Case: 1:23-cv-00895 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/14/23 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

CASIO COMPUTER CO., LTD., )

) Case No. 23-cv-0895
Plaintiff, )
) Judge
v. )
)
THE INDIVIDUALS, CORPORATIONS, LIMITED )
LIABILITY COMPANIES, PARTNERSHIPS AND )
UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED )
ON SCHEDULE “A”, )
)
Defendants. )

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff CASIO COMPUTER CO., LTD. (“CASIO” or “Plaintiff”), through undersigned

counsel, hereby complains of the Partnerships, Unincorporated Associations and others identified

in Schedule A attached hereto (collectively, “Defendants”), and for its Complaint hereby alleges

as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over the claims in this action

pursuant to the provisions of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et. seq., 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a)-(b) and

28 U.S.C. § 1331.

2. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, and this Court may

properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendants since each of the Defendants directly

targets consumers in the United States, including Illinois, through at least the fully interactive

commercial Internet stores operating under the Defendant Domain Names and/or the Online

Marketplace Accounts identified in Schedule A attached hereto (collectively, the “Defendant

Internet Stores”). Specifically, Defendants are reaching out to do business with Illinois residents
 Case: 1:23-cv-00895 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/14/23 Page 2 of 14 PageID #:2

by operating one or more commercial, interactive Internet Stores through which Illinois residents

can purchase products infringing Plaintiff’s Patented Design, namely electronic calculators that

infringe U.S. Design Patent No. D580,478 entitled “Electronic Calculator” (the “Patented

Design”). Each of the Defendants has targeted sales from Illinois residents by operating online

stores that offer shipping to the United States, including Illinois, accepts payment in U.S. dollars

and, on information and belief, has sold products infringing Plaintiff’s Patented Design to

residents of Illinois. Each of the Defendants is committing tortious acts in Illinois, is engaging in

interstate commerce, and has wrongfully caused Plaintiff substantial injury in the State of

Illinois.

INTRODUCTION

3. This action has been filed by Plaintiff to combat e-commerce store operators who

trade upon Plaintiff’s reputation and goodwill by making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or

importing into the United States for subsequent sale or use the same unauthorized and unlicensed

products (collectively, the “Infringing Products”).

4. The Defendants create numerous Defendant Internet Stores and design them to

appear to be selling genuine Plaintiff’s products, while selling inferior imitations of Plaintiff’s

products. The Defendant Internet Stores share unique identifiers, such as design elements and

similarities of the infringing products offered for sale, establishing a logical relationship between

them and suggesting that Defendants’ illegal operations arise out of the same transaction,

occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences. Defendants attempt to avoid liability by going

to great lengths to conceal both their identities and the full scope and interworking of their illegal

infringing operation. Plaintiff is forced to file this action to combat Defendants’ infringement of

Plaintiff’s Patented Design, and to protect unknowing consumers from purchasing unauthorized

2
 Case: 1:23-cv-00895 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/14/23 Page 3 of 14 PageID #:3

products over the Internet. Plaintiff has been and continues to be irreparably damaged by

infringement of its valuable Patented Design by Defendants and seeks injunctive and monetary

relief.

5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over each Defendant, in that each Defendant

conducts business in Illinois and in this Judicial District, and the acts and events giving rise to

this lawsuit of which each Defendant stands accused were undertaken in Illinois and in this

Judicial District. In addition, each Defendant has offered to sell and ship infringing products into

this Judicial District.

THE PLAINTIFF

6. Plaintiff CASIO COMPUTER CO., LTD. is a Japanese corporation with a place

of business at 6-2, Hon-machi 1-chome, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo 151-8543, Japan.

7. CASIO COMPUTER CO., is in the business of developing, marketing, selling

and distributing CASIO products. CASIO is a Japanese multinational electronics manufacturing

corporation. It was founded in 1946, and in 1957 introduced the world's first entirely electric

compact calculator. CASIO is best known for its electronic (including scientific) calculators,

electronic musical instruments and affordable digital watches incorporating innovative

technology. Today, CASIO is most known for making durable and reliable electronic products.

