Southern Grace Apparel v. Makeup Junkie Bags - Complaint

Case 3:19-cv-01599-G Document 1 Filed 07/02/19 Page 1 of 19 PageID 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
SOUTHERN GRACE APPAREL, LLC,

Case No. 3:19-cv-01599
Plaintiff,
v.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
MAKEUP JUNKIE BAGS, LLC,
Defendant.
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Southern Grace Apparel, LLC (“Southern Grace”) files this Complaint against
Defendant Makeup Junkie Bags, LLC (“Makeup Junkie” or “Defendant”) for false patent marking
in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 292(a) and (b) and false advertising under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) of the
Lanham Act, as well as tortious interference with existing contract and business disparagement
under Texas law. Southern Grace seeks actual, special, exemplary, and treble damages, injunctive
relief, and its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit from Makeup Junkie. In addition, Southern
Grace seeks a declaration that its products do not infringe any patent or federal trademark or trade
dress rights of Makeup Junkie.
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff Southern Grace Apparel, LLC is a limited liability company organized under
the laws of the State of Texas, with an office at 2117 Torin Street, Lewisville, Texas 75056.
2. Defendant Makeup Junkie Bags, LLC is a limited liability company organized under
the laws of the State of Texas with an office at 11133 Interstate 45 S, Suite 320, Conroe, Texas
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

77302. Defendant can be served with process through its registered agent, Meredith J. Jurica, 12625
Maggie Lane, Willis, Texas 77318.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. This is an action for false patent marking arising under the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. §
292(a) and (b), false advertising under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (Section 43 of the Lanham Act), for
tortious interference with contract and business disparagement under Texas law, and for declaratory
judgment.
4. The Court has original jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Complaint under
the Lanham Act pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1121(a) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), and 1355, and
under the Patent Act pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), and 1355. Original jurisdiction over
this action for declaratory judgment arises under 35 U.S.C. § 271 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a),
and 1355. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the Texas state-law claims in this action
under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because these claims arise out of the same transactions and occurrences
and are so related to Southern Grace’s federal patent, Lanham Act, and declaratory judgment claims
that they form part of the same case or controversy.
5. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Makeup Junkie because it regularly
transacts business in Texas and this action is based upon Makeup Junkie’s commercial activities
carried on in Texas and in this judicial district. Makeup Junkie’s activities have had a substantial,
direct, and reasonably foreseeable effect on business and commerce in this district, in Texas, and on
interstate commerce. Makeup Junkie sells and offers to sell its products in Texas and in this district,
including the falsely marked products that are the subject of this action and the statements the
subject of these claims were made and/or directed to customers in this district. As a consequence,
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 2

Makeup Junkie has purposefully availed itself of the laws of the State of Texas and exercising personal
jurisdiction over it is fair and proper.
6. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b)(2) because a
substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims of this action occurred in this district and
Makeup Junkie is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district. As set forth in more detail below
and incorporated herein, Makeup Junkie has sold, offered for sale, and marketed its products to
citizens of this state and this district, through brick and mortar retail stores as well as active websites
with false claims that its products were patented.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
7. Southern Grace is in the business of designing, marketing, and selling women’s and
girl’s clothing and accessories, including its Versi Bag line of double zipper multi-use bags and
clutches. Southern Grace has invested significant resources in developing, marketing, and selling its
Versi Bags.
8. Defendant Makeup Junkie is a Texas-based retailer of cosmetic accessory bags.
Makeup Junkie’s bags are substantially different from Southern Grace’s Versi Bag collection, in
that the Makeup Junkie bags have a single zipper that closes to the right with a
removable/interchangeable tassel. The Makeup Junkie bags also consist of a single large
compartment only, utilize the same (single) fabric front and back with no trim, and come in multiple
sizes. Southern Grace’s Versi Bags, on the other hand, include double zippers that close to the
left with a permanent tassel. The Versi Bags also include two compartments—a smaller

