Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA835937
`07/27/2017
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`Filing date:
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding
`
`92064459
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Attachments
`
`Defendant
`TASER International, Inc.
`
`RYAN T SANTURRI
`ALLEN DYER DOPPELT MILBRATH & GILCHRIST PA
`255 SOUTH ORANGE AVENUE, SUITE 1401
`ORLANDO, FL 32801
`UNITED STATES
`Email: rsanturri@addmg.com
`
`Motion to Reopen
`
`Ryan T. Santurri
`
`rsanturri@allendyer.com, mleavy@allendyer.com
`
`/Ryan T. Santurri/
`
`07/27/2017
`
`Motion To Resume Proceedings and Dismiss Cancellation.pdf(10181 bytes )
`Ex_1_Pt_1_AmendedComplaint.pdf(272229 bytes )
`Ex1_Pt_2_AmendedComplaintExs.pdf(5981749 bytes )
`Ex_2_Order.pdf(135568 bytes )
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Phazzer Electronics, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`TASER International, Inc.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner,
`
`
`
`
`Registrant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cancellation Action No.: 92064459
`Involving U.S. Registration No. 4,423,789
`
`REGISTRANT’S MOTION TO RESUME PROCEEDINGS AND DISMISS
`
`CANCELLATION WITH PREJUDICE
`
`
`
`
`Registrant TASER International, Inc. (“Registrant”) hereby requests that the Board resume
`
`proceedings and order the instant Cancellation dismissed with prejudice. In support thereof,
`
`Registrant states as follows:
`
`1.
`
`This Cancellation is predicated on Petitioner Phazzer Electronics, Inc.’s
`
`(“Petitioner”) claim that U.S. Trade Dress Registration No. 4,423,789 (the “’789 Registration”) is
`
`invalid because the trade dress is allegedly functional and lacks secondary meaning, as well as
`
`because the ’789 Registration was purportedly fraudulently obtained. (TTABVUE Dkt. No. 1,
`
`Counts 1-3).
`
`2.
`
`The subject Cancellation is currently suspended pending the outcome of a lawsuit
`
`between Registrant and Petitioner. (See TTABVUE Dkt. No. 4, Ex. A, true and correct copy of
`
`Complaint; Ex. 1, true and correct copy of Amended Complaint 1(the “Lawsuit”)). The Lawsuit
`
`includes a claim that Petitioner infringed the ’789 Registration, which necessarily requires a
`
`finding that the ’789 Registration is valid. (See TTABVUE Dkt. No. 4, Ex. A, ¶ 34 referencing the
`
`
`1 Registrant filed an Amended Complaint against Petitioner, amongst others, on February 24, 2017 after the initial
`suspension of the proceedings on October 28, 2016. (See Exhibit 1; TTABVUE Dkt. No. 7). However, the allegations
`against Petitioner with respect to the ’789 Registration remained substantively the same.
`
`

`

`2
`’789 Registration as the “TASER Trademark” and Count Three for infringement of the TASER
`
`Trademark; Exhibit 1, true and correct copy of Amended Complaint, ¶ 36 referencing the ’789
`
`Registration as the “TASER Trademark” and Count Three for infringement of the TASER
`
`Trademark).
`
`3.
`
`On July 21, 2017, an Order was issued in the Lawsuit finding that the ’789
`
`Registration is “valid and enforceable, not generic, functional, or merely descriptive, and
`
`infringed” by Petitioner. (Ex. 2, true and correct copy of July 21, 2017 Order (the “Order”), p. 13,
`
`¶ 1). The Order further prohibits Petitioner from “challeng[ing] or continu[ing] to challenge the
`
`validity or enforceability of the ’789 Registration in any manner in any forum, including the
`
`USPTO.” (Ex. 1, p. 14, ¶ 4).
`
`4.
`
`Accordingly, as the ’789 Registration has been held valid and infringed and
`
`Petitioner is prohibited from continuing with this Cancellation, Registrant respectfully requests
`
`that the Board issue an order dismissing the Cancellation with prejudice. See TBMP § 510.02(b);
`
`see also New Orleans Louisiana Saints LLC and NFL Properties LLC v. Who Dat?, Inc., 99
`
`USPQ2d 1550 (TTAB 2011). Such favorable action is earnestly solicited.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted this July 27, 2017.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/Ryan T. Santurri
`Ryan T. Santurri, Esquire
`Florida Bar No. 015698
`rsanturri@allendyer.com
`Brock Hankins, Esquire
`Florida Bar No. 112531
`bhankins@allendyer.com
`Allen, Dyer, Doppelt & Gilchrist P.A.
