Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA853702
`
`Filing date:
`
`10/23/2017
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding
`
`92065670
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Plaintiff
`Eko Brands, LLC
`
`DAVID A LOWE
`LOWE GRAHAM JONES PLLC
`701 FIFTH AVENUE SUITE 4800
`SEATTLE, WA 98104
`UNITED STATES
`Email: Lowe@LoweGrahamJones.com
`
`Other Motions/Papers
`
`David A Lowe
`
`Lowe@LoweGrahamJones.com, Hoonan@LoweGrahamJones.com, litdocket-
`ing@lowegrahamjones.com
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`/David A Lowe/
`
`10/23/2017
`
`Attachments
`
`ESUP-6-0007P02 NOT.pdf(661838 bytes )
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`EKO BRANDS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`ADRIAN RIVERA,
`
`
`
`Respondent.
`
`Cancellation No. 92065670
`
`Mark: ECO FILL
`Reg. No. 4239190
`Reg. Date: November 6, 2012
`
`Mark: ECO CARAFE
`Reg. No. 4796840
`Reg. Date: August 18, 2015
`
`NOTIFICATION OF PENDING CIVIL ACTION
`Petitioner Eko Brands, LLC hereby notifies the Board of pending Civil Action No. 17-cv-
`894TSZ, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (WAWD). This
`trademark infringement action involves the same parties and the same or related marks at issue in
`this proceeding, and may implicate the same or similar issues of law and fact.
`Attached is a copy of the complaint filed in the WAWD action, along with the Court’s
`recent Order denying Respondent’s motion to dismiss the complaint.
`RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED October 23, 2017.
`
`
`s/ David A. Lowe, PTO Reg. No. 39,281
`Lowe@LoweGrahamJones.com
`LOWE GRAHAM JONESPLLC
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4800
`Seattle, WA 98104
`T: 206.381.3300
`F: 206.381.3301
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`NOTIFICATION OF PENDING CIVIL ACTION
`ESUP-6-0007P02 NOT
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00894 Document 1 Filed 06/09/17 Page 1 of 10
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
`
`EKO BRANDS, LLC,
`
`Civil Action No. 17-cv-894
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`ADRIAN RIVERA MAYNEZ
`ENTERPRISES, INC.; and
`ADRIAN RIVERA, an individual,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK
`INFRINGEMENT AND FALSE
`DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN AND
`UNFAIR COMPETITION, AND
`CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
`VIOLATIONS
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
`
`Plaintiff EKO BRANDS, LLC (“Eko”) alleges the following causes of action against
`Defendants ADRIAN RIVERA MAYNEZ ENTERPRISES, INC. and ADRIAN RIVERA:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`I.
`This is an action for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and monetary
`1.
`damages arising out of Defendants’ unauthorized use of Eko’s EKOBREW and
`trademarks and trade name (“Ekobrew marks”) in association with single-serve reusable
`beverage capsules and other related products, resulting in infringement of Eko’s trademarks as
`well as unfair competition based on the manner in which Defendants have mislead the public
`
`COMPLAINT - 1
`Civil Action No. 17-cv-894
`ESUP-6-0008P01 CMP
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00894 Document 1 Filed 06/09/17 Page 2 of 10
`
`
`
`regarding the source for products and services. This action also involves allegations of violation
`of the Washington State Consumer Protection Act, R.C.W. 19.86.020 et seq.
`
`this Court pursuant
`
`to
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`II.
`This action arises, in part, under the trademark laws of the United States of
`2.
`America, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. Jurisdiction over the trademark infringement, false
`designation of origin and federal unfair competition claims is conferred upon this Court by
`28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338. Supplemental jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court over the
`remaining related state claim as it is derived from a common nucleus of operative fact that form
`part of the same case or controversy. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The amount in controversy exceeds
`$75,000 exclusive of interest and costs.
`3.
`Venue and personal
`jurisdiction are proper
`28 U.S.C. § 1391.
`4.
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants because each Defendant,
`either individually or as part of an agreement, has: (a) offered, sold, advertised, and provided
`within retail stores in Washington and in this District products using the infringing ECO-FILL,
`ECO-FILL DELUXE 2.0, ECO CARAFE and ECO-FLOW marks; (b) maintains and has
`maintained continuous and systematic contacts with Washington and this District over a period
`of time through at least such activities; and (c) purposefully availed itself of the benefits of doing
`business in Washington and this District. Accordingly, Defendants, and each of them, maintain
`minimum contacts with Washington and this District that are more than sufficient to subject the
`Defendants to service of process in compliance with due process of law.