CASIO COMPUTER CO., is the official source of CASIO products:

https://www.casio-intl.com/asia/en/calc

3
 Case: 1:23-cv-00895 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/14/23 Page 4 of 14 PageID #:4

8. The Patented Design sold under the CASIO name/mark is and has been the

subject of substantial and continuous marketing and promotion by Plaintiff (the “CASIO

Patented Design”). Plaintiff has and continues to widely market and promote the CASIO

Patented Design in the industry and to consumers. Plaintiff’s promotional efforts include — by

way of example, but not limitation — website and social media sites, and point of sale materials.

9. Among the purchasing public, genuine CASIO Products are instantly

recognizable as such. In the United States and around the world, the CASIO brand has come to

symbolize high quality, and CASIO Products are among the most recognizable electronic

calculators in the world.

10. CASIO Products are known for their distinctive patented design. This design is

broadly recognized by consumers. Electronic calculators embodying this design are associated

with the quality and innovation that the public has come to expect from CASIO Products.

11. Plaintiff is the lawful assignee of all right, title, and interest in and to the CASIO

Patented Design.

4
 Case: 1:23-cv-00895 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/14/23 Page 5 of 14 PageID #:5

12. Plaintiff has not granted a license or any other form of permission to Defendants

with respect to the CASIO Patented Design.

13. Plaintiff’s Patented Design is distinctive when applied to Plaintiff’s Products,

signifying to the purchaser that the products come from Plaintiff and are manufactured to

Plaintiff’s quality standards. Whether Plaintiff manufactures the products itself or licenses others

to do so, Plaintiff has ensured that products bearing its Patented Design are manufactured to the

highest quality standards. As such, the goodwill associated with the CASIO Patented Design is

incalculable and of inestimable value to Plaintiff.

14. Plaintiff has expended substantial time, money and other resources in developing,

advertising, and otherwise promoting its Patented Design. As a result, products bearing the

Patented Design are widely recognized and exclusively associated by consumers, the public and

the trade as being products sourced from Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s Products have become famous

worldwide.

THE DEFENDANTS

15. Defendants are individuals and business entities who, upon information and

belief, reside primarily in the People’s Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions.

Defendants conduct business throughout the United States, including within Illinois and in this

Judicial District, through the operation of fully interactive commercial websites and online

marketplaces operating under the Defendant Internet Stores. Each Defendant targets the United

States, including Illinois, and has offered to sell and, on information and belief, has sold and

continues to sell infringing CASIO Products to consumers within the United States, including

Illinois and in this Judicial District.

5
 Case: 1:23-cv-00895 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/14/23 Page 6 of 14 PageID #:6

THE DEFENDANTS’ UNLAWFUL CONDUCT

16. The success of the CASIO brand has resulted in its infringement. Plaintiff has

identified numerous domain names linked to fully interactive websites and marketplace listings

on platforms such as iOffer and eBay, Amazon, Alipay, Alibaba and DHgate, including the

Defendant Internet Stores, which were offering for sale, selling, and importing infringing CASIO

Products to consumers in this Judicial District and throughout the United States. Defendants

have persisted in creating the Defendant Internet Stores. Internet websites like the Defendant

Internet Stores are estimated to receive tens of millions of visits per year and to generate over

$135 billion in annual online sales. According to an intellectual property rights seizures statistics

report issued by Homeland Security, the manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP) of goods

seized by the U.S. government in fiscal year 2017 was over $1.21 billion. Internet websites like

the Defendant Internet Stores are also estimated to contribute to tens of thousands of lost jobs for

legitimate businesses and broader economic damages such as lost tax revenue every year.

