alleged herein, were and are likely to deceive the
13
consuming public and therefore constitute unfair and fraudulent business
14
practices in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).
15
90. Defendants unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices described
16
above present a continuing threat to members of the public in that they are
17
likely to be deceived by the origin and quality of Plaintiffs products.
18
91. Upon information and belief, Defendants acts of unfair competition have
19
resulted in substantial profits for the Defendant in an amount to be
20
determined. Defendants acts of unfair competition have also resulted in
21
damages to Plaintiff by causing a diversion of sales from Plaintiff to
22
Defendant, lost royalties and other damages resulting from irreparable
23
harm to Plaintiffs goodwill. The exact amount of Plaintiffs damages is to
24
be determined.
25
92. Plaintiff has also incurred costs and attorneys fees to bring this action.
26
18
EXHIBIT A
Page 18 of 69

#:162
1
2
3
4
93. Defendants conduct has caused and will continue to cause irreparable
injury to Plaintiff unless permanently enjoined.
COUNT VII- CALIFORNIA COMMON LAW UNFAIR COMPETITION
unfair competition pursuant to Californias common law against the
Defendant.
95. The Court has jurisdiction over this Cause pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367.
96. By Defendants acts alleged herein, the Defendant has engaged in unfair
10
11
competition under the common law of the State of California.

97. Defendant has distributed and sold Infringing Products displaying the
12
Trademark of the Plaintiff in California, thereby creating a false
13
designation of origin of Plaintiffs brand of goods and unfairly competing
14
with Plaintiffs business.
15
98. Upon information and belief, Defendant has knowingly and willfully
16
misappropriated Plaintiffs Trademark in an effort to create the impression
17
that the Defendants counterfeit products are sanctioned by the Plaintiff
18
and to misappropriate the goodwill associated with Plaintiffs Trademark,
19
entitling Plaintiff to an award of exemplary damages and attorneys fees.
20
21
22
99. The aforesaid acts of the Defendant have caused damage to Plaintiff, in
an amount to be determined.
100.
By reason of the acts of the Defendants alleged herein, Plaintiff has
23
suffered, is suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable damage,
24
which damage will continue unless enjoined by Order of this Court.
25
26
19
EXHIBIT A
Page 19 of 69

#:163
COUNT VI- UNFAIR COMPETITION UNDER CALIFORNIA
BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE 17200, et seq.
101.
Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges, as set forth herein, the allegations
unfair competition pursuant to California Business and Professions Code
17200.
7
8
9
102.
The Court has jurisdiction over this Cause pursuant to 26 U.S.C.
1367.
103.
By acts complained of herein, Defendant has engaged in unfair
10
competition under Section 17200 of the Business and Professions Code of
11
the State of California.
12
104.
Defendants use of the infringing mark complained of herein
13
constitutes deceptive and misleading advertising and is likely to, and is
14
intended to, cause confusion to the purchasers and potential purchasers of
15
the products.
16
105.
Defendant markets, conducts business, and publicly represents that the
17
Plaintiffs registered Trademark is associated or connected to the
18
Defendants business and thus creates a false designation of origin of
19
20
106.
Upon information and belief, the aforesaid acts of Defendant was
21
undertaken willfully and with the intention of causing confusion, mistake
22
and deception, entitling the Plaintiff to an award of exemplary damages
23
and attorneys fees.
24
25
107.
The aforesaid acts of Defendant have caused damage to Plaintiff in an
amount to be determined.
26
20
EXHIBIT A
Page 20 of 69

#:164
108.
By reason of the acts of the Defendant alleged herein, Plaintiff has
suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of
Defendants acts of unfair business practices alleged herein, is suffering
and will continue to suffer irreparable damage, which irreparable damage
will continue unless enjoined by Order of this Court.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
6
7
8
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands entry of a judgment against the Defendant as

follows:
1. The Defendant, its officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and
10
all those in active concert or participation with them be enjoined and
11
restrained:
12
a. From further using Plaintiffs registered Trademark or any other
13
confusingly similar mark, in connection with the manufacture,
14
sale, advertisement or promotion of any product or any other
15
similar infringement of Plaintiffs Trademark rights, for products
16
not originating from Plaintiff or authorized by Plaintiff;
17
b. From diluting any of Plaintiffs Trademark or any other
18
19
confusingly similar mark;

c. From further using Plaintiffs Design Patents or any other
20
confusingly similar design, in connection with the manufacture,
21
22
similar infringement of Plaintiffs Design Patent rights, for
23
products not originating from Plaintiff or authorized by Plaintiff;
24
and
25
26
21
EXHIBIT A
Page 21 of 69

#:165
d. From engaging in unfair competition by making and selling its
products or otherwise using confusingly similar marks and designs,
in such a way as to misrepresent the origin of any of the
Defendants products;
2. For an order requiring Defendant to deliver and be impounded during the
pendency of this action all material in Defendants possession, custody or
control that include or incorporate products that infringe Plaintiffs
Trademark rights, or Design Patent rights, including but not limited to,
any containers, packages, labels and advertisements in their possession or
10
under their control bearing any of Plaintiffs Trademark or utilizing
11
Plaintiffs Design Patents, or any simulation, reproduction, counterfeit,
12
copy, or colorable imitation thereof;
13
3. Directing that the Defendant report to this Court within thirty (30) days
14
after a Permanent Injunction is entered to show its compliance with
15
paragraphs 1 and 2 above;
16
4. For compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial;
17
5. For all gains, profits and advantages derived by Defendant by its
18
infringement of Plaintiffs trademark rights and Design Patent rights;
19
6. For punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish Defendant for its
20
wrongful conduct and to deter others from engaging in similar conduct in
21
the future;
22
7. For statutory damages as provided by law;
23
8. For permanent injunction against Defendant, preventing Defendant from
24
any future usage of any identical or similarly confusing marks related to
25
Plaintiffs registered Trademark or Design Patents;
26
22
EXHIBIT A
Page 22 of 69

#:166
9. Directing such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate to prevent
the trade and public, or individual members thereof, from gaining the
erroneous impression that the Plaintiff authorized or approved any
products manufactured, sold, or otherwise circulated or promoted by the
Defendant or that such products are in any way related to the Plaintiff;
10. For a judgment declaring that this case is exceptional and awarding to
the Plaintiff from the Defendant, as a result of the Defendants sale of
Infringing Products bearing the Plaintiffs Trademark or using Plaintiffs
Design Patents, three times the Plaintiffs damages and three times the
10
Defendants profits, after an accounting, or statutory damages, should the
11
Plaintiff opt for such relief, consisting of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars
12
($500,000.00) for each of the Plaintiffs Trademarks infringed upon by
13
the Defendant, and to the extent this Court concludes such infringement
14
was willful, Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00) for the Plaintiffs
15
Trademark infringed upon by the Defendant pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
16
1114 and 1117;
17
18
11. Awarding to the Plaintiff its reasonable attorneys fees and investigative
fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117;
19
12. Awarding to the Plaintiff its costs in bringing this action; and
20
13. Awarding other such relief to the Plaintiff as this Court deems just.
21
22
23
24
25
26
23
EXHIBIT A
Page 23 of 69

#:167
EXHIBIT A
Page 24 of 69

#:168
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
Page 25 of 69

#:169
Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt

EFS ID:
19153968
Application Number:
29492155
International Application Number:

Confirmation Number:
Title of Invention:
First Named Inventor/Applicant Name:

Customer Number:
Filer:
2886
STR513 Wheel Design
Tom Luo
101028
Elizabeth Yang
Filer Authorized By:

Attorney Docket Number:
Receipt Date:
29-MAY-2014
Filing Date:
Time Stamp:
03:07:56
Application Type:
Design
Payment information:
Submitted with Payment
yes
Payment Type
Credit Card
Payment was successfully received in RAM
$ 380
RAM confirmation Number
12608
Deposit Account
Authorized User
File Listing:
Document
Number
Document Description
File Name
File Size(Bytes)/
Message Digest
Multi
Pages
Part /.zip (if appl.)
EXHIBIT A
Page 26 of 69

#:170
99997
Application Data Sheet
WebADS.pdf
no
no
no
1d3057dd4df71842d9595419e18aa281eeb
c0af6
Warnings:
Information:
2
101925
Drawings-only black and white line

drawings
STR513_v1.pdf
Fee Worksheet (SB06)
fee-info.pdf
bfcac86549757cb253e733e6b83c565ab47
ce446
Warnings:
Information:
32064
1fb8019d925a6cd6d59ffa495e66ccc0a481
c142
Warnings:
Information:
Total Files Size (in bytes):
233986
This Acknowledgement Receipt evidences receipt on the noted date by the USPTO of the indicated documents,
characterized by the applicant, and including page counts, where applicable. It serves as evidence of receipt similar to a
Post Card, as described in MPEP 503.
New Applications Under 35 U.S.C. 111
If a new application is being filed and the application includes the necessary components for a filing date (see 37 CFR
1.53(b)-(d) and MPEP 506), a Filing Receipt (37 CFR 1.54) will be issued in due course and the date shown on this
Acknowledgement Receipt will establish the filing date of the application.
National Stage of an International Application under 35 U.S.C. 371
If a timely submission to enter the national stage of an international application is compliant with the conditions of 35
U.S.C. 371 and other applicable requirements a Form PCT/DO/EO/903 indicating acceptance of the application as a
national stage submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 will be issued in addition to the Filing Receipt, in due course.
New International Application Filed with the USPTO as a Receiving Office
If a new international application is being filed and the international application includes the necessary components for
an international filing date (see PCT Article 11 and MPEP 1810), a Notification of the International Application Number
and of the International Filing Date (Form PCT/RO/105) will be issued in due course, subject to prescriptions concerning
national security, and the date shown on this Acknowledgement Receipt will establish the international filing date of
the application.
EXHIBIT A
Page 27 of 69

Case 2:14-cv-04898-JFW-MRW Document#:171
1 Filed 06/24/14 Page 28 of 69 Page ID #:34
&'(
!"#$%&
EXHIBIT A
Page 28 of 69

&()
!"#$%&
!"#$%'
EXHIBIT A
Page 29 of 69

()&
!"#$%&
!"#$%'
EXHIBIT A
Page 30 of 69

()(
!"#$%&
!"#$%'
EXHIBIT A
Page 31 of 69

#:175
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT A
Page 32 of 69

#:176
6/23/2014
JNC003
Home
Information
Wish List (0)
Compare
My Account
Currency
Shopping Cart
Shopping Ca rt
0 item(s) - $0.00
WHEEL COLLECTION
SEARCH BY BOLT PATTERNS
SEARCH BY SIZES
PHOTO GALLERY
NEW ARRIVALS
SPECIALS
Home WHEEL COLLECTION JNC003
JNC003
Categories
JNC003 Collection
Sizes:
WHEEL COLLECTION (513)

- JNC001 (62)
- 15x8
- JNC002 (4)
- 15x9
- JNC003 (12)
- 18x8.5
- JNC004 (84)
- JNC005 (89)
- JNC006 (14)
- JNC007 (3)
- JNC008 (2)
- JNC009 (5)
Shop by price: $119 - $130
- JNC010 (33)
Sort By:
- JNC011 (4)
Name (A - Z)
Show:
100
- JNC012 (13)
- JNC013 (20)
- JNC014 (48)
- JNC015 (4)
- JNC016 (6)
- JNC017 (2)
- JNC018 (7)
- JNC019 (7)
- JNC020 (21)
- JNC021 (9)
- JNC022 (11)
- JNC023 (4)
- JNC026 (14)
- JNC027 (17)
JNC003 15x8 - 4x100/4x114.3 et0 - Gold Machined Lip
JNC003 15x8 - 4x100/4x114.3 et0 - Matte Black
JNC003 15x8 - 4x100/4x114.3 et0 - Matte Bronze
$119.99
$119.99
$119.99
- JNC029 (4)
- JNC030 (1)
- JNC031 (12)
- JNC038 (1)
(516)
SEARCH BY SIZES (513)
PHOTO GALLERY (0)
http://www.jncwheels.com/jnc-wheel-collection/JNC003
1/3
EXHIBIT A
Page 33 of 69

