Lobdell v. Overton - Complaint

Case 4:20-cv-00033 Document 1 Filed on 01/06/20 in TXSD Page 1 of 35
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
)
ERIC LOBDELL and BENEDICT )
LOBDELL ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:19-cv
dba Trend Essentials )
) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. )
)
Kim Overton and Overton )
Enterprises, LLC )
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs Eric Lobdell and Benedict Lobdell dba Trend Essentials (“Trend
Essentials” or “Plaintiffs”), and for its Complaint against Defendants Kim
Overton and Overton Enterprises, LLC (“Overton Defendants”). In support
thereof, Plaintiffs allege as follows:
I. NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This is an action for patent assertion overreaching, fire and forget patent
assertion tactics, and wrongful interference against a competitor. By filing an
Amazon Patent Infringement Report and ignoring any resolution efforts, the
Overton Defendants successfully shuttered an entire business without presenting
any evidence, providing any details (such as any patent number Plaintiffs’
allegedly infringed), or expending more than five minutes to do so. Paramount

to these details is the fact that Trend Essentials NEVER sold a single product of
the one the Overton Defendants claim infringed their unidentified patent
registration.
2. To put this scenario in perspective, the Overton Defendants completed a
short online form that resulted in millions of dollars in lost sales, stranded
inventory, and a father-son business left in limbo. To use a brick and mortar
example, the Overton Defendants have exploited IP infringement reporting to
close an entire Walmart by claiming a single item infringes an unidentified
patent.
3. As background, the Overton Defendants have applied for and received US
patent protection for their common running belts. After they received thin
patent protection, they then set out to assert their patents against many products
well outside the ambit of their rights. Worse, thereafter, the Overton Defendants
fail to provide contentions to their patent assertions, leaving alleged infringers
incapable of defending themselves.
4. For instance, when asked about the most basic of information surrounding
the purported infringement, at every turn, the Overton Defendants have rebuffed
all resolution efforts. Significantly, they even conceal which patent registration
they assert, let alone any claim-by-claim analysis of the same. Worse yet, they
fail to cooperate, ignore resolution efforts, and completely disregard their
2
competitors. Fully knowing the effects of their disruption, they’re content in
locking their competition in e-commerce limbo. There, sellers, like Trend
Essentials, are left with stranded inventory, lost sales, useless business resources,
and tied up funds.
5. Despite incrementally escalating Trend Essentials’ resolution efforts, the
Overton Defendants’ many failures have forced Plaintiffs to turn to judicial
intervention.
II. PARTIES
A. Plaintiff Trend Essentials
6. Trend Essentials is located at 11714 Boudreaux Rd., Tomball, Texas 77375.
Trend Essentials is a father-son partnership created for the purpose of e-
commerce in 2016.
7. In particular, Trend Essentials offers for sale and sells exercise accessories.
For example, and relevant to the instant complaint, Trend Essentials’ running
belts are described as “Nathan Mirage Reflective Running Belt Pack, Ultrasoft,
Fully-Adjustable” (“Accused Product”)(shown below).1
1 Available at https://www.amazon.com/Nathan-Mirage-Pak-Blue-
Danube/dp/B00MNAEHRC/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_pdt_img_top?ie=UTF8 (last
visited Dec. 22, 2019).
3
B. The Terrorist, Captain Eric Lobdell, US Army
8. Defendants’ legal counsel has characterized Plaintiff Eric Lobdell as a
terrorist.3 See letter from Mr. Henry Pogorzelski, attorney to the Overton
Defendants, to Mr. Jeff Breloski, attorney to Trend Essentials (Dec. 13, 2019),
Exhibit 1. The circumstances of counsel’s accusations will be explained below.
See Para. VI., infra.
9. Opposing counsel’s attack could not be farther from the truth. That is,
Plaintiff Eric Lobdell is a Veteran of the Global War on Terrorism. He graduated
from the US Military Academy at West Point in 2006 and shortly thereafter,
deployed to Iraq as an Armor Officer in support of OPERATION Iraqi Freedom
from 2007 to 2009. Declaration of Eric Lobdell (“Lobdell Decl.”) ¶ 3, Exhibit 2.
2 https://www.amazon.com/Nathan-Mirage-Pak-Blue-
3After months of calls, emails, with no response from the Overton
Defendants, former Captain Lobdell asked SPIbelt’s receptionist whether he
needed to drive to their office and stand on a desk to get someone to listen to
him. Further, he explained that the Overton Defendants’ complete disregard for
another would force Trend Essentials to file a lawsuit if he could not get a simple
(or any) response from someone. No response. Apparently, these actions
amount to legally-actionable terrorism. Lobdell Decl. ¶ 4, Exhibit 2.
4
10. When Captain (“CPT”) Lobell returned from Iraq, the US Army ordered
him to attend the Aviation Captains Career Course at Fort Rucker, Alabama.
CPT Lobdell immersed himself in advanced operational combat arms training
and successfully graduated in 2011. Lobdell Decl. ¶ 5, Exhibit 2.
11. After CPT Lobdell fulfilled his service obligation to the Country, he and
his wife relocated back to Houston to start a family. Thereafter, the Lobdell’s
endured some setbacks in establishing their family, Mrs. Lobdell gave birth to
their first son, Evan, in December 2017. In less than a year, Erin became pregnant
with their second son, Leon, who is due early in February 2019. Lobdell Decl. ¶
6, Exhibit 2.
C. Plaintiff Eric Lobdell’s father, Plaintiff Benedict Lobdell
12. Like CPT Lobdell’s rich military history, his father, Benedict Lobdell, grew
up in a military family, but was unable to serve due to polio in his left leg.
Nonetheless, he graduated from Trinity University, got married, and raised two
sons. Both sons attended the US Military Academy. Lobdell Decl. ¶ 7, Exhibit 2.
13. While Benedict retired in 2018 from operating a successful small business
in auto repair for over 35 years, he continues his business with his son. Lobdell
Decl. ¶ 8, Exhibit 2.
14. Eric Lobdell, and his father, Benedict Lobdell began their ecommerce
business together in 2014 and formed a dba for Trend Essentials in 2016. Until
5
recently, the partners ran the business entirely from their home. Now, they lease
a small office, but most of their business continues to be run from home. Lobdell
15. As part of their online family business, Trend Essentials engaged in
general arbitrage where they purchase authentic goods, often on sale, from brick
and mortar establishments and resell them on Amazon.com. Lobdell Decl. ¶ 10,
Exhibit 2.
D. The Overton Defendants
16. Upon information and belief, Defendant Kim Overton is the President of
Overton Enterprises. Upon further information and belief, she is a Texas
resident and may be contacted at (512) 394-6089.
17. Upon information and belief, Defendant Overton Enterprises, LLC is a
Texas Limited Liability Company with its principal place of business at 8201 E
Riverside Dr, Bldg 4, Suite 125, Austin, Texas 78744. Its website is located at
www.spibelt.com. Upon further information and belief, Defendant Overton
Enterprises is “a manufacturer and provider of elastic belts for men, women and
children used for activities such as running and hiking.”4
4 https://www.bestbusiness101.com/profile/overton-enterprises-llc-spibelt
(last visited Dec. 22, 2019).
6
III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
18. This is a claim for Declaratory Judgment of patent invalidity and non-
infringement of the Overton Defendants’ patents, unfair competition, and
tortious interference.
19. Plaintiffs’ claim for Declaratory Judgment arises under the Declaratory
Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02, and under the patent laws of the United
States, Title 35 of the United States Code. This Court has jurisdiction over the
subject matter of this Complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1338(a), 1367, and 2201.
20. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Overton Defendants because
both reside in this jurisdiction.
21. Further, this Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over the Overton
Defendants by reason of the business that they have transacted and continue to
transact in this judicial district and division.
22. Further still, this Court has personal jurisdiction over the Overton
Defendants because they have knowingly and actively engaged in tortious acts in
this District.
23. Venue is proper in this district and division pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391,
28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).
7
IV. AMAZON.COM, INC.5
24. Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”) is the world’s largest online retailer. The
Amazon.com platform offers products worldwide. Amazon is available solely
online at https://www.amazon.com/ (last visited Dec. 8, 2019).
25. “Amazon provides a platform for third-party sellers (“Sellers”) and buyers
(“Buyers”) to negotiate and complete transactions. Amazon is not involved in the
actual transaction between Sellers and Buyers . . . .”
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1280998/000104746904006416/a21
28948zex-10_19.htm (last visited Dec. 8, 2019).
26. Sellers ship goods to various Amazon warehouses across the United
States. At those warehouses, Amazon stores a seller’s inventory and ships goods
out of those warehouses. Only about half of the states have Amazon
warehouses. Texas is one of those states.6
27. To make a purchase, typically, a Buyer searches for a particular item on
Amazon.com or via a mobile application and submits an order.
5Amazon.com Inc. is the corporation that owns and operates Amazon.com,

which is often abbreviated to Amazon.
6 https://trustfile.avalara.com/resources/amazon-warehouse-
locations/atl6/ (last visited Dec. 8, 2019).
8
28. Amazon identifies that particular item at one of its many warehouses.
Amazon then fulfills that order by mailing the items to the Buyer.
A. Selling on Amazon.com Successfully
29. Amazon allows Sellers to offer for sale and sell products on the
Amazon.com platform. Amazon requires that Sellers enter into agreements with
it concerning the relationship between it and Sellers, duties and responsibilities
of the Sellers, and other policies. See, e.g., Amazon.com’s Participation
Agreement available at
https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=hp_rel_topic?
ie=UTF8&nodeId=1161272 (last visited Dec. 8, 2019); see also Amazon.com’s
Restricted Products available at
https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=20027704
0 (last visited Dec. 8, 2019).
30. Amazon allows Sellers to sell identical items under the same Amazon
Standard Identification Number (“ASIN”).7
7 Amazon Standard Identification Numbers (ASINs) are unique
blocks of 10 letters and/or numbers that identify items. You can

find the ASIN on the item’s product information page at
Amazon.com. For books, the ASIN is the same as the ISBN number,
but for all other products a new ASIN is created when the item is
uploaded to our catalogue. You will find an item’s ASIN on the
product detail page alongside further details relating to the item,
which may include information such as size, number of pages (if it’s
9
B. Filing An Infringement Complaint With Amazon
31. The online IP infringement complaint process at Amazon.com is
streamlined and straightforward.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/reports/infringement (last visited Dec. 22,
2019). A purported rights owner has to provide very little information to file a
complaint and receive an automated suspension of a seller’s listing.
32. The following information is the only information a complainant has to
submit to suspend
a seller’s listing,
and possibly, its
account:
33. At the end of
the form, a
a book) or number of discs (if it’s a CD).
ASINs can be used to search for items in our catalogue. If you know
the ASIN or ISBN of the item you are looking for, simply type it into
the search box (which can be found near the top of most pages), hit
the “Go” button and, if the item is listed in our catalogue, it will
appear in your search results.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/seller/asin-upc-isbn-info.html (last visited