`5.
`Venue is proper because, at all times relevant hereto; a substantial part of the
`events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this District, including but not limited to
`Defendants’ transacting business, engaging in acts of trademark infringement and unfair
`competition by marketing and selling their products through retailers in this District under the
`
`in
`
`COMPLAINT - 2
`Civil Action No. 17-cv-894
`ESUP-6-0008P01 CMP
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00894 Document 1 Filed 06/09/17 Page 3 of 10
`
`
`
`infringing ECO-FILL, ECO-FILL DELUXE 2.0, ECO CARAFE and ECO-FLOW marks.
`Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this District at the commencement of this
`action, as set forth above.
`
`III.
`
`PARTIES
`
`A.
`
`PLAINTIFF
`6.
`Plaintiff Eko Brands, LLC (“Eko”) is a Washington limited liability company
`with an address at 1123 NW 51st Street, Seattle, WA 98102. Plaintiff also maintains a
`manufacturing facility at 6029 238th St SE #130, Woodinville, WA 98072.
`B.
`DEFENDANTS
`7.
`On information and belief, Defendant Adrian Rivera Maynez Enterprises, Inc.
`(“ARM”) is a corporation formed under the laws of the State of Nevada and has a principal place
`of business at 14979 Lodosa Dr., Whittier, California 90605. ARM designs, manufactures,
`markets and distributes single-serve coffee brewing products at retailers nationwide and in this
`District under the ECO-FILL, ECO-FILL DELUXE 2.0, ECO CARAFE and ECO-FLOW marks
`in a manner confusingly similar to Plaintiff’s products.
`8.
`On information and belief, Defendant Mr. Adrian Rivera (“Rivera”) is an
`individual with an address at 14979 Lodosa Drive, Whittier, California 90605. Defendant Rivera
`is the owner, founder, and president of ARM.
`9.
`On information and belief, Rivera is the purported owner of the infringing ECO-
`FILL, ECO-FILL DELUXE 2.0, ECO CARAFE and ECO-FLOW marks and has directed said
`trademarks to be used by Defendants in unfair competition with Plaintiff.
`10.
`On information and belief, Rivera has controlled all of the conduct of ARM
`complained of herein and is a decision maker having joint and several liability with ARM for all
`the acts complained of herein.
`
`COMPLAINT - 3
`Civil Action No. 17-cv-894
`ESUP-6-0008P01 CMP
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00894 Document 1 Filed 06/09/17 Page 4 of 10
`
`
`
`On information and belief, each Defendant has acted with the permission,
`11.
`consent, knowledge and active inducement on the part of the other with regard to the acts alleged
`herein, and together have acted as co-conspirators and/or agents in the performance of such acts.
`12.
`On information and belief, there has existed a unity of interest between
`defendants ARM and Rivera such that any individuality and separateness of ARM and Rivera
`has ceased, and that each is the alter-ego of the other in the acts alleged.
`
`A.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`IV.
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`13.
`Eko has been a market leader in selling single-serve, reusable beverage capsules
`that are commonly used with single-serve beverage brewing machines, such as those sold under
`the Keurig® brand. Eko also sells paper filters and cleaning tablets to be used in connection with
`its reusable beverage capsules.
`14.
`Eko’s reusable filter brewing cartridges are designed as a replacement for
`KEURIG®’s “K-cups.” The latter are distributed pre-filled with ground coffee beans and are
`designed by KEURIG® to be used once and then disposed. This has caused many consumers to
`be concerned with the environmental impact of these disposable capsules. To solve this issue,
`and others, Eko’s reusable filter brewing cartridges are designed to allow the consumer to fill
`them with their own choice of ground coffee and can be refilled and reused to brew coffee in a
`KEURIG® machine. These are designed with permanent filters so that a consumer only has to
`wash out the cartridge and refill it to reuse it.
`15.
`True and accurate images of examples of Eko’s products are reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT - 4
`Civil Action No. 17-cv-894
`ESUP-6-0008P01 CMP
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00894 Document 1 Filed 06/09/17 Page 5 of 10
`
`
`
`Since the company’s founding, Eko has expended hundreds of thousands of
`16.
