Case 1:22-cv-01596-RLY-MJD Document 1 Filed 08/11/22 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

OAKLEY, INC., a )
Washington Corporation, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 1:22-cv-1596
)
BATTER’S BOX TRAINING, LLC )
an Indiana Limited Liability Company, )
SHAWN LESSOR, Individually, and )
BRANDI PIERSON, Individually, )
)
Defendants. )

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Oakley, Inc. (“Oakley”) hereby sues Defendants Batter’s Box Training, LLC,

Shawn Lessor and Brandi Pierson (collectively “Defendants”), and alleges:

INTRODUCTION

1. This case concerns the violation of the intellectual property rights of Oakley by

Defendants’ sale of sunglasses in Indiana bearing counterfeits of Oakley’s trademarks (the

“Counterfeit Merchandise”). Through this action, Oakley seeks to address Defendants’

counterfeiting activities, as well as to protect unknowing consumers from purchasing low quality

and potentially dangerous Counterfeit Merchandise. Oakley has been and continues to be

irreparably harmed through consumer confusion and tarnishment of its valuable trademarks as a

result of Defendants’ unlawful actions.

04582663-1
Case 1:22-cv-01596-RLY-MJD Document 1 Filed 08/11/22 Page 2 of 11 PageID #: 2

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and over the subject matter of this action

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338 because it involves a claim arising under the Lanham Act.

3. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because Defendants either reside,

have their principal place of business, and/or continue to infringe Oakley’s famous trademarks in

this Judicial District.

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff, Oakley, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the

State of Washington, having a principal place of business in Foothill Ranch, California. Oakley

is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Luxottica Group S.p.A.

5. Defendant, Batter’s Box, LLC (“Batter’s Box”) is a limited liability company

organized and existing under the laws of the State of Indiana, having a principal place of business

at 3510 S. Keystone Avenue, Indianapolis, Indiana 46227. Batter’s Box is directly engaging in

the promotion and sale of counterfeit products within this Judicial District.

6. Defendant, Shawn Lessor is a resident of Johnson County, Indiana. Lessor is a

principal owner, officer, manager and director of Batter’s Box and is one of the moving forces

behind Batter Box’s operations. Lessor is directly engaging in the promotion and sale of

counterfeit products within this Judicial District.

7. Defendant, Brandi Pierson is a resident of Marion County, Indiana. Pierson is a

principal owner, officer, manager and director of Batter’s Box and is one of the moving forces

behind Batter Box’s operations. Pierson is directly engaging in the promotion and sale of

counterfeit products within this Judicial District.

04582663-1

2
Case 1:22-cv-01596-RLY-MJD Document 1 Filed 08/11/22 Page 3 of 11 PageID #: 3

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. The World-Famous Oakley Brand and Products.

8. Oakley is an internationally recognized manufacturer, distributor and retailer of

sports eyewear, apparel, footwear, outerwear, jackets, accessories and other related merchandise.

9. Oakley products are distributed and sold to consumers through its own Oakley O

stores, its affiliate's sun retail stores, authorized retailers, and via its internet website:

www.oakley.com throughout the United States, including Indiana.

10. Oakley has used a variety of legally protected trademarks for many years on and in

connection with the advertisement and sale of its Oakley products, including but not limited to,

those detailed in this Complaint.

11. Oakley has expended substantial time, money, and other resources in developing,

advertising, and otherwise promoting the Oakley trademarks. As a result, products bearing the

Oakley trademarks are widely recognized and exclusively associated by consumers, the public,

and the trade as being high quality products sourced from Oakley and have acquired strong

secondary meaning.

12. Oakley is the owner of the following United States Federal Trademark

Registrations (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Oakley Trademarks”), among others:

Registration Number Trademark Good and Services

For: protective and/or anti-glare eyewear,

namely sunglasses, goggles, spectacles and their
1,984,501 parts and accessories, namely replacement
lenses, ear stems, frames, nose pieces and foam
strips in class 9.

04582663-1

3
Case 1:22-cv-01596-RLY-MJD Document 1 Filed 08/11/22 Page 4 of 11 PageID #: 4

For: protective and/or anti-glare eyewear,

namely sunglasses, goggles, spectacles and
1,980,039 their parts and accessories, namely replacement
lenses, ear stems, frames, nose pieces and foam
strips in class 9.

For: eyewear, namely, sunglasses, sports

goggles, spectacles and their parts and
4,407,749
RADARLOCK accessories, namely, replacement lenses, ear
stems, frames, nose pieces and foam strips in
class 9.

13. Oakley has long been manufacturing and selling in interstate commerce eyewear

under the Oakley Trademarks. These registrations are valid and subsisting and the majority are

incontestable.