Dec. 8, 2019).
10
complainant makes the following statements:
34. "I have a good faith belief that the content(s) described above violate(s) my
rights described above or those held by the rights owner, and that the use of such
content(s) is contrary to law." https://www.amazon.com/report/infringement
35. "I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the information contained in this
notification is correct and accurate and that I am the owner or agent of the owner
of the rights described above." Id.
36. Amazon.com requires the rights owner to withdraw a complaint. That is,
a rights owner must send an e-mail from the complainant’s e-mail address
requesting to withdraw a complaint. Lobdell Decl. ¶ 11, Exhibit 2.
37. Should a rights owner refuse to withdraw a complaint, the Amazon.com
seller’s ASIN is locked so a seller cannot sell goods associated with that ASIN.
Further, complaints may lead to account suspension. Lobdell Decl. ¶ 12, Exhibit
2.
38. An account suspension is where Amazon locks a seller’s account so that it
cannot sell any item, even those unrelated to the ASIN complained of. Lobdell
11
V.DEFENDANTS’ AMAZON IP INFRINGEMENT REPORTS
39. On June 11, 2019, Mr. Lobdell viewed his Amazon Account Health
Dashboard and noticed the Overton Defendants’ complaint under “Received
Intellectual Property Complaints” for ASIN B00MNAEHRC. No information
accompanied this complaint. Trend Essentials did not receive an email from
Amazon, and therefore did not have any information to identify the complainant
or the reason for the complaint. And, this complaint seemed suspicious as Trend
Essentials never sold a single Accused Product as evidenced below.
Lobdell Decl. ¶ 14, Exhibit 2.
40. On October 22, 2019, Plaintiffs received a notification from Amazon that
their account was at risk of deactivation, with the information included:
-- Date: Jun 11, 2019

-- ASIN: B00MNAEHRC
-- Name of Rights Owner: [email protected]
-- Infringement Type: DESIGN RIGHT
41. At this point, Trend Essentials finally received limited information
concerning the complaint. Lobdell Decl. ¶ 16, Exhibit 2.
12
42. As an aside, the Overton Defendants purportedly own the following US
patent registrations related to its SPIbelt:8
• US 8104654B2
• US D618907S
• US D779817
• US D613057S
• US D613500S
• US D613501S
43. Upon information and belief, the Overton Defendants filed a complaint
against Plaintiffs’ Nathan Mirage Running Belt offering, which is depicted
below.9
10
44. This Accused Product is not a SPIbelt product.
8 https://spibelt.com/patents/ (last visited Dec. 22, 2019).

9 https://www.amazon.com/B00MNAEHRC (last visited Dec. 22, 2019).
10https://www.amazon.com/Nathan-Mirage-Pak-Blue-
13
45. Importantly and conspicuously missing, the Overton Defendants’
complaint lacked a single US patent registration. They have still withheld
identification of a single registration that Plaintiffs allegedly infringe. See Lobdell
VI. PLAINTIFFS’ PAST GOOD FAITH RESOLUTION EFFORTS
A. The Overton Defendants Ignore Trend Essentials
46. With the October 22 notification, Trend Essentials could finally identify the
complainant, and Plaintiff Eric Lobdell called the Overton Defendants.
However, the receptionist failed to provide a point of contact to discuss the
allegations. Rather, she directed him to leave a voicemail with the IP Department.
As this begun Trend Essentials’ resolution efforts, Mr. Lobdell left a polite
message and asked the recipient to return his call in hopes of resolution. Lobdell
47. Plaintiff Eric Lobdell desired to explain that Trend Essentials had no
interest in selling its Accused Product and poses no threat to any of their patents.
He tried to convey that Trend Essentials would have gladly remove the item, as
Trend Essentials had no stake in the intellectual property of this item. Lobdell
48. October 23, 2019, Mr. Eric Lobdell attempted another mode of
communication as he emailed the Overton Defendants. At this point, he still
14
thought that the Accused Product was a SPIbelt brand product. In his email, Eric
requested a retraction, informed them of his willing to cooperate with their
takedown, and asked for more information about the reason for the takedown.
See Lobdell Decl. ¶¶ 20, 21, Exhibit 2; see also email from Mr. Eric Lobdell to
SPIbelt (Oct. 23, 2019), Exhibit 3.
49. Beginning their pattern, the Overton Defendants failed to respond.
50. With absolutely no response, Plaintiff Eric Lobdell called several more
times and left multiple messages with the IP Department. He even implored the
receptionist to allow him to speak with someone else. Apparently no one else
could take his call. Lobdell Decl. ¶ 23, Exhibit 2.
51. Upon information and belief, the Overton Defendants misled Trend
Essentials because no IP Department actually exists, which makes any resolution
effort, let alone response, impossible.
B. The Overton Defendants’ Fire and Forget Complaint Policy

Results in Trend Essentials’ Account Suspension
52. About a week later, Trend Essentials still had not received any response in
any form. Trend Essentials did not receive a responsive email. It did not receive
a call from the Overton Defendants’ IP Department. Nothing. No communication
at all. Lobdell Decl. ¶ 24, Exhibit 2.
15
53. However, Trend Essentials did receive a response . . . from Amazon.
Again, without specifics as to the Overton Defendants’ infringement contentions,
Amazon suspended Trend Essentials’ entire account including its ability to sell
products other than running belts. See Lobdell Decl. ¶ ¶ 25, 26, Exhibit 2; see also
email from Amazon Notice Dispute Department to Mr. Eric Lobdell (Oct. 27,
2019), Exhibit 4.
54. At this point, Trend Essentials began losing significant revenue. When
coupled with the Overton Defendants’ complete lack of professionalism, Mr. Eric
Lobdell continued to call the SPIbelt receptionist. Lobdell Decl. ¶ 27, Exhibit 2.
55. Unsurprisingly, the Overton Defendants failed to respond in any form.
56. Still hemorrhaging money, the next month, on November 7, Mr. Lobdell
turned to other solutions. He reached out to Kim Overton via Facebook since
Facebook now began displaying SPIbelt ads on his feed. See Lobdell Decl. ¶¶ 29-
30, Exhibit 2; see also Facebook message from Mr. Eric Lobdell to Ms. Kim
Overton on November 7, 2019, Exhibit 5.
57. True to company policy, Defendant Kim Overton failed to respond.
58. With options and funds dwindling, Mr. Lobdell sought outside assistance.
He began with eGrowth Partners, specialists in all matters Amazon.
16
https://egrowthpartners.com/ (last visited Dec. 22, 2019)(“ We invented the
business of protecting your Amazon business.”). He also engaged a former
Amazonian that now serves as an Amazon e-commerce expert, Chris McCabe.
https://www.ecommercechris.com/chris-mccabe/ (last visited Dec. 22,
2019)(“Former Amazonian Chris McCabe helps sellers communicate with
Amazon to protect (and save) their business.”). Lobdell Decl. ¶ 32, Exhibit 2.
59. Both businesses and all consultants assisting Trend Essentials had a
history with the Overton Defendants stating that SPIbelt [Overton Defendants]
does not respond to any communications. Lobdell Decl. ¶ 33, Exhibit 2.
60. Despite the consultants’ expertise and counsel to Trend Essentials, the
Overton Defendants’ evasion continued successfully. Lobdell Decl. ¶ 34, Exhibit
2.
VII. THIS FIRM’S GOOD FAITH EFFORTS TO RESOLVE
61. Trend Essentials again incrementally sought resolution. This time, Trend
Essentials hired this firm to communicate past efforts, willingness to settle, and
the dire state of Trend Essentials’ business. Lobdell Decl. ¶ 35, Exhibit 2.
62. This firm began such efforts by writing to the Overton Defendants in
December 2019. See Lobdell Decl. ¶¶ 36, 37, Exhibit 2; see also letter from Mr. Jeff
Breloski, attorney to Trend Essentials, to Mr. Henry Pogorzelski, attorney to the
Overton Defendants (Dec. 11, 2019), Exhibit 6.
17
63. Finally, after months of ignored Overton Defendants received a response.
64. But, celebrations were short lived as the Overton Defendants’ counsel
responded with eight sentences – most of which were to explain how Mr. Eric
Lobdell’s a terrorist and how his actions “violate at least 18 U.S.C. § 2332b and
Texas Penal Code Section 22.07 . . . .” See Lobdell Decl. ¶ 39, Exhibit 2; see also
letter from Mr. Henry Pogorzelski, attorney to the Overton Defendants, to Mr.
Jeff Breloski, attorney to Trend Essentials (Dec. 13, 2019), Exhibit 1. .
65. In sum, after millions of dollars of lost business, tens of thousands of
dollars used to hire consultants and attorneys, and months wasted, the Overton
Defendants still have not identified their asserted patent, explained their
infringement contentions, or provided Trend Essentials with any settlement
demands. Lobdell Decl. ¶ 40, Exhibit 2.
VIII.EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES
A. Trend Essentials Suffers Immeasurable Lost Sales
66. Notably, Trend Essentials began its resolution attempts well before the
18
Thanksgiving Holiday, Black Friday,11 and Cyber Monday.12
67. With the busy holiday shopping season beginning, Trend Essentials
respectfully requested a response in time to sell during this record-setting
holiday rush. See Black Friday, Thanksgiving Day Both Set Records in U.S.
Ecommerce Sales by Mike O’Brien (Nov. 30, 2019)13
Thanksgiving Day ecommerce sales were also a record $4.2 billion,

an increase of 14.5%, marking the first time it surpassed the $4
billion mark. Large ecommerce companies of $1 billion and over saw
a 244% gain in Thanksgiving Day ecommerce sales, while smaller
retailers – those with $50 million or less in annual sales – saw a 61%
increase.
Id.
68. Trend Essentials’ suspensions spanned over the busy holiday shopping
season due to Defendants’ lack of good faith.
11 The day After Thanksgiving (Friday) is known as Black Friday. This
also is unofficially or officially start of holiday shopping season.

Almost all stores come out with Doorbuster Sales with early bird
special to attract consumers to their stores. . . . Biggest sales day
now include Thanksgiving day, Green Monday and Cyber Monday.
https://www.theblackfriday.com/what-is-black-friday.shtml (last visited Dec.

20, 2016).
Cyber Monday is a marketing term for the Monday after the Thanksgiving
12
holiday in the United States. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_Monday

https://multichannelmerchant.com/ecommerce/black-friday-
13
thanksgiving-day-set-records-u-s-ecommerce-sales/ (last visited Dec. 22, 2019).
19
B. The Overton Defendants’ Exploits Result in a Temporary

Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Permanent
Junction
69. To date, the Overton Defendants refuse to withdraw any complaints. Such
a stubborn stance is particularly egregious as Trend Essentials never sold a single
Accused Product and the Amazon listing, which Trend Essentials did not create,
is active and unencumbered by any suspension or restriction to those other than
Trend Essentials.
14
Danube/dp/B00MNAEHRC/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8 (last
20
70. Upon information and belief, the Overton Defendants have attempted to
eliminate their competition by utilizing the online Amazon infringement report
and cease and desist letters to intimidate competitors and force them to stop
competing without any non-judicial recourse.
71. As of December 15, 2019, Amazon’s Account Heath Team confirmed to
Trend Essentials that the Overton Defendants’ complaint is the only complaint
preventing its account from reinstatement. Lobdell Decl. ¶ 42, Exhibit 2.
72. Using key metrics and sales information, the Overton Defendants’ have
caused at least Two-million Dollars, as a conservative estimate, in direct
damages. Indeed, Trend Essentials’ actual damages may far surpass Three-
million Dollars. Each day that passes results in increased damages. Lobdell
73. The Overton Defendants have failed to respond in any meaningful
manner. Lobdell Decl. ¶ 44, Exhibit 2.
74. By failing to cooperate and resolve the complaints, and despite repeated
requests, the Overton Defendants and their counsel have effectively and unfairly
received both a preliminary and permanent injunction leaving Trend Essentials
without recourse. That is, Trend Essentials is temporarily and permanently
restricted from selling its Accused Belts on Amazon. Further, the Overton
21
Defendants are unfairly preventing Trend Essentials from curing any potential
infringement.
75. To put the severity of their action into perspective, a comparison of this
complaint to a district court action is necessary. Before a court, a preliminary
injunction is a drastic and extraordinary remedy that is infrequently granted in
patent infringement actions. See U.S. Pharm. Corp. v. Trigen Labs., Inc., No. 1:10–
cv–0544–WSD, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13637, at *18 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 27, 2011). A
party seeking temporary or preliminary injunctive relief must establish that: (1)
there is a substantial likelihood that the movant will prevail on the merits; (2)
the movant will suffer irreparable injury if the relief is not granted; (3) the
threatened injury outweighs the harm the relief would inflict on the opposing
party; and (4) if granted, the injunction would not be adverse to the public
interest. See Polymer Techs., Inc. v. Bridwell, 103 F.3d 970, 977 (Fed. Cir.
1996)(emphasis added); Skillern v. Ga. Dep’t of Corr., Civ. Act. No. 1:05-cv-2629,
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81878, at *15 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 7, 2006).
76. Moreover, a permanent injunction is only permissible after a final
judgment, which occurs at the end of a litigation case. Once a guarantee after
winning a patent case, the Supreme Court recently ruled that permanent
injunctions are no longer automatic. Rather, a successful plaintiff must prove
that (1) it will suffer an irreparable injury; (2) remedies available at law are
22
inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) the balance of hardships between
the parties favors the plaintiff; and (4) the public interest would not be disserved.
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 391 (2006).
77. Both types of injunctive relief usually require overcoming high burdens of
proof, providing adequate evidentiary support, and offering supporting expert
testimony.
78. Contrastingly, here, the Overton Defendants have presumably filled out a
single infringement form. https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/reports/
infringement (last visited Dec. 22, 2019). With no further evidence and no
opportunity to respond, they have effectively received injunctive relief without
proving the need for such relief.
C. The Overton Defendants’ Abuse Their Purported Patent Rights
79. As alluded to above, the Overton Defendants’ reputation and wrongful
tactics are well known across the Amazon selling community, Amazon
consultants, and attorneys. Their ghosting protocol and intimidation measures
(e.g., threats of federal terrorist charges) leave many aggrieved sellers without
recourse. And, pursuing a federal lawsuit, let alone fighting against the Overton
Defendants’ large, international law firm, K&L Gates LLC, mean that their
behavior goes unpunished. See, e.g., http://www.klgates.com/places/ (last
visited Dec. 22, 2019)(“Global Legal Counsel across five continents.”).
23
1. Nathan Sports
80. For instance, the Overton Defendants have committed similar wrongdoing
against Nathan Sports, manufacturer of the Accused Product. Mr. Eric Lobdell
sought assistance from Nathan because the Overton Defendants’ complaint
concerned its products. He learned from United Sports Brands (Nathan Sports)
and its legal counsel that Overton/SPIbelt previously filed an Amazon takedown
against United Sports Brands for the same item. Lobdell Decl. ¶ 45, Exhibit 2.
81. There, United Sports Brands explained its non-infringement contentions to
Amazon and the Overton Defendants’ counsel at K&L Gates concerning the
same Accused Product in this case. Lobdell Decl. ¶ 46, Exhibit 2.
82. As a result, the product listing was reinstated, and the listing remains
functional at the time of this filing.15 The Overton Defendants and their counsel
should be fully aware that their takedowns or ASIN B00MNAEHRC are
illegitimate. Lobdell Decl. ¶ 47, Exhibit 2.
2. Gerhard Cronje
83. As another example, in July 2017, Mr. Gerhard Cronje, owner of Fitt Gear
LLC, engaged this firm because he encountered a similar experience where
15https://www.amazon.com/Nathan-Mirage-Pak-Blue-
24
Defendant Kim Overton filed an Amazon IP Infringement Report then
completely ghosted Mr. Cronje. Declaration of Jeffrey Breloski (“Breloski Decl.”)
¶ 3, Exhibit 7.
3. Trend Essentials Team
84. As yet another example, the Overton Defendants destroyed another of this
firm’s Amazon-selling clients. Back in November 2015, SNH NEW YORK
(“SNHNY”) attempted to resolve SPIbelt’s patent infringement dispute;
however, SPIbelt failed to respond substantively. SNHNY contacted SPIbelt via
SPIbelt’s email address. See Breloski Decl. ¶¶ 4, 5; see also Exhibit 8 at
SNHNY000106. email string from Erin Hood, SPIbelt representative to SNH
NEW YORK (Nov. 3, 2015).
85. Specifically, on November 23, 2015, SNHNY explained how its Accused
Belt did not infringe any of SPIbelt’s patents. Id. (“Our product has different
size, unique design, and different functions etc from your [SPIbelt] products or
the patent.”). Breloski Decl. ¶ 6.
86. SPIbelt failed to respond substantively. Rather, it directed SNHNY to US
Design Patent No. D613,500 and demanded with it remove the Accused Belt
“from all points of sale.” Id. at SNHNY000106. Breloski Decl. ¶ 7.
87. This firm, acting on behalf of SNHNY, drafted and served a legal
memorandum on SPIbelt’s Intellectual Property Manager, Ms. Dian Zhao, to
25
ascertain the nature of its complaint against SNHNY. See letter from Jeffrey
Breloski, counsel for SNHNY, to Dian Zhao, IP Manager for SPIbelt, (May. 23,
2017), Exhibit 8 at SNHNY000100-103. More importantly, this firm conveyed
SNHNY’s desire to resolve amicably the issue. See letter from Jeffrey Breloski,
counsel for SNHNY, to Dian Zhao, IP Manager for SPIbelt, (May. 23, 2017),
Exhibit 8 at SNHNY000100 (“Accordingly, we seek an amicable resolution.”).
Breloski Decl. ¶ 8.
88. After this firm served its letter, Ms. Zhao, SPIbelt’s IP Manager, failed to
respond. Id. at SNHNY000112-113. Breloski Decl. ¶ 9.
89. Later, SPIbelt’s K&L Gates counsel demanded information from SNHNY
concerning the number of Accused Belts it sold and how many Accused Belts it
had remaining in inventory. Id. at SNHNY000111-112. Breloski Decl. ¶ 10.
90. On the same day, sensing a one-sided demand, this firm conveyed
SNHNY’s willingness to cooperate in good faith, but asked if SPIbelt would
cooperate in return. Id. at SNHNY000111. Breloski Decl. ¶ 11.
91. SPIbelt’s counsel failed to respond timely. Breloski Decl. ¶ 12.
92. Five days later, having not received any response, this firm followed up
with its previous email. Id. at SNHNY000111. This time, SPIbelt’s counsel did
respond. Id. at SNHNY000109-110. However, rather than acknowledge
SNHNY’s cooperation and good faith, SPIbelt threatened with infringement
26
allegations and again demanded information without offering any favorable
treatment. Id. at SNHNY000110. Breloski Decl. ¶ 13.
93. Despite a lack of assurances from SPIbelt, SNHNY – in a showing of
further cooperation and good faith – provided SPIbelt’s counsel with answers to
SPIbelt’s inquiries. Id. at SNHNY000109. Breloski Decl. ¶ 14.
94. Like before, SPIbelt’s counsel has failed to respond for over two weeks.
Therefore, this firm sent another email following up on the information SNHNY
provided in response to SPIbelt’s inquiries. Id. at SNHNY000109. Breloski Decl.
¶ 15.
95. SPIbelt, to the date of this lawsuit, has failed to respond. Further, it has
failed to withdraw either of its complaints against SNHNY. Further yet, it has
failed to outline any corrective actions SNHNY needs to take in order to resolve
the present issues. Lastly, SPIbelt has given no indications that it ever intends to
seek resolution. Breloski Decl. ¶ 16.
27
IX. CLAIMS
A. COUNT I: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY
96. Plaintiffs re-allege the foregoing relevant paragraphs of this Complaint as
if set forth in full herein.
97. An actual and justiciable controversy exists between Trend Essentials and
the Overton Defendants as to the validity of their unidentified patents.
98. The claims of those patents are invalid for failure to meet one or more of
the requirements of patentability set forth in 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq., including,
but not limited to, §§ 101, 102, 103 and 112.
99. Additionally, the Accused Product is a straightforward zippered pouch
attached to a woven belt. Therefore, if the Accused Product infringes any
unidentified patent, the unidentified patent lacks novelty under 35 U.S.C. § 102
and is rendered obvious by multiple prior art references pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §
103.
100. Pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, Trend
Essentials is entitled to and hereby move the Court for a judgment declaring that
such claims are invalid for failure to comply with one or more requirements for
patentability under the patent laws of the United States, including, but not
limited to, 35 U.S.C. § 101, 102, 103, 112, 113, 115 and/or 116. Further, such
claims are invalid for want of novelty and obviousness.
28
B. COUNT II: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-

INFRINGEMENT
101. Plaintiffs re-allege the foregoing relevant paragraphs of this
Complaint as if set forth in full herein.
102. An actual and justiciable controversy exists between Trend
Essentials and the Overton Defendants as to the infringement of their
unidentified patents.
103. Trend Essentials’ manufacture, sale, and offers to sell its Accused
Product in the United States have not infringed, contributed to the infringement
of, or induced infringement of any valid and enforceable claim of their
unidentified patents.
104. The allegations of patent infringement by the Overton Defendants
have placed a cloud over Trend Essentials’ business and are likely to cause Trend
Essentials to lose revenues and business opportunities. The Overton Defendants’
actions and assertions, therefore, will likely cause irreparable injury to Trend
Essentials.
105. Trend Essentials is entitled to a judgment declaring that the Overton
Defendants’ unidentified patent is not infringed by Trend Essentials’ Accused
Product.
29
C. COUNT III: UNFAIR COMPETITION
107. The Overton Defendants filed a complaint with Amazon.com, Inc.
against Trend Essentials alleging patent infringement of an unidentified patent.
108. The Overton Defendants failed to provide any information
concerning the complaint and ignored all resolution efforts.
109. By filing an incomplete, bogus complaint, the Overton Defendants
have unfairly disadvantaged Trend Essentials.
D. COUNT IV: DEFENDANTS’ TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE

WITH BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS
111. Trend Essentials has a valid contract and/or business expectancy
with Amazon.com, Inc.
112. The Overton Defendants knew or should have known of Trend
Essentials’ contract and/or business expectancy with Amazon.com, Inc.
113. The Overton Defendants intentionally interfered with Trend
Essentials’ business expectancy with Amazon.com, Inc. and its customers. In an
effort to interfere with the Trend Essentials’ economic relations, the Overton
30
Defendants contacted Amazon.com to allege that Plaintiffs were infringing an
unidentified patent.
114. Upon information and belief, the Overton Defendants knew and
intended that by making such an allegation, Amazon.com would immediately
remove the Trend Essentials’ listings from its website and prohibit it from selling
the Accused Products until the allegation of infringement was resolved.
115. The Overton Defendants intentional interferences with Trend
Essentials’ contract and/or business expectancy was unjustified. The Overton
Defendants used improper means, acted in bad faith in intentionally interfering
with Trend Essentials’ contract and/or business expectancy with Amazon.com,
Inc. The Overton Defendants’ allegation of patent infringement by Trend
Essentials to Amazon.com was knowingly false, was an improper means, and
was done with the intent to interfere with the Trend Essentials’ current and
prospective economic relations, especially during a high-volume selling
season.
116. The Overton Defendants have acted in objective and subjective
bad faith by having a wrongful complaint filed and refusing to resolve or
withdraw it.
117. Despite its knowledge, the Overton Defendants’ failure to act in
good faith have caused damages to Plaintiffs’ business relationships with
31
Amazon.com and their customers. As a direct and proximate result, Trend
Essentials has been damaged by the Overton Defendants’ tortious interferences
with Trend Essentials’ contract and/or business expectancy with Amazon.com,
Inc. in an amount to be proven at trial.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Trend Essentials demands a trial by jury under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 39 for all issues triable by jury.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Trend Essentials prays that this Court
• enter judgment in favor of Trend Essentials and against the Overton
Defendants for all counts;
• enter a declaratory judgment that the Overton Defendants’ patents are
invalid and unenforceable;
• enter a declaratory judgment that Trend Essentials has not infringed in any
way any unidentified patent;
• find and enter and order that the Overton Defendants’ conduct amounts to
an exceptional case and award Trend Essentials its costs and attorney’s
fees;
• enjoin the Overton Defendants, their agents, servants, employees and
attorneys, and all those in active participation or privity with any of them,
32
from charging Trend Essentials or its agents, distributors, or customers
with infringement of an unidentified patent, and from otherwise using the
unidentified patent to interfere in any way with Trend Essentials’
manufacture, use, offer for sale, or sale of the Accused Product;
• award Trend Essentials damages for injuries they incurred from the
Overton Defendants’ unfair competition;
• award Trend Essentials actual, consequential, and punitive damages
caused by the Overton Defendants’ intentional and tortious interference
with the Trend Essentials’ contract and/or business expectancy with
Amazon.com, Inc.;
• award costs and expenses to Trend Essentials;
• award Trend Essentials pre- and post-judgment interest and costs on all
damages; and
• award Trend Essentials such other and further relief as the Court deems
just and proper, premises considered.
-----------------Signature Page Follows-----------------
33
Respectfully submitted, December 23, 2019.
By: /s/ David Murphy

Texas Bar No. 24092877
Federal Bar No. 2572169
[email protected]
THE LAW OFFICES OF MURPHY &

ASSOCIATES, PLLC
25511 Budde Road, #1901
The Woodlands, Texas 77380
P: (281) 475-2022 F: (281) 475-2025
Jeffrey T. Breloski
Pro Hac Vice Application Pending
Georgia Bar No. 858291
USPTO Reg. No. 60952
E-mail: [email protected]
ATLAWIP LLC
1265 Stuart Ridge
Johns Creek, Georgia 30022
678.667.3491
770.680.2461 (fax)
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
34
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that I have electronically filed a copy of the foregoing and
understand that notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by
operation of the Court’s electronic filing system and that parties may access this
filing through the CM/ECF system.
Dated: December 23, 2019
By: /s/ David Murphy

Texas Bar No. 24092877
Federal Bar No. 2572169
[email protected]
35
EXHIBIT 1
Case 4:20-cv-00033 Document 1-1 Filed on 01/06/20 in TXSD Page 1 of 2
Henry Pogorzelski
[email protected]
T + 1 512 482 6826
C + 1 713 824 3103
December 13, 2019
By E-mail: [email protected]
Jeffrey T. Breloski
ATLawip LLC
1265 Stuart Ridge
Re: Your Letter Dated December 11, 2019 on Behalf of Amazon Seller Trend Essentials, re
Request for Action ASIN B00MNAEHRC
Dear Mr. Breloski:
I am writing briefly on behalf of Overton Enterprises with regard to your above letter
dated December 11, 2019, which demands that Overton Enterprise provide a response “no later
than December 13, 2019 at 5:00 PM EST.”
Overton Enterprise declines the demand in your letter for a response within the recited
extremely-short 2-day time period. We will, however, investigate the matter described in your
letter and respond in due course.
In the meantime, we would like to bring to your attention the terroristic threat that your
client has apparently made against Overton Enterprises and its personnel. In particular, we
have been informed that one of your client representatives recently threatened to come to
Overton Enterprises’ office and “stand on the tables” until Overton Enterprises complies with
Trend Essential’s demand that Overton Enterprises retract its Amazon take-down notices.
We consider your client’s conduct to violate at least 18 U.S.C. § 2332b and Texas Penal
Code Section 22.07 (“Terroristic Threat”), and we intend to report future misconduct to the
appropriate authorities.
Please direct your client to cease all of its direct communications with Overton
Enterprises, including its terroristic threats.
K&L GATES LLP

2801 VIA FORTUNA SUITE 350 AUSTIN TX 78746
T +1 512 482 6800 F +1 512 482 6859 klgates.com
502688574 v1
EXHIBIT 1
Should you have any questions regarding any of the foregoing, please feel free to
contact me.
Very truly yours,
K&L Gates LLP
Henry Pogorzelski
Partner
cc: Stewart Mesher
December 13, 2019 2

EXHIBIT 2

)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. )
)
Enterprises, LLC )
Defendants.
DECLARATION OF MR. ERIC LOBDELL
I, ERIC LOBDELL, declare as follows:
1. My name is Eric Lobdell. I make this Declaration on my own
personal knowledge unless indicated otherwise.
2. I am a plaintiff in this action. My father and I do business as Trend
Essentials.
3. Opposing counsel’s attack could not be farther from the truth. That
is, Plaintiff Eric Lobdell is a Veteran of the Global War on Terrorism. He
graduated from the US Military Academy at West Point in 2006 and shortly
thereafter, deployed to Iraq as an Armor Officer in support of OPERATION Iraqi
Freedom from 2007 to 2009.

EXHIBIT 2
4. After months of calls, emails, with no response from the Overton
Defendants, former Captain Lobdell asked SPIbelt’s receptionist whether he
needed to drive to their office and stand on a desk to get someone to listen to
him. Further, he explained that the Overton Defendants’ complete disregard for
another would force Trend Essentials to file a lawsuit if he could not get a simple
(or any) response from someone. No response. Apparently, these actions
amount to legally-actionable terrorism.
5. When Captain (“CPT”) Lobell returned from Iraq, the US Army
ordered him to attend the Aviation Captains Career Course at Fort Rucker,
Alabama. CPT Lobdell immersed himself in advanced operational combat arms
training and successfully graduated in 2011.
6. After CPT Lobdell fulfilled his service obligation to the Country, he
and his wife relocated back to Houston to start a family. Thereafter, the
Lobdell’s endured some setbacks in establishing their family, Mrs. Lobdell gave
birth to their first son, Evan, in December 2017. In less than a year, Erin became
pregnant with their second son, Leon, who is due early in February 2019.
7. Like CPT Lobdell’s rich military history, his father, Benedict Lobdell,
grew up in a military family, but was unable to serve due to polio in his left leg.
Nonetheless, he graduated from Trinity University, got married, and raised two
sons. Both sons attended the US Military Academy.
2
EXHIBIT 2
8. While Benedict retired in 2018 from operating a successful small
business in auto repair for over 35 years, he continues his business with his son.
9. Eric Lobdell, and his father, Benedict Lobdell began their ecommerce
business together in 2014 and formed a dba for Trend Essentials in 2016. Until
recently, the partners ran the business entirely from their home. Now, they lease
a small office, but most of their business continues to be run from home.
10. As part of their online family business, Trend Essentials engaged in
general arbitrage where they purchase authentic goods, often on sale, from brick
and mortar establishments and resell them on Amazon.com.
11. Amazon.com requires the rights owner to withdraw a complaint.
That is, a rights owner must send an e-mail from the complainant’s e-mail
address requesting to withdraw a complaint.
12. Should a rights owner refuse to withdraw a complaint, the
Amazon.com seller’s ASIN is locked so a seller cannot sell goods associated with
that ASIN. Further, complaints may lead to account suspension.
13. An account suspension is where Amazon locks a seller’s account so
that it cannot sell any item, even those unrelated to the ASIN complained of.
14. On June 11, 2019, Mr. Lobdell viewed his Amazon Account Health
Dashboard and noticed the Overton Defendants’ complaint under “Received
Intellectual Property Complaints” for ASIN B00MNAEHRC. No information
3
EXHIBIT 2
accompanied this complaint. Trend Essentials did not receive an email from
Amazon, and therefore did not have any information to identify the complainant
or the reason for the complaint. And, this complaint seemed suspicious as Trend
Essentials never sold a single Accused Product as evidenced below.
15. On October 22, 2019, Plaintiffs received a notification from Amazon
that their account was at risk of deactivation, with the information included:
-- Date: Jun 11, 2019

