in the united states district court for the western ... beverage... · case arose because the...

1

INTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTFORTHEWESTERNDISTRICTOFPENNSYLVANIA

AMERICANBEVERAGECORPORATION,andPOUCHPACINNOVATIONS,LLC

Plaintiffs, CaseNo.

v. JURYTRIALDEMANDED

DIAGEONORTHAMERICA, INC.,andDIAGEOAMERICASSUPPLY,INC.t/d/b/aCAPTAINMORGANCO.,

Defendants.

VERIFIEDCOMPLAINT

Plaintiffs,AmericanBeverageCorporation(“ABC”)andPouchPacInnovations,LLC

(“PPI”) (together,“Plaintiffs”),bytheircounsel,filethisVerifiedComplaintagainst

DefendantsDiageoNorthAmerica,Inc.andDiageoAmericasSupply,Inc.t/d/b/aCaptain

MorganCo.,andinsupportthereofaverasfollows.

PreliminaryStatement

ThiscaseinvolvesABC’sDaily’sCocktailsandtheinfringementofABC’sintellectual

propertyrightsthereinbytheDefendantsandtheiraptly-namedParrotBayCocktails.This

casearosebecausetheDefendants,seekingtocapitalizeonthecommercialsuccessof

ABC’sDaily’sCocktails,anddespiteamyriadofavailablealternatives,recentlylaunched

theirParrotBayCocktailspackagedinpouchesthat– truetotheirname– parrot boththe

patenteddesignandtradedressofABC’sDaily’sCocktails.TheDefendants’ParrotBay

CocktailsnotonlyinfringeABC’spatentpouchdesign,butare also sosimilarinappearance

toABC’sDaily’sCocktailsthatconsumerconfusionislikelytooccurandinfacthasalready

Case 2:12-cv-00601-JFC Document 1 Filed 05/07/12 of 23

2

occurred,toABC’sdetriment.WhileABCwelcomesfaircompetition,theDefendants

conductinthiscasegoesfarbeyondthestandardsoffaircompetitionasrecognizedbythe

law.ABCbelievesthattheDefendantsareplanninganextensivenationwiderolloutoftheir

ParrotBayCocktailsfortheupcomingspringandsummermonths,whicharethemost

profitableseasonforfrozencocktailpouchsales.Unlessenjoined,theDefendantswillbe

abletoexploittheactualandinevitableconsumerconfusioncausedbytheirinfringing

productsduringthisprimebuyingseasonandtherebypoachpotentialcustomers,sales,

andmarketsharefromABC.OncetheDefendantshaveestablishedasubstantialshareof

thefrozencocktailpouchmarketthroughtheirinfringingactivities,thedamagetoABCwill

alreadyhavebeendone,asanymonetarydamagesorremedialactions(e.g.,redesignthe

pouchpackaging)imposedbythisCourtwouldbeinsufficienttoredresstheirreparable

harmsufferedbyABC.Giventheforegoing,Plaintiffs seeksthisCourt’sinterventionto

restrainandenjointheDefendants’infringingconduct.

TheParties

1. PlaintiffAmericanBeverageCorporation(“ABC”)isacorporationorganized

andexistingunderthelawsofDelaware,withaprincipalplaceofbusinessinVerona,

Pennsylvania.

2. PlaintiffPouchPacInnovations,LLC(“PPI”)isalimitedliabilitycompany

organizedandexistingunderthelawsofFlorida,withaprincipalplaceofbusinessin

Sarasota,Florida.

3. Uponinformationandbelief,DiageoNorthAmerica,Inc.isaConnecticut

corporationwithaprincipalplaceofbusinessinNorwalk,Connecticut.


3

4. Uponinformationandbelief,DiageoAmericasSupply,Inc.isaNewYork

corporationwithaprincipalplaceof businessinNorwalk,Connecticutandthattradesand

doesbusinessas“CaptainMorganCo.”

JurisdictionandVenue

5. ThisCourthasjurisdictionoverthesubjectmatterofthisactionpursuantto

15U.S.C.§1121(actionarisingundertheLanhamAct),28U.S.C.§1331(federalquestion),

28U.S.C.§1338(a)(anyActofCongressrelatingtopatentsortrademarks),28U.S.C.§

1338(b)(actionassertingclaimofunfaircompetitionjoinedwithasubstantialandrelated

claimunderthetrademarklaws),and28U.S.C.§1367(supplementaljurisdiction).