compartment on top and a larger compartment on the bottom—and at least two types of fabric and
various trimmings on each bag. As shown below, these products look markedly different:
9. On or about April 24, 2019, Meredith Jurica of Makeup Junkie contacted Adeel
“Alex” Mitha, President of Southern Grace, to complain that the Versi Bags were “in violation of
her patent.” Mr. Mitha expressed that he was unaware of any patent related to the Makeup Junkie
product and requested that Ms. Jurica provide him with additional information so that he could
better understand the specific nature of her claim. Ms. Jurica then admitted that she does not have
a patent, but that she has a design patent application that is pending. Mr. Mitha nevertheless
requested that she send over a copy of her patent application, as he was unable to locate any pending

application through the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Mr. Mitha
provided his email address so that Ms. Jurica could send the information via email and the
conversation ended amicably.
10. Later that same day, Mr. Mitha sent a follow up text to Ms. Jurica advising her that
he would be unavailable for a few days due to a family vacation and asking that she follow up with
him via email or text so that they could resolve her concerns. Ms. Jurica responded tersely and said
that she would have her legal team contact Southern Grace.
11. Also on the same day, Ms. Jurica posted publicly in the Boutique Hub group on
Facebook, of which Southern Grace was a member, displaying a picture of Southern Grace’s Versi
Bags and disparaging “the owner” as not only “knocking off” her product, but falsely representing
that Southern Grace “refused” to “respect” her pending design patent or trade dress:

12. Multiple retailers that work with Southern Grace (or had worked with them up to
the date of this post) saw Ms. Jurica’s public allegations, believed them to be true, and responded
negatively with regard to Southern Grace:

13. Upon seeing the public post in the Boutique Hub and the comments from several of
Southern Grace’s customers, Mr. Mitha once again reached out to Ms. Jurica. He noted that Ms.
Jurica’s post did not accurately reflect his discussion with her and once again requested that she
provide him with a copy of any pending patent related to her products.
14. Upon information and belief, on this same date, Ms. Jurica also communicated her
false statements to a number of Southern Grace’s customers:

15. By her own admission, Ms. Jurica also communicated with Buc-ees, with whom
Southern Grace had entered into a purchase order for a large number of the Versi Bags:

16. The next day, Southern Grace received an email from Buc-ees cancelling the purchase
order for its Versi Bags, resulting in a projected annual loss to Southern Grace of more than
$100,000.00.
17. In reality, Makeup Junkie currently does not have a design patent for its products.
Rather, upon information and belief, Makeup Junkie has a pending design patent application that
has been rejected by the USPTO. Similarly, Makeup Junkie’s two trademark applications have
received final rejection by the USPTO and its trade dress application has also received a rejection, if
not a final rejection.
18. Nevertheless, in her initial communications to Southern Grace and as part of an
extensive marketing campaign on nationally televised programs, in the general media, on the
Internet, and through Social Media, Makeup Junkie has repeatedly advertised that its products are
“patented” when, in fact, they are not. For example, in online marketing provided to Shark Tank, a
nationally syndicated program on ABC, Makeup Junkie represented an allegedly storied “baptism
by fire” into the industry where she was “swindled and robbed” despite the fact that her products
are allegedly patented:

19. Makeup Junkie perpetuated these false representations of patent protection on
Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram and in nationwide articles and interviews specific to her products:


20. The purpose of the false marking statute, 35 U.S.C. § 292, is to ensure that the public
receives accurate notice of patent rights. Federal patent policy recognizes an important public interest
in permitting full and free competition in the use of ideas that are, in reality, a part of the public
domain. False patent marking, including representing through advertisement that a product is
covered by a patent when a patent application is merely pending or has been rejected, is a serious
problem. Acts of false marking deter innovation and stifle competition in the marketplace.
21. If an article that is within the public domain is falsely marked or advertised, potential
competitors may be dissuaded from entering the same market. Moreover and importantly, false
marking misleads the public into believing that a patentee controls the article in question (as well as
like articles) and places the burden of determination on the public, rather than the manufacturer or
seller of the article, and increases the cost to the public of ascertaining whether a patentee in fact
controls the intellectual property as advertised. False marking may also create a misleading
impression that the falsely marked product is somehow superior to others, as articles bearing the
term “patent” may be presumed to be novel, useful, and innovative.
22. On information and belief, Makeup Junkie regularly reviews the text, including the
false patent markings, included in its advertising and marketing materials.
23. Makeup Junkie’s false marking and false advertising of its products has injured
Southern Grace, including but not limited to stifling competition in a market in which Southern
Grace currently competes, diverting Southern Grace’s sales, and causing Southern Grace to lose
actual sales as well as the goodwill of its customers or potential customers.

COUNT I
PATENT FALSE MARKING UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 292
24. Southern Grace repeats and realleges the allegations contained in the preceding
paragraphs as if fully set forth herein
25. Makeup Junkie’s acts committed in interstate commerce constitute patent false
marking in violation of Section 292(a) of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 292. Makeup Junkie has used
the terms “patent” and “patent pending” in advertising in connection with unpatented articles in
order to import that the same is patented, when in fact it is not patented.
26. Makeup Junkie’s false marking was done for the purpose of deceiving, and with the
intent to deceive, the public because the patent markings were and are misrepresentations regarding
the patent status of Makeup Junkie’s goods.
27. Upon information and belief, Makeup Junkie knew that its products were falsely
marked.
28. Upon information and belief, Makeup Junkie’s false marking was done with bad
faith and malice or reckless indifference to Southern Grace and consumers’ interests.
29. Makeup Junkie’s bad faith false marking of its products makes this an exceptional
case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285.
30. Makeup Junkie continues to falsely mark its products and, unless enjoined by this
Court, will continue to mark falsely.
31. Southern Grace has suffered a competitive injury as a result of this violation and is
entitled to recover damages to adequately compensate for the injury. Therefore, Southern Grace is
entitled to recover from Makeup Junkie compensatory damages, including sales lost by Southern

Grace as a result of Makeup Junkie’s false marking, injunctive relief, a finding of “exceptional case,”
and an award of reasonable attorney’s fees.
COUNT II
FALSE ADVERTISING UNDER 15 U.S.C. § 1125(A)
(SECTION 43(A) OF THE LANHAM ACT)
paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
33. Makeup Junkie has, in contravention of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1) made false and
misleading descriptions of fact regarding its products and in advertising its products as being
“patented” or “patent pending” when in fact they are not. These statements are false on their face.
34. The false and misleading descriptions of fact by Makeup Junkie actually deceived or
have the capacity to deceive a substantial segment of their intended recipients.
35. The false and misleading descriptions of fact by Makeup Junkie were material, and
likely to influence the purchasing decisions of consumers, including consumers who would consider
purchasing Southern Grace’s products.
36. Makeup Junkie has caused its falsely advertised goods to enter into interstate
commerce, including into this judicial district.
37. Southern Grace has and continues to incur damage as a result of the false and
misleading descriptions of fact made by Defendant, including but not limited to a loss of goodwill
and lost or diverted sales based on consumers’ concerns that Southern Grace’s products somehow
infringe patent protections claimed by Makeup Junkie that, in fact, do not exist.
38. Makeup Junkie’s false or misleading representations of fact were done with bad faith
and malice or reckless indifference to Southern Grace’s interests.