`255 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1401
`Orlando, FL 32801
`Telephone: (407) 841-2330
`Facsimile: (407) 841-2343
`Attorneys for Registrant TASER International, Inc.
`
`
`
`

`

`3
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that a true and complete copy of the foregoing has been served by email
`
`on July 27, 2017 to:
`
`Adam R. Stephenson
`Adam R. Stephenson, LTD.
`40 W. Baseline Rd., Ste 101
`Tempe, AZ 85283
`Tel: 480.264.6075
`Fax: 480.718.8336
`ipdocket@iptech.law
`adam@iptech.law
`
`
`
`/s/ Ryan T. Santurri
`Ryan T. Santurri, Esq.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Exhibit 1
`Exhibit 1
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`
` 
`
`

`

`(cid:39)(cid:69)(cid:87)(cid:73)(cid:4)(cid:26)(cid:30)(cid:21)(cid:26)(cid:17)(cid:71)(cid:90)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:26)(cid:26)(cid:17)(cid:52)(cid:43)(cid:38)(cid:17)(cid:47)(cid:54)(cid:55)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:40)(cid:83)(cid:71)(cid:89)(cid:81)(cid:73)(cid:82)(cid:88)(cid:4)(cid:29)(cid:25)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:42)(cid:77)(cid:80)(cid:73)(cid:72)(cid:4)(cid:20)(cid:22)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:24)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:27)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:52)(cid:69)(cid:75)(cid:73)(cid:4)(cid:21)(cid:4)(cid:83)(cid:74)(cid:4)(cid:21)(cid:25)(cid:4)(cid:52)(cid:69)(cid:75)(cid:73)(cid:45)(cid:40)(cid:4)(cid:29)(cid:23)(cid:25)
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`ORLANDO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`PHAZZER ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`and SANG MIN INTERNATIONAL
`CO., LTD., and DOUBLE DRAGON
`DEVELOPMENT AND TRADING
`CORPORATION,
`
`Defendants.
`
`__________________________________/
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 6:16-cv-00366-PGB-KRS
`
`JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`REQUESTED
`
`
`
`
`
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff TASER International, Inc. ("TASER"), by and through its undersigned attorneys,
`
`files this amended complaint against Defendants Phazzer Electronics, Inc., Sang Min
`
`International Co., Ltd., and Double Dragon Development and Trading Corporation, and alleges
`
`as follows:
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`1.
`
`This is a civil action arising under 35 U.S.C. § 271 for patent infringement and 15
`
`U.S.C. § 1114 et seq. for false advertising and trademark infringement.
`
`2.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over the patent, trademark and false advertising claims
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338, and supplemental jurisdiction over the common law
`
`trademark and unfair competition claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
`
`3.
`
`Jurisdiction is also proper because the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000.00
`
`exclusive of interests, fees and costs, and the named Plaintiff and Defendants are citizens of
`
`different states or countries. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A).
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`(cid:39)(cid:69)(cid:87)(cid:73)(cid:4)(cid:26)(cid:30)(cid:21)(cid:26)(cid:17)(cid:71)(cid:90)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:26)(cid:26)(cid:17)(cid:52)(cid:43)(cid:38)(cid:17)(cid:47)(cid:54)(cid:55)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:40)(cid:83)(cid:71)(cid:89)(cid:81)(cid:73)(cid:82)(cid:88)(cid:4)(cid:29)(cid:25)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:42)(cid:77)(cid:80)(cid:73)(cid:72)(cid:4)(cid:20)(cid:22)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:24)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:27)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:52)(cid:69)(cid:75)(cid:73)(cid:4)(cid:22)(cid:4)(cid:83)(cid:74)(cid:4)(cid:21)(cid:25)(cid:4)(cid:52)(cid:69)(cid:75)(cid:73)(cid:45)(cid:40)(cid:4)(cid:29)(cid:23)(cid:26)
`
`4.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a substantial
`
`part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred within this judicial district, and because
`
`Defendants have marketed and sold the products at issue in this action within this judicial district,
`
`and either maintain their principal place of business in this judicial district or have done business
`
`within this judicial district.
`
`
`
`PARTIES
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff TASER is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at
`
`17800 N. 85th Street, Scottsdale, Arizona 85255.
`
`6.
`
`Defendant Phazzer Electronics, Inc. ("Phazzer") is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`principal place of business at 808 N. Hoagland Boulevard, Kissimmee, Osceola County, Florida.