`dollars in developing high-quality, reliable products, thereby contributing to the company’s
`goodwill and reputation. As a result of Eko’s tireless efforts, the company’s founders were
`awarded United States Patent Nos. 8,707,855; 8,561,524; D677120; and D688095, all of which
`have been since been assigned to Eko. In addition to product development, Eko has expended
`substantial resources in developing the Ekobrew marks.
`17.
`Eko has sold, and continues to sell through a variety of online and physical
`storefronts, including but not limited to: Amazon.com, Walmart, Bed Bath & Beyond,
`Wayfair.com, Safeway, Kroger, Walgreens and CVS. Eko also advertises its products direct to
`consumers on its website www.ekobrew.com.
`18.
`As a result, consumers know the Ekobrew marks to identify Plaintiff the source of
`the aforementioned goods, and have come to associate these marks with high-quality,
`environmentally-conscious products.
`19.
`As one example, Eko has garnered a
`coveted 4/5 star rating based on over 3,600 customer
`reviews on Amazon.com for one of its Ekobrew
`products.
`B.
`EKO’S TRADEMARK RIGHTS
`20.
`Eko has earned common law rights to the
`Ekobrew marks based on use of the marks consistently
`and pervasively in interstate and international commerce with the sale of reusable filter
`cartridges, and more recently, carafes, for use in electric brewing machines such as the Keurig®
`brand products since at least as early as September 7, 2011. Eko has sold millions of such
`branded products at a variety of national, regional and online retailers.
`21.
`Eko has also earned common law rights to the Ekobrew marks in connection with
`additional products, for it has also been using the marks in interstate commerce in connection
`
`COMPLAINT - 5
`Civil Action No. 17-cv-894
`ESUP-6-0008P01 CMP
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00894 Document 1 Filed 06/09/17 Page 6 of 10
`
`
`
`with single-serve disposable paper filters, and brewer cleaning tablets at least as early as
`September 7, 2011.
`22.
`In addition to having common law rights, Eko is the owner of Registration
`No. 5073356 for the EKOBREW mark (“the 356 Registration”) and Registration No. 5073357
`for the
` mark (“the 357 Registration”), both registered November 1, 2016 in Class 11
`for “[r]eusable filter, not of paper, for use in electric brewing machines for beverage,” based on
`actual use commencing at least as early as September 7, 2011. A true and accurate copy of the
`356 Registration is attached hereto as Exhibit A. A true and accurate copy of the
`357 Registration is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
`23.
`Eko’s continuous use of its Ekobrew marks in interstate and international
`commerce predate Defendants’ alleged first use dates for both of their trademark registration
`applications, as discussed below. Thus, Eko has priority over Defendants’ marks.
`C.
`DEFENDANTS’ WRONGFUL ACTIONS
`24.
`On or about December 19, 2011, Rivera filed a U.S. trademark registration
`application for the infringing mark ECO FILL. This application resulted in Registration
`No. 4239190 on the Principal Register on November 6, 2012 in Class 11 for “[r]eusable single
`serving coffee filter not of paper being part of an electric coffee maker.” The resulting
`registration claims actual use as of September 7, 2012 as the sole filing basis. A true and accurate
`copy of this registration certificate is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
`25.
`On or about October 14, 2014, Rivera filed a U.S. trademark registration for the
`mark ECO CARAFE. This application resulted in Registration No. 4796840 on the Principal
`Register on August 18, 2015 in Class 11 for “[e]mpty brewing cartridges for use in electric
`coffee machines.” The resulting registration claims actual use as of February 4, 2015 as the sole
`filing basis. The registration also disclaims the term CARAFE. A true and accurate copy of this
`registration certificate is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
`
`COMPLAINT - 6
`Civil Action No. 17-cv-894
`ESUP-6-0008P01 CMP
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00894 Document 1 Filed 06/09/17 Page 7 of 10
`
`
`
`The goods for which Defendants use their marks are identical to the goods for
`26.
`which Eko has registered and uses its marks, namely, reusable filter cartridges for use in electric
`coffee machines, and related to complementary goods, namely, brewer cleaning tablets and paper
`filters for use in electric coffee machines.
`27.
`On information and belief, Defendants have been selling reusable beverage filter
`capsules under the confusingly similar ECO-FILL name since as early as September 7, 2012.
`28.
