through 100 (hereinafter collectively referred to as

(1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

COACH,

INC. andCOACH

_{SERVICES, INC.,:}

Plaintiffs,:

Case No.

V.

MONTANA CHARLIE'S OF

_ILLINOIS,

INC.: d/b/aMONTANA CHARLIE'S FLEA

_MARKET,:

SAI YUJ

_CHEN,

GING FANG

_CHEN,

LIN MEI:

YU,

andDOES 1

_through

_100,.

Defendants.

COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs

_Coach,

Inc. and Coach

_Services,

Inc.

_{(hereinafter collectively}

referredto

as "Coach" or

_{"Plaintiffs"), through}

their

_undersigned

counsel,

for their

_{complaint against}

Montana Charlie's of

_Illinois,

Inc. d/b/a Montana Charlie's Flea

_Market,

Sai

_Yuj

Chen

("Defendant Yuj Chen"), Ging

Fang

Chen

_("Defendant

_Fang

_Chen")

and Lin Mei Yu

("Defendant

Mei

_Yu"),

and DOES 1

_through

100

_{(hereinafter collectively}

referred to as

"Defendants") allege

as follows:

Nature of the Action

1. This is anaction for trademark

_{infringement,}

trade dress

_{infringement,}

and

counterfeiting

under the Lanham Act

₍₁₅

U.S.C.

_{1114, 1116, 1117,}

_1125(a)

and

_(c));

copyright infringement

under the United States

_Copyright

Act

₍₁₇

U.S.C. 501 et

_seq.);

trademark

_{infringement,}

unfair

_competition

and

_unjust

enrichment under Illinois common

law;

(2)

trademark dilution under Illinois common law and the Illinois Anti-Dilution Act

(765

ILCS

1035/15);

and unfair

_competition

under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and

_Deceptive

Business PracticesAct

₍₈₁₅

ILCS

_505).

Jurisdiction and Venue

2. Jurisdiction over the

parties

and

subject

matter of this action is _{proper in} this Court

_pursuant

to 15 U.S.C. 1121

_{(actions arising}

under the Lanham

_Act),

28 U.S.C.

1331

_{(actions arising}

under the laws of the United

_States),

28 U.S.C.

_{1332(a) (diversity}

of

citizenship

between the

_parties),

and

_{1338(a) (actions arising}

underanActof

_Congress

relating

to

_copyrights

and

_trademarks).

This Courthas

_{supplemental jurisdiction}

over the claims in this

Complaint

that arise under state

_statutory

andcommonlaw

_pursuant

to28 U.S.C.

_1367(a).

3. This Courthas

_{personal jurisdiction}

over the Defendants because

_they

do

business and/or reside inthe State of Illinois

_and,

as tothe

entities,

because

they

do

business,

are

incorporated,

and/orareauthorizedtodo business inthe Stateof Illinois.

4. Venue is

_properly

founded in this

_judicial

district

_pursuant

to 28 U.S.C.

1391(b)

and

_(c),

and 1400

_(a)

because Defendants reside inthis

_District,

_maybe foundinthis

District,

and/or a substantial

_part

of the events

_giving

rise to the claims in this action occurred within this District.

Parties

5. Plaintiff

_Coach,

Inc. is a

corporation duly organized

and

existing

under the

laws of the State of

_Maryland,

with its

_{principal place}

of business in New

_York,

New York. Plaintiff Coach

_Services,

Inc. is a

corporation duly organized

and

existing

under the laws of the

(3)

6.

_Upon

information and

_belief,

DefendantMontanaCharlie’s of

_Illinois,

Inc. d/b/a Montana Charlie’s Flea

_Market,

is an Illinois

corporation

with its

principal place

of

businessin

_Bolingbrook,

Illinois.

7.

_Upon

information and

_belief,

Defendant

_Yuj

Chen is an individual

residing

inIllinois and

_doing

businessinconnection with theMontanaCharlie’s Flea Market.

8.

_Upon

information and

_belief,

Defendant

_Fang

Chen is an individual

residing

inIllinois and

_doing

9.

_Upon

information and

_belief,

Defendant Mei Yu is anindividual

_residing

inIllinois and

_doing

10.

_Upon

information and

_belief,

Defendants DOES 1

_through

100 are

individuals

_residing

inIllinois and

_doing

11. Plaintiffs are unaware of the names and true

_capacities

of Defendants named herein as DOES 1

through

100,

whether

individual,

_corporate

and/or

partnership

entities,

and therefore sue them

by

their fictitious names. Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend this

complaint

when their true names and

_capacities

are ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and

believe,

and based thereon

_allege,

that said Defendants DOES 1

_through

_100,

are insome manner

responsible

for the_wrongs

_alleged

herein.

12. Plaintiffs are informed and

_believe,

and based thereon

_allege,

that at all relevant times

_herein,

Defendants knew or

reasonably

should have known of the acts and behavior

_alleged

herein and the

_damages

caused

_thereby,

and

_by

their inaction ratified and

(4)

non-delegable duty

to

_prevent

or cause such acts and the behavior described

herein,

which

duty

Defendants failed and/or refusedto

_perform.

The World Famous Coach Brand and Products

13. Coach was founded more than

sixty (60)

_{years ago} as a

family-run

workshop

inManhattan. Since then Coach has been

_engaged

inthe

_manufacture,

_marketing

and sale of fine leather and mixed material

_{products including handbags,}

_{wallets, accessories,}

eyewear,

footwear,

jewelry

and watches. Coach sells its

goods through

its own

specialty

retail stores,

department

stores,

catalogs,

and via an Internetwebsite www.coach.com

throughout

the

United

_States,

_including

Illinois.