14. The registration of the marks constitutes prima facie evidence of their validity and

conclusive evidence of Oakley's exclusive right to use the Oakley Trademarks in connection with

the goods identified therein and other commercial goods.

15. The registration of the marks also provides constructive notice to Defendants of

Oakley’s ownership and exclusive rights in the Oakley Trademarks.

16. The Oakley Trademarks qualify as famous marks, as that term is used in 15 U.S.C.

§ 1125(c)(1).

17. The Oakley Trademarks at issue in this case have been continuously used in

interstate commerce and have never been abandoned.

04582663-1

4
Case 1:22-cv-01596-RLY-MJD Document 1 Filed 08/11/22 Page 5 of 11 PageID #: 5

B. Defendants’ Infringing Conduct.

18. Defendant Batter Box engages in the sale of sunglasses and related accessories at

youth sports tournaments in Indiana, as well as through its own retail sporting goods store.

19. On May 15, 2022, Oakley’s investigator visited the Edinburg Sports Complex Park

located at 722 S. Eisenhower Dr, Edinburgh, IN 46124. During this visit, Oakley’s investigator

discovered that Defendants were offering for sale and selling sunglasses bearing logos and source-

identifying indicia that are imitations of one or more of the Oakley Trademarks.

20. Oakley’s investigator subsequently purchased one pair of sunglasses bearing

reproductions of one or more of the Oakley Trademarks for a total of $20.00. Below are

photographs depicting the sunglasses purchased from Defendants on March 15, 2022:

21. On June 17, 2022, Oakley’s investigator visited Defendant’s retail store located at

3510 S. Keystone Avenue, Indianapolis, Indiana 46227. During this visit, Oakley’s investigator

discovered that Defendants were offering for sale and selling sunglasses bearing logos and source-

identifying indicia that are imitations of one or more of the Oakley Trademarks.

22. Oakley’s investigator subsequently purchased one pair of sunglasses bearing

reproductions of one or more of the Oakley Trademarks for a total of $20.00. Below are

photographs depicting the sunglasses purchased from Defendants on June 17, 2022:
04582663-1

5
Case 1:22-cv-01596-RLY-MJD Document 1 Filed 08/11/22 Page 6 of 11 PageID #: 6

23. Oakley subsequently inspected the purchased items and determined that the

sunglasses bearing reproductions of Oakley’s Trademarks were in fact counterfeit products that

infringed one or more of the Oakley Trademarks. Specifically, the sunglasses contained markings

that were inconsistent with markings found on authentic Oakley trademarked sunglasses.

24. Defendants have no license, authority, or other permission from Oakley to use any

of the Oakley Trademarks in connection with the advertising, promoting, distributing, displaying,

selling, and/or offering for sale of the Counterfeit Merchandise.

25. The foregoing acts of Defendants are intended to cause, have caused, and are likely

to continue to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive consumers, the public, and the trade into

believing that Counterfeit Merchandise sold by Defendants are authentic or authorized products of

Oakley.

26. The activities of Defendants, as described above, are likely to create a false

impression and deceive consumers, the public, and the trade into believing that there is a

connection or association between the Counterfeit Merchandise and Oakley.

27. Defendants are well aware of the extraordinary fame and strength of the Oakley

brand, the Oakley Trademarks, and the incalculable goodwill associated therewith.

04582663-1

6
Case 1:22-cv-01596-RLY-MJD Document 1 Filed 08/11/22 Page 7 of 11 PageID #: 7

28. Defendant Lessor materially contributed to and facilitated the above-described

infringement of the Oakley Trademarks by having permitted and continuing to permit the offering

for sale and the sale of counterfeit and infringing Oakley trademarked items through Batter’s Box

notwithstanding (i) Lessor’s knowledge of the offering for sale and the sale of the Counterfeit

Merchandise, (ii) Lessor’s constructive knowledge of the offering for sale and the sale of the

Counterfeit Merchandise or, alternatively, (iii) Lessors’s willful blindness to the offering for sale

and the sale of the Counterfeit Merchandise.

29. Defendant Pierson materially contributed to and facilitated the above-described

infringement of the Oakley Trademarks by having permitted and continuing to permit the offering

for sale and the sale of counterfeit and infringing Oakley trademarked items through Batter’s Box

notwithstanding (i) Pierson’s knowledge of the offering for sale and the sale of the Counterfeit

Merchandise, (ii) Pierson’s constructive knowledge of the offering for sale and the sale of the

Counterfeit Merchandise or, alternatively, (iii) Pierson’s willful blindness to the offering for sale

and the sale of the Counterfeit Merchandise.

30. Defendants Lessor and Pierson each had and continue to have the right and ability

to supervise the infringing conduct of Batter’s Box and each has a direct financial interest in the

infringing conduct; however, they continue to act with reckless disregard or willful blindness,

effectively condoning Batter Box’s unlawful activities.