39. Makeup Junkie’s bad faith false or misleading representations of fact regarding the
patented status of its products make this an exceptional case within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. §
1117, entitling Southern Grace to treble damages.
40. Makeup Junkie continues to make false or misleading representations of fact
regarding the patented status of its products and will continue to do so unless enjoined by this Court
as provided by 15 U.S.C. § 1116.
41. Southern Grace is entitled to an award of Makeup Junkie’s profits due to sales of the
falsely or misleadingly represented products, any damages sustained by Southern Grace, and the
costs of the action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117.
COUNT III
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH EXISTING CONTRACT
(TEXAS LAW)
43. On information and belief, Makeup Junkie intentionally and willfully interfered with
an existing purchase order between Southern Grace and Buc-ees, by falsely claiming that Southern
Grace’s Versi Bags somehow violate or infringe upon patent protections in Makeup Junkie’s
products that do not exist. On information and belief, as a result of Makeup Junkie’s interference,
Buc-ees rescinded its purchase order with Southern Grace.
44. Makeup Junkie’s acts constitute a willful and intentional act of interference with an
existing contract between Southern Grace and Buc-ees. Makeup Junkie’s interference proximately
caused Southern Grace’s loss more than $100,000.00 in annual revenue from the pending purchase
order from Buc-ees.

45. Southern Grace has been damaged by Makeup Junkie’s actions and is entitled to
recover all actual and exemplary damages caused by Makeup Junkie’s tortious interference with an
existing contract.
COUNT IV
BUSINESS DISPARAGEMENT
(TEXAS LAW)
47. As set forth above, Makeup Junkie has acted with malice and without privilege by
publishing false and disparaging information about Southern Grace. Due to Makeup Junkie’s
actions, Southern Grace has suffered damages by being removed from a trade organization and
losing its relationship with a large account, Buc-ees. Southern Grace is entitled to recover its actual,
special, and exemplary damages caused by Makeup Junkie’s actions.
COUNT V
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
(35 U.S.C. § 271, 15 U.S.C. 1125)
49. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 57, Southern Grace seeks and is entitled to a declaratory
judgment that the design, marketing, sale, and offering for sale of its Versi Bags in the United
States by Southern Grace did not and does not infringe any design or utility patent or federally
registered trademark or trade dress owned by Makeup Junkie pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271 and 15
U.S.C. § 1114.

50. On information and belief, Makeup Junkie has made false representations that
Southern Grace has infringed a design patent and/or registered trademarks and/or registered trade
dress that do not exist and that Makeup Junkie knows have not been issued by the USPTO such
that there can be no infringement of any design or utility patent or registered trademark or registered
trade dress.
51. Makeup Junkie’s activities render this case an exceptional one and Southern Grace
is entitled to an award of its reasonable attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and 15 U.S.C. § 1117.
APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
53. On information and belief, Makeup Junkie, unless enjoined, will continue to falsely
mark and/or advertise its products as “patented” when they are not. Such acts violate the Patent
Act, the Lanham Act, and Texas law. See 35 U.S.C. § 285; 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
54. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283 and 15 U.S.C. § 1116, these actions entitle Southern
Grace to a preliminary injunction and, upon hearing, permanent injunction enjoining Makeup
Junkie, its officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and all those persons in active concert
or in participation with Makeup Junkie, from:
(i) further falsely marking or advertising that Makeup Junkie’s goods are
patented when, in fact, they are not; and
(ii) stating that Southern Grace or its products infringe patents or federally
registered trademarks or trade dress that do not exist; and

55. For these actions, there is no adequate remedy at law. Further, Southern Grace is
substantially likely to prevail on the merits of these claims. The injury to Southern Grace greatly
outweighs any injury to Makeup Junkie that the requested injunction may cause. The balance of
hardships tips strongly in favor of Southern Grace. Finally, the injunction will not disserve the public
interest. Therefore, Southern Grace is entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief
against Makeup Junkie.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Southern Grace Apparel, LLC requests that this Court enter
judgment in its favor and against Defendant as follows:
A. Granting injunctive relief enjoining Makeup Junkie and its officers, agents,
employees, and all persons or entities in active concert or participation with it, from further false
marking or advertising of Makeup Junkie’s products as set forth in Paragraph 54 herein.
B. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283, ordering the destruction of all advertising and
marketing materials;
C. Awarding Southern Grace its actual, special, and exemplary damages adequate to
compensate Southern Grace for Makeup Junkie’s acts of false marking, false advertising, business
disparagement and tortious interference with contractual relations;
D. Awarding Southern Grace the profits earned by Makeup Junkie from sales of its
falsely advertised products, in an amount that will be proved at trial;
E. Finding this to be an exceptional case pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 and 15 U.S.C. §
1117;