`
`7.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Sang Min International Co., Ltd. ("Sang
`
`Min") is a corporation organized and existing in the Republic of China with its principal place of
`
`business at No. 339 Cheng Kung Rd., Feng Yuan District, Tai Chung, Taiwan 420.
`
`8.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Double Dragon Development and
`
`Trading Corporation ( Double Dragon ) is a corporation organized and existing in the Republic
`
`of China with its principal place of business at No. 88, Hsiang-Shuen 1st Street, Bei-Tuen Dist.,
`
`Tai Chung, Taiwan 40661.
`
`9.
`
`Upon information and belief, Double Dragon also does business under the
`
`following names: Double Dragon Corp.; Double Dragon Development and Manufacturing; and
`
`Phazzer Electronics Inc. Taiwan.
`
`
`
`NATURE OF THE DISPUTE
`
`10.
`
`TASER manufactures and sells conducted electrical weapons ("CEWs")
`
`commonly known as "stun guns."
`
`11.
`
`Beginning in the first quarter of 2003, TASER has continuously manufactured and
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`(cid:39)(cid:69)(cid:87)(cid:73)(cid:4)(cid:26)(cid:30)(cid:21)(cid:26)(cid:17)(cid:71)(cid:90)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:26)(cid:26)(cid:17)(cid:52)(cid:43)(cid:38)(cid:17)(cid:47)(cid:54)(cid:55)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:40)(cid:83)(cid:71)(cid:89)(cid:81)(cid:73)(cid:82)(cid:88)(cid:4)(cid:29)(cid:25)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:42)(cid:77)(cid:80)(cid:73)(cid:72)(cid:4)(cid:20)(cid:22)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:24)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:27)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:52)(cid:69)(cid:75)(cid:73)(cid:4)(cid:23)(cid:4)(cid:83)(cid:74)(cid:4)(cid:21)(cid:25)(cid:4)(cid:52)(cid:69)(cid:75)(cid:73)(cid:45)(cid:40)(cid:4)(cid:29)(cid:23)(cid:27)
`
`
`
`12.
`
`The TASER model X26 CEW utilizes a compressed gas cartridge to propel two
`
`probes, also referred to as darts, at high velocity toward a target. Each of the two probes is
`
`connected by a thin insulated wire to a battery-powered high voltage circuit located within the
`
`CEW. Upon impact of the two probes with the target, a complete electrical circuit is established
`
`and a low current electrical charge flows through the target.
`
`13.
`
`The TASER model X26 CEW is designed to use electrical stimuli to interfere with
`
`the signals sent by the command and control systems of the body to temporarily impair the
`
`subject's ability to control his own body.
`
`14.
`
`The TASER model X26 CEW is sold only to law enforcement and professional
`
`security personnel. A similar model, the X26C CEW, is sold to the consumer market.
`
`15.
`
`The TASER model X26 CEW has been well received in the marketplace, resulting
`
`in delivery of tens of thousands of units since its introduction in 2003.
`
`16.
`
`TASER is the largest supplier of dart firing CEWs. TASER CEWs are used by
`
`more than 17,800 law enforcement agencies in 107 countries. Every TASER CEW is
`
`manufactured in Arizona.
`
`17.
`
`TASER is the sole owner of US utility patent 7,234,262 ( the '262 Patent ) by
`
`assignment from the sole inventor as recorded in the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`at reel 016843 frame 0004. The '262 Patent was granted to TASER on June 26, 2007. A copy of
`
`the '262 Patent is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.
`
`18.
`
`Upon information and belief, Phazzer, Sang Min and Double Dragon entered an
`
`agreement regarding the manufacture and sale of CEWs, including for importation and sale in
`
`Florida.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`(cid:39)(cid:69)(cid:87)(cid:73)(cid:4)(cid:26)(cid:30)(cid:21)(cid:26)(cid:17)(cid:71)(cid:90)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:26)(cid:26)(cid:17)(cid:52)(cid:43)(cid:38)(cid:17)(cid:47)(cid:54)(cid:55)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:40)(cid:83)(cid:71)(cid:89)(cid:81)(cid:73)(cid:82)(cid:88)(cid:4)(cid:29)(cid:25)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:42)(cid:77)(cid:80)(cid:73)(cid:72)(cid:4)(cid:20)(cid:22)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:24)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:27)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:52)(cid:69)(cid:75)(cid:73)(cid:4)(cid:24)(cid:4)(cid:83)(cid:74)(cid:4)(cid:21)(cid:25)(cid:4)(cid:52)(cid:69)(cid:75)(cid:73)(cid:45)(cid:40)(cid:4)(cid:29)(cid:23)(cid:28)
`
`19.
