toyo tire & rubber et. al. v. hong kong tri-ace tire et. al
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
1/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
2/82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
4848-1146-9847.2
of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1338, and 15 U.S.C. 1121.
2. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants and venue is proper
in this Judicial District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b), (c) and (d), and 1400(b)
Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that Defendants have
conducted and continue to conduct business in this District and have engaged in the
complained of activities in this Judicial District.
The Parties
3. Plaintiff TTR is a Japanese corporation with its corporate headquarters and
principal place of business at 1-17-18 Edobori, Nishi-ku, Osaka 550-8661, Japan.
4. Plaintiff TTC is a California corporation with corporate headquarters and
principal place of business located at 5665 Plaza Drive, Suite 300, Cypress, CA 90630
Plaintiff TTC is the exclusive importer and distributor of "Toyo" brand tires, such as the
Toyo Proxes 4, Toyo Open Country A/T II, and Toyo Open Country M/T tires.
5. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that Defendant
Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire Co., Ltd. ("Tri-Ace HK") is a Hong Kong corporation located at
Unit 602 6F, Causeway Bay Commercial Building 1 Sugar Street, Causeway Bay HK
and that Tri-Ace HK is engaged in the business of manufacturing, using, exporting,importing, marketing, selling and/or offering for sale in this Judicial District the tires at
issue in this lawsuit, including tires sold under the Tri-Ace and Mark Ma series
names and brands, as well as advertising such tires in publications such as Tire Business
that are distributed in this Judicial District and displaying such tires at industry trade
shows, such as the Specialty Equipment Market Associations (SEMA) annual Las Vegas
trade show to which tire industry personnel and buyers from this Judicial District
regularly attend. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that
Tri-Ace HK focuses on two main brands, TRI-ACE and Mark-Ma, and that the U.S.
trademark registrations for Tri-Ace and Mark Ma are owned by Jinlin Ma, manager
of Tri-Ace HK. Plaintiffs are additionally informed and believe, and on that basis allege
that Tri-Ace HK ships its Mud Gripper M/T from China to Defendant ITG Voma
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
3/82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
4848-1146-9847.2
Corporation in this Judicial District as alleged hereinbelow, and that Tri-Ace HK has
entered into an agreement with MHT Wheels, a company located in this Judicial District,
to supply private label Fuel Mud Gripper Tires to MHT in this Judicial District to
complement MHT's Fuel line of wheels.
6. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that Defendant
Tri-Ace Wheel & Tire Corporation (Tri-Ace USA) is a Tennessee corporation with its
principal place of business located at 6005 E Shelby Drive, Suite 6, Memphis, Tennessee
38141-7611, and that Tri-Ace USA is engaged in the business of importing, purchasing
using, marketing, selling and/or offering for sale in this Judicial District the tires at issue
in this lawsuit, including tires sold under the Tri-Ace and Mark Ma series name and
brand.
7. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that Defendant
Voma Tire Corporation (Voma Tire) is a Tennessee corporation with its principal place
of business located at 5815 East Shelby Drive, Memphis, Tennessee 38141-6973, and an
additional place of business located at 11972 Hertz Avenue, Moorpark, California 93021-
7130, and that Tri-Ace is one of three brands belonging to Voma Tire. Plaintiffs are
further informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that Voma Tire is engaged in thebusiness of importing, purchasing, using, marketing, selling and/or offering for sale in
this Judicial District the tires at issue in this lawsuit, including tires sold under the Tri-
Ace series name and brand.
8. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that Defendant
ITG Voma Corp. (ITG Voma), a joint venture of Voma Tire and Chinese conglomerate
Xiamen ITG Group Corp., is a Tennessee corporation with its principal place of business
located 5815 East Shelby Drive, Memphis, Tennessee 38141-6973, and an additional
place of business located at 11972 Hertz Avenue, Moorpark, California 93021-7130, and
that ITG Voma is engaged in the business of importing, purchasing, using, marketing,
selling, and/or offering for sale in this Judicial District the tires at issue in this lawsuit,
including tires sold under the Tri-Ace series name and brand. Plaintiffs are further
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
4/82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
4848-1146-9847.2
informed and believe, and on that basis allege that Tri-Ace HKs Mud Gripper M/T is
made in China and is subsequently shipped to California to ITG Voma.
9. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that Defendant
Doublestar Dong Feng Tyre Co., Ltd. ("Doublestar Tyre") is a Chinese corporation with
its principal place of business located at No. 21 Hanjiang North Rd., Shiyan, Hubei,
China 442011. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that
Doublestar Tyre is engaged in the business of manufacturing, using, exporting
importing, marketing, selling, and/or offering for sale in this Judicial District the tires at
issue in this lawsuit, including tires sold under the Mark Ma series name and brand.
10. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that these
Defendants have acted in concert with the other to form an enterprise, partnership, or
other formal or informal business association or affiliation whose goal is the
manufacturing and sale into, and transshipment through, this Judicial District, among
others, copies of tires of the major manufacturers such as Toyo, with such tires being sold
under the Tri-Ace and Mark Ma brands. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe, and
on that basis allege, that pursuant to this association or affiliation, the Defendants use this
Judicial District as a hub from which Defendants effectuate the importation, purchase,use, marketing, sale, and/or offer for sale, or transport of the infringing Tri-Ace and Mark
Ma tires identified herein.
11. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that as part of
such association and/or affiliation, each of these Defendants has ongoing and systematic
contacts with this Judicial District, including: placing the products accused of
infringement herein into the stream of commerce knowing and expecting that such
products would end up in this Judicial District, availing themselves of the Ports of Los
Angeles and Long Beach in this Judicial District, and occupying business locations
within this Judicial District,.
12. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that the
activities of Defendants as set forth in this Complaint arise out of the same transaction
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
5/82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
4848-1146-9847.2
occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and/or involve common questions of
law and fact common to all Defendants.
13. The acts complained of herein, and the claims asserted by TTR and TTC
arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and
involve common questions of law and fact common to TTR and TTC.
Claim 1: Infringement of TTRs 424 Patent by the Tri-Ace Dub Tire
14. This is a claim by TTR against Defendants Tri-Ace HK, Tri-Ace USA
Voma Tire and ITG Voma and each of them for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C.
271.
15. TTR hereby incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 13, inclusive, herein by
reference.
16. On March 9, 2004, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally
issued U.S. Patent No. D487,424 ("the 424 patent") to Takahashi et al. A true and
correct copy of the 424 patent is attached to the Complaint as Ex. 1. The 424 patent
claims an ornamental design for an automobile tire, as shown and described in Figures
1 through 6 of the 424 patent. The United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a
certificate of correction attached as Ex. 2 for the 424 patent.17. TTR is the owner of the entire right, title and interest in and to the 424
patent by assignment made on November 12, 2002, and recorded on November 21, 2002.
18. TTR is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants Tri-
Ace HK, Tri-Ace USA, Voma Tire and ITG Voma have made, exported, imported, used,
marketed, sold and/or offered for sale one or more tire products, including but not limited
to the Tri-Ace Dub tire, that infringe the 424 patent. The design of this tire, in the eye of
the ordinary observer, would appear substantially similar to the ornamental design of the
424 patent.
19. TTR is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants Tri-
Ace HK, Tri-Ace USA, Voma Tire and ITG Voma have actively induced others,
including each other, to directly infringe the 424 patent by aiding, abetting, encouraging
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
6/82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
4848-1146-9847.2
and otherwise promoting the use, manufacture, sale and/or offer for sale by others,
including each other, of infringing tire products, including but not limited to the Tri-Ace
Dub tire, with knowledge of the infringement of the 424 patent and with the intent to
cause such infringement and/or with willful blindness to the existence of the 424 patent.
20. TTR is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the business
model of Defendants Tri-Ace HK, Tri-Ace USA, Voma Tire, and ITG Voma is built in
large part upon deliberately copying the tire designs of major tire manufacturers such as
TTR, and in conscious ignorance of the patent portfolios of such companies.
21. TTR is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that infringement of
the 424 patent by Defendants Tri-Ace HK, Tri-Ace USA, Voma Tire and ITG Voma has
been and continues to be willful and deliberate.
22. TTR is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants Tri-
Ace HK, Tri-Ace USA, Voma Tire and ITG Voma have had notice and actual knowledge
of the 424 patent before the filing of TTRs complaint with the U.S. International Trade
Commission on August 14, 2013, and before the filing of this suit.
