Cleveland Golf Is No Stranger to Protecting Their Brand; Now They Go After Clone Maker King Sports
Regular readers of the Golf-Patents blog know that Cleveland Golf is not adverse to litigation; just check out my recent posts “Cleveland Golf’s Mystery Shopper Reveals Alleged Counterfeiters and Results in IP Infringement Lawsuit” and “Cleveland Golf Cracks Down on Unauthorized Online Sales.” This week they have decided to take on clone golf club maker King Sports, the alleged owners of turbopowerusa.net and kingsports.org.
However, King Sports is also no stranger to litigation; check out my prior posts regarding battles with Nike (here and here) and Callaway (here and here).
Here are some of the interesting allegations from the Cleveland v. King Sports lawsuit:
4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant in this district, as Defendant is domiciled within this district, and as Defendant transacts substantial and continuing business within this district. Among other things, Defendant is believed to own, control and operate the websites, turbopowerusa.net and kingsports.org (the “Websites”) within this district. Upon information and belief, Defendant has used the Websites to advertise and solicit purchases in this district. Further, Defendant, through the Websites, has sold substantial goods and services to consumers in this district. Because some of the Defendant’s wrongful acts involved the offering for sale and sale of products that infringe Cleveland Golfs trademarks, venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
.
.
.
THE WRONGFUL ACTS OF KING SPORTS
20. King Sports has been and is now engaged in the business of importing, offering for sale, selling, copying, distributing and otherwise commercially using golf components, particularly imitations of components of Cleveland Golf clubs which infringe on the intellectual property rights of Cleveland Golf through the Websites.
21. King Sports has been and is now engaged in the business of importing into the United States, selling, advertising and offering for sale in the United States, commercially using in commerce in the United States, and inducing others to import, commercially use, sell and offer for sale in the United States, several “clone” golf clubs that infringe the intellectual property rights of Cleveland Golf through the Websites. A table of each of these “clones” and the Cleveland Golf clubs it mimics is found below:
22. Once Cleveland Golf identified King Sports as a seller of infringing clubs on June 10, 2008, Cleveland Golf, through counsel, immediately sent a demand letter to King Sports and its owner, Jimmy Chang, demanding that they immediately cease and desist their infringing activities.
23. On August 12, 2008, Cleveland Golf, through counsel, sent a second letter stating that the infringement was ongoing and again demanding that it be stopped immediately.
24. King Sports has ignored all demands to cease its infringing activities and continues to promote, import, offer for sale, and distribute the “clone” clubs at issue in this litigation.
Defendant’s Infringing “Classic Tour Clones”
25. Defendant has in the past and is currently importing, selling, advertising, offering for sale, commercially using in commerce, and inducing others to use, sell and offer for sale golf club heads tagged as the “Classic Tour Clones” in the above table. These club heads bear a decorative graphic mark confusingly similar to the Cleveland marks (trademark registrations 2,302,251 and 1,306,203). The “Classic Tour Clones” infringe the distinct trade dress of the Cleveland CG Tour irons.
Defendant’s Infringing “CG14 Clones”
26. Defendant has in the past and is currently importing, selling, advertising, offering for sale, commercially using in commerce, and inducing others to use, sell and offer for sale golf club heads tagged as the “CG14 Clones” in the above table.
27. The “CG14 Clones” club heads are confusingly similar to the Cleveland’s CG14 trademark (trademark registration 3,575,685).
28. The “CG14 Clones” infringe the distinct trade dress of the Cleveland CG14 Black Pearl wedge.
Defendant’s Infringing “CG11 Clones”
29. Defendant has in the past and is currently importing, selling, advertising, offering for sale, commercially using in commerce, and inducing others to use, sell and offer for sale golf club heads tagged as the “CG11 Clones” in the above table. These club heads bear a decorative graphic mark confusingly similar to the Cleveland marks (trademark registrations 2,302,251 and 1,306,203). The “CG11 Clones” infringe the distinct trade dress of the Cleveland CG11 clubs.