`On information and belief, Defendants have been selling reusable beverage filter
`capsules under the confusingly similar ECO-FILL DELUXE 2.0 name since approximately Fall
`of 2014.
`On information and belief, Defendants have been selling reusable beverage filter
`29.
`capsules under the confusingly similar ECO CARAFE name since as early as February 4, 2015.
`30.
`On information and belief, Defendants began selling reusable beverage filter
`capsules under the confusingly similar ECO-FLOW name long after Eko began using the
`Ekobrew marks in commerce.
`31.
`Defendants’ ECO-FILL, ECO-FILL DELUXE 2.0, ECO CARAFE and
`ECO-FLOW products bearing the confusingly similar names are shown below:
`
`
`
`On information and belief, Defendants offer products bearing the confusingly
`32.
`similar marks in at least following online and retail stores: Amazon.com, Target, Bed Bath &
`
`COMPLAINT - 7
`Civil Action No. 17-cv-894
`ESUP-6-0008P01 CMP
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00894 Document 1 Filed 06/09/17 Page 8 of 10
`
`
`
`Beyond, Sam’s Club, CoffeeIcon Superstore, Walmart, Wayfair, Meijer, CoffeeAM, Kitchen &
`Company and Coffee.org.
`33.
`On information and belief, Defendants also offer products bearing the confusingly
`similar marks direct to consumers through its website www.perfectpod.com.
`34.
`These acts of Defendants have caused and, unless restrained by the Court, will
`continue to cause serious and irreparable harm to Eko and to the goodwill associated with its
`trademarks. Moreover, Defendants have and will continue to unjustly benefit—at Eko’s
`expense—from gains, profits and advances derived from the products sold and services provided
`in association with the infringing ECO-FILL, ECO-FILL DELUXE 2.0, ECO CARAFE and
`ECO-FLOW marks.
`35.
`Defendants’ unauthorized use of Eko’s trademarks have a high likelihood of
`confusing the public as to the source of Defendants’ goods.
`36.
`Defendants have no license from Eko. Nevertheless, Defendants have deliberately
`and willfully infringed the Ekobrew marks despite knowledge of the same and of Eko’s
`provision of products in association with the Ekobrew marks.
`37.
`On information and belief, Defendants’ actions have been either for commercial
`gain or with the intent to tarnish or disparage the Ekobrew marks and Ekobrew brand by creating
`a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the goods
`marked with the ECO-FILL, ECO-FILL DELUXE 2.0, ECO CARAFE and ECO-FLOW marks.
`
`CAUSES OF ACTION
`V.
`TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
`COUNT I:
`Eko re-alleges the preceding paragraphs 1 through 36 of this complaint.
`38.
`Defendants have, without consent of Eko, used in commerce a reproduction,
`39.
`counterfeit, copy and/or colorable imitation of Eko’s registered EKOBREW and
`
`trademarks in connection with affiliate programs used in association with single-serve beverage
`
`COMPLAINT - 8
`Civil Action No. 17-cv-894
`ESUP-6-0008P01 CMP
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00894 Document 1 Filed 06/09/17 Page 9 of 10
`
`
`
`brewing products in a manner that is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive
`in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114 and Washington common law.
`COUNT II:
`FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN AND UNFAIR COMPETITION
`40.
`Eko re-alleges the preceding paragraphs.
`41.
`Defendants have engaged in false designation of origin and unfair competition by
`knowingly and willfully creating an affiliation or connection between them and Eko in order to
`confuse and mislead the public as to the source of the related products and services in violation
`of 15 U.S.C. § 1125.
`COUNT III: CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT VIOLATION
`42.
`Eko re-alleges the preceding paragraphs.
`43.
`Defendants have intentionally confused and misled the public in Washington
`State and throughout the country. Defendants’ actions constitute unfair methods of competition
`and unfair deceptive acts and practices in the conduct of its trade or business. Defendants’
`actions have affected and continue to affect the public interest in Washington State as well as in
`other parts of the country. Defendants have demonstrated its propensity for repetition of the
`wrongful actions. As a direct and causal result of Defendants’ unfair business practices and
`unfair and deceptive acts, Eko has been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.
`44.
`Defendants’ actions are in violation of the Washington State Consumer Protection
`Act, R.C.W. § 19.86.020.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`VI.
`Eko requests the following alternative and cumulative relief:
`
`1.