6. ThisCourthaspersonaljurisdictionovertheDefendantsbecausetheyhave

committedandcontinuetocommitactsofinfringementinviolationof35U.S.C.§271and

15U.S.C.§1125,andplaceinfringingproductsintothestreamofcommerce,withthe

knowledgeorunderstandingthatsuchproductsaresoldintheCommonwealthof

Pennsylvania,includinginthisdistrict.Uponinformationandbelief,theDefendantsderive

substantialrevenuefromthesaleofinfringing productswithinthisdistrict,expecttheir

actionstohaveconsequenceswithinthisdistrict,andderivesubstantialrevenuefrom

interstatecommerce.Thematterincontroversyexceedsthesumorvalueof$75,000

exclusiveofinterestandcosts.

7. Venueinthisdistrictisproperpursuantto28U.S.C.§§1391and1400

becausetheDefendantsaresubjecttojurisdictioninthisDistrict,transactbusinesswithin

thisdistrict,andofferforsaleinthisdistrictproductsthatinfringethePlaintiffs’

intellectualpropertyrights.


4

ABC’sDaily’sCocktails

8. ABCmakesandsellsalineofsingle-serveready-to-drinkfrozencocktails

packagedinpouchesunderitsDaily’sbrandname(the“Daily’sCocktails”).

9. Foralltimesrelevanthereto,ABChaspackageditsDaily’sCocktailsin

pouchesthatarethesubjectofthisaction.

10. ThedesignofthepouchinwhichABCpackagesitsDaily’sCocktailsisthe

subjectofU.S.DesignPatentNo.D571,672(the“672Patent”).Atrueandcorrectcopyof

thepatentisattachedheretoasExhibitA.

11. The672Patentcoverstheunique,novel,andnon-obviousornamentaldesign

andappearanceofABC’spouchpackaging.

12. PPIownsthe672PatentandlicenseditexclusivelytoABC,whichowns

substantiallyallrights,title,andintereststoandinthe672Patent,includingbutnot

limitedtotherighttobringsuit,aloneandinitsownname,forinfringementofthe672

Patent.Accordingly,ABChasstandingtoassertclaimsforinfringementofthe672Patent,

andPPIjoinsasco-plaintiffastheregisteredownerofthe672Patent.

13. ThepouchpackagingoftheDaily’sCocktailsembodies asingularand

inherentlydistinctivetradedresscharacterizedbyageneraloverallappearanceand

commercialimpressioncreatedthroughsize,shape,colorscheme,pictoralelements,

labeling,andlayout.TheseelementsincludethepatentedhourglassshapeofABC’spouch

packagingandthreehorizontallabelingpartitions,withthetop-mostportionconsistingof

aperforatedtear-awayflapwiththelanguage“FREEZEANDENJOY,”themiddleportion

containingtheDaily’sbrandname,acolorfuldepictionoftheparticularfrozencocktail


5

flavorandcorrespondingfruit imagery,andthebottomportionidentifyingthespecific

productandkeyinformation thereof.

Illustration 1:ADaily’scocktail.

14. TheelementsofABC’stradedressarenon-functional.

15. Continuouslysincethefallof2005,ABChasmadeandsoldininterstate

commerceitsDaily’sCocktailsinitstradedresstoidentifythesourceoftheDaily’s

Cocktailsandtodistinguishthemfromthosemadeandsoldbyothers.ABChas

prominentlydisplayeditstradedresstodistributors,retailers,andconsumersthrough

advertising,theinternet,industrypublications,andpoints-of-sale.

16. ABChasinvestedsubstantialtime,resources,andmoneyinmakingand

sellingitsDaily’sCocktailsintheirpouchpackagingtradedress.

17. AsaresultofABC’scommercialactivitiesassetforthherein,ABC’strade

dresshasdevelopedandnowhasasecondaryanddistinctivemeaningtoconsumersand

thealcoholicbeverageindustry.Specifically,ABC’stradedresshascometoindicatethat

the Daily’sCocktailscomefromororiginateonlywithABC.


6

18. ABC’susesandhasuseditstradedressonallflavorvarietiesoftheDaily’s

Cocktails,andthus,itstradedresshasarecognizableandconsistentoveralllook.

Illustration 2:TheconsistentoveralllookofABC’stradedress onitsDaily’sCocktails.