14. Coach has used a

_variety

of

_{legally-protected}

trademarks,

trade

dresses,

and

_{design elements/copyrights}

for_many _years onandin connection with the advertisement and

sale of its

_{products, including}

but not limited _to, those detailedin this

_{Complaint (collectively,}

the “Coach

_Marks”).

15. Coach has

_expended

substantial

_time,

_money, and other resources in

developing, advertising,

and otherwise

_promoting

the Coach Marks. As a

result,

products

bearing

the Coach Marks are

_{widely recognized}

and

_exclusively

associated

_by

_consumers, the

public,

and the trade as

being high quality products

sourced from

Coach,

and have

acquired

strong

secondary meaning.

Coach

_products

have also become _among the most

_popular

in the

world,

with Coach’s annual

_global

sales

_currently

_exceeding

three billion dollars

($3,

000,000,

000).

The Coach Trademarks

16. Coach is the owner of the

following

United States Federal Trademark

Registrations (hereinafter collectively

referredtoas the“Coach

Trademarks”):

(5)

Registration

Mark Classes Date of

_Image

No.

_Registration

2,088,

706 COACH

_{6, 9, 16, 18,}

20 and25

_September

_19,

forinteralia

_key

_fobs,

1997

eyeglass

cases,

satchels,

_luggage,

luggage, backpacks,

picture

frames, hats,

gloves

and_caps.

3, 157,

972 COACH 35 for retailstore October

_17,

2006 services.

0,751,

493 COACH

_16,

18 forinteralia June

_23,

1963 leather

_goods,

wallets

and billfolds.

2,451,

168 COACH 9forinteralia

_{May 15,}

2001

eyeglasses

and

_sunglass

Cases

2, 537,

004 COACH 24 forinteralia home

_February

_5,

2002

furnishings.

1, 846,

801 COACH 25 forinteralia men’s

_July

_26,

1994 andwomen’s coats and

jackets.

3,439,

871 COACH 18 forinteralia June

_3,

2008

umbrellas.

2,061,

826 COACH 12 forinteralia seat

_{May 13,}

1997

covers.

2,231,

001 COACH 25 forinteralia men March

9,

1999

andwomen’s

_clothing.

2, 836,

_April27,

2004

sporting goods

and stuffed

_toys.

2, 939,

127 COACH 9forinteralia camera

_April

_12,

2005 cases.

3, 354,

448 COACH 14forinteralia December

_11,

jewelry.

2007

2, 579,

_6,

2002

pillows,

mirrors and

(6)

Registration

_Image

No.

_Registration

2,074,

972 COACH

_3,

21 forinteralia

_July

_1,

1997 leather

_cleaning

products

and shoe brushes.

2,446,

_writing

_April24,

2001 instruments.

2,291,

341 COACH 14forinteralia clocks November

_9,

and watches. 1999

1,071,

000 COACH

_18,

25 forinteralia

_{August 9,}

1977 women’s

_handbags.

3, 633,

_2,

2009

perfumes,

lotions and

body

sprays.

2, 534,

429 COACH & LOZENGE 9forinteralia

_{January 29,}

2002

DESIGN

_{eyeglasses, eyeglass}

frames and

_sunglasses.

3, 363,

873 COACH & LOZENGE 3 forinteralia

_{January 1,}

2008

DESIGN

_fragrances.

2,252,

847 COACH & LOZENGE 35retail services. June

_15,

1999 DESIGN

2,291,

368 COACH & LOZENGE 14forinteralia November

_9,

DESIGN

_jewelry.

1999

2, 666,

744 COACH & LOZENGE 24 forinteralia bed December

_24,

DESIGN linens. 2002

2, 534,

429 COACH & LOZENGE 9forinteralia

_{January 29,}

2002

DESIGN

_{eyeglasses, eyeglass}

frames and

_sunglasses.

2, 169,

808 COACH & LOZENGE 25 forinteralia June

_30,

1998

DESIGN

_clothing

formenand

(7)

Registration

_Image

No.

_Registration

2,045,

676 COACH & LOZENGE

_{6, 9, 16, 18, 20,}

25 for March

_18,

1997

DESIGN interalia

_key

_fobs,

money

clips, phone

cases, attachécases, duffel

_{bags, picture}

frames, hats,

caps and

gloves.

1,070,

999 COACH & LOZENGE

_18,

25 forinteralia

_{August 9,}

1977

DESIGN women’s

_handbags.

1, 309,

779 COACH & LOZENGE

_{9, 16,}

18 forinteralia December

_19,

DESIGN

_eyeglass

casesand 1984

leather

_goods

such as

wallets,

handbags

and shoulder

_bags.

2,035,

056 COACH & LOZENGE

_3,

21 forinteralia

_February

_4,

1997

DESIGN leather

_cleaning

products

and shoe brushes.

2, 983,

654 COACH & LOZENGE

_{18, 24,}

25 forinteralia

_{August 9,}

2005

DESIGN

_handbags,

leather

goods,

fabrics,

swimwear,

hats and shoes.

2, 626,

565 CC & DESIGN

_(Signature

18 forinteralia

_September

_24,

C)

handbags,

purses, 2002

clutches,

shoulder

_bags,

tote

_bags,

and wallets.

2, 822,

318 CC & DESIGN

_(Signature

24 forinteralia fabric March

_16,

2004

C)

foruseinthe

manufacture of

clothing,

shoes,

handbags,

and

_luggage.

