Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA712834
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`12/05/2015
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`92062491
`Defendant
`Rafael N. Aguila DBA Edge Systems
`RAFAEL N AGUILA DBA EDGE SYSTEMS
`6800 SW 40TH STREET, SUITE 102
`MIAMI, FL 33155
`UNITED STATES
`support@edge-systems.com
`Motion to Suspend for Civil Action
`Rafael N. Aguila
`raguila@gmail.com
`/Rafael N. Aguila/
`12/05/2015
`TTAB - Dermabuilder - MOTION FOR SUSPENSION OF PROCEED-
`INGS.pdf(1066046 bytes )
`
`Proceeding
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`Filer's Name
`Filer's e-mail
`Signature
`Date
`Attachments
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`Edge Systems LLC,
`
`
`Petitioner,
`
`
`v.
`
`Rafael N. Aguila DBA Edge Systems,
`
`
`Respondent.
`
`_____________________________________
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR SUSPENSION OF PROCEEDINGS
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §2.117 and Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Manual of Procedure
`
`
`
`(TBMP) Chapter 510.02(a), Respondent respectfully requests that the above-captioned
`
`cancellation proceeding be suspended pending final determination in a civil litigation pending in
`
`United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Civil Action No. 1:14-CV-
`
`24517-KMM. Attached hereto is a copy of the Complaint for Trademark Infringement filed on
`
`November 26th, 2014 and served on Respondent/Defendant on December 19, 2014. See Exhibit
`
`A. The determination of both priority use and fraud between Respondent/Defendant’s mark and
`
`Petitioner/Plaintiff’s mark is central to both the cancellation proceeding and the civil litigation.
`
`As such, Respondent states that the pending civil litigation will have a direct bearing on the
`
`cancellation proceeding. See 37 CFR §2.117(a); General Motors Corp. v. Cadillac Club Fashions
`
`Inc., 22 USPQ2d 1933 (TTAB 1992). Moreover, given that the cancellation proceeding is still in
`
`the initial phase and that there are no other pending motions before this Board by either party,
`
`favorable action on this motion is respectfully requested.
`
`
`
`1
`
`)
`
`Cancellation No. 92062491
`
`Registration No. 4772995
`
`Mark: DERMABUILDER
`
`) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
`
`

`

`December 5th, 2015
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`Rafael N. Aguila, pro se
`5338 SW 57th AVENUE
`SOUTH MIAMI, FL 33155
`UNITED STATES
`raguila@gmail.com
`305-508-5053
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that I served copies of the foregoing MOTION FOR SUSPENSION OF
`PROCEEDINGS upon the Petitioner’s counsel of record by depositing a copy thereof in the
`United States Mail, first-class postage prepaid, on December 5, 2015, addressed as follows:
`
`
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`Lauren Keller Katzenellenbogen
`Ali S. Razai
`2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`UNITED STATES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Rafael N. Aguila, pro se
`5338 SW 57th AVENUE
`SOUTH MIAMI, FL 33155
`UNITED STATES
`raguila@gmail.com
`305-508-5053
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-24517-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/26/2014 Page 1 of 21
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`
`CASE NO. __________________
`
`
`
`EDGE SYSTEMS LLC,
`a California limited liability company,
`and AXIA MEDSCIENCES, LLC,
`a Delaware limited liability company,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Rafael Newton Aguila, a/k/a Ralph Aguila,
`an individual, d/b/a Hydradermabrasion Systems,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`_________________________________________/
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiffs Edge Systems LLC (“Edge”) and Axia MedSciences, LLC (“Axia”)
`
`(collectively, “Plaintiffs”), for their Complaint against Defendant Rafael Newton Aguila, a/k/a
`
`Ralph Aguila, d/b/a Hydradermabrasion Systems (“Aguila”), hereby allege as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Edge is a California limited liability company organized and existing under the
`
`laws of the state of California, having a principal place of business at 2277 Redondo Avenue,
`
`Signal Hill, California, 90755, which owns rights in the trademarks, service marks and trade
`
`names at issue in this lawsuit (“Edge’s MARKS”).
`2.
`
`Edge manufactures spa and skin treatment products, and hydradermabrasion
`
`systems, and sells and distributes them throughout the United States, including in this Judicial
`
`District.
`3.
`
`Axia is a Delaware limited liability company having a principal place of business
`
`at 23 Hallmark Circle, Menlo Park, California, 94025.