`
`Upon information and belief, Sang Min manufactures and sells CEWs that fall
`
`.
`
`20.
`
`Upon information and belief, Double Dragon manufactures and sells CEWs that
`
`fall within
`
`
`
`21.
`
`Upon information and belief, CEWs manufactured by Sang Min and/or Double
`
`Dragon are sold to Phazzer for resale in the U.S.
`
`22.
`
`Upon information and belief, Phazzer is a U.S. distributor for Double Dragon
`
`and/or Sang Min, which sell CEWs to Phazzer knowing they will be resold in the U.S.
`
`23.
`
`Phazzer and TASER offer competitive CEWs for sale.
`
`24.
`
`Since about April 2010, Phazzer has offered for sale in the United States a CEW
`
`marketed as the "Enforcer." The Enforcer is a hand-held weapon that launches two darts to stun a
`
`target.
`
`25.
`
`Phazzer hosts a website on the Internet accessible to Internet users without user
`
`registration or a password. The Phazzer websites have included the following URLs
`
`http://www.phazzer.com
`
`Corporate
`
`http://www.phazerstore.com
`
`-
`
`
`
`26.
`
`Phazzer websites have published and disseminated technical specifications of the
`
`Enforcer CEW (Exhibit B), a comparison between the Enforcer CEW and the TASER X26 CEW
`
`(Exhibit
`
`-
`
`(Exhibit D) Copies of Exhibits B-D are attached and incorporated herein by reference.
`
`27.
`
`Upon information and belief, Phazzer has imported, offered for sale, and sold the
`
`Enforcer CEW to customers in Florida and elsewhere in the U.S. Such importation, offers for
`
`sale, and sales of the Phazzer Enforcer infringe at least claim 13 of TA
`
`Patent. On
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`(cid:39)(cid:69)(cid:87)(cid:73)(cid:4)(cid:26)(cid:30)(cid:21)(cid:26)(cid:17)(cid:71)(cid:90)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:26)(cid:26)(cid:17)(cid:52)(cid:43)(cid:38)(cid:17)(cid:47)(cid:54)(cid:55)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:40)(cid:83)(cid:71)(cid:89)(cid:81)(cid:73)(cid:82)(cid:88)(cid:4)(cid:29)(cid:25)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:42)(cid:77)(cid:80)(cid:73)(cid:72)(cid:4)(cid:20)(cid:22)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:24)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:27)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:52)(cid:69)(cid:75)(cid:73)(cid:4)(cid:25)(cid:4)(cid:83)(cid:74)(cid:4)(cid:21)(cid:25)(cid:4)(cid:52)(cid:69)(cid:75)(cid:73)(cid:45)(cid:40)(cid:4)(cid:29)(cid:23)(cid:29)
`
`information and belief, other claims of the 262 Patent are also infringed.
`
`28.
`
`Phazzer
`
` websites have also included a support page that provides access to
`
`various manuals, including the Phazzer Dataport Manual (Exhibit E). The Phazzer Dataport
`
`Manual describes the type of data stored by the Enforcer CEW and transferred from the Enforcer
`
`CEW to a computer. A copy of Exhibit E is attached and incorporated herein by reference.
`
`29.
`
`On information and belief, Phazzer's Enforcer CEWs include non-volatile memory
`
`that stores information regarding the weapon's past use. The stored information appears to record
`
`the date and time of each operation of the trigger and the duration of the stimulus signal provided
`
`by the Enforcer.
`
`30.
`
`On information and belief, Sang Min and Double Dragon have manufactured and
`
`imported the Phaz
`
`62 Patent.
`
`knowledge of the
`
`31.
`
`Phazzer advertising claims are understood within the relevant market as
`
`comparing Phazzer's CEWs with the well-known TASER CEWs.
`
`32.
`
`The Enforcer-TASER Comparison document (Exhibit C) makes statements that
`
`are not true. The feature entitled "Battery Operation: Strength of Charge Readout" states, "The
`
`TASER® X26 battery digital readout must be continuously monitored while in use to assure
`
`maximum discharging has not been reached." This statement is false.
`
`33.
`
`The feature entitled "Battery Operation: Monitoring Capabilities" in the Enforcer-
`
`TASER Comparison document states, "Most agencies' policies require replacement once the
`
`battery reaches 70% or less. So in summary each agency pays X amount of money to use only
`
`30% of a Taser battery." This statement is false.