2, 832,

589 CC & DESIGN

_(Signature

_{14, 16, 18, 20, 24, 25,}

_April

_13,

2004

C)

4, 6,

9forinteralia

sunglasses

and_eye

glass

cases, leather

(8)

Registration

_Image

No.

_Registration

2, 832,

740 CC & DESIGN

_(Signature

28 forinteralia stuffed

_April

_13,

2004

C)

animals.

2, 592,

963 CC & DESIGN

_(Signature

25 forinteralia

_July

_9,

2002

C)

clothing.

2, 822,

629 CC & DESIGN

_(Signature

35 for retail services for March

_16,

2004

C)

interalia

_handbags,

small leather

_goods,

jewelry

and watches.

3,012,

585 AMENDED CC &

_{18, 24,}

25 forinteralia November

_8,

DESIGN

_{(Signature C)}

_handbags,

_purses, 2005

fabrics and

_clothing.

3, 396,

554 AMENDED CC & 3 forinteralia March

_11,

2008 DESIGN

_{(Signature C)}

_fragrances.

3, 696,

470 COACH OP ART &

_18,

24 and25 forinter October

_13,

2009

Design

alia

_bags,

_umbrellas,

shoes and the

manufacture of these

goods.

3,251,

315 COACH EST. 1941

_18,

25 forinteralia June

_12,

2007

handbags,

small leather

goods, jackets

and

coats.

3,413,

536 COACH EST. 1941

_{14, 18,}

25 forinteralia

_April

_15,

2008

STYLIZED

_handbags,

_purses,

shoulder

_bags,

tote

bags,

and wallets.

3,441,

671 COACH

_{9, 14, 18,}

25 forinter June

_3,

2008 LEATHERWARE EST. alia

_handbags,

leather

1941

_[Heritage

_Logo]

_{cases, purses,} and wallets.

(9)

Registration

_Image

No.

_Registration

3,072,

459 CL STYLIZED 18 forinteralia leather March

_28,

2006

goods.

3, 187,

894 CL STYLIZED

_18,

25 forinteralia December

_12,

leather

_goods

and 2006

clothing.

1, 664,

527 THE COACH FACTORY 42 forinteralia retail November

_12,

STORE & LOZENGE services for leather 1991

DESIGN ware.

3, 338,

048 COACH STYLIZED 18 forinteralia November

_11,

luggage, backpacks

and 2007 shoulder

_bags

3, 149,

330 C& LOZENGE LOGO

_{9, 14, 16,}

25 forinter

_September

_26,

alia desk

_accessories,

2006

clothing

and_eye

glasses.

2, 162,

303 COACH & TAG DESIGN 25 forinteralia June

_2,

1998

clothing.

2,088,

707 COACH & TAG DESIGN 18 forinteralia

_{August 19,}

1997 accessory cases,

backpacks

and satchels.

17. These

_{registrations}

are

valid,

_subsisting,

in full force and effect and have

become incontestable

_pursuant

to 15 U.S.C.

§1065.1

18. The

_registration

of the marks constitutes

_prima

_facie

evidence of their

validity

and conclusive evidence of Coach’s exclusive

_right

to use the Coach Trademarks in

connection with the

_goods

identified therein and other commercial

_goods.

All

_{registrations originally}

held inthename of Coach’s

_{predecessors,}

Sara Lee

_Corporation

and Saramar

_Corporation,

were

_assigned

infulltoCoachon orabout October_2,2000.

(10)

19. The

_registration

of the marks also

_provides

sufficient notice toDefendants of Coach’s

_ownership

and exclusive

_rights

inthe Coach Trademarks.

20. The Coach Trademarks

_qualify

as famous

marks,

as thattermis usedin 15

U.S.C. 1125

_(c)(1).

21. The Coach Trademarks at issue in this case have been

continuously

used

and haveneverbeen abandoned.

The Coach Trade Dress

22. Coach is the owner ofa

variety

of

unique

and distinctive trade dresses

consisting

ofa combination of one or more

features,

including

sizes,

shapes,

colors,

designs,

fabrics, hardware,

hangtags, stitching

patterns

and other non-functional elements

_comprising

the overall look and feel

_incorporated

into Coach

_{products (the}

“Coach Trade

_Dresses”).

23. Consumers

_{immediately identify}

Coach as the

single

source of

high

quality products bearing

the Coach TradeDresses.

24. The Coach TradeDresses associated with Coach

_products

are

independent

of the functional

_aspects

of Coach

_products.

25. Coach has

_employed

the Coach TradeDresses associated with its

_products

exclusively

and without

_{interruption,}

and the Coach TradeDresseshave neverbeen abandoned.

The Coach

_Design

Elements

Copyrights

26.

_Many

of the decorative and artistic combinations of the

_design

elements

present

on Coach

products

are

independently protected

works under United States

Copyright

Law. These

_design

elements are

_{wholly original}

works and fixed in various

_{tangible products}

and

_media,

_{thereby qualifying}

as

copyrightable subject

matterunder the UnitedStates

_Copyright

(11)

27.

_{Amongst others,}

Coach has a valid

copyright registered

with the

Copyright

Office for its

_Op

Art”

_{design (registration}

number

_{VA0001694574).}

28. Atall times relevant

_hereto,

Coach has been the sole ownerand

_proprietor

of all

_rights,

_title,

and interest in and to the

_copyrights

in the

_Design

Elements used on Coach

products,

and such

_copyrights

are

valid,

subsisting

andinfull force and effect.

Defendants’ Acts of_Infringementand Unfair_Competition

29.