17. Upon information and belief, Defendants facilitate sales by designing the

Defendant Internet Stores so that they appear to unknowing consumers to be authorized online

retailers, outlet stores, or wholesalers selling genuine CASIO Products. Many of the Defendant

Internet Stores look sophisticated and accept payment in U.S. dollars via credit cards, eBay,

Amazon, Alipay, Alibaba and DHgate. Defendant Internet Stores often include images and

design elements that make it very difficult for consumers to distinguish such infringing sites

from an authorized website. Defendants further perpetuate the illusion of legitimacy by offering

“live 24/7” customer service and using indicia of authenticity and security that consumers have

come to associate with authorized retailers, including the McAfee® Security, VeriSign®, Visa®,

MasterCard®, and PayPal® logos.

6
 Case: 1:23-cv-00895 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/14/23 Page 7 of 14 PageID #:7

18. Plaintiff has not licensed or authorized Defendants to use the CASIO Patented

Design, and none of the Defendants are authorized retailers of genuine CASIO Products.

19. Upon information and belief, Defendants also deceive unknowing consumers by

using the CASIO Patented Design without authorization within the content, text, and/or meta tags

of their websites to attract various search engines crawling the Internet looking for websites

relevant to consumer searches for CASIO Products. Additionally, upon information and belief,

Defendants use other unauthorized search engine optimization (SEO) tactics and social media

spamming so that the Defendant Internet Store listings show up at or near the top of relevant search

results and misdirect consumers searching for genuine CASIO Products. Further, Defendants

utilize similar illegitimate SEO tactics to propel new domain names to the top of search results

after others are shut down. As such, Plaintiff also seeks to disable Defendant Domain Names

owned by Defendants that are the means by which the Defendants could continue to sell

infringing CASIO Products.

20. Defendants go to great lengths to conceal their identities and often use multiple

fictitious names and addresses to register and operate their massive network of Defendant Internet

Stores. For example, many of Defendants’ names and physical addresses used to register the

Defendant Domain Names are incomplete, contain randomly typed letters, or fail to include cities

or states. Other Defendant Domain Names use privacy services that conceal the owners’ identity

and contact information. Upon information and belief, Defendants regularly create new websites

and online marketplace accounts on various platforms using the identities listed in Schedule A to

the Complaint, as well as other unknown fictitious names and addresses. Such Defendant Internet

Store registration patterns are one of many common tactics used by the Defendants to conceal their

7
 Case: 1:23-cv-00895 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/14/23 Page 8 of 14 PageID #:8

identities, the full scope and interworking of their massive infringing operation, and to avoid being

shut down.

21. Even though Defendants operate under multiple fictitious names, there are numerous

similarities among the Defendant Internet Stores. For example, some of the Defendant websites

have virtually identical layouts, even though different aliases were used to register the respective

domain names. In addition, the infringing products for sale in the Defendant Internet Stores bear

similarities and indicia of being related to one another, suggesting that the infringing products were

manufactured by and come from a common source and that, upon information and belief,

Defendants are interrelated. The Defendant Internet Stores also include other notable common

features, including use of the same domain name registration patterns, unique shopping cart

platforms, accepted payment methods, check-out methods, meta data, illegitimate SEO tactics,

HTML user-defined variables, domain redirection, lack of contact information, identically or

similarly priced items and volume sales discounts, similar hosting services, similar name servers,

and the use of the same text and images.

22. In addition to operating under multiple fictitious names, Defendants in this case

and defendants in other similar cases against online infringers use a variety of other common

tactics to evade enforcement efforts. For example, infringers like Defendants will often register

new domain names or online marketplace accounts under new aliases once they receive notice of

a lawsuit. Infringers also often move website hosting to rogue servers located outside the United

States once notice of a lawsuit is received. Rogue servers are notorious for ignoring take down

demands sent by brand owners. Infringers also typically ship products in small quantities via

international mail to minimize detection by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. A 2012 U.S.

Customs and Border Protection report on seizure statistics indicated that the Internet has fueled

8
 Case: 1:23-cv-00895 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/14/23 Page 9 of 14 PageID #:9

“explosive growth” in the number of small packages of infringing goods shipped through the mail

and express carriers.