#:177
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT A
Page 34 of 69

#:178

EFS ID:
19153988
Application Number:
29492156

Title of Invention:

Customer Number:
Filer:
2099
STR514 Wheel Design
Tom Luo
101028
Elizabeth Yang

Receipt Date:
29-MAY-2014
Filing Date:
Time Stamp:
03:35:24
Application Type:
Design
yes
Payment Type
Credit Card
$ 380
12642
Deposit Account
Authorized User
File Listing:
Document
Number
File Name
File Size(Bytes)/
Message Digest
Multi
Pages
EXHIBIT A
Page 35 of 69

#:179
96124
WebADS.pdf
no
no
no
08a853a3deb99279c42046f01ecab7a1c63
04fcd
Warnings:
Information:
2
105870

drawings
STR514_v1.pdf
fee-info.pdf
8b25767101bff978f0d240926024d4bd01cf
b6f7
Warnings:
Information:
32127
2ac872571722b0b5693775836ab433cfd8e
65b4f
Warnings:
Information:
234121
the application.
EXHIBIT A
Page 36 of 69

&'(
!"#$%&
EXHIBIT A
Page 37 of 69

&()
!"#$%&
!"#$%'
EXHIBIT A
Page 38 of 69

()&
!"#$%&
!"#$%'
EXHIBIT A
Page 39 of 69

()(
!"#$%&
!"#$%'
EXHIBIT A
Page 40 of 69

#:184
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT A
Page 41 of 69

#:185
6/23/2014
JNC005
Home
Information
Wish List (0)
Compare
My Account
Currency
Shopping Cart
Shopping Ca rt
0 item(s) - $0.00
WHEEL COLLECTION
SEARCH BY SIZES
PHOTO GALLERY
NEW ARRIVALS
SPECIALS
JNC005
Categories
JNC005 Collection
Sizes:

- JNC001 (62)
- 17x8.5, 17x9.5
- JNC002 (4)
- 18x8, 18x9, 18x10
- JNC003 (12)
- 19x8.5, 19x9.5
- JNC004 (84)
- 20x8.5, 20x10
- JNC005 (89)
- JNC006 (14)
- JNC007 (3)
- JNC008 (2)
- JNC009 (5)
- JNC010 (33)
Sort By:
- JNC011 (4)
Name (A - Z)
Show:
100
- JNC012 (13)
- JNC013 (20)
- JNC014 (48)
- JNC015 (4)
New
New
New
- JNC016 (6)
- JNC017 (2)
- JNC018 (7)
- JNC019 (7)
- JNC020 (21)
- JNC021 (9)
- JNC022 (11)
- JNC023 (4)
- JNC026 (14)
- JNC027 (17)
JNC005 17x8.5 - 5x100 - et30 Gold Machined Lip
JNC005 17x8.5 - 5x100 - et30 Hyper Black
JNC005 17x8.5 - 5x100 - et30 Matte Black Gold Rivets
$139.99
$149.99
$139.99
- JNC029 (4)
- JNC030 (1)
- JNC031 (12)
- JNC038 (1)
(516)
PHOTO GALLERY (0)
1/9
EXHIBIT A
Page 42 of 69

#:186
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT A
Page 43 of 69

#:187

EFS ID:
19154004
Application Number:
29492157

Title of Invention:

Customer Number:
Filer:
8784
STR522 Wheel Design
Tom Luo
101028
Elizabeth Yang

Receipt Date:
29-MAY-2014
Filing Date:
Time Stamp:
03:56:29
Application Type:
Design
yes
Payment Type
Credit Card
$ 380
12650
Deposit Account
Authorized User
File Listing:
Document
Number
File Name
File Size(Bytes)/
Message Digest
Multi
Pages
EXHIBIT A
Page 44 of 69

#:188
96125
WebADS.pdf
no
no
no
34b9fc5eb62c3a2e4b3405602c5bfdb3d3e
2be16
Warnings:
Information:
2
100384

drawings
STR522_v1.pdf
fee-info.pdf
afe10f54305ef04f54b7ba4dc7ce27c80fe8d
548
Warnings:
Information:
32064
ff00f6727a8eebf74937a833506eca3d981b
3565
Warnings:
Information:
228573
the application.
EXHIBIT A
Page 45 of 69

&'(
!"#$%&
EXHIBIT A
Page 46 of 69

&()
!"#$%&
!"#$%'
EXHIBIT A
Page 47 of 69

()&
!"#$%&
!"#$%'
EXHIBIT A
Page 48 of 69

()(
!"#$%&
!"#$%'
EXHIBIT A
Page 49 of 69

#:193
EXHIBIT F
EXHIBIT A
Page 50 of 69

#:194
6/23/2014
JNC006
Home
Information
Wish List (0)
Compare
My Account
Currency
Shopping Cart
Shopping Ca rt
0 item(s) - $0.00
WHEEL COLLECTION
SEARCH BY SIZES
PHOTO GALLERY
NEW ARRIVALS
SPECIALS
JNC006
Categories
JNC006 Collection
Sizes:

- JNC001 (62)
- 15x8
- JNC002 (4)
- 16x8, 16x8.25
- JNC003 (12)
- 17x8, 17x9
- JNC004 (84)
- 18x8
- JNC005 (89)
- JNC006 (14)
- JNC007 (3)
- JNC008 (2)
- JNC009 (5)
- JNC010 (33)
Sort By:
- JNC011 (4)
Name (A - Z)
Show:
100
- JNC012 (13)
- JNC013 (20)
- JNC014 (48)
- JNC015 (4)
- JNC016 (6)
- JNC017 (2)
- JNC018 (7)
- JNC019 (7)
- JNC020 (21)
- JNC021 (9)
- JNC022 (11)
- JNC023 (4)
- JNC026 (14)
- JNC027 (17)
JNC006 15x8 - 4x100/4x114.3 et18 - Hyper Black
JNC006 15x8 - 4x100/4x114.3 et18 - Silver Machined Face
JNC006 15x8 - 4x100/4x114.3 et18 - White
$129.99
$119.99
$119.99
- JNC029 (4)
- JNC030 (1)
- JNC031 (12)
- JNC038 (1)
(516)
PHOTO GALLERY (0)
1/3
EXHIBIT A
Page 51 of 69

#:195
EXHIBIT G
EXHIBIT A
Page 52 of 69

#:196

EFS ID:
19154009
Application Number:
29492158

Title of Invention:

Customer Number:
Filer:
1577
STR617 Wheel Design
Tom Luo
101028
Elizabeth Yang

Receipt Date:
29-MAY-2014
Filing Date:
Time Stamp:
04:01:15
Application Type:
Design
yes
Payment Type
Credit Card
$ 380
12658
Deposit Account
Authorized User
File Listing:
Document
Number
File Name
File Size(Bytes)/
Message Digest
Multi
Pages
EXHIBIT A
Page 53 of 69

#:197
96124
WebADS.pdf
no
no
no
4fc7e6261a5bd0010b191523b2241b30a48
86c03
Warnings:
Information:
2
101923

drawings
STR617_v1.pdf
fee-info.pdf
57fe6c8f46acfad6b4b44695b2b436592b9c
e48a
Warnings:
Information:
32011
41ad279f59940a41e576a21a5db28846c19
46de0
Warnings:
Information:
230058
the application.
EXHIBIT A
Page 54 of 69

&'(
!"#$%&
EXHIBIT A
Page 55 of 69

&()
!"#$%&
!"#$%'
EXHIBIT A
Page 56 of 69

()&
!"#$%&
!"#$%'
EXHIBIT A
Page 57 of 69

()(
!"#$%&
!"#$%'
EXHIBIT A
Page 58 of 69

#:202
EXHIBIT H
EXHIBIT A
Page 59 of 69

#:203
6/23/2014
JNC026
Home
Information
Wish List (0)
Compare
My Account
Currency
Shopping Cart
Shopping Ca rt
0 item(s) - $0.00
WHEEL COLLECTION
SEARCH BY SIZES
PHOTO GALLERY
NEW ARRIVALS
SPECIALS
JNC026
Categories
JNC026 Collection
Sizes:

- JNC001 (62)
- 17x9
- JNC002 (4)
- 18x8.5
- JNC003 (12)
- 18x9
- JNC004 (84)
- JNC005 (89)
- JNC006 (14)
- JNC007 (3)
- JNC008 (2)
- JNC009 (5)
- JNC010 (33)
Sort By:
- JNC011 (4)
Name (A - Z)
Show:
100
- JNC012 (13)
- JNC013 (20)
- JNC014 (48)
- JNC015 (4)
New
- JNC016 (6)
- JNC017 (2)
- JNC018 (7)
- JNC019 (7)
- JNC020 (21)
- JNC021 (9)
- JNC022 (11)
- JNC023 (4)
- JNC026 (14)
- JNC027 (17)
JNC026 17x9 - 5x100 - et30 Hyper Black
JNC026 17x9 - 5x100 - et30 White
JNC026 17x9 - 5x114.3 - et30 White
$154.99
$144.99
$144.99
- JNC029 (4)
- JNC030 (1)
- JNC031 (12)
- JNC038 (1)
(516)
PHOTO GALLERY (0)
1/3
EXHIBIT A
Page 60 of 69

#:204
EXHIBIT I
EXHIBIT A
Page 61 of 69

#:205

EFS ID:
19154013
Application Number:
29492159

Title of Invention:

Customer Number:
Filer:
5156
STR618 Wheel Design
Tom Luo
101028
Elizabeth Yang

Receipt Date:
29-MAY-2014
Filing Date:
Time Stamp:
04:05:49
Application Type:
Design
yes
Payment Type
Credit Card
$ 380
12664
Deposit Account
Authorized User
File Listing:
Document
Number
File Name
File Size(Bytes)/
Message Digest
Multi
Pages
EXHIBIT A
Page 62 of 69

#:206
96126
WebADS.pdf
no
no
no
88305c64b7812fe2d18495e4dc1324d6544
033e0
Warnings:
Information:
2
97695

drawings
STR618_v1.pdf
fee-info.pdf
d427a6b311159e6305845eeb26175e4593
193d84
Warnings:
Information:
32113
fe8e25f603a0bfb6281e5f531f7d1abd2c02a
6a9
Warnings:
Information:
225934
the application.
EXHIBIT A
Page 63 of 69

&'(
!"#$%&
EXHIBIT A
Page 64 of 69

&()
!"#$%&
!"#$%'
EXHIBIT A
Page 65 of 69

()&
!"#$%&
!"#$%'
EXHIBIT A
Page 66 of 69

()(
!"#$%&
!"#$%'
EXHIBIT A
Page 67 of 69

#:211
EXHIBIT J
EXHIBIT A
Page 68 of 69

#:212
6/23/2014
JNC012
Home
Information
Wish List (0)
Compare
My Account
Currency
Shopping Cart
Shopping Ca rt
0 item(s) - $0.00
WHEEL COLLECTION
SEARCH BY SIZES
PHOTO GALLERY
NEW ARRIVALS
SPECIALS
JNC012
Categories
JNC012 Collection
Sizes:

- JNC001 (62)
- 15x8
- JNC002 (4)
- 16x8.25
- JNC003 (12)
- 17x8.75
- JNC004 (84)
- JNC005 (89)
- JNC006 (14)
- JNC007 (3)
- JNC008 (2)
- JNC009 (5)
- JNC010 (33)
Sort By:
- JNC011 (4)
Name (A - Z)
Show:
100
- JNC012 (13)
- JNC013 (20)
- JNC014 (48)
New
- JNC015 (4)
New
- JNC016 (6)
- JNC017 (2)
- JNC018 (7)
- JNC019 (7)
- JNC020 (21)
- JNC021 (9)
- JNC022 (11)
- JNC023 (4)
- JNC026 (14)
- JNC027 (17)
JNC012 15x8 - 4x100/4x114.3 et20 - Bronze
JNC012 15x8 - 4x100/4x114.3 et20 - Hyper Black
JNC012 15x8 - 4x100/4x114.3 et20 - Silver
$119.99
$129.99
$119.99
- JNC029 (4)
- JNC030 (1)
- JNC031 (12)
- JNC038 (1)
(516)
PHOTO GALLERY (0)
1/3
EXHIBIT A
Page 69 of 69

7UDGHPDUN(OHFWURQLF6HDUFK6\VWHP7(66
3DJHRI
8QLWHG6WDWHV3DWHQWDQG7UDGHPDUN2IILFH
+RPH_6LWH,QGH[_6HDUFK_)$4_*ORVVDU\_*XLGHV_&RQWDFWV_H%XVLQHVV_H%L]DOHUWV_1HZV_+HOS
7UDGHPDUNV! 7UDGHPDUN(OHFWURQLF6HDUFK6\VWHP7(66

7(66ZDVODVWXSGDWHGRQ7KX-XO('7
/RJRXW
3OHDVHORJRXWZKHQ\RXDUHGRQHWRUHOHDVHV\VWHPUHVRXUFHVDOORFDWHGIRU\RX
5HFRUGRXWRI
8VHWKH%DFNEXWWRQRIWKH,QWHUQHW%URZVHUWR
UHWXUQWR7(66
:RUG0DUN
6755$&,1*
*RRGVDQG6HUYLFHV ,&86* 69HKLFOHZKHHOV:KHHOULPV:KHHOULPV
),56786(),56786(,1&200(5&(
6WDQGDUG&KDUDFWHUV
&ODLPHG
0DUN'UDZLQJ&RGH 67$1'$5'&+$5$&7(50$5.
6HULDO1XPEHU

)LOLQJ'DWH
$SULO
&XUUHQW%DVLV
$
2ULJLQDO)LOLQJ%DVLV $
2ZQHU
$33/,&$17-$7:KHHOV,QF&25325$7,21&$/,)251,$6KRHPDNHU$YH
6DQWD)H6SULQJV&$/,)251,$
$WWRUQH\RI5HFRUG 7RPP\6):DQJ
7\SHRI0DUN
75$'(0$5.
5HJLVWHU
35,1&,3$/
/LYH'HDG,QGLFDWRU /,9(
_+20(_6,7(,1'(;_6($5&+_H%86,1(66_+(/3_35,9$&<32/,&<
KWWSWPVHDUFKXVSWRJRYELQVKRZILHOG"I GRF VWDWH SZOY
EXHIBIT B
Page 1 of 1
74

7UDGHPDUN6WDWXV 'RFXPHQW5HWULHYDO
67$786
3DJHRI
%DFNWR6HDUFK
'2&80(176
3ULQW
*HQHUDWHGRQ 7KLVSDJHZDVJHQHUDWHGE\76'5RQ('7
0DUN 6755$&,1*
866HULDO1XPEHU
$SSOLFDWLRQ)LOLQJ'DWH $SU
)LOHGDV7($63OXV <HV
&XUUHQWO\7($63OXV <HV
5HJLVWHU 3ULQFLSDO
0DUN7\SH 7UDGHPDUN
6WDWXV 1HZDSSOLFDWLRQZLOOEHDVVLJQHGWRDQH[DPLQLQJDWWRUQH\DSSUR[LPDWHO\PRQWKVDIWHUILOLQJGDWH
6WDWXV'DWH 0D\
0DUN,QIRUPDWLRQ
*RRGVDQG6HUYLFHV
%DVLV,QIRUPDWLRQ&DVH/HYHO
&XUUHQW2ZQHUV,QIRUPDWLRQ
$WWRUQH\&RUUHVSRQGHQFH,QIRUPDWLRQ
3URVHFXWLRQ+LVWRU\
706WDIIDQG/RFDWLRQ,QIRUPDWLRQ
$VVLJQPHQW$EVWUDFW2I7LWOH,QIRUPDWLRQ&OLFNWR/RDG
3URFHHGLQJV&OLFNWR/RDG
KWWSWVGUXVSWRJRY
EXHIBIT C
Page 1 of 2
75

7UDGHPDUN6WDWXV 'RFXPHQW5HWULHYDO
3DJHRI
KWWSWVGUXVSWRJRY
EXHIBIT C
Page 2 of 2
76
-DPHV-XR
)URP
6HQW
7R
6XEMHFW
-DPHV-XR
0RQGD\-XO\30
WZDQJ#\DQJZDQJODZFRP

DZHL#\DQJZDQJODZFRP

LQIR#\DQJZDQJODZFRP
-$7Y-1&
d

&/
:d:E

d^dZZ/E'
:dW

dW^dZd
:EW^dZdh^d
^dZZ/E'h^WdK
z
>

d
d:E
:E^dZZ/E':E&/
WZ
:E^dZZ/E'

d^dZZ/E'
>WZ^dZZ/E'
h^

d
E:d
WD'D/^h^
WZ
:E

dh^d
d

/tz
/

th>^
d/>d
:d:E

/Z
:d
EXHIBIT D
Page 1 of 2
77
::
W
&h>t/ZWddKE>>W
/W>
d&>
d&

/
EXHIBIT D
Page 2 of 2
78
-DPHV-XR
VIWZDQJ#JPDLOFRPRQEHKDOIRI7RPP\6):DQJWZDQJ#\DQJZDQJODZFRP!
7XHVGD\-XO\30
-DPHV-XR
DZHL#\DQJZDQJODZFRP
5H-$7Y-1&
)URP
6HQW
7R
&F
6XEMHFW
James,
Please be advised that I will not be replying to your emails with a point-by-point rebuttal. Both emails
contain so many factual inaccuracies and unrelated issues that attempting to address each one would
be an inefficient use of my firms time and our clients money.
From your emails, it appears that you represent JNC Wheels Collection, even though you never
confirm that in writing. If this is not correct, please let me know.
Again, as indicated in our letter to JNC Wheels Collection, we are willing to dismiss this case on the
following conditions:
1.
JNC Wheels Collection must stop selling the STR 513 immediately.
2.
JNC Wheels Collection must hand over all remaining inventory of the STR 513 to us or
provide proof that they destroyed them.
3.
JNC Wheels Collection must stop referring to, or designating themselves as an authorized
STR manufacturer, seller, or dealer.
4.
JNC Wheels Collection, from here on out, must not infringe on any other patents JAT currently
holds or will hold in the future.
5.
JNC Wheels Collection must pay for the cost of litigation, attorneys fees, damages, and
anything else that JAT is monetarily entitled to.
We have yet to formally effectuate service of process of JNC. Please advise if you are willing
to accept service on their behalf by July 11, 2014.
The foregoing is written for purposes of comprise and settlement, and is covered by Federal
Rule of Evidence 408. Additionally, nothing herein shall limit or be constructed to limit any position,
right, or claim that our client may have, all of which are expressly reserved.
Regards,
EXHIBIT E
Page 1 of 5
79
Tommy Wang
On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:03 AM, James Juo <[email protected]> wrote:

Tommy,
Following up on my earlier email, please note that before filing a patent lawsuit, Rule 11 requires a competent
pre-filing infringement analysis by a lawyer to find a reasonable basis for a finding of infringement of at least
one claim of each patent so asserted. View Eng'g., 208 F.3d at 984. Furthermore, a reasonable pre-filing
inquiry requires that the lawyer seek credible information rather than proceed on mere suspicions or supposition
for the claims being asserted in the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b); Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496
U.S. 384, 401-2, 110 S. Ct. 2447, 2459, 110 L. Ed. 2d 359 (1990); Cal. Architectural Bldg. Products, Inc. v.
Franciscan Ceramics, Inc., 818 F.2d 1466, 1472 (9th Cir. 1987). The complaint must be well-founded with
evidentiary support for its factual contentions from an objective prospective. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3); Morris v.
Wachovia Sec., Inc., 448 F.3d 268, 277 (4th Cir. 2006) (Factual allegations fail to satisfy Rule 11(b)(3) when
they are unsupported by any information obtained prior to filing.).
In addition to my prior inquiry as to whether JAT is asserting any issued patents for its patent infringement
claims (since no issued patents are identified in the complaint), please let me know if you inspected any of the
actual accused products as part of your pre-filing infringement analysis (and, if so, please identify those
products).
James Juo
Partner
FULWIDER PATTON LLP
Intellectual Property Law
6060 Center Drive, Tenth Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90045
T: 310.824.5555 | DD: 310.242.2656 | F: 310.824.9696
Email: [email protected] | website: www.fulpat.com
If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by telephone, 310-824-5555, and delete and/or destroy all copies of
the message.
)URP-DPHV-XR
6HQW0RQGD\-XO\30
7R

DZHL#\DQJZDQJODZFRP

LQIR#\DQJZDQJODZFRP

6XEMHFW-$7Y-1&
EXHIBIT E
Page 2 of 5
80
Tommy,
Following up our earlier telephone conversation (in which I was immediately transferred from you to
your associate Andrew, and then back to you again), there are severe deficiencies in the complaint JAT
filed against JNC.
The complaint was not clear on what trademark rights were being asserted. Andrew confirmed that
the STR RACING work mark is the only trademark being asserted by JAT in this litigation. Please
confirm that is correct.
The complaint asserts that Plaintiff registered its trademark on April 18, 2014, the STR Trademark
registration number is 86256705, and JNC infringed Plaintiffs registered STR Trademark in violation
of 15 U.S.C. 1114(1). Those are false statements. Although a trademark application for STR
RACING was filed on April 18, 2014, the USPTO has not issued a trademark registration. You have no
basis to assert federal trademark infringement and trademark counterfeiting under the Lanham Act
which require a registered trademark.
To the extent you are asserting unregistered rights under a different statute, please identify the specific
factual and legal basis for your claim. The complaint only makes general allegations against JNC.
During our short telephone conversation, Andrew asserted that JNC used the STR RACING mark on the
JNC website and on its Facebook page. I am unaware of any such use. Please provide me with the Rule
11 factual basis, including any screenshots, to support your assertion that JNC has infringed the STR
RACING mark.
The complaint also asserts dilution, but there appears to be no basis to assert that the STR RACING
mark is famous as required by the Lanham Act . Please provide me with the Rule 11 factual basis for
your assertion that the STR RACING mark is famous (i.e., widely recognized by the general
consuming public under 15 U.S.C. 1125(c)(2)).
The complaint also asserts copyright infringement of an unidentified photograph, but provides no
identification or sample of the alleged work. Nor does the complaint assert that JAT has obtained a
copyright registration (which is a prerequisite for filing suit). Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.,
134 S. Ct. 1962, 1977 (2014) (citing 17 U.S.C. 408(b), 411(a)). Again, you appear to have no basis
to assert copyright infringement. Please provide me with the Rule 11 factual basis for your assertion
that JNC has infringed any copyright.
EXHIBIT E
Page 3 of 5
81
The complaint further alleges patent infringement, but there is no basis for that assertion. 35 U.S.C.
271. The complaint does not identify any issued patent. The complaint identifies several pending
design patent applications, and during our telephone conversation, you suggested that a patent
application could be a basis for patent infringement under the AIA. We believe your statement is
unsupported by law or fact. You have no legal or factual basis to assert patent infringement. If you
have any legal authority to support your position, please provide it immediately.
We further note that a UCL claim under Section 17200 requires an unlawful business act or practice,
namely a business practice that violates another law. Cel-Tech Comms. & Cel-Comms., Inc. v. Los
Angeles Cellular Telephone Co., 20 Cal.4th 163, 180 (1999). As already discussed, there appears to be
no basis for JATs allegations that JNC has violated any law.
If we do not receive a satisfactory response from you, we will proceed to move under Rule 11 for
attorneys fees against you. An immediate dismissal of JATs complaint would be deemed a satisfactory
response.
James Juo
Partner
FULWIDER PATTON LLP
Intellectual Property Law
6060 Center Drive, Tenth Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90045
T: 310.824.5555 | DD: 310.242.2656 | F: 310.824.9696
Email: [email protected] | website: www.fulpat.com
If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by telephone, 310-824-5555, and delete and/or destroy all
copies of the message.
-Regards,
Tommy SF Wang
Yang & Wang, P.C.
355 S. Grand Ave. Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071
18645 E. Gale Ave. Suite 205 City of Industry, CA 91748
Tel: 888-827-8880 x 2 (Office) | 909-520-4381 (Mobile)
E-Mail: [email protected] | Web: www.yangwanglaw.com
EXHIBIT E
Page 4 of 5
82
****************************************************
This e-mail and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may
contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail,
you are hereby notified any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is
strictly prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error please immediately notify Attorneys at
[email protected] and permanently delete the original copy and any copy of any e-mail, and any
printout thereof.
****************************************************
EXHIBIT E
Page 5 of 5
83