_Upon

information and

_belief,

Defendants are

engaged

in

designing,

manufacturing, advertising, promoting, distributing, selling,

and/or

_offering

for sale

_products

bearing logos

and

_{source-identifying}

indicia and

_design

elements that are studied imitations of

the Coach

_Trademarks,

the Coach Trade

_Dresses,

and the Coach

_Design

Elements

_(hereinafter

referred to as the

“Infringing Products”).

Defendants’

specific

conduct

includes,

_among other

things:

A. On or about October

_12,

2008 an

_Investigator

for

Coach,

canvassed the Montana

Charlie’s Flea

_Market,

which is an outdoor market

operated by

Montana Charlie’s of

Illinois,

Inc. at255 South Joliet

_Road,

_Bolingbrook,

Illinois.

B. The

_Investigator

observed

_{approximately}

five hundred

₍₅₀₀₎

vendors

_operating

booths

atMontanaCharlie’s Flea Marketonthat

date,

several of whomwere

offering,

_uponinformation

and

_belief,

counterfeit Coach

_products

in

_plain

view.

C. On or about October

18, 2008,

the Coach

Investigator,

returned to the Montana

Charlie’s Flea Market to observe a criminal enforcement action undertaken

by

the Illinois State

Police. The Coach

_Investigator

observed counterfeit Coach

_products

at Defendant

_Yuj

Chen’s booth. An Illinois State Police

_Investigator

then

_purchased

a tan Coach

_handbag

from Defendant

_Yuj

Chen for

_thirty

dollars

_($30.00).

The

_handbag

was

inspected by

the Coach

(12)

Investigator

who determined that the

_handbag

was counterfeit and

infringed

on Coach’s

intellectual

_property.

D. Later on October

18, 2010,

Defendants

Yuj

Chen, Fang

Chen and Yu were

subsequently

taken into

_{custody by}

the Illinois State Police for

_violating

the Illinois State Statute

relating

to

_{counterfeiting}

trademarks.

E. Also on October

18, 2008,

the Coach

Investigator

the booth

operated by

Defendants

Fang

Chen and Mei Yuand observedanumber of counterfeit Coach

handbags being

offered for

sale that

_depicted

various Coach trademarks.

F.

_Subsequent

searches of Defendant

_Yuj

Chen’s booth revealed one hundred

seventy-eight (178)

counterfeit Coach

_products.

Searches of Defendants

_Fang

Chen and Mei Yu’sbooth revealed four hundred eleven

₍₄₁₁₎

counterfeit Coach

_products.

G. After

_gathering

evidence of the Defendants’

_infringing

_conduct,

on November

3,

2008,

Coach sent a cease and desist notice to Montana Charlie’s of

_Illinois,

Inc.

_regarding

Montana Charlie’s Flea

_Market,

to

_compel

its

_cooperation

in

_ending

the

_infringing

conduct

_(the

“Notice”).

Montana Charlie’sof

_Illinois,

Inc. failedto

_respond

tothe Notice.

H. Onorabout

_April

_18,

2010 aCoach

_Investigator

conducteda

_{follow-up investigation}

to assess whether Montana Charlie’s of

Illinois,

Inc. d/b/aMontana Charlie’s Flea

Market,

had

complied

with Coach’s Notice. On that

_date,

the Coach

_Investigator

canvassed the Montana Charlie’s Flea Market and observed anumber of vendors who were

_offering,

_upon information

and

_belief,

counterfeit Coach

_products

in

_plain

view.

I.

_{Specifically,}

on or about

_April

_18,

2010 the Coach

_Investigator

observednot less that four

₍₄₎

vendors

_offering,

_upon information and

_belief,

counterfeit Coach

_products

for sale in

(13)

plain

view. Said vendors are hereinafter referredto as Vendor Doe

1,

Vendor Doe

2,

Vendor

Doe

_3,

and VendorDoe

_4,

_{respectively.}

J. VendorDoe

_1,

locatedatboothNo.

_711,

offered for

_sale,

_uponinformation and

_belief,

approximately fifty (50)

counterfeit Coach

_handbags.

The Coach

_{Investigator purchased}

a

brown

_{handbag bearing,}

_amongst

_others,

Coach’s Coach

_Op

Art and

_Design

trademark for

twenty

dollars

_($20.00)

from VendorDoe 1.

K. Vendor Doe

_2,

located at booth No.

_184,

offered for

_sale,

belief,

approximately

seventy

(70)

counterfeit Coach

_handbags.

The Coach

_Investigator

purchased

a

pink

and white

handbag bearing,

_amongst

others,

Coach’s

Heritage

Logo,

for

twenty-five

dollars

_($25.00)

from VendorDoe 2.

L. Vendor Doe

_3,

_713,

_offered,

_belief,

approximately sixty (60)

counterfeit Coach

_handbags.

The Coach

_{Investigator purchased}

a

multi-color _purse,

_bearing,

_amongst

others Coach’s

_Op

Art and

_Heritage

_Logo

trademarks and for

_twenty-eight

dollars

_($28.00)

from VendorDoe 3.

M. Vendor Doe

_4,

_70,

_offered,

_belief,

approximately eighty-five (85)

counterfeit Coach

_handbags

and wallets. The Coach

_Investigator

purchased

ared

wallet,

bearing,

_amongst

others Coach’s

trademark,

for twelve dollars

($12.00)

from VendorDoe 4.

N. All of the

_{foregoing purchased goods}

were

_{inspected by}

a Coach

Investigator

who

determined that each and _every

_good

was counterfeit and

infringed

on Coach’s trademarked

(14)

30. Defendants are well aware of the

extraordinary

fame and

strength

of the

Coach

_Brand,

the Coach

_Trademarks,

the Coach Trade

_Dresses,

and the Coach

_Design

_Elements,

and the incalculable

_goodwill

associated therewith.

