Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
corporation,
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
12 search to find the best of the best. Today, this experience has culminated in
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 distinctive design, coupled with impeccable attention to the quality of its candy,
14 Sugarfina products continue to thrive.
15 8. Sugarfinas creative achievements have resulted in broad intellectual
16 property protection for Sugarfinas innovations, including design patents, trademarks,
17 copyrights, and trade dress protection. Because of its success, Sugarfinas
18 innovations have been the subject of emulation by its competitors, who have
19 attempted to capitalize on Sugarfinas success by imitating Sugarfinas innovative,
20 elegant, and distinctive products and packaging.
21 9. One of these imitators is Sweet Petes, which has introduced a line of
22 products to compete with Sugarfina products. Instead of pursuing independent
23 product development, Sweet Petes has chosen not only to copy Sugarfinas
24 innovative, distinctive, and elegant product and packaging design, but has also
25 copied the types of candy, and protectable names, offered by Sugarfina, in violation
26 of Sugarfinas valuable intellectual property rights.
27
28
-2-
SUGARFINA, INC.S COMPLAINT
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 4 of 40 Page ID #:4
1 10. As alleged below, Sweet Petes has made and packaged its candy to
2 look like Sugarfinas products through widespread patents, copyright, trademark,
3 and trade dress infringement.
4 11. By this action, Sugarfina seeks to put a stop to Sweet Petes illegal
5 conduct and obtain compensation for the violations that have occurred thus far.
6 THE PARTIES
7 12. Plaintiff Sugarfina is a Delaware corporation having its principal
8 place of business at 3915 West 102nd Street, Inglewood, California 90303.
9 13. Defendant Sweet Petes LLC is a Florida limited liability company
10 with its principal office at 400 North Hogan Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32202.
11 14. On information and belief, Defendant ML Sweets LLC is a Delaware
T ROUTM AN S ANDERS LLP
12 limited liability company with its principal office at 794 Penllyn Blue Bell Pike,
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 Blue Bell, Pennsylvania 19422. The sole manager of ML Sweets LLC is Marcus
14 Lemonis, the star of the reality television show on CNBC The Profit, which
15 featured Sweet Petes in an episode that first aired on April 1, 2014. ML Sweets
16 LLC is one of the managers of Sweet Petes LLC.
17 15. On information and belief, Defendant Peter Behringer is an
18 individual that may be contacted at 400 North Hogan Street, Jacksonville, Florida
19 32202. Mr. Behringer is the founder of Sweet Petes LLC.
20 16. On information and belief, Defendant Allison Behringer is an
21 individual that may be contacted at 400 North Hogan Street, Jacksonville, Florida
22 32202. Ms. Behringer is the wife of Peter Behringer and one of the managers of
23 Sweet Petes LLC.
24 17. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that at
25 all times herein mentioned, each of the Defendants was the agent, servant,
26 employee, and/or alter ego of each of the other Defendants, and in doing the things
27 hereinafter alleged, was acting within the course and scope of said agency and/or
28 employment, and with the permission and consent, express and/or implied, of the
-3-
SUGARFINA, INC.S COMPLAINT
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 5 of 40 Page ID #:5
1 other Defendants herein. A unity of interest and ownership exists between and
2 among the Defendants such that there is no distinction between or among the
3 Defendants and if the acts alleged herein by one Defendant are treated as the acts of
4 that Defendant alone, an inequitable result will follow. On information and belief,
5 Defendants have utilized these entities to commit the wrongs alleged herein, to
6 shield themselves from personal liability for their conduct, and to hinder, delay,
7 and/or defraud others. In order to effect justice herein, the corporate fiction
8 maintained by Defendants must be pierced, all relief and damages should be
9 awarded against all Defendants jointly and severally, and all acts of the Defendants
10 should be treated as the acts of the other Defendants.
11 JURISDICTION
T ROUTM AN S ANDERS LLP
12 18. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. 1121
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 (action arising under the Lanham Act); 28 U.S.C. 1331 (federal question); 28
14 U.S.C. 1338(a) (any Act of Congress relating to patents, copyrights, or
15 trademarks); 28 U.S.C. 1338(b) (action asserting claim of unfair competition
16 joined with a substantial and related claim under the trademark laws); 28 U.S.C.