Case 2:13-cv-07747-ABC-CW Document 29 Filed 12/09/13 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:178
"
&
'
EXHIBIT F
Page 1 of 3
84

"
&
'
EXHIBIT F
Page 2 of 3
85

"
&
'
EXHIBIT F
Page 3 of 3
86
EXHIBIT G
Page 1 of 3
87
EXHIBIT G
Page 2 of 3
88
EXHIBIT G
Page 3 of 3
89

#:229
Case 2:14-cv-04897-DMG-MAN Document 1 Filed 06/24/14 Page 1 of 71 Page ID #:7
EXHIBIT H
Page 1 of 71
90

#:230
Plaintiff, JAT WHEELS, Inc. a California Corporation, dba STR Racing
(hereinafter Plaintiff), hereby files this Complaint against Defendant JNC
WHEEL COLLECTION (hereinafter Defendant), and DOES 1 to 10, and alleges
as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. Plaintiff files this action to combat the willful sale of unlicensed and
counterfeit products (hereinafter Infringing Products) bearing the
Plaintiffs exclusive Trademark and utilizing the Plaintiffs exclusive
design patents, and unauthorized use of Plaintiffs copyrighted
10
photographs. The Defendant is a corporation specializing in the research,
11
manufacture and sales of aftermarket automobile wheels.
12
2. Plaintiff seeks a Permanent Injunction, damages, costs, and attorneys fees
13
as authorized by the Lanham Act, the patent laws of the United States,
14
Title 35, United States Code, Californias common law, and California
15
Business & Professions Code.
16
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
17
3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 (federal
18
question) and 28 U.S.C. 1338(a) (action arising under an Act of
19
Congress relating to patents or trademarks).
20
4. On information and belief, Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction
21
in the Central District of California (the District), consistent with the
22
principles of due process and the California Long Arm Statute, because
23
Defendants offer their products for sale in this District, have transacted
24
business in this District, have committed and/or induced acts of patent
25
infringement in this District, and/or have placed infringing products into
26
2
EXHIBIT H
Page 2 of 71
91

#:231
the stream of commerce through established distribution channels with the
expectation that such products will be purchased by residents of this
District.
5. Further, this Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs California state
statutory and common law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367.
6. Supplemental jurisdiction exists over Defendant because on information
and belief, Defendant conducts business in California and in this judicial
district, has purposefully availed itself to California and in this judicial
district, or has otherwise availed itself of the privileges and protections of
10
the law of the State of California, such that this Courts assertion of
11
jurisdiction over Defendant does not offend traditional notions of fair play
12
and due process.
13
7. Venue is proper within the Central District of California pursuant to 28
14
U.S.C. 1391(b) and 1400(a) because on information and belief, a
15
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim
16
occurred in this judicial district, and has caused damages to Plaintiff in
17
this district.
18
19
THE PARTIES
8. Plaintiff, JAT WHEELS, INC., dba STR Racing, is a California
20
corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of
21
California, and whose office is located at address 2107-D W.
22
Commonwealth Ave. #392, Alhambra, California 91803.
23
9. Upon information and belief, Defendant, SPEC-1 RACING WHEELS,
24
INC (hereinafter Defendant), is, and at all times mentioned herein was,
25
a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
26
3
EXHIBIT H
Page 3 of 71
92

#:232
Florida, having its principal place of business at 8419 Sunstate St.,
Tampa, FL 33634.
10. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or
otherwise, of Defendants herein named DOES 1-10, inclusive are
unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff therefore sues said Defendants by such
fictitious names. When the true names and capacities of said Defendants
have been ascertained, Plaintiff will amend this pleading accordingly.
11. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant and DOES 1-10, inclusive sued
herein by fictitious names are jointly, severally and concurrently liable
10
and responsible with the named Defendant upon the causes of action
11
hereinafter set forth.
12
12. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times
13
mentioned herein Defendant, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, and each of
14
them, were the agents, servants, and employees of every other Defendant
15
and the acts of each Defendant, as alleged herein, were performed within
16
the course and scope of that agency, service or employment.

FACTS
17
18
19
13. Plaintiff owns the exclusive rights to numerous patents, copyrighted and
trademarked properties.
20
14. Plaintiff owns and holds the exclusive rights, title, and interest to market
21
and sell merchandise bearing the STR Trademark (the STR Trademark
22
or Trademark). Plaintiff registered its trademark on April 18, 2014 with
23
the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The STR Trademark
24
registration number is 86256705.
25
26
4
EXHIBIT H
Page 4 of 71
93

#:233
15. Plaintiff is the owner of all right, title and interest in the following U.S.
Design Patents: 1) Application No. 29,492,155 (the 155 patent); 2)
Application No. 29,492,156 (the 156 patent); 3) Application No.
29,492,157 (the 157 patent); 4) Application No. 29,492,158 (the 158
patent); and 5) Application No. 29,492,159 (the 159 patent),
(collectively, the Design Patents).
16. As a result of Defendants unlawful infringement of the Plaintiffs
Design Patents, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer damages.
Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendant the damages suffered as a
10
11
result of Defendants unlawful acts.

17. In or around May 2014, Plaintiff discovered that Defendant was
12
manufacturing and selling automobile parts on the Internet that infringed
13
on Plaintiffs Design Patents. Some of these parts also bore Plaintiffs
14
STR Trademark.
15
18. Defendant uses the STR Trademark in connection with its aftermarket
16
automobile parts that are in direct competition with Plaintiffs aftermarket
17
automobile parts. Defendant has used Plaintiffs trademark in its
18
advertising for such products and services, thereby competing unfairly
19
with Plaintiff, infringing upon Plaintiffs trademark rights, and improperly
20
trading on the goodwill established by Plaintiff.
21
19. In or around May 2014, Plaintiff published photographs to its website
22
displaying its aftermarket automobile parts. Plaintiff owns the copyrights
23
and ownership rights to these photographs.
24
25
26
5
EXHIBIT H
Page 5 of 71
94

#:234
20. Without Plaintiffs consent, Defendant sporadically, but consistently, used
Plaintiffs copyrighted images to promote and sell the Infringing Products
on Defendants website.
21. Defendants infringing activities have caused damages to Plaintiff by
causing customer confusion as to the source of the STR Trademark. In
addition, Defendants use of the aforementioned Design Patent and STR
Trademark has and continues to dilute Plaintiffs goodwill in its products
and business that it has invested significant time and resources.
22. On information and belief, Defendants infringement of one or more of
10
the Plaintiffs Patents is willful and deliberate, therefore entitling Plaintiff
11
to enhanced damages and reasonable attorney fees and costs.
12
23. On information and belief, Defendant intends to continue their unlawful
13
infringing activity, and Plaintiff continues to and will continue to suffer
14
irreparable harmfor which there is no adequate remedy at lawunless
15
Defendant is enjoined by this Court.
16
COUNT I- FEDERAL TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AND
17
TRADEMARK COUNTERFEITING
18
19
contained in paragraphs 1 through 23, and brings the following claim for
20
trademark infringement pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1114 against the
21
Defendant.
22
25. Plaintiff owns or is licensee of the exclusive rights to the STR
23
Trademark. The trademark registration is in full force and effect and is
24
owned by the Plaintiff or Plaintiffs licensors.
25
26
6
EXHIBIT H
Page 6 of 71
95

#:235
26. Plaintiff, and/or those under its authority, manufactures, sells, and
distributes all of its advertising and products in conformity with the
provisions of the United States Trademark law.
27. Despite having actual and constructive notice of the Plaintiff and/or its
licensors federal registration rights, prior common law and statutory
rights to the STR Trademark, Defendant has adopted and used the STR
Trademark in conjunction with the sale of merchandise in the State of
California and interstate commerce, including, by way of example and not
limitation, the SP-4 wheel, attached as Exhibit J.
10
28. Defendant has distributed, sold, or offered for sale merchandise
11
displaying Plaintiffs Trademark without Plaintiffs authorization.
12
Defendants distribution, sale, or offer for sale of merchandise bearing
13
Plaintiffs Trademark in California and interstate commerce has and will
14
cause the likelihood of confusion, deception, and mistake in that
15
consumers will conclude that the products sold by the Defendant are
16
authorized, sponsored, approved, or associated with the Plaintiff.
17
29. Defendants use in commerce of Plaintiffs Trademark in conjunction
18
with the sale of merchandise is an infringement of Plaintiffs registered
19
STR Trademark in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1114(1).
20
30. Defendant committed the acts alleged herein intentionally, fraudulently,
21
maliciously, willfully, wantonly, and oppressively with the intent to injure
22
the Plaintiff and its business.
23
31. The Plaintiff has suffered damages as a result of the Defendants acts.
24
25
26
7
EXHIBIT H
Page 7 of 71
96

#:236
32. The Infringing Products bearing the Plaintiffs Trademark that the
Defendants manufactured, sold, distributed, or offered for sale constitutes
a counterfeit product pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1116(d).
33. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117, Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of (1)
Defendants profits; (2) Plaintiffs damages, including lost profits; and (3)
costs of the action. Plaintiff is further entitled to trebled damages above
the amount of actual damages in a sum of not more than three times the
amount of actual damages. Defendants intentional and deceitful actions
make this a case in which the Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorneys
10
11
fees.
12
13
determined, and damages will continue unless and until enjoined by Order
14
of this Court.
15
COUNT II- FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN [15 U.S.C.
16
1125(a)/Lanham Act 43(a)]
17
18
19
false designation of origin pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1125(a) and the
20
Lanham Act 43(a) against the Defendant.
21
36. Defendant has used Plaintiffs registered STR Trademark in commerce in
22
connection with its own goods, where use is likely to cause confusion, or
23
to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the origin, sponsorship, association or
24
approval of such goods.
25
26
8
EXHIBIT H
Page 8 of 71
97

#:237
37. By utilizing the Plaintiffs Trademark in its advertising for, and in
connection with its products, Defendant has misrepresented and falsely
described to the general public the origin and the source of the products
offered for sale. Further, it creates a likelihood of confusion, mistake or
deception to the ultimate purchaser as to the source of the products.
38. For example, Defendant markets, conducts business, and publicly
represents that the STR Trademark is associated or connected to the
Defendants business thereby creating a false designation of origin of
10
39. The confusion, mistake, or deception referred to herein arises out of the
11
aforementioned acts of Defendant and the acts of the Defendant constitute
12
false designation of origin and unfair competition in violation of 15
13
U.S.C. 1125(a) and Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act.
14
40. Upon information and belief, the aforesaid acts of the Defendant were
15
undertaken willfully with the intention of causing confusion, mistake or
16
deception. Plaintiff is entitled, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117, to recovery
17
of: (1) Defendants profits; (2) Plaintiffs damages, including lost profits;
18
and (3) costs of the action. Plaintiff is further entitled to treble damages
19
above the amount of actual damages in a sum not more than three times
20
the amount of actual damages. Defendants intentional and deceitful
21
actions make this a case in which the Plaintiff is entitled to an award of
22
attorneys fees.
23
24

25
26
9
EXHIBIT H
Page 9 of 71
98

#:238
determined, which damage will continue unless and until enjoined by
Order of this Court.
3
4
5
COUNT III- FEDERAL TRADEMARK DILUTION [15 U.S.C. 1125(c)]
trademark dilution pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1125(c) against the Defendant.
9
10
43. Plaintiffs registered Trademark is distinctive, well known and famous.