TheDefendants’ParrotBayCocktails

19. TheDefendantsmakeandsellalcoholicbeveragesundertheir“ParrotBay”

brandname.

20. Plaintiffs recentlydiscoveredthattheDefendantshavebeguntomakeand

sellininterstatecommercesingle-serveready-to-drinkfrozencocktailspackagedin

pouchesundertheirParrotBaybrandname (the“ParrotBayCocktails”).

21. TheDefendants’ParrotBayCocktailsarepackagedinpouchesindicatingthat

theyare“BREWEDANDBOTTLEDBYCAPTAINMORGANCO.,PLAINFIELDIL.”

22. Moreimportantly,theDefendants’ParrotBayCocktailsarepackagedin

pouchesthatinfringePlaintiffs’ patentedpouchdesignandembodyABC’stradedressand

socloselyimitateABC’stradedressthatconsumersarelikelytobeconfusedastothe

sourceororiginoftheDefendants’ParrotBayCocktails.


7

Illustration 3:ADaily’sCocktail(left)andaParrotBayCocktail(right).

23. TheDefendants’ParrotBayCocktailsarepackagedinpouchesthatare

identicalinoverallcommercialimpressiontothepouchesinwhichtheDaily’sCocktailsare

packaged,includingbutnotlimitedtosize,shape,colorscheme,pictoralelements,labeling,

andlayout.Specifically, theDefendantshaveparrotedthepatentedhourglassshapeof

ABC’spouchpackaging,aswellasthethreehorizontallabelingpartitions,withthetop-

mostportionconsistingofaperforatedtear-awayflapwiththelanguage“FREEZE&

SQUEEZE,”themiddleportioncontainingtheParrotBaybrandname,acolorfuldepiction

oftheparticularfrozencocktailflavorandcorrespondingfruitimagery,andthebottom

portionidentifyingthespecificproductandkeyinformationthereof.

24. TheDefendantshavecopiedtheconsistentoverallcommercialimpressionof

ABC’stradedressacrosstheDefendants’entireproductline.


8

Illustration 4:TheconsistentoveralllookoftheDefendants’ParrotBayCocktails.

25. Moreover,theDefendantshavecopiedthepatenteddesignandappearance

ofthe672PatentintheirParrotBayCocktailpouches.

Illustration 5:The672Patent(left)andaParrotBayCocktail(right).

26. TheDefendantsarenotauthorizedtopracticethe672Patent.

27. TheDefendants’conductassetforthhereinisnotonlylikelytocause

consumerconfusion,buthasalreadycausedactualconsumerconfusion.ABChasreceived

correspondencesfromcustomersevidencingactualconfusionwiththeDefendants’Parrot

BayCocktails.


9

28. Forseveralreasons,furtherconsumerconfusionisnotjustlikely,but

inevitable.

29. TheDaily’sCocktailsdirectlycompetewiththeParrotBayCocktails.

30. TheParrotBayCocktailsareofferedinmanyofthesameflavorsasthe

Daily’sCocktails,includingforexample strawberry daiquiriandpiñacolada.

31. TheParrotBayCocktailsandtheDaily’sCocktails arerelativelylow-priced

items,bothcostingapproximately$2.00per unit.

32. TheParrotBayCocktailsandtheDaily’sCocktailsarebothsingle-serve

frozencocktailproductsthat,giventheirlowcost,areimpulsepurchasesforconsumers.

Assuch,consumersexhibitverylittlebrandloyaltyinconnectionwithfrozencocktail

pouchproducts,andarenotlikelytoexerciseagreatdealofcarebeforeselectingtheir

frozencocktailpouchproductsforpurchase,norinevaluatingthequalityofthefrozen

cocktailproductfollowingconsumption.

33. TheParrotBayCocktailsaresoldthroughmanyofthesametradechannels

astheDaily’sCocktails,suchasliquorstoresandretailchainsandsupermarketssuchas

WalmartandShaw’s.

Illustration 6:Daily’sCocktails(left)andParrotBayCocktails(right)ataWalmartstore.


10

34. Oftentimes,theproductsappearnexttoeachotheronracksattheends of

aisles,furtherexacerbatingtheriskofconfusion.

Illustration 7:Daily’sCocktails(left)andParrotBayCocktails(right).

35. Insomeinstances,thetwoproductsaremixedtogetheronnearbyshelves

andsometimesevenappearonthesameshelfrow.