17 1332(a)(1) (diversity jurisdiction); and 28 U.S.C. 1367 (supplemental
18 jurisdiction).
19 19. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Sweet Petes because it has
20 committed and continues to commit acts of infringement in violation of 35 U.S.C.
21 271 and 15 U.S.C. 1114 and 1125, and places infringing products into the stream
22 of commerce, with the knowledge or understanding that such products are sold in the
23 State of California, including in this District. The acts by Sweet Petes cause injury
24 to Sugarfina within this District.
25 20. Upon information and belief, Sweet Petes also derives substantial
26 revenue from the sale of infringing products within this District, expects its actions to
27 have consequences within this District, and derives substantial revenue from
28 interstate and international commerce.
-4-
SUGARFINA, INC.S COMPLAINT
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 6 of 40 Page ID #:6
1 VENUE
2 21. Venue is proper within this District under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and
3 1367(a) because Sweet Petes transacts business within this district and offers for
4 sale in this district products that infringe the Sugarfina trade dress and trademarks. In
5 addition, venue is proper because Sugarfinas principal place of business is in this
6 district and Sugarfina suffered harm in this district. Moreover, a substantial part of
7 the events giving rise to the claim occurred in this district.
8 BACKGROUND
9 Sugarfinas Innovations
10 22. Sugarfina is a luxury candy boutique well recognized for its
11 distinctive products sold under the SUGARFINA brand using novel and original
T ROUTM AN S ANDERS LLP
12 designs in its packaging. Defendants are well aware that Sugarfina is the owner of
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 Sugarfinas IP Rights
14 Sugarfinas Trademarks
15 28. Sweet Petes products are not merely likely to confuse customers;
16 they are certain to confuse customers, and have actually confused customers, as
17 Sweet Petes sells products with exact or near-exact replicas of Sugarfinas marks,
18 including the following:
19 CUBA LIBRE
20 PEACH BELLINI
21 FRUTTINI
22 CANDY BENTO BOX
23 CANDY CUBE
24 CANDY CONCIERGE
25 29. Sweet Petes use of Sugarfinas marks creates a high likelihood of
26 confusion, as Sweet Petes alters virtually nothing about the marks and intentionally
27 imports the entire appearance, sound, and meaning of Sugarfinas marks to profit
28 from the customers association of the marks with Sugarfina. Sweet Petes also
-6-
SUGARFINA, INC.S COMPLAINT
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 8 of 40 Page ID #:8
1 timed its use of Sugarfinas marks to follow closely after Sugarfinas first use.
2 30. CUBA LIBREattached as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of
3 U.S. Registration No. 4,943,322. Sugarfina first used the CUBA LIBRE mark on
4 June 6, 2012, and filed a trademark application for this mark on August 14, 2015.
5 Sweet Petes began using the same mark on a similar product shortly after in 2016.
6 31. The protected mark CUBA LIBRE is used in its entirety on Sweet
7 Petes producti.e., with the same appearance and sound. Both products are
8 gummy candiesi.e., with the same meaning. On both products, the mark appears
9 on a die-cut label consisting of a circle and a strip over a clear cube, making the
10 overall look and feel of Sweet Petes use of the mark similar to Sugarfinas.
11 32. PEACH BELLINIattached as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct
T ROUTM AN S ANDERS LLP
12 copy of U.S. Registration No. 4,981752. Sugarfina first used the PEACH
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 BELLINI mark on December 3, 2013, and filed a trademark application for this
14 mark on August 14, 2015. Sweet Petes began using the same mark on a similar
15 product in 2016.
16 33. The protected mark PEACH BELLINI is used in its entirety on
17 Sweet Petes producti.e., with the same appearance and sound. Both products are
18 gummy candiesi.e., with the same meaning. On both products, the mark appears
19 on a die-cut label consisting of a circle and a strip over a clear cube, making the
20 overall look and feel of Sweet Petes use of the mark similar to Sugarfinas.