`
`34.
`
`The feature entitled "Operation Simplicity: Ease of Use and Control" in the
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`(cid:39)(cid:69)(cid:87)(cid:73)(cid:4)(cid:26)(cid:30)(cid:21)(cid:26)(cid:17)(cid:71)(cid:90)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:26)(cid:26)(cid:17)(cid:52)(cid:43)(cid:38)(cid:17)(cid:47)(cid:54)(cid:55)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:40)(cid:83)(cid:71)(cid:89)(cid:81)(cid:73)(cid:82)(cid:88)(cid:4)(cid:29)(cid:25)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:42)(cid:77)(cid:80)(cid:73)(cid:72)(cid:4)(cid:20)(cid:22)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:24)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:27)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:52)(cid:69)(cid:75)(cid:73)(cid:4)(cid:26)(cid:4)(cid:83)(cid:74)(cid:4)(cid:21)(cid:25)(cid:4)(cid:52)(cid:69)(cid:75)(cid:73)(cid:45)(cid:40)(cid:4)(cid:29)(cid:24)(cid:20)
`
`Enforcer-TASER Comparison document states, "TASER® utilizes digital readout to monitor
`
`power operation and must be monitored by the officer during operation. This extra mental
`
`juggling to operate the Taser exposes officers to potential loss of sight of the perpetrator." This
`
`statement is false.
`
`35.
`
`The feature entitled "Operation Simplicity: Ease of Use and Control" in the
`
`Enforcer-TASER Comparison document states, "TASER® offers illuminator selector button with
`
`4 switch positions to operate the CID, the laser and flashlight both on and off in sequence leaving
`
`a substantial margin for error by drawing the officer's attention away from the perpetrator." This
`
`statement is false.
`
`36.
`
`TASER is the owner of a federal trademark registration, Registration No.
`
`4,423,789, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on October 29, 2013, for the
`
`non-functional shape, as shown below, of cartridges used to launch darts ("TASER Trademark").
`
`The registration certificate is attached as Exhibit F and incorporated herein by reference.
`
`
`
`37.
`
`The TASER Trademark has been used since January 31, 1995. The TASER
`
`Trademark distinguishes TASER's cartridges and is well known to users and purchasers of CEWs
`
`as identifying TASER merchandise.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`(cid:39)(cid:69)(cid:87)(cid:73)(cid:4)(cid:26)(cid:30)(cid:21)(cid:26)(cid:17)(cid:71)(cid:90)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:26)(cid:26)(cid:17)(cid:52)(cid:43)(cid:38)(cid:17)(cid:47)(cid:54)(cid:55)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:40)(cid:83)(cid:71)(cid:89)(cid:81)(cid:73)(cid:82)(cid:88)(cid:4)(cid:29)(cid:25)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:42)(cid:77)(cid:80)(cid:73)(cid:72)(cid:4)(cid:20)(cid:22)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:24)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:27)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:52)(cid:69)(cid:75)(cid:73)(cid:4)(cid:27)(cid:4)(cid:83)(cid:74)(cid:4)(cid:21)(cid:25)(cid:4)(cid:52)(cid:69)(cid:75)(cid:73)(cid:45)(cid:40)(cid:4)(cid:29)(cid:24)(cid:21)
`
`38.
`
`On information and belief, Sang Min and/or Double Dragon manufacture CEW
`
`cartridges for Phazzer that bear a confusingly similar shape to the TASER Trademark, including
`
`the cartridge depicted below. Phazzer imports these cartridges into the United States, and offers
`
`for sale and sells the cartridges in interstate commerce.
`
`
`
`
`
`39.
`
`Phazzer presently sells through the Phazzer E-commerce Website several versions
`
`of cartridges that each bear a confusingly similar shape to the shape of the TASER Trademark.
`
`40.
`
`The cartridges imported, distributed, offered for sale, and sold by Phazzer are not
`
`manufactured by TASER. Defendants are not associated or connected with TASER or licensed,
`
`authorized, sponsored, endorsed, or approved by TASER in any way.
`
`41.
`
`TASER used the TASER Trademark extensively and continuously before
`
`Defendants began using confusingly similar imitations of TASER's cartridges.
`
`42.
`
`The cartridges sold by Phazzer are similar to and compete with goods sold by
`
`TASER. The goods sold by the parties are sold through overlapping channels of trade.
`
`43.
`
` use of confusingly similar imitations of the TASER Trademark is
`
`likely to deceive, confuse, and mislead prospective purchasers into believing that cartridges sold
`
`by Phazzer are manufactured by, authorized by, or in some manner associated with TASER.