`4.
`
`Axia is the owner of the patents at issue in this case, and Edge is the exclusive
`
`licensee of those patents.
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-24517-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/26/2014 Page 2 of 21
`
`5.
`
`Upon information and belief, Aguila is an individual residing in this Judicial
`
`District, having an address of 5338 SW 57th Avenue South Miami, Florida 33155.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`6.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant conducts business throughout the United
`
`States, including in this Judicial District.
`7.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant has a
`
`continuous, systematic, and substantial presence within this judicial district including by selling
`
`and offering for sale infringing products in this Judicial District and selling into the stream of
`
`commerce knowing that such products would be sold in this state and Judicial District.
`8.
`
`Venue is proper in this Judicial District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c),
`
`and 1400(b), and by Plaintiffs’ choice of venue.
`9.
`
`This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over the claims in this action
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338 because Plaintiffs’ claims for trademark infringement,
`
`false designation of origin, unfair competition and patent infringement pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§
`
`1114 and 1125(a), and 35 U.S.C. § 271 arise under the laws of the United States. This Court has
`
`supplemental jurisdiction over the claims in this Complaint which arise under state statutory and
`
`common law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because the state law claims are so related to the
`
`federal claims that they form part of the same case or controversy and derive from a common
`
`nucleus of operative facts.
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`Plaintiff Edge’s Products and Associated Intellectual Property Rights
`
`
`
`10.
`
`Edge designs and sells skin health devices, including spa and skin treatment
`
`products and hydradermabrasion systems.
`11.
`
`Edge is at the forefront of the aesthetic industry and has worked continuously to
`
`bring new technology and breakthrough processes to the market. Edge has grown to become an
`
`iconic brand and is now widely recognized throughout the United States.
`12.
`
`Edge’s premier product is its revolutionary HydraFacial MD® hydradermabrasion
`
`system (the “Edge Machine”), an innovative non-ablative facial rejuvenation system. The Edge
`
`Machine bears unique and distinctive trade dress which consists of the overall design and
`
`configuration of the product, as shown in the photograph below (the “Edge Trade Dress”).
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-24517-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/26/2014 Page 3 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THE EDGE MACHINE
`
`13.
`
`As a result of its highly acclaimed, innovative skin health devices and technology,
`
`Edge has grown at an impressive pace.
`14.
`
`Edge diligently protects its intellectual property rights in its products and
`
`technology by obtaining patents in the U.S. and around the world. Edge also filed and registered
`
`numerous federal trademarks in the United States that are used in connection with its products
`
`and services.
`15.
`
`Edge is the owner of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 2,992,734, which is
`
`registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“U.S.P.T.O”) on September 6,
`
`2005 on the Principal Register for the mark THE EDGE SYSTEM. Trademark Registration No.
`
`2,992,734 is associated with the following goods: Medical apparatus, namely, systems comprised
`
`primarily of a vacuum source and hand piece used for medical body care treatments,
`
`microdermabrasion, and massage therapy. A true and correct copy of the certificate of
`
`registration of Trademark Registration 2,992,734 is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-24517-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/26/2014 Page 4 of 21
`
`16.
`
`Edge is the owner of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3,500,086, which was
`
`registered with the U.S.P.T.O on September 9, 2008 on the Principal Register for the mark
`
`HYDROPEEL. Trademark Registration No. 3,500,086 is associated with the following goods:
`
`Medical apparatus and instruments for resurfacing and nourishing tissue. A true and correct
`
`copy of the certificate of registration of Trademark Registration 3,500,086 is attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit 2.
`17.
`
`Edge is the owner of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,114,466, which was
`
`registered with the U.S.P.T.O on March 20, 2012 on the Principal Register for the mark
`
`VORTEX-FUSION. Trademark Registration No. 4,114,466 is associated with the following
`
`goods: Microdermabrasion apparatus. A true and correct copy of the certificate of registration of
`
`Trademark Registration 4,114,466 is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. The marks registered in U.S.
`
`Trademark Registration Nos. 2,992,734, 3,500,086, and 4,114,466 shall hereinafter be referred to
`
`collectively as the Edge Registered Marks.
`18.
`
`All of the Edge Registered Marks have been continuously used in U.S. commerce
`
`and registered on the Principal Register of the U.S.P.T.O. Trademark Registration Nos.
