IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CEDAR RAPIDS DIVISION 

POCKET PLUS, L.L.C.,

Plaintiff,
No. 1:21-cv-4
vs.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
AND JURY DEMAND
RUNNERS HIGH, LLC d/b/a RUNNING
BUDDY,
Defendant.

Plaintiff, Pocket Plus, L.L.C., (“Plaintiff”) by and through counsel, for its Complaint

against Defendant Runners High, LLC d/b/a Running Buddy (“Defendant”), alleges, on

knowledge as to its own actions, and otherwise upon information and belief, as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. This is an action for trade dress infringement, unfair competition and false designation of

origin under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and for substantial and related

claims of trademark infringement under common law.

2. Plaintiff seeks injunctive and monetary relief.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1121, 28 U.S.C. §§

1331, and 1338(a) and (b), and pursuant to the principles of supplemental jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1367.

4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because (a) Defendant has substantial

contacts in the State of Iowa related to the claims in this action, (b) Defendant engaged in the

wrongful acts alleged herein in the State of Iowa, and/or (c) Defendant purposely directed its

wrongful conduct at Pocket Plus in the State of Iowa, knowing that the resulting harm likely would

be suffered by Pocket Plus in the State of Iowa.

Case 1:21-cv-00004-CJW-MAR Document 5 Filed 03/29/21 Page 1 of 10

5. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and (b)(2), in that Defendant

does business in this district and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the

claim occurred in this district.

PARTIES

6. Plaintiff is a limited liability company formed under the laws of the State of Iowa and does

business in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

7. Defendant is a limited liability company formed under the laws of the State of South

Carolina.

FACTS

Plaintiff’s Pocket Plus Trade Dress

8. Plaintiff has been marketing, offering, selling, and delivering portable pocket products

within the magnetic pouch industry, including The Pocket Plus through various channels since at

least 2008.

9. Plaintiff owns protectable trade dress comprising the distinctive “look and feel” of the

Pocket Plus, as described in greater detail below.

10. Plaintiff’s trade dress serves to identify Plaintiff as the source of high-quality portable

pocket products to the consuming public. Plaintiff has invested substantial time, effort, and

financial resources developing and promoting its trade dress in connection with the promotion and

delivery of its products and services. Plaintiff’s trade dress has become an asset of substantial

value as a symbol of Plaintiff’s quality products and its goodwill.

11. Plaintiff’s trade dress is inherently distinctive as applied to its products and services.

12. In the alternative, Plaintiff’s trade dress has acquired secondary meaning through

Plaintiff’s long-term, widespread, and continuous use of its trade dress in commerce.

2
 
Case 1:21-cv-00004-CJW-MAR Document 5 Filed 03/29/21 Page 2 of 10
13. The distinctive and innovative “look and feel” of the Pocket Plus includes a portable pocket

worn externally on a person’s clothing, over the waist band on their hip, in a vertical profile and

having a small label less than a square inch along with an illustration and photograph emphasizing

the vertical profile and use on one’s hip, that together and in combination create an overall visual

impression unique to Plaintiff. See Exhibits 1–3.

Defendant’s Misappropriation and Infringement

of Plaintiff’s Trade Dress

14. Defendant markets, offers, and sells portable pocket products, including the Buddy Pouch

Mini Plus (the “Infringing Product”) through various channels, including through its website

TheRunningBuddy.com. Running Buddy is a direct competitor to Plaintiff, and competes with

Plaintiff through the same channels.

15. Based upon information and belief, Defendant began marketing, offering, and selling a

portable pocket product (the Buddy Pouch) in the magnetic pouch industry in 2013 that had a

horizontal profile along with photographs and illustrations emphasizing the horizontal profile as

well as use on one’s waist band in front or in back. See Exhibits 4–5.