-- ASIN: B00MNAEHRC
-- Name of Rights Owner: [email protected]
-- Infringement Type: DESIGN RIGHT
16. At this point, Trend Essentials finally received limited information
concerning the complaint.
17. Importantly and conspicuously missing, the Overton Defendants’
complaint lacked a single US patent registration. They have still withheld
identification of a single registration that Plaintiffs allegedly infringe.
18. With the October 22 notification, Trend Essentials could finally
identify the complainant, and Plaintiff Eric Lobdell called the Overton
4
EXHIBIT 2
Defendants. However, the receptionist failed to provide a point of contact to
discuss the allegations. Rather, she directed him to leave a voicemail with the IP
Department. As this begun Trend Essentials’ resolution efforts, Mr. Lobdell left a
polite message and asked the recipient to return his call in hopes of resolution.
19. Plaintiff Eric Lobdell desired to explain that Trend Essentials had no
interest in selling its Accused Product and poses no threat to any of their patents.
He tried to convey that Trend Essentials would have gladly remove the item, as
Trend Essentials had no stake in the intellectual property of this item.
20. October 23, 2019, Mr. Eric Lobdell attempted another mode of
communication as he emailed the Overton Defendants. At this point, he still
thought that the Accused Product was a SPIbelt brand product. In his email, Eric
requested a retraction, informed them of his willing to cooperate with their
takedown, and asked for more information about the reason for the takedown.
21. Exhibit 3 fairly and accurately depicts an email that I sent to SPIbelt
on October 23, 2019.
22. Beginning their pattern, the Overton Defendants failed to respond.
23. With absolutely no response, Plaintiff Eric Lobdell called several
more times and left multiple messages with the IP Department. He even
implored the receptionist to allow him to speak with someone else. Apparently
no one else could take his call.
5
EXHIBIT 2
24. About a week later, Trend Essentials still had not received any
response in any form. Trend Essentials did not receive a responsive email. It did
not receive a call from the Overton Defendants’ IP Department. Nothing. No
communication at all.
25. However, Trend Essentials did receive a response . . . from Amazon.
Again, without specifics as to the Overton Defendants’ infringement contentions,
Amazon suspended Trend Essentials’ entire account including its ability to sell
products other than running belts.
26. Exhibit 4 fairly and accurately depicts an email that I received from
Amazon Notice Dispute Department on October 27, 2019.
27. At this point, Trend Essentials began losing significant revenue.
When coupled with the Overton Defendants’ complete lack of professionalism,
Mr. Eric Lobdell continued to call the SPIbelt receptionist.
28. Unsurprisingly, the Overton Defendants failed to respond in any
form.
29. Still hemorrhaging money, the next month, on November 7, Mr.
Lobdell turned to other solutions. He reached out to Kim Overton via Facebook
since Facebook now began displaying SPIbelt ads on his feed.
30. Exhibit 5 fairly and accurately depicts a Facebook message I sent to
Ms. Kim Overton on November 7, 2019.
6
EXHIBIT 2
31. True to company policy, Defendant Kim Overton failed to respond.
32. With options and funds dwindling, Mr. Lobdell sought outside
assistance. He began with eGrowth Partners, specialists in all matters Amazon.
https://egrowthpartners.com/ (last visited Dec. 22, 2019)(“ We invented the
business of protecting your Amazon business.”). He also engaged a former
Amazonian that now serves as an Amazon e-commerce expert, Chris McCabe.
https://www.ecommercechris.com/chris-mccabe/ (last visited Dec. 22,
2019)(“Former Amazonian Chris McCabe helps sellers communicate with
Amazon to protect (and save) their business.”).
33. Both businesses and all consultants assisting Trend Essentials had a
history with the Overton Defendants stating that SPIbelt [Overton Defendants]
does not respond to any communications.
34. Despite the consultants’ expertise and counsel to Trend Essentials,
the Overton Defendants’ evasion continued successfully.
35. Trend Essentials again incrementally sought resolution. This time,
Trend Essentials hired this firm to communicate past efforts, willingness to settle,
and the dire state of Trend Essentials’ business.
36. This firm began such efforts by writing to the Overton Defendants in
December 2019.
7
EXHIBIT 2
37. Exhibit 6 fairly and accurately depicts an letter that our attorney
drafted to SPIbelt on December 11, 2019.
38. Finally, after months of ignored Overton Defendants received a
response.
39. But, celebrations were short lived as the Overton Defendants’
counsel responded with eight sentences – most of which were to explain how Mr.
Eric Lobdell’s a terrorist and how his actions “violate at least 18 U.S.C. § 2332b
and Texas Penal Code Section 22.07 . . . .”
40. In sum, after millions of dollars of lost business, tens of thousands of
dollars used to hire consultants and attorneys, and months wasted, the Overton
Defendants still have not identified their asserted patent, explained their
infringement contentions, or provided Trend Essentials with any settlement
demands.
41. To date, the Overton Defendants refuse to withdraw any
complaints. Such a stubborn stance is particularly egregious as Trend Essentials
never sold a single Accused Product and the Amazon listing, which Trend
Essentials did not create, is active and unencumbered by any suspension or
restriction to those other than Trend Essentials.
8
EXHIBIT 2
42. As of December 15, 2019, Amazon’s Account Heath Team confirmed
to Trend Essentials that the Overton Defendants’ complaint is the only complaint
preventing its account from reinstatement.
43. Using key metrics and sales information, the Overton Defendants’
have caused at least Two-million Dollars, as a conservative estimate, in direct
damages. Indeed, Trend Essentials’ actual damages may far surpass Three-
million Dollars. Each day that passes results in increased damages.
44. The Overton Defendants have failed to respond in any meaningful
manner.
9
EXHIBIT 2
45. For instance, the Overton Defendants have committed similar
wrongdoing against Nathan Sports, manufacturer of the Accused Product. Mr.
Eric Lobdell sought assistance from Nathan because the Overton Defendants’
complaint concerned its products. He learned from United Sports Brands
(Nathan Sports) and its legal counsel that Overton/SPIbelt previously filed an
Amazon takedown against United Sports Brands for the same item.
46. There, United Sports Brands explained its non-infringement
contentions to Amazon and the Overton Defendants’ counsel at K&L Gates
concerning the same Accused Product in this case.
47. As a result, the product listing was reinstated, and the listing
remains functional at the time of this filing.2 The Overton Defendants and their
counsel should be fully aware that their takedowns or ASIN B00MNAEHRC are
illegitimate.
48.
10
EXHIBIT 2
I declare under penalties of perjury of the laws of the United States of
America that the above and foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on December 23, 2019.
//Eric Lobdell//
Eric Lobdell
11
EXHIBIT 3
EXHIBIT 4
EXHIBIT 4
EXHIBIT 5
EXHIBIT 6
1265 Stuart Ridge

Johns Creek, Georgia
30022
www.ATLawip.com
JEFFREY T. BRELOSKI
DIRECT DIAL: 678.667.3491
EMAIL ADDRESS: [email protected]
December 11, 2019
Via FedEx & email [email protected]

Spibelt
8201 E Riverside Dr
Bldg 4, Suite 125
Austin, TX 78744
Re: REQUEST FOR ACTION

ASIN B00MNAEHRC
Dear sir/ma’am:
This Firm proudly serves as intellectual property and litigation counsel for
Amazon Seller Trend Essentials (“Trend Essentials”). This letter concerns an
Amazon complaint from you - Overton Enterprises LLC – SPIbelt (“SPIbelt”).
Trend Essentials received a notice of infringement concerning its Nathan Mirage
Reflective Running Belt Pack, Ultrasoft, Fully-Adjustable on Amazon.com.
https://www.amazon.com/Nathan-Mirage-Pak-Blue-
visited November 8, 2017).
Our client desires to resolve the complaints amicably. We do hope that

you will cooperate with us to protect Spibelt’s intellectual property while
allowing our client to sell on Amazon.com unencumbered.
Trend Essentials respectfully requests that you remove any adverse action
against Trend Essentials.
78438.19125.2
EXHIBIT 6
Spibelt
December 11, 2019
Page 2
Thus, we respectfully request that you withdraw the abovementioned

complaint and take no adverse actions against our client based upon the
following.
THE CONTROVERSY
On or about June 11, 2019, Trend Essentials received a warning from

Amazon.com’s Seller Performance Team. We understand that you filed an
intellectual property (“IP”) infringement report concerning –
(“Accused Belt”)
As a result of your complaint, Trend Essentials’ listing changed to inactive. This

status remains until Trend Essentials and you resolve the concern.
Moreover, your actions have resulted in our client’s suspension from the
Amazon selling platform.
OUR CLIENT, Trend Essentials
Our client is an upstanding Amazon seller that’s operated on Amazon.com

without complaint or issue. The primary reason for this clean track record is
attributed to its business practices and policies.
For example, our client respects the IP rights owners. While we understand
that IP infringement is a strict liability offense, we pray that you consider our
good faith belief that we offered for sale and sold products that did not infringe
any IP.
Our client’s details are below:
Seller Name: Trend Essentials

email: [email protected]
merchant token: A345TFX7OC9Y95
EXHIBIT 6
Spibelt
December 11, 2019
Page 3
Trend Essentials’
GOOD FAITH EFFORTS TO RESOLVE
Our client has attempted to resolve your dispute; however, you have not
responded. For example, our client made several phone calls to you without any
success or resolution. Further, our client contacted you via SPIbelt’s email
address. See email from our client to SPIbelt (Oct. 23, 2019), Attachment.
Specifically, on October 23, 2019, our client explained how its Accused Belt did
not infringe any of SPIbelt’s patents. Id.
Further still, on November 7, 2019 – our client sent the following message
to Kim Overton via Facebook messenger:
Hi Kim, your company has submitted an infringement claim against

my Amazon account for a Nathan brand running belt. I [our client]
am not affiliated with the Nathan brand, so your company's
complaint does not apply to me. I have been trying to reach
someone at your company to discuss and amicable resolution, but
your receptionist can only transfer me to an IP department that does
not answer the phone, return calls, or respond to email. Please
contact me so we can avoid escalation and resolve this amicably. My
number is 281-831-0121.
You didn’t respond.
REQUEST
Accordingly, we seek an amicable resolution. That is, in exchange for

withdrawing the abovementioned complaint, our client agrees to cease selling its
Accused Belts.
Kindly let us know if you’re willing to cooperate no later than December 13,
2019 at 5:00 PM EST.
If acceptable, please send the email below from [email protected] to

[email protected] and [email protected]:
EXHIBIT 6
Spibelt
December 11, 2019
Page 4
Spibelt has resolved its infringement dispute with Trend

Essentials. Spibelt affirmatively withdraws its complaints against Trend
Essentials –
ASIN B00MNAEHRC
The parties have reached a resolution, and Trend Essentials has represented
that it will not sell products that infringe Spibelt’s intellectual property
after selling out of its current inventory. Spibelt has no objection to
Amazon reinstating Trend Essentials’ selling rights without any
detrimental reports associated with Spibelt’s claims.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Regards,
SPIbelt
Kindly cc me ([email protected]) with your e-mail to Amazon.
Nothing contained in or omitted from this letter shall be deemed a waiver of any
of our client’s rights or remedies with respect to this matter, and our client
expressly reserves all of its rights and remedies. This letter is not intended as a
complete recitation of the facts or issues. It is intended for settlement purposes
only and shall not be deemed admissible to any legal proceeding pursuant to
Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Sincerely yours,
ATLawip LLC
Jeffrey T. Breloski
JTB:dd
Attachment
EXHIBIT 6
[email protected]
Subject: FW: IP complaint against Amazon 3rd party seller, Trend Essentials
Jeffrey T. Breloski
ATLawip LLC
1265 Stuart Ridge
Telephone No.: (678) 667-3491
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Eric L <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 11:58 AM
Subject: IP complaint against Amazon 3rd party seller, Trend Essentials
To: <[email protected]>

Hello,

I have been attempting to reach your department by phone, but I have not yet received a response to my
voicemails. I am writing because we received an intellectual property complaint from you for an Amazon
marketplace listing for ASIN B00MNAEHRC, "Nathan Mirage Reflective Running Belt Pack."

I see that the complaint is labeled as a "Design Right" complaint, meaning the claim in your takedown is that we have
infringed on your design IP. In fact, the item that we had listed for sale was a resale of a genuine SPIBELT item, and
as such the complaint is invalid.

I am requesting that you please submit a retraction for this complaint on the basis that our content was not
infringing. Additionally, if your takedown was a brand protection effort to limit distribution, we are happy to cooperate
and avoid re‐listing the product.

Please reply back and let me know the reason for the complaint so that we might work cooperatively to resolve the
issue.