`
`They are not. The likelihood of confusion, mistake, and deception engendered by
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`(cid:39)(cid:69)(cid:87)(cid:73)(cid:4)(cid:26)(cid:30)(cid:21)(cid:26)(cid:17)(cid:71)(cid:90)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:26)(cid:26)(cid:17)(cid:52)(cid:43)(cid:38)(cid:17)(cid:47)(cid:54)(cid:55)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:40)(cid:83)(cid:71)(cid:89)(cid:81)(cid:73)(cid:82)(cid:88)(cid:4)(cid:29)(cid:25)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:42)(cid:77)(cid:80)(cid:73)(cid:72)(cid:4)(cid:20)(cid:22)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:24)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:27)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:52)(cid:69)(cid:75)(cid:73)(cid:4)(cid:28)(cid:4)(cid:83)(cid:74)(cid:4)(cid:21)(cid:25)(cid:4)(cid:52)(cid:69)(cid:75)(cid:73)(cid:45)(cid:40)(cid:4)(cid:29)(cid:24)(cid:22)
`
`misappropriation of the TASER Trademark is causing and will continue to cause irreparable
`
`harm to the goodwill symbolized by the TASER Trademark and the reputation for quality that the
`
`TASER Trademark represents.
`
`44.
`
`activities are likely to cause confusion before, during, and after the
`
`time of purchase because purchasers, prospective purchasers, and others viewing Phazzer's
`
`cartridges are likely to mistakenly attribute Phazzer's cartridges to TASER.
`
`45.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants knowingly, willfully, intentionally, and
`
`maliciously adopted and used confusingly similar imitations of the TASER Trademark.
`
`COUNT ONE
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF THE '262 PATENT
`
`(All Defendants)
`
`46.
`
`TASER realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-45 of this Complaint
`
`inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
`
`47.
`
`Count One arises under 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`48.
`
`Through their manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale and importation of the Phazzer
`
`Enforcer, Defendants directly infringe the '262 Patent, whether literally or under the Doctrine of
`
`Equivalents.
`
`49.
`
`that Phazzer has no substantial, noninfringing use.
`
`50.
`
`Defendants' manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale and importation of the Phazzer
`
`Enforcer constitutes contributory infringement of the '262 Patent.
`
`51.
`
`Defendants' infringement was without license from TASER and was willful and
`
`deliberate.
`
`52.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants' acts of infringement damaged and will
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`(cid:39)(cid:69)(cid:87)(cid:73)(cid:4)(cid:26)(cid:30)(cid:21)(cid:26)(cid:17)(cid:71)(cid:90)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:26)(cid:26)(cid:17)(cid:52)(cid:43)(cid:38)(cid:17)(cid:47)(cid:54)(cid:55)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:40)(cid:83)(cid:71)(cid:89)(cid:81)(cid:73)(cid:82)(cid:88)(cid:4)(cid:29)(cid:25)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:42)(cid:77)(cid:80)(cid:73)(cid:72)(cid:4)(cid:20)(cid:22)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:24)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:27)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:52)(cid:69)(cid:75)(cid:73)(cid:4)(cid:29)(cid:4)(cid:83)(cid:74)(cid:4)(cid:21)(cid:25)(cid:4)(cid:52)(cid:69)(cid:75)(cid:73)(cid:45)(cid:40)(cid:4)(cid:29)(cid:24)(cid:23)
`
`continue to damage TASER, causing irreparable harm, for which there is no adequate remedy at
`
`law. Such unlawful acts and damage will continue to occur unless enjoined by this Court.
`
`53.
`
`Defendants' acts of infringement have been carried out deliberately and willfully
`
`entitling TASER to treble damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. This is an exceptional case entitling
`
`TASER to an award of attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`
`
`COUNT
`TWO
`
`FALSE ADVERTISING UNDER 15 U.S.C. § 1125
`
`(Phazzer)
`
`54.
`
`TASER realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 45 of this
`
`Complaint inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
`
`55.
`
`Count Two arises under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
`
`56.
`
`Phazzer has made and incorporated false statements of fact into its commercial
`
`advertisements for the Enforcer CEW product and has communicated publicly false statements
`
`about TASER and its products.
`
`57.
`
`The statements made by Phazzer on its website and in its advertising were made
`
`for the purpose of influencing consumers to buy Phazzer's goods.
`
`58.
`
`The false statements of fact either have actually deceived or have a tendency to
`
`deceive a substantial segment of Phazzer's audience. Such deception is material in that it is likely
`
`to influence purchasing decisions.