16. The Buddy Pouch introduced by Defendant in 2013 was similar to another competitor’s

product, the Roo Sport, that had been introduced in 2011 and that led to confusion as set forth in

a blog post on Roo Sports’ website. Exhibit 6. Below is a side-by-side comparison between the

Roo Sport and the Buddy Pouch:

3
 
Case 1:21-cv-00004-CJW-MAR Document 5 Filed 03/29/21 Page 3 of 10
 Roo Sport (Exhibit 7) Buddy Pouch (Exhibit 8)

17. On October 9, 2012, Defendant applied for a design patent for the ornamental design for a

carrying case which matured into U.S. Pat. No. D716,048 and D762,972. Exhibits 9–10. The

ornamental design protected in both patents, and as shown by the solid lines of the drawings (i.e.

the broken lines of Figs. 1–7 are included for purposes of illustrating portions of the carrying case

forming no part of the claimed design) basically clamed a pouch having a horizontal profile.

18. Recently, Defendant introduced a new Buddy Pouch Mini Plus that mimics the “look and

feel” of the Pocket Plus, utilizing strikingly and confusingly similar layouts and design elements,

including a vertical profile where emphasis is made regarding the placement on the waist band of

one’s hip. Exhibits 11–13.

19. Without authorization, Defendant has mimicked and use the distinctive “look and feel” of

the Pocket Plus in its Buddy Pouch Mini Plus products, including the vertical profile and placement

on the waist band of one’s hip.

20. Defendant’s misappropriation and use of the Pocket Plus trade dress is intended to cause

consumers to mistakenly believe that the products offered by Defendant are provided by or

associated with Plaintiff.

4
 
Case 1:21-cv-00004-CJW-MAR Document 5 Filed 03/29/21 Page 4 of 10
21. Defendant's acts are causing, and unless restrained, will continue to cause damage and

immediate irreparable harm to Plaintiff and to its valuable reputation and goodwill with the

consuming public for which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST CLAIM

(Trade Dress Infringement/Unfair Competition, 15 U.S.C. § 1125)

22. Plaintiff reincorporates all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

23. Defendant’s unauthorized use in commerce of the Infringing Product as alleged herein is

likely to deceive consumers as to the origin, source, sponsorship, or affiliation of Defendant’s

portable pocket products, and is likely to cause consumers to believe, contrary to fact, that

Defendant’s portable pocket products are sold, authorized, endorsed, or sponsored by Plaintiff, or

that Defendant is in some way affiliated with or sponsored by Plaintiff.

24. Defendant's unauthorized use in commerce of the Infringing Product as alleged herein

constitutes use of a false designation of origin and misleading description and representation of

fact.

25. Upon information and belief, Defendant’s conduct as alleged herein is willful and is

intended to and is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception as to the affiliation, connection,

or association of Defendant with Plaintiff.

26. Defendant’s conduct as alleged herein constitutes unfair competition in violation of Section

43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).

27. Defendant’s conduct as alleged herein is causing immediate and irreparable harm and

injury to Plaintiff, and to its goodwill and reputation, and will continue to both damage Plaintiff

and confuse the public unless enjoined by this court. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.

28. Plaintiff is entitled to, among other relief, injunctive relief and an award of actual damages,

Defendant’s profits, enhanced damages and profits, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs of the

5
 
Case 1:21-cv-00004-CJW-MAR Document 5 Filed 03/29/21 Page 5 of 10
action under Sections 34 and 35 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1116, 1117, together with

prejudgment and post-judgment interest.

PLAINTIFF’S SECOND CLAIM

(Common Law Trademark Infringement/Unfair Competition)

29. Plaintiff reincorporates all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

30. Plaintiff has used the Pocket Plus’s distinctive trade dress since at least 2008 to indicate

the source of Plaintiff’s portable pocket products.

31. Plaintiff’s Pocket Plus trade dress is distinctive.

32. Plaintiff’s customers and potential customers identify the trade dress with the portable

pocket products provided by Plaintiff.

33. Defendant’s unauthorized use in commerce of the Infringing Product as alleged herein

constitutes use of a false designation of origin and misleading description and representation of

fact.