21 34. FRUTTINISugarfina has common law trademark rights in the
22 FRUTTINI mark. Sugarfina began offering Blood Orange FRUTTINI and Italian
23 Lemon FRUTTINI in August 2015. Sweet Petes began using the same mark for a
24 similar purpose in 2016.
25 35. The protected mark FRUTTINI is used in its entirety, though with a
26 slight spelling variation, on Sweet Petes producti.e., with the same appearance
27 and sound. Both products are gummy candiesi.e., with the same meaning. On
28 both products, the mark appears on a die-cut label consisting of a circle and a strip
-7-
SUGARFINA, INC.S COMPLAINT
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 9 of 40 Page ID #:9
1 over a clear cube, making the overall look and feel of Sweet Petes use of the mark
2 similar to Sugarfinas.
3 36. CANDY BENTO BOXattached as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct
4 copy of U.S. Registration No. 4,838,646. Sugarfina first used the CANDY BENTO
5 BOX mark on November 23, 2013, and filed a trademark application for this
6 mark on January 15, 2015. Sweet Petes began calling its candy boxes candy
7 bento boxes and bento boxes in 2016.
8 37. Again, the protected mark CANDY BENTO BOX is used in its
9 entirety on Sweet Petes producti.e., with the same appearance and sound. Both
10 products are candy boxes in which a number of smaller CANDY CUBES are
11 nested withini.e., with the same meaning.
T ROUTM AN S ANDERS LLP
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-9-
SUGARFINA, INC.S COMPLAINT
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 11 of 40 Page ID #:11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ROUTM AN S ANDERS LLP
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13
14
15 44. Each of these elements of the Sugarfina products is distinctive and
16 serves to identify Sugarfina as the source of its products.
17 45. At present, certain elements of Sugarfinas product packaging
18 designs comprise the trade dress at issue in this case (the Sugarfina Trade Dress)
19 and may include:
20 the solid borderline around the product package
21 the use of a magnetic latch
22 a rectangular product package with minimal lettering;
23 the inside bottom surface of the product package dominated by a
24 series of cube wells or trays;
25 the series of cube wells each being spaced from one another within
26 the product package; and
27 a series of clear cubes containing candy product that each reside in a
28
- 10 -
SUGARFINA, INC.S COMPLAINT
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 12 of 40 Page ID #:12
1 corresponding cube well and are immediately visible upon opening the box.
2 46. Despite being on clear notice of infringement of these and other
3 intellectual property rights owned by Sugarfina, Defendants have capitalized on
4 Sugarfinas distinctive, novel, and original designs that customers have come to
5 associate with the high quality and innovative candy products that Sugarfina offers.
6 47. Defendants have purposely taken steps to increase Sweet Petes
7 similarity to Sugarfina, and to encourage consumers to confuse the two brands so as
8 to profit from the goodwill Sugarfina has acquired through its careful and diligent
9 marketing.
10 Sugarfinas Design Patents
11 48. Sugarfina has protected its innovative designs and packaging through
T ROUTM AN S ANDERS LLP
12 design patents issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 Sugarfina design patents cover the many famous ornamental features of Sugarfina
14 candy, such as the spaced cube arrangement, the spaced cube receiving wells, and
15 the distinctive use of a box to hold the clear cubes.
16 49. Among others, Sugarfina owns all right, title, and interest in and to
17 the asserted U.S. Design Pat. No. D755,641, titled Packaging, a true and correct
18 copy of which is attached as Exhibit 5.
19 Sugarfinas Copyrights
20 50. Sugarfina has protected its innovative designs and packaging through
21 copyrights registered with the United States Copyright Office. The Sugarfina
22 copyrights cover the same famous and original ornamental features of Sugarfina
23 candy packaging as the design patents, such as the spaced cube arrangement, the
24 spaced cube receiving wells, and the distinctive use of a box to hold the clear cubes.