Thank you,
Eric Lobdell
Trend Essentials
1
EXHIBIT 7

)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. )
)
Enterprises, LLC )
Defendants.
DECLARATION OF MR. JEFFREY BRELOSKI
I, JEFFREY BRELOSKI, declare as follows:
1. My name is Jeffrey Breloski I make this Declaration on my own
personal knowledge unless indicated otherwise.
2. I am an attorney for ATLawip LLC, and I represent Mr. Eric Lobdell,
Plaintiff in this action. My law firm email address is [email protected].
3. As another example, in July 2017, Mr. Gerhard Cronje, owner of Fitt
Gear LLC, engaged this firm because he encountered a similar experience where
Defendant Kim Overton filed an Amazon IP Infringement Report then
completely ghosted Mr. Cronje.
4. As yet another example, the Overton Defendants destroyed another
of this firm’s Amazon-selling clients. Back in November 2015, SNH NEW YORK
EXHIBIT 7
(“SNHNY”) attempted to resolve SPIbelt’s patent infringement dispute;
however, SPIbelt failed to respond substantively. SNHNY contacted SPIbelt via
SPIbelt’s email address.
5. Exhibit 8 fairly and accurately depicts an email string from Erin
Hood, SPIbelt representative to SNH NEW YORK (Nov. 3, 2015).
6. Specifically, on November 23, 2015, SNHNY explained how its
Accused Belt did not infringe any of SPIbelt’s patents. Id. (“Our product has
different size, unique design, and different functions etc from your [SPIbelt]
products or the patent.”).
7. SPIbelt failed to respond substantively. Rather, it directed SNHNY
to US Design Patent No. D613,500 and demanded with it remove the Accused
Belt “from all points of sale.” Id. at SNHNY000106.
8. This firm, acting on behalf of SNHNY, drafted and served a legal
2017), Exhibit 8 at SNHNY000100-103. More importantly, this firm conveyed
SNHNY’s desire to resolve amicably the issue. See letter from Jeffrey Breloski,
counsel for SNHNY, to Dian Zhao, IP Manager for SPIbelt, (May. 23, 2017),
Exhibit 8 at SNHNY000100 (“Accordingly, we seek an amicable resolution.”).
2
EXHIBIT 7
9. After this firm served its letter, Ms. Zhao, SPIbelt’s IP Manager,
failed to respond. Id. at SNHNY000112-113.
10. Later, SPIbelt’s K&L Gates counsel demanded information from
SNHNY concerning the number of Accused Belts it sold and how many Accused
Belts it had remaining in inventory. Id. at SNHNY000111-112.
11. On the same day, sensing a one-sided demand, this firm conveyed
SNHNY’s willingness to cooperate in good faith, but asked if SPIbelt would
cooperate in return. Id. at SNHNY000111.
12. SPIbelt’s counsel failed to respond timely.
13. Five days later, having not received any response, this firm followed
up with its previous email. Id. at SNHNY000111. This time, SPIbelt’s counsel
did respond. Id. at SNHNY000109-110. However, rather than acknowledge
treatment. Id. at SNHNY000110.
14. Despite a lack of assurances from SPIbelt, SNHNY – in a showing of
SPIbelt’s inquiries. Id. at SNHNY000109.
3
EXHIBIT 7
15. Like before, SPIbelt’s counsel has failed to respond for over two
weeks. Therefore, this firm sent another email following up on the information
SNHNY provided in response to SPIbelt’s inquiries. Id. at SNHNY000109.
16. SPIbelt, to the date of this lawsuit, has failed to respond. Further, it
has failed to withdraw either of its complaints against SNHNY. Further yet, it
has failed to outline any corrective actions SNHNY needs to take in order to
resolve the present issues. Lastly, SPIbelt has given no indications that it ever
intends to seek resolution.
I declare under penalties of perjury of the laws of the United States of
America that the above and foregoing is true and correct
Executed on December 23, 2019.
___________________________
Jeffrey Breloski
4
EXHIBIT 8
2065 Compton Way

30022
www.ATLawip.com
JEFFREY T. BRELOSKI
DIRECT DIAL: 706-593-2865
June 26, 2017
Via email ([email protected]; [email protected];

[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected])
Amazon.com, Inc.
Seller Performance
Amazon Legal
Via Email [email protected]

Anna and John Kim
Sammy and Hannah LLC
200 Rector Pl 6H,
New York, NY 10280
347.389.3927
Re: REQUEST FOR ACTION

COMPLAINT IDs: 917596771 & 952568221
ASINS B0154RQ03O & B010ARZSDQ
Dear sir/ma’am:
Sammy and Hannah LLC dba Amazon Seller SNHNY (“SNHNY”). This letter
concerns the abovementioned Amazon complaints.
Upon complaint from Overton Enterprises LLC – SPIbelt (“SPIbelt”),

SNHNY received a notice of infringement concerning its Top Fit Running Belt
78438.15987v2
EXHIBIT 8
Amazon.com, Inc.
Seller Performance
Amazon Legal
June 26, 2017
Page 2
offerings on Amazon.com. https://www.amazon.com/Accessories-Completely-

Comfortable-Competitors-SNHNY/dp/B00V2S7NOA (last visited
May 15, 2017).
When attempting to resolve any alleged infringement, SPIbelt’s counsel

has failed to cooperate despite our best efforts and expedited diligence. As a
result, SNHNY is left in limbo without recourse.
SNHNY respectfully requests that Amazon remedy this unfair competition

and remove any adverse action against SNHNY. While our client explores
options such as declaratory relief in federal court and inter partes review before
the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board, our client seeks immediate
assistance from Amazon.com.
Thus, we respectfully request that you dismiss the abovementioned

complaints and take no adverse actions against our client based upon the
foregoing.
THE CONTROVERSY
On or about April 17, 2017, SNHNY received a warning from

Amazon.com’s Seller Performance Team. Email from Amazon.com Seller
Evaluation to SNHNY (Apr. 17, 2017), Attachment 1 at SNHNY000104. We
understand that SPIbelt filed an intellectual property (“IP”) infringement report
concerning –
ASIN: B0154RQ03O, Top Fit Running Belt for Men + Women, Holds
all IPhones + Accessories, Completely Comfortable Running Belt for
Trail Running or Hiking. Best Running Belt, Higher Quality! From
SNHNY (“Accused Belt”)
Id. As a result of SPIbelt’s complaint, SNHNY’s listing changed to inactive. Id.

This status remains until SNHNY and SPIbelt resolve the concern. Id.
Additionally, we understand that SPIbelt filed another complaint with

Amazon.com on or about May 18, 2017 concerning ASIN B010ARZSDQ. Email
EXHIBIT 8
Amazon.com, Inc.
Seller Performance
Amazon Legal
June 26, 2017
Page 3
from Amazon.com Seller Evaluation to SNHNY (May. 18, 2017), Attachment 1 at

SNHNY000105. The status of this listing is also inactive. Id.
OUR CLIENT, SNHNY

For example, our client respects the IP rights owners. While we understand
that IP infringement is a strict liability offense, we pray that you consider our
good faith belief that we offered for sale and sold products that did not infringe
any IP.
SNHNY’S
Our client has attempted to resolve SPIbelt’s dispute; however, SPIbelt has
not responded substantively. For example, our client contacted SPIbelt via
SPIbelt’s email address. See email string from Erin Hood, SPIbelt representative
to SNH NEW YORK (Nov. 3, 2015), Attachment 2 at SNHNY000106. Specifically,
on November 23, 2015, our client explained how its Accused Belt did not infringe
any of SPIbelt’s patents. Id. (“Our product has different size, unique design, and
different functions etc from your products or the patent.”).
SPIbelt failed to respond substantively. Rather, it directed our client to US

Design Patent No. D613,500 and demanded with we remove the Accused Belt
“from all points of sale.” Email string from Erin Hood, SPIbelt representative to
SNH NEW YORK (Nov. 3, 2015), Attachment 2 at SNHNY000106.
THIS FIRM’S
This Firm, acting on behalf of SNHNY, drafted and served a legal

EXHIBIT 8
Amazon.com, Inc.
Seller Performance
Amazon Legal
June 26, 2017
Page 4
2017), Attachment 1 at SNHNY000100-103; see also email string from Jeffrey
Breloski, counsel for SNHNY, to Henry Pogorzelski, counsel for SPIbelt, (Jun. 21,
2017), Attachment 3. More importantly, this Firm conveyed our client’s desire to
resolve amicably the issue. See letter from Jeffrey Breloski, counsel for SNHNY,
to Dian Zhao, IP Manager for SPIbelt, (May. 23, 2017), Attachment 1 at
SNHNY000100 (“Accordingly, we seek an amicable resolution.”).
In addition to our efforts to ascertain information, we also demonstrated

our willingness to cooperate in good faith. Id. For example, we informed SPIbelt
that our client would agree to immediately “cease selling its [Accused Belt].” Id.
We identified SPIbelt’s complaints. Id. We also offered a cooperation plan that
would benefit both SPIbelt and SNHNY. Id. at SNHNY000101-102.
SPIBELT’S LACK OF GOOD FAITH AND

REFUSAL TO COOPERATE
After we served our letter, Ms. Zhao, SPIbelt’s IP Manager, failed to

respond. Email from Jeffrey Breloski, counsel for SNHNY, to Dian Zhao, IP
Manager for SPIbelt, (May. 23, 2017), Attachment 3 at SNHNY000112-113.
Later, SPIbelt’s counsel, Henry Pogorzelski, demanded information from

our client concerning the number of Accused Belts our client sold and how many
Accused Belts it had remaining in inventory. Email string from Jeffrey Breloski,
counsel for SNHNY, to Henry Pogorzelski, counsel for SPIbelt, (Jun. 21, 2017),
Attachment 3 at SNHNY000111-112.
On the same day, sensing a one-sided demand, this Firm conveyed our
client’s willingness to cooperate in good faith, but asked if SPIbelt would
cooperate in return. Id. at SNHNY000111. SPIbelt’s counsel failed to respond
timely.
Five days later, having not received any response, this Firm followed up
with its previous email. Id. at SNHNY000111. This time, SPIbelt’s counsel did
respond. Id. at SNHNY000109-110. However, rather than acknowledge
EXHIBIT 8
Amazon.com, Inc.
Seller Performance
Amazon Legal
June 26, 2017
Page 5

treatment. Id. at SNHNY000110.
Despite a lack of assurances from SPIbelt, SNHNY – in a showing of

SPIbelt’s inquiries. Id. at SNHNY000109.
Like before, SPIbelt’s counsel has failed to respond for over two weeks.
Therefore, this Firm sent another email following up on the information SNHNY
provided in response to SPIbelt’s inquiries. Id. at SNHNY000109.
SPIbelt, to the date of this letter, has failed to respond. Further, it has
failed to withdraw either of its complaints against SNHNY. Further yet, it has
failed to outline any corrective actions SNHNY needs to take in order to resolve
the present issues. Lastly, SPIbelt has given no indications that it ever intends to
seek resolution.
Thus, we turn to Amazon.com, Inc. to remedy SPIbelt’s unfair competition.
UNWARRANTED INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
We invite you to withdraw the two abovementioned complaints because

SPIbelt has failed to respond in any meaningful manner, and once they received
their requested information, SPIbelt has failed to respond at all.
By failing to cooperate and resolve SPIbelt’s complaints, and despite our

repeated requests, Mr. Pogorzelski and SPIbelt have effectively and unfairly
received both a preliminary and permanent injunction leaving SNHNY without
recourse. That is, SNHNY is either temporarily or permanently restricted from
selling its Accused Belts on Amazon. Further, Mr. Pogorzelski and SPIbelt are
unfairly preventing SNHNY from curing any potential infringement.
To put the severity of Mr. Pogorzelski’s action into perspective, a

comparison of this complaint to a district court action is necessary. Before a
court, a preliminary injunction is a drastic and extraordinary remedy that is
infrequently granted in patent infringement actions. See U.S. Pharm. Corp. v.
EXHIBIT 8
Amazon.com, Inc.
Seller Performance
Amazon Legal
June 26, 2017
Page 6
Trigen Labs., Inc., No. 1:10–cv–0544–WSD, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13637, at *18
(N.D. Ga. Jan. 27, 2011). A party seeking temporary or preliminary injunctive
relief must establish that: (1) there is a substantial likelihood that the movant
will prevail on the merits; (2) the movant will suffer irreparable injury if the
relief is not granted; (3) the threatened injury outweighs the harm the relief
would inflict on the opposing party; and (4) if granted, the injunction would not
be adverse to the public interest. See Polymer Techs., Inc. v. Bridwell, 103 F.3d 970,
977 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(emphasis added); Skillern v. Ga. Dep’t of Corr., Civ. Act. No.
1:05-cv-2629, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81878, at *15 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 7, 2006).
Moreover, a permanent injunction is only permissible after a final

judgment, which occurs at the end of a litigation case. Once a guarantee after
winning a patent case, the Supreme Court recently ruled that permanent
injunctions are no longer automatic. Rather, a successful plaintiff must prove
that (1) it will suffer an irreparable injury; (2) remedies available at law are
inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) the balance of hardships between
the parties favors the plaintiff; and (4) the public interest would not be disserved.
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 391 (2006).
Both types of injunctive relief usually require overcoming high burdens of

proof, providing adequate evidentiary support, and offering supporting expert
testimony.
Contrastingly, here, Mr. Pogorzelski or SPIbelt has presumably filled out a

single infringement form. https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/reports/
infringement (last visited Jun. 21, 2017). With no further evidence and no
opportunity to respond, they have effectively received injunctive relief without
proving the need for such relief.
SNHNY’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF
For all of the foregoing, this Firm respectfully request that you take away
Mr. Pogorzelski and SPIbelt’s privileges of filing infringement reports against
our client, SNHNY.
EXHIBIT 8
Amazon.com, Inc.
Seller Performance
Amazon Legal
June 26, 2017
Page 7
Additionally, we ask that you dismiss Complaint IDs: 917596771 &

