Razer Auto v. DNA Motor - Complaint

Case 5:19-cv-00111 Document 1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 1 of 35 Page ID #:1
1 Eric A. Kelly (California SBN 292241)

[email protected]
2
32622 Nantasket Drive, No. 59
3 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-486-2698 phone or text msg
4 310-943-1432 fax
5
Attorney for Plaintiff Razer Auto, Inc.
6
8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 EASTERN DIVISION
11
RAZER AUTO, INC., a California Civil Action No. 5:19-cv-111
12 corporation,
COMPLAINT FOR:
13 Plaintiff,
(1) DESIGN PATENT INFRINGEMENT
14 v. UNDER 35 USC § 271
15 DNA MOTOR INC., a California (2) UNFAIR COMPETITION AND FALSE

corporation; ADVERTISING UNDER 15 USC § 1125(a);
16 JIA JIE CHEN, an individual residing in
California; and (3) UNFAIR COMPETITION AND FALSE
17 Does 1-10, ADVERTISING UNDER CAL. BUS. &
PROF. CODE 17200 AND 17500, ET SEQ;
18
Defendants. (4) COMMON LAW TRADEMARK
19 INFRINGEMENT;
20 (5) INDUCING TRADEMARK

INFRINGEMENT;
21
(6) COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT UNDER
22 17 USC § 501; AND
23 (7) UNJUST ENRICHMENT
24
25
26
///
27
///
28
///
1
1 COMPLAINT
2 Plaintiff RAZER AUTO, INC. (“Razer”) complains and alleges, through its
3 undersigned counsel, against DNA MOTOR INC, a California corporation, JIA JIE
4 CHEN, an individual residing in California; and DOES 1 – 10 (collectively,
5 “Defendants”) as follows:
6 NATURE OF ACTION
7 1. This is a civil action for: design patent infringement under Title 35
8 United States Code (USC) § 271; trademark infringement, unfair competition, false
9 designation of origin, and false advertising under the Lanham Act, 15 USC §
10 1125(a); as well as under the State of California’s unfair competition and false
11 advertising laws, specifically under California Business and Professions Code §§
12 17200 and 17500 et. seq.; as well as under California common law trademark
13 infringement; for inducing trademark infringement under federal law and California
14 common law; and for federal copyright infringement under 17 USC § 501.
15 PARTIES
16 2. Plaintiff Razer is a State of California corporation with a principal
17 place of business at 1042 N. Mountain Ave Suite B764, Upland, CA 91786; and a
18 warehouse physical address located at 1450 E Francis St, Unit B, Ontario, CA
19 91761. Both Razer locations are within San Bernardino County, CA; as well as
20 within the Central District of California.
21 3. Defendant DNA Motor Inc. is also a State of California corporation,
22 with a California Secretary of State entity number of C3200810, and reported
23 principal place of business at 801 Sentous Ave., City of Industry, CA 91748 and a
24 registered agent address at that same reported principal place of business. See
25 Exhibit 1, which is a true and accurate screenshot from the California Secretary of
26 State’s website, https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/CBS/Detail, taken on January 8,
27 2019, showing contact information for Defendant DNA Motor Inc. Note, this City
28
2
1 of Industry, California address is within Los Angeles County, CA; as well as within
2 the Central District of California.
3 4. Defendant Jia Jie Chen is an individual residing in California,
4 specifically in Southern California. The 2017 Statement of Information for
5 Defendant DNA Motor Inc., filed with the California Secretary of State lists an
6 address of 801 Sentous Ave., City of Industry, CA 91748, for Defendant Jia Jie
7 Chen. Based on information and belief, Jia Jie Chen is an officer, director,
8 employee, agent, representative, and person with management authority and control
9 over Defendant DNA Motor Inc. See Exhibit 2 for a true and accurate copy of this
10 2017 Statement of Information.
11 5. Jia Jie Chen is included in this action because the causes of actions
12 (claims), whether statutory or based in common law, sound in tort, and it is well
13 settled law that the individual tortfeasor may always be held personally liable for
14 the torts they have committed. Jia Jie Chen caused, authorized, sanctioned, ratified,
15 or is responsible for Defendant DNA Motor Inc.’s unlawful conduct noted herein.
16 6. Defendant DNA Motor Inc. also owns and operates under a tradename
17 and/or a trademark of “DNA Motoring.” See Exhibit 3, which is a screenshot of
18 the DNA Motoring trademark listing in the United States Patent and Trademark
19 Office (“USPTO”) Trademark Electronic Search System (“TESS”) database, that
20 lists the owner of the “DNA Motoring” trademark as Defendant “DNA Motor Inc.”
21 Note also, U.S. federal trademark registration number 5039243 for the trademark of
22 “DNA Motoring” owned by Defendant “DNA Motor Inc.”
23 7. Additionally, Defendant DNA Motor Inc. or Jia Jie Chen operates or
24 controls at least one Amazon.com seller’s account under the tradename of “DNA
25 Motoring.” See Exhibit 4, which is a true and accurate screenshot of seller “DNA
26 Motoring” on Amazon.com, last visited on January 8, 2019. The link associated
27 with this Exhibit 4 screenshot is: https://www.amazon.com/DNA-Motoring-TL-
28 ZTL-299-SM-Brake-
3
1 Reverse/dp/B07KFRPJSQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1546981243&sr=8-
2 1&keywords=dna+motoring+2007-
3 2018+WRANGLER+JK+PAIR+FULL+LED+3D+BRAKE%2BREVERSE+TAIL
4 +LIGHT%2FLAMPS.
6 controls at least one eBay.com seller’s account under the tradename of
7 “DNAMotoring.” See Exhibit 5, which is a true and accurate screenshot of seller
8 DNAMotoring on eBay.com, last visited on January 8, 2019. The link associated
9 with this Exhibit 5 screenshot is: https://www.ebay.com/itm/FOR-2007-2018-
10 WRANGLER-JK-PAIR-FULL-LED-3D-BRAKE-REVERSE-TAIL-LIGHT-
11 LAMPS-
12 CLEAR/153255381594?_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIM.MBE%26ao
13 %3D2%26asc%3D20160323102634%26meid%3De23c1358ab8641e993f371b948e
14 64602%26pid%3D100623%26rk%3D3%26rkt%3D6%26sd%3D202498288880%2
15 6itm%3D153255381594&_trksid=p2047675.c100623.m-1.
17 controls at least one eBay.com seller’s account under the tradename of
18 “speed_daddy.” See Exhibit 6, which is a true and accurate screenshot of seller
19 speed_daddy on eBay.com, last visited on January 8, 2019. The link associated
20 with this Exhibit 6 screenshot is: https://www.ebay.com/itm/FOR-2007-2018-
21 JEEP-WRANGLER-JK-FULL-LED-REVERSE-3D-BRAKE-LIGHT-TAIL-
22 LAMPS-
23 SMOKED/202498288977?fits=Year%3A2012%7CModel%3AWrangler&epid=23
24 025745206&hash=item2f25d6ad51:g:DJkAAOSwn6Jb52eP:sc:FedExHomeDeliver
25 y!91786!US!-1.
26 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
27 10. This action arises under the laws of the United States (“US”),
28 including US federal patent laws, see e.g., Title 35 of the United States Code
4
1 (USC); US federal trademark laws, under the Lanham Act, as codified in 15 USC
2 §§ 1051 et seq.; and US federal copyright law, see e.g., Title 17 of the USC.
3 11. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Razer’s patent
4 infringement and copyright infringement claims pursuant to 28 USC § 1338(a).
5 12. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Razer’s Lanham Act
6 claims pursuant to 15 USC § 1121 and 28 USC §§ 1331 and 1338(b).
7 13. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Razer’s pendent state
8 law claims pursuant to 28 USC § 1367 in that the state law claims are integrally
9 interrelated with Razer’s federal claims and arise from a common nucleus of
10 operative facts such that administration of Razer’s state law claims with its federal
11 claims furthers the interest of judicial economy.
12 14. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant DNA Motor Inc.
13 because DNA Motor Inc. maintains a place of business in California and California
14 is the state of corporate formation for Defendant DNA Motor Inc. California is the
15 domicile of Defendant DNA Motor Inc. See e.g., Exhibits 1 and 2.
16 15. This Court also has personal jurisdiction over Defendant DNA Motor
17 Inc. by virtue of DNA Motor Inc.’s purposeful and presently ongoing contacts with
18 the State of California, including but not limited to, selling and offering to sell to
19 California residents various automotive products, such as, products being sold
20 under a trademarks/tradenames of DNA Motoring, DNAMotoring, speed_daddy,
21 moto-1, and others, which DNA Motor Inc. owns and/or controls; and by virtue of
22 the automotive products that DNA Motor Inc. provides to California residents.
23 16. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Jia Jie Chen, an
24 individual, because Jia Jie Chen is a resident of California.
25 17. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the DOE defendants because
26 the DOE defendants are residents of California and/or because the DOE defendants
27 maintain places of business in California and/or because the DOE defendants
28
5
1 engage in meaningful and ongoing contacts with the residents of the State of
2 California.
3 18. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 USC § 1400(b) because
4 Defendant DNA Motor Inc. is incorporated in California and/or because Defendant
5 DNA Motor Inc. has a regular and established place of business in this judicial
6 district in California and Defendant DNA Motor Inc. has committed acts of
7 infringement within this judicial district in California.
8 19. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 USC § 1391(b) because
9 Defendant DNA Motor Inc. resides in this judicial district. Venue is proper in this
10 Court pursuant to 28 USC § 1391(b) because Defendant Jia Jie Chen resides in this
11 judicial district. The DOE defendants are also subject to personal jurisdiction in
12 this judicial district.
13 20. Venue is further proper because Defendant DNA Motor Inc. is subject
14 to personal jurisdiction in the Central District of California and Razer’s principal
15 place of business is located within the Central District of California, then Defendant
16 DNA Motor Inc. is deemed to reside in the Central District of California pursuant
17 to 28 USC § 1391(c)(2).
18 21. Venue is also proper in this Court per 28 USC § 1391(d).
19 FACTUAL BACKGROUND
20 22. Razer as a California corporate entity was formed in August of 2012.
21 Razer within the US markets (and Canada), offers to sell, has sold, and continues to
22 sell aftermarket automobile accessories, such as, taillights, mirror covers, door
23 handle covers, gas door covers, tail light covers and tail light trim, tailgate handle
24 covers, brake light covers, third brake light covers, front light trim, hood guards,
25 window visors, lighting, light brackets, billet grilles, mesh grilles, replacement
26 grilles, and the like. These products provided by Razer have been marketed,
27 offered for sale, advertised for sale, sold, and shipped under a trademark of RAZER
28 AUTO or under a trademark of RAZER that are both trademarks wholly owned by
6
1 Razer. And to date, Razer continues with such conduct of providing such products
2 under the RAZER AUTO trademark and under the RAZER trademark.
3 23. Many of Razer’s products are also very unique and distinctive and are
4 protected by various US design patents and as trade dress. Note for example, the
5 following US design patents owed by Razer: D838021, D836809, D826115,
6 D825802, D824055, D815325, D812277, D812262, D809167, D808551, D805986,
7 and D798130. See e.g., Exhibit 7 which is a true and accurate copy of US design
8 patent D838021 on a taillight design. See e.g., Exhibit 8 which is a true and
9 accurate copy of US design patent D809167 on a taillight design. Razer also has
10 several pending US design patent applications.
11 24. On January 8, 2019, the D838021 (“the ‘021 Patent”) US design patent
12 was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office
13 (“USPTO”), and has been at all times since its date of issue, valid and enforceable.
14 See e.g., Exhibit 7.
15 25. The ‘021 Patent issued from a US design patent application filed with
16 the USPTO on April 17, 2018, with an earliest effective priority date of September
17 28, 2016.
18 26. The claim of the ‘021 Patent is directed to an original ornamental
19 design for a taillight for vehicle, which is depicted in the seven figures set forth in
20 this patent.
21 27. Razer is the owner of the ‘021 Patent by virtue of a written signed
22 assignment from inventor Samuel Chi to Razer.
23 28. On January 30, 2018, the D809167 (“the ‘167 Patent”) US design
24 patent was duly and legally issued by the USPTO, and has been at all times since its
25 date of issue, valid and enforceable. See e.g., Exhibit 8.
26 29. The ‘167 Patent issued from a US design patent application filed with
27 the USPTO on September 28, 2016.
28
7
1 30. The claim of the ‘167 Patent is directed to an original ornamental

