Procom Heating v. GHP Group

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY BOWLING GREEN DIVISION (Electronically Filed) PROCOM
HEATING, INC. A Delaware Corporation 660 West Lambert Road Brea, CA, 92821 Plaintiff vs. GHP GROUP, INC. An Illinois Corporation 6440 W. Howard Street Niles, IL 60714 SERVE: Kentucky Secretary of State (Pursuant to KRS 410.254) 152 State Capitol 700 Capital Avenue Frankfort, KY 40601 Defendant ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Civil Action No.: 1:13cv-163-M Judge: Chief Judge Joseph McKinley Magistrate Judge:
COMPLAINT (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED) Plaintiff, ProCom Heating, Inc. (ProCom or Plaintiff), by counsel, for its Complaint against Defendant, GHP Group, Inc. (GHP or Defendant), alleges as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. This is an action for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(a); false
designation of origin under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a); false advertising under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a); and unfair competition under Kentucky common law. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, enhanced damages (including treble damages), attorneys fees, costs, and permanent injunctive relief preventing continuing acts of infringement, false designation of origin and false advertising on the part of Defendant.
THE PARTIES 2. ProCom is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, with
its corporate headquarters in Brea, California and its primary manufacturing facility located at 2800 Griffin Drive, Bowling Green, KY 42101. 3. Upon information and belief, GHP is an Illinois Corporation with its principal
place of business located at 6440 W. Howard Street, Nile, Illinois 60714. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction by virtue of the fact that this is a civil
action under the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. 1 et seq., and the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq., jurisdiction being conferred in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 1121 and 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1332 and 1338(a) and (b); and with respect to certain claims, supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C 1367. 5. The Court also has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)
because the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. 6. GHP, upon information and belief, transacts business nationwide, including
within the Commonwealth of Kentucky and including within this judicial district. Further, GHPs infringement of the Patents in Suit is occurring throughout the United States, including within the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and including within this judicial district. Specifically, infringing products are being sold and/or offered for sale at retail outlets in this judicial district. 7. Further, upon information and belief GHP, regularly solicits and conducts
business in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, derives substantial revenue from goods sold in Kentucky, and has contracted to supply goods in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, namely, the products that are involved in the present lawsuit. In addition, GHP has caused tortious injury in
the Commonwealth of Kentucky through actions taken in Kentucky and/or has caused tortious injury in Kentucky by actions taken outside the Commonwealth of Kentucky. 8. On information and belief, venue is properly laid in this Court under 28 U.S.C.
1391(b) and (c), and/or 28 U.S.C. 1400(b), because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred within this District. FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS The Plaintiff and the Patents in Suit 9. ProCom manufactures and sells a variety of high quality heating and hearth
products, including, inter alia, gas fire places, heaters and electric fire places. ProComs philosophy of vertical integration of parts and components allows it to produce affordable high quality products and to support the aftermarket needs of customers. 10. ProCom is the leading manufacturer of vent-free appliances in the United States
and has products sold in retail outlets throughout the United States, including within Kentucky. 11. One of ProComs most successful products over the years has been its vent free,
dual fuel fireplaces sold under the ProCom brand. ProComs vent-free fireplaces are sold in a compact size (see Model No.s EDP200T2-JA, EDP200T2-MO, BD23TCC-7-HC and BD23TCC-2-LO), an intermediate size (see Model No.s FBD28TCC-M-HC and FBD28TCCM-MO), and a full size (see Model No.s FBD400TCC-M-HC and FBD400RTCC-M-MO). 12. For many years, since at least as early as 2008, ProCom has sold its dual fuel
fireplaces through, inter alia, the large retail chain, Lowes. ProCom enters into a yearly contract with Lowes for the supply of its products. Since 2008, the dual fuel fireplace products provided to Lowes for sale at Lowes retail outlets constituted approximately $6 million in annual revenue to ProCom.
