Steeda Autosports v. BMR - Complaint

Case 7:18-cv-00039-HL Document 1 Filed 03/07/18 Page 1 of 12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STEEDA AUTOSPORTS, LLC

Plaintiff,
v. CIVIL ACTION
BMR SUSPENSION, INC.; MILLER FILE NO.:
PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS INC.;
ALLAN MILLER; AND DOES 1 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
THROUGH 10,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF STEEDA AUTOSPORTS, LLC’S

COMPLAINT AGAINST BMR SUSPENSION, INC., MILLER
PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC., and ALLAN MILLER
As and for its Complaint, Plaintiff Steeda Autosports, LLC (“Steeda”)
hereby alleges against Defendants BMR Suspension, Inc. (“BMR”), Miller
Performance Products, Inc. (“MPP”), Allan Miller (“Miller”), and DOES 1 through
10 (collectively “Defendants”) as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This is a patent infringement action under the patent laws of the
United States, 35 U.S.C. § 271, et seq. and a trademark infringement action under
the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125.

THE PARTIES
2. Steeda is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business
located at 2019 Steeda Way, Valdosta, Georgia 31601.
3. Formed in 1988, Steeda is the largest privately-held aftermarket
manufacturer of Ford® performance parts and accessories. Steeda engineers and
manufactures performance equipment for several Ford® vehicles including Ford
Mustang, Fusion, Focus, Fiesta, and Ford Trucks. Steeda manufactures a complete
line of Ford® performance parts and accessories including suspension/chassis
components such as bushing kits used in the independent rear suspension sub-
frame.
4. Steeda is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that
Defendant BMR is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State
of Florida with a place of business located at 928 Sligh Avenue, Seffner, Florida
33584. According to the Florida Secretary of State, BMR may be served via its
registered agent for service of process Leona A. Heaward, 928 Sligh Avenue,
Seffner, Florida 33584.
Defendant MPP is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State
of Florida with a place of business located at 928 Sligh Avenue, Seffner, Florida
2
33584. According to the Florida Secretary of State, MPP may be served via its
registered agent for service of process Allan L. Miller, Jr., 928 Sligh Avenue,
Seffner, Florida 33584.
6. Upon information and belief, Defendant MPP owns, operates, and
controls the URL “https://www.bmrsuspension.com” in concert with, or for the
benefit of, Defendant BMR.
Defendant Allan Miller is a resident of the State of Florida having an address at
928 Sligh Avenue, Seffner, Florida 33584.
8. Upon information and belief, Defendant Miller was at all times
relevant an agent, affiliate, officer, director, manager, principal, alter-ego, and/or
employee of BMR and MPP, and was the active, moving, and conscious force
behind BMR and MPP, and personally participated in each and all of the acts or
conduct alleged herein, including but not limited to full knowledge of each and
every violation of Steeda’s rights and the damages to Steeda proximately caused
thereby.
9. Steeda is unaware of the true names and capacities of the parties sued
herein as DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, whether individual, corporate or
otherwise, and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names. Steeda
3
will seek leave to amend the complaint to assert their true names when they have
been ascertained. Steeda is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that all
defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 10 are in some manner responsible for
the acts and omissions alleged herein.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
10. This Court has original and exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over
this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
11. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they
regularly conduct business and/or solicit business in Georgia and within this
District; because Defendants engage in other courses of conduct and derive
revenue from products provided to residents of Georgia and this District as well as
substantial revenue from interstate commerce; because Defendants have
purposefully established substantial, systematic and continuous contacts with