34. Defendant’s conduct as alleged herein constitutes trademark infringement under Iowa

common law.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against the Defendant as follows:

1. Granting an injunction temporarily, preliminarily and permanently enjoining the

Defendant, its employees, agents, officers, directors, attorneys, successors, affiliates,

subsidiaries, and assigns, and all of those in active concert and participation with any of

the foregoing persons and entities who receive actual notice of the Court's order by personal

service or otherwise from:

a. providing, selling, marketing, advertising, promoting, or authorizing any

third party to provide, sell, market, advertise or promote portable pocket products

using the Plaintiff’s distinctive “look and feel”;

6
 
Case 1:21-cv-00004-CJW-MAR Document 5 Filed 03/29/21 Page 6 of 10
 b. engaging in any activity that infringes Plaintiff's rights in its protectable

trade dress;

c. engaging in any activity constituting unfair competition with Plaintiff;

d. making or displaying any statement, representation, or depiction that is

likely to lead the public or the trade to believe that (i) Defendant's portable pocket

products are in any manner approved, endorsed, licensed, sponsored, authorized, or

franchised by or associated, affiliated, or otherwise connected with Plaintiff or (ii)

Plaintiff's portable pocket products are in any manner approved, endorsed, licensed,

sponsored, authorized, or franchised by or associated, affiliated, or otherwise

connected with Defendant;

e. using or authorizing any third party to use [in connection with any business,

goods, or services] any false description, false representation, or false designation

of origin, or any marks, names, words, symbols, devices, or trade dress that falsely

associate such business, goods and/or services with Plaintiff or tend to do so;

f. registering or applying to register any trademark, service mark, domain

name, trade name, or other source identifier or symbol of origin consisting of or

incorporating the Plaintiff’s Pocket Plus trade dress or any other mark that infringes

or is likely to be confused with Plaintiff's Pocket Plus trade dress, or any goods or

services of Plaintiff, or Plaintiff as their source; and

g. aiding, assisting, or abetting any other individual or entity in doing any act

prohibited by sub-paragraphs (a) through (f).

7
 
Case 1:21-cv-00004-CJW-MAR Document 5 Filed 03/29/21 Page 7 of 10
 2. Granting such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper to prevent the public

and trade from deriving the false impression that any goods or services manufactured, sold,

distributed, licensed, marketed, advertised, promoted, or otherwise offered or circulated by

Defendant are in any way approved, endorsed, licensed, sponsored, authorized, or

franchised by or associated, affiliated, or otherwise connected with Plaintiff or constitute

or are connected with Plaintiff's portable pocket products.

3. Directing Defendant to immediately cease all manufacture, display, distribution,

marketing, advertising, promotion, sale, offer for sale and/or use of any and all packaging,

labels, shopping bags, containers, advertisements, signs, displays, and other materials that

feature or bear any designation or mark incorporating the Plaintiff’s Pocket Plus trade dress

or any other mark that is a counterfeit, copy, simulation, confusingly similar variation, or

colorable imitation of Plaintiff's Pocket Plus trade dress, and to immediately remove them

from public access and view.

4. Directing that Defendant recalls and delivers up for destruction or other disposition all

goods, packaging, shopping bags, containers, advertisements, promotions, signs, displays,

and related materials incorporating or bearing the Plaintiff’s Pocket Plus trade dress or any

confusingly similar variation thereof.

5. Directing, pursuant to Section 35(a) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1116(a)), Defendant

to file with the court and serve upon Plaintiff's counsel within thirty (30) days after service

on Defendant of an injunction in this action, or such extended period as the court may

direct, a report in writing under oath, setting forth in detail the manner and form in which

Defendant has complied therewith.

8
 
Case 1:21-cv-00004-CJW-MAR Document 5 Filed 03/29/21 Page 8 of 10
 6. Awarding Plaintiff an amount up to three times the amount of its actual damages, in

accordance with Section 35(a) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1117(a)).

7. Directing that Defendant accounts to and pays over to Plaintiff all profits realized by its

wrongful acts in accordance with Section 35(a) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1117(a)),

enhanced as appropriate to compensate Plaintiff for the damages caused thereby.

8. Awarding Plaintiff punitive and exemplary damages as the court finds appropriate to deter

any future willful infringement.

9. Declaring that this is an exceptional case pursuant to Section 35(a) of the Lanham Act and

awarding Plaintiff its costs and reasonable attorneys' fees thereunder (15 U.S.C. § 1117(a)).

10. Awarding Plaintiff interest, including prejudgment and post-judgment interest, on the

foregoing sums.

11. Awarding such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury of all issues so triable encompassed by all Counts of

the Complaint.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: March 29, 2021 ZARLEY LAW FIRM, P.LC.