13.
This action involves, in part, allegations of infringement of the following U.S.
Patents, which relate to ProComs vent free, dual fuel fireplaces: U.S. Patent No. 7,967,006 entitled Dual Fuel Heater (the 006 Patent); U.S. Patent No. 7,967,007 entitled Heater Configured to Operate With a First or Second Fuel (the 007 Patent); U.S. Patent No. 7,434,447 entitled Oxygen Depletion Sensor (the 447 Patent); U.S. Patent No. 8,317,511 entitled Control Valves for Heaters and Fireplace Devices (the 511 Patent); U.S. Patent No. 7,730,765 entitled Oxygen Depletion Sensor (the 765 Patent); U.S. Patent No. 8,281,781 entitled Dual Fuel Heater (the 781 Patent); and U.S. Patent No. 8,516,878 entitled Dual Fuel Heater (the 878 Patent)(collectively, the Patents in Suit). 14. ProCom is the owner of, and claims rights under, the 006 Patent, which was
issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) on June 28, 2011 in the name of inventor, David Deng. The 006 Patent issued from application serial no. 12/581,727 having a filing date of October 19, 2009. A copy of the 006 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated by reference herein. 15. The inventor assigned his rights, title and interest in and to the 006 Patent to
Continental Appliances, Inc. D.B.A. ProCom (Continental), which Assignment was duly recorded in Assignment Records of the PTO on October 4, 2011 at Reel No. 027011 Frame No.0525. By virtue of that assignment, the 006 Patent was issued to Continental. Continental subsequently assigned its rights, title and interest in and to the 006 Patent to ProCom, which Assignment was duly recorded in Assignment Records of the PTO on September 25, 2013 at Reel No. 031281 Frame No. 0761. By virtue of that assignment, ProCom is the record owner of the 006 Patent. 16. By virtue of its ownership of the 006 Patent, ProCom has the right to exclude
others from making, using, selling or offering to sell, or importing into the United States
embodiments of the inventions claimed in the 006 Patent.
ProCom has not authorized
Defendant to make, use, sell or offer to sell, or import into the United States any invention under the 006 Patent. 17. ProCom is the owner of, and claims rights under, the 007 Patent, which was
issued by the PTO on June 28, 2011 in the name of inventor, David Deng. The 007 Patent issued from application serial no. 12/724,353 having a filing date of March 15, 2010. A copy of the 007 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 and incorporated by reference herein. 18. The inventor assigned his rights, title and interest in and to the 007 Patent to
Continental Appliances, Inc. D.B.A. ProCom, which Assignment was duly recorded in Assignment Records of the PTO on October 4, 2011 at Reel No. 027011 Frame No. 0461. By virtue of that assignment, the 007 Patent was issued to Continental. Continental subsequently assigned its rights, title and interest in and to the 007 Patent to ProCom, which Assignment was duly recorded in Assignment Records of the PTO on September 25, 2013 at Reel No. 031281 Frame No. 0761. By virtue of that assignment, ProCom is the record owner of the 007 Patent. 19. By virtue of its ownership of the 007 Patent, ProCom has the right to exclude
others from making, using, selling or offering to sell, or importing into the United States embodiments of the inventions claimed in the 007 Patent. ProCom has not authorized Defendant to make, use, sell or offer to sell, or import into the United States any invention under the 007 Patent. 20. ProCom is the owner of, and claims rights under, the 447 Patent, which was
issued by the PTO on October 14, 2008 in the name of inventor, David Deng. The 447 Patent issued from application serial no. 11/443,492 having a filing date of May 30, 2006. A copy of the 447 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 3 and incorporated by reference herein.
21.
The inventor assigned his rights, title and interest in and to the 447 Patent to
Continental Appliances, Inc. D.B.A. ProCom, which Assignment was duly recorded in Assignment Records of the PTO on June 8, 2010 at Reel No. 024505 Frame No. 0021. By virtue of that assignment, the 447 Patent was issued to Continental Appliances, Inc. Continental subsequently assigned its rights, title and interest in and to the 447 Patent to ProCom, which Assignment was duly recorded in Assignment Records of the PTO on September 25, 2013 at Reel No. 031281 Frame No. 0761. By virtue of that assignment, ProCom is the record owner of the 447 Patent. 22. By virtue of its ownership of the 447 Patent, ProCom has the right to exclude
others from making, using, selling or offering to sell, or importing into the United States embodiments of the inventions claimed in the 447 Patent. ProCom has not authorized
