Case: 1:24-cv-12613 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/09/24 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

Dongguan Guardian Technology Case No. 24-CV-12613

Co. Ltd.,

Plaintiff,

v.

The Partnerships and Unincorpo-

rated Associations Identified on
Schedule “A”,

Defendants.

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Dongguan Guardian Technology Co. Ltd. (“Guardian”), by and through its

attorneys, The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian, LLC, hereby brings the present action

against the Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations (collectively, “Defendants”)

identified on Schedule A attached to the complaint and alleges as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This is an action for patent infringement. This Court has original subject

matter jurisdiction over the federal claims in this action pursuant to the provisions of

the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a)-(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
 Case: 1:24-cv-12613 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/09/24 Page 2 of 12 PageID #:2

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

may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendants. Each of the Defendants di-

rectly targets business activities toward consumers in the United States, including Illinois,

through their operation of, or assistance in the operation of, the fully interactive, commer-

cial Internet stores operating under the seller aliases and online marketplace accounts

identified in Schedule A attached hereto (collectively, the “Seller Aliases”), as well as the

shipment of products offered for sale on those Defendant Online Stores. Specifically, De-

fendants are involved in the production, listing for sale, sale, and/or shipping of products

to Illinois residents that use infringing products featuring Guardian’s patented design to

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

gaging in interstate commerce, is targeting sales to Illinois residents, and has wrongfully

caused Guardian substantial injury in the State of Illinois.

3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over each Defendant, in that each De-

fendant conducts significant business in Illinois and in this judicial district, and the acts

and events giving rise to this lawsuit of which each Defendant stands accused were un-

dertaken in Illinois and in this judicial district.

NATURE OF THE CASE

4. This action has been filed by Guardian to combat e-commerce store oper-

ators who trade upon Guardian’s reputation and goodwill by making, using, offering for

sale, selling and/or importing into the United States for subsequent sale or use the same

unauthorized and unlicensed product, namely the watch case apparatus, such as the one

shown in Exhibit 1, that infringes Guardian’s patented design (the “Infringing Products”).

Defendants create e-commerce stores operating under one or more Seller Aliases that

2
 Case: 1:24-cv-12613 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/09/24 Page 3 of 12 PageID #:3

are making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing into the United States for

subsequent sale or use Infringing Products to unknowing consumers. E-commerce stores

operating under the Seller Aliases share unique identifiers establishing a logical relation-

ship between them, suggesting that Defendants’ operation arises out of the same trans-

action, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences. Defendants attempt to avoid

and mitigate liability by operating under one or more Seller Aliases to conceal both their

identities and the full scope and interworking of their operation. Guardian has filed this

action to combat Defendants’ infringement of its patented design, as well as to protect

unknowing consumers from purchasing Infringing Products over the Internet. Guardian

has been and continues to be irreparably damaged from the loss of its lawful patent rights

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

design as a result of Defendants’ actions and seeks injunctive and monetary relief.

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff Dongguan Guardian Technology Co. Ltd. is a Chinese company

having its principal place of business in the city of Dongguan City, Guangdong Province,

China.

6. Guardian has been engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing

and marketing consumer products, such as watch cases, (collectively, the “Guardian

Products”). Guardian Products can be purchased from e-commerce platforms, such as

Amazon.com and Temu.com. Since at least 2021, Guardian has designed, manufactured,

marketed, advertised, promoted, distributed and sold Guardian Products to consumers in

the United States. Guardian Products have become very popular, driven by Guardian’s

arduous quality standards and Guardian Products’ unique and innovative design. As a

3
 Case: 1:24-cv-12613 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/09/24 Page 4 of 12 PageID #:4

result, among the purchasing public, genuine Guardian Products are instantly recogniza-

ble as such. In the United States and around the world, the Guardian brand has come to

symbolize high quality watch cases.