23. Further, infringers such as Defendants typically operate multiple credit card

merchant accounts and eBay, Amazon, Alipay, Alibaba and DHgate accounts behind layers of

payment gateways so that they can continue operation in spite of Plaintiff’s enforcement efforts.

Upon information and belief, Defendants maintain off-shore bank accounts and regularly move

funds from their eBay, Amazon, Alipay, Alibaba and DHgate accounts to off-shore bank accounts

outside the jurisdiction of this Court. Indeed, analysis of eBay, Amazon, Alipay, Alibaba and

DHgate transaction logs from previous similar cases indicates that offshore infringers regularly

move funds from U.S.-based eBay, Amazon, Alipay, Alibaba and DHgate accounts to China-

based bank accounts outside the jurisdiction of this Court.

24. Defendants, without any authorization or license from Plaintiff, have knowingly

and willfully used and continue to use the CASIO Patented Design in connection with the

advertisement, distribution, offering for sale, and sale of infringing products into the United

States and Illinois over the Internet. Each Defendant Internet Store offers shipping to the United

States, including Illinois and, on information and belief, each Defendant has offered to sell

infringing products into the United States, including Illinois.

25. Defendants’ use of the CASIO Patented Design in connection with the

advertising, distribution, offering for sale, and sale of infringing products into Illinois, is likely to

cause and has caused confusion, mistake, and deception by and among consumers and is

irreparably harming Plaintiff.

9
 Case: 1:23-cv-00895 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/14/23 Page 10 of 14 PageID #:10

COUNT I
INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES DESIGN PATENT
(35 U.S.C. § 271)

26. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference herein the allegations contained in

paragraphs 1-25 of this Complaint.

27. Defendants are making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing into the

United States for subsequent sale or use products that infringe directly and/or indirectly the

ornamental design claimed in the CASIO Design Patent (No. D580,478).

28. Defendants have infringed the CASIO Design Patent through the aforesaid acts

and will continue to do so unless enjoined by this Court. Defendants’ wrongful conduct has

caused Plaintiff to suffer irreparable harm resulting from the loss of its lawful patent rights to

exclude others from making, using, selling, offering for sale, and importing the patented

invention. Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283.

29. Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate for the

infringement, including Defendants’ profits pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 289. Plaintiff is entitled to

recover any other damages as appropriate pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants and each of them as follows:

1) That Defendants, their affiliates, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and

all persons acting for, with, by, through, under, or in active concert with them be temporarily

preliminarily, and permanently enjoined and restrained from:

10
Case: 1:23-cv-00895 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/14/23 Page 11 of 14 PageID #:11

a. using the CASIO Patented Design or any reproductions, infringing copies, or

colorable imitations thereof in any manner in connection with the distribution,

marketing, advertising, offering for sale, or sale of any products that are not genuine

CASIO Products or are not authorized by Plaintiff;

b. passing off, inducing, or enabling others to sell or pass off any products as genuine

CASIO Products or any other products produced by Plaintiff that are not Plaintiff’s or

not produced under the authorization, control, or supervision of Plaintiff and

approved by Plaintiff for sale;

c. committing any acts calculated to cause consumers to believe that Defendants’

infringing CASIO Products are those sold under the authorization, control, or

supervision of Plaintiff, or are sponsored by, approved by, or otherwise connected

with Plaintiff;

d. further infringing the CASIO Patented Design and damaging Plaintiff’s goodwill;

e. shipping, delivering, holding for sale, transferring or otherwise moving, storing,

distributing, returning, or otherwise disposing of, in any manner, products or inventory

not manufactured by or for Plaintiff, nor authorized by Plaintiff to be sold or offered

for sale, and which bear any Patented Design of Plaintiff, including the CASIO

Patented Design, or any reproductions, infringing copies, or colorable imitations

thereof;

f. using, linking to, transferring, selling, exercising control over, or otherwise owning the

Online Marketplace Accounts, the Defendant Domain Names, or any other domain

name or online marketplace account that is being used to sell or is the means by which

Defendants could continue to sell infringing CASIO Products; and

11
 Case: 1:23-cv-00895 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/14/23 Page 12 of 14 PageID #:12

g. operating and/or hosting websites at the Defendant Domain Names and any other domain

names registered or operated by Defendants that are involved with the distribution,

marketing, advertising, offering for sale, or sale of any product including the CASIO

Patented Design or any reproduction, infringing copy or colorable imitation thereof that

is not a genuine CASIO Product or is not authorized by Plaintiff.