31. Defendants have no

license,

authority,

or other

permission

from Coach to use _any of the Coach

Trademarks,

the Coach Trade

Dresses,

or the Coach

Design

Elements in

connection with the

_{designing, manufacturing, advertising, promoting, distributing, selling,}

and/or

_offering

for sale of the

_Infringing

Products.

32. Defendants have been

_engaging

in the above-described

_illegal

counterfeiting

and

_infringing

activities

_knowingly

and

_{intentionally,}

with reckless

_disregard

or

willful blindness to Coach’s

_rights,

orwith bad

faith,

for the_purpose of

trading

onthe

goodwill

and

_reputation

of the Coach Marks and Coach

_products.

33. Defendants’

_activities,

as described

above,

are

likely

to create a false

impression

and deceive consumers, the

_public,

and the trade into

_believing

that there is a

connection orassociation between the

Infringing

Products and Coach.

34.

_Upon

information and

_belief,

Defendants intend to continue to

_design,

manufacture, advertise,

promote,

import,

distribute, sell,

and/or offer for sale the

_Infringing

Products.

35. Coach is

_{suffering irreparable injury,}

has suffered substantial

_damages

as a

result of Defendants’

_activities,

and hasno

adequate remedy

atlaw.

COUNT I

(Trademark Counterfeiting,

15 U.S.C.

₁₁₁₄₎

(15)

37.

_Defendants,

without authorization from

_Coach,

have used and are

continuing

to use

spurious designations

that are identical _to, or

substantially indistinguishable

from,

Coach’s Trademarks.

38. The

_foregoing

acts of Defendants are intended to _cause, have

caused,

and are

likely

tocontinuetocause confusion or

mistake,

ortodeceive consumers,the

public,

and the trade into

_believing

that Defendants’

_Infringing

Products are

genuine

or authorized

products

of

Coach.

39.

_Upon

information and

_belief,

Defendants have acted with

_knowledge

of Coach’s

_ownership

of the Coach Trademarks and with deliberate intentionorwillful blindnessto

unfairly

benefit from the incalculable

_goodwill

inherentinthe Coach Marks.

40. Defendants’ acts constitute trademark

_{counterfeiting}

in violation of Section32of the LanhamAct

₍₁₅

U.S.C.

_1114).

41.

_Upon

information and

_belief,

Defendants have made and will continue to

make substantial

_profits

and/or

_gains

towhich

_they

arenotinlawor

equity

entitled.

42.

_Upon

information and

_belief,

Defendants intend to continue their

infringing

acts,unless restrained

_by

thisCourt.

43. Defendants’ acts have

_damaged

and will continue to

_damage

_Coach,

and Coach has no

adequate remedy

atlaw.

COUNT II

(Trademark

Infringement,

15 U.S.C.

₁₁₁₄₎

44. Coach

_repeats

and

_realleges

the

_allegations

setforthin

_paragraphs

1-35. 45.

_Defendants,

_Coach,

have used and are

continuing

touse

spurious designations

thatare

confusingly

similarto Coach’s Trademarks.

(16)

46. The

_foregoing

caused,

and are

likely

to continue to cause

confusion, mistake,

and

deception

_{among consumers,} the

public,

and the trade as towhether Defendants’

Infringing

Products

originate

from,

orare affiliated

with,

by

Coach.

47.

_Upon

information and

_belief,

_knowledge

of Coach’s

_ownership

unfairly

_{goodwill symbolized thereby.}

_infringement

inviolation of Section 32of the LanhamAct

₍₁₅

U.S.C.

_1114).

49.

_Upon

information and

_belief,

make substantial

_profits

and/or

_gains

towhich

_they

arenotinlawor

equity

entitled.

50.

_Upon

information and

_belief,

infringing

_by

thisCourt.

_damaged

_damage

_Coach,

and Coach has no

adequate remedy

atlaw.

COUNT III

(Trade

Dress

_{Infringement,}

15 U.S.C.

_1125(a))

52. Coach

_repeats

and

_realleges

the

_allegations

setforthin

_paragraphs

1-35. 53. The Coach Trade Dresses are used in commerce, are

_{non-functional,,}

and

have

_{acquired secondary meaning}

inthe

_marketplace.

54.

_Defendants,

_Coach,

have

_designed,

manufactured, advertised,

promoted,

distributed, sold,

and/or offered for

_sale,

and/or are

_causing

(17)

TradeDresses.

products

which contain acollection of

design

elements thatare

confusingly

similar tothe Coach

55. The

_foregoing

_caused,

and

are

likely

confusion, mistake,

and

deception

public,

and the trade who

_recognize

and associate the Coach Trade Dresses with Coach.

_Moreover,

Defendants’ conduct is

_likely

to cause

confusion,

to cause

mistake,

or todeceive _consumers, the

public,

and the trade as to the source of the

Infringing

Products,

or as to a

possible

affiliation,

connection orassociation between

Coach,

the

Defendants,

and the

_Infringing

Products.

56.

_Upon

information and

_belief,

_knowledge

of Coach’s

_ownership

of the Coach TradeDresses and with deliberate intentionorwillful blindness

to

_unfairly

_{goodwill symbolized thereby.}

57. Defendants’ acts constitute trade dress

_infringement

inviolation of Section

43(a)

of the LanhamAct

₍₁₅

U.S.C.

_1125(a)).

58.