23. TTR has been damaged by infringement of the 424 patent by Defendants
Tri-Ace HK, Tri-Ace USA, Voma Tire and ITG Voma in an amount to be determined attrial, such damages including all of these Defendants' profits from the infringement
alleged herein.
24. Furthermore, by these acts, Defendants Tri-Ace HK, Tri-Ace USA, Voma
Tire, and ITG Voma have irreparably injured Toyo and such injury will continue unless
these Defendants are enjoined by this Court.
Claim 2: Infringement of TTRs 200 Patent by the Tri-Ace Pioneer A/T Tire
25. This is a claim by TTR against Defendants Tri-Ace HK, Tri-Ace USA
Voma Tire and ITG Voma and each of them for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C.
271.
26. TTR hereby incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 13, inclusive, herein by
reference.
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
7/82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
4848-1146-9847.2
27. On January 31, 2012, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally
issued U.S. Patent No. D653,200 ("the 200 patent") to Kuwano. A true and correct copy
of the 200 patent is attached to the Complaint as Ex. 3. The 200 patent claims an
ornamental design for an automobile tire, as shown and described in Figures 1 through
12 of the 200 patent.
28. TTR is the owner of the entire right, title and interest in and to the 200
patent by assignment made on July 14, 2011, and recorded on October 7, 2011. TTR is
informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants Tri-Ace HK, Tri-Ace
USA, Voma Tire and ITG Voma have made, exported, imported, used, marketed, sold
and/or offered for sale one or more tire products, including but not limited to the Tri-Ace
Pioneer A/T tire, that infringe the 200 patent. The design of this tire, in the eye of the
ordinary observer, would appear substantially similar to the ornamental design of the
200 patent.
29. TTR is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants Tri-
Ace HK, Tri-Ace USA, Voma Tire and ITG Voma have actively induced others,
including each other, to directly infringe the 200 patent by aiding, abetting, encouraging
and otherwise promoting the use, manufacture, sale and/or offer for sale by others,including each other, of infringing tire products, including but not limited to the Tri-Ace
Pioneer A/T tire, with knowledge of the infringement of the 200 patent and with the
intent to cause such infringement and/or with willful blindness to the existence of the
200 patent.
30. TTR is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that infringement of
the 200 patent by Defendants Tri-Ace HK, Tri-Ace USA, Voma Tire and ITG Voma has
been and continues to be willful and deliberate.
31. TTR is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants Tri-
Ace HK, Tri-Ace USA, Voma Tire and ITG Voma have had notice and actual knowledge
of the 200 patent before the filing of TTRs complaint with the U.S. International Trade
Commission, on August 14, 2013, and before the filing of this suit.
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
8/82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
4848-1146-9847.2
32. TTR has been damaged by infringement of the 200 patent by Defendants
Tri-Ace HK, Tri-Ace USA, Voma Tire and ITG Voma in an amount to be determined at
trial, such damages including all of these Defendants' profits from the infringement
alleged herein.
33. Furthermore, by these acts, Defendants Tri-Ace HK, Tri-Ace USA, Voma
Tire, and ITG Voma have irreparably injured Toyo and such injury will continue unless
these Defendants are enjoined by this Court.
Claim 3: Infringement of TTRs 525 Patent by Tri-Ace Pioneer A/T Tire
34. This is a claim by TTR against Defendants and each of them for patent
infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271.
35. TTR hereby incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 13, inclusive, herein by
reference.
36. On June 18, 2013, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally
issued U.S. Patent No. D684,525 ("the 525 patent") to Kuwano. A true and correct copy
of the 525 patent is attached to the Complaint as Ex. 4. The 525 patent claims an
ornamental design for a tire, as shown and described in Figures 1 through 7 of the 525
patent.37. TTR is the owner of the entire right, title and interest in and to the 525
patent by assignment made on July 14, 2011, and recorded on October 7, 2011.
38. TTR is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants Tri-
Ace HK, Tri-Ace USA, Voma Tire and ITG Voma have made, exported, imported, used,
marketed, sold and/or offered for sale one or more tire products, including but not limited
to the Tri-Ace Pioneer A/T tire, that infringe the 525 patent. The design of this tire, in
the eye of the ordinary observer, would appear substantially similar to the ornamental
design of the 525 patent.