By: /s/Timothy J. Zarley

Timothy J. Zarley, AT0008650
400 Locust Street
Capital Square, Suite 200
Des Moines, IA 50309-2350
Telephone: (515) 558-0200
Facsimile: (515) 558-7790
[email protected]
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

9
 
Case 1:21-cv-00004-CJW-MAR Document 5 Filed 03/29/21 Page 9 of 10
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that the foregoing was filed electronically with the Clerk of Court by using
the CM/ECF system on March 29, 2021, a copy of which will be served upon all counsel of record
via email.

/s/John Gilbertson

10
 
Case 1:21-cv-00004-CJW-MAR Document 5 Filed 03/29/21 Page 10 of 10
  

Case 1:21-cv-00004-CJW-MAR Document 5-1 Filed 03/29/21 Page 1 of 1

1
 2
Case 1:21-cv-00004-CJW-MAR Document 5-2 Filed 03/29/21 Page 1 of 1
 3
Case 1:21-cv-00004-CJW-MAR Document 5-3 Filed 03/29/21 Page 1 of 1
 4
Case 1:21-cv-00004-CJW-MAR Document 5-4 Filed 03/29/21 Page 1 of 1
 5
Case 1:21-cv-00004-CJW-MAR Document 5-5 Filed 03/29/21 Page 1 of 1
3/29/2021 An Honest Review of The Running Buddy – The RooSport vs. The Running B – TheRooSport

An Honest Review of The Running

Buddy – The RooSport vs. The
Running Buddy Pouch
by Brenda Brundage

AN HO N E ST RE V I EW O F T HE RU NNIN G BU D DY

In this quick review of The Running Buddy, The RooSport was introduced into the
marketplace in September of 2011. The RooSport was sold at Race Expos and on the
internet with great success. About a year and a half later in 2013, the Running
Buddy/Buddy Pouch hit the market. Because the two products look almost identical
online, including the R in our logos, this has created a lot of brand confusion and the
purpose of this article is to clarify those differences.

Size and Weight Differences of The Running Buddy and The RooSport

1. The original RooSport was black in color, with a mesh backing. It is a 6” x 4” pocket
with 2 strong magnets that run horizontally and is designed to attach to any waistband. It
is made out of a lightweight nylon and weighs 1.4 ounces.

Case 1:21-cv-00004-CJW-MAR Document 5-6 Filed 03/29/21 Page 1 of 3

6
https://shop.theroosport.com/blogs/news/an-honest-review-of-the-running-buddy-the-roosport-vs-the-running-buddy-pouch 1/3
3/29/2021 An Honest Review of The Running Buddy – The RooSport vs. The Running B – TheRooSport

2. The Running Buddy/Buddy Pouch was also black in color with a mesh front. It also
measures 6” x 4”. It has 4 magnets running vertically. It is made out of a heavier/bulkier
material and weighs 3 oz. (Twice the weight).

3. The RooSport is worn inside of the waistband. It is made out of the same fabric as
running shorts and is designed to become a part of the short. Wearing it inside prevents
bouncing, rubbing and chafing.

4. The Running Buddy/Buddy Pouch, is worn on the outside of the waistband with a 6’ x
4’ stiffer flap on the inside of your shorts.

5. The RooSport has an open pocket to make accessing your items easy, and a zippered
pocket inside to secure cash or cards.

6. The Running Buddy/Buddy Pouch also has 2 pockets on the outside that have to be
accessed through a velcro’d flap. One of the other inside pockets is also closed by
Velcro making it difficult to access when wearing.

Conclusions from our review of The Running

Buddy vs. The RooSport
In reviewing the two products here’s what we have found. The RooSport is more
comfortable to wear. One of the biggest compliments found on the website or at Expos,
is that you can’t feel you are wearing it. A common comment is “I forgot I had it on.” Its
comfort far outweighs the Running Buddy/Buddy Pouch. To read my thorough review of
The RooSport, you can go here now.

Another Plus is that The RooSport is machine washable. The Running Buddy/Buddy
Pouch is not.

The RooSport’s lighter weight is another big factor. The weight of the Running
Buddy/Buddy Pouch, especially when items are added, can become too heavy for the
waistband and fall off.