_Upon

information and

_belief,

make substantial

_profits

and/or

_gains

towhich

_they

arenotinlawor

equity

entitled.

59.

_Upon

information and

_belief,

infringing

_by

thisCourt.

_damaged

_damage

_Coach,

and Coach has no

adequate remedy

atlaw.

COUNT IV

(False Designation

of

_Origin

and False

_Advertising,

15 U.S.C.

_1125(a))

61. Coach

_repeats

and

_realleges

the

_allegations

setforthin

_paragraphs

1-35. 62. Defendants’

_{promotion, advertising,}

_{distribution, sale,}

and/or

_offering

for sale of the

_Infringing

_Products,

_together

with Defendants’ use of other indicia associated with

(18)

Coach is

_intended,

and is

_likely

to

_{confuse, mislead,}

or deceive _consumers, the

public,

and the

trade as to the

_origin,

source,

sponsorship,

or affiliation of the

Infringing

Products,

and is

intended,

and is

_likely

to cause such

_parties

tobelieve in errorthat the

_Infringing

Products have

been

_authorized,

_{sponsored, approved,}

endorsedorlicensed

by

Coach,

orthat Defendantsare in some_wayaffiliated with Coach.

63. The

_foregoing

acts of Defendants constitute a false

designation

of

origin,

and false and

_{misleading descriptions}

and

_{representations}

of

_fact,

allinviolation of Section

_43(a)

of the LanhamAct

₍₁₅

U.S.C.

_1125(a)).

64.

_Upon

information and

_belief,

make substantial

_profits

and/or

_gains

towhich

_they

arenotinlawor

equity

entitled.

65.

_Upon

information and

_belief,

infringing

by

thisCourt.

_damaged

_damage

_Coach,

and Coach has no

adequate remedy

atlaw.

COUNT V

(Trademark Dilution,

15 U.S.C.

_1125(c))

67. Coach

_repeats

and

_realleges

the

_allegations

setforthin

_paragraphs

1-35. 68. The Coach Trademarks are

_strong

and distinctive marks that have been in use for_many_years and have achievedenormousand

_{widespread public recognition.}

69. The Coach Trademarks arefamous within the

meaning

of Section

43(c)

of

the LanhamAct

₍₁₅

U.S.C.

_1125(c)).

70. Defendants’ use of the

_Infringing

_Products,

Coach,

is

_diluting

the distinctive

_quality

of the Coach Trademarks and

_decreasing

the

_capacity

of such marksto

_identify

and

_distinguish

Coach

_products.

(19)

71. Defendants have

_{intentionally}

and

_willfully

diluted the distinctive

_quality

of the famous Coach Trademarks inviolation of Section

_43(c)

of the Lanham Act

₍₁₅

U.S.C.

1125(c)).

72.

_Upon

information and

_belief,

make substantial

_profits

and/or

_gains

towhich

_they

arenotinlawor

equity

entitled.

73.

_Upon

information and

_belief,

infringing

_by

thisCourt.

_damaged

_damage

_Coach,

and Coach has no

adequate remedy

atlaw.

75. Coach

_repeats

and

_realleges

the

_allegations

setforthin

_paragraphs

1-35. 76.

_Many

of the Coach

_Design

Elements contain decorative and artistic combinations thatare

protected

under the United States

Copyright

Act

(17

U.S.C. 101 et

_seq.).

Coach has avalid

registered copyright

inits

_Op

Art

design.

77.

_Upon

information and

_belief,

Defendants hadaccess to and

_copied

the

_Op

Art

_design

and other

_Design

Elements

_present

onCoach

products.

78. Defendants

_{intentionally infringed}

Coach’s

_copyrights

in the

_Op

Art

Design

and other

_Design

Elements

_present

on Coach

products by creating

and

distributing

the

Infringing

Products,

which

_incorporate

elements

_{substantially}

similartothe

_{copyrightable}

matter

present

in the

_Op

Art

_Design

and other

_Design

Elements

_present

on Coach

_products,

without

Coach’s consentorauthorization.

79. Defendants have

_infringed

Coach’s

_copyrights

inviolation of17 U.S.C. 501 et_seq.

COUNT VI

(20)

80.

_Upon

information and

_belief,

make substantial

_profits

and/or

_gains

towhich

_they

arenotinlawor

equity

entitled.

81.

_Upon

information and

_belief,

infringing

_by

thisCourt.

_damaged

_damage

_Coach,

and Coach has no

adequate remedy

atlaw.

COUNT VII

(Common

Law Trademark

_{Infringement)}

83. Coach

_repeats

and

_realleges

the

_allegations

setforthin

_paragraphs

1-35. 84. Coach owns all

_rights,

title,

and interest in andto the Coach

_Trademarks,

including

allcommonlaw

rights

insuch marks.

85.

_Defendants,

_Coach,

have used and are

continuing

touse

_{spurious designations}

thatare identical_to,

_{substantially indistinguishable}

from,

or

confusingly

similartothe Coach Trademarks.

86. The

_foregoing

_caused,

and

are

_likely

_{confusion, mistake,}

and

_deception

_public,

and the trade as towhether Defendants’

_Infringing

Products

_originate

_from,

orare affiliated

with,

_by

Coach.

87.

_Upon

information and

_belief,

_knowledge

of Coach’s

_ownership

unfairly

_{goodwill symbolized thereby.}

_infringement

in violation of the

(21)

89.

_Upon

information and

_belief,

make substantial

_profits

and/or

_gains

towhich

_they

arenotinlawor

equity

entitled.

90.

_Upon

information and

_belief,

infringing

_by

thisCourt.