25 51. Sugarfina owns all right, title, and interest in and to each of the
26 following asserted copyrights, true and correct copies of which are attached as
27 Exhibits 6 and 7: Reg. Nos. VA0001963482 and VA0001963483.
28
- 11 -
SUGARFINA, INC.S COMPLAINT
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 13 of 40 Page ID #:13
12 Peterbrooke Chocolatier (a predecessor entity to Sweet Petes) had sold candy for
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 as many as 30 years, but never embodied the same combination of design elements
14 of Sugarfinas presentation.
15 55. Sweet Petes was a failing business prior to its radical transformation
16 into a Sugarfina copycat. As Peter Behringer and Alison Behringer admitted in an
17 episode of the CNBC show, The Profit, published on March 28, 2014, at
18 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-kHNxz5NFI&t=178s, Sweet Petes lost
19 $17,000 that year and lost $3,000 the previous year, even though Sweet Petes was
20 not paying Peter Behringer even a fair wage of $12.00 per hour as an employee.1
21 Peter Behringer and Alison Behringer made only $10,000 combined in 2013.
22 56. Also during this time period before 2014, none of Sweet Petes
23 products were marketed using Sugarfinas intellectual property. The products
24 shown in the episode of The Profit are markedly different from the products sold by
25 Sweet Petes today, and used generic packaging with an entirely different look and
26 feel from Sugarfinas distinctive packaging. In contrast to Sugarfinas clean lines,
27
1
28 See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-kHNxz5NFI&t=178s, at 6:25 to 7:00.
- 12 -
SUGARFINA, INC.S COMPLAINT
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 14 of 40 Page ID #:14
1 disciplined color palette, and subtle details underscoring the sophisticated tastes of
2 adult customers, Sweet Petes prior look of carnival motifs of oversized lollipops,
3 chalkboard signage, and wild patterns and colors have the aesthetic of a childrens
4 candy store.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ROUTM AN S ANDERS LLP
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 13 -
SUGARFINA, INC.S COMPLAINT
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 15 of 40 Page ID #:15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ROUTM AN S ANDERS LLP
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13
14
57. Sweet Petes experienced a dramatic turnaround in success and
15
profitability after it began infringing Sugarfinas trade dress, trademarks, patent,
16
and copyrights. In an episode of the Shark Tank Podcast, published on September
17
21, 2016, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwpHRzdl5T4, Peter Behringer
18
stated that Sweet Petes was earning revenue of $260,000 per month (or $3,120,000
19
per year), up from $7,500 per month (or 90,000 per year) before 2014.2 The newly
20
revamped Sweet Petes is shown to rely heavily on several design elements of
21
Sugarfinas distinctive packaging and marketing.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwpHRzdl5T4, at 27:05 to 27:32.
- 14 -
SUGARFINA, INC.S COMPLAINT
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 16 of 40 Page ID #:16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ROUTM AN S ANDERS LLP
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 15 -
SUGARFINA, INC.S COMPLAINT
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 17 of 40 Page ID #:17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ROUTM AN S ANDERS LLP
1 a. CUBA LIBRE
2
Sugarfinas Original Use Sweet Petes Infringing Use
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ROUTM AN S ANDERS LLP
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 b. PEACH BELLINI
14
Sugarfinas Original Use Sweet Petes Infringing Use
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 17 -
SUGARFINA, INC.S COMPLAINT
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 19 of 40 Page ID #:19
1 c. FRUTTINI
2
Sugarfinas Original Use Sweet Petes Infringing Use
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ROUTM AN S ANDERS LLP
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13
d. CANDY BENTO BOX
14
15 Sugarfinas Original Use Sweet Petes Infringing Use
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 18 -
SUGARFINA, INC.S COMPLAINT
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 20 of 40 Page ID #:20
1 e. CANDY CUBE
2
Sugarfinas Original Use Sweet Petes Infringing Use
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ROUTM AN S ANDERS LLP
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13
14
15
16 f. CANDY CONCIERGE
17
Sugarfinas Original Use Sweet Petes Infringing Use
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 19 -
SUGARFINA, INC.S COMPLAINT
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 21 of 40 Page ID #:21
1 60. Sweet Petes adoption of a trade dress that copies the Sugarfina
2 Product Trade Dress and its use of various trade names that infringe Sugarfinas
3 trademark rights is likely to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive consumers,
4 purchasers, and others into thinking that Sweet Petes products are Sugarfina
5 products, or that they are sponsored by or affiliated with Sugarfina, when they are
6 not.