39. TTR is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants Tri-
Ace HK, Tri-Ace USA, Voma Tire and ITG Voma have actively induced others,
including each other, to directly infringe the 525 patent by aiding, abetting, encouraging
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
9/82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
4848-1146-9847.2
and otherwise promoting the use, manufacture, sale and/or offer for sale by others of
infringing tire products, including but not limited to the Tri-Ace Pioneer A/T tire, with
knowledge of the infringement of the 525 patent and with the intent to cause such
infringement and/or with willful blindness to the existence of the 525 patent.
40. TTR is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that infringement of
the 525 patent by Defendants Tri-Ace HK, Tri-Ace USA, Voma Tire and ITG Voma has
been and continues to be willful and deliberate.
41. TTR has been damaged by infringement of the 525 patent by Defendants
Tri-Ace HK, Tri-Ace USA, Voma Tire and ITG Voma in an amount to be determined at
trial, such damages including all of these Defendants' profits from the infringement
alleged herein.
42. Furthermore, by these acts, Defendants Tri-Ace HK, Tri-Ace USA, Voma
Tire, and ITG Voma have irreparably injured Toyo and such injury will continue unless
these Defendants are enjoined by this Court.
Claim 4: Infringement of TTRs 765 Patent by the Tri-Ace Pioneer A/T Tire
43. This is a claim by TTR against Defendants Tri-Ace HK, Tri-Ace USA
Voma Tire and ITG Voma and each of them for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271.
44. TTR hereby incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 13, inclusive, herein by
reference.
45. On August 13, 2013, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally
issued U.S. Patent No. D687,765 ("the 765 patent") to Kuwano et al. A true and correct
copy of the 765 patent is attached to the Complaint as Ex. 5. The 765 patent claims an
ornamental design for a tire, as shown and described in Figures 1 through 7 of the 765
patent.
46. TTR is the owner of the entire right, title and interest in and to the 765
patent by assignment made on July 14, 2011, and recorded on October 07, 2011.
47. TTR is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants Tri-
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
10/82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
4848-1146-9847.2
Ace HK, Tri-Ace USA, Voma Tire and ITG Voma have made, exported, imported, used,
marketed, sold and/or offered for sale one or more tire products, including but not limited
to the Tri-Ace Pioneer A/T tire, that infringe the 765 patent. The design of this tire, in
the eye of the ordinary observer, would appear substantially similar to the ornamental
design of the 765 patent.
48. TTR is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants Tri-
Ace HK, Tri-Ace USA, Voma Tire and ITG Voma have actively induced others,
including each other, to directly infringe the 765 patent by aiding, abetting, encouraging
and otherwise promoting the use, manufacture, sale and/or offer for sale by others,
including each other, of infringing tire products, including but not limited to the Tri-Ace
Pioneer A/T tire, with knowledge of the infringement of the 765 patent and with the
intent to cause such infringement and/or with willful blindness to the existence of the
765 patent.
49. TTR is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that infringement of
the 765 patent by Defendants Tri-Ace HK, Tri-Ace USA, Voma Tire and ITG Voma has
been and continues to be willful and deliberate.
50. TTR has been damaged by infringement of the 765 patent by DefendantsTri-Ace HK, Tri-Ace USA, Voma Tire and ITG Voma in an amount to be determined at
trial, such damages including all of these Defendants' profits from the infringement
alleged herein.
51. Furthermore, by these acts, Defendants Tri-Ace HK, Tri-Ace USA, Voma
Tire, and ITG Voma have irreparably injured Toyo and such injury will continue unless
these Defendants are enjoined by this Court.
Claim 5: Infringement of TTRs 031 Patent by the Mark Ma Dakar M/T Tire
52. This is a claim by TTR against Defendants Tri-Ace HK, Tri-Ace USA
Voma Tire, ITG Voma and Doublestar Tyre and each of them for patent infringemen
under 35 U.S.C. 271.
53. TTR hereby incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 13, inclusive, herein by
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
11/82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
4848-1146-9847.2
reference.
54. On May 4, 2010, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally
issued U.S. Patent No. D615,031 ("the 031patent") to Osaka. A true and correct copy of
the 031 patent is attached to the Complaint as Ex. 6. The 031 patent claims an
ornamental design for an automobile tire, as shown and described in Figures 1 through
10 of the 031 patent. The United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a certificate
of correction attached as Exhibit 10 for the 031 patent.