Another Review of The Running Buddy vs. The

RooSport
” I bought this because it QVC. I am a lifetime marathon runner. It doesn’t hold my
phone and what I need. I found out my new pocket The Roo Sport holds
everything and doesn’t inch my pants down. The Running Buddy copies the Roo
Sports every move. Go for the better original one that works.”

With its sleek design the RooSport is great for traveling. With a layer of clothes you
cannot see it due to the fact that it is only ½” thick folded over your waistband. The new
2.0 design has an inside pocket that zips closed and is specifically designed to secure
Case 1:21-cv-00004-CJW-MAR Document 5-6 Filed 03/29/21 Page 2 of 3
https://shop.theroosport.com/blogs/news/an-honest-review-of-the-running-buddy-the-roosport-vs-the-running-buddy-pouch 2/3
3/29/2021 An Honest Review of The Running Buddy – The RooSport vs. The Running B – TheRooSport

your Passport. Also the RooSport offers a larger pocket, The RooSport Plus for the
larger phones.

The Running Buddy/ Buddy Pouch also holds a passport but is bulkier and 1” thick when
folded over your waistband.

The RooSport has been named by Runner’s World Magazine as one of its top 30
accessories on their Gift List three years in a row for 2013, 2014, and 2015!!! Go here to
order your RooSport now!

I hope that this review of The Running Buddy has helped you to see some of the
important differences between The RooSport and The Running Buddy.

SHARE TWEET PIN IT

BACK TO THE ROOSPORT BLOG

Search Returns

© 2021, TheRooSport Powered by Shopify

Case 1:21-cv-00004-CJW-MAR Document 5-6 Filed 03/29/21 Page 3 of 3

https://shop.theroosport.com/blogs/news/an-honest-review-of-the-running-buddy-the-roosport-vs-the-running-buddy-pouch 3/3
 7

Case 1:21-cv-00004-CJW-MAR Document 5-7 Filed 03/29/21 Page 1 of 1

 8
Case 1:21-cv-00004-CJW-MAR Document 5-8 Filed 03/29/21 Page 1 of 1
 USOOD716048S

(12) United
Bradfield
States Design Patent (10) Patent No.: US D716,048 S
(45) Date of Patent: Oct. 28, 2014
(54) CARRYING CASE WITH MAGNETIC Primary Examiner — Deanna L. Pratt
SECURING FILAP Assistant Examiner — leisha Price
(74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm — Grady K. Bergen, Griggs
(71) Applicant: Julie Bradfield, Dallas, TX (US) Bergen LLP
(72) Inventor: Julie Bradfield, Dallas, TX (US)
(57) CLAM
(**) Term: 14 Years The ornamental design for a carrying case with a magnetic
securing flap, as shown and described.
(21) Appl. No.: 29/434,009
(22) Filed: Oct. 9, 2012 DESCRIPTION
(51) LOC (10) Cl. ................................................ 03-01 FIG. 1 is a front perspective view of a carrying case with
(52) U.S. C. magnetic securing flap, shown with a front closure flap and a
USPC ........................................................... D3A303
rear securing flap in extended open positions;
(58) Field of Classification Search
FIG. 2 is a front elevational view of the carrying case with
USPC .......... D3/226, 227, 230, 231, 232, 233,234, magnetic securing flap of FIG. 1, shown with the front closure
D3/237,238,239, 240, 243, 244, 245, 246, flap in a folded closed position:
D3/303, 318, 323; 206/37, 37 R, 38, 38 R, FIG. 3 is a rear elevational view of the carrying case with
206/39, 349, 351, 352,457; 224/42.11, magnetic securing flap of FIG. 1, shown with the rear secur
224/264, 609, 610:383/13, 38, 117,907 ing flap in a folded closed position;
See application file for complete search history. FIG. 4 is a right side elevational of the carrying case with
magnetic securing flap of FIG. 1, shown with the front closure
(56) References Cited
flap and the rear securing flap in folded closed positions;
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS FIG. 5 is a left side elevational of the carrying case with
magnetic securing flap of FIG. 1, shown with the front closure
D8,049 S * 2, 1875 Hacker .......................... D3/243 flap and the rear securing flap in folded closed positions;
1,084, 101 A * 1/1914 Nover ... 150,101 FIG. 6 is a front elevational view of the carrying case with
D248,058 S * 5/1978 Siegel ... ... D3,243 magnetic securing flap of FIG. 1, shown with the front closure
D250,794 S * 1/1979 Siegel ... ... D3,243 flap and the rear securing flap in extended open positions;
D260,053 S * 8/1981 Siegel ... ... D3,243
D266,202 S * 9/1982 Berman ... ... D3 230 and,
D268,304 S * 3/1983 Schimmel ... D3/233 FIG. 7 is a rear elevational view of the carrying case with
D323,744 S * 2/1992 Casale ........................... D3/230 magnetic securing flap of FIG. 1, shown with the rear secur
(Continued) ing flap in an extended open position.
OTHER PUBLICATIONS
The broken lines in the drawings illustrate portions of the
carrying case with magnetic securing flap which form no part
Photos of Amphipod device. of the claimed design.
(Continued) 1 Claim, 5 Drawing Sheets