issued by the PTO on November 27, 2012 in the name of inventor, David Deng. The 511 Patent issued from application serial no. 12/644,997 having a filing date of December 22, 2009. A copy of the 511 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 4 and incorporated by reference herein. 24. The inventor assigned his rights, title and interest in and to the 511 Patent to
ProCom, which Assignment was duly recorded in Assignment Records of the PTO on September 25, 2013 at Reel No. 031281 Frame No. 0761. By virtue of that assignment, ProCom is the record owner of the 511 Patent. 25. By virtue of its ownership of the 511 Patent, ProCom has the right to exclude
issued by the PTO on June 8, 2010 in the name of inventor, David Deng. The 765 Patent issued from application serial no. 12/236,347 having a filing date of September 23, 2008. A copy of the 765 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 5 and incorporated by reference herein. 27. The inventor assigned his rights, title and interest in and to the 765 Patent to
Continental Appliances, Inc. D.B.A. ProCom, which Assignment was duly recorded in Assignment Records of the PTO on June 8, 2010 at Reel No. 024505 Frame No. 0021. By virtue of that assignment, the 765 Patent was issued to Continental Appliances, Inc. Continental subsequently assigned its rights, title and interest in and to the 765 Patent to ProCom, which Assignment was duly recorded in Assignment Records of the PTO on September 25, 2013 at Reel No. 031281 Frame No. 0761. By virtue of that assignment, ProCom is the record owner of the 765 Patent. 28. By virtue of its ownership of the 765 Patent, ProCom has the right to exclude
issued by PTO on October 9, 2012 in the name of inventor, David Deng. The 781 Patent issued from application serial no. 13/169,963 having a filing date of June 27, 2011. A copy of the 781 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 6 and incorporated by reference herein.
30.
The inventor assigned his rights, title and interest in and to the 781 Patent to
Continental Appliances, Inc. D.B.A. ProCom, which Assignment was duly recorded in Assignment Records of the PTO on October 4, 2011 at Reel No. 027011 Frame No. 0525. By virtue of that assignment, the 781 Patent was issued to Continental Appliances, Inc. as shown on the face of the patent. Continental subsequently assigned its rights, title and interest in and to the 781 Patent to ProCom, which Assignment was duly recorded in Assignment Records of the PTO on September 25, 2013 at Reel No. 031281 Frame No. 0761. By virtue of that assignment, ProCom is the record owner of the 781 Patent. 31. By virtue of its ownership of the 781 Patent, ProCom has the right to exclude
issued by the PTO on August 27, 2013 in the name of inventor, David Deng. The 878 Patent issued from application serial no. 12/795,472 having a filing date of June 7, 2010. A copy of the 878 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 7 and incorporated by reference herein. 33. The inventor assigned his rights, title and interest in and to the 878 Patent to
Continental Appliances, Inc. Continental subsequently assigned its rights, title and interest in and to the 878 Patent to ProCom, which Assignment was duly recorded in Assignment Records of the PTO on September 25, 2013 at Reel No. 031281 Frame No. 0761. By virtue of that assignment, ProCom is the record owner of the 878 Patent. 34. By virtue of its ownership of the 878 Patent, ProCom has the right to exclude
others from making, using, selling or offering to sell, or importing into the United States
embodiments of the inventions claimed in the 878 Patent. ProCom has not authorized Defendant to make, use, sell or offer to sell, or import into the United States any invention under the 878 Patent. The Defendant and the Infringing Products 35. Upon information and belief, GHP is a manufacturer of electric and gas
fireplaces, fireplace glass doors, fireplace accessories, electric log sets, portable heating products and barbeque grill products. GHP is a direct competitor of ProCom. 36. Upon information and belief, GHP is relatively new to the gas fireplace market
(GHP previously manufactured only electric fireplaces) and recently began manufacturing a vent-free, dual fuel, gas fireplace under its Pleasant Hearth brand. GHPs dual fuel fireplace competes directly with ProComs and, like ProCom, GHP manufactures its dual-fuel fireplace in three sizes: compact (see GHP Model VFF-PH20D); intermediate (see GHP Model VFFPH26D); and full (see GHP Model VFF-PH32DR) (collectively, Defendants Dual Fuel Fireplaces). Defendants Packaging of Defendants Dual Fuel Fireplaces 37. In connection with the product packaging of the Defendants Dual Fuel
Fireplaces, GHP incorporates the term or designation Made in the USA and an image of the U.S. flag. Excerpts from the GHP fireplace packaging are depicted below:
38.
Full photographs of the packaging of the Defendants Dual Fuel Fireplaces are
attached hereto as collective Exhibit 8. 39. Despite its representations that Defendants Dual Fuel Fireplaces are Made in the