`
`Preliminary and permanent injunctions against Defendants and all officers,
`agents, affiliates, employees, representatives, and all persons in active concert or
`participation with them in any way, from use of the ECO-FILL, ECO-FILL
`DELUXE 2.0, ECO CARAFE and ECO-FLOW marks, or any other marks
`confusingly similar thereto, as a service mark, trademark, trade name, domain
`name or part thereof alone or in combination with other words, symbols, styles,
`
`COMPLAINT - 9
`Civil Action No. 17-cv-894
`ESUP-6-0008P01 CMP
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00894 Document 1 Filed 06/09/17 Page 10 of 10
`
`
`
`titles or marks in connection with coffee products, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116
`and other applicable law.
`
`An order that Defendants deliver up for destruction all products, printed material,
`stationery, business forms, signs, advertisements, brochures, promotional
`material, manuals, pamphlets, labels, packages, containers, and all other materials
`bearing
`the ECO-FILL, ECO-FILL DELUXE 2.0, ECO CARAFE and
`ECO-FLOW marks, or any derivative, colorable imitation, or confusingly similar
`marks, together with all means for making or reproducing the same, pursuant to
`15 U.S.C. § 1118 and other applicable law.
`
`An order requiring Defendants to file with this Court and serve on Eko within
`thirty days of service of this order a report in writing under oath setting forth in
`detail the manner and form in which Defendants have complied with the terms of
`the ordered relief.
`
`An award of damages sufficient to compensate Eko for all injury sustained as a
`result of Defendants’ wrongful trademark infringement, including wrongful
`profits of Defendants, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117 and other applicable law.
`
`Exemplary damages and all of Eko’s litigation expenses, including reasonable
`attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117 and other applicable law.
`
`An assessment of prejudgment interest and costs.
`
`Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED June 9, 2017
`
`s/David A. Lowe, WSBA No. 24,453
` Lowe@LoweGrahamJones.com
`LOWE GRAHAM JONESPLLC
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4800
`Seattle, WA 98104
`T: 206.381.3300
`F: 206.381.3301
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`COMPLAINT - 10
`Civil Action No. 17-cv-894
`ESUP-6-0008P01 CMP
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00894 Document 1-1 Filed 06/09/17 Page 1 of 8
`Case 2:17-cv-OO894 Document 1-1 Filed 06/09/17 Page 1 of 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00894 Document 1-1 Filed 06/09/17 Page 2 of 8
`
`Reg. No. 5,073,356
`
`Registered Nov. 01, 2016
`
`EKO BRANDS, LLC (WASHINGTON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY)
`1123 NW 51ST STREET
`SEATTLE, WA 98102
`
`Int. Cl.: 11
`
`Trademark
`
`CLASS 11: Reusable filter, not of paper, for use in electric brewing machines for beverage
`
`FIRST USE 9-7-2011; IN COMMERCE 9-7-2011
`
`Principal Register
`
`THE MARK CONSISTS OF STANDARD CHARACTERS WITHOUT CLAIM TO ANY
`PARTICULAR FONT STYLE, SIZE OR COLOR
`
`SER. NO. 87-019,435, FILED 04-29-2016
`RUDY RENWIC SINGLETON, EXAMINING ATTORNEY
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00894 Document 1-1 Filed 06/09/17 Page 3 of 8
`Case 2:17-cv-OO894 Document 1-1 Filed 06/09/17 Page 3 of 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00894 Document 1-1 Filed 06/09/17 Page 4 of 8
`
`Reg. No. 5,073,357
`
`Registered Nov. 01, 2016
`
`EKO BRANDS, LLC (WASHINGTON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY)
`1123 NW 51ST STREET
`SEATTLE, WA 98102
`
`Int. Cl.: 11
`
`Trademark
`
`CLASS 11: Reusable filter, not of paper, for use in electric brewing machines for beverage
`
`FIRST USE 9-7-2011; IN COMMERCE 9-7-2011
`
`Principal Register
`
`The mark consists of the wording "EKOBREW" in stylized font wherein the letters are all
`lower case with the lines forming the letter "K" are elongated.