9
Case 1:21-cv-00004-CJW-MAR Document 5-9 Filed 03/29/21 Page 1 of 7
 US D716,048 S
Page 2

(56) References Cited D560,351 S * 1/2008 Boehmet al. .................. D3/2O2

D643,626 S * 8/2011 Swartz et al. D3,299
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS D646.479 S * 10/2011 Littleton ...... D3,243
D655,583 S * 3/2012 Palazzolo ....................... D7f709
D328,524 S * 8, 1992 St. Thomas .................... D3/243 D673,364 S * 1/2013 Webster ......................... D3/232
D334,470 S * 4/1993 Perrin et al. D3,242 D692,229 S * 10/2013 Archambeau D3/217
D370,341 S * 6/1996 AZaret al. ..
ck
D3,233 E. . . . . R:
ERS ck 88: k ........ D3,243 D710,093 S * 8/2014 Philo .............................. D3/243
ck opel .. D3,226 2009, 0208148 A1 8, 2009 Dov1
oyle
D393.366 S * 4/1998 Kopel ............................ D3/233 2011/0280499 A1 1 1/2011 Brundage
D423,771 S * 5/2000 Gomez et al. .................. D3,205
D429,562 S * 8/2000 Lau .......... D3,226 OTHER PUBLICATIONS
D440,738 S * 4/2001 Cliche ......... ... D2,612
D446,932 S * 8/2001 Crandall et al. D3,243 Photos of Roo Sport device.
D451,668 S * 12/2001 Lewis ......... D3,243 Photos of Pocket Plus device.
D459,876 S * 7/2002 Smith . D3,226
D468,093 S * 1/2003 Hassett .......................... D3/218 * cited by examiner

Case 1:21-cv-00004-CJW-MAR Document 5-9 Filed 03/29/21 Page 2 of 7

U.S. Patent Oct. 28, 2014 Sheet 1 of 5 US D716,048 S

gae
22
× ×

FIG.

Case 1:21-cv-00004-CJW-MAR Document 5-9 Filed 03/29/21 Page 3 of 7

U.S. Patent Oct. 28, 2014 Sheet 2 of 5 US D716,048 S

FIG. 2

FIG. 3

Case 1:21-cv-00004-CJW-MAR Document 5-9 Filed 03/29/21 Page 4 of 7

U.S. Patent Oct. 28, 2014 Sheet 3 of 5 US D716,048 S

FIG. 4
~)._-
FIG. S

Case 1:21-cv-00004-CJW-MAR Document 5-9 Filed 03/29/21 Page 5 of 7

U.S. Patent Oct. 28, 2014 Sheet 4 of 5 US D716,048 S

NY, a

Case 1:21-cv-00004-CJW-MAR Document 5-9 Filed 03/29/21 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:21-cv-00004-CJW-MAR Document 5-9 Filed 03/29/21 Page 7 of 7
 USOOD762972S