7. Guardian Products are known for their distinctive patented designs. These

designs are broadly recognized by consumers. Consumer products styled after these de-

signs are associated with the quality and innovation that the public has come to expect

from Guardian Products. Guardian uses these designs in connection with its Guardian

Products, including, but not limited to, the patented design protected by the U.S. design

patent (“Asserted Patent”) attached hereto as Exhibit 2, referred to herein as the “Guard-

ian Design.”

8. Guardian is the lawful assignee of all right, title, and interest in and to the

Guardian Design. The Asserted Patent for the Guardian Design was lawfully issued.

9. Defendants are individuals and business entities of unknown makeup who

own and/or operate one or more of the e-commerce stores under at least the Seller Ali-

ases identified on Schedule A and/or other seller aliases not yet known to Guardian. On

information and belief, Defendants reside and/or operate in the People’s Republic of

China or other foreign jurisdictions with lax intellectual property enforcement systems or

redistribute products from the same or similar sources in those locations. Defendants

have the capacity to be sued pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b).

10. On information and belief, Defendants either individually or jointly, operate

one or more e-commerce stores under the Seller Aliases listed in Schedule A attached

hereto. Tactics used by Defendants to conceal their identities and the full scope of their

operation make it virtually impossible for Guardian to discover Defendants’ true identities

4
 Case: 1:24-cv-12613 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/09/24 Page 5 of 12 PageID #:5

and the exact interworking of their network. If Defendants provide additional credible in-

formation regarding their identities, Guardian will take appropriate steps to amend the

Complaint.

DEFENDANTS’ UNLAWFUL CONDUCT

11. In recent years, Guardian has identified numerous fully interactive, e-com-

merce stores, including those operating under the Seller Aliases, which were offering for

sale and/or selling Infringing Products on online marketplace platforms such as Amazon,

eBay, AliExpress, Alibaba, Wish.com, Walmart, Etsy, and DHgate, including the e-com-

merce stores operating under the Seller Aliases. The Seller Aliases target consumers in

this Judicial District and throughout the United States. According to a U.S. Customs and

Border Protection (CBP) Report, in 2021, CBP made over 27,000 seizures of goods with

intellectual property rights (IPR) violations totaling over $3.3 billion, an increase of $2.0

billion from 2020. Intellectual Property Rights Seizure Statistics, Fiscal Year 2021, U.S.

Customs and Border Protection (Exhibit 3). Of the 27,000 in total IPR seizures, over

24,000 came through international mail and express courier services (as opposed to con-

tainers), 51 percent of which originated from China and Hong Kong. Id.

12. Third party service providers like those used by Defendants do not ade-

quately subject new sellers to verification and confirmation of their identities, allowing

infringers to “routinely use false or inaccurate names and addresses when registering

with these e-commerce platforms.” Exhibit 4, Daniel C.K. Chow, Alibaba, Amazon, and

Counterfeiting in the Age of the Internet, 40 NW. J. INT’L L. & BUS. 157, 186 (2020); see

also, report on “Combating Trafficking in Counterfeit and Pirated Goods” prepared by the

U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans (Jan. 24,

5
 Case: 1:24-cv-12613 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/09/24 Page 6 of 12 PageID #:6

2020), attached as Exhibit 5 and finding that on “at least some e-commerce platforms,

little identifying information is necessary for [an infringer] to begin selling” and recom-

mending that “[s]ignificantly enhanced vetting of third-party sellers” is necessary. Infring-

ers hedge against the risk of being caught and having their websites taken down from an

e-commerce platform by preemptively establishing multiple virtual storefronts. Exhibit 5

at p. 22. Since platforms generally do not require a seller on a third-party marketplace to

identify the underlying business entity, infringers can have many different profiles that can

appear unrelated even though they are commonly owned and operated. Exhibit 5 at p.

39. Further, “E-commerce platforms create bureaucratic or technical hurdles in helping

brand owners to locate or identify sources of [infringement].” Exhibit 4 at 186-187.