USA, upon information and belief, all or virtually all of the parts of the Defendants Dual Fuel Fireplaces are manufactured and/or assembled outside of the United States. 40. Indeed, the following pictures depict selected parts of the Defendants Dual Fuel
Fireplaces indicating that the part at issue was manufactured outside of the United States:
10
41.
Full photographs of the Infringing Fireplace parts referenced above are attached
hereto as collective Exhibit 9. Lowes Terminates Its Contract with ProCom for the Winter 2013/2014 Line 42. In and around January, 2013, representatives of ProCom met with representatives
of Lowes to discuss the upcoming winter line of ProCom products that would be sold in Lowes retail outlets including ProComs patented, dual fuel, gas fireplaces. 43. It was at this time that ProCom was informed that Lowes was no longer going to
carry ProComs dual fuel fireplaces for the coming, 2013/2014 season. Instead, Lowes was going to carry the Defendants Dual Fuel Fireplaces.
11
44.
Upon information and belief, the Defendants Dual Fuel Fireplaces first appeared
for sale at Lowes, including but not limited to the Lowes located at 150 American Lane, Bowling Green, Kentucky 42104, on or about August 15, 2013, and are available for sale at that location as of the filing of this Complaint. 45. Upon information and belief, the Defendants Dual Fuel Fireplaces first appeared
for sale on the Lowes website, located at http://www.lowes.com, on August 16, 2013.
COUNT I Infringement of the 006 Patent (35 U.S.C. 271(a)) 46. forth herein. 47. Upon information and belief, GHP, without permission or license from ProCom, ProCom repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 45 of this Complaint as if set
has unlawfully and wrongfully made, sold or offered for sale, and unlawfully imported, and is now making, selling or offering for sale, and unlawfully importing, in direct competition with ProCom within the United States, including within this judicial district, the Defendants Dual Fuel Fireplaces. 48. On information and belief, Defendants Dual Fuel Fireplaces contain, embody and
employ the invention(s) described and claimed in the 006 Patent, in violation of ProComs exclusive rights thereunder, and infringe at least one claim of ProComs 006 Patent, including but not necessarily limited to claim 1, to the great loss and injury to ProCom. 49. Upon information and belief, GHPs unlawful making, selling or offering for sale,
or contributing to the making, using, selling or offering to sell, or unlawfully inducing others to make, use, sell or offer to sell, the Defendants Dual Fuel Fireplaces within the United States including within this judicial district constitutes infringement of the 006 Patent as aforesaid.
12
50.
Upon information and belief, GHP has derived, received, and will unless
restrained and/or enjoined derive and receive from the aforesaid infringement of the 006 Patent, substantial gains, profits, and advantages, including gains profits and advantages from regular making and sales of infringing devices within this judicial district, in amounts to be proven at trial. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid infringement, ProCom has been, and will be, greatly damaged and has been, and will be, deprived and prevented from receiving, if such further infringement is not restrained and enjoined by this Court, all the gains and profits to which ProCom is lawfully entitled and which they would have derived and received, but for the aforesaid infringement by GHP. COUNT II Infringement of the 007 Patent (35 U.S.C. 271(a)) 51. forth herein. 52. On information and belief, Defendants Dual Fuel Fireplaces contain, embody and ProCom repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 50 of this Complaint as if set
or contributing to the making, using, selling or offering to sell, or unlawfully inducing others to make, use, sell or offer to sell, the Defendants Dual Fuel Fireplaces within the United States including within this judicial district constitutes infringement of the 007 Patent as aforesaid. 54. Upon information and belief, GHP has derived, received, and will unless
restrained and/or enjoined derive and receive from the aforesaid infringement of the 007 Patent, substantial gains, profits, and advantages, including gains profits and advantages from regular
13
making and sales of infringing devices within this judicial district, in amounts to be proven at trial. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid infringement, ProCom has been, and will be, greatly damaged and has been, and will be, deprived and prevented from receiving, if such further infringement is not restrained and enjoined by this Court, all the gains and profits to which ProCom is lawfully entitled and which they would have derived and received, but for the aforesaid infringement by GHP. COUNT III Infringement of the 447 Patent (35 U.S.C. 271(a)) 55. forth herein. 56. On information and belief, Defendants Dual Fuel Fireplaces contain, embody and ProCom repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 54 of this Complaint as if set