Georgia and this District and should reasonably expect to be haled into court in this
District; and because Defendants have committed and continue to commit acts of
patent infringement in Georgia and this District in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271,
and placing infringing products into the stream of commerce, with the knowledge
or understanding that such products are sold in the State of Georgia, including in
this District. The acts by Defendants caused injury to Steeda within this District.
4
12. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b)
because Defendants have regularly transacted business in Georgia and within this
District and offer for sale in this District products that infringe Steeda’s patent,
because certain of the acts complained of herein occurred in Georgia and within
this District, and because Defendants derive and seek to derive revenue from sales
of infringing products sold in Georgia and within this District. In addition, venue is
proper because Steeda’s principal place of business is in this District and Steeda
suffered harm in this District.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
13. On April 25, 2017, the United States Patent and Trademark Office
duly and lawfully issued U.S. Design Patent No. D784,881, titled “Bushing Kit for
Aligning an Independent Rear Suspension Sub-frame to a Vehicle Body” (“the
‘D881 patent”). Steeda is the owner by assignment of the ‘D881 patent, a copy of
which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Defendants have willfully copied Steeda’s products and have no patents or pending
patent applications of their own.
15. Steeda is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that the
making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importation of Defendants’
5
products, including but not limited to on the URL
“https://www.bmrsuspension.com”, infringes the claim of the ‘D881 patent,
including without limitation BMR’s CB005 – Cradle Bushing Lockout Kit, Level
2; CB010 - Cradle Bushing Lockout Kit, Level 1; BK051 – Differential Bushing
Lockout Kit, Polyurethane; and BK054 - Differential Bushing Lockout Kit, Billet
Aluminum (collectively, the “Accused Products”).
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Infringement of U.S. Design Patent No. D784,881)
16. Steeda repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding
allegations above as though set forth fully herein.
17. Defendants, by and through theirs agents, officers, directors, retailers,
resellers, employees and servants, have been and are currently willfully and
intentionally infringing the ‘D881 patent by making, using, offering to sell, and/or
selling in the United States and/or importing into the United States one or more of
the Accused Products, which embody the design covered by the ‘D881 patent.
Defendants’ acts constitute infringement of the ‘D881 patent in violation of 35
U.S.C. §271.
18. Steeda is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that
Defendants’ infringement is willful at least in part because Defendants have been
6
aware of Steeda’s product design since at least May 2015, Defendants have been
aware of the ‘D881 patent filing since at least November 2015, Defendants have
been aware of the ‘D881 patent having been granted since at least May 2017, and
Defendants have willfully copied Steeda’s design.
19. Steeda sent cease-and-desist letters to Defendants in June 2017 and
August 2017, and attempted to engage in good faith discussions with Defendants
throughout June, July and August 2017 in an effort to put an end to Defendants’
infringement. Despite these efforts, Defendants’ infringement has continued up
through the present day.
20. In fact, in early 2018, Defendants began selling a new version of the
infringing product referred to as “CB010 - Cradle Bushing Lockout Kit, Level 1”.
Upon information and belief, Defendants’ website was updated to note that the
CB010 - Cradle Bushing Lockout Kit, Level 1 is “Compatible with Steeda…IRS
Subframe ‘Braces’”. However, Defendants’ infringing product is only
“compatible” with other Steeda goods because the infringing product is a copy of
Steeda’s patented designs.
21. As the side-by-side comparison shown below reveals, Defendants
have misappropriated Steeda’s patented design (shown left) in the Accused
7