13. Defendants have targeted sales to Illinois residents by setting up and oper-

ating e- commerce stores that target United States consumers using one or more Seller

Aliases, offer shipping to the United States, including Illinois, accept payment in U.S. dol-

lars and/or funds from U.S. bank accounts, and, on information and belief, have sold

Infringing Products to residents of Illinois.

14. Defendants concurrently employ and benefit from substantially similar ad-

vertising and marketing strategies. For example, Defendants facilitate sales by designing

e-commerce stores operating under the Seller Aliases so that they appear to unknowing

consumers to be authorized online retailers, outlet stores, or wholesalers. E-commerce

stores operating under the Seller Aliases appear sophisticated and accept payment in

U.S. dollars and/or funds from U.S. bank accounts via credit cards, Alipay, Amazon Pay,

eBay, and/or PayPal. E-commerce stores operating under the Seller Aliases often include

content and images that make it very difficult for consumers to distinguish such stores

6
 Case: 1:24-cv-12613 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/09/24 Page 7 of 12 PageID #:7

from an authorized retailer. Guardian has not licensed or authorized Defendants to use

the Guardian Design, and none of the Defendants are authorized retailers of genuine

Guardian Products.

15. E-commerce store operators like Defendants commonly engage in fraudu-

lent conduct when registering the Seller Aliases by providing false, misleading and/or

incomplete information to e-commerce platforms to prevent discovery of their true identi-

ties and the scope of their e-commerce operation.

16. E-commerce store operators like Defendants regularly register or acquire

new seller aliases for the purpose of offering for sale and selling Infringing Products. Such

seller alias registration patterns are one of many common tactics used by e-commerce

store operators like Defendants to conceal their identities and the full scope and inter-

working of their operation, and to avoid being shut down.

17. Even though Defendants operate under multiple fictitious aliases, the e-

commerce stores operating under the Seller Aliases often share unique identifiers, such

as templates with common design elements that intentionally omit any contact information

or other information for identifying Defendants or other Seller Aliases they operate or use.

E-commerce stores operating under the Seller Aliases include other notable common

features, such as use of the same registration patterns, accepted payment methods,

check-out methods, keywords, advertising tactics, similarities in price and quantities, the

same incorrect grammar and misspellings, and/or the use of the same text and images.

Additionally, Infringing Products for sale by the Seller Aliases bear similar irregularities

and indicia of being unauthorized to one another, suggesting that the Infringing Products

7
 Case: 1:24-cv-12613 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/09/24 Page 8 of 12 PageID #:8

were manufactured by and come from a common source and that Defendants are inter-

related.

18. E-commerce store operators like Defendants are in constant communica-

tion with each other and regularly participate in QQ.com chat rooms and through websites

such as sellerdefense.cn, kaidianyo.com and kuajingvs.com regarding tactics for operat-

ing multiple accounts, evading detection, pending litigation, and potential new lawsuits.

19. Infringers such as Defendants typically operate under multiple seller aliases

and payment accounts so that they can continue operation despite Guardian’s enforce-

ment. E- commerce store operators like Defendants maintain off-shore bank accounts

and regularly move funds from their financial accounts to off-shore accounts outside the

jurisdiction of this Court to avoid payment of any monetary judgment awarded to Guard-

ian. Indeed, analysis of financial account transaction logs from previous similar cases

indicates that off-shore infringers regularly move funds from U.S.-based financial ac-

counts to off-shore accounts outside the jurisdiction of this Court.

20. Defendants are working in active concert to knowingly and willfully manu-

facture, import, distribute, offer for sale, and sell Infringing Products in the same transac-

tion, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences. Defendants, without any au-

thorization or license from Guardian, have jointly and severally, knowingly and willfully

offered for sale, sold, and/or imported into the United States for subsequent resale or use

the same product that infringes directly and/or indirectly the Guardian Design. Each e-

commerce store operating under the Seller Aliases offers shipping to the United States,

including Illinois, and, on information and belief, each Defendant has sold Infringing Prod-

ucts into the United States and Illinois over the Internet.