restrained and/or enjoined derive and receive from the aforesaid infringement of the 447 Patent, substantial gains, profits, and advantages, including gains profits and advantages from regular making and sales of infringing devices within this judicial district, in amounts to be proven at trial. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid infringement, ProCom has been, and will be, greatly damaged and has been, and will be, deprived and prevented from receiving, if such
14
further infringement is not restrained and enjoined by this Court, all the gains and profits to which ProCom is lawfully entitled and which they would have derived and received, but for the aforesaid infringement by GHP. COUNT IV Infringement of the 511 Patent (35 U.S.C. 271(a)) 59. forth herein. 60. On information and belief, Defendants Dual Fuel Fireplaces contain, embody and ProCom repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 58 of this Complaint as if set
restrained and/or enjoined derive and receive from the aforesaid infringement of the 511 Patent, substantial gains, profits, and advantages, including gains profits and advantages from regular making and sales of infringing devices within this judicial district, in amounts to be proven at trial. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid infringement, ProCom has been, and will be, greatly damaged and has been, and will be, deprived and prevented from receiving, if such further infringement is not restrained and enjoined by this Court, all the gains and profits to which ProCom is lawfully entitled and which they would have derived and received, but for the aforesaid infringement by GHP.
15
COUNT V Infringement of the 765 Patent (35 U.S.C. 271(a)) 63. forth herein. 64. On information and belief, Defendants Dual Fuel Fireplaces contain, embody and ProCom repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 62 of this Complaint as if set
employ the invention(s) described and claimed in the 765 Patent, in violation of ProComs exclusive rights thereunder, and infringe at least one claim of ProComs 765 Patent, including but not limited to claim 1, to the great loss and injury to ProCom. 65. Upon information and belief, GHPs unlawful making, selling or offering for sale,
16
COUNT VI Infringement of the 781 Patent (35 U.S.C. 271(a)) 67. forth herein. 68. On information and belief, Defendants Dual Fuel Fireplaces contain, embody and ProCom repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 66 of this Complaint as if set
17
COUNT VII Infringement of the 878 Patent (35 U.S.C. 271(a)) 71. forth herein. 72. On information and belief, Defendants Dual Fuel Fireplaces contain, embody and ProCom repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 70 of this Complaint as if set
18
COUNT VIII Willful Patent Infringement (35 U.S.C. 284) 75. forth herein. 76. Upon information and belief, GHP had notice and knowledge of the Patents, but ProCom repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 74 of this Complaint as if set
despite such notice and knowledge has deliberately made, used, sold, offered for sale and/or imported the Defendants Dual Fuel Fireplaces, and thereby has infringed and continues to infringe, has induced others to infringe and continues to induce others to infringe, and/or has contributed to the infringement and continues to contribute to infringement of the Patents in Suit. 77. Because GHP has infringed or induced others to infringe or contributed to the
infringement of the Patents in Suit despite notice and knowledge thereof, GHPs infringement, inducement of infringement and/or contributing to the infringement of the Patents in Suit has been, and continues to be, willful, deliberate, and in conscious disregard for the rights of ProCom under the Patents in Suit. COUNT IX False Designation of Origin (15 U.S.C. 1125(a)) 78. forth herein. 79. The aforesaid acts of GHP, including but not limited to its use of the designation ProCom repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 77 of this Complaint as if set
Made in the USA and/or depiction of the U.S. flag on product packaging, in interstate commerce, constitutes a false designation of origin and/or a false or misleading description of fact which is likely to cause confusion or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the origin of its goods within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(1)(A).
19
80.
Such conduct is unfair competition in violation of the Lanham Act as it
constitutes a false description or designation of origin of such goods, services and commercial activities by falsely identifying them as manufactured in and/or consisting of parts manufactured in and/or assembled in the United States when all or virtually all of the Defendants Dual Fuel Fireplaces were manufactured outside of the United States. 81. 82. The aforesaid acts of GHP have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Upon information and belief, the aforesaid acts of GHP were knowing, deliberate,