55. TTR is the owner of the entire right, title and interest in and to the 031
patent by assignment made on June 10, 2013, and recorded on June 13, 2013.
56. TTR is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants Tri-
Ace HK, Tri-Ace USA, Voma Tire, ITG Voma and Doublestar Tyre have made,
exported, imported, used, marketed, sold and/or offered for sale one or more tire
products, including but not limited to the Mark Ma Dakar M/T tire, that infringe the 031
patent. The design of this tire, in the eye of the ordinary observer, would appear
substantially similar to the ornamental design of the 031 patent.
57. TTR is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants Tri-
Ace HK, Tri-Ace USA, Voma Tire, ITG Voma and Doublestar Tyre have activelyinduced others, including each other, to directly infringe the 031 patent by aiding,
abetting, encouraging, and otherwise promoting the use, manufacture, sale and/or offer
for sale by others, including each other, of infringing tire products, including but not
limited to the Mark Ma Dakar M/T tire, with knowledge of the infringement of the 031
patent and with the intent to cause such infringement and/or with willful blindness to the
existence of the 031 patent.
58. TTR is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the business
model of Defendants Tri-Ace HK, Tri-Ace USA, Voma Tire, ITG Voma, and Doublestar
Tyre is built in large part upon deliberately copying the tire designs of major tire
manufacturers such as TTR, and in conscious ignorance of the patent portfolios of such
companies.
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
12/82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
4848-1146-9847.2
59. TTR is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that infringement of
the 031 patent by Defendants Tri-Ace HK, Tri-Ace USA, Voma Tire, ITG Voma and
Doublestar Tyre has been and continues to be willful and deliberate.
60. TTR is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants Tri-
Ace HK, Tri-Ace USA, Voma Tire and ITG Voma have had notice and actual knowledge
of the 031 patent before the filing of TTRs complaint with the U.S. International Trade
Commission, on August 14, 2013, and before the filing of this suit.
61. TTR has been damaged by infringement of the 031 patent by Defendants
Tri-Ace HK, Tri-Ace USA, Voma Tire, ITG Voma and Doublestar Tyre in an amount to
be determined at trial, such damages including all of Defendants' profits from the
infringement alleged herein.
62. Furthermore, by these acts, Defendants Tri-Ace HK, Tri-Ace USA, Voma
Tire, ITG Voma, and Doublestar Tyre have irreparably injured Toyo and such injury will
continue unless Defendants are enjoined by this Court.
Claim 6: Infringement of TTRs 975 Patent by the Mark Ma Dakar M/T Tire
63. This is a claim by TTR against Defendants Tri-Ace HK, Tri-Ace USA
Voma Tire, ITG Voma and Doublestar Tyre and each of them for patent infringementunder 35 U.S.C. 271.
64. TTR hereby incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 13, inclusive, herein by
reference.
65. On March 2, 2010, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally
issued U.S. Patent No. D610,975 ("the 975 patent") to Osaka. A true and correct copy
of the 975 patent is attached to the Complaint as Ex. 8. The 975 patent claims an
ornamental design for a tire, as shown and described in Figures 1 through 12 of the
975 patent. The United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a certificate of
correction attached as Ex. 7 for the 975 patent.
66. TTR is the owner of the entire right, title and interest in and to the 975
patent by assignment made on June 10, 2013, and recorded on June 13, 2013.
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
13/82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
4848-1146-9847.2
67. TTR is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants Tri-
Ace HK, Tri-Ace USA, Voma Tire, ITG Voma and Doublestar Tyre have made, used,
sold and/or offered for sale one or more tire products, including but not limited to the
Mark Ma Dakar M/T tire, that infringe the 975 patent. The design of this tire, in the eye
of the ordinary observer, would appear substantially similar to the ornamental design of
the 975 patent.
68. TTR is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants Tri-
Ace HK, Tri-Ace USA, Voma Tire, ITG Voma and Doublestar Tyre have actively
induced others, including each other, to directly infringe the 975 patent by aiding,
abetting, encouraging, and otherwise promoting the use, manufacture, sale and/or offer
for sale by others, including each other, of infringing tire products, including but not
limited to the Mark Ma Dakar M/T tire, with knowledge of the infringement of the 975
patent and with the intent to cause such infringement and/or with willful blindness to the
existence of the 975 patent.