8
 Case: 1:24-cv-12613 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/09/24 Page 9 of 12 PageID #:9

21. Defendants’ infringement of the Guardian Design in the making, using, of-

fering for sale, selling, and/or importing into the United States for subsequent sale or use

of the Infringing Products was willful.

22. Defendants’ infringement of the Guardian Design in connection with the

making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing into the United States for sub-

sequent sale or use of the Infringing Products, including the making, using, offering for

sale, selling, and/or importing into the United States for subsequent sale or use of Infring-

ing Products into Illinois, is irreparably harming Guardian.

COUNT I
PATENT INFRINGEMENT
(35 U.S.C. § 271)

23. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the previous paragraphs of

this Complaint.

24. Defendants are making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing

into the United States for subsequent sale or use Infringing Products that infringe directly

and/or indirectly the ornamental design claimed in the Guardian Design disclosed and

claimed in the Asserted Patent.

25. Defendants have infringed the Guardian Design through the aforesaid acts

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

has caused Guardian to suffer irreparable harm resulting from the loss of its lawful patent

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

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

9
 Case: 1:24-cv-12613 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/09/24 Page 10 of 12 PageID #:10

26. Guardian is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate for the

infringement, including Defendants’ profits pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 289. Guardian is en-

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

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court enter judgment against

Defendants as follows:

WHEREFORE, Guardian prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:

1. That Defendants, their affiliates, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys,

confederates, and all persons acting for, with, by, through, under or in active con-

cert with them be temporarily, preliminarily, and permanently enjoined and re-

strained from:

a. making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing into the United

States for subsequent sale or use the Infringing Product;

b. aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in making,

using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing into the United States for

subsequent sale or use the Infringing Product; and

c. effecting assignments or transfers, forming new entities or associations or

utilizing any other device for the purpose of circumventing or otherwise

avoiding the prohibitions set forth in Subparagraphs (a) and (b).

2. Entry of an Order that, upon Guardian’s request, those with notice of the injunction,

including, without limitation, any online marketplace platforms such as eBay, Al-

iExpress, Alibaba, Amazon, Wish.com, Walmart, Etsy, and DHgate (collectively,

10
 Case: 1:24-cv-12613 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/09/24 Page 11 of 12 PageID #:11

the “Third Party Providers”) shall disable and cease displaying any advertisements

used by or associated with Defendants in connection with the sale of the Infringing

Product, and take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent links to the Defendant

Internet Stores identified on Schedule A from displaying in search results, includ-

ing, but not limited to, removing links to the Defendant Internet Stores from any

search index;

3. That Guardian be awarded such damages as it shall prove at trial against Defend-

ants that are adequate to compensate Guardian for Defendants’ infringement of

the Guardian Design, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use

made of the invention by the Defendants, together with interest and costs, pursuant

to 35 U.S.C. § 284;

4. That the amount of damages awarded to Guardian to compensate Guardian for

infringement of the Guardian Design be increased by three times the amount

thereof, as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 284;

5. In the alternative, that Guardian be awarded all profits realized by Defendants from

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

6. That Guardian be awarded its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and

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

DONGGUAN GUARDIAN TECHNOLOGY CO.

LTD.

Date: December 9, 2024 By: /s/ Konrad Sherinian

An attorney for plaintiff

11
 Case: 1:24-cv-12613 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/09/24 Page 12 of 12 PageID #:12

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Konrad Sherinian
E-Mail: [email protected]
Depeng Bi
E-Mail: [email protected]
THE LAW OFFICES OF KONRAD SHERINIAN, LLC
1755 Park Street, Suite # 200
Naperville, Illinois 60563
Telephone: (630) 318-2606
Facsimile: (630) 364-5825

12