Illustration 8:Arefrigerateddisplayunitcontainingthetwoproductsonthesameshelfrows.


11

36. Whentheproductsappearonthesameshelvesorrows,consumerconfusion

isunavoidablebecauseitisdifficulttodistinguishthetwoproducts.

Illustration 9:Arefrigerateddisplayunitcontainingthetwoproducts.Daily’sCocktails

exclusivelypopulatethetoptwoshelves,whileParrotBayCocktailsexclusivelypopulatethe

bottomshelf.Bothproductspopulatethethirdshelffromthetop.

Illustration 10:Aclose-upofFigure9 showinghowclosevisualinspectionisrequiredto

discoverthatthesameshelfcontainstwoproductsfromdifferentsources,withtheDaily’s

Cocktails(left)adjacenttotheParrotBayCocktails(right).


12

37. Storesalso stockthe two products inrefrigeratedshelvesbehindfoggyglass

doors,makingitevenmoredifficultforconsumerstonoticeandappreciatewhatever

minutedifferencestheremaybebetweenthepouchpackagingofthetwoproducts.

Illustration 11:ArefrigerateddisplayunitcontainingbothDaily’sCocktailsandParrotBay

Cocktails.Thefoggyglassdoorasseenbycustomersmakesitimpossibletodistinguishthe

twoproducts.


13

38. Thesearrangementscreatethevisualeffectoftheproducts“flowing”

together,implying toconsumersthattheyalloriginatefromthesamesource.

Illustration 12:Racks containingbothDaily’sCocktailsandParrotBayCocktailsshowinghow

twoproductsfromdifferentsourcesappearto“flow”together.

39. TheDefendants’conductassetforthhereinisallthemoreegregiouswhen

measuredagainstcompetingfrozencocktail pouch productsmadeandsoldbyother

beveragemanufacturers.Asurveyofthetradedressusedbyotherbeverage

manufacturersshowsthemultiplepouchpackagingoptionsavailabletocompaniessuchas

theDefendants.

Illustration 13:Otherfrozencocktailpackaging.


14

40. ThesimilarityoftheDefendants’ParrotBayCocktails totheDaily’sCocktails

isallthemorestrikingwhenviewedin lightofthisrangeofavailableoptions.

41. Uponinformationandbelief,theDefendantshaveenteredintoacontract

packingarrangementwithAdmiralBeverageCorporation,whichconvenientlysharesthe

sameinitialsasABC,tomakeanddistributetheDefendants’ParrotBayCocktails.Asa

resultofthisarrangement,theDefendantsareabletorepresenttodistributorsand

retailersanaffiliationwith“abc,”which,inconnectionwiththeDefendants’otherconduct

assetforthherein,makesitlikelythatcompanieswithinthealcoholicbeverageindustry–

includingbutnotlimitedtodistributorsandretailers– maybeconfusedastothesourceor

originoftheDefendants’ParrotBayCocktails,ormaycometobelievethattheyaredealing

withABCandtheDaily’sCocktails.

Notice

42. PPIwrotetoDiageoNorthAmerica,Inc.(“Diageo”) onDecember8,2011,

advisingDiageothatPPIbelievedthatDiageowasinfringingPlaintiffs’ rightsand

demandingthatDiageoceaseanddesistsuchinfringingconduct.AcopyofPPI’sletteris

attachedheretoasExhibitB.

43. Fromthatpoint,PPIandDiageoexchangedmultiplewritten

correspondencesduringDecemberof2011andupthroughandincludingMarchof2012.

AtnotimedidDiageo indicatethatitwouldcomplywithPPI’sdemand.

44. OnApril25,2012,ABCwrotetotheDefendants,advisingtheDefendantsthat

ABCbelievedthattheywasinfringingABC’sintellectualpropertyrightsassetforthherein

anddemandingthattheyceaseanddesisttheirconduct.AcopyofABC’sletterisattached

heretoasExhibitC.


15

45. TheDefendantshavenotcomplied withABC’sdemands.

46. Accordingly,Plaintiffs havenochoicebuttoproceedwiththeinstantaction.

The ConsequencesoftheDefendants’InfringingConduct

47. TheDefendants’conductassetforthhereiniswrongful,malicious,

fraudulent,deliberate,willful,and/orintentionalandhascausedandwillcontinuetoharm

thePlaintiffs.