69. TTR is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that infringement of
the 975 patent by Defendants Tri-Ace HK, Tri-Ace USA, Voma Tire, ITG Voma and
Doublestar Tyre has been and continues to be willful and deliberate.70. TTR is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants Tri-
Ace HK, Tri-Ace USA, Voma Tire and ITG Voma have had notice and actual knowledge
of the 975 patent before the filing of TTRs complaint with the U.S. International Trade
Commission, on August 14, 2013, and before the filing of this suit.
71. TTR has been damaged by infringement of the 975 patent by Defendants
Tri-Ace HK, Tri-Ace USA, Voma Tire, ITG Voma and Doublestar Tyre in an amount to
be determined at trial, such damages including all of Defendants' profits from the
infringement alleged herein.
72. Furthermore, by these acts, Defendants Tri-Ace HK, Tri-Ace USA, Voma
Tire, ITG Voma, and Doublestar Tyre have irreparably injured Toyo and such injury will
continue unless Defendants are enjoined by this Court.
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
14/82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14
4848-1146-9847.2
Claim 7: Trade Dress Infringement by the Mark Ma Dakar M/T and Tri-Ace Mud
Gripper M/T Tires
73. This is a claim by TTC against Defendants and each of them for trade dress
infringement in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1125.
74. TTC hereby incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 13, inclusive, herein by
reference.
75. TTC has a protectable trade dress in the overall appearance of its Open
Country M/T tires, which was first introduced in 2003 under the Toyo brand. The Open
Country M/T tire is a premium off-road maximum traction tire that combines solid on-
road performance with extra ground clearance and higher load-carrying capacity and, for
truck enthusiasts, a tread pattern with an aggressive appearance.
76. With its unique, aesthetically aggressive appearance and significant sales
volume, the ornamental, distinctive look of the Open Country M/T tire has become
associated with the Toyo brand. This look includes open scalloped shoulder blocks, an
aggressive, attack tread with hook-shaped blocks, a distinctive over-the-shoulder tread,
and deep siping in the tread blocks (hereinafter referred to as the OPMT Trade Dress).
77. The overall tread design of the OPMT Trade Dress is arbitrary, inherentlydistinctive, and non-functional.
78. TTC has always been the exclusive source for Open Country M/T tires,
more than 2.3 million of which have been sold to customers throughout the United States
since 2003.
79. Since 2003, TTC has built up valuable recognition and goodwill in its
distinctive OPMT Trade Dress. TTC has expended, and continues to expend, substantia
time, effort, money, and other resources to develop and maintain the valuable goodwill
that has come to be associated with the Open Country M/T tires incorporating the unique
and recognizable OPMT Trade Dress.
80. TTC has continuously and extensively advertised, marketed, and promoted
its Open Country M/T tires in the United States, investing over $22 million in such
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
15/82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15
4848-1146-9847.2
activities, including advertising directed to the distinctive, non-functional aspects of the
appearance of the Open Country M/T tires.
81. As a result of TTCs efforts, the OPMT Trade Dress has acquired secondary
meaning and distinctiveness among off-road tire consumers and members of the industry
and it continues to have secondary meaning and distinctiveness. The Open Country M/T
tire, which prominently displays the OPMT Trade Dress, is now widely known and
recognized by its unique and distinctive appearance, which identifies to off-road tire
consumers and members of the industry that its source of origin is Toyo. The OPMT
Trade Dress has come to be, and now is, well and favorably known to the public,
particularly to off-road tire consumers, as being associated with Toyos high-quality tires
82. Based on the foregoing, the OPMT Trade Dress has become and now is a
designation of origin of Toyo and a trademark owned by TTC.
83. Upon information and belief, Defendants have made, used, exported
imported, marketed, sold and/or offered for sale tire products, including but not limited to
the Mark Ma Dakar M/T and Tri-Ace Mud Gripper M/T tires, that infringe the OPMT
Trade Dress.
84. To consumers, including off-road tire customers and members of theindustry, the look of the Mark Ma Dakar M/T and Tri-Ace Mud Gripper M/T tires is
confusingly similar to the OPMT Trade Dress and, in particular, the, distinctive look of
the Toyo Open Country M/T tire, which is unique in appearance, eye-catching and
readily recognized among customers and members of the trade.