`
`2,992,734 and 3,500,086 have been registered on the Principal Register of the U.S.P.T.O. for
`
`more than five years from the issuance of the registrations and are the subject of Declaration
`
`filings with the U.S.P.T.O. under Section 15 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1065, and are
`
`therefore deemed to be incontestable.
`19.
`
`Since at least as early as 1999, Edge has continuously used variations of its
`
`chevron-styled “E” logo formed by three triangles (“Chevron E-Logo”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 1999-2011
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2011-PRESENT
`
`20.
`
`Edge has continuously used its Chevron E-Logo in interstate commerce in
`
`connection with the advertisement, promotion and sale of the Edge’s spa and skin treatment
`
`products, including the Edge Machine.
`21.
`
`Edge is the owner of common law rights in the marks EDGE SYSTEMS, ACTIV-
`
`4, ANTIOX+, ANTIOX-6, BETA-HD, DERMABUILDER, and GLYSAL.
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-24517-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/26/2014 Page 5 of 21
`
`22.
`
`Since its founding in 1997, Edge has continuously used the EDGE SYSTEMS
`
`mark in interstate commerce to identify itself and in connection with the advertisement,
`
`promotion and sale of its spa and skin treatment products, including the Edge Machine.
`23.
`
`Edge has continuously used the marks ACTIV-4, ANTIOX-6, and BETA-HD
`
`since at least as early as 2006 in connection with the advertisement, promotion and sale of its spa
`
`and skin treatment products.
`24.
`
`Edge has continuously used the marks DERMABUILDER and GLYSAL since at
`
`least as early as 2010 in connection with the advertisement, promotion and sale of its spa and
`
`skin treatment products.
`25.
`
`Edge has continuously used the mark ANTIOX+ since at least as early as 2013 in
`
`connection with the advertisement, promotion and sale of its spa and skin treatment products.
`
`The Chevron E-Logo and the marks, EDGE SYSTEMS, ACTIV-4, ANTIOX+, ANTIOX-6,
`
`BETA-HD, DERMABUILDER, and GLYSAL marks shall hereinafter be collectively referred to
`as the “EDGETM Marks.”
`26.
`Edge uses its EDGETM Marks on its products, letterhead, envelopes, business
`
`cards, company banners, website, email signatures, pens, mugs, t-shirts, collared shirts, and
`
`windbreakers.
`27.
`
`Edge advertises its products and services at trade shows, seminars, and through
`
`trade publications, social media, search engine optimization, emails, and webinars. In the past
`
`five years alone, Edge has spent approximately $4 million advertising its products and services
`in connection with the Edge Registered Mark, the EDGETM Marks and the Edge Trade Dress.
`28.
`
`In addition to Edge’s own advertising, important national media outlets have
`
`featured Edge and its products and reinforced the public’s association between Edge and Edge’s
`Registered Marks, the EDGETM Marks and the Edge Trade Dress. A sample of such media
`
`includes: People Magazine, Allure, The Hollywood Reporter, Tampa Bay Times, New Beauty,
`
`OK! Magazine, Star Magazine, Elle Beauty Book, Harper’s Bazaar Magazine, Essence, Simply
`
`Her, Examiner.com, and In Style.
`29.
`
`Edge’s products have also been shown on Good Day L.A., The Doctors, KLBK
`
`News, Great Day Houston, and Real Housewives of Beverly Hills.
`30.
`
`Edge’s products have received widespread public attention and acclaim, including
`
`being awarded the “Best Equipment for the Face” by LNE & Spa in 2011 and 2012.
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-24517-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/26/2014 Page 6 of 21
`
`31.
`Promotional materials and advertisements of Edge’s products that include Edge’s
`Registered Marks and EDGETM Marks and prominently display the Edge Trade Dress have been
`
`distributed and are recognized by consumers and are famous throughout the United States. As a
`result of Edge’s substantial efforts, Edge’s Registered Marks, EDGETM Marks and the Edge
`
`Trade Dress have become extremely valuable to Edge as an identifier of the company, its
`
`products, and the substantial goodwill Edge has earned in the market. Edge’s Registered Marks,
`EDGETM Marks and the Edge Trade Dress have become synonymous in the consumer’s mind
`
`with Edge.
`32.