F. Increasing the amount of damages awarded to Southern Grace under the Lanham
Act and the Patent Act to three times the amount found or assessed by this Court because of the
willful nature of Makeup Junkie’s actions, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117 and/or 35 U.S.C. § 285;
G. Entering judgment that Southern Grace has not infringed any design or utility patent
or federally registered trademark or federally registered trade dress owned by Makeup Junkie;
H. Awarding to Southern Grace its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in this
action;
I. Awarding to Southern Grace pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and
J. Granting such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
Dated: July 2, 2019 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Darin M. Klemchuk

Darin M. Klemchuk
Texas Bar No. 24002418
darin.klemchuk@klemchuk.com
Mandi M. Phillips
mandi.phillips@klemchuk.com
Brian Casper
brian.casper@klemchuk.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

SOUTHERN GRACE APPAREL, LLC

JS 44 (Rev. 06/17) - TXND (Rev. 06/17) CIVIL COVER SHEET
Case 3:19-cv-01599-G Document 1-1 Filed 07/02/19 Page 1 of 2 PageID 20
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

SOUTHERN GRACE APPAREL, LLC MAKEUP JUNKIE BAGS, LLC
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Montgomery Co., TX
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Darin M. Klemchuk, Klemchuk LLP, 8150 N. Central Expressway, 10th Floor,
Dallas, Texas 75206; 214-367-6000
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
’ 1 U.S. Government ’ 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State ’ 1 ’ 1 Incorporated or Principal Place ’ 4 ’ 4
of Business In This State
’ 2 U.S. Government ’ 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State ’ 2 ’ 2 Incorporated and Principal Place ’ 5 ’ 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a ’ 3 ’ 3 Foreign Nation ’ 6 ’ 6

Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
’ 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY ’ 625 Drug Related Seizure ’ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 ’ 375 False Claims Act
’ 120 Marine ’ 310 Airplane ’ 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 ’ 423 Withdrawal ’ 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
’ 130 Miller Act ’ 315 Airplane Product Product Liability ’ 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
’ 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability ’ 367 Health Care/ ’ 400 State Reapportionment
’ 150 Recovery of Overpayment ’ 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS ’ 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury ’ 820 Copyrights ’ 430 Banks and Banking
’ 151 Medicare Act ’ 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability ’ 830 Patent ’ 450 Commerce
’ 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability ’ 368 Asbestos Personal ’ 835 Patent - Abbreviated ’ 460 Deportation
Student Loans ’ 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application ’ 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) ’ 345 Marine Product Liability ’ 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
’ 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY ’ 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits ’ 350 Motor Vehicle ’ 370 Other Fraud ’ 710 Fair Labor Standards ’ 861 HIA (1395ff) ’ 490 Cable/Sat TV
’ 160 Stockholders’ Suits ’ 355 Motor Vehicle ’ 371 Truth in Lending Act ’ 862 Black Lung (923) ’ 850 Securities/Commodities/
’ 190 Other Contract Product Liability ’ 380 Other Personal ’ 720 Labor/Management ’ 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange
’ 195 Contract Product Liability ’ 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations ’ 864 SSID Title XVI ’ 890 Other Statutory Actions
’ 196 Franchise Injury ’ 385 Property Damage ’ 740 Railway Labor Act ’ 865 RSI (405(g)) ’ 891 Agricultural Acts
’ 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability ’ 751 Family and Medical ’ 893 Environmental Matters
Medical Malpractice Leave Act ’ 895 Freedom of Information
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS ’ 790 Other Labor Litigation FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act
’ 210 Land Condemnation ’ 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: ’ 791 Employee Retirement ’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff ’ 896 Arbitration
’ 220 Foreclosure ’ 441 Voting ’ 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act or Defendant) ’ 899 Administrative Procedure
’ 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment ’ 442 Employment ’ 510 Motions to Vacate ’ 871 IRS—Third Party Act/Review or Appeal of
’ 240 Torts to Land ’ 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 Agency Decision
’ 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations ’ 530 General ’ 950 Constitutionality of
’ 290 All Other Real Property ’ 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION State Statutes
Employment Other: ’ 462 Naturalization Application
’ 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 540 Mandamus & Other ’ 465 Other Immigration
Other ’ 550 Civil Rights Actions
’ 448 Education ’ 555 Prison Condition
’ 560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
’ 1 Original ’ 2 Removed from ’ 3 Remanded from ’ 4 Reinstated or ’ 5 Transferred from ’ 6 Multidistrict ’ 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(specify) Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
35 U.S.C. § 292(a); 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
False Patent Marking
VII. REQUESTED IN ’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. JURY DEMAND: ’ Yes ’ No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE Kristin Bays DOCKET NUMBER 19-05-06952
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
07/02/2019 /s/ Darin M. Klemchuk
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE
Print Save As... Reset