Products, including the CB010 - Cradle Bushing Lockout Kit, Level 1 and BK054
- Differential Bushing Lockout Kit, Billet Aluminum (shown right).
‘D881 Patent Accused Products
Defendants’ CB010
Defendants’ BK054
Defendants’ infringement of the ‘D881 patent will continue unless enjoined by this
Court.
8
23. By reason of the aforesaid infringing acts, Steeda has been damaged
and is entitled to monetary relief in an amount to be determined at trial but in
excess of the jurisdictional requirement of this Court.
24. Because of the aforesaid infringing acts, Steeda has suffered and
continues to suffer great and irreparable injury for which there is no adequate
remedy at law.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Trade Dress Infringement)
25. Steeda repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding
allegations above as though set forth fully herein.
26. The design of Steeda’s bushing kits is nonfunctional and the design’s
inherently distinctive quality is unique and has achieved a high degree of consumer
recognition and serves to identify Steeda as the source of high quality goods.
27. Steeda has used the design of its bushing kits in commerce since as
early as May 2015, and Steeda’s bushing kit design constitutes protectable trade
dress.
28. Defendants’ unauthorized sale of the Accused Products in interstate
commerce and advertising relating to same constitutes false designation of origin
and a false representation that the goods and services are manufactured, offered,
9
sponsored, authorized, licensed by or otherwise connected with Steeda or come
from the same source as Steeda’s goods when in fact they do not.
29. Defendants’ use of Steeda’s bushing kit design is without Steeda’s
permission or authority and in total disregard of Steeda’s rights to control its
trademarks.
30. Defendants’ use of Steeda’s bushing kit design is likely to lead to and
result in confusion, mistake or deception, and is likely to cause the public to
believe that Steeda has produced, sponsored, authorized, licensed or are otherwise
connected or affiliated with Defendants’ commercial and business activities, all to
the detriment of Steeda.
31. Steeda has no adequate remedy at law.
32. In light of the foregoing, Steeda is entitled to injunctive relief
prohibiting Defendants from using Steeda’s bushing kit design and/or any designs
confusingly similar thereto, and to recover all damages, including attorneys’ fees,
that Steeda has sustained and will sustain, and all gains, profits and advantages
obtained by Defendants as a result of its infringing acts alleged above in an amount
not yet known, and the costs of this action pursuant to the Lanham Act.
10
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Steeda prays for judgment against Defendants as
follows:
(a) An Order adjudging Defendants to have infringed the ‘D881 patent
under 35 U.S.C. § 271;
(b) An Order adjudging Defendants to have willfully infringed the ‘D881
patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271;
(c) A permanent injunction under 35 U.S.C. § 283 enjoining Defendants,
their officers, directors, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and those
persons acting in concert or participation with Defendants, from directly and/or
indirectly infringing the ‘D881 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271;
(d) An accounting of Defendants’ profits;
(e) An order for a trebling of damages and/or enhanced damages due to
Defendants’ willful misconduct under 35 U.S.C. § 284;
(f) An Order adjudicating that this is an exceptional case;
(g) An award to Steeda of the attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by Steeda
in connection with this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285;
(h) An award to Steeda of Defendants’ profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289;
11
(i) An award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and costs of this
action against Defendants
(j) An award to Steeda of Defendants’ profits and all damages sustained
by Steeda as a result of Defendants’ wrongful acts, and such other compensatory
damages as well as applicable interest, costs, and attorney’s fees prescribed by the
Lanham Act;
(k) For a trial by a jury of twelve on all issues so triable; and
(l) For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted this 7th day of March, 2018.
WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ,