952568221 concerning ASINs B0154RQ03O & B010ARZSDQ.
Kindly take appropriate, immediate action so that our loyal client may
resume selling on Amazon.com.
Do not hesitate to contact me should you need additional information.
--------------Signature Page Follows--------------

EXHIBIT 8
Amazon.com, Inc.
Seller Performance
Amazon Legal
June 26, 2017
Page 8
Sincerely yours,
ATLawip LLC
Jeffrey T. Breloski
JTB:cr
Attachments
EXHIBIT 8
2065 Compton Way

30022
www.ATLawip.com
JEFFREY T. BRELOSKI
DIRECT DIAL: 706-593-2865
May 23, 2017
Via email [email protected]

Dian Zhao
Spibelt
8201 E Riverside Dr
Bldg 4, Suite 125
Austin, TX 78744
CC: via email [email protected]

Anna and John Kim
Sammy and Hannah LLC
Re: REQUEST FOR SETTLEMENT

COMPLAINT IDs: 917596771 & 952568221
Dear Ms. Zhao:
Sammy and Hannah LLC dba Amazon Seller SNHNY (“SNHNY”). This letter
concerns the abovementioned Amazon.com complaints.
Our client desires to resolve the complaints amicably. We do hope that

you will cooperate with us to protect Spibelt’s intellectual property while
allowing our client to sell on Amazon.com unencumbered.
78438.06517v1
SNHNY000100
EXHIBIT 8
Dian Zhao
Spibelt
May 23, 2017
Page 2
THE CONTROVERSY
On or about April 17, 2017, SNHNY received a warning from

Amazon.com’s Seller Performance Team. E-mail from Amazon.com Seller
Evaluation to SNHNY (Apr. 17, 2017), Attachment 1. We understand that you
filed an intellectual property infringement report concerning –
ASIN: B0154RQ03O, Top Fit Running Belt for Men + Women, Holds all
IPhones + Accessories, Completely Comfortable Running Belt for Trail
Running or Hiking. Best Running Belt, Higher Quality! From SNHNY
Id. As a result of your complaint, SNHNY’s listing changed to inactive. Id. This
status remains until SNHNY and you resolve the concern. Id.
Additionally, we understand that you filed another complaint with

Amazon.com on or about May 18, 2017 concerning ASIN B010ARZSDQ. E-mail
from Amazon.com Seller Evaluation to SNHNY (May. 18, 2017), Attachment 2.
The status of this listing is also inactive. Id.
OUR CLIENT

For example, our client respects the intellectual property (“IP”) of rights
owners. While we understand that IP infringement is a strict liability offense, we
pray that you consider our good faith belief that we offered for sale and sold
products that did not infringe any IP.
REQUEST
Accordingly, we seek an amicable resolution. That is, in exchange for

withdrawing the abovementioned complaints, our client agrees to cease selling
its accused products. However, we respectfully request that you allow our client
a reasonable amount of time to sell out its current inventory.
SNHNY000101
EXHIBIT 8
Dian Zhao
Spibelt
May 23, 2017
Page 3
Kindly let us know if you’re willing to cooperate no later than May 29, 2017
at 5:00 PM EST.
If acceptable, please send the email below from [email protected] to

[email protected] and [email protected]:
Spibelt has resolved its infringement dispute with SNHNY. Spibelt
affirmatively withdraws its complaints against SNHNY –
COMPLAINT IDs: 917596771 & 952568221
The parties have reached a resolution, and SNHNY has represented that it
will not sell products that infringe Spibelt’s intellectual property. Spibelt
has no objection to Amazon reinstating SNHNY’s selling rights without
any detrimental reports associated with Spibelt’s claims.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Regards,
Dian Zhao
Kindly cc me ([email protected]) with your e-mail to Amazon.
--------------Signature Page Follows--------------
SNHNY000102
EXHIBIT 8
Dian Zhao
Spibelt
May 23, 2017
Page 4
Please respond to our request no later than 5 PM EST on May 29, 2017.
Sincerely yours,
ATLawip LLC
Jeffrey T. Breloski
JTB:cr
Attachments
SNHNY000103
EXHIBIT 8
Jeffrey Breloski
Subject: FW: SNHNY
---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Anna Kim <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 3:11 PM
Subject: Fwd: Inquiry from Amazon customer Erin Hood
To: Irene Davila <[email protected]>, Phmanagers <[email protected]>,
[email protected]
Hello,
We are contacting you because we received a report of infringement from the rights owner listed below. Sellers on Amazon.com
are not allowed to create listings or detail pages that infringe intellectual property rights. We removed the following content:
ASIN: B0154RQ03O, Top Fit Running Belt for Men + Women, Holds all IPhones + Accessories, Completely Comfortable
Running Belt for Trail Running or Hiking. Best Running Belt, Higher Quality! From SNHNY
We may let you list this content again if we receive a retraction from the rights owner. Their contact information can be found
below.
Dian Zhao
[email protected]
If the rights owner agrees to retract their complaint, they must send the retraction to us at [email protected].
If you believe that the reported content does not infringe the rights owner’s intellectual property rights, you may email notice-
[email protected] with supporting information.
We consider allegations of intellectual property infringement a serious matter and your account is under review. If we receive more
complaints about your listings, we may not allow you to sell on Amazon.com.
To learn more about this policy, search for "Intellectual Property Violations" in Seller Central Help.
Complaint ID: 917596771
Sincerely,
1
SNHNY000104
EXHIBIT 8
Jeffrey Breloski
Subject: FW: SNHNY
Hello,
Based on the information you provided, you may not relist the content at the end of this email.
We may let you list this content again if we receive a retraction from the rights owner. Their contact information can be found below.
-- [email protected]
If the rights owner agrees to retract the complaint, they must send the retraction to us at [email protected]
If you believe that the reported content does not infringe the rights owner’s intellectual property rights, you may email notice-
[email protected] with supporting information.
ASIN(s): B010ARZSDQ
Complaint ID: 952568221
Sincerely,
Amazon.com
Sincerely,
Seller Performance Team

Amazon.com
https://www.amazon.com
--------------
1
SNHNY000105
EXHIBIT 8
---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Erin Hood - Amazon Marketplace <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 5:39 PM
Subject: RE: Inquiry from Amazon customer Erin Hood
To: SNH NEW YORK
SNHNY Team,
Please review the patent documents.
This product infringes upon US patent D613500, as the same design features are apparent. A
copy of US patent D613500 is attached for your reference.
Please remove this belt from all points of sale.

Regards,
Erin Hood
International Account Manager
Overton Enterprises LLC/SPIbelt
p: 512.394.6089 | f: 512.358.1440
Web | Facebook | Twitter
-----Original Message-----
From: SNH NEW YORK - Amazon Marketplace [mailto:[e-mail address removed]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 4:34 PM
To: Erin Hood
Subject: RE: Inquiry from Amazon customer Erin Hood
Dear Eric,
Thanks for the email.
According to our knowledge, the product is not violated the patent.
Our product has different size, unique design, and different functions etc from your products or
the patent.
If you have further questions, please send further information.
Best Regards,
SNHNY Team
SNHNY000106
EXHIBIT 8
--- Original message ---
ASIN: B010ARZSDQ
PATENT VIOLATION: ACTION REQUIRED
This item needs to be removed for it is in violation of our extensive patent portfolio and needs to
be removed at once.
Our entire patent portfolio can be viewed at http://www.spibelt.com/patents/
Should you have further questions please contact me at once.

Regards,
Erin Hood
Overton Enterprises LLC - SPIbelt
------------- End message -------------
For Your Information: To help arbitrate disputes and preserve trust and safety, we retain all
messages buyers and sellers send through Amazon.com for two years. This includes your
response to the message above. Amazon.com uses filtering technology to protect buyers and
sellers from possible fraud. Messages that fail this filtering will not be transmitted.
We want you to buy with confidence anytime you purchase products on Amazon.com. Learn
more about Safe Online Shopping
(http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=551434) and our safe buying
guarantee (http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=537868).
If you believe this message is suspicious, please report it to us here:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/communication-
manager/report.html?ft=InappropriateContent&msg=A337N8WPT3LZCT&d=1446590368&mp
=ATVPDKIKX0DER&v=1&t=db99fcd7bc5bbbfef3182eedcbd55dc54bdd0346
To mark this message as no response needed, click here:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/communication-manager/no-response-
needed.html?msg=A337N8WPT3LZCT&d=1446590368&mp=ATVPDKIKX0DER&v=1&t=db
99fcd7bc5bbbfef3182eedcbd55dc54bdd0346
SNHNY000107
EXHIBIT 8
[commMgrTok:A337N8WPT3LZCT]
SNHNY000108
EXHIBIT 8
From: Jeffrey Breloski

To: "Henry Pogorzelski"
Cc: "Brandon Williamson"
Subject: RE: Overton Enterprises and Your Client Sammy and Hannah LLC dba , re FW: REQUEST FOR SETTLEMENT
Date: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 6:16:39 AM
Hi Henry,
Good morning. It’s been over 2 weeks since we sent you information. Would
you please withdraw your complaint?

Best regards,
Jeff

Jeffrey T. Breloski
ATLawip LLC
2065 Compton Way
Telephone No.: (678) 667-3491

***Please note that I will be out of the office from June 22 to June 25. I may have
sporadic access to my email.

From: Jeffrey Breloski [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, June 5, 2017 7:40 PM
To: 'Henry Pogorzelski' <[email protected]>
Cc: 'Brandon Williamson' <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Overton Enterprises and Your Client Sammy and Hannah LLC dba , re FW: REQUEST FOR
SETTLEMENT

Good evening, Henry,
Our client has sold 6,999 units and has a total of (approximately) 3,500
remaining units.

Take care,
Jeff

Jeffrey T. Breloski
ATLawip LLC
2065 Compton Way
Telephone No.: (678) 667-3491

From: Henry Pogorzelski [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 6:17 PM
SNHNY000109
EXHIBIT 8
To: 'Jeffrey Breloski' <[email protected]>

Cc: Brandon Williamson <[email protected]>; Henry Pogorzelski
<[email protected]>
SETTLEMENT

Jeff,

Thank you for your emails.

Our answer to your question (“what does our client get for cooperating,”) is that our client may
decide to give some credence to the statements in your letter that your client is an “upstanding
Amazon seller,” that it “respects the intellectual property of rights owners,” and that it had a “good
faith belief” that its sales did not infringe anyone’s intellectual property. As it stands now, we have
to wonder how it happened that your client came to sell products that are knockoffs of my client’s
SPIbelt brand products.

You have suggested that cooperating would be akin to teeing up an infringement case. We would
submit that an infringement case was already teed up long ago.

At this point, you have requested that my client allow your client to sell off the remains of its
infringing inventory, and to forgive your client’s previous infringements. But we have little idea how
many infringing items are at issue here. It would be foolish for us to give your client what would
essentially be a blank check to continue infringing, just because you have asked for such, in
admittedly very polite and professional manner.