`
`59.
`
`Phazzer has caused its false statements to enter interstate commerce. As a result of
`
`Phazzer's conduct, TASER has been or is likely to be injured as a result of Phazzer's false
`
`statements in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125(a).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`(cid:39)(cid:69)(cid:87)(cid:73)(cid:4)(cid:26)(cid:30)(cid:21)(cid:26)(cid:17)(cid:71)(cid:90)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:26)(cid:26)(cid:17)(cid:52)(cid:43)(cid:38)(cid:17)(cid:47)(cid:54)(cid:55)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:40)(cid:83)(cid:71)(cid:89)(cid:81)(cid:73)(cid:82)(cid:88)(cid:4)(cid:29)(cid:25)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:42)(cid:77)(cid:80)(cid:73)(cid:72)(cid:4)(cid:20)(cid:22)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:24)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:27)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:52)(cid:69)(cid:75)(cid:73)(cid:4)(cid:21)(cid:20)(cid:4)(cid:83)(cid:74)(cid:4)(cid:21)(cid:25)(cid:4)(cid:52)(cid:69)(cid:75)(cid:73)(cid:45)(cid:40)(cid:4)(cid:29)(cid:24)(cid:24)
`
`COUNT THREE
`
`TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
`
`(All Defendants)
`
`60.
`
`TASER realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 45 of this
`
`Complaint inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
`
`61.
`
`Defendants' use of confusingly similar imitations of the TASER Trademark is
`
`likely to cause confusion, deception, and mistake by creating the false and misleading impression
`
`that Phazzer cartridges are manufactured or distributed by TASER, are associated or connected
`
`with TASER, or have the sponsorship, endorsement, or approval of TASER.
`
`62.
`
`Defendants have used marks confusingly similar to TASER's federally registered
`
`mark in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114. Defendants' activities have caused and, unless enjoined by
`
`this Court, will continue to cause a likelihood of confusion and deception of members of the trade
`
`and public, and will injure TASER's goodwill and reputation as symbolized by the federally
`
`registered TASER Trademark, for which TASER has no adequate remedy at law.
`
`63.
`
`Defendants' actions demonstrate an intentional, willful, and malicious intent to
`
`trade on the goodwill associated with the TASER Trademark to TASER's irreparable Injury.
`
`64.
`
`Defendants have caused and are likely to continue to cause substantial injury to
`
`the public and to TASER, such that TASER is entitled to injunctive relief and to recover
`
`TASER's profits, actual damages, enhanced profits, and damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys'
`
`fees under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114- 1117.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`(cid:39)(cid:69)(cid:87)(cid:73)(cid:4)(cid:26)(cid:30)(cid:21)(cid:26)(cid:17)(cid:71)(cid:90)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:26)(cid:26)(cid:17)(cid:52)(cid:43)(cid:38)(cid:17)(cid:47)(cid:54)(cid:55)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:40)(cid:83)(cid:71)(cid:89)(cid:81)(cid:73)(cid:82)(cid:88)(cid:4)(cid:29)(cid:25)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:42)(cid:77)(cid:80)(cid:73)(cid:72)(cid:4)(cid:20)(cid:22)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:24)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:27)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:52)(cid:69)(cid:75)(cid:73)(cid:4)(cid:21)(cid:21)(cid:4)(cid:83)(cid:74)(cid:4)(cid:21)(cid:25)(cid:4)(cid:52)(cid:69)(cid:75)(cid:73)(cid:45)(cid:40)(cid:4)(cid:29)(cid:24)(cid:25)
`
`
`
`
`
`COUNT FOUR
`
`COMMON LAW TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
`
`AND UNFAIR COMPETITION
`
`(All Defendants)
`
`65.
`
`TASER realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 45 of this
`
`Complaint inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
`
`66.
`
`Defendants' acts constitute common law trademark infringement and unfair
`
`competition, and have created and will continue to create a likelihood of confusion to the
`
`irreparable injury of TASER unless restrained by this Court. TASER has no adequate remedy at
`
`law for this injury.
`
`67.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants have acted with full knowledge of
`
`TASER's use of, and statutory and common-law rights to, the TASER Trademark and without
`
`regard to the likelihood of confusion of the public created by their activities.
`
`68.
`
`Defendants' actions demonstrate an intentional, willful, and malicious intent to
`
`trade on the goodwill associated with the TASER Trademark to the great and irreparable injury
`
`of TASER.
`
`69.