willful, intended to cause mistake or to deceive, and in disregard of ProComs rights. 83. GHPs continued unauthorized use of the designation Made in the USA and/or
depiction of the U.S. flag on product packaging, in interstate commerce, for goods which compete with ProComs goods in commerce, infringes upon ProComs goodwill, reputation, and rights; creates a likelihood of injury to ProComs business reputation; causes a likelihood of confusion as to the origin of GHPs goods; and otherwise unfairly competes with ProCom. If such actions are continued, they will cause irreparable and substantial damage to ProCom and will result in GHP being unjustly enriched and unlawfully deriving profits and gains. 84. GHPs aforementioned actions have caused and will continue to cause irreparable
injury to ProCom if GHP is not restrained by this Court from violations of ProComs rights. ProCom has no adequate remedy at law and therefore seeks injunctive relief from this Court under 15 U.S.C. 1116 and such monetary relief to which it is entitled pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117, including treble actual damages, reasonable attorneys fees and costs. COUNT X False Advertising (15 U.S.C. 1125(a)) 85. forth herein. ProCom repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 84 of this Complaint as if set
20
86.
The aforesaid acts of GHP, including but not limited to its use of the designation
Made in the USA and/or depiction of the U.S. flag on product packaging and/or advertising for products sold in interstate commerce, constitutes a false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or a false or misleading representation of fact, which misrepresents the nature, qualities, and/or geographic origin of GHPs goods, services, or commercial activities within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(1)(B). 87. Such representations and/or descriptions tend to mislead and/or deceive
consumers regarding the nature, quality and/or geographic origin of GHPs products. 88. Such representations and/or descriptions are material to and/or likely to influence
a consumers decision to purchase GHPs products and/or a retailers decision to supply or sell GHPs products to consumers. 89. GHPs false advertising in connection with its sale and offer for sale the
Defendants Dual Fuel Fireplaces is damaging to ProComs goodwill and reputation; creates a likelihood of injury to ProComs business and product reputation; and otherwise unfairly competes with ProCom. If such actions are continued by GHP, it will cause irreparable and substantial damage to ProCom and consumers and will result in GHP being unjustly enriched and unlawfully deriving profits and gains. 90. GHPs aforementioned actions have caused and will continue to cause irreparable
injury to ProCom if GHP is not restrained by this Court from violations of ProComs rights. ProCom has no adequate remedy at law and therefore seeks injunctive relief from this Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1116 and such monetary relief to which it is entitled pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117, including treble actual damages and reasonable attorneys fees.
21
COUNT XI Common Law Unfair Competition 91. forth herein. 92. The aforesaid acts of GHP, including but not limited to its use of the designation ProCom repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 90 of this Complaint as if set
Made in the USA and/or depiction of the U.S. flag on product packaging and/or advertising for products sold in interstate commerce, and in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, constitutes unfair competition under Kentucky common law. 93. competition. 94. Such conduct by GHP was perpetrated with malice toward ProCom and with Such conduct by GHP, directed to ProCom, was and is beyond normal and fair
intent to injure ProCom in its business and/or reputation. 95. Such conduct is beyond and outside the ordinary course of business competition
and lacks common business integrity and thereby is a violation of the common law of Kentucky. 96. Such conduct is of such an improper and unfair nature that it would be viewed by
a reasonably prudent businessman with a critical and suspicious eye, and thereby is a violation of the common law of Kentucky. 97. As a further direct and proximate result of this wrongful conduct, ProCom has
suffered damages in an amount that is not presently ascertainable but which shall be proved at the time of trial. 98. As a direct and proximate result of GHPs wrongful conduct, ProCom is suffering
immediate and irreparable injury, harm and damage, and will continue to suffer injury, harm and damage, unless GHP is restrained from its present conduct. ProCom has no adequate remedy at law, and no previous application for injunctive relief has been refused by any court.
22
99.
Further, the foregoing conduct of GHP was/is knowing, intentional and deliberate,