Defendant’s Infringing “CG10 Clones”
30. Defendant has in the past and is currently importing, selling, advertising, offering for sale, commercially using in commerce, and inducing others to use, sell and offer for sale golf club heads tagged as the “CG10 Clones” in the above table. These club heads bear a decorative graphic mark confusingly similar to the Cleveland marks (trademark registrations 2,302,251 and 1,306,203). The “CG10 Clones” club heads are confusingly similar to Cleveland’s CG10 trademark (trademark registration 3,421,090). The “CG10 Clones” infringe the distinct trade dress of the Cleveland CG10 clubs.
Defendant’s Infringing “588 Clones”
31. Defendant has in the past and is currently importing, selling, advertising, offering for sale, commercially using in commerce, and inducing others to use, sell and offer for sale golf club heads tagged as the “588 Clones” in the above table. These club heads bear a decorative graphic mark confusingly similar to the Cleveland marks (trademark registrations 2,302,251 and 1,306,203). The “588 Clones” club heads are confusingly similar to Cleveland’s 588 trademark (trademark registration 3,447,556). The “588 Clones” infringe the distinct trade dress of the Cleveland 588 wedges.
Defendant’s Infringing “HiBore Clones”
32. Defendant has in the past and is currently importing, selling, advertising, offering for sale, commercially using in commerce, and inducing others to use, sell and offer for sale golf club heads tagged as the “HiBore Clones” in the above table. These club heads bear a decorative graphic mark confusingly similar to the Cleveland registrations 2,302,251 and 1,306,203. The “HiBore Clones” club heads are confusingly similar to the Cleveland’s HIBORE and HIGH BORE trademarks (trademark registrations 3,262,726 and 2,269,074) and their “HiCore” name is clearly intended to confuse consumers into believing that these are Cleveland Golf clubs. The “HiBore Clones” infringe the distinct trade dress of the Cleveland HiBore clubs.
Defendant’s Infringing “Launcher Clones”
33. Defendant has in the past and is currently importing, selling, advertising, offering for sale, commercially using in commerce, and inducing others to use, sell and offer for sale golf club heads tagged as the “Launcher Clones” in the above table. These c
lub heads bear a decorative graphic mark confusingly similar to the Cleveland registrations 2,302,251 and 1,306,203. The “Launcher Clones” club heads are confusingly similar to the Cleveland’s LAUNCHER trademark (trademark registration 1,511,907). The “Launcher Clones” infringe the distinct trade dress of the Cleveland Launcher clubs.
Defendant’s Infringing “Halo Clones”
34. Defendant has in the past and is currently importing, selling, advertising, offering for sale, commercially using in commerce, and inducing others to use, sell and offer for sale golf club heads tagged as the “Halo Clones” in the above table. These club heads bear a decorative graphic mark confusingly similar to the Cleveland registrations 2,302,251 and 1,306,203. The “Halo Clones” infringe the distinct trade dress of the Cleveland Halo clubs.
Defendant’s Acts of Unfair Competition
35. Defendant has imported, copied, distributed, offered for sale, advertised, sold, and otherwise commercially used in interstate commerce and in this judicial district, the “clone” club heads with the intent to benefit from Cleveland Golf’s goodwill and reputation in the golf club market, to deceive the public as to the source or origin of its “clone” clubs, and to profit from the demand created by Cleveland Golf’s products.
36. Defendants have used and affixed the Cleveland Golf Trademarks or marks confusingly similar to Cleveland Golf Trademarks, in connection with the importation, copying, distribution, advertisement, sales, offers for sale, and/or commercial uses of the “clone” club heads, in interstate commerce and in this judicial district, in such a way that these marks are likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive customers as to the origin of the Defendant’s “clone” products.
37. Defendant has imported, copied, distributed, offered for sale, advertised, sold, and otherwise commercially used in interstate commerce and in this judicial district, the “clone” club heads using false designations of origin, and/or false or misleading descriptions of fact, which are likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the origin of Defendant’s “clone” clubs, with the intent to benefit from Cleveland Golf’s reputation and goodwill in the golf club market, to deceive the public as to the source or origin of its “clone” clubs, and to profit from the demand created by Cleveland Golf’s products.