31. Defendants’ knowing and deliberate hijacking of Oakley’s famous trademarks, and

sale of Counterfeit Merchandise have caused, and continues to cause, substantial and irreparable

harm to Oakley’s goodwill and reputation. In addition, the damage caused by Defendants is

especially severe because the Counterfeit Merchandise is cheap, inexpensive and inferior in quality

to authentic Oakley products.

04582663-1

7
Case 1:22-cv-01596-RLY-MJD Document 1 Filed 08/11/22 Page 8 of 11 PageID #: 8

32. The harm being caused to Oakley is irreparable and Oakley does not have an

adequate remedy at law. Oakley therefore seeks the entry of an injunction preventing the sale of

counterfeit Oakley products by Defendants.

COUNT I
Trademark Infringement
(15 U.S.C. § 1114)

33. Oakley repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 32

above.

34. This is a trademark infringement action against Defendants based on their

unauthorized use in commerce of counterfeit imitations of one or more of the Oakley Trademarks.

35. Defendants have distributed and sold products bearing counterfeits of one or more

of the Oakley Trademarks without Oakley’s permission.

36. The foregoing acts of Defendants are intended to cause, have caused, and are likely

to continue to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive consumers, the public, and the trade into

believing that Counterfeit Merchandise offered for sale and sold by Defendants are authentic or

authorized products of Oakley.

37. Defendants’ activities, as described above, are likely to create a false impression

and deceive consumers, the public, and the trade into believing that there is a connection or

association between the Counterfeit Merchandise and Oakley.

38. Defendants have willfully infringed Oakley’s Trademarks under Section 32 of the

Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114.

04582663-1

8
Case 1:22-cv-01596-RLY-MJD Document 1 Filed 08/11/22 Page 9 of 11 PageID #: 9

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment

in its favor and against Defendants Batter’s Box, LLC, Shawn Lessor and Brandi Pierson, jointly

and severally, as follows:

A. Finding that: Defendants have violated Section 32 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §

1114);

B. Granting an injunction, pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

15 U.S.C. § 1116, and 17 U.S.C. § 502, preliminarily and permanently restraining and enjoining

Defendants, their officers, agents, employees, tenants, vendors and attorneys, and all those persons

or entities in active concert or participation with her from:

1. manufacturing, importing, advertising, marketing, promoting, supplying,

distributing, offering for sale, or selling any products which bear the Oakley Trademarks, or any

other mark or design element substantially similar or confusing thereto, including, without

limitation, the Counterfeit Merchandise, and engaging in any other activity constituting an

infringement of any of Oakley’s rights in the Oakley Trademarks;

2. engaging in any other activity constituting unfair competition with Oakley,

or acts and practices that deceive consumers, the public, and/or trade, including without limitation,

the use of designations and design elements associated with Oakley;

C. Requiring Defendants to file with this Court and serve on Oakley within thirty (30)

days after entry of the injunction a report in writing under oath setting forth in detail the manner

and form in which Defendants have complied with the injunction;

D. Directing such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate to prevent

consumers, the public, and/or the trade from deriving any erroneous impression that any product

at issue in this action that has been manufactured, imported, advertised, marketed, promoted,
04582663-1

9
Case 1:22-cv-01596-RLY-MJD Document 1 Filed 08/11/22 Page 10 of 11 PageID #: 10

supplied, distributed, offered for sale, or sold by Defendants, has been authorized by Oakley, or is

related in any way with Oakley and/or its products;

E. Awarding Oakley statutory damages per counterfeit mark per type of good offered

for sale in accordance with Section 35 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1117);

F. Awarding Oakley its costs, investigatory fees, and expenses to the full extent

provided by Section 35 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1117);

G. Awarding Oakley pre-judgment interest on any monetary award made part of the

judgment against Defendant; and

H. Awarding Oakley such additional and further relief as the Court deems just and

proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Oakley, Inc. requests a

trial by jury in this matter.

04582663-1

10
Case 1:22-cv-01596-RLY-MJD Document 1 Filed 08/11/22 Page 11 of 11 PageID #: 11

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Zachary D. Prendergast

Zachary D. Prendergast (IN # 28175-15)
Robbins, Kelly, Patterson & Tucker, LPA
312 Elm Street, Suite 2200
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
(513) 721-3330 | (513) 721-5001 fax
[email protected]

-and-

David B. Rosemberg
(pro hac vice motion to be filed)
ROSEMBERG LAW
20200 W. Dixie Hwy., Ste. 602
Miami, FL 33180
Tel: 305.602.2008
Fax: 305.602.0225
[email protected]

Counsel for Plaintiff Oakley, Inc.

04582663-1

11