_damaged

_damage

_Coach,

and Coach has no

adequate remedy

atlaw.

COUNT VIII

(Trademark Dilution,

Common Law and Illinois Anti-Dilution

_Act)

92. Coach

_repeats

and

_realleges

the

_allegations

setforthin

_paragraphs

1-35. 93. The

_foregoing

acts of Defendants constitute trademark dilution in violation of Illinois commonlaw and the Illinois Anti-DilutionAct

(765

ILCS

1035/15).

94. The Coach Trademarks are

_strong

and distinctive marks that have been in use for_many_years and have achievedenormousand

_{widespread public recognition.}

95.

_{Through prominent, long,}

and continuous use in commerce,

including

commerce within the State of

Illinois,

the Coach Trademarks have become and continue to be famous and distinctive.

96. Defendants’ use of the

Infringing

Products,

Coach,

is

_diluting

the distinctive

_quality

of the Coach Trademarks and

_decreasing

the

_capacity

of such marks to

_identify

and

_distinguish

Coach

_products

and has caused a likelihood of harm to

Coach’s business

_reputation.

97. Defendants have diluted the distinctive

_quality

of the famous Coach Trademarks.

98.

_Upon

information and

_belief,

(22)

99.

_Upon

information and

_belief,

infringing

_by

thisCourt.

_damaged

_damage

_Coach,

and Coach has no

adequate remedy

atlaw.

COUNT IX

(Unfair Competition,

Illinois Consumer Fraud and

_Deceptive

Business Practices

_Act)

101. Coach

_repeats

and

_realleges

the

_allegations

setforthin

_paragraphs

1-35. 102. The

_foregoing

acts of Defendants constitute unfair

_competition

in violation of the Illinois ConsumerFraud and

_Deceptive

Business Practices Act

₍₈₁₅

ILCS 505 et seq.

103.

_Upon

information and

_belief,

make substantial

_profits

and/or

_gains

towhich

_they

arenotinlawor

equity

entitled.

104.

_Upon

information and

_belief,

infringing

by

thisCourt.

_damaged

_damage

_Coach,

and Coach has no

adequate remedy

atlaw.

COUNT X

(Common

Law Unfair

_Competition)

106. Coach

_repeats

and

_realleges

the

_allegations

setforthin

_paragraphs

1-35. 107. The

_foregoing

acts of Defendants constitute unfair

_competition

in violation of the commonlaw of the Stateof Illinois.

108.

_Upon

information and

_belief,

(23)

109.

_Upon

information and

_belief,

infringing

_by

thisCourt.

_damaged

_damage

_Coach,

and Coach has no

adequate remedy

atlaw.

COUNT XI

(Unjust Enrichment)

111. Coach

_repeats

and

_realleges

the

_allegations

setforthin

_paragraphs

1-35. 112. The acts

_complained

of above constitute

_unjust

enrichment of Defendants

atCoach’s_{expense, in}violation of the commonlaw of the Stateof Illinois.

WHEREFORE,

Coach

_respectfully

_requests

that this Court enter

_judgment

against

Defendantsas follows:

A.

_Finding

that:

_(i)

Defendants have violated Section 32 of the Lanham Act

(15

U.S.C.

_1114);

Section

_43(a)

of the LanhamAct

₍₁₅

U.S.C.

_1125(a))

and Section

_43(c)

of the Lanham Act

₍₁₅

U.S.C.

_{1125(c)); (ii)}

Defendants have violated Section 501 of the

Copyright

Actof1976

₍₁₇

U.S.C.

_{501); (iii)}

Defendants have diluted the Coach Trademarks in violation of Illinois common law and the Illinois Anti-Dilution Act

(765

ILCS

1035/15); (iv)

Defendants have

_engaged

in trademark

_infringement

and unfair

_competition

under the common

law of

_Illinois;

_(v)

Defendants have

_engaged

in unfair

_competition

in violation of Illinois Consumer Fraud and

_Deceptive

Practices Act

₍₈₁₅

ILCS

_505);

_and,

_(vi)

Defendants have been

(24)

B.

_Granting

an

injunction,

_pursuant

toRule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure,

15 U.S.C.

_1116,

17 U.S.C.

_502,

_{preliminarily}

and

_{permanently restraining}

and

enjoining

Defendants,

their

_officers,

_agents,

_employees,

and

_attorneys,

and all those _persons or

entities inactive concertor

participation

with them from:

1.

_{Manufacturing, importing, advertising, marketing, promoting,}

supplying, distributing, offering

for

_sale,

or

selling

_any

products

which bear the Coach

Trademarks,

the Coach Trade

_Dresses,

and/or the Coach

_Design

_Elements,

or_anyother markor

design

element

_{substantially}

similar or

_confusing

thereto,

_including,

without

limitation,

the

Infringing

Products,

and

_engaging

_{in any} other

_{activity constituting}

an

infringement

of_any of

Coach’s

_rights

in the Coach

_Trademarks,

the Coach Trade

_Dresses,

and/or the Coach

_Design

Elements;

2.

_engaging

_{in any} other

_{activity constituting}

unfair

_competition

with

Coach,

or acts and

_practices

that deceive consumers, the

_public,

and/or

trade,

_including

without

limitation,

theuse of

_designations

and

_design

elements associated with

_Coach;

or.

3.

_engaging

_{in any} other

_activity

that will causethe distinctiveness of

the Coach Trademarks orCoach TradeDressestobe diluted.

C.