COUNT I – Federal Trademark Infringement and False Designation of Origin
38. Plaintiff hereby realleges each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
39. The Cleveland Golf Trademarks are inherently distinctive and have acquired secondary meaning among golf consumers. Purchasers and prospective purchasers associate the Cleveland Golf Trademarks only with Cleveland Golf products. This is a result of the marks’ inherent distinctiveness and of extensive sales throughout the United States of Cleveland Golfs clubs bearing the Cleveland Golf Trademarks.
40. By committing the acts alleged herein, Defendant has intentionally, knowingly, and willfully infringed upon the Cleveland Golf Trademarks in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114 and 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
41. King Sports’ acts have caused and will continue to cause Cleveland Golf to suffer irreparable harm, unless King Sports is restrained from further infringing the Cleveland Golf Trademarks.
COUNT II – Trademark Dilution
42. Plaintiff hereby realleges each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
43. Use by King Sports of the Cleveland Golf Trademarks in connection with the misrepresentations to customers has lessened, and will continue to lessen, the capacity of Cleveland Golfs famous and distinctive trademarks to distinguish Cleveland Golfs products and services from those of others, and has diluted the distinctive quality of Cleveland Golfs famous and distinctive marks.
44. King Sports’ acts constitute trademark dilution in violation of Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c).
45. King Sports’ acts have caused and will continue to cause Cleveland Golf to suffer irreparable harm.
COUNT III – Trademark Counterfeiting
46. Plaintiff hereby realleges each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
47. Defendant has imported, copied, distributed, offered for sale, advertised, sold, and otherwise commercially used in interstate commerce and in this judicial district, counterfeit golf clubs bearing marks identical or substantially indistinguishable from the Cleveland Golf Trademarks.
48. Defendant is continuously infringing upon the Cleveland Golf Trademarks by using its spurious marks to sell, promote and advertise its counterfeit clubs.
49. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s actions, Cleveland Golf has suffered substantial damages.
50. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s acts of willful trademark counterfeiting, Cleveland Golf is entitled to recover, under 15 U.S.0 § 1117(c)(2), $2,000,000 per counterfeit mark per type of good or services sold, offered for sale, or distributed by Defendant.
COUNT IV – Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Under Georgia’s Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act
51. Plaintiff hereby realleges each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
52. By reason of the acts complained of herein, Defendant has unfairly competed with Cleveland Golf in violation of the Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (the “GUDTPA”), O.C.G.A. § 10-1-370 et seq.
53. Due to this unfair competition, Cleveland Golf has been irreparably harmed in its business.
54. The above-described conduct of the Defendant was fraudulent, malicious and oppressive. It was conducted with a willful disregard of the rights of the buying public and of Cleveland Golf.
55. As a direct result of Defendant’s deceptive trade practices, Cleveland Golf has been injured and damaged, and is, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 10-1-373, entitled to injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys’ fees.
COUNT V – Violation of the Georgia Anti-Dilution Statute
56. Plaintiff hereby realleges each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
57. Use by King Sports of the Cleveland Golf Trademarks in connection with the misrepresentations to customers has lessened, and will continue to lessen, the capacity of Cleveland Golfs famous and distinctive trademarks to distinguish Cleveland Golfs products and services from those of others, and has diluted the distinctive quality of Cleveland Golfs famous and distinctive marks.
58. King Sports’ acts constitute trademark dilution in violation of Georgia’s Anti-Dilution Statute.
59. King Sports’ acts have caused and will continue to cause Cleveland Golf to suffer irreparable harm, and Cleveland Golf is entitled to injunctive relief pursuant to O.C.G.A. §10-1-451(b).
COUNT VI – Common Law Trademark Infringement
60. Plaintiff hereby realleges each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
61. King Sports’ activities have created and continue to create confusion by the public regarding the Cleveland Golf Trademarks and constitute common law trademark infringement.
62. Such conduct on King Sports’ part has caused and will continue to cause irreparable injury to Cleveland Golf, for which Cleveland Gol
f has no adequate remedy at law.