2 design for a taillight for vehicle, which is depicted in the seven figures set forth in
3 this patent.
4 31. Razer is the owner of the ‘167 Patent by virtue of a written signed
5 assignment from inventor Samuel Chi to Razer.
6 32. Razer has standing to bring these claims for US design patent
7 infringement of the ‘021 Patent and of the ‘167 Patent.
8 33. Razer has been advertising, promoting, marketing, and selling
9 taillights embodying the claimed designs of the ‘021 Patent and the ‘167 Patent
10 since about November 3, 2017, under Razer’s product names of “Razer Auto
11 Extreme Taillight.” For example, Razer offers and sells these taillights through
12 various Amazon.com listings operated by Razer.
13 34. See e.g., any of the following four such Amazon.com listings of Razer
14 that list Razer taillights embodying the claims designs of the ‘021 Patent and the
15 ‘167 Patent:
16 (a) https://www.amazon.com/Razer-Auto-Taillights-Wrangler-
17 Taillight/dp/B07MFC59ZF/
18 (b) https://www.amazon.com/Razer-Auto-Taillights-Wrangler-
19 Taillight/dp/B07MLHQ62R/
20 (c) https://www.amazon.com/Razer-Auto-Taillights-Wrangler-
21 Taillight/dp/B07MLGJ31R/
22 (d) https://www.amazon.com/Razer-Auto-Taillights-Wrangler-
23 Taillight/dp/B07MF9GZLT/
24 35. Note in the “Product description” section of each of the above
25 Amazon.com listings of Razer, the US design patent numbers of D809,167 and
26 D838,021 are publicly published and displayed for anyone to see.
27 36. Razer conducted test buys of taillights provided by Defendants. Razer
28 caused a Defendants’ taillight test buy to be purchased from eBay seller
8
1 “speed_daddy” on December 5, 2018, which was received by Razer in packaging