85. The Past, present and future use, distribution, sale and/or offer for sale by
Defendants Tri-Ace HK, Tri-Ace USA, Voma Tire, ITG Voma and Doublestar Tyre of
tires using the OPMT Trade Dress, including but not limited to the Mark Ma Dakar M/T
and Tri-Ace Mud Gripper M/T tires, constitutes trade dress infringement under 15 U.S.C
1125(a).
86. TTC is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants
Tri-Ace HK, Tri-Ace USA, Voma Tire, ITG Voma and Doublestar Tyre have been aware
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
16/82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16
4848-1146-9847.2
of Toyos Open Country M/T tire and the OPMT trade dress, based on TTCs extensive
and exclusive original sales of Open Country M/T tires for over ten years, and their trade
dress infringement has been and continues to be willful and deliberate.
87. TTC has been damaged by willful trade dress infringement by Defendants
Tri-Ace HK, Tri-Ace USA, Voma Tire, ITG Voma and Doublestar Tyre in an amount to
be determined at trial, including profits of Defendants Tri-Ace HK, Tri-Ace USA, Voma
Tire, ITG Voma and Doublestar Tyre and three times the amount of actual damages
sustained by TTC, together with costs and reasonable attorneys fees. Furthermore, by
these acts, Defendants Tri-Ace HK, Tri-Ace USA, Voma Tire, ITG Voma, and
Doublestar Tyre have irreparably injured TTC and caused TTC to suffer a substantial loss
of goodwill and reputation, and such injury will continue unless they are enjoined by this
Court.
88. By reason of the above actions, TTC is entitled to the full range of relief
under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1116-1118.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, by virtue of the unlawful conduct of Defendants as alleged in
Counts I through VII above, Plaintiffs respectfully pray for judgment against Defendantsand each of them, as follows:
A. That Defendants Tri-Ace HK, Tri-Ace USA, Voma Tire, and ITG Voma be
adjudged to have infringed the '424, 200, 525, 765, 031, and 975 patents;
B. That Defendants Tri-Ace HK, Tri-Ace USA, Voma Tire, and ITG Voma be
adjudged to have induced infringement of the '424, 200, 525, 765, 031, and 975
patents;
C. That Defendant Doublestar Tyre be adjudged to have infringed the 031 and
975 patents;
D. That Defendant Doublestar Tyre be adjudged to have induced infringemen
of the 031 and 975 patents;
E. That such patent infringement be adjudged willful and deliberate;
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
17/82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17
4848-1146-9847.2
F. That this case be deemed exceptional under 35 U.S.C. 285, and that the
damages for patent infringement be enhanced accordingly;
G. That Defendants be adjudged to have infringed TTCs OPMT Trade Dress in
violation of 15 U.S.C. 1125(a);
H. That Defendants trade dress infringement be adjudged willful and
deliberate;
I. That Defendants Tri-Ace HK, Tri-Ace USA, Voma Tire and ITG Voma, its
subsidiaries, affiliates, parents, successors, assigns, officers, agents, servants, employees,
attorneys, and all persons acting in concert or in participation with it be preliminarily and
permanently enjoined from:
(1) Infringing or inducing infringement of the '424, 200, 525, 765 031
and 975 patents, and specifically from directly or indirectly making, using, selling
or offering for sale, any products embodying the invention of '424, 200, 525, 765
031 and 975 patents during their terms, without the express written authority of
Plaintiffs;
(2) Using TTCs OPMT Trade Dress or any trade dress or tread or
sidewall design confusingly similar thereto, for or in connection with advertising,marketing, promoting, distributing, offering for sale, or selling tires;
(3) Using photographs, illustrations, or other depictions of TTCs OPMT
Trade Dress or any trade dress or tread or sidewall design confusingly similar
thereto, for or in connection with advertising, marketing, promoting, distributing,
offering for sale, or selling tires;
(4) Using any name, mark, designation, product configuration, trade
dress, or other material for or in connection with advertising, marketing
promoting, distributing, offering for sale, or selling tires that are likely to cause
confusion, mistake or deception as to source relative to any of TTR and TTCs
names, marks, designations, product configurations, or trade dress, including but
not limited to TTCs OPMT Trade Dress;
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
18/82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
18
4848-1146-9847.2
(5) Passing off its goods and/or services as those of TTC; and,
(6) Engaging in any conduct aimed at or likely to result in diverting
business intended for TTC or injuring TTCs goodwill or business reputation by
way of imitation, misrepresentation, false statements, advertising, fraud and/or
deception.