`
`As a result of Defendants' acts, TASER has been damaged in an amount not yet
`
`determined or ascertainable. At a minimum, however, TASER is entitled to injunctive relief, to
`
`an accounting of Defendants' profits, to damages, and to costs.
`
`70.
`
`Further, because Defendants' intentional misconduct or gross negligence is a
`
`substantial cause of TASER's loss, injury or damage, TASER is entitled to punitive damages.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`(cid:39)(cid:69)(cid:87)(cid:73)(cid:4)(cid:26)(cid:30)(cid:21)(cid:26)(cid:17)(cid:71)(cid:90)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:26)(cid:26)(cid:17)(cid:52)(cid:43)(cid:38)(cid:17)(cid:47)(cid:54)(cid:55)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:40)(cid:83)(cid:71)(cid:89)(cid:81)(cid:73)(cid:82)(cid:88)(cid:4)(cid:29)(cid:25)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:42)(cid:77)(cid:80)(cid:73)(cid:72)(cid:4)(cid:20)(cid:22)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:24)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:27)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:52)(cid:69)(cid:75)(cid:73)(cid:4)(cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:4)(cid:83)(cid:74)(cid:4)(cid:21)(cid:25)(cid:4)(cid:52)(cid:69)(cid:75)(cid:73)(cid:45)(cid:40)(cid:4)(cid:29)(cid:24)(cid:26)
`
`
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, TASER respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in its favor
`
`and against Defendants as follows:
`
`1.
`
`For a declaration that the Phazzer Enforcer CEW is within the scope of the claims
`
`of the '262 Patent;
`
`2.
`
`For a permanent injunction prohibiting infringement, including making, using,
`
`importing, offering for sale, and selling the Phazzer Enforcer CEW, as provided by 35 U.S.C. §
`
`283;
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`For a permanent injunction prohibiting Phazzer's false advertising practices;
`
`For a permanent injunction prohibiting infringement, including making, using,
`
`importing, offering for sale, and selling Phazzer cartridges that infringe on TASER's Trademark;
`
`5.
`
`For an order stating that Defendants shall file a written report with the Court,
`
`under oath, setting forth their compliance with all injunctive relief granted;
`
`6.
`
`For compensatory damages
`
`together with
`
`interest and costs for patent
`
`infringement as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 284;
`
`7.
`
`For compensatory damages in an amount sufficient to compensate TASER for the
`
`injuries proximately caused by Defendants' conduct;
`
`8.
`
`For treble damages as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 284 and 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) for
`
`Defendants' willful and deliberate infringement and Phazzer's false advertising;
`
`9.
`
`For attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to applicable law, including, without
`
`limitation, 35 U.S.C. § 285 and 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a).
`
`10.
`
`For an order stating that Defendants shall completely and immediately furnish all
`
`information in their possession, custody or control that relates in any way to responses to
`
`Phazzer's sales and offers of sale of the Enforcer CEW in the United States and Florida; and
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`(cid:39)(cid:69)(cid:87)(cid:73)(cid:4)(cid:26)(cid:30)(cid:21)(cid:26)(cid:17)(cid:71)(cid:90)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:26)(cid:26)(cid:17)(cid:52)(cid:43)(cid:38)(cid:17)(cid:47)(cid:54)(cid:55)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:40)(cid:83)(cid:71)(cid:89)(cid:81)(cid:73)(cid:82)(cid:88)(cid:4)(cid:29)(cid:25)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:42)(cid:77)(cid:80)(cid:73)(cid:72)(cid:4)(cid:20)(cid:22)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:24)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:27)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:52)(cid:69)(cid:75)(cid:73)(cid:4)(cid:21)(cid:23)(cid:4)(cid:83)(cid:74)(cid:4)(cid:21)(cid:25)(cid:4)(cid:52)(cid:69)(cid:75)(cid:73)(cid:45)(cid:40)(cid:4)(cid:29)(cid:24)(cid:27)
`
`11.
`
`For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
`
`JURY
`DEMAND
`
`TASER reserves its right to have all issues that are triable by a jury so decided in this
`
`
`
`case.
`
`Respectfully submitted this February 24, 2017.
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/Ryan T. Santurri
`Ryan T. Santurri, Esquire
`Florida Bar No. 015698
`rsanturri@addmg.com
`Brian R. Gilchrist, P.A.
`Florida Bar No. 774065
`bgilchrist@addmg.com
`Allen, Dyer, Doppelt, Milbrath & Gilchrist P.A.
`255 South Orange Avenue
`Suite 1401