Top Banner
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JENNY YOO COLLECTION, INC., a New York corporation, Plaintiff, V. DAVID'S BRIDAL, INC., DBD INC. and CLAYTON, DUBILIER & RICE, INC. Dendants. Case No. 16-CV-2647 JURY TRIAL DEMAND COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT, FEDERAL FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN AND UNFAIR COMPETITION, FEDERAL TRADEDRESS INFRINGEMENT, STATE UNFAIR COMPETITION COMMON LAW TRADEDRESS INFRINGEMENT, FEDERAL TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT Plaintiff Jenny Yoo Collection, Inc. ("Plaintiff' or "JY") complains and alleges as llows against Dendants David's Bridal, Inc. ("DBI"), DBD Inc. ("DBD") and Clayton, Dubilier & Rice ("CDR") (collectively "David's Bridal" or "dendants"). THE NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. JY was rmed when its under, Chief Executive Officer and President, Jenny Yoo, recognized the absence in the market of stylish, quality bridesmaid dresses. The Company's initial cus was to create a collection of bridesmaid dresses to fill this gap in the market. JY launched its first collection of bridesmaid dresses in 2002. Since then, JY has expanded dramatically, and Jenny Yoo has designed many stylish and well-received wedding dress and bridesmaid dress collections. 2. JY revolutionized the bridal gown industry in 2012 when it introduced its wildly popular, convertible "Aiden" and "Annabelle" bridesmaid dress designs, products that dramatically changed the way consumers view bridal and bridesmaid dresses. JY markets these dresses under the "NABI by Jenny Yoo" and "Jenny Yoo Collection" trademarks. Reviewers, 1
48

Jenny Yoo Collection v. David's Bridal et al.

Jul 12, 2016

Download

Documents

Complaint for Design Patent and Trade Dress Infringement
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: Jenny Yoo Collection v. David's Bridal et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

JENNY YOO COLLECTION, INC., a New York corporation,

Plaintiff,

V.

DAVID'S BRIDAL, INC., DBD INC. and CLAYTON, DUBILIER & RICE, INC.

Defendants.

Case No. 16-CV-2647

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT, FEDERAL FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN AND UNFAIR COMPETITION, FEDERAL TRADEDRESS INFRINGEMENT, STATE UNFAIR COMPETITION COMMON LAW TRADED RESS INFRINGEMENT, FEDERAL TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT

Plaintiff Jenny Yoo Collection, Inc. ("Plaintiff' or "JY") complains and alleges as

follows against Defendants David's Bridal, Inc. ("DBI"), DBD Inc. ("DBD") and Clayton,

Dubilier & Rice ("CDR") (collectively "David's Bridal" or "defendants").

THE NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. JY was formed when its founder, Chief Executive Officer and President, Jenny

Yoo, recognized the absence in the market of stylish, quality bridesmaid dresses. The Company's

initial focus was to create a collection of bridesmaid dresses to fill this gap in the market. JY

launched its first collection of bridesmaid dresses in 2002. Since then, JY has expanded

dramatically, and Jenny Yoo has designed many stylish and well-received wedding dress and

bridesmaid dress collections.

2. JY revolutionized the bridal gown industry in 2012 when it introduced its wildly

popular, convertible "Aiden" and "Annabelle" bridesmaid dress designs, products that

dramatically changed the way consumers view bridal and bridesmaid dresses. JY markets these

dresses under the "NABI by Jenny Yoo" and "Jenny Yoo Collection" trademarks. Reviewers,

1

Page 2: Jenny Yoo Collection v. David's Bridal et al.
Page 3: Jenny Yoo Collection v. David's Bridal et al.
Page 4: Jenny Yoo Collection v. David's Bridal et al.
Page 5: Jenny Yoo Collection v. David's Bridal et al.
Page 6: Jenny Yoo Collection v. David's Bridal et al.
Page 7: Jenny Yoo Collection v. David's Bridal et al.
Page 8: Jenny Yoo Collection v. David's Bridal et al.
Page 9: Jenny Yoo Collection v. David's Bridal et al.
Page 10: Jenny Yoo Collection v. David's Bridal et al.
Page 11: Jenny Yoo Collection v. David's Bridal et al.
Page 12: Jenny Yoo Collection v. David's Bridal et al.
Page 13: Jenny Yoo Collection v. David's Bridal et al.
Page 14: Jenny Yoo Collection v. David's Bridal et al.
Page 15: Jenny Yoo Collection v. David's Bridal et al.
Page 16: Jenny Yoo Collection v. David's Bridal et al.
Page 17: Jenny Yoo Collection v. David's Bridal et al.
Page 18: Jenny Yoo Collection v. David's Bridal et al.
Page 19: Jenny Yoo Collection v. David's Bridal et al.
Page 20: Jenny Yoo Collection v. David's Bridal et al.
Page 21: Jenny Yoo Collection v. David's Bridal et al.
Page 22: Jenny Yoo Collection v. David's Bridal et al.
Page 23: Jenny Yoo Collection v. David's Bridal et al.
Page 24: Jenny Yoo Collection v. David's Bridal et al.
Page 25: Jenny Yoo Collection v. David's Bridal et al.
Page 26: Jenny Yoo Collection v. David's Bridal et al.
Page 27: Jenny Yoo Collection v. David's Bridal et al.
Page 28: Jenny Yoo Collection v. David's Bridal et al.
Page 29: Jenny Yoo Collection v. David's Bridal et al.
Page 30: Jenny Yoo Collection v. David's Bridal et al.
Page 31: Jenny Yoo Collection v. David's Bridal et al.
Page 32: Jenny Yoo Collection v. David's Bridal et al.
Page 33: Jenny Yoo Collection v. David's Bridal et al.
Page 34: Jenny Yoo Collection v. David's Bridal et al.
Page 35: Jenny Yoo Collection v. David's Bridal et al.
Page 36: Jenny Yoo Collection v. David's Bridal et al.
Page 37: Jenny Yoo Collection v. David's Bridal et al.
Page 38: Jenny Yoo Collection v. David's Bridal et al.
Page 39: Jenny Yoo Collection v. David's Bridal et al.
Page 40: Jenny Yoo Collection v. David's Bridal et al.
Page 41: Jenny Yoo Collection v. David's Bridal et al.
Page 42: Jenny Yoo Collection v. David's Bridal et al.
Page 43: Jenny Yoo Collection v. David's Bridal et al.
Page 44: Jenny Yoo Collection v. David's Bridal et al.
Page 45: Jenny Yoo Collection v. David's Bridal et al.
Page 46: Jenny Yoo Collection v. David's Bridal et al.
Page 47: Jenny Yoo Collection v. David's Bridal et al.
Page 48: Jenny Yoo Collection v. David's Bridal et al.