J. That Defendant Doublestar Tyre, its subsidiaries, affiliates, parents
successors, assigns, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons
acting in concert or in participation with it be preliminarily and permanently enjoined
from:
(1) Infringing or inducing infringement of the 031 and 975 patents, and
specifically from directly or indirectly making, using, selling, or offering for sale,
any products embodying the invention of 031 and 975 patents during their terms,
without the express written authority of Plaintiffs;
(2) Using TTCs OPMT Trade Dress or any trade dress or tread or
sidewall design confusingly similar thereto, for or in connection with advertising,
marketing, promoting, distributing, offering for sale, or selling tires;
(3) Using photographs, illustrations, or other depictions of TTCs OPMTTrade Dress or any trade dress or tread or sidewall design confusingly similar
thereto, for or in connection with advertising, marketing, promoting, distributing,
offering for sale, or selling tires;
(4) Using any name, mark, designation, product configuration, trade
dress, or other material for or in connection with advertising, marketing
promoting, distributing, offering for sale, or selling tires that are likely to cause
confusion, mistake or deception as to source relative to any of TTR and TTCs
names, marks, designations, product configurations, or trade dress, including but
not limited to TTCs OPMT Trade Dress;
(5) Passing off its goods and/or services as those of TTC; and,
(6) Engaging in any conduct aimed at or likely to result in diverting
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
19/82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
19
4848-1146-9847.2
business intended for TTC or injuring TTCs goodwill or business reputation by
way of imitation, misrepresentation, false statements, advertising, fraud and/or
deception..
K. An order from this Court compelling each Defendant to mail notice letters at
their own expense to all distributors, dealers, accounts, salesmen, employees, jobbers,
and suppliers, informing them that each Defendant has committed patent infringement,
and/or trade dress infringement, and that Defendant has no affiliation, connection, or
other business relationship with Plaintiffs, and requesting that the letter recipients return
to Defendant for full credit or refund all of Defendants tires using the infringing design
and/or trade dress.
L. An order from this Court commanding that each Defendant deliver to
Plaintiffs for destruction all advertising, products, tires, labeling, packaging, sales
literature, promotional literature, owner's manuals, catalogs, displays, boxes, packages
and other trade pieces within their possession or control and which use or display the
infringing design and trade dress.
M. An accounting for all profits of each Defendant derived by reason of the acts
alleged in this Complaint.N. An award of money damages suffered by Plaintiffs in an amount to be
ascertained, and the trebling thereof.
O. An order compelling each Defendant to disgorge the amounts by which it
has been unjustly enriched by the acts alleged herein.
P. A constructive trust imposed on all revenue, income, and things of value
derived by each Defendant in the marketing and selling of tires using imitative tread
designs, trade dress, and marks, including the tread design and trade dress complained of
in Complaint.
Q. Judgment, relief, and requests as set forth in this Complaint.
R. Reasonable attorney's fees, prejudgment interest, and costs of this action.
S. Such other, further, and different relief as the court deems proper under the
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
20/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
21/82
EXHIBIT 1
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
22/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
23/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
24/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
25/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
26/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
27/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
28/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
29/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
30/82
EXHIBIT 2
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
31/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
32/82
EXHIBIT 3
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
33/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
34/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
35/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
36/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
37/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
38/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
39/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
40/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
41/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
42/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
43/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
44/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
45/82
EXHIBIT 4
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
46/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
47/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
48/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
49/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
50/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
51/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
52/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
53/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
54/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
55/82
EXHIBIT 5
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
56/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
57/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
58/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
59/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
60/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
61/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
62/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
63/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
64/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
65/82
EXHIBIT 6
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
66/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
67/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
68/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
69/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
70/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
71/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
72/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
73/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
74/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
75/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
76/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
77/82
EXHIBIT 7
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
78/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
79/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
80/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
81/82
-
8/13/2019 Toyo Tire & Rubber et. al. v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire et. al.
82/82