7 61. Sugarfinas goodwill among consumers is closely tied to its position
8 as an outlier in confectioners productsthat of luxury and sophistication. Sweet
9 Petes flagrant and relentless copying of Sugarfinas intellectual property rights in
10 its candy products not only allows Sweet Petes to benefit from Sugarfinas
11 investment, but it also threatens to diminish the very important goodwill that
T ROUTM AN S ANDERS LLP
12 Sugarfina has cultivated with its products. The value of such goodwill is evident in
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 part in the success that resulted from Sweet Petes wrongful appropriation: after
14 stealing Sugarfinas aesthetic and branding strategies, Sweet Petes was resurrected
15 from a failing company that lost $17,000 per year to a profitable company
16 generating an annualized revenue of $3,120,000.
17 62. Sugarfinas efforts to address Sweet Petes pervasive copying of
18 Sugarfina's innovations and intellectual property directly with Sweet Petes have
19 been unsuccessful.
20 63. Sweet Petes chose to infringe Sugarfinas patent, trade dress, and
21 trademark rights through the design, packaging and promotion of its candy
22 products, and it did so willfully to trade upon the goodwill that Sugarfina has
23 developed in connection with its luxury branded products.
24 Infringement of Sugarfinas Trade Dress
25 64. Sugarfina is informed and believes that Sweet Petes began
26 producing, selling, and marketing its copycat products after Sugarfinas first use of
27 the asserted trade dress.
28
- 20 -
SUGARFINA, INC.S COMPLAINT
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 22 of 40 Page ID #:22
1
Sugarfinas Original Use Sweet Petes Infringing Use
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ROUTM AN S ANDERS LLP
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 21 -
SUGARFINA, INC.S COMPLAINT
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 23 of 40 Page ID #:23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ROUTM AN S ANDERS LLP
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 65. Each of Sweet Petes line of accused products embodies a
22 combination of several elements of the Sugarfina Product Trade Dress identified
23 above, namely, a product configuration with a total image and overall appearance
24 that is unique, including features such as size, shape, color or color combinations,
25 texture, graphics, and sales techniques.
26
27
28
- 22 -
SUGARFINA, INC.S COMPLAINT
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 24 of 40 Page ID #:24
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ROUTM AN S ANDERS LLP
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13
14
69. FIG. 2 of the 641 Patent is reproduced below. FIG. 2 depicts a
15
perspective view of the patented design.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
70. FIGS. 34 of the 641 Patent are reproduced below. FIG. 3 depicts a
26
front view of the patented design. FIG. 4 depicts a rear view of the patented design.
27
28
- 24 -
SUGARFINA, INC.S COMPLAINT
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 26 of 40 Page ID #:26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 71. FIG. 5 of the 641 Patent is reproduced below. FIG. 5 depicts a top
11 view of the patented design.
T ROUTM AN S ANDERS LLP
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 72. FIG. 6 of the 641 Patent is reproduced below. FIG. 6 depicts a side
20 view of the patented design.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 25 -
SUGARFINA, INC.S COMPLAINT
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 27 of 40 Page ID #:27
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
1 for instance, the three-by-three cells of transparent cubes spaced apart and nested
2 fully within a rectangular box with high, straight walls, with a folding cover top
3 with a pull-tab at the end as patented in the 641 Patent.
4 76. Indeed, it is axiomatic that the 641 Patent is infringed by Sweet
5 Petes design because in the eye of an ordinary observer, the Sweet Petes design is
6 substantially the same as the claimed design in the 641 Patent. And indeed, such
7 marketplace confusion has already been shown, an example of which is below.