_Requiring

Defendants to recall from _any distributors and retailers and to

deliver to Coach for destruction or other

disposition

all

remaining inventory

of all

Infringing

Products,

including

all

_{advertisements,}

_promotional

and

_marketing

materials

_therefore,

as wellas means of

making

_same;

D.

_Requiring

Defendants to file with this Court and serve on Coach within

thirty (30) days

after

_entry

of the

_injunction

a

_report

in

writing

under oath

setting

forthin detail

(25)

E.

_Directing

such other reliefas the Court may deem

appropriate

to

_prevent

consumers, the

public,

and/or the trade from

deriving

anyerroneous

impression

that_any

product

at issue in this action that has been

_{manufactured,}

_imported,

_{advertised, marketed,}

_promoted,

supplied,

distributed,

offered for

_sale,

orsold

by

Defendants,

has been authorized

by

Coach,

oris

related_{in any way}with Coach and/or its

_products;

F.

_Awarding

Coach

_statutory

_damages

oftwo million dollars

_($2,

_000,

₀₀₀₎

per counterfeit

mark,

per

type

of counterfeit

_good

inaccordance with Section 35 of the Lanham Act

₍₁₅

U.S.C.

₁₁₁₇₎

or

_{alternatively, ordering}

Defendants to account to and_pay toCoach all

profits

realized

_by

their

_wrongful

acts and also

_awarding

Coach its actual

_damages,

and also

directing

that such

_profits

or actual

damages

be

trebled,

in accordance with Section 35 of the

LanhamAct

₍₁₅

U.S.C.

_1117);

G.

_Awarding

Coach

_statutory

_damages

orinthe alternative its actual

damages

sufferedas a result of the

_{copyright infringement,}

and _any

_profits

of Defendants not taken into

accountin

_computing

the actual

_damages,

_pursuant

to 17 U.S.C.

_504;

H.

_Awarding

Coach actual and

_{punitive damages}

towhich it is entitled under

applicable

federal andstate

_laws;

I.

_Awarding

Coach its _costs,

_attorneys

_fees,

_{investigatory}

_fees,

and_expenses

to the full extent

_{provided by}

Section 35 of the Lanham Act

₍₁₅

U.S.C.

_1117),

the Illinois ConsumerFraud and

_Deceptive

Business Practices Act

₍₈₁₅

ILCS

_505),

and Section 505 of the

Copyright

Actof1976

₍₁₇

U.S.C.

_505);

J.

_Awarding

Coach _pre

_-judgment

intereston_any

_monetary

award made

_part

(26)

and_proper.

K.

_Awarding

Coach such additional and further reliefas theCourt deems

just

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

PursuanttoRule

_38(b)

of the Federal Rules of Civil

_Procedure,

Coach

_requests

atrial

by

jury

inthismatter.

Dated: June

_16,

2010

_Respectfully

_submitted,

BRYAN CAVE LLP

By:

/s/S.Patrick

_McKey

S. Patrick

_McKey,

#6201588

Mariangela

M.

_Seale,

#6293433 161 North ClarkStreet

Suite4300

Chicago,

Illinois 60601 Tel:

₍₃₁₂₎

602-5000 Fax:

₍₃₁₂₎

602-5050

through 100 (hereinafter collectively referred to as

Full text

COACH,

SERVICES, INC.,:

Plaintiffs,:

ILLINOIS,

MARKET,:

CHEN,

CHEN,

YU,

through

100,.

Coach,

Services,

(hereinafter collectively

"Plaintiffs"), through

undersigned

counsel,

complaint against

Illinois,

Market,

Yuj

("Defendant Yuj Chen"), Ging

Fang

("Defendant

Fang

Chen")

("Defendant

Yu"),

through

(hereinafter collectively

"Defendants") allege

infringement,

infringement,

counterfeiting

(15

1114, 1116, 1117,

1125(a)

(c));

copyright infringement

Copyright

(17

seq.);

infringement,

competition

unjust

law;

(765

1035/15);

competition

Deceptive

(815

505).

parties

subject

pursuant

(actions arising

Act),

(actions arising

States),

1332(a) (diversity

citizenship

parties),

1338(a) (actions arising

Congress

relating

copyrights

trademarks).

supplemental jurisdiction

Complaint

statutory

pursuant

1367(a).

personal jurisdiction

they

and,

entities,

they

business,

incorporated,

_{SERVICES, INC.,:}

_ILLINOIS,

_MARKET,:

_CHEN,

_CHEN,

_through

_100,.

_Coach,

_Services,

_{(hereinafter collectively}

_{"Plaintiffs"), through}

_undersigned

_{complaint against}

_Illinois,

_Market,

_Yuj

_("Defendant

_Fang

_Chen")

_Yu"),

_through

_{(hereinafter collectively}

_{infringement,}

_{infringement,}

₍₁₅

_{1114, 1116, 1117,}

_1125(a)

_(c));

_Copyright

₍₁₇

_seq.);

_{infringement,}

_competition

_unjust

_competition

_Deceptive

₍₈₁₅

_505).

_pursuant

_{(actions arising}

_Act),

_{(actions arising}

_States),

_{1332(a) (diversity}

_parties),

_{1338(a) (actions arising}

_Congress

_copyrights

_trademarks).

_{supplemental jurisdiction}

_statutory

_pursuant

_1367(a).

_{personal jurisdiction}

_they

_and,

_properly

_judicial

_pursuant

_(c),

_(a)

_District,

_part

_giving

_Coach,

_Maryland,

_{principal place}

_York,

_Services,

_Upon

_belief,

_Illinois,

_Market,

_Bolingbrook,

_Upon

_belief,

_Yuj

_doing

_Upon

_belief,