`
`SER. NO. 87-019,462, FILED 04-29-2016
`RUDY RENWIC SINGLETON, EXAMINING ATTORNEY
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00894 Document 1-1 Filed 06/09/17 Page 5 of 8
`Case 2:17-cv-OO894 Document 1-1 Filed 06/09/17 Page 5 of 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT C
`
`
`EXHIBIT C
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00894 Document 1-1 Filed 06/09/17 Page 6 of 8
`Case 2:17-cv-OO894 Document 1-1 Filed 06/09/17 Page 6 of 8
`
`“my étatw of gum.
`mutter: étatea' iBatent anti flirahemark @ffine
`
`It}?
`
`ECO FILL
`
`RIVERA.ADRIAN (UNITED STATES INDIVIDUAL)
`Reg. No, 4,239,190
`14979 LODOSA DRIVE
`_
`Y
`Registered NOV. 6, 2012 WHITTIFR, CA 90605
`
`Int. CL: 11
`
`FOR: REUSABLE SINGLE SERVING COFFEE FILTER NOT OF PAPER BEING PART OF
`AN ELECTRIC COFFEE MAKER, 1N CLASS 11(U.S.CLS. 13, 21, 23, 31 AND 34).
`
`TRADEMARK
`
`FIRST USE 9—7—2012; IN COMMERCE 9—7—2012.
`
`PRINCIPAL REGISTER
`
`THF, MARK CONSISTS OF STANDARD CHARACTERS WITHOUT CLAIM TO ANY PAR—
`TICULAR FONT, STYLE, SIZE, OR COLOR.
`
`SN 85—499,227, FILED 12—19—201 1.
`
`DORITT L. CARROLL, EXAMINING ATTORNEY
`
`
`
`Director 0me Unized States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00894 Document 1-1 Filed 06/09/17 Page 7 of 8
`Case 2:17-cv-OO894 Document 1-1 Filed 06/09/17 Page 7 of 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT D
`
`
`EXHIBIT D
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00894 Document 1-1 Filed 06/09/17 Page 8 of 8
`Case 2:17-cv-OO894 Document 1-1 Filed 06/09/17 Page 8 of 8
`
`“my étatw of gum,
`mutter: fiatatea' iBatent anti flirahemark @ffine
`
`It}?
`
`ECO CARAFE
`
`RIVERA.ADRIAN (UNITED STATES INDIVIDUAL)
`Reg. No, 4,796,840
`14979 LODOSA DRIVE
`_
`Registered Aug. 18, 2015 WHITTIFR, CA 90605
`
`Int. CL: 11
`
`FOR: EMPTY BREWINO CARTRIDGES FOR USE IN ELECTRIC COFFEE MACHINES, IN
`CLASS 11 (U.S. CLS. 13, 21, 23, 31 AND 34).
`
`TRADEMARK
`
`FIRST USE 2—4—2015; IN COMMERCE 2—4—2015.
`
`PRINCIPAL REGISTER
`
`THF, MARK CONSISTS OF STANDARD CHARACTERS WITHOUT CLAIM TO ANY PAR—
`TICULAR FONT, STYLE, SIZE, OR COLOR.
`
`N0 CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE ”CARAFE", APART FROM THE
`MARK AS SHOWN.
`
`SN ISO-423,307, HLED 10—14—2014.
`
`CI IRI STINA RIEPEL, EXAMINING ATTORNEY
`
`
`
`Director of the United States
`Patent and Trademark Office
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00894-TSZ Document 24 Filed 10/06/17 Page 1 of 1
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
`
`EKO BRANDS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`ADRIAN RIVERA MAYNEZ
`ENTERPRISES INC. et al.,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`C17-894 TSZ
`
`MINUTE ORDER
`
`
`The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable
`Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge:
`
`(1) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, docket no. 14, is
`DENIED. Plaintiff’s claims in this action for trademark infringement, Lanham Act and
`Consumer Protection Act violations do not arise from the same transaction or occurrence
`as the patent infringement claims in Eko Brand v. ARM, et al., Cause No. 15-522RSL
`(“Prior Litigation”). As a result, plaintiff’s claims were not compulsory counterclaims in
`the Prior Litigation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 13(a). The Court also concludes that plaintiff’s
`complaint alleges sufficient facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face
`under Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).
`
`(2)
`record.
`
`The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order to all counsel of
`
`Dated this 6th day of October, 2017.
`
`William M. McCool
`Clerk
`
`s/Karen Dews
`Deputy Clerk
`
`
`
`
`
`MINUTE ORDER - 1
`
`