(12) United States Design Patent (10) Patent No.: US D762.972 S

Bradfield (45) Date of Patent: . Aug. 9, 2016
(54) CARRYING CASE WITH MAGNETIC (74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm — Grady K. Bergen, Griggs
SECURING FILAP Bergen LLP
(71) Applicant: Julie Bradfield, Charleston, SC (US)
(72) Inventor: Julie Bradfield, Charleston, SC (US) (57) CLAM
The ornamental design for a carrying case with a magnetic
(**) Term: 14 Years securing flap, as shown and described.
(21) Appl. No. 29/507,350
(22) Filed: Oct. 27, 2014 DESCRIPTION
Related U.S. Application Data FIG. 1 is a front perspective view of a carrying case with
(63) Continuation of application No. 29/434,009, filed on magnetic securing flap, shown with a front closure flap and a
Oct. 9, 2012, now Pat. No. Des. 716,048. rear securing flap in extended open positions;
(51) LOC (10) Cl. ................................................ 03-01 FIG. 2 is a front elevational view of the carrying case with
(52) U.S. Cl. magnetic securing flap of FIG. 1, shown with the front closure
USPC ........................................................... D3A232 flap in a folded closed position:
(58) Field of Classification Search FIG. 3 is a rear elevational view of the carrying case with
USPC ....... D3/232–233, 240-243 M, 245–246, 318 magnetic securing flap of FIG. 1, shown with the rear secur
CPC .................................. A45C 1/024; A45C 3/06 ing flap in a folded closed position;
See application file for complete search history. FIG. 4 is a right side elevational of the carrying case with
magnetic securing flap of FIG. 1, shown with the front closure
(56) References Cited flap and the rear securing flap in folded closed positions;
FIG. 5 is a left side elevational of the carrying case with
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS magnetic securing flap of FIG. 1, shown with the front closure
flap and the rear securing flap in folded closed positions;
D419,292 S * 1/2000 Barre ............................. D3/232 FIG. 6 is a rear elevational view of the carrying case with
D727,617 S * 4/2015 Chehebar ....................... D3/233
2009, 0208148 A1 8/2009 Doyle magnetic securing flap of FIG. 1, shown with the rear secur
2011/0280499 A1 1 1/2011 Brundage ing flap in an extended open position; and,
OTHER PUBLICATIONS
FIG. 7 is a rear elevational view of the carrying case with
magnetic securing flap of FIG. 1, shown with the rear secur
Photos of Amphipod device. ing flap in an extended open position.
Photos of Roo Sport device. The broken lines shown in FIGS. 1-7 are included for the
Photos of Pocket Plus device. purpose of illustrating portions of the carrying case with
magnetic securing flap that form no part of the claimed
* cited by examiner design.
Primary Examiner — Holly Baynham 1 Claim, 5 Drawing Sheets

10
Case 1:21-cv-00004-CJW-MAR Document 5-10 Filed 03/29/21 Page 1 of 6
U.S. Patent Aug. 9, 2016 Sheet 1 of 5 US D762.972 S

Case 1:21-cv-00004-CJW-MAR Document 5-10 Filed 03/29/21 Page 2 of 6

U.S. Patent Aug. 9, 2016 Sheet 2 of 5 US D762.972 S

Six
XX.

Case 1:21-cv-00004-CJW-MAR Document 5-10 Filed 03/29/21 Page 3 of 6

U.S. Patent Aug. 9, 2016 Sheet 3 of 5 US D762.972 S

F.G. 4 F.G. 5

Case 1:21-cv-00004-CJW-MAR Document 5-10 Filed 03/29/21 Page 4 of 6

U.S. Patent Aug. 9, 2016 Sheet 4 of 5 US D762.972 S

F.G. 6

Case 1:21-cv-00004-CJW-MAR Document 5-10 Filed 03/29/21 Page 5 of 6

U.S. Patent Aug. 9, 2016 Sheet 5 of 5 US D762.972 S

s
X

F.G. 7

Case 1:21-cv-00004-CJW-MAR Document 5-10 Filed 03/29/21 Page 6 of 6

 11
Case 1:21-cv-00004-CJW-MAR Document 5-11 Filed 03/29/21 Page 1 of 1
 12
cv-00004-CJW-MAR Document 5-12 Filed 03/29/21 P
Case 1:21-cv-00004-CJW-MAR Document 5-13 Filed 03/29/21 Page 1 of 1
13