8
9
10
11
T ROUTM AN S ANDERS LLP
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Infringement of Sugarfinas Copyrights
25
77. In addition to the aforementioned design patent protections,
26
Sugarfina also has copyright protections for its three-piece designer candy boxes
27
28
- 27 -
SUGARFINA, INC.S COMPLAINT
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 29 of 40 Page ID #:29
1 and its designer candy bento boxes at Reg. Nos. VA0001963482 and
2 VA0001963483.
3 78. In a blatant attempt to copy Sugarfina, Sweet Petes designed and
4 developed near exact imitations of Sugarfinas registered works.
5 79. At least as early as 2016, Sweet Petes began actively selling these
6 infringing products to retailers and unwitting consumers. Sweet Petes infringing
7 products are strikingly similar imitations of Sugarfinas protected products. Sweet
8 Petes copied all the original and distinctive qualities of Sugarfinas products,
9 including the configuration of three-by-three cells or three cells of transparent cubes
10 spaced apart and nested fully within a rectangular box with high, straight walls; the
11 use of a die-cut labels on the clear cubes within the outer box; and specific graphic
T ROUTM AN S ANDERS LLP
12 elements designed by Sugarfina, such as the prints, patterns, and colors imprinted
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
1 89. Sugarfina is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that
2 Sweet Pete has gained profits by virtue of its infringement of the Sugarfina Product
3 Trade Dress.
4 90. Sugarfina also has sustained damages as a direct and proximate
5 result of Sweet Petes infringement of the Sugarfina Product Trade Dress in an
6 amount to be proven at trial.
7 91. Because Sweet Petes actions have been willful, Sugarfina is entitled
8 to treble its actual damages or Sweet Petes profits, whichever is greater, and to an
9 award of costs, and, this being an exceptional case, reasonable attorneys fees
10 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117(a).
11 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
T ROUTM AN S ANDERS LLP
1 97. Before Sweet Petes first use of the infringing product lineup, Sweet
2 Petes was aware of Sugarfinas business and had either actual notice and
3 knowledge, or constructive notice of, Sugarfinas Registered Trademarks.
4 98. Sweet Petes unauthorized use of the infringing product lineup is
5 likely, if not certain, to deceive or to cause confusion or mistake among consumers
6 as to the origin, sponsorship or approval of Sweet Petes products and/or to cause
7 confusion or mistake as to any affiliation, connection or association between
8 Sugarfina and Sweet Petes, in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1114(a).
9 99. Sugarfina is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that
10 Sweet Petes infringement of Sugarfinas Registered Trademarks as described
11 herein has been and continues to be intentional, willful and without regard to
T ROUTM AN S ANDERS LLP
12 Sugarfinas rights.
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 100. Sugarfina is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that
14 Sweet Petes has gained profits by virtue of its infringement of Sugarfinas
15 Registered Trademarks.
16 101. Sugarfina will suffer and is suffering irreparable harm from Sweet
17 Petes infringement of Registered Trademarks insofar as Sugarfinas invaluable
18 goodwill is being eroded by continuing infringement.
19 102. Sugarfina has no adequate remedy at law to compensate it for the
20 loss of business reputation, customers, market position, confusion of potential
21 customers and goodwill flowing from Sweet Petes infringing activities. Pursuant
22 to 15 U.S.C. 1116, Sugarfina is entitled to an injunction against Sweet Petes
23 continuing infringement of Sugarfinas Registered Trademarks. Unless enjoined,
24 Sweet Petes will continue its infringing conduct.
25 103. Because Sweet Petes actions have been committed with intent to
26 damage Sugarfina and to confuse and deceive the public, Sugarfina is entitled to
27 treble its actual damages or Sweet Petes profits, whichever is greater, and to an
28
- 31 -
SUGARFINA, INC.S COMPLAINT
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 33 of 40 Page ID #:33
1 award of costs and, this being an exceptional case, reasonable attorneys fees
2 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117(a) and 1117(b).