2 marked both “speed_daddy” and “DNA Motoring” on December 8, 2018 (USPS
3 tracking number 9405516902141766354385). See e.g., Exhibit 9 for a series of
4 photographs documenting Razer’s receipt of this test buy from eBay seller
5 “speed_daddy.” This test buy was done after the issuance of the ‘167 Patent.
6 37. Razer caused a Defendants’ taillight test buy to be purchased from
7 eBay seller “moto-1” on December 5, 2018, which was received by Razer in
8 packaging marked only “DNA Motoring” on December 8, 2018 (USPS tracking
9 number 9405516902141766359922). See e.g., Exhibit 10 for a series of
10 photographs document Razer’s receipt of this test buy from eBay seller “moto-1.”
11 This test buy was done after the issuance of the ‘167 Patent.
12 38. Razer caused a Defendants’ taillight test buy to be purchased from
13 Amazon seller “DNA Motoring” on January 9, 2019, which was received by Razer
14 in packaging marked only “DNA Motoring” on January 10, 2019 (USPS tracking
15 number 9405516902141766716176). See e.g., Exhibit 11 for a series of
16 photographs document Razer’s receipt of this test buy from Amazon seller “DNA
17 Motoring.” This test buy was done after the issuance of the ‘021 Patent.
18 39. These taillights purchased by Razer from the Defendants in these test
19 buys are noted herein as, “Infringing Products” that infringe both the ‘021 Patent
20 and the ‘167 Patent.
21 40. The Defendants have been making, having made, using, importing,
22 offering for sale, and/or selling these Infringing Products that fall within the scope
23 of the ‘021 Patent and the ‘167 Patent; and wherein this conduct of the Defendants
24 is occurring within the United States.
25 41. Below are side by side comparisons of the January 9, 2019, test bought
26 taillight from Amazon.com seller “DNA Motoring” shown as compared against the
27 figures from the ‘021 Patent:
28
9
1 (a) Pictured below on the left is figure (FIG.) 1 from the ‘021 Patent with the
2 Defendants’ Infringing Product depicted on the right:
3
10
11
12
13
(b) Pictured below on the left is figure (FIG.) 2 from the ‘021 Patent with the
14
Defendants’ Infringing Product depicted on the right:
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 (c) Pictured below on the left is figure (FIG.) 3 from the ‘021 Patent with the
28
10
10
11
12
(d) Pictured below on the left is figure (FIG.) 4 from the ‘021 Patent with the
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 (e) Pictured below on the left is figure (FIG.) 5 from the ‘021 Patent with the
25
26
27
28
11
10 (f) Pictured below on the left is figure (FIG.) 6 from the ‘021 Patent with the
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(g) Pictured below on the left is figure (FIG.) 7 from the ‘021 Patent with the
26
27
28
12
10
11
12
13 42. Below are side by side comparisons of the December 5, 2018, test
14 bought taillight from eBay seller “speed_daddy” shown as compared against the
15 figures from the ‘167 Patent:
16 (a) Pictured below on the left is figure (FIG.) 1 from the ‘167 Patent with the
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
1 (b) Pictured below on the left is figure (FIG.) 2 from the ‘167 Patent with the
3
10
11
12
13
14
15 (c) Pictured below on the left is figure (FIG.) 3 from the ‘167 Patent with the
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14
1 (d) Pictured below on the left is figure (FIG.) 4 from the ‘167 Patent with the
3
10
11
(e) Pictured below on the left is figure (FIG.) 5 from the ‘167 Patent with the
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
(f) Pictured below on the left is figure (FIG.) 6 from the ‘167 Patent with the
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15
10
11
12
13
14
(g) Pictured below on the left is figure (FIG.) 7 from the ‘167 Patent with the
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16
1 43. Note, as customary in U.S. design patent practice, broken lines in both
2 the ‘021 Patent and in the ‘167 Patent are expressly disclaimed in each of these
3 respective patents; and thus, these broken lines are not part of the claimed and
4 protected designs.
5 44. The above noted Infringing Products of the Defendants have a portion
6 of a part number of at least “TLZTL299” (sometimes with spaces, dashes, and
7 additional characters). Defendants’ Infringing Products have been sold in the
8 United States under product titles of “LED 3D Bar Brake Tail Light” and “Full 3D
9 LED Brake Reverse Tail Light” – using the words noted in quotation, but with
10 those quoted words sometimes in different word order and with additional words.
11 45. Defendants’ Infringing Products have been offered for sale in the
12 United States (US) on Amazon.com and on eBay.com. See e.g., Exhibits 4, 5, and
13 6 for such Infringing Product offerings.
14 46. See also Exhibit 12 which is a true and accurate screenshot, taken on
15 January 8, 2019, from eBay.com showing eBay seller “speed_daddy” offering for
16 sale an infringing taillight. eBay seller “speed_daddy” is owned and/or operated by
17 the Defendants.
18 47. Defendants’ Infringing Products have been sold in the United States
19 (US) on Amazon.com and on eBay.com. See e.g., Exhibits 4, 5, 6, and 12.
20 48. Based on the above noted test buys and on Defendants’ Amazon.com
21 and eBay listings (see e.g., Exhibits 4, 5, 6, and 12), and in light of the relevant
22 body of prior art, Razer has concluded that an ordinary observer would consider the
23 claimed designs in the ‘167 Patent and in the ‘021 Patent to be substantially the
24 same as these taillights (the Infringing Products) offered and provided by the
25 Defendants.
26 49. Razer has never authorized, permitted, nor licensed the Defendants to
27 import, offer to sell, and sell the Infringing Products in the United States; and such
28
17
1 conduct by the Defendants is patent infringement of the ‘021 Patent and of the ‘167
2 Patent.
3 50. Defendants’ patent infringement of the ‘021 Patent and of the ‘167
4 Patent have been for the purposes of deriving revenue and other financial gain.
5 51. Defendants’ sale of the Infringing Products has unjustly enriched the
6 Defendants to the detriment of Razer.
7 52. Defendants’ infringement of the ‘021 Patent and of the ‘167 Patent
8 have been willful and intentional. Defendants had at least constructive notice of the
9 of the ‘021 Patent and of the ‘167 Patent by virtue of the publicly accessible
10 relevant listings of Razer on Amazon.com as noted above that publish the two
11 relevant patent numbers on such Razer listings.
12 53. The Defendants’ Infringing Products are also of inferior quality as
13 compared against Razer’s authentic taillights that embody the ‘021 Patent and the
14 ‘167 Patent. For example, Defendants’ Infringing Products are of poorer plastic
15 construction, poorer wiring, and more prone to moisture intrusion as compared to
16 Razer’s authentic taillights that embody the ‘021 Patent and the ‘167 Patent. The
17 inferior quality of Defendants’ Infringing Products harms Razer’s reputation and
18 goodwill as the average taillight consumer is confused between Razer’s authentic
19 taillights and Defendants’ Infringing Products.
20 54. Further, Defendants’ Infringing Products are routinely retailed at lower
21 prices than Razer’s authentic taillights resulting in a diversion of sales from Razer
22 and unjust enrichment of the Defendants to the detriment of Razer. For example,
23 Defendants’ Infringing Products are routinely retailed in the $75 to $90 range;
24 whereas, Razer’s authentic taillights retail for around $139.
25 55. A trademark is a word, a name, a symbol, a device, or a combination
26 of them that indicates the source of products. Trademark rights (including trade
27 dress) arise by using the word, the name, the symbol, the device, or the combination
28 of them in commerce as a source identifier for the products. The owner (here
18
1 Razer) of the trademark (e.g., RAZER) has the right to exclude others from using
2 that trademark in a manner that is likely to cause confusion.
3 56. Trade dress is a type of trademark, specifically, trade dress is the non-
4 functional physical detail and design of a product that indicates or identifies the
5 product’s source and distinguishes that product from the product of others.
6 57. Razer owns trade dress in a non-functional, distinctive, decorative
7 ornament that resembles a rivet with undulations around its circumference. Razer’s
8 trademark of RAZER is also physically marked on the top of these decorative
9 ornaments. See e.g., the below images of one of these Razer decorative ornaments
10 shown from two different viewing angles:
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
58. In 2016, Razer employee Samuel Chi developed the above shown
20
decorative ornaments specifically for Razer.
21
59. Razer provides these decorative ornaments for decorative and non-
22
functional use on such products as vehicle grilles and vehicle fenders. See e.g.,
23
Exhibit 13 of photographs showing Razer’s use of these decorative ornaments on a
24
vehicle grille.
25
60. Razer first placed these decorative ornaments into interstate commerce
26
at least as early as September 7, 2016.
27
28
19
1 61. Razer was the first to provide these unique and distinctive RAZER
2 marked decorative ornaments in the United States (US) (and the first in the world to
3 do so).
4 62. Razer markets, offers to sell, advertises to sell, sells, and ships
5 aftermarket automobile accessory products (such as, vehicle grilles and vehicle
6 fenders) adorned with Razer’s decorative ornaments, both within California and
7 across California state lines. See e.g., Exhibit 14, a true and accurate screenshot
8 from one of Razer’s Amazon listing showing a vehicle grille for sale adorned with
9 these decorative ornaments.
10 63. Razer has a currently pending US federal trademark registration
11 application, serial number 88249035, filed with the USPTO for these decorative
12 ornaments marked with RAZER.
13 64. By Razer marketing, offering to sell, advertising to sell, selling, and
14 shipping aftermarket automobile accessory products (such as, vehicle grilles and
15 vehicle fenders) adorned with Razer’s decorative ornaments, both within California
16 and across California state lines, these decorative ornaments operate as a
17 designation of source for such products, with that source being Razer. That is,
18 Razer’s use in commerce of these decorative ornaments marked with RAZER
19 establishes these decorative ornaments as a trademark, specifically as trade dress, as
20 understood by both federal law and by California state law.
21 65. Razer’s decorative ornaments are distinctive. This distinctiveness
22 arises from the unique look of these decorative ornaments, with their undulations
23 around the circumference and by inclusion of the RAZER trademark on the top of
24 these decorative ornaments.
25 66. Razer’s decorative ornaments are non-functional. Razer’s decorative
26 ornaments are non-functional because the only purpose served is decorative and to
27 indicate source of goods for vehicle accessory (e.g., vehicle grille) that is attached
28 to the vehicle. Razer’s decorative ornaments are not real rivets in that these
20
1 decorative ornaments provide no means for attaching a vehicle grille (or vehicle
2 fender) to the vehicle.
3 67. In early July, 2018, Razer became aware that the Defendants (e.g.,
4 DNA Motor Inc.) was offering for sale in the United States (US) decorative
5 ornaments with the RAZER trademark on the top of these decorative ornaments.
6 Defendants were offering these decorative ornaments for sale at least via some of
7 Defendants’ eBay listings. Defendants were offering these decorative ornaments,
8 with the RAZER trademark, for sale in conjunction with vehicle grilles.
9 68. In early July 2018, Razer conducted a test buy of such vehicle grilles
10 with these decorative ornaments from the Defendants. See Exhibit 15 for true and
11 accurate photographs documenting the vehicle grille and decorative ornaments
12 received from this test buy from the Defendants.
13 69. Upon investigation by Razer, the decorative ornaments received from
14 this test buy from the Defendants, showed that the decorative ornaments received
15 from the Defendants were identical or virtually identical to Razer’s authentic
16 decorative ornaments, including the marking and use of the RAZER trademark on
17 these decorative ornaments from the Defendants. An ordinary consumer of vehicle
18 grilles would not be able to distinguish between decorative ornaments from the
19 Defendants and from Razer’s authentic decorative ornaments.
21 offer to sell, and sell these decorative ornaments marked with RAZER.
22 71. In response to Razer’s test buy of the Defendants infringing decorative
23 ornaments, Razer sent a cease and desist letter, dated July 12, 2018, to the
24 Defendants. See Exhibit 16 for a true and accurate copy of this cease and desist
25 letter. This cease and desist letter put Defendants on actual notice that their
26 offering to sell and sale of these decorative ornaments marked with RAZER
27 constituted trademark and trade dress infringement.
28
21
1 72. Defendants on July 25, 2018, via email, responded to Razer’s cease
2 and desist letter, dated July 12, 2018, wherein Defendants stated, “We have
3 inspected and confirmed your claim. Sales will cease.” This email from
4 Defendants came from an email address of legal@dnamotoring.
5 73. On or after July 25, 2018, Defendants continued to sell infringing
6 decorative ornaments marked RAZER and/or provided infringing decorative
7 ornaments marked RAZER to sellers who then sold these infringing decorative
8 ornaments marked RAZER.
9 74. Razer and Defendants are direct competitors. For example, both Razer
10 and Defendants sell the same types of products, such as, vehicle grilles (and
11 taillights) to consumers. For example, both Razer and Defendants use at least some
12 of the same channels of distribution, such as selling online, via Amazon.com and
13 eBay, to consumers.
14 75. Defendants used decorative ornaments similar to, virtually identical to,
15 or identical to Razer’s trade dress in Razer’s decorative ornaments without the
16 consent of Razer in a manner that is likely to cause confusion among ordinary
17 consumers as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or approval of Razer with
18 respect to the decorative ornaments from Defendants.
19 76. Defendants are unfairly competing with Razer by using Razer’s trade
20 dress in a manner likely to cause confusion as to the origin (source) of the products
21 (e.g., vehicle grilles with decorative ornament marked with RAZER).
22 77. In addition to Razer’s decorative ornaments, being trade dress, Razer
23 also owns the copyright in these decorative ornaments that are creative, original,
24 and non-functional works.
25 78. Razer has a pending federal copyright registration application in these
26 decorative ornaments filed with the US Copyright Office. See Exhibit 17 for a true
27 and accurate copy of the filing particulars for this copyright registration application
28
22
1 that was filed on January 3, 2019, with a US Copyright Office service request
2 number of 1-7280188771.
3 79. The decorative ornaments offered for sale and sold by Defendants (see
4 e.g., Exhibit 15) are at least substantially similar to Razer’s decorative ornaments.
5 80. By Razer having sold and continuing to sell vehicle accessories (e.g.,
6 vehicle grilles) with these decorative ornaments since at least as early as September
7 7, 2016, Defendants have had access to Razer’s decorative ornaments. See e.g.,
8 Exhibit 14. Razer has also publicly displayed these decorative ornaments at
9 SEMA trade shows in Las Vegas prior to Defendants use of these decorative
10 ornaments marked with RAZER. Razer has also publicly displayed these
11 decorative ornaments on Razer’s website prior to Defendants use of these
12 decorative ornaments marked with RAZER.
13 81. Further, when Defendants offer to sell vehicle grilles with these
14 decorative ornaments, those offers include online listings (e.g., on eBay) that
15 include photographs of the decorative ornaments from the Defendants and these
16 photographs of Defendants are unauthorized derivative works of the copyright in
17 Razer’s decorative ornaments.
19 offer to sell and sell these decorative ornaments that Razer owns the copyright in.
21 use and display derivative works (e.g., Defendants’ photographs of the decorative
22 ornaments provided by Defendants) in Razer’s decorative ornaments.
23 84. By Defendants offering to sell, selling, and displaying decorative
24 ornaments without the consent of Razer, wherein these decorative ornaments are at
25 least substantially similar to Razer’s decorative ornaments, Defendants have
26 infringed Razer’s copyright in these decorative ornaments.
27 ///
28
23
1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