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 06/17) - TXND (Rev. 06/17)
Case 3:19-cv-01599-G Document 1-1 Filed 07/02/19 Page 2 of 2 PageID 21
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44
Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency,
use only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at
the time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment,
noting in this section "(see attachment)".
II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an
"X" in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)
III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark
this section for each principal party.
IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit
code that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
When the petition for removal is granted, check this box.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation – Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407.
Multidistrict Litigation – Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to
changes in statue.
VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite
jurisdictional statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service
VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If a related case exists, whether pending or closed,
insert the docket numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases. A case is related to this filing if the case: 1) involves some or all of the
same parties and is based on the same or similar claim; 2) involves the same property, transaction, or event; 3) involves substantially similar issues of
law and fact; and/or 4) involves the same estate in a bankruptcy appeal.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

Southern Grace Apparel v. Makeup Junkie Bags - Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Southern Grace Apparel v. Makeup Junkie Bags - Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 3:19-cv-01599-G Document 1 Filed 07/02/19 Page 1 of 19 PageID 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN GRACE APPAREL, LLC,

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

dress rights of Makeup Junkie.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Maggie Lane, Willis, Texas 77318.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

that they form part of the same case or controversy.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 2

jurisdiction over it is fair and proper.

6. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b)(2) because a

with false claims that its products were patented.

8. Defendant Makeup Junkie is a Texas-based retailer of cosmetic accessory bags.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 3

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 4

conversation ended amicably.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 5

negatively with regard to Southern Grace:

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 6

false statements to a number of Southern Grace’s customers:

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 7

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 8

not a final rejection.

18. Nevertheless, in her initial communications to Southern Grace and as part of an

are allegedly patented:

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 9

19. Makeup Junkie perpetuated these false representations of patent protection on

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 10

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 11

term “patent” may be presumed to be novel, useful, and innovative.

false patent markings, included in its advertising and marketing materials.

actual sales as well as the goodwill of its customers or potential customers.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 12

paragraphs as if fully set forth herein

the patent status of Makeup Junkie’s goods.

case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285.

Court, will continue to mark falsely.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 13

and an award of reasonable attorney’s fees.

paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

have the capacity to deceive a substantial segment of their intended recipients.

purchasing Southern Grace’s products.

commerce, including into this judicial district.

and malice or reckless indifference to Southern Grace’s interests.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 14

1117, entitling Southern Grace to treble damages.

40. Makeup Junkie continues to make false or misleading representations of fact

as provided by 15 U.S.C. § 1116.

costs of the action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117.

paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

Buc-ees rescinded its purchase order with Southern Grace.

order from Buc-ees.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 15

paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

special, and exemplary damages caused by Makeup Junkie’s actions.

paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 16

APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

or in participation with Makeup Junkie, from:

patented when, in fact, they are not; and

registered trademarks or trade dress that do not exist; and

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 17