3 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
4 (Common Law Trademark Infringement)
5 104. Sugarfina incorporates and realleges the preceding paragraphs of this
6 Complaint as though set forth in full.
7 105. Sugarfina has prior rights in Sugarfinas Registered Trademarks and
8 other unregistered marks, including CUBA LIBRE, PEACH BELLINI, FRUTTINI,
9 CANDY BENTO BOX, CANDY CUBE, and CANDY CONCIERGE.
10 106. Sweet Petes product lineup has infringed Sugarfinas Registered
11 Trademarks and unregistered common law marks by using identical or similar
T ROUTM AN S ANDERS LLP
12 Product Trade Dress is inherently distinctive, and, through Sugarfinas long use,
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 has come to be associated solely with Sugarfina as the source of the products on
14 which it is used.
15 119. Sweet Petes use of its infringing trade dress is likely to cause
16 confusion as to the source of Sweet Petes products and is likely to cause others to
17 be confused or mistaken into believing that there is a relationship between Sweet
18 Petes and Sugarfina or that Sweet Petes products are affiliated with or sponsored
19 by Sugarfina.
20 120. The above-described acts and practices by Sweet Petes are likely to
21 mislead or deceive the general public and therefore constitute fraudulent business
22 practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code 17200, et seq.
23 121. The above-described acts constitute unfair competition under Section
24 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), and trademark and trade dress
25 infringement under Section 32 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1114, and are
26 therefore unlawful acts in violation of California Business & Professions Code
27 17200, et seq.
28
- 34 -
SUGARFINA, INC.S COMPLAINT
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 36 of 40 Page ID #:36
13 described above present a continuing threat to, and is meant to deceive members of,
14 the public in that Sweet Petes desires to promote its products by wrongfully
15 trading on the goodwill of the Sugarfina Product Trade Dress, the Registered
16 Trademarks, its common law trademarks, its patent rights, and its copyrights.
17 125. As a direct and proximate result of these acts, Sweet Petes has
18 received, and will continue to profit from, the strength of the Sugarfina Product
19 Trade Dress, the Registered Marks, Sugarfinas common law trademarks, its patent
20 rights, and its copyrights.
21 126. As a direct and proximate result of Sweet Petes wrongful conduct,
22 Sugarfina has been injured in fact and has lost money and profits, and such harm
23 will continue unless Sweet Petes acts are enjoined by the Court.
24 127. Sugarfina has no adequate remedy at law for Sweet Petes continuing
25 violation of Sugarfinas rights.
26 128. Sweet Petes should be required to restore to Sugarfina any and all
27 profits earned as a result of their unlawful and fraudulent actions, or provide
28 Sugarfina with any other restitutionary relief as the Court deems appropriate.
- 35 -
SUGARFINA, INC.S COMPLAINT
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 37 of 40 Page ID #:37
13 132. Sweet Petes has infringed and continues to infringe the 641 Patent
14 by using, selling and/or offering to sell in the United States, and/or importing into
15 the United States one or more of Sweet Petes infringing products identified in this
16 Complaint, which embody the design covered by the 641 Patent.
17 133. On information and belief, Sweet Petes infringement of the 641
18 Patent has taken place with full knowledge of the patent and is willful, deliberate,
19 and intentional, and therefore gives rise to an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C.
20 285.
21 134. Sweet Petes infringement of one or more claims of the 641 Patent
22 has injured Sugarfina, the precise amount of which cannot be ascertained at this
23 time. Sugarfina is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate for Sweet
24 Petes infringement, which in no event can be less than a reasonable royalty.
25 135. Sweet Petes has caused Sugarfina substantial damages and
26 irreparable injury by its infringement of one or more claims of the 641 Patent, for
27 which there is no adequate remedy at law. Sugarfina will continue to suffer
28 damages and irreparable injury unless and until Sweet Petes infringement is
- 36 -
SUGARFINA, INC.S COMPLAINT
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 38 of 40 Page ID #:38
12 infringed and will continue to infringe Sugarfinas copyright in and relating to its
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 relief;
14 12. Costs of suit and reasonable attorneys fees, including, but not limited
15 to, a finding that this case is exceptional and awarding attorneys fees and costs
16 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285; and
17 13. Any other remedy to which Sugarfina may be entitled, including all
18 remedies provided for in 15 U.S.C. 1117, Cal. Bus. & Prof Code 17200, et
19 seq., 17500, et seq., and under any other California law.