committed in utter disregard of the rights of ProCom, thereby rendering GHP liable to ProCom for punitive and exemplary damages. COUNT XII Injunctive Relief 100. forth herein. 101. Upon a finding that GHPs dual fuel fireplaces infringe the Patents, ProCom is ProCom repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 99 of this Complaint as if set
entitled to an order under 35 U.S.C. 283 permanently enjoining GHP from making, selling or offering for sale, and unlawfully importing the Defendants Dual Fuel Fireplaces into the United States. COUNT XIII Accounting 102. forth herein. 103. ProCom demands an accounting of all earnings achieved by GHP as a ProCom repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 101 of this Complaint as if set
consequence of GHPs manufacture, sale and use of GHPs dual fuel fireplaces which results in infringement of the Patents.
RELIEF REQUESTED WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, ProCom Heating, Inc. requests a judgment in its favor and against Defendant, GHP Group, Inc. ordering: A. That Judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant on Counts I
through XIII of the Complaint; B. That Defendant, and each of its officers, directors, agents, servants, employees
and representatives, and those persons in active concert or participation with them or any of 23
them, be permanently enjoined and restrained from directly or indirectly making or causing to be made, offering for sale, selling or causing to be sold, or using or causing to be used any product in accordance with or embodying any invention(s) set forth and claimed in the Patents in Suit, including Defendants Dual Fuel Fireplaces; C. That Defendant be directed to account to Plaintiff for all gains, profits and
advantages realized by Defendant from its manufacturing and marketing of Defendants Dual Fuel Fireplaces resulting in infringement of the Patents in Suit and unlawful use and practice of the invention(s) patented in and by the Patents in Suit, from the beginning of marketing the Defendants Dual Fuel Fireplaces, and other products or necessary accessories sold in connection therewith, and other products which infringe the Patents in Suit and accessories sold therewith, up to and including the time of trial; D. That, in addition, Defendant be ordered to pay to Plaintiff such damages as have
been sustained by Defendant as a result of said infringement by Defendant up to the time of trial; E. That Plaintiff recover its damages sustained as a result of Defendants false
designation of origin, false advertising and unfair competition under federal, state and common law, together with an accounting of Defendants profits arising from such activities, and that the Court exercise its discretion and enter a judgment for such additional sums as the Court shall find to be just, according to the egregious nature of the acts of Defendant; F. That Defendant be required to recall from any and all channels of trade, any and
all packaging, advertising or promotional materials using the Made in the USA designation and/or an image of an American flag, in connection with the Defendants Dual Fuel Fireplaces, and to take affirmative steps to dispel any false suggestion that the Defendants Dual Fuel Fireplaces are made in the United States, including, but not limited to, all necessary and appropriate corrective advertising measures;
24
G. 1117(a); H. I. J. and proper.
That Plaintiff recovers its reasonable attorneys fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
That Plaintiff recovers its costs and disbursements herein; That Plaintiff recovers prejudgment interest; and That Plaintiff be awarded such other and further relief as the Court may deem just
PLAINTIFF HEREBY DEMANDS A TRIAL BY JURY FOR ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE
Dated: September 27, 2013
Respectfully submitted, __s/James R. Higgins, Jr._________ James R. Higgins, Jr. (KY Bar No. 31790) John F. Salazar (KY Bar No. 85460) Robert Theuerkauf (KY Bar No. 89068) Brian McGraw (KY Bar No. 90447) MIDDLETON REUTLINGER, P.S.C. 401 South Fourth Street Suite 2600 Louisville KY 40202 Phone: (502) 584-1135 Fax: (502) 561-0442 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF PROCOM HEATING, INC.
25

Procom Heating v. GHP Group

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Procom Heating v. GHP Group

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Procom Heating v. GHP Group

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY BOWLING GREEN DIVISION (Electronically Filed) PROCOM

This action involves, in part, allegations of infringement of the following U.S.

embodiments of the inventions claimed in the 006 Patent.

ProCom has not authorized

Such conduct is unfair competition in violation of the Lanham Act as it

G. 1117(a); H. I. J. and proper.

That Plaintiff recovers its reasonable attorneys fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C.

PLAINTIFF HEREBY DEMANDS A TRIAL BY JURY FOR ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE

Dated: September 27, 2013

You might also like