44. Defendant is diluting the distinctiveness of Plaintiffs Trademark by
11
marketing and selling inferior goods bearing marks virtually identical or
12
confusingly similar to Plaintiffs registered Trademark. Upon information
13
and belief, Defendant has engaged in the conduct alleged in these claims,
14
willfully intending to trade on Plaintiffs reputation and/or to cause
15
dilution of the reputable and distinctive Trademark owned by Plaintiff.
16
45. Defendant markets, conducts business, and publicly represents that the
17
Trademark is associated or connected to the Defendants business thereby
18
creating a false designation of origin of Plaintiffs brand of goods and
19
services. Thus, Defendants acts violate 15 U.S.C. 1125(c).
20
46. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants trademark dilution,
21
Plaintiff has and will continue to suffer damages to its business, reputation
22
and good will, and the loss of royalties and profits that Plaintiff would
23
have made but for Defendants acts. Upon information and belief,
24
Defendants acts of infringement have also resulted in substantial profits
25
for the Defendant. The amount of these damages will be proven at trial.
26
10
EXHIBIT H
Page 10 of 71
99

#:239
1
2
3
4
5
6
COUNT IV-FEDERAL COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

48. Plaintiffs were and are the exclusive holder of all rights, title and interest
in their photographs, as separate and distinct works.
49. Defendant has infringed and is infringing the copyrighted photographs by
unlawfully reproducing and using such photographs in violation of the
United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 106.
10
50. Defendants infringement was and is willful, in bad faith, and executed
11
with full knowledge of Plaintiffs copyright, and in conscious disregard
12
for Plaintiffs exclusive rights in the protected work.
13
14
15
51. Defendants deliberate infringement of Plaintiffs copyrights has greatly

and irreparably damaged Plaintiff.
52. Defendants production of infringing products and copyrighted material,
16
and Defendants wrongful conduct, have deprived and continue to deprive
17
the Plaintiff of their opportunity of expanding their goodwill. Plaintiff is
18
entitled to an injunction restraining Defendant, its officers, agents, and
19
employees, and all persons acting in concert with it, from engaging in any
20
further acts in violation of the copyright laws.
21
53. Plaintiff is further entitled to recover the damages, including attorneys
22
fees, they have sustained and will sustain, and any gains, profits, and
23
advantages obtained by Defendant as a result of Defendants acts of
24
infringement alleged above. At present, the amount of such damages,
25
gains, profits, are in an amount to be determined.
26
11
EXHIBIT H
Page 11 of 71
100

#:240
1
2
3
4
is attached as Exhibit A.
10
11
12
design patent, including, by way of example and not limitation, the SPT-2
13
wheel, attached as Exhibit B.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Patent.
25
26
12
EXHIBIT H
Page 12 of 71
101

#:241
1
2

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
COUNT VI- INFRINGEMENT OF THE 156 PATENT

10
11
is attached as Exhibit C.
12
13
14
15
16
design patent, including, by way of example and not limitation, the SP-6
17
wheel, attached as Exhibit D.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
13
EXHIBIT H
Page 13 of 71
102

#:242
Patent.
4
5
6
7
8
9

COUNT VII- INFRINGEMENT OF THE 157 PATENT
10
11
12
is attached as Exhibit E.
13
14
15
16
17
design patent, including, by way of example and not limitation, the SPT-8
18
wheel, attached as Exhibit F.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
14
EXHIBIT H
Page 14 of 71
103

#:243
Patent.
6
7
8
9
10
11

12
13
14
is attached as Exhibit G.
15
16
17
18
19
design patent, including, by way of example and not limitation, the SP-8
20
wheel, attached as Exhibit H.
21
22
23
24
25
26
15
EXHIBIT H
Page 15 of 71
104

#:244
Patent.
7
8
9
10
11
12

13
14
15
is attached as Exhibit I.
16
17
18
19
20
design patent.
21
22
23
24
25
26
16
EXHIBIT H
Page 16 of 71
105

#:245
Patent.
7
8
9
10

COUNT VI-FEDERAL UNFAIR COMPETITION [15 U.S.C. 1125(a)]
11
12
unfair competition pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1125(a) against the Defendant.
13
85. As a direct result of the Plaintiffs longstanding use, sales, advertising,
14
and marketing, Plaintiffs Trademark has acquired a secondary and
15
distinctive meaning among the public who have come to identify
16
Plaintiffs Trademark with the Plaintiff and its respective products.
17
86. Plaintiff is informed and believes that thereon alleges that as early as May
18
of 2014, Defendant has infringed Plaintiffs Trademark rights by
19
marketing and selling goods bearing marks virtually identical or
20
confusingly similar to the recognized and distinctive registered
21
Trademark, owned by Plaintiff.
22
87. The Infringing Products and related merchandise that the Defendant has
23
sold and distributed duplicates and appropriates Plaintiffs Trademark and
24
deludes and confuses the public into believing that the Plaintiff approved,
25
26
17
EXHIBIT H
Page 17 of 71
106

#:246
authorized, or sponsored the products and related merchandise sold,
offered for sale, or distributed by the Defendant.
88. Defendant, by misappropriating and using the likenesses of Plaintiffs
Trademark in connection with the sale of products and related
merchandise, is misrepresenting and will continue to misrepresent and
falsely describe to the general public the origin and sponsorship of their
products. Defendant has caused such products to enter into interstate
commerce willfully with full knowledge of the falsity of the designation
of their origin and description and representation in an effort to mislead
10
the purchasing public into believing that their products are authorized or
11
emanate from the Plaintiff.
12
89. Defendants actions, as alleged herein, were and are likely to deceive the
13
consuming public and therefore constitute unfair and fraudulent business
14
practices in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).
15
90. Defendants unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices described
16
above present a continuing threat to members of the public in that they are
17
likely to be deceived by the origin and quality of Plaintiffs products.
18
91. Upon information and belief, Defendants acts of unfair competition have
19
resulted in substantial profits for the Defendant in an amount to be
20
determined. Defendants acts of unfair competition have also resulted in
21
damages to Plaintiff by causing a diversion of sales from Plaintiff to
22
Defendant, lost royalties and other damages resulting from irreparable
23
harm to Plaintiffs goodwill. The exact amount of Plaintiffs damages is to
24
be determined.
25
92. Plaintiff has also incurred costs and attorneys fees to bring this action.
26
18
EXHIBIT H
Page 18 of 71
107

#:247
1
2
3
4
93. Defendants conduct has caused and will continue to cause irreparable
injury to Plaintiff unless permanently enjoined.
COUNT VII- CALIFORNIA COMMON LAW UNFAIR COMPETITION
unfair competition pursuant to Californias common law against the
Defendant.
95. The Court has jurisdiction over this Cause pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367.
96. By Defendants acts alleged herein, the Defendant has engaged in unfair
10
11
competition under the common law of the State of California.

97. Defendant has distributed and sold Infringing Products displaying the
12
Trademark of the Plaintiff in California, thereby creating a false
13
designation of origin of Plaintiffs brand of goods and unfairly competing
14
with Plaintiffs business.
15
98. Upon information and belief, Defendant has knowingly and willfully
16
misappropriated Plaintiffs Trademark in an effort to create the impression
17
that the Defendants counterfeit products are sanctioned by the Plaintiff
18
and to misappropriate the goodwill associated with Plaintiffs Trademark,
19
entitling Plaintiff to an award of exemplary damages and attorneys fees.
20
21
22
99. The aforesaid acts of the Defendant have caused damage to Plaintiff, in
an amount to be determined.
100.
By reason of the acts of the Defendants alleged herein, Plaintiff has
23
suffered, is suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable damage,
24
which damage will continue unless enjoined by Order of this Court.
25
26
19
EXHIBIT H
Page 19 of 71
108

#:248
COUNT VI- UNFAIR COMPETITION UNDER CALIFORNIA
BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE 17200, et seq.
101.
Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges, as set forth herein, the allegations
unfair competition pursuant to California Business and Professions Code
17200.
7
8
9
102.
The Court has jurisdiction over this Cause pursuant to 26 U.S.C.
1367.
103.
By acts complained of herein, Defendant has engaged in unfair
10
competition under Section 17200 of the Business and Professions Code of
11
the State of California.
12
104.
Defendants use of the infringing mark complained of herein
13
constitutes deceptive and misleading advertising and is likely to, and is
14
intended to, cause confusion to the purchasers and potential purchasers of
15
the products.
16
105.
Defendant markets, conducts business, and publicly represents that the
17
Plaintiffs registered Trademark is associated or connected to the
18
Defendants business and thus creates a false designation of origin of
19
20
106.
Upon information and belief, the aforesaid acts of Defendant was
21
undertaken willfully and with the intention of causing confusion, mistake
22
and deception, entitling the Plaintiff to an award of exemplary damages
23
and attorneys fees.
24
25
107.
The aforesaid acts of Defendant have caused damage to Plaintiff in an
amount to be determined.
26
20
EXHIBIT H
Page 20 of 71
109

#:249
108.
By reason of the acts of the Defendant alleged herein, Plaintiff has
suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of
Defendants acts of unfair business practices alleged herein, is suffering
and will continue to suffer irreparable damage, which irreparable damage
will continue unless enjoined by Order of this Court.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
6
7
8
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands entry of a judgment against the Defendant as

follows:
1. The Defendant, its officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and
10
all those in active concert or participation with them be enjoined and
11
restrained:
12
a. From further using Plaintiffs registered Trademark or any other
13
confusingly similar mark, in connection with the manufacture,
14
15
similar infringement of Plaintiffs Trademark rights, for products
16
not originating from Plaintiff or authorized by Plaintiff;
17
b. From diluting any of Plaintiffs Trademark or any other
18
19
confusingly similar mark;

c. From further using Plaintiffs Design Patents or any other
20
confusingly similar design, in connection with the manufacture,
21
22
similar infringement of Plaintiffs Design Patent rights, for
23
products not originating from Plaintiff or authorized by Plaintiff;
24
and
25
26
21
EXHIBIT H
Page 21 of 71
110