20
Dated: June 15, 2017 Respectfully submitted,
21
TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
22
23 By: /s/ Jennifer Trusso Salinas
Jennifer T. Salinas
24 Andr De La Cruz
Jenny Kim
25
Attorneys for Plaintiff
26 SUGARFINA, INC.
27
28
- 39 -
SUGARFINA, INC.S COMPLAINT
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1-1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 1 of 42 Page ID #:41
EXHIBIT 1
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1-1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 2 of 42 Page ID #:42
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1-1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 3 of 42 Page ID #:43
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1-1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 4 of 42 Page ID #:44
EXHIBIT 2
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1-1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 5 of 42 Page ID #:45
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1-1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 6 of 42 Page ID #:46
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1-1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 7 of 42 Page ID #:47
EXHIBIT 3
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1-1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 8 of 42 Page ID #:48
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1-1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 9 of 42 Page ID #:49
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1-1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 10 of 42 Page ID #:50
EXHIBIT 4
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1-1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 11 of 42 Page ID #:51
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number.
PTO Form 1478 (Rev 09/2006)
OMB No. 0651-0009 (Exp 02/28/2018)
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number.
PTO Form 1478 (Rev 09/2006)
OMB No. 0651-0009 (Exp 02/28/2018)
The applicant, Sugarfina, LLC, a limited liability company legally organized under the laws of Delaware, having an address of
3915 W. 102nd Street
Inglewood, California 90303
United States
requests registration of the trademark/service mark identified above in the United States Patent and Trademark Office on the Principal Register
established by the Act of July 5, 1946 (15 U.S.C. Section 1051 et seq.), as amended, for the following:
A fee payment in the amount of $275 has been submitted with the application, representing payment for 1 class(es).
Declaration
The signatory believes that: if the applicant is filing the application under 15 U.S.C. 1051(a), the applicant is the owner of the
trademark/service mark sought to be registered; the applicant is using the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods/services in the
application; the specimen(s) shows the mark as used on or in connection with the goods/services in the application; and/or if the applicant filed
an application under 15 U.S.C. 1051(b), 1126(d), and/or 1126(e), the applicant is entitled to use the mark in commerce; the applicant has a
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1-1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 14 of 42 Page ID #:54
bona fide intention, and is entitled, to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods/services in the application. The signatory
believes that to the best of the signatory's knowledge and belief, no other persons, except, if applicable, concurrent users, have the right to use the
mark in commerce, either in the identical form or in such near resemblance as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods/services
of such other persons, to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive. The signatory being warned that willful false statements and the like are
punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. 1001, and that such willful false statements and the like may jeopardize the
validity of the application or any registration resulting therefrom, declares that all statements made of his/her own knowledge are true and all
statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.
Declaration Signature
EXHIBIT 5
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1-1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 17 of 42 Page ID #:57
US00D755641S
FIG 5
FIG. 6
\ \ \
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1-1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 22 of 42 Page ID #:62
EXHIBIT 6
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1-1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 23 of 42 Page ID #:63
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1-1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 24 of 42 Page ID #:64
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1-1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 25 of 42 Page ID #:65
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1-1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 26 of 42 Page ID #:66
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1-1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 27 of 42 Page ID #:67
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1-1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 28 of 42 Page ID #:68
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1-1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 29 of 42 Page ID #:69
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1-1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 30 of 42 Page ID #:70
EXHIBIT 7
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1-1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 31 of 42 Page ID #:71
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1-1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 32 of 42 Page ID #:72
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1-1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 33 of 42 Page ID #:73
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1-1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 34 of 42 Page ID #:74
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1-1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 35 of 42 Page ID #:75
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1-1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 36 of 42 Page ID #:76
EXHIBIT 8
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1-1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 37 of 42 Page ID #:77
4. Candy Cube
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1-1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 41 of 42 Page ID #:81
5. Candy Concierge