`
`Edge sells its products to many consumers, including dermatologists, plastic
`
`surgeons, and health spas.
`33.
`
`Edge products and services are offered at more than 2,500 locations throughout
`
`the United States, including all 50 states.
`34.
`
`Edge has continuously operated a website since 1999, displaying Edge’s
`
`trademarks in connection with the sales and promotion of its product, and Edge’s website has
`
`reached over 56,000 individual users since July 2013.
`35.
`
`Edge has a sales force of over 60 employees in the United States covering each of
`
`the 50 states. Edge has been selling products in the state of Florida since 2000, and has sold
`
`products bearing the Edge Trade Dress in Florida since at least as early as 2010. Over the last
`
`five years, Edge has generated over $93 million in revenue, including over $48 million in
`
`revenue from sales of the Edge Machine, which bears the Edge Trade Dress.
`36.
`By virtue of the extensive usage, advertising, promotion, and media exposure of
`the Edge Registered Marks, EDGETM Marks and the Edge Trade Dress, these marks and trade
`
`dress have become famous and well-known among the trade, the public, and consumers in the
`
`United States, have acquired significant goodwill and public recognition, and have become
`
`strong source identifiers of Edge’s goods and services and are entitled to a wide scope of
`
`protection.
`37.
`Edge has promoted its goods and services under the Edge Registered Marks, the
`EDGETM Marks, and the Edge Trade Dress, and Edge’s innovative technology in its products are
`
`also protected by utility patents, including United States Patent Nos. 6,299,620, 6,641,591,
`
`7,678,120, 7,789,886, 8,066,716, and 8,337,513 (collectively, the “patents-in-suit”).
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-24517-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/26/2014 Page 7 of 21
`
`38.
`
`On October 9, 2001, U.S. Patent No. 6,299,620 (“the ’620 Patent”), entitled
`
`“INSTRUMENTS AND TECHNIQUES FOR INDUCING NEOCOLLAGENESIS IN SKIN
`
`TREATMENTS,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office. A copy of the ’620 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 6. Edge is the exclusive licensee
`
`of the ’620 Patent.
`39.
`
`On November 4, 2003, U.S. Patent No. 6,641,591 (“the ’591 Patent”), entitled
`
`“INSTRUMENTS AND TECHNIQUES FOR CONTROLLED REMOVAL OF EPIDERMAL
`
`LAYERS,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A
`
`copy of the ’591 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 7. Edge is the exclusive licensee of the ’591
`
`Patent.
`
`40.
`
`On March 16, 2010, U.S. Patent No. 7,678,120 (“the ’120 Patent”), entitled
`
`“INSTRUMENTS AND TECHNIQUES FOR CONTROLLED REMOVAL OF EPIDERMAL
`
`LAYERS,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A
`
`copy of the ’120 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 8. Edge is the exclusive licensee of the ’120
`
`Patent.
`
`41.
`
`On September 7, 2010, U.S. Patent No. 7,789,886 (“the ’886 Patent”), entitled
`
`“INSTRUMENTS AND TECHNIQUES FOR CONTROLLED REMOVAL OF EPIDERMAL
`
`LAYERS,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A
`
`copy of the ’886 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 9. Edge is the exclusive licensee of the ’886
`
`Patent.
`
`42.
`
`On November 29, 2011, U.S. Patent No. 8,066,716 (“the ’716 Patent”), entitled
`
`“INSTRUMENTS AND TECHNIQUES FOR CONTROLLED REMOVAL OF EPIDERMAL
`
`LAYERS,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A
`
`copy of the ’716 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 10. Edge is the exclusive licensee of the
`
`’716 Patent.
`43.
`
`On December 25, 2012, U.S. Patent No. 8,337,513 (“the ’513 Patent”), entitled
`
`“INSTRUMENTS AND TECHNIQUES FOR CONTROLLED REMOVAL OF EPIDERMAL
`
`LAYERS,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A
`
`copy of the ’513 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 11. Edge is the exclusive licensee of the
`
`’513 Patent.
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-24517-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/26/2014 Page 8 of 21
`
`44.
`
`Edge has provided proper and sufficient notice to the public that its products are
`
`patented under each of the patents-in-suit by marking its products pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 287.
`
`Defendant’s Infringing Activities
`
`45.