#:250
d. From engaging in unfair competition by making and selling its
products or otherwise using confusingly similar marks and designs,
in such a way as to misrepresent the origin of any of the
Defendants products;
2. For an order requiring Defendant to deliver and be impounded during the
pendency of this action all material in Defendants possession, custody or
control that include or incorporate products that infringe Plaintiffs
Trademark rights, or Design Patent rights, including but not limited to,
any containers, packages, labels and advertisements in their possession or
10
under their control bearing any of Plaintiffs Trademark or utilizing
11
Plaintiffs Design Patents, or any simulation, reproduction, counterfeit,
12
copy, or colorable imitation thereof;
13
3. Directing that the Defendant report to this Court within thirty (30) days
14
after a Permanent Injunction is entered to show its compliance with
15
paragraphs 1 and 2 above;
16
4. For compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial;
17
5. For all gains, profits and advantages derived by Defendant by its
18
infringement of Plaintiffs trademark rights and Design Patent rights;
19
6. For punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish Defendant for its
20
wrongful conduct and to deter others from engaging in similar conduct in
21
the future;
22
7. For statutory damages as provided by law;
23
8. For permanent injunction against Defendant, preventing Defendant from
24
any future usage of any identical or similarly confusing marks related to
25
Plaintiffs registered Trademark or Design Patents;
26
22
EXHIBIT H
Page 22 of 71
111

#:251
9. Directing such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate to prevent
the trade and public, or individual members thereof, from gaining the
erroneous impression that the Plaintiff authorized or approved any
products manufactured, sold, or otherwise circulated or promoted by the
Defendant or that such products are in any way related to the Plaintiff;
10. For a judgment declaring that this case is exceptional and awarding to
the Plaintiff from the Defendant, as a result of the Defendants sale of
Infringing Products bearing the Plaintiffs Trademark or using Plaintiffs
Design Patents, three times the Plaintiffs damages and three times the
10
Defendants profits, after an accounting, or statutory damages, should the
11
Plaintiff opt for such relief, consisting of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars
12
($500,000.00) for each of the Plaintiffs Trademarks infringed upon by
13
the Defendant, and to the extent this Court concludes such infringement
14
was willful, Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00) for the Plaintiffs
15
Trademark infringed upon by the Defendant pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
16
1114 and 1117;
17
18
11. Awarding to the Plaintiff its reasonable attorneys fees and investigative
fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117;
19
12. Awarding to the Plaintiff its costs in bringing this action; and
20
13. Awarding other such relief to the Plaintiff as this Court deems just.
21
22
23
24
25
26
23
EXHIBIT H
Page 23 of 71
112

#:252
EXHIBIT H
Page 24 of 71
113

#:253
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT H
Page 25 of 71
114

#:254

EFS ID:
19153968
Application Number:
29492155

Title of Invention:

Customer Number:
Filer:
2886
STR513 Wheel Design
Tom Luo
101028
Elizabeth Yang

Receipt Date:
29-MAY-2014
Filing Date:
Time Stamp:
03:07:56
Application Type:
Design
yes
Payment Type
Credit Card
$ 380
12608
Deposit Account
Authorized User
File Listing:
Document
Number
File Name
File Size(Bytes)/
Message Digest
Multi
Pages
EXHIBIT H
Page 26 of 71
115

#:255
99997
WebADS.pdf
no
no
no
1d3057dd4df71842d9595419e18aa281eeb
c0af6
Warnings:
Information:
2
101925

drawings
STR513_v1.pdf
fee-info.pdf
bfcac86549757cb253e733e6b83c565ab47
ce446
Warnings:
Information:
32064
1fb8019d925a6cd6d59ffa495e66ccc0a481
c142
Warnings:
Information:
233986
the application.
EXHIBIT H
Page 27 of 71
116

Case 2:14-cv-04897-DMG-MAN Document#:256
&'(
!"#$%&
EXHIBIT H
Page 28 of 71
117

&()
!"#$%&
!"#$%'
EXHIBIT H
Page 29 of 71
118

()&
!"#$%&
!"#$%'
EXHIBIT H
Page 30 of 71
119

()(
!"#$%&
!"#$%'
EXHIBIT H
Page 31 of 71
120

#:260
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT H
Page 32 of 71
121

#:261
6/23/2014
SPT-2 | Spec-1 Racing WheelsSpec-1 Racing Wheels
TAMPA: (813) 673 8393 | MIAMI: (305) 704 7623
(HTTP://YOUTUBE.COMC/SPEC1WHEELS)
(HTTPS://TWITTER.COM/SPEC1WHEELS)
(HTTPS://WWW.FACEBOOK.COM/SPEC1WHEELS)
SPT-2
Spec-1 Racing Wheels has revolutionized the wheel industry with
futuristic designs. Precision cut Spec-1 Racing SPT-2 Wheels.
Available in Sizes:
158
Finishes:
Gloss Black Machined
Size
15X8
Bolt 1
4X100
Bolt 2
4X114.3
Offset
20
Bore
73.1
Color
GLOSS BLAC
(http://spec1wheels.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/spec1_spt-2_15x8-1403-276-00-1000.jpg)
(http://www.flickr.com/photos/spec1wheels/13900837913/)
(http://www.flickr.com/photos/spec1wheels/1390
(http://www.flickr.com/photos/spec
(http://www.flickr.com
View stream on flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/123459618@N03)
Like
Tweet
http://spec1wheels.com/wheels/spec-1-trak/spt-2/
1/3
EXHIBIT H
Page 33 of 71
122

#:262
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT H
Page 34 of 71
123

#:263

EFS ID:
19153988
Application Number:
29492156

Title of Invention:

Customer Number:
Filer:
2099
STR514 Wheel Design
Tom Luo
101028
Elizabeth Yang

Receipt Date:
29-MAY-2014
Filing Date:
Time Stamp:
03:35:24
Application Type:
Design
yes
Payment Type
Credit Card
$ 380
12642
Deposit Account
Authorized User
File Listing:
Document
Number
File Name
File Size(Bytes)/
Message Digest
Multi
Pages
EXHIBIT H
Page 35 of 71
124

#:264
96124
WebADS.pdf
no
no
no
08a853a3deb99279c42046f01ecab7a1c63
04fcd
Warnings:
Information:
2
105870

drawings
STR514_v1.pdf
fee-info.pdf
8b25767101bff978f0d240926024d4bd01cf
b6f7
Warnings:
Information:
32127
2ac872571722b0b5693775836ab433cfd8e
65b4f
Warnings:
Information:
234121
the application.
EXHIBIT H
Page 36 of 71
125

&'(
!"#$%&
EXHIBIT H
Page 37 of 71
126

&()
!"#$%&
!"#$%'
EXHIBIT H
Page 38 of 71
127

()&
!"#$%&
!"#$%'
EXHIBIT H
Page 39 of 71
128

()(
!"#$%&
!"#$%'
EXHIBIT H
Page 40 of 71
129

#:269
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT H
Page 41 of 71
130

#:270
6/23/2014
SP-6 | Spec-1 Racing WheelsSpec-1 Racing Wheels
TAMPA: (813) 673 8393 | MIAMI: (305) 704 7623
SP-6
futuristic designs. Precision cut Spec- 1 Racing SP-6 Wheels.
Available in Sizes:
188, 189
Finishes:
(http://spec1wheels.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/spec-1_sp6s_18x9-1403-269-00-1000.jpg)
Size
18X8
18X8
18X9
18X8
18X9
Bolt 1
BLANK
5X114.3
BLANK
BLANK
BLANK
Offset
35
35
40
22
25
Bore
73.1
73.1
73.1
73.1
73.1
Color
GLOSS BLACK MACHINE
GLOSS BLACK MACHINE
GLOSS BLACK MACHINE
GLOSS BLACK MACHINE
GLOSS BLACK MACHINE
Like
Tweet
http://spec1wheels.com/wheels/spec-1-racing/sp-6/
1/3
EXHIBIT H
Page 42 of 71
131

#:271
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT H
Page 43 of 71
132

#:272

EFS ID:
19154004
Application Number:
29492157

Title of Invention:

Customer Number:
Filer:
8784
STR522 Wheel Design
Tom Luo
101028
Elizabeth Yang

Receipt Date:
29-MAY-2014
Filing Date:
Time Stamp:
03:56:29
Application Type:
Design
yes
Payment Type
Credit Card
$ 380
12650
Deposit Account
Authorized User
File Listing:
Document
Number
File Name
File Size(Bytes)/
Message Digest
Multi
Pages
EXHIBIT H
Page 44 of 71
133

#:273
96125
WebADS.pdf
no
no
no
34b9fc5eb62c3a2e4b3405602c5bfdb3d3e
2be16
Warnings:
Information:
2
100384

drawings
STR522_v1.pdf
fee-info.pdf
afe10f54305ef04f54b7ba4dc7ce27c80fe8d
548
Warnings:
Information:
32064
ff00f6727a8eebf74937a833506eca3d981b
3565
Warnings:
Information:
228573
the application.
EXHIBIT H
Page 45 of 71
134

&'(
!"#$%&
EXHIBIT H
Page 46 of 71
135

&()
!"#$%&
!"#$%'
EXHIBIT H
Page 47 of 71
136

()&
!"#$%&
!"#$%'
EXHIBIT H
Page 48 of 71
137

()(
!"#$%&
!"#$%'
EXHIBIT H
Page 49 of 71
138

#:278
EXHIBIT F
EXHIBIT H
Page 50 of 71
139

#:279
6/23/2014
SPT-8 | Spec-1 Racing WheelsSpec-1 Racing Wheels
TAMPA: (813) 673 8393 | MIAMI: (305) 704 7623
SPT-8
futuristic designs. Precision cut Spec-1 Racing SPT-8 Wheels.
Available in Sizes:
158
Finishes:
Size
15X8
Bolt 1
4X100
Bolt 2
4X114.3
Offset
20
Bore
73.1
Color
GLOSS BLAC
(http://spec1wheels.com/wp-content/uploads/spt-8-websitev2.jpg)
Like
Tweet
GET IN TOUCH
http://spec1wheels.com/wheels/spec-1-trak/spt-8/
1/3
EXHIBIT H
Page 51 of 71
140

#:280
EXHIBIT G
EXHIBIT H
Page 52 of 71
141

#:281

EFS ID:
19154009
Application Number:
29492158

Title of Invention:

Customer Number:
Filer:
1577
STR617 Wheel Design
Tom Luo
101028
Elizabeth Yang

Receipt Date:
29-MAY-2014
Filing Date:
Time Stamp:
04:01:15
Application Type:
Design
yes
Payment Type
Credit Card
$ 380
12658
Deposit Account
Authorized User
File Listing:
Document
Number
File Name
File Size(Bytes)/
Message Digest
Multi
Pages
EXHIBIT H
Page 53 of 71
142

#:282
96124
WebADS.pdf
no
no
no
4fc7e6261a5bd0010b191523b2241b30a48
86c03
Warnings:
Information:
2
101923

drawings
STR617_v1.pdf
fee-info.pdf
57fe6c8f46acfad6b4b44695b2b436592b9c
e48a
Warnings:
Information:
32011
41ad279f59940a41e576a21a5db28846c19
46de0
Warnings:
Information:
230058
the application.
EXHIBIT H
Page 54 of 71
143