48. Unlessrestrained,theDefendants’conducthascausedandwillcontinueto

causeirreparableharmtoPlaintiffsforwhichtheyhavenoadequateremedyatlaw.

49. Uponinformationandbelief,theDefendantsareplanningforanationalroll-

outoftheirParrotBayCocktailsinpreparationforthesummermonths.

50. Thesummermonthsrepresenttheprimeseasonforsalesoffrozencocktails.

51. IftheDefendantsarepermittedtorollouttheirParrotBayCocktailsand

floodthemarketwiththeirinfringingproductsduringtheprimesellingseason,the

Defendantswillbeabletoexploittheactualandinevitableconsumerconfusiontopoach

potentialcustomers,sales,andsharesofthefrozencocktailmarketfromABC.Consumers

mayalsocometomistakenlyattributeinferiorqualitiesoftheDefendants’ParrotBay

CocktailstoABC,causingABCtosufferalossofitsreputation,trade,andgoodwill.

52. TheDefendants’conductalsothreatenstherightofthepublictobefreefrom

confusionanddeception.

53. Uponinformationandbelief,theDefendantsarepreparingtolaunchasingle-

servefrozencocktailpouchproductundertheDefendants’“Smirnoff”brandnamein

packagingthat,insofarasitutilizesthesamepouchpackaginganddesignasthe

Defendants’ParrotBayCocktails,infringesthePlaintiffs’rightsassetforthherein.


16

54. Giventheforegoing,thePlaintiffsareentitledtoapreliminaryinjunctionto

bemadepermanentuponentryofafinaljudgment,preventingtheDefendantsfrom

continuingtheactscomplainedofherein.

COUNTI:PatentInfringement

55. ThePlaintiffsincorporatebyreferencetheallegationsinthepreceding

paragraphsasifsetforthherein.

56. Byengagingintheconductsetforthherein,theDefendantshaveinfringed

andcontinuetoinfringethe672Patent,literallyand/orunderthedoctrineofequivalents,

byusing,selling,and/orofferingtosell,intheUnitedstatesand/orimportingintothe

UnitedStates,theirParrotBayCocktailsinpouchpackagingthatinfringesthe672Patentin

violationof35U.S.C.§271.

57. Atall timesrelevanthereto,theDefendants’conducthasinvolvedandtaken

placewithininterstatecommerce.



thePlaintiffs.



60. ThePlaintiffsareentitledtoapreliminaryinjunctiontobemadepermanent

uponentryofafinaljudgment,preventingtheDefendantsfromcontinuingtheacts

complainedofherein.

COUNTII:TradeDressInfringementandUnfairCompetition


17

61. ThePlaintiffsincorporatebyreferencetheallegationsinthepreceding


62. TheDefendantshavemadeandsoldininterstatecommercetheirParrotBay

CocktailspackagedinpouchesthatembodyABC’stradedress.

63. AsaresultoftheDefendants’conductassetforthherein,consumerscouldbe

confusedandinducedtopurchasetheDefendants’ParrotBayCocktails,mistakenly

believingthemtobeDaily’sCocktails,thusdeprivingABCoftheprofitsofsale.

64. TheParrotBayCocktailsareofinferiorqualitytotheDaily’sCocktails,and

uponinformationandbelief,theDefendants’pouchesaresusceptibletoleaks.Asaresult

oftheDefendants’conductassetforthherein,consumersmaycometoattributethe

inferiorqualitiesoftheDefendants’ParrotBayCocktailstotheDaily’sCocktails,toABC’s

detriment.

65. Byengagingintheconductsetforthherein,theDefendantsarepassingoff

theirParrotBayCocktailsasABC’sDaily’sCocktails,tradingoffandexploitingABC’s

reputationandgoodwill,toABC’sdetriment.

66. Byengagingintheconductsetforthherein,theDefendantshaveinfringed

andcontinuetoinfringeABC’srightsinitstradedress,inviolationof§43(a)oftheLanham

Act,15U.S.C.§ 1125(a).TheDefendants’conductislikelytocauseconfusion– initially,

post-sale,andotherwise– mistake,anddeceptionamongconsumersastotheaffiliation,

connection,orassociationoftheDefendantswithABCandastotheorigin,sponsorship,

andapprovaloftheDefendants’ParrotBayCocktailsandcommercialactivitiesbyABC.