2) That Defendants, within fourteen (14) days after service of judgment with notice of entry

thereof upon them, be required to filed with the Court and serve upon Plaintiff a written report under

oath setting forth in detail the manner and form in which Defendants have complied with paragraph

1, a through g, above;

3) Entry of an Order that, at Plaintiff’s choosing, the registrant of the Defendant Domain

Names registries for the Defendant Domain Names, including, but not limited to, VeriSign, Inc.,

Neustar, Inc., Afilias Limited, CentralNic, Nominet, and the Public Interest Registry shall

disable the Defendant Domain Names and make them inactive and untransferable;

4) Entry of an Order that, upon Plaintiff’s request, those in privity with Defendants and

those with notice of the injunction, including any online marketplaces such as iOffer and eBay,

Amazon, Alipay, Alibaba and DHgate, social media platforms, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn,

Twitter, Internet search engines such as Google, Bing and Yahoo, web hosts for the Defendant

Domain Names, and domain name registrars, shall:

a. disable and cease providing services for any accounts through which Defendants

engage in the sale of infringing CASIO Products including the CASIO Patented

Design, including any accounts associated with the Defendants listed in Schedule A;

12
 Case: 1:23-cv-00895 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/14/23 Page 13 of 14 PageID #:13

b. disable and cease displaying any advertisements used by or associated with

Defendants in connection with the sale of infringing CASIO Products including the

CASIO Patented Design; and

c. take all steps necessary to prevent links to the Defendant Domain Names identified in

Schedule A from displaying in search results, including, but not limited to, removing

links to the Defendant Domain Names from any search index.

5) That the amount of damages awarded to Plaintiff to compensate Plaintiff for

infringement of the CASIO Patented Design be increased by three times the amount thereof, as

provided by 35 U.S.C. § 284;

6) In the alternative, that Plaintiff be awarded all profits realized by Defendants from

Defendants’ infringement of the CASIO Design Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 289;

7) That Plaintiff be awarded its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and

8) Award any and all other relief that this Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: February 14, 2023

By: s/Michael A. Hierl _
Michael A. Hierl (Bar No. 3128021)
William B. Kalbac (Bar No. 6301771)
Robert P. McMurray (Bar No. 6324332)
Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, Ltd.
Three First National Plaza
70 W. Madison Street, Suite 4000
Chicago, Illinois 60602
(312) 580-0100 Telephone
(312) 580-1994 Facsimile
[email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Casio Computer Co., Ltd.

13
 Case: 1:23-cv-00895 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/14/23 Page 14 of 14 PageID #:14

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned attorney hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing

Complaint was filed electronically with the Clerk of the Court and served on all counsel of

record and interested parties via the CM/ECF system on February 14, 2023.

s/Michael A. Hierl

14
Case: 1:23-cv-00895 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 02/14/23 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:15

EXHIBIT 1
Case: 1:23-cv-00895 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 02/14/23 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:16

The
The Director of the United States
Patent and Trademark Office
Has received an application for a new, origi-

United nal, and ornamental design for an article of

manufacture. The title and description of the

States
design are enclosed. The requirements of law
have been complied with, and it has been de-
termined that a patent on the design shall be

0
granted under the law.

Therefore, this

America United States Patent

Grants to the person(s) having title to this patent
the right to exclude others from making, using,
offering for sale, or selling the design through-
out the United States of America, or importing
the design into the United States of America for
the term of fourteen years from the date of grant
of this patent.