Again, for us to consider your request, please provide the requested sales data. Please feel free to
call me if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you.

Regards,

Henry Pogorzelski
Principal | Conley Rose, P.C. | Intellectual Property Law

13413 Galleria Circle, Suite 100 | Austin, Texas 78738

Direct: (512) 610-3420 | Mobile: (713) 824-3103
Main: (512) 610-3410 | Fax: (512) 610-3456
[email protected]
www.conleyrose.com

Electronic Mail Confidentiality Notice
This electronic mail message and all attachments may contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is protected by the
attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product immunity and/or other applicable law. The information is intended only for the use of the
individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution
(electronic or otherwise), forwarding or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this electronic transmission in error, please immediately notify me via the contact information above to arrange for return of the
electronic mail, attachments, documents or any other information received.

SNHNY000110
EXHIBIT 8

Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 10:23 AM
To: Henry Pogorzelski
Cc: Brandon Williamson
SETTLEMENT

Hi Henry,
I’m just following up on my email to you last week.

Thanks,
Jeff

Jeffrey T. Breloski
ATLawip LLC
2065 Compton Way
Telephone No.: (678) 667-3491

Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 1:10 PM
To: 'Henry Pogorzelski' <[email protected]>
Cc: 'Brandon Williamson' <[email protected]>
SETTLEMENT

Thanks for your reply, Henry.

When we provide responses to your requested information, what does our client
get for cooperating? Essentially we would be teeing up an infringement case.

Take care,
Jeff

Jeffrey T. Breloski
ATLawip LLC
2065 Compton Way
Telephone No.: (678) 667-3491

From: Henry Pogorzelski [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 4:12 AM
To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>
SNHNY000111
EXHIBIT 8
Cc: Henry Pogorzelski <[email protected]>; Brandon Williamson

<[email protected]>
Subject: Overton Enterprises and Your Client Sammy and Hannah LLC dba , re FW: REQUEST FOR
SETTLEMENT

Dear Mr. Breloski,

Thank you for your attached correspondence, which has been forward to me by my firm’s client
Overton Enterprises, the makers of SPIbelt brand products. Please direct future correspondence to
my attention at the address below.

To assist us with evaluating the proposal in your settlement letter, please provide the following
information: (1) the number of your client’s Top Fit Running Belts that have been sold to date; and
(2) the number of Top Fit Running Belts that remain in your client’s current inventory. Please
provide this data for both your client’s sales via Amazon, and for your client’s total sales, including its
sales via its website at < snhny.com > and its sales via other Internet retailers, such as Walmart.com,
etc. Thank you.

Regards,

Henry Pogorzelski
Principal | Conley Rose, P.C. | Intellectual Property Law

13413 Galleria Circle, Suite 100 | Austin, Texas 78738

Direct: (512) 610-3420 | Mobile: (713) 824-3103
Main: (512) 610-3410 | Fax: (512) 610-3456
[email protected]
www.conleyrose.com

Electronic Mail Confidentiality Notice
This electronic mail message and all attachments may contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is protected by the
attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product immunity and/or other applicable law. The information is intended only for the use of the
individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution
(electronic or otherwise), forwarding or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this electronic transmission in error, please immediately notify me via the contact information above to arrange for return of the
electronic mail, attachments, documents or any other information received.

From: "Jeffrey Breloski" <[email protected]>

Date: May 23, 2017 at 6:08:12 PM CDT
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: "'Anna Kim'" <[email protected]>
Subject: REQUEST FOR SETTLEMENT
Dear Ms. Zhao,

Good evening. Please find the attached correspondence sent on
SNHNY000112
EXHIBIT 8
behalf of our client, SNHNY.

Best regards,
Jeff

SNHNY000113
JS 44 (Rev. 08/16) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

Eric Lobdell and Benedict Lobdell dba Trend Essentials Kim Overton and Overton Enterprises, LLC
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Houston, TX County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Austin, TX
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
David Murphy THE LAW OFFICES OF MURPHY & ASSOCIATES, Henry Pogorzelski
PLLC, 25511 Budde Road, #1901, The Woodlands, Texas 77380, K&L GATES LLP, 2801 VIA FORTUNA SUITE 350 AUSTIN TX 78746
(281) 475-2022; Jeffrey Breloski, ATLAWIP LLC 713.824.3103
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
’ 1 U.S. Government ’ 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State ’ 1 ’ 1 Incorporated or Principal Place ’ 4 ’ 4
of Business In This State
’ 2 U.S. Government ’ 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State ’ 2 ’ 2 Incorporated and Principal Place ’ 5 ’ 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a ’ 3 ’ 3 Foreign Nation ’ 6 ’ 6

Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
’ 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY ’ 625 Drug Related Seizure ’ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 ’ 375 False Claims Act
’ 120 Marine ’ 310 Airplane ’ 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 ’ 423 Withdrawal ’ 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
’ 130 Miller Act ’ 315 Airplane Product Product Liability ’ 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
’ 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability ’ 367 Health Care/ ’ 400 State Reapportionment
’ 150 Recovery of Overpayment ’ 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS ’ 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury ’ 820 Copyrights ’ 430 Banks and Banking
’ 151 Medicare Act ’ 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability ’ 830 Patent ’ 450 Commerce
’ 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability ’ 368 Asbestos Personal ’ 840 Trademark ’ 460 Deportation
Student Loans ’ 340 Marine Injury Product ’ 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) ’ 345 Marine Product Liability LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY Corrupt Organizations
’ 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY ’ 710 Fair Labor Standards ’ 861 HIA (1395ff) ’ 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits ’ 350 Motor Vehicle ’ 370 Other Fraud Act ’ 862 Black Lung (923) ’ 490 Cable/Sat TV
’ 160 Stockholders’ Suits ’ 355 Motor Vehicle ’ 371 Truth in Lending ’ 720 Labor/Management ’ 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) ’ 850 Securities/Commodities/
’ 190 Other Contract Product Liability ’ 380 Other Personal Relations ’ 864 SSID Title XVI Exchange
’ 195 Contract Product Liability ’ 360 Other Personal Property Damage ’ 740 Railway Labor Act ’ 865 RSI (405(g)) ’ 890 Other Statutory Actions
’ 196 Franchise Injury ’ 385 Property Damage ’ 751 Family and Medical ’ 891 Agricultural Acts
’ 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability Leave Act ’ 893 Environmental Matters
Medical Malpractice ’ 790 Other Labor Litigation ’ 895 Freedom of Information
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS ’ 791 Employee Retirement FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act
’ 210 Land Condemnation ’ 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: Income Security Act ’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff ’ 896 Arbitration
’ 220 Foreclosure ’ 441 Voting ’ 463 Alien Detainee or Defendant) ’ 899 Administrative Procedure
’ 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment ’ 442 Employment ’ 510 Motions to Vacate ’ 871 IRS—Third Party Act/Review or Appeal of
’ 240 Torts to Land ’ 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 Agency Decision
’ 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations ’ 530 General ’ 950 Constitutionality of
’ 290 All Other Real Property ’ 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION State Statutes
Employment Other: ’ 462 Naturalization Application
’ 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 540 Mandamus & Other ’ 465 Other Immigration
Other ’ 550 Civil Rights Actions
’ 448 Education ’ 555 Prison Condition
’ 560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
’ 1 Original ’ 2 Removed from ’ 3 Remanded from ’ 4 Reinstated or ’ 5 Transferred from ’ 6 Multidistrict ’ 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(specify) Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
35 U.S.C. § 271 et seq. Patent Infringement)
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Patent Infringement Action
VII. REQUESTED IN ’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. JURY DEMAND: ’ Yes ’ No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE
Print Save As... Reset

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 08/16)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

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

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

Lobdell v. Overton - 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

Lobdell v. Overton - Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 4:20-cv-00033 Document 1 Filed on 01/06/20 in TXSD Page 1 of 35

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Essentials” or “Plaintiffs”), and for its Complaint against Defendants Kim

Overton and Overton Enterprises, LLC (“Overton Defendants”). In support

thereof, Plaintiffs allege as follows:

I. NATURE OF THE ACTION

assertion tactics, and wrongful interference against a competitor. By filing an

Overton Defendants successfully shuttered an entire business without presenting

allegedly infringed), or expending more than five minutes to do so. Paramount

2. To put this scenario in perspective, the Overton Defendants completed a

example, the Overton Defendants have exploited IP infringement reporting to

close an entire Walmart by claiming a single item infringes an unidentified

3. As background, the Overton Defendants have applied for and received US

fail to provide contentions to their patent assertions, leaving alleged infringers

incapable of defending themselves.

fail to cooperate, ignore resolution efforts, and completely disregard their

competitors. Fully knowing the effects of their disruption, they’re content in

locking their competition in e-commerce limbo. There, sellers, like Trend

and tied up funds.

5. Despite incrementally escalating Trend Essentials’ resolution efforts, the

Overton Defendants’ many failures have forced Plaintiffs to turn to judicial

A. Plaintiff Trend Essentials

6. Trend Essentials is located at 11714 Boudreaux Rd., Tomball, Texas 77375.

Trend Essentials is a father-son partnership created for the purpose of e-

Fully-Adjustable” (“Accused Product”)(shown below).1

B. The Terrorist, Captain Eric Lobdell, US Army

8. Defendants’ legal counsel has characterized Plaintiff Eric Lobdell as a

Exhibit 1. The circumstances of counsel’s accusations will be explained below.

See Para. VI., infra.

Plaintiff Eric Lobdell is a Veteran of the Global War on Terrorism. He graduated

deployed to Iraq as an Armor Officer in support of OPERATION Iraqi Freedom

from 2007 to 2009. Declaration of Eric Lobdell (“Lobdell Decl.”) ¶ 3, Exhibit 2.

CPT Lobdell immersed himself in advanced operational combat arms training

and successfully graduated in 2011. Lobdell Decl. ¶ 5, Exhibit 2.

C. Plaintiff Eric Lobdell’s father, Plaintiff Benedict Lobdell

15. As part of their online family business, Trend Essentials engaged in

D. The Overton Defendants

Overton Enterprises. Upon further information and belief, she is a Texas

resident and may be contacted at (512) 394-6089.

17. Upon information and belief, Defendant Overton Enterprises, LLC is a

www.spibelt.com. Upon further information and belief, Defendant Overton

children used for activities such as running and hiking.”4

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

infringement of the Overton Defendants’ patents, unfair competition, and

both reside in this jurisdiction.

transact in this judicial district and division.

IV. AMAZON.COM, INC.5

Amazon.com platform offers products worldwide. Amazon is available solely

online at https://www.amazon.com/ (last visited Dec. 8, 2019).

(“Buyers”) to negotiate and complete transactions. Amazon is not involved in the

actual transaction between Sellers and Buyers . . . .”

28948zex-10_19.htm (last visited Dec. 8, 2019).

warehouses. Texas is one of those states.6

27. To make a purchase, typically, a Buyer searches for a particular item on

Amazon.com or via a mobile application and submits an order.

5Amazon.com Inc. is the corporation that owns and operates Amazon.com,

A. Selling on Amazon.com Successfully

it concerning the relationship between it and Sellers, duties and responsibilities

of the Sellers, and other policies. See, e.g., Amazon.com’s Participation

ie=UTF8&nodeId=1161272 (last visited Dec. 8, 2019); see also Amazon.com’s

Restricted Products available at

0 (last visited Dec. 8, 2019).

Standard Identification Number (“ASIN”).7