`
`In October, 2014, Edge was surprised to learn that one of its main competitors,
`
`Lumenis, was offering what appeared to be a copycat version of the Edge Machine on the
`
`website www.hydradermabrasion.com (the “Website”). When Edge contacted Lumenis, it
`
`learned that Lumenis was just as surprised by the Website. After further evaluation, Edge and
`
`Lumenis both learned that the Website was actually registered to the Defendant. Upon
`
`information and belief, Defendant was using Lumenis’ trade name and trademarks to advertise
`
`its Hydradermabrasion MD machine (the “Accused Product”).
`46.
`
`On or about October 27, 2014, Edge sent the Defendant a cease and desist letter
`
`and asked that it stop infringing the patents-in-suit.
`47.
`
`Upon information and belief, Lumenis separately asked that Defendant stop using
`
`its trade name and trademarks.
`48.
`
`Soon thereafter, Defendant changed its Website. Defendant now uses the Website
`
`to blatantly pass itself off as Edge. The Website adopts Edge’s name and misappropriates the
`
`Edge Marks to sell the Accused Product. Defendant has gone to great lengths to assume Edge’s
`
`identity, including filing its own trademark applications for the mark EDGE SYSTEMS.
`49.
`
`On November 1, 2014, Defendant filed a Trademark/Service Mark Application
`
`with the United States Patent & Trademark Office for the mark “Edge Systems (stylized and/or
`
`with design).” The application was assigned Serial No. 86442086 (the “’086 Application”). The
`
`’086 Application claims a date of First Use in Commerce of March 21, 1996. The ’086
`
`Application was filed with a declaration pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a) signed by Rafael N.
`
`Aguila (Defendant), affirming the truth of all statements made in the application. Upon
`
`information and belief, Defendant’s declaration is fraudulent.
`50.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant has also started using the website
`
`www.edge-systems.com (the “Website II”)—which incorporates Edge’s trade name in the
`
`domain name—to advertise the same infringing material. Shown below is a screen shot of
`
`Defendant’s new homepage, which appears on both the Website and the Website II.
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-24517-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/26/2014 Page 9 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S WEBSITE
`
`51.
`
`Upon information and belief, at least one of Defendant’s “Regional Sales
`
`Managers” passes himself off as being affiliated with Edge and even includes “Edge Systems” in
`
`the signature lines of his emails.
`52.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant’s receptionist greets callers as having
`
`called “Edge Systems.”
`53.
`
`Defendant’s actions have had a profound and confusing effect on the market. A
`
`customer that purchased one of Defendant’s knock-off machines even approached Edge seeking
`
`training for what she believed was an authentic Edge product.
`54.
`
`Defendant has even confused some of Edge’s seasoned employees as to its
`
`affiliation with Edge.
`55.
`
`Defendant’s Accused Product, as advertised on the Website and Website II,
`
`copies every aspect of the Edge Machine, including the Edge Trade Dress.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-24517-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/26/2014 Page 10 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` THE EDGE MACHINE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` ACCUSED PRODUCT
`
`56.
`
`Defendant is providing Defendant’s products and services under trademarks, trade
`
`names, and/or service marks, including the mark, which is confusingly similar to Edge’s
`
`Chevron E-Logo.
`57.
`
`Defendant is providing Defendant’s products and services under trademarks, trade
`
`names, and/or services marks, including the mark EDGE SYSTEMS.
`58.
`
`Defendant’s EDGE SYSTEMS mark copies Edge’s trade name and is virtually
`
`identical to Edge’s federally registered mark THE EDGE SYSTEM.
`59.
`
`Defendant is providing Defendant’s products and services under trademarks, trade
`
`names, and/or services marks, including the mark HYDRAPEEL.
`60.
`
`Defendant’s HYDRAPEEL mark is virtually identical to Edge’s federally
`
`registered mark HYDROPEEL.
`61.
`
`Defendant is providing Defendant’s products and services under trademarks, trade
`
`names, and/or services marks, including the mark CYCLONIC-FUSION.
`62.
`
`Defendant’s CYCLONIC-FUSION mark is confusingly similar to Edge’s
`
`federally registered VORTEX-FUSION mark.
`63.
`64.
`
`Defendant’s ACTIV-4 mark is identical to Edge’s common law mark ACTIV-4.
`
`Defendant’s ANTIOX-PLUS mark is virtually identical to Edge’s common law
`
`mark ANTIOX+.
`65.