WD)
Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
Case: 1:23-cv-00895 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 02/14/23 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:17

A
az United States Design Patent (o) Patent No.: US D580,478 S
Matsuda et al. (45) Date of Patent: x» Nov. 11,2008

(54) ELECTRONIC CALCULATOR D501,499 8 * 2/2005 MRISULR .ceererrsersersereersns D187

6,874,005 B2* 3/2005 Fortenbemy et al, 708/130
(75) Inventors: Makoto Matsuda, Tokyo (JP); Junichi D536,365 S * 2/2007 Onoetal. ....vene ... D187
: Ono, Higashikurume (JP) D560,712 § * 1/2008 de Brebisson .....cccvemeen.. D187
. * cited by examiner
(73) Assignee: Casio Kelsanki Kabushiki Kaisha, . .
Tokyo (JP)
Tokyo (JF) Primary Examiner—Caron Veynar
Examiner—Qarth Rademaker
Assistant Examiner—Garth
(**) Tem: 14 Years (74) Antorney, Agent, or Firm—Frishauf, Holtz, Goodman &
Chick, P.C.
(21) Appl. No.: 29/294,516 ’
’ (57) CLAIM
(22) Filed: Jan, 15, 2008
Thc omamental design for an electronic calculator, as shown.
(51) LOC(B)
LOC CL ....cconrrnnrarninns SS
(8) Cl 18-01
(52) US. Cli eessesssesssssssesssosssessissssssmssnssmssnass
US.CL D187 DESCRIPTION
(58) Field of Classification Search ............ D14/191, Lis a front, right side, lop
FIG. 1is top perspective view of an elec-
.: D147218, 314-347, 383, 387, 388; D18/1,
D14/218, tronic calculator showing our new design;
D1872,44, -
D1872,4.4, 4.5, Giz 121,122,123;
12.1,12.2,12.3; Dl FIG. 2 is a front elevational view thereof;
235/58 59 A, BH,
235/59 R,BG,59 59 59 BC, 59 BD,
59 CP, 59 T,5959BE,
TP, 5961 R: FIG. 3 is: a rear elevational
3 +
view thereof; .
708/100, 105, 130 FIG. dis alefi side view thereof;
See application file for complete search history. FIG. 5 is a right side view thereof;
(56) References Cited FIG. 6 is a top plan view thereof; and,
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS FIG. 7 is a bottom plan view theceof.

D307,032 S * 4/1990 Sawadaclal. .....ceeenn. DIBA 1 Claim, 6 Drawing Sheels

ICICI, /74 4
CIC mt 4
Case: 1:23-cv-00895 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 02/14/23 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:18

U.S. Patent Nov.11,2008

Noy. 11,2008 Sheet1of6
Sheet 1 of 6 US D580,478 S
Case: 1:23-cv-00895 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 02/14/23 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:19

U.S. Patent Nov.11,2008 Sheet2 of 6 US D580,478 S

DD
Yes feales i (ebles
OTD |
Case: 1:23-cv-00895 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 02/14/23 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:20

U.S. Patent Nov. 11, 2008 Sheet 3 of 6 US D580,478 S

il! il

(ETT TR

i
J"

|
Case: 1:23-cv-00895 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 02/14/23 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:21

U.S. Patent Nov. 11, 2008 Sheet 4 of 6 US D580,478 S

>
—
AS
27
Case: 1:23-cv-00895 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 02/14/23 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:22

U.S. Patent Nov. 11, 2008 Sheet 5 of 6 US D580,478 S

a rm
=x

bade
d as
Case: 1:23-cv-00895 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 02/14/23 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:23

U.S. Patent Nov. 11, 2008 Sheet 6 of 6 US D580,478 S

|COI] | il I" u
XU [1 Nu CE . [I [I Ki D [|
I

FIG. 6

1 ) 1 [I i [I [I 1 eid ]
T 1]
i! | I! JM