2 (Patent Infringement under 35 USC § 271 of US Design Patent D838021)
3 (Against All Defendants)
4 85. Razer restates, realleges, and incorporates by reference as if fully set
5 forth herein the allegations of the foregoing Paragraphs 1 – 84.
6 86. As shown by the foregoing facts, Defendants have infringed and are
7 continuing to infringe the ‘021 Patent by making, having made, importing, using,
8 offering for sale, and/or selling within the United States, including this District,
9 taillight products that fall within the scope of the claim of the ‘021 Patent.
10 87. These acts of the Defendants constitute patent infringement user 35
11 USC § 271 et seq. for which Defendants have no permission, license, nor consent
12 from Razer.
13 88. On information and belief, Defendants will continue to infringe the
14 ‘021 Patent unless enjoined by this Court. Razer is entitled to an injunction
15 pursuant to 35 USC § 283 enjoining DNA Motor Inc., its officers, agents,
16 employees, and all persons acting in concert with DNA Motor Inc. from engaging
17 in further infringement of the ‘021 Patent.
18 89. Razer is entitled to recover damages sustained as a result of
19 Defendants’ infringement that are adequate to compensate for the infringement, but
20 in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by
21 Defendants pursuant to 35 USC § 284; and additional damages for infringement of
22 a design patent, including in the alternative Defendants’ total profits resulting from
23 the infringement pursuant to 35 USC § 289.
24 90. Razer is entitled to recover interest and costs in bringing the present
25 action pursuant to 35 USC § 284.
26 91. The circumstances of this case justify enhanced damages under 35
27 USC § 284, up to three times the damages found or accessed.
28
24
1 92. The circumstances of the infringement renders this case an exceptional

2 case under 35 USC § 284, entitling Razer to an award of reasonable attorney fees.
3
4 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

5 (Patent Infringement under 35 USC § 271 of US Design Patent D809167)
10 continuing to infringe the ‘167 Patent by making, having made, importing, using,
12 taillight products that fall within the scope of the claim of the ‘167 Patent.
13 95. These acts of the Defendants constitute patent infringement user 35
14 USC § 271 et seq. for which Defendants have no permission, license, nor consent
15 from Razer.
16 96. On information and belief, Defendants will continue to infringe the
17 ‘167 Patent unless enjoined by this Court. Razer is entitled to an injunction
18 pursuant to 35 USC § 283 enjoining DNA Motor Inc., its officers, agents,
19 employees, and all persons acting in concert with DNA Motor Inc. from engaging
20 in further infringement of the ‘167 Patent.
22 Defendants’ infringement that are adequate to compensate for the infringement, but
23 in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by
24 Defendants pursuant to 35 USC § 284; and additional damages for infringement of
25 a design patent, including in the alternative Defendants’ total profits resulting from
26 the infringement pursuant to 35 USC § 289.
25
1 99. The circumstances of this case justify enhanced damages under 35

2 USC § 284, up to three times the damages found or accessed.
3 100. The circumstances of the infringement renders this case an exceptional
4 case under 35 USC § 284, entitling Razer to an award of reasonable attorney fees.
5
6 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

7 (Federal Unfair Competition and False Advertising under 15 USC § 1125(a))
11 102. The actions and conduct of Defendants described above and
12 specifically, without limitation, Defendants’ false statements that the Defendants
13 are selling aftermarket vehicle grilles sourced from Razer, by selling such vehicle
14 grilles with decorative ornaments marked RAZER, throughout the United States,
15 including California, constitutes unfair competition and false advertising in
16 violation of 15 USC § 1125(a).
17 103. Consumers, such as, but not limited to, prospective Razer customers
18 and/or preexisting Razer customers, are likely to be misled and deceived by
19 Defendants’ false representations that the consumer is purchasing authentic Razer
20 products from the Defendants when that is not so.
21 104. Defendants knew their statements were false or likely to mislead.
22 105. As an actual and proximate result of Defendant’s willful and
23 intentional actions, Razer has suffered damages in an amount to be determined at
24 trial, and unless Defendants are enjoined, Razer will continue to suffer irreparable
25 harm and damages to its business, reputation, and goodwill.
26 106. Pursuant to 15 USC § 1117, Razer is entitled to damages for
27 Defendants’ Lanham Act violations, an accounting for profits made by Defendants
28
26
1 on sales of aftermarket automobile products sold with the decorative ornaments

2 marked RAZER, as well as recovery of the costs of this action.
3 107. Furthermore, Razer is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges,
4 that the actions and conduct of Defendants were undertaken willfully and with the
5 intention of causing confusion, mistake, or deception, making this an exceptional
6 case entitling Razer to recovery of additional treble damages and reasonable
7 attorneys’ fees pursuant to 15 USC § 1117.
8
9 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

10 (Statutory Unfair Competition and False Advertising under California Business and
11 Professions Code §§ 17200 and 17500 et seq.)
15 109. The actions and conduct of Defendants described above and
16 specifically, without limitation, their unauthorized use of the RAZER trademark
17 and Razer’s trade dress in Razer’s decorative ornaments, and any confusingly
18 similar variations thereof, in commerce, to advertise, promote, market, and sell
19 aftermarket vehicle grilles with decorative ornaments marked RAZER throughout
20 the United States, including California; as well as Defendants’ false statements that
21 the Defendants are selling authentic Razer aftermarket automobile products by
22 including decorative ornaments marked RAZER in the vehicle grilles provided by
23 Defendants, throughout the United States, including California, constitutes
24 trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, false advertising, and unfair
25 competition in violation of the laws of the State of California.
26 110. By these actions and conduct, Defendants have engaged in false
27 advertising and unfair competition in violation of the statutory law of the State of
28 California, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 and 17500, et seq.; and as a result,
27
1 Razer has suffered and will continue to suffer damage to its business, reputation,
2 and goodwill.
3 111. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ willful and intentional
4 actions, Razer has suffered damages in an amount to be determined at trial, and
5 unless Defendants are restrained, Razer will continue to suffer irreparable damage
6 (harm).
7
8 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

9 (Common law trademark infringement)
13 113. Razer’s use in commerce of the RAZER trademark and Razer’s use of
14 the decorative ornaments marked RAZER predates any such use by Defendants.
15 The actions and conduct of Defendants described above and specifically, without
16 limitation, their unauthorized use of the RAZER trademark, along with the
17 unauthorize use decorative ornaments marked RAZER, and any confusingly similar
18 variations thereof, in commerce, to advertise, promote, market, and sell aftermarket
19 vehicle grilles with decorative ornaments marked RAZER throughout the United
20 States, including California, constitutes trademark infringement and trade dress
21 infringement in violation of common law of the State of California.
22 114. By these actions and conduct, Defendants have engaged in common
23 law trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, and unfair competition in
24 violation of common law of the State of California; and as a result, Razer has
25 suffered and will continue to suffer damage to its business, reputation, and
26 goodwill.
27 115. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ willful and intentional
28 actions, Razer has suffered damages in an amount to be determined at trial, and
28
1 unless Defendants are restrained, Razer will continue to suffer irreparable damage
2 (harm).
3
4 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

5 (Inducing Trademark Infringement)
9 117. Defendants have infringed Razer’s RAZER trademark and have
10 infringed Razer’s trade dress in the decorative ornaments marked RAZER; and
11 Defendants have intentionally induced sellers to infringe Razer’s RAZER
12 trademark and to infringe Razer’s trade dress in the decorative ornaments marked
13 RAZER, by providing vehicle grilles along with decorative ornaments marked
14 RAZER to these sellers and after Defendants were on notice that such conduct
15 constituted trademark and trade dress infringement, wherein these sellers then offer
16 to sell and have sold such vehicle grilles with the decorative ornaments marked
17 RAZER in the United States; wherein such actions by Defendants are in violation
18 of federal law and the common law of the State of California.
19 118. The actions of Defendants, if not enjoined, will continue. Razer has
20 suffered and continues to suffer damages in an amount to be proven at trial
21 consisting of, among other things, diminution in the value of and goodwill
22 associated with the RAZER trademark, and injury to Razer’s reputation and
23 business.
24 119. On information and belief, the actions of Defendants described above
25 were and continue to be deliberate and willful.
26
27 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

28 (Copyright Infringement under 17 USC § 501)
29

5 continuing to infringe Razer’s copyright in Razer’s decorative ornaments by
7 decorative ornaments that are at least substantially similar to Razer’s decorative
8 ornaments; and by displaying derivative works (e.g., Defendants’ photographs of
9 the decorative ornaments provided by Defendants) of Razer’s decorative
10 ornaments.
11 122. These acts of the Defendants constitute copyright infringement under
12 17 USC § 501 for which Defendants have no permission, license, nor consent from
13 Razer.
14 123. On information and belief, Defendants will continue to infringe
15 Razer’s copyright in Razer’s decorative ornament unless enjoined by this Court.
16 Razer is entitled to an injunction pursuant to 17 USC § 502 enjoining DNA Motor
17 Inc., its officers, agents, employees, and all persons acting in concert with DNA
18 Motor Inc. from engaging in further infringement of Razer’s copyright in Razer’s
19 decorative ornament.
21 Defendants’ infringement that are adequate to compensate for the infringement
22 pursuant to 17 USC § 504.
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28
30
1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

2 WHEREFORE, Razer respectfully prays and requests the Court to enter
3 judgment in Razer’s favor as to all claims asserted in this Complaint and,
4 specifically, to enter judgment as follows:
5 A. That DNA Motor Inc. has infringed the ‘021 Patent;
6 B. That DNA Motor Inc., its offices, agents, employees, and all persons
7 acting in concert or participation with DNA Motor Inc. be permanently enjoined
8 from engaging in further patent infringement of the ‘021 Patent;
9 C. That DNA Motor Inc. has infringed the ‘167 Patent;
10 D. That DNA Motor Inc., its offices, agents, employees, and all persons
12 from engaging in further patent infringement of the ‘167 Patent;
13 E. That Razer be awarded all of the profits of DNA Motor Inc.’s
14 infringing taillights sold in the United States pursuant to 35 USC § 289;
15 F. That Razer be awarded additional damages pursuant to 35 USC §284
16 in an amount adequate to compensate Razer for the patent infringement of DNA
17 Motor Inc. (in no event less than a reasonable royalty);
18 G. That based on the willful nature of the patent infringement, the patent
19 infringement damages be increased to three times the amount of damages found or
20 accessed, and Razer be awarded its costs and interest, all in accordance with 35
21 USC § 284;
22 H. That this case be found exceptional under 35 USC § 285 and Razer be
23 awarded its reasonable attorney fees;
24 I. That DNA Motor Inc. be required to recall all infringing taillights
25 previously shipped to wholesale customers and destroy or surrender all infringing
26 taillights to Razer, at the election of Razer;
27 J. That Defendants be adjudged to have violated 15 USC § 1125(a)
28 infringing Razer’s trademark of RAZER and/or infringing Razer’s trade dress in
31
1 Razer’s decorative ornaments and/or by unfairly competing against Razer by using

2 an infringing mark and/or by unfairly competing against Razer by using decorative
3 ornaments marked RAZER and/or by using false, deceptive, or misleading
4 advertisements in the promotions of aftermarket vehicle grilles;
5 K. That Defendants be adjudged to unlawfully and unfairly competed
6 against Razer under the laws of the State of California, in specific violation of Cal.
7 Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. by using Razer’s RAZER trademark without
8 Razer’s consent in the sale of decorative ornaments marked RAZER;
9 L. That Razer be awarded damages pursuant to 15 USC 1117(a),
10 sufficient to compensate Razer for the damage caused by Defendants’ trademark
11 infringement, trade dress infringement, unfair competition, and false and
12 misleading statements;
13 M. That Razer be awarded Defendants’ profits of sold vehicle grilles with
14 the decorative ornaments marked RAZER; or in the alternative, that Razer be
15 awarded Razer’s lost profits arising by reason of Defendants said unlawful acts;
16 N. That such damages and profits from Defendants’ trademark
17 infringement, trade dress infringement, unfair competition, and false and
18 misleading statements be trebled and awarded to Razer;
19 O. That Razer be awarded its costs and expenses in this suit, under 15
20 USC § 1117, as a result of Defendants’ willful, intentional, and deliberate acts in
21 violation of the Lanham Act;
22 P. That this case is exceptional and that Razer be awarded its reasonable
23 attorneys’ fees in this suit, under 15 USC § 1117;
24 Q. That Razer be awarded damages in an amount sufficient to compensate
25 it for the damage caused by Defendants’ unfair competition and false advertising
26 under California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 and 17500 et seq. and for
27 the damage caused by Defendants’ common law trademark infringement, common
28
32
1 law trade dress infringement, for inducing trademark infringement, and for inducing
2 trade dress infringement under federal law and California common law;
3 R. That DNA Motor Inc. has infringed Razer’s copyright in Razer’s
4 decorative ornaments;
5 S. That Razer we awarded damages pursuant to 17 USC § 504 to
6 compensate Razer for Defendants’ copyright infringement;
7 T. That Razer be awarded its costs pursuant to 17 USC § 505;
8 U. That Razer be granted injunctive relief under 15 USC § 1051 et seq.
9 for violations of 15 USC § 1125(a); California Business and Professions Code §§
10 17200 and 17500 et seq.; California common law trademark infringement;
11 California common law trade dress infringement; specifically, that DNA Motor Inc.
12 and all of its officers, agents, servants, representatives, employees, attorneys, and
13 all other persons acting in concert with DNA Motor Inc. be enjoined from:
14 1. Using the RAZER trademark, or any confusingly similar trademark to
15 RAZER, in connection with the marketing, promotion, advertising, sale,
16 or distribution of aftermarket automobile products, including vehicle
17 grilles;
18 2. Using decorative ornaments that are substantially similar to Razer’s
19 decorative ornaments, in connection with the marketing, promotion,
20 advertising, sale, or distribution of aftermarket automobile accessories,
21 including vehicle grilles; and
22 3. Directly or indirectly engaging in false advertising or promotions of
23 aftermarket automobile products that indicate such products are being
24 provided by Razer or any other confusingly similar language;
25 V. That Defendants be ordered to correct erroneous and false advertising
26 and promotions, including without limitation:
27 1. To notify each and every customer of Defendants who was sold
28 aftermarket automobile products with decorative ornaments marked
33
1 RAZER, that the products the customer purchased are not in fact authentic
2 and legitimate products provided by Razer Auto, Inc.; and
3 2. Placing a notification on any websites where Defendants control at least
4 some content to, for a period of six months, beginning from the entry of
5 judgment, that notifies to the public that aftermarket automobile products
6 sold by Defendants with decorative ornaments marked RAZER were not
7 in fact authentic and legitimate goods provided by Razer Auto, Inc.;
8 W. That DNA Motor Inc., its offices, agents, employees, and all persons
10 from engaging in further copyright infringement of Razer’s copyright in Razer’s
11 decorative ornaments pursuant to 17 USC § 502;
12 X. That DNA Motor Inc. be directed to file with the Court and serve on
13 Razer, no later than thirty (30) days after the issuance of an injunction, a written
14 report and under oath (or declaration) setting forth in detail the manner and form in
15 which DNA Motor Inc. has complied with the Court’s injunction;
16 Y. That Razer be awarded its taxable costs, expenses, pre-judgment
17 interest, post-judgment interest; and
18 Z. That Razer be granted such other and further relief as the Court may
19 deem just and equitable or otherwise proper under the law.
20
21 Dated: January 16, 2019

22 Respectfully submitted,
23 /s/ Eric Kelly
24
Eric A. Kelly (California SBN 292241)
25 [email protected]
26 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-486-2698 phone or text msg
27 310-943-1432 fax
28 Attorney for Plaintiff, Razer Auto, Inc.
34
1 VERIFICATION
2 I, Samuel Chi, declare as follows:
J 1. I am a citizen of the United States of America andl am over the age of

4 eighteen.
5 2. I currently hold the position of Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of

6 Plaintiff Razer Auto, Inc. and I have held that position at allpertinent times herein.
3. I have read the foregoing Complaint and I declare that the facts alleged
8 therein are true and correct to best of my knowledge and belief. I understandthat a
9 false statement in this Verification will subject me to penalties of perjury.
10
11 I declare under penalty of perjury under the law of the United States of
T2 America that the foregoing is true and correct.
13
Executedon: Januarv 16.2019
I4
15
16
I7
18
I9
20
2I
22
ZJ
^a
24
25
26
27
28
35
Case 5:19-cv-00111 Document 1-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:36
Exhibit 1
A true and accurate screenshot from California Secretary of State’s website,
https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/CBS/Detail, taken on January 8, 2019, showing contact
information for Defendant DNA Motor Inc.
Exhibit 1 to Complaint Page 1 of 2


Exhibit 2
A true and accurate copy of the 2017 Statement of Information from Defendant DNA Motor
Inc. submitted to the California Secretary of State.
Exhibit 2 to Complaint
State of California S
Secretary of State
Statement of Information FK08257
(Domestic Stock and Agricultural Cooperative Corporations)
FEES (Filing and Disclosure): $25.00.
If this is an amendment, see instructions.
FILED
IMPORTANT – READ INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE COMPLETING THIS FORM In the office of the Secretary of State
1. CORPORATE NAME of the State of California
DNA MOTOR INC.
FEB-27 2017
2. CALIFORNIA CORPORATE NUMBER

C3200810 This Space for Filing Use Only
No Change Statement (Not applicable if agent address of record is a P.O. Box address. See instructions.)
3. If there have been any changes to the information contained in the last Statement of Information filed with the California Secretary
of State, or no statement of information has been previously filed, this form must be completed in its entirety.
If there has been no change in any of the information contained in the last Statement of Information filed with the California Secretary
of State, check the box and proceed to Item 17.
Complete Addresses for the Following (Do not abbreviate the name of the city. Items 4 and 5 cannot be P.O. Boxes.)
4. STREET ADDRESS OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICE CITY STATE ZIP CODE
801 SENTOUS AVE., CITY OF INDUSTRY, CA 91748
5. STREET ADDRESS OF PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OFFICE IN CALIFORNIA, IF ANY CITY STATE ZIP CODE
6. MAILING ADDRESS OF CORPORATION, IF DIFFERENT THAN ITEM 4 CITY STATE ZIP CODE
7. EMAIL ADDRESS FOR RECEIVING STATUTORY NOTIFICATIONS
Names and Complete Addresses of the Following Officers (The corporation must list these three officers. A comparable title for the specific
officer may be added; however, the preprinted titles on this form must not be altered.)
7. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/ ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE
JIA JIE CHEN 801 SENTOUS AVE., CITY OF INDUSTRY, CA 91748
8. SECRETARY ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE
9. CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER/ ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE
JIA JIE CHEN 801 SENTOUS AVE, CITY OF INDUSTRY, CA 91748
Names and Complete Addresses of All Directors, Including Directors Who are Also Officers (The corporation must have at least one
director. Attach additional pages, if necessary.)
10. NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE
13. NUMBER OF VACANCIES ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, IF ANY:

Agent for Service of Process If the agent is an individual, the agent must reside in California and Item 15 must be completed with a California street
address, a P.O. Box address is not acceptable. If the agent is another corporation, the agent must have on file with the California Secretary of State a
certificate pursuant to California Corporations Code section 1505 and Item 15 must be left blank.
14. NAME OF AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS [Note: The person designated as the corporation's agent MUST have agreed to act in that capacity prior to the designation.]
JIA JIE CHEN
15. STREET ADDRESS OF AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS IN CALIFORNIA, IF AN INDIVIDUAL CITY STATE ZIP CODE
Type of Business
16. DESCRIBE THE TYPE OF BUSINESS OF THE CORPORATION
AUTO ACCESSORIES
17. BY SUBMITTING THIS STATEMENT OF INFORMATION TO THE CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE, THE CORPORATION CERTIFIES THE INFORMATION
CONTAINED HEREIN, INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS, IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
02/27/2017 JIA JIE CHEN CEO
DATE TYPE/PRINT NAME OF PERSON COMPLETING FORM TITLE SIGNATURE
SI-200 (REV 01/2013) Page 1 of 1 APPROVED BY SECRETARY OF STATE
Exhibit 3
A true and accurate screenshot from the United States Patent and Trademark Office
(USPTO) TESS Database showing information on trademark, DNA MOTORING, serial
number 87608286, taken on January 8, 2019. (See also serial number 86740753.)


Exhibit 4
A true and accurate screenshot of seller “DNA Motoring” on Amazon.com, last visited on
January 8, 2019. The link associated with this Exhibit 4 screenshot is:
https://www.amazon.com/DNA-Motoring-TL-ZTL-299-SM-Brake-
Reverse/dp/B07KFRPJSQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1546981243&sr=8-
1&keywords=dna+motoring+2007-
2018+WRANGLER+JK+PAIR+FULL+LED+3D+BRAKE%2BREVERSE+TAIL+LIGHT
%2FLAMPS


Exhibit 5
A true and accurate screenshot of seller “DNAMotoring” on eBay.com, last visited on
January 8, 2019. The link associated with this Exhibit 5 screenshot is:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/FOR-2007-2018-WRANGLER-JK-PAIR-FULL-LED-3D-
BRAKE-REVERSE-TAIL-LIGHT-LAMPS-
CLEAR/153255381594?_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIM.MBE%26ao%3D2%2
6asc%3D20160323102634%26meid%3De23c1358ab8641e993f371b948e64602%26pid%3D
100623%26rk%3D3%26rkt%3D6%26sd%3D202498288880%26itm%3D153255381594&_t
rksid=p2047675.c100623.m-1


Exhibit 6
A true and accurate screenshot of seller speed_daddy on eBay.com, last visited on January 8,
2019. The link associated with this Exhibit 6 screenshot is:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/FOR-2007-2018-JEEP-WRANGLER-JK-FULL-LED-
REVERSE-3D-BRAKE-LIGHT-TAIL-LAMPS-
SMOKED/202498288977?fits=Year%3A2012%7CModel%3AWrangler&epid=2302574520
6&hash=item2f25d6ad51:g:DJkAAOSwn6Jb52eP:sc:FedExHomeDelivery!91786!US!-1.


Exhibit 7
A true and accurate copy of U.S. Design Patent D838021 (the “021 Patent”).
Exhibit 8
A true and accurate copy of U.S. Design Patent D809167 (the “167 Patent”).
Exhibit 9
A series of photographs documenting Razer’s receipt of infringing taillight test buy from
eBay seller “speed_daddy” ordered by Razer on December 5, 2018.









Exhibit 10
eBay seller “moto-1” ordered by Razer on December 5, 2018.








Exhibit 11
Amazon.com seller “DNA Motoring” ordered by Razer on January 9, 2019.








Exhibit 12
A true and accurate screenshot, taken on January 8, 2019, from eBay.com showing eBay
seller “speed_daddy” offering for sale an infringing taillight.


Exhibit 13
Photographs showing Razer’s use of these decorative ornaments. The first (upper most)
photograph is of Razer vehicle grille adorned around its periphery with Razer’s decorative
ornaments and the other two photographs are closeup photographs showing the RAZER
marking on these decorative ornaments.




Exhibit 14
A true and accurate screenshot from one of Razer’s Amazon listing showing a vehicle grille
for sale adorned with Razer’s decorative ornaments, wherein this screenshot was taken on
January 9, 2019.


Exhibit 15
Series of true and accurate photographs documenting Razer’s test buy from Defendants of a
vehicle grille with decorative ornaments that are marked RAZER, test buy done in July,
2018.






Exhibit 16
A true and accurate copy of Razer’s cease and desist letter, dated July 12, 2018, sent to
Defendants.
Kelly Tech Law Eric A. Kelly

Attorney at Law, California SBN 292241
Patent Attorney, USPTO Reg. No. 70,302
5535 Westlawn Ave., No. 180
Los Angeles, CA 90066
310-486-2698 Phone or Text
[email protected]
CEASE AND DESIST DEMAND
DNA Motoring
801 S. Sentous St.
City of Industry, CA 91748
July 12, 2018
RE: Razer Auto, Inc. vs. DNA Motoring
Dear DNA Motoring:
My name is Eric Kelly and I am the intellectual property, patent, and trademark
attorney for Razer Auto, Inc. (hereinafter, “Razer”).
Razer owns the valuable U.S. trademarks of RAZER and RAZER AUTO associated
with aftermarket vehicle accessories. Further, Razer owns trade dress in its unique
aftermarket vehicle accessory offerings.
Razer will not hesitate to protect is rights, such as by suing in court. See e.g., case
number 5:16-cv-01764-JGB-SP, Razer Auto, Inc. v. AAL International, where Razer sued for
trademark infringement and unfair competition.
Page 1 of 6
You and any of your agents, as potential defendant’s in the above captioned matter
are hereby put on notice to immediately Cease and Desist the following conduct:
Advertising, marketing, providing, selling and/or offering to sell any aftermarket

automobile accessory product and via any sales channel, where such products are in
association with the brands and trademarks of RAZER or RAZER AUTO, which is
wholly owned by Razer Auto, Inc.
Passing off any aftermarket automobile accessory products, and via any sales channel,
as authentic RAZER or RAZER AUTO branded and/or trademarked products.
Misleading consumers into a knowingly mistaken belief that you are source provider
for authentic RAZER or RAZER AUTO branded aftermarket automobile accessory
products.
Falsely marking any aftermarket automobile accessory products, including any

packaging that contains such aftermarket automobile accessory products, with
RAZER or RAZER AUTO or any other confusingly similar trademark.
Trading off of the goodwill and fame of the RAZER and RAZER AUTO trademarks
for your own benefit.
For example, it has come to our attention that you are offering to sell, selling, and
importing into the United States vehicle grilles with decorative rivets wherein these rivets are
explicitly marked RAZER.
For example, below is a true and accurate photograph of such an unauthorized

decorative rivet explicitly marked RAZER that we have purchased from you:
Page 2 of 6
Note, sales channels include, but are not limited to: any Amazon seller store, any
Ebay seller store, your own online sales via your own websites, online sales via any website,
retail sales, wholesale sales, and wholesale distributor.
Additionally, you are demanded to not initiate any such of the above conduct in the
future without express written permission from Razer Auto, Inc.
Compliance the Above Cease and Desist
Compliance with this Cease and Desist Demand is twofold. First, you are hereby
demanded to respond to this Cease and Desist Demand in writing acknowledging your
compliance no later than Monday, August 6, 2018. Your writing acknowledging compliance
with this Cease and Desist Demand should be emailed to Eric Kelly at
[email protected].
Page 3 of 6
Failure to timely acknowledge compliance with this Cease and Desist Demand in
writing will result in litigation against you.
Secondly with respect to verifying compliance with this Cease and Desist Demand,
Razer Auto, Inc. will check applicable sales channels to see if you are in compliance. This
check will be made on Tuesday, August 7, 2018.
If Razer Auto, Inc.’s check on August 7, 2018, shows that you are still advertising,
marketing, providing, selling and/or offering to sell any aftermarket automobile accessory
products in association with the brands and trademarks of RAZER or RAZER AUTO, then
Razer Auto, Inc. will initiate litigation against you.
That is with respect to initiating litigation, we will file one or more lawsuits against
you in California Superior Court and/or in Federal Court (e.g., California Central District).
We will bring the following civil tort causes of action (claims) against you:
Trademark infringement (under federal law, see e.g., the Lanham Act, 15 USC §
1125(a) and § 1117)
Contributory trademark infringement (under federal case law, see e.g., Inwood
Labs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc, 456 U.S. 844, 855 (1982) and its progeny)
Unfair competition and false designation of origin (under federal law, see e.g., the
Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) and § 1117)
Violation of Unfair Competition Law (UCL) (see e.g., Bus. & Prof. Code, §§
17200-17209) for engaging in unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business acts, and/or
practicing unfair, deceptive, untrue, and/or misleading advertising, e.g., by passing off
aftermarket automobile accessory products as RAZER AUTO trademarked products.
Page 4 of 6
Appropriation of Razer Auto, Inc.’s Name or Likeness (under California law) for
your commercial gain
Common law fraud for intentionally misrepresenting that you are a source provider
for RAZER AUTO trademarked products (under California law)
Common law negligent misrepresentation for negligently misrepresenting that you

are a source provider for RAZER AUTO trademarked products (under California law)
As such we will seek judgment(s) for both monetary damages (actual and/or statutory
damages) and injunctive relief against you. Additionally, other causes of actions (claims)
may become apparent upon further investigation and/or from Discovery.
Note, this Cease and Desist Demand has been sent to you via USPS Priority Mail,
with delivery confirmation (tracking), and as such under California’s Evidence Code, you are
presumed to have received this Cease and Desist Demand.
As such, you are effectively put on notice that continuing any actions and/or conduct
as detailed above will make available punitive damages for continuing to commit one or
more of the above torts in a reckless, wanton, and/or intentional manner. Such punitive
damages may be a multiple of three times of actual/statutory monetary damages.
Additionally, some of the statutes and/or case law may provide for an award of
attorney fees and costs.
Additionally, your potential liability exposure is NOT limited to just Razer Auto, Inc.,
but also to any customers of yours to whom you have sold aftermarket automobile
accessories in association with the RAZER and/or RAZER AUTO trademarks and as such
during Discovery we will learn the identifies of such customers and notify those customers of
Page 5 of 6
your conduct and thus you may expect additional lawsuits, perhaps even a class action
lawsuit against you.
Preservation Notice
In anticipation of litigation, upon receipt of this Cease and Desist Demand, you are
hereby prohibited from engaging in “spoliation” which is, but not limited to, destroying,
erasing, deleting, over-writing, and/or negatively modifying any data, documents, emails,
files, electronic files, screenshots, photographs, videos, product packaging, logs, indexes, or
other writings that relate to the anticipated lawsuit, and regardless of the form, type, or date
the data or writing may take. The consequences of violating such prohibitions are severe and
may include various sanctions, including monetary sanctions against you. In addition, you
may have an affirmative duty imposed by law to actively preserve such data, documents,
emails, files, electronic files, screenshots, photographs, vidoes, product packaging, logs,
indexes, or other writings that relate to the anticipated lawsuit.
Note, if full and timely compliance is received pursuant to this Cease and Desist
Demand, Razer Auto, Inc. may be willing to amicably settle this matter with you.
If you are represented by counsel (i.e. an attorney/lawyer), forward a copy of this

Cease and Desist Demand to your counsel.
Sincerely,
Eric Kelly
Attorney at Law, SBN 292241
310-486-2698 Phone / Text
[email protected]
5535 Westlawn Ave. Suite No. 180
Los Angeles, CA 90066 US
Page 6 of 6
Exhibit 17
A true and accurate copy of the filing particulars for Razer’s federal copyright registration
application that was filed on January 3, 2019, with a US Copyright Office service request
number of 1-7280188771.
Registration #: *-APPLICATION-*
Service Request #: 1-7280188771
Mail Certificate
Kelly Tech Law, PC

Eric Kelly
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 United States
Priority: Routine Application Date: January 03, 2019
Correspondent
Organization Name: Kelly Tech Law, PC

Name: Eric Kelly
Email: [email protected]
Telephone: (310)486-2698
Address: 32622 Nantasket Drive, No. 59
Registration Number
*-APPLICATION-*
Title
Title of Work: Three Dimensional Decorative Ornament With Circumference Undulations And
With The Words Razer
Completion/Publication
Year of Completion: 2016
Date of 1st Publication: September 02, 2016
Nation of 1st Publication: United States
Author
• Author: Razer Auto, Inc.

Author Created: sculpture
Work made for hire: Yes
Citizen of: United States
Domiciled in: United States
Copyright Claimant
Copyright Claimant: Razer Auto, Inc.

1042 N. Mountain Ave., Suite B764, Upland, CA, 91786, United States
0
1
Rights and Permissions
Organization Name: Kelly Tech Law, PC

Name: Eric Kelly
Email: [email protected]
Telephone: (310)486-2698
Address: 32622 Nantasket Drive, No. 59
Certification
Page 1 of 2
Name: Eric Kelly

Date: January 03, 2019
Date: January 03, 2019
Pending
Page 2 of 2

Razer Auto v. DNA Motor - Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Razer Auto v. DNA Motor - Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Razer Auto v. DNA Motor - Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

What is the nature of the legal action described in the document?

What is the nature of the legal action described in the document?

What parties are involved in the legal action?

What parties are involved in the legal action?

Case 5:19-cv-00111 Document 1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 1 of 35 Page ID #:1

1 Eric A. Kelly (California SBN 292241)

8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15 DNA MOTOR INC., a California (2) UNFAIR COMPETITION AND FALSE

20 (5) INDUCING TRADEMARK

23 (7) UNJUST ENRICHMENT

1 30. The claim of the ‘167 Patent is directed to an original ornamental

1 “speed_daddy” on December 5, 2018, which was received by Razer in packaging

16 Defendants’ Infringing Product depicted on the right:

1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

1 92. The circumstances of the infringement renders this case an exceptional

4 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

1 99. The circumstances of this case justify enhanced damages under 35

6 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

1 on sales of aftermarket automobile products sold with the decorative ornaments

9 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

8 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

4 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

27 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

1 (Against All Defendants)

1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

1 Razer’s decorative ornaments and/or by unfairly competing against Razer by using

21 Dated: January 16, 2019

J 1. I am a citizen of the United States of America andl am over the age of

5 2. I currently hold the position of Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of

Exhibit 1 to Complaint Page 1 of 2

Exhibit 1 to Complaint Page 2 of 2

2. CALIFORNIA CORPORATE NUMBER

7. EMAIL ADDRESS FOR RECEIVING STATUTORY NOTIFICATIONS

12. NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE

13. NUMBER OF VACANCIES ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, IF ANY:

Exhibit 3 to Complaint Page 1 of 2

Exhibit 3 to Complaint Page 2 of 2

Exhibit 4 to Complaint Page 1 of 2

Exhibit 4 to Complaint Page 2 of 2

Exhibit 5 to Complaint Page 1 of 2

Exhibit 5 to Complaint Page 2 of 2

2019. The link associated with this Exhibit 6 screenshot is:

Exhibit 6 to Complaint Page 1 of 2

Exhibit 6 to Complaint Page 2 of 2

eBay seller “speed_daddy” ordered by Razer on December 5, 2018.

Exhibit 9 to Complaint Page 1 of 9

Exhibit 9 to Complaint Page 2 of 9

Exhibit 9 to Complaint Page 3 of 9

Exhibit 9 to Complaint Page 4 of 9

Exhibit 9 to Complaint Page 5 of 9

Exhibit 9 to Complaint Page 6 of 9

Exhibit 9 to Complaint Page 7 of 9

Exhibit 9 to Complaint Page 8 of 9

Exhibit 9 to Complaint Page 9 of 9

eBay seller “moto-1” ordered by Razer on December 5, 2018.

Exhibit 10 to Complaint Page 1 of 8

Exhibit 10 to Complaint Page 2 of 8

Exhibit 10 to Complaint Page 3 of 8

Exhibit 10 to Complaint Page 4 of 8

Exhibit 10 to Complaint Page 5 of 8

Exhibit 10 to Complaint Page 6 of 8

Exhibit 10 to Complaint Page 7 of 8