&'(
!"#$%&
EXHIBIT H
Page 55 of 71
144

&()
!"#$%&
!"#$%'
EXHIBIT H
Page 56 of 71
145

()&
!"#$%&
!"#$%'
EXHIBIT H
Page 57 of 71
146

()(
!"#$%&
!"#$%'
EXHIBIT H
Page 58 of 71
147

#:287
EXHIBIT H
EXHIBIT H
Page 59 of 71
148

#:288
6/23/2014
TAMPA: (813) 673 8393 | MIAMI: (305) 704 7623
SP-8
Available in Sizes:
188.5, 189.5, 198.5, 199.5, 209, 2010.5
Finishes:
(http://spec1wheels.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/spec-1_sp8y_20x9-1403-275-00-1000.jpg)
Like
Tweet
Size
18X8.5
18X8.5
18X9.5
20X9
20X9
20X10.5
20X10.5
20X9
19X9.5
19X8.5
20X10.5
Bolt 1
BLANK
5X114.3
BLANK
5X114.3
BLANK
5X114.3
BLANK
BLANK
BLANK
BLANK
BLANK
Offset
32
35
38
35
20
40
25
32
38
32
38
Bore
73.1
73.1
73.1
73.1
73.1
73.1
73.1
73.1
73.1
73.1
73.1
Color
GLOSS BLACK MACHINED
1/3
EXHIBIT H
Page 60 of 71
149

#:289
6/23/2014
GET IN TOUCH
Tampa: (813) 673 8393

Miami: (305) 704-7623
[email protected] (mailto:[email protected])
Mon - Fri 9:00am - 6:00 pm
(https://www.facebook.com/spec1wheels) (https://twitter.com/spec1wheels) (http://youtube.comc/spec1wheels)
NAVIGATE
CAR BUILDER (http://spec1wheels.com/car-builder/)
WHEELS (http://spec1wheels.com/wheels/)
DOWNLOAD (http://spec1wheels.com/download-vault/)
NEWS (http://spec1wheels.com/news/)
REQUEST A QUOTE (http://spec1wheels.com/request-quote/)
CONTACT (http://spec1wheels.com/contact/)
NEWS
(http://spec1wheels.com/volkswagen-gti-18-spec-1-racing-sp-8-concave-wheels/)
Volkswagen GTI on 18 Spec-1 Racing SP-8 Concave Wheels (http://spec1wheels.com/volkswagen-gti-18-spec-1racing-sp-8-concave-wheels/)
Posted April 17, 2014
By Spec1Wheels (http://spec1wheels.com/author/admin/)
(http://spec1wheels.com/spec-1-racing-website-updated/)
Spec-1 Racing Website Updated! (http://spec1wheels.com/spec-1-racing-website-updated/)
Posted April 17, 2014
By Spec1Wheels (http://spec1wheels.com/author/admin/)
2/3
EXHIBIT H
Page 61 of 71
150

#:290
6/23/2014
INFORMATION
Spec 1 Warranty (http://spec1wheels.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Spec1-warranty.docx)
NEWSLETTER
your email
S UBMI T
Copyright 2014 Spec-1 Racing Wheels. All Rights Reserved.
3/3
EXHIBIT H
Page 62 of 71
151

#:291
EXHIBIT I
EXHIBIT H
Page 63 of 71
152

#:292

EFS ID:
19154013
Application Number:
29492159

Title of Invention:

Customer Number:
Filer:
5156
STR618 Wheel Design
Tom Luo
101028
Elizabeth Yang

Receipt Date:
29-MAY-2014
Filing Date:
Time Stamp:
04:05:49
Application Type:
Design
yes
Payment Type
Credit Card
$ 380
12664
Deposit Account
Authorized User
File Listing:
Document
Number
File Name
File Size(Bytes)/
Message Digest
Multi
Pages
EXHIBIT H
Page 64 of 71
153

#:293
96126
WebADS.pdf
no
no
no
88305c64b7812fe2d18495e4dc1324d6544
033e0
Warnings:
Information:
2
97695

drawings
STR618_v1.pdf
fee-info.pdf
d427a6b311159e6305845eeb26175e4593
193d84
Warnings:
Information:
32113
fe8e25f603a0bfb6281e5f531f7d1abd2c02a
6a9
Warnings:
Information:
225934
the application.
EXHIBIT H
Page 65 of 71
154

&'(
!"#$%&
EXHIBIT H
Page 66 of 71
155

&()
!"#$%&
!"#$%'
EXHIBIT H
Page 67 of 71
156

()&
!"#$%&
!"#$%'
EXHIBIT H
Page 68 of 71
157

()(
!"#$%&
!"#$%'
EXHIBIT H
Page 69 of 71
158

#:298
EXHIBIT J
EXHIBIT H
Page 70 of 71
159

#:299
6/23/2014
TAMPA: (813) 673 8393 | MIAMI: (305) 704 7623
SP-4
Available in Sizes:
177.5, 188, 189
Finishes:
Gloss Black Machined, Gold Metal Lip
(http://spec1wheels.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/spec-1_sp4s_18x9-1403-262-00-1000.jpg)
Size
17X7.5
17X7.5
17X7.5
17X7.5
18X8
18X8
18X9
Bolt 1 Bolt 2
5X114.3
4X100
4X114.3
BLANK
BLANK
5X114.3
BLANK
Offset
38
38
38
38
35
35
40
BoreColor
73.1 GLOSS BLACK MACHINE
Like
Tweet
1/3
EXHIBIT H
Page 71 of 71
160

#:300
Case 2:14-cv-05097-GW-AGR Document 1 Filed 07/01/14 Page 1 of 25 Page ID #:6
EXHIBIT I
Page 1 of 25
161

#:301
EXHIBIT I
Page 2 of 25
162

#:302
EXHIBIT I
Page 3 of 25
163

#:303
EXHIBIT I
Page 4 of 25
164

#:304
EXHIBIT I
Page 5 of 25
165

#:305
EXHIBIT I
Page 6 of 25
166

#:306
EXHIBIT I
Page 7 of 25
167

#:307
EXHIBIT I
Page 8 of 25
168

#:308
EXHIBIT I
Page 9 of 25
169

#:309
EXHIBIT I
Page 10 of 25
170

#:310
EXHIBIT I
Page 11 of 25
171

#:311
EXHIBIT I
Page 12 of 25
172

#:312
EXHIBIT I
Page 13 of 25
173

#:313
EXHIBIT I
Page 14 of 25
174

#:314
EXHIBIT I
Page 15 of 25
175

#:315
EXHIBIT I
Page 16 of 25
176

#:316
EXHIBIT I
Page 17 of 25
177

#:317
EXHIBIT I
Page 18 of 25
178

#:318
EXHIBIT I
Page 19 of 25
179

#:319
EXHIBIT I
Page 20 of 25
180

#:320
EXHIBIT I
Page 21 of 25
181

#:321
EXHIBIT I
Page 22 of 25
182

#:322
EXHIBIT I
Page 23 of 25
183

#:323
EXHIBIT I
Page 24 of 25
184

#:324
EXHIBIT I
Page 25 of 25
185

#:325
Case 2:14-cv-05172-ABC-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/03/14 Page 1 of 21 Page ID #:6
EXHIBIT J
Page 1 of 21
186

#:326
EXHIBIT J
Page 2 of 21
187

#:327
EXHIBIT J
Page 3 of 21
188

#:328
EXHIBIT J
Page 4 of 21
189

#:329
EXHIBIT J
Page 5 of 21
190

#:330
EXHIBIT J
Page 6 of 21
191

#:331
EXHIBIT J
Page 7 of 21
192

#:332
EXHIBIT J
Page 8 of 21
193

#:333
EXHIBIT J
Page 9 of 21
194

#:334
EXHIBIT J
Page 10 of 21
195

#:335
EXHIBIT J
Page 11 of 21
196

#:336
EXHIBIT J
Page 12 of 21
197

#:337
EXHIBIT J
Page 13 of 21
198

#:338
EXHIBIT J
Page 14 of 21
199

#:339
EXHIBIT J
Page 15 of 21
200

#:340
EXHIBIT J
Page 16 of 21
201

#:341
EXHIBIT J
Page 17 of 21
202

#:342
EXHIBIT J
Page 18 of 21
203

#:343
EXHIBIT J
Page 19 of 21
204

#:344
EXHIBIT J
Page 20 of 21
205

#:345
EXHIBIT J
Page 21 of 21
206

7RPP\:DQJ_<DQJ :DQJ3&
3DJHRI
60
(QULFKLQJ/LIH7KURXJK,QQRYDWLYH,GHDV
7ROO)UHH1XPEHU
+RPH
$ERXW8V
3UDFWLFH$UHDV
&RPPXQLWLHV6HUYHG
/HJDO5HVRXUFHV
1HZVURRP
7RPP\:DQJ
&RQWDFW8V
)RUD)5((FRQVXOWDWLRQ
)RXQGLQJ3DUWQHU
2IILFH([W
&HOO
7RPP\:DQJLVDIRXQGLQJSDUWQHURI<DQJ :DQJ