`
`Defendant’s ANTIOX-6 mark is identical to Edge’s common law mark ANTIOX-
`
`6.
`
`HD.
`
`66.
`
`Defendant’s BETA-HD mark is identical to Edge’s common law mark BETA-
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-24517-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/26/2014 Page 11 of 21
`
`67.
`
`Defendant’s DERMABUILDER mark is identical to Edge’s common law mark
`
`DERMABUILDER.
`68.
`69.
`
`Defendant’s GLYSAL mark is identical to Edge’s common law mark GLYSAL.
`Defendant infringes the Edge Registered Marks, EDGETM Marks and Edge Trade
`
`Dress in an attempt to falsely associate its products and services with Edge or to otherwise trade
`upon Edge’s valuable reputation and customer goodwill in Edge’s Registered Marks, EDGETM
`
`Marks and Edge Trade Dress and high quality products sold in connection with these trademarks.
`70.
`Edge did not consent to Defendant’s use of the Edge Registered Marks, EDGETM
`
`Marks and Edge Trade Dress, or any other feature of Edge’s products or services that help
`
`identify it to consumers.
`71.
`Defendant’s use of the Edge Registered Marks, EDGETM Marks, and Edge Trade
`
`Dress is designed and intended to cause confusion, mistake or deception as to the source of
`
`Defendant’s products and services, and has caused actual confusion and mistake, which has
`
`deceived consumers into believing that Defendant’s products and services are Edge’s products
`
`and services.
`72.
`
`Edge is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that it is Defendant’s purpose
`
`to cause consumers and potential customers to believe that Defendant’s products and services are
`
`associated with Edge when in truth and fact they are not.
`73.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s actions, Defendant has created a
`
`likelihood of injury to Edge’s business reputation and goodwill, caused a likelihood of consumer
`
`confusion, mistake and deception as to the source of origin or relationship of Edge’s and
`
`Defendant’s goods and services, and has otherwise competed unfairly with Edge by unlawfully
`trading on and using Edge’s Registered Marks, EDGETM Marks and Edge Trade Dress without
`
`Edge’s permission or consent.
`74.
`
`Edge is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant’s wrongful
`
`acts alleged in this Complaint are willful and deliberate.
`75.
`
`Edge’s wrongful acts alleged in this Complaint have caused damage to Edge in an
`
`amount to be determined at trial, and such damages will continue to increase unless Edge is
`
`enjoined from its wrongful actions and infringement.
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-24517-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/26/2014 Page 12 of 21
`
`76.
`
`Edge’s wrongful acts alleged in this Complaint have caused Edge to suffer
`
`irreparable injury to its business. Edge will suffer substantial loss of goodwill and reputation
`
`unless and until Defendant is enjoined from its wrongful actions complained of herein.
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`(35 U.S.C. § 271)
`
`77.
`
`Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each of the allegations set forth in
`
`Paragraphs 1-76 above.
`78.
`79.
`
`This is a claim for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`Defendant, through its agents, employees, and servants, has and continues to
`
`knowingly, intentionally, and willfully infringe the ’620 Patent by making, using, selling,
`
`offering for sale, and/or importing into the United States products that are covered by at least
`
`claim 1 of the ’620 Patent, including, for example, the Accused Product.
`80.
`
`Defendant, through its agents, employees, and servants, has and continues to
`
`knowingly, intentionally, and willfully infringe the ’591 Patent by making, using, selling,
`
`offering for sale, and/or importing into the United States products that are covered by at least
`
`claim 1 of the ’591 Patent, including, for example, the Accused Product.
`81.
`
`Defendant, through its agents, employees, and servants, has and continues to
`
`knowingly, intentionally, and willfully infringe the ’120 Patent by making, using, selling,
`
`offering for sale, and/or importing into the United States products that are covered by at least
`
`claim 1 of the ’120 Patent, including, for example, the Accused Product.
`82.
`
`Defendant, through its agents, employees, and servants, has and continues to
`
`knowingly, intentionally, and willfully infringe the ’886 Patent by making, using, selling,
`
`offering for sale, and/or importing into the United States products that are covered by at least
`
`claim 1 of the ’886 Patent, including, for example, the Accused Product.
`83.