63. Such conduct on the King Sports’ part has caused and will continue to cause damages to Cleveland Golf.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Cleveland Golf requests that this Honorable Court:
A. That Defendant, and all its agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and all other persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction, be permanently enjoined from:1. importing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, copying, distributing, otherwise disposing of, or commercially using in commerce any of the Classic Tour Clones, the CG14 Clones, the CG11 Clones, the CG10 Clones, the 588 Clones, the HiBore Clones, the Launcher Clones, or the Halo Clones (collectively, the “Accused Products”);
2. using the Cleveland Golf Trademarks in commerce in such a way as to dilute the quality of those marks;
3. making any false designations of origin, descriptions, or representations, including that Cleveland Golf is the source of Defendant’s “clone” club heads, that the Accused Products, or any of Defendant’s “clone” club heads, are in some manner affiliated with Cleveland Golf or CLEVELAND GOLF® clubs, or that the Accused Products, or any of Defendant’s “clone” club heads, are the same as Cleveland Golfs clubs, or that the Accused Products, or any of Defendant’s “clone” club heads, are licensed by Cleveland Golf;
4. importing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, copying, distributing, otherwise disposing of, or commercially using counterfeit Cleveland Golf products; and
5. otherwise deceptively or unfairly competing with Cleveland Golf in the sale of golf clubs.B. That Cleveland Golf be awarded damages in an amount to be determined at trial based on the Defendant’s:
1. importing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, copying, distributing, otherwise disposing of, or commercially using in commerce any of the Accused Products;
2. using the Cleveland Golf Trademarks in commerce in such a way as to dilute the quality of those marks;
3. making any false designations of origin, descriptions, or representations, including that Cleveland Golf is the source of Defendant’s “clone” club heads, that the Accused Products, or any of Defendant’s “clone” club heads, are in some manner affiliated with Cleveland Golf or CLEVELAND GOLF® clubs, or that the Accused Products, or any of Defendant’s “clone” club heads, are the same as Cleveland Golfs clubs, or that the Accused Products, or any of Defendant’s “clone” club heads, are licensed by Cleveland Golf;
4. importing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, copying, distributing, otherwise disposing of, or commercially using counterfeit Cleveland Golf products; and
5. otherwise deceptively or unfairly competing with Cleveland Golf in the sale of golf clubs.C. That Cleveland Golf be awarded, in an amount to be determined at trial, under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) the total profits received by Defendant from, and any damages, including lost profits, sustained by Cleveland Golf as a result of Defendant’s sale of all products infringing on the Cleveland Golf Trademarks.
D. That Cleveland Golf be awarded, under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), enhanced damages, up to three times the amount found as actual damages for Defendant’s trademark infringement and false designation of origin, in an amount to be determined at trial.
E. That Cleveland Golf be awarded statutory damages of $2,000,000 per counterfeit mark per type of good or services sold, offered for sale, or distributed by Defendant under 15 U.S.0 § 1117(c)(2).
F. That Cleveland Golf be awarded damages sustained as a result of Defendant’s unfair competition in an amount to be determined at trial.
G. That Defendant be ordered to deliver to Cleveland Golf for destruction the Accused Products and all other products in Defendant’s possession that infringe upon the Cleveland Golf Trademarks or result in unfair competition by Defendant against Cleveland Golf.
H. That Defendant be ordered to make a written report to be filed with the Court within thirty (30) days, detailing its manner of compliance with the requested injunctive relief.
I. That this Court find that this case is an exceptional case, and that Cleveland Golf be awarded its reasonable attorney fees and costs of the suit under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a).
J. That Cleveland Golf be awarded its reasonable attorney fees and costs of the suit under O.C.G.A. § 10-1-373.
K. That Cleveland Golf be awarded prejudgment interest.
L. That Cleveland Golf be awarded such further relief as this Court deems fair, equitable, and proper.
Interesting! The actual Complaint may be viewed in its entirety David Dawsey – Keeping an Eye on Golf Trademark Lawsuits
PS – click HERE to read more posts about intellectual property litigation in the golf industry