3&6SHFLDOL]LQJLQ,QWHOOHFWXDO3URSHUW\/DZKHKDVEHHQ
SUDFWLFLQJSDWHQWODZVLQFH0U:DQJLVD5HJLVWHUHG3DWHQW
$WWRUQH\ZKRLVOLFHQVHGWRSUDFWLFHODZLQ&DOLIRUQLDWKH86
'LVWULFW&RXUWIRUWKH&HQWUDO'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLDDQGWKH86
3DWHQWDQG7UDGHPDUN2IILFHZLWKH[WHQVLYHH[SHULHQFH
UHSUHVHQWLQJFOLHQWVLQIHGHUDODQGVWDWHFRXUWVWKURXJKRXWWKH
FRXQWU\
$OWKRXJK0U:DQJVSUDFWLFHLVSULPDULO\IRFXVHGRQSDWHQW
WUDGHPDUNDQGFRS\ULJKWKHIUHTXHQWO\UHSUHVHQWVFOLHQWVIRU
OLFHQVLQJDQWLWUXVWDQGWUDGHUHJXODWLRQXQIDLUFRPSHWLWLRQ
LQWHUQDWLRQDOEXVLQHVVWUDQVDFWLRQVDQGRWKHUFRPSOH[EXVLQHVV
OLWLJDWLRQPDWWHUV0U:DQJLVDOVRH[SHULHQFHGLQQHJRWLDWLQJOLFHQVLQJDJUHHPHQWVDQG
REWDLQLQJIDYRUDEOHVHWWOHPHQWVIRUKLVFOLHQWVWRDYRLGFRVWO\WULDOV
0U:DQJVFOLHQWVUDQJHIURPPXOWLQDWLRQDOSXEOLFFRPSDQLHVWRLQGLYLGXDOHQWUHSUHQHXUVZLWKD
KLJKQHWZRUWK+HVSHFLDOL]HVLQUHSUHVHQWLQJFOLHQWVRQWUDQVQDWLRQDOEXVLQHVVWUDQVDFWLRQVLQ
&KLQD7DLZDQ+RQJ.RQJDQGWKH868VLQJKLVVNLOOVWRUHDGZULWHDQGVSHDNIOXHQW
0DQGDULQ&KLQHVHDQG7DLZDQHVH0U:DQJVHUYHVDVRXWVLGHJHQHUDOFRXQVHOIRUFOLHQWVWR
SURYLGHPDQDJHPHQWDQGFRXQVHOLQJVHUYLFHVLQUHJDUGWRWKHLUOHJDODIIDLUVLQWKH86
$VDWUDLQHG%LRFKHPLVW0U:DQJDOVRGHYRWHVDODUJHSRUWLRQRIKLVSUDFWLFHWRWKHSUHSDUDWLRQ
DQGSURVHFXWLRQRISDWHQWDSSOLFDWLRQVLQWKHPHGLFDOGHYLFHELRFKHPLFDOVFLHQFHVDQGFKHPLFDO
VFLHQFHVDUHDV3ULRUWRSUDFWLFLQJODZ0U:DQJZRUNHGDVDFOLQLFDOUHVHDUFKHUFRRUGLQDWRUDW
WKH+RVSLWDORI8QLYHUVLW\RI3HQQV\OYDQLD'HSDUWPHQWRI2UWKRSDHGLF6XUJHU\+LVUHVHDUFK
H[SHULHQFHDOORZHGKLPWRZRUNRQVHYHUDOJURXQGEUHDNLQJSURMHFWVIURPFRQFHSWXDOL]DWLRQWR
,QWHUQDO5HYLHZ%RDUGDQG)HGHUDO'UXJ$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ)'$DSSURYDO+HDOVRZRUNHGDVD
SDWHQWVHDUFKSURIHVVLRQDODW&DUGLQDO,QWHOOHFWXDO3URSHUW\ZKHUHKHFRQGXFWHGSDWHQWDELOLW\
LQIULQJHPHQWYDOLGLW\IUHHGRPWRRSHUDWHDQGODQGVFDSHVHDUFKHVDQGGUDIWHGRSLQLRQVEDVHG
RQVHDUFKUHVXOWV
0U:DQJLVDQDFWLYHSDUWLFLSDQWDQGOHDGHULQFRPPXQLW\
0U:DQJZDVUHFHQWO\KRQRUHGZLWKWKH7RS/DZ\HUVLQ
&DOLIRUQLD$ZDUGIRUDVYRWHGE\KLVSHHUVLQWKHOHJDO
FRPPXQLW\+HLVDOVRDPHPEHURIQXPHURXVOHJDODQG
WHFKQRORJLFDODVVRFLDWLRQVLQFOXGLQJDQH[HFXWLYHERDUG
PHPEHURIWKH,QWHOOHFWXDO3URSHUW\,QWHUQHW 1HZ0HGLD
VHFWLRQRIWKH%HYHUO\+LOOV%DU$VVRFLDWLRQDPHPEHURIWKH
0RQWH-DGH6FLHQFHDQG7HFKQRORJ\$VVRFLDWLRQDQGWKH
$PHULFDQ,QWHOOHFWXDO3URSHUW\/DZ$VVRFLDWLRQ0U:DQJ
DOVRUHJXODUO\FRQWULEXWHVOHJDODUWLFOHVWR&KLQHVH$PHULFDQ
QHZVPHGLDRXWOHWVDGGUHVVLQJXSWRGDWH,QWHOOHFWXDO3URSHUW\LVVXHVDQGSURYLGLQJLQVLJKWIXO
OHJDODQDO\VLV0HGLDVRXUFHV0U:DQJFRQWULEXWHVWRLQFOXGH:RUOG-RXUQDO&KLQD3UHVV6LQJ
7DR'DLO\&LW\1HZVZHHNDQG(SRFK7LPHV
'RZQWRZQ/RV$QJHOHV2IILFH
6*UDQG$YH6XLWH
/RV$QJHOHV&$
6DQ*DEULHO9DOOH\2IILFH
(*DOH$YH6XLWH
,QGXVWU\&$
6DQ0DULQR2IILFH
+XQWLQJWRQ6LHJH6XLWH&
6DQ0DULQR&$
LQIR#\DQJZDQJODZFRP
$VNXVD4XHVWLRQ
<RXU4XHVWLRQ
(PDLO
6XEPLW
6HDUFK
1HHGKHOS"
6HDUFK
6RFLDO1HWZRUN
)ROORZXVRQ)DFHERRN
,QWHOOHFWXDO3URSHUW\$UHDVRI3UDFWLFH
3DWHQW
3DWHQW$FTXLVLWLRQ
3DWHQW3RUWIROLR0DQDJHPHQW
3DWHQW/LWLJDWLRQ
7UDGHPDUN
7UDGHPDUN$FTXLVLWLRQ
7UDGHPDUN0DQDJHPHQW
7UDGHPDUN/LWLJDWLRQ
&RS\ULJKW
&RS\ULJKW5HJLVWUDWLRQ
&RS\ULJKW&RXQVHOLQJ
&RS\ULJKW/LWLJDWLRQ
/LFHQVLQJ$JUHHPHQWV
KWWSZZZ\DQJZDQJODZFRPWRPP\ZDQJ
EXHIBIT K
Page 1 of 3
207

3DJHRI
%XVLQHVV/DZ$UHDVRI3UDFWLFH
)RUPDWLRQDQG6WUXFWXULQJRI%XVLQHVV(QWLWLHV
&RUSRUDWH)LQDQFH
,QWHUQDWLRQDO%XVLQHVV7UDQVDFWLRQV /LWLJDWLRQ
&RQWUDFW1HJRWLDWLRQ &RXQVHOLQJ
/DQJXDJHV
(QJOLVK
0DQGDULQ&KLQHVH
7DLZDQHVH
&RQYHUVDWLRQDO6SDQLVK
$VVRFLDWLRQV
%HYHUO\+LOOV%DU$VVRFLDWLRQ,3,QWHUQHW 1HZ0HGLD6HFWLRQ
7KH$PHULFDQ,QWHOOHFWXDO3URSHUW\/DZ$VVRFLDWLRQ
2UDQJH&RXQW\%DU$VVRFLDWLRQ
0RQWH-DGH6FLHQFHDQG7HFKQRORJ\$VVRFLDWLRQ
&LW\&OXERI/RV$QJHOHV
3XEOLFDWLRQV
+RZWKH1HZ3DWHQW/DZ0D\$IIHFW%XVLQHVV
7RS7LSVIRU,QYHQWRUV
5HJLVWHULQJ<RXU7UDGHPDUN
6L[6WHSVLQ7UDGHPDUN5HJLVWUDWLRQ
1HZ*XLGHOLQHV8QGHUWKH)LUVWWR)LOH6\VWHP
7KH/DWHVW77$%'HFLVLRQ$FWVDVD5HPLQGHUWR7UDGHPDUN2ZQHUVWR&RUUHFWO\8VH
7UDGHPDUNVRQ7KHLU2ZQ:HEVLWHV
,PSRUWDQFHRI)LOLQJD3URYLVLRQDO3DWHQWLQWKH(UDRIWKH$,$
6XSUHPH&RXUW'HQLHV3DWHQWIRU+XPDQ*HQHV
6XSUHPH&RXUWWR'HFLGHRQ3DWHQWDELOLW\RI+XPDQ*HQHVLQWKH0\ULDG*HQHWLFV
/DZVXLW
)DPRXV6KRZ+RVW$GDP&DUROOD)DFHV%DFNWR%DFN/DZVXLWIRU3RGFDVW1HWZRUN
3$7(17
3DWHQW6HDUFK
3DWHQW$SSOLFDWLRQ
3DWHQW$FTXLVLWLRQ
3DWHQW/LWLJDWLRQ
3DWHQW3RUWIROLR
0DQDJHPHQW
3DWHQW2SLQLRQ
7HFKQRORJ\7UDQVIHUV
3DWHQW)$4
75$'(0$5.
&23<5,*+7
7UDGHPDUN5HJLVWUDWLRQ
3URVHFXWLRQ
7UDGHPDUN0DQDJHPHQW
7UDGHPDUN3URWHFWLRQ
7UDGHPDUN/LWLJDWLRQ
)DVKLRQ7UDGHPDUN
7UDGHPDUN)$4
&RS\ULJKW5HJLVWUDWLRQ
&RS\ULJKW/LWLJDWLRQ
&RS\ULJKW)$4
<DQJ :DQJ3&
%86,1(66/$:
%XVLQHVV(QWLW\)RUPDWLRQ
&RQWUDFW'UDIWLQJ
1HJRWLDWLRQ
%XVLQHVV/LWLJDWLRQ
2XWVLGH&RXQVHO
0DQDJHPHQW
)UDQFKLVH
8QIDLU&RPSHWLWLRQ
$QWLWUXVW
,QWHUQDWLRQDO%XVLQHVV
7UDQVDFWLRQV
+RPH_)LUP_3UDFWLFH$UHDV_&RQWDFW8V
'LVFODLPHU5HDGLQJFRQWHQWRQWKLVZHELVWHILOOLQJRXWWKHFOLHQWTXHVWLRQQDLUHVHQGLQJDQHPDLOWRWKLVRUJDQL]DWLRQDQGRUVSHDNLQJZLWKDQ\RILWV
UHSUHVHQWDWLYHVGRHVQRWFUHDWHDQDWWRUQH\FOLHQWUHODWLRQVKLSQRUGRHVLWSURWHFWDQ\FRQILGHQWLDOLQIRUPDWLRQXQWLODZULWWHQDJUHHPHQWLVVLJQHG,QIRUPDWLRQ
SURYLGHGRQWKLVVLWHLVQRWOHJDODGYLFH3OHDVHVSHDNWRDOLFHQVHGDWWRUQH\
EXHIBIT K
Page 2 of 3
208

3DJHRI
EXHIBIT K
Page 3 of 3
209

JAT v. JNC - Rule 11 Motion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JAT v. JNC - Rule 11 Motion

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

JAT v. JNC - Rule 11 Motion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the case about?

What is the case about?

What motion is being filed?

What motion is being filed?

Case 2:14-cv-04898-JVS-MRW Document 15 Filed 08/06/14 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:122

1 James Juo (State Bar No. 193852)

2 FULWIDER PATTON, LLP

Howard Hughes Center

3 6060 Center Drive, Tenth Floor

Los Angeles, California 90045

4 Telephone: (310) 824-5555

Facsimile: (310) 824-9696

Attorney for Defendants,

6 JNC WHEEL COLLECTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CASE NO. CV14-04898 JFW (MRWx)

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION

d/b/a STR RACING

JNC WHEEL COLLECTION, and

Date: September 8, 2014

15 DOES 1 through 10,

Judge John F. Walter James V. Selna

20 TO THE COURT, PLAINTIFF AND ITS COUNSEL OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on September 8, 2014, at 1:30 P.M., or as

Case 2:14-cv-04898-JVS-MRW Document 15 Filed 08/06/14 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:123

2 prior to the filing of the Motion.

This Motion is made following the conference of counsel pursuant to

6 accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, filed concurrently herewith,

FULWIDER PATTON, LLP

/s/ James Juo

Case 2:14-cv-04898-JVS-MRW Document 15-1 Filed 08/06/14 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:124

1 James Juo (State Bar No. 193852)

2 FULWIDER PATTON, LLP

Howard Hughes Center

3 6060 Center Drive, Tenth Floor

Los Angeles, California 90045

4 Telephone: (310) 824-5555

Facsimile: (310) 824-9696

Attorney for Defendants,

6 JNC WHEEL COLLECTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CASE NO. CV14-04898 JFW (MRWx)

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING

d/b/a STR RACING

JNC WHEEL COLLECTION, and

15 DOES 1 through 10,

Date: September 8, 2014

Judge John F. Walter James V. Selna

Rule 11 requires a court to determine (1) whether the complaint is legally or

Case 2:14-cv-04898-JVS-MRW Document 15-1 Filed 08/06/14 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:125

Counsels legal experience may be considered in determining whether a pre-

Case 2:14-cv-04898-JVS-MRW Document 15-1 Filed 08/06/14 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:126

13 costs incurred in connection with this action.

Case 2:14-cv-04898-JVS-MRW Document 15-2 Filed 08/06/14 Page 1 of 13 Page ID #:127

1 James Juo (State Bar No. 193852)

2 FULWIDER PATTON, LLP

Howard Hughes Center