`
`Defendant, through its agents, employees, and servants, has and continues to
`
`knowingly, intentionally, and willfully infringe the ’716 Patent by making, using, selling,
`
`offering for sale, and/or importing into the United States products that are covered by at least
`
`claim 1 of the ’716 Patent, including, for example, the Accused Product.
`84.
`
`Defendant, through its agents, employees, and servants, has and continues to
`
`knowingly, intentionally, and willfully infringe the ’513 Patent by making, using, selling,
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-24517-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/26/2014 Page 13 of 21
`
`offering for sale, and/or importing into the United States products that are covered by at least
`
`claim 1 of the ’513 Patent, including, for example, the Accused Product.
`85.
`
`Defendant had actual knowledge of the patents-in-suit through correspondence
`
`with Edge, including, for example, the October 27, 2014 cease and desist letter.
`86.
`
`Defendants’ customers also infringe each of the patents-in-suit by using, selling,
`
`offering for sale, and/or importing into the United States the Accused Product.
`87.
`
`Upon information and believe, Defendant knew that its customers would infringe
`
`each of the patents-in-suit by using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing into the United
`
`States infringing products, including, for example, the Accused Product.
`88.
`
`Upon information and believe, Defendant had the specific intent to induce its
`
`customers to infringe the patents-in-suit by using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing into
`
`the United States infringing products, including, for example, the Accused Product.
`89.
`
`Upon information and believe, Defendant induced infringement of the patents-in-
`
`suit.
`
`90.
`
`Defendant’s actions constitute infringement of the patents-in-suit in violation of
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a) and (b).
`91.
`
`Each of Defendant’s infringing activities is without the consent of, authority of, or
`
`license from Edge or Axia.
`92.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant’s infringement of each of the patents-in-
`
`suit was and is willful and deliberate. Defendant infringed the patents-in-suit with reckless
`
`disregard of Plaintiffs’ patent rights. Defendant knew, or it was so obvious that Defendant
`
`should have known, that its actions constituted infringement of each of the patents-in-suit.
`
`Defendant’s acts of infringement of the patents-in-suit were not consistent with the standards for
`
`the industry.
`93.
`
`Defendant’s acts of infringement have caused damage to Plaintiffs in an amount
`
`to be determined at trial. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, Plaintiffs are entitled to damages for
`
`Defendant’s infringing acts. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, Plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable
`
`attorneys’ fees for the necessity of bringing its claims of patent infringement.
`94.
`
`Defendant’s infringement of the patents-in-suit is causing irreparable harm to
`
`Plaintiffs, for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Defendant’s infringement will continue,
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-24517-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/26/2014 Page 14 of 21
`
`and will continue to cause irreparable harm to Edge, unless Defendant’s infringement is enjoined
`
`by this Court.
`
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
`
`(15 U.S.C. § 1114)
`
`95.
`
`Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each of the allegations set forth in
`
`Paragraphs 1-76 above.
`96.
`This is a claim for trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114.
`97. Without Edge’s permission, Defendant has used in commerce reproductions,
`
`copies or colorable imitations of the Edge Registered Marks in connection with the sale, offering
`
`for sale, distribution, advertising, and/or promotion of Defendant’s products and services.
`98. Without Edge’s permission, Defendant is reproducing, copying, or colorably
`
`imitating the Edge Marks and applying such reproductions, copies, or colorable imitations to
`
`labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used in
`
`commerce upon or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, advertising, and/or
`
`promotion of Defendant’s products and services.
`99.
`
`Defendant’s use of these copies or colorable imitations of the Edge Registered
`
`Marks is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.
`100. Defendant’s wrongful acts as alleged in its Complaint constitute willful and
`
`intentional infringement of the Edge Registered Marks. Defendant engaged in such activities
`
`with the intent to unfairly compete against Edge, to trade upon Edge’s reputation and goodwill
`
`by causing confusion and mistake among customers and the public, and to deceive the public
`
`into believing that Defendant’s products and services are associated with, sponsored by,
`
`originated from, or are approved by Edge, when in truth and fact they are not.
`101. Edge is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant had actual
`
`knowledge of Edge’s ownership and prior use of the Edge Registered Marks and willfully and
`
`maliciously violated Edge’s trademark rights under 15 U.S.C. § 1114 without Edge’s consent.
`102. Edge is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant’s infringement
`
`has been willful and deliberate, which renders this an exceptional case within the meaning of 15
`
`U.S.C. § 1117.
`
`-14-