SuchconductalsointerfereswithABC’srighttouseitstradedresstoidentifyABCasthe

singlesourceoftheDaily’sCocktails.TheDefendants’conductassetforthhereinalso


18

constitutesfalsedesignationoforigin,unfaircompetition,andfalseadvertisinginviolation

of§43(a)oftheLanhamAct,15U.S.C.§1125(a).


fraudulent,deliberate,willful,and/orintentional.



thePlaintiffs.





complainedofherein.

COUNTIII:CommonLawUnfairCompetition

71. ThePlaintiffsincorporatebyreference theallegationsinthepreceding


72. TheDefendants’conductassetforthhereinislikelytocauseconsumer

confusion,tocausemistake,andtodeceiveastotheaffiliation,connection,orassociation

oftheDefendantswithABCandastotheorigin,sponsorship,andapprovalofthe

Defendants’ParrotBayCocktailsandcommercialactivitiesbyABC.Suchconductalso

interfereswithABC’srighttouseitstradedresstoidentifyABCasthesinglesourceofthe

Daily’sCocktails.

73. TheDefendants’conductassetforthhereinconstitutesunfaircompetition

andpalmingoff.


19


fraudulent,deliberate,willful,and/orintentional.



thePlaintiffs.


causeirreparableharmtoPlaintiffs forwhichtheyhavenoadequateremedyatlaw.



complainedofherein.

PRAYERFORRELIEF

WHEREFORE,thePlaintiffsdemandjudgmentagainsttheDefendantsasfollows:

1. AjudgmentdeclaringthattheDefendantshaveinfringedthe672Patentand

haveinfringedABC’stradedress,havecompetedunfairlywithABC,haveinjuredABC’s

businessreputationbytheunauthorizeduseofABC’stradedress,andhavewillfully

violatedtheapplicablelawsoftheUnitedStatesandofthestateswheretheDefendants’

goodshavebeensold,alltothedetrimentofPlaintiffs;

2. ThattheDefendants,theirofficers,agents,servants,employees,attorneys,

successorsandassigns,andallotherpersonsinactiveconcertwithorparticipationwith

thembepreliminarilyandpermanentlyenjoinedandrestrainedfrom:

(a) Infringingorinducinginfringementofthe672Patent;

(b) Infringingor inducinginfringementofABC’stradedress;


20

(c) UsingABC’stradedress,aloneorincombinationwithanyotherelements,to

advertiseoridentifytheDefendants’goodsorservices;

(d) UnfairlycompetingwithABCinanymannerwhatsoever;

(e) Causinglikelihoodofconfusion;

(f) Engaginginanyactsoractivitiesdirectlyorindirectlycalculatedtotrade

uponABC’stradedressorthereputationorgoodwillofABC,orinanywayto

competeunfairlywithABC;

3. ForpreliminaryandpermanentinjunctivereliefdirectingDefendantsto

recallfromdistributionanddestroyallproductsthatinfringethe672Patentorinfringeor

embodyABC’stradedressoranycolorableimitationthereof,butwhichdonotemanate

fromABC;

4. ForajudgmentagainstDefendantsawardingthePlaintiffsdamagesandlost

profits,including:

(a) AlldamagessustainedbythePlaintiffsasaresultoftheDefendants’unlawful

infringementofthe672Patent,togetherwithinterestonsuchdamagesand

thatsuchdamagesbetrebled,pursuantto35U.S.C.§284and35U.S.C.§289;

(b) AlldamagessustainedbyABCasaresultoftheDefendants’unlawful

infringementofABC’stradedress,togetherwithinterestonsuchdamages

andthatsuchdamagesbetrebled;

(c) AllprofitsderivedbytheDefendantsfromthesaleofgoodsbythedirector

indirectuseofABC’stradedressorcolorableimitationsthereof,andthat

suchprofitsbetrebled;


21

(d) AlldamagessustainedbyPlaintiffs onaccountofpatentinfringement,trade

dressinfringement,unfaircompetition,andanyotherdamagessufferedby

Plaintiffs asaresultoftheDefendants’conductassetforthherein,andthat

suchdamagesbetrebled;

5. ForanaccountingofallDefendants’profitsfromtheconductcomplainedof

herein;

6. ForanorderdirectingtheDefendantstopaypunitivedamages;

7. ForanorderdirectingtheDefendantstopayrestitution;

8. Foranawardofattorneys’feespursuantto35U.S.C.§285and15U.S