EDELMAN & DICKER LLP
One Atlanta Plaza
950 East Paces Ferry Rd, Suite 2850 /s/ W. Shawn Bingham
Atlanta, GA 30326 W. Shawn Bingham
p. 470.419.6650 Georgia Bar No.: 839706
f. 470.419.6651 Attorneys for Plaintiff Steeda Autosports,
LLC
COLEMAN TALLEY LLP

3475 Lenox Road NE
Suite 400 /s/ Edward F. Preston
Atlanta, Georgia 30326 Edward F. Preston
p. 229-671-8229 Georgia Bar No.: 587416
f. 229-333-0885 Attorneys for Plaintiff Steeda Autosports,
LLC
12
8830212v.1
Case 7:18-cv-00039-HL Document 1-1 Filed 03/07/18 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

for the
__________ District of __________
STEEDA AUTOSPORTS, LLC )

)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
BMR SUSPENSION, INC.; MILLER )
PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS INC.; ALLAN )
MILLER; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10, )
)
Defendant(s) )
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant’s name and address) BMR Suspension, Inc.

c/o Leona A. Heaward
928 Sligh Avenue
Seffner, Florida 33584
A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are:
W. Shawn Bingham, WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER,
950 East Paces Ferry Rd, Suite 2850, Atlanta, GA 30326 (470) 419-6650
Edward F. Preston, COLEMAN TALLEY LLP, 3475 Lenox Rd NE, Suite 400,
Atlanta, GA 30326 (229) 671-8229
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
CLERK OF COURT
Date: 03/07/2018
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .
’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or
’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or
’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date) ; or
’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or
’ Other (specify):
.
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ 0.00 .
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date:
Server’s signature
Printed name and title
Server’s address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:
Print Save As... Reset


for the
__________ District of __________

)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
MILLER; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10 )
)
Defendant(s) )
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Miller Performance Products, Inc.

c/o Allan L. Miller Jr.
928 Sligh Avenue
Seffner, Florida 33584-3142
Atlanta, GA 30326 (229) 671-8229
CLERK OF COURT
Date: 03/07/2018
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
.
Date:
Server’s address


for the
__________ District of __________

)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
MILLER; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10 )
)
Defendant(s) )
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Allan L. Miller Jr.

928 Sligh Avenue
Seffner, Florida 33584-3142
Atlanta, GA 30326 (229) 671-8229
CLERK OF COURT
Date: 03/07/2018
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
.
Date:
Server’s address

Steeda Autosports v. BMR - Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Steeda Autosports v. BMR - Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Steeda Autosports v. BMR - Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 7:18-cv-00039-HL Document 1 Filed 03/07/18 Page 1 of 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

STEEDA AUTOSPORTS, LLC

PLAINTIFF STEEDA AUTOSPORTS, LLC’S

As and for its Complaint, Plaintiff Steeda Autosports, LLC (“Steeda”)

hereby alleges against Defendants BMR Suspension, Inc. (“BMR”), Miller

10 (collectively “Defendants”) as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is a patent infringement action under the patent laws of the

the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125.

2. Steeda is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business

located at 2019 Steeda Way, Valdosta, Georgia 31601.

3. Formed in 1988, Steeda is the largest privately-held aftermarket

manufacturer of Ford® performance parts and accessories. Steeda engineers and

manufactures performance equipment for several Ford® vehicles including Ford

line of Ford® performance parts and accessories including suspension/chassis

4. Steeda is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that

Seffner, Florida 33584.

5. Steeda is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that

Seffner, Florida 33584.

6. Upon information and belief, Defendant MPP owns, operates, and

controls the URL “https://www.bmrsuspension.com” in concert with, or for the

benefit of, Defendant BMR.

7. Steeda is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that

Defendant Allan Miller is a resident of the State of Florida having an address at

928 Sligh Avenue, Seffner, Florida 33584.

8. Upon information and belief, Defendant Miller was at all times

relevant an agent, affiliate, officer, director, manager, principal, alter-ego, and/or

herein as DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, whether individual, corporate or

the acts and omissions alleged herein.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).

District; because Defendants engage in other courses of conduct and derive

substantial revenue from interstate commerce; because Defendants have

purposefully established substantial, systematic and continuous contacts with

patent infringement in Georgia and this District in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271,

suffered harm in this District.

Aligning an Independent Rear Suspension Sub-frame to a Vehicle Body” (“the

which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

patent applications of their own.

making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importation of Defendants’

products, including but not limited to on the URL

“https://www.bmrsuspension.com”, infringes the claim of the ‘D881 patent,

2; CB010 - Cradle Bushing Lockout Kit, Level 1; BK051 – Differential Bushing

Aluminum (collectively, the “Accused Products”).

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Infringement of U.S. Design Patent No. D784,881)

16. Steeda repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding

allegations above as though set forth fully herein.

17. Defendants, by and through theirs agents, officers, directors, retailers,

Defendants’ acts constitute infringement of the ‘D881 patent in violation of 35

Defendants’ infringement is willful at least in part because Defendants have been

Defendants have willfully copied Steeda’s design.

19. Steeda sent cease-and-desist letters to Defendants in June 2017 and

infringement. Despite these efforts, Defendants’ infringement has continued up

through the present day.

CB010 - Cradle Bushing Lockout Kit, Level 1 is “Compatible with Steeda…IRS

Subframe ‘Braces’”. However, Defendants’ infringing product is only

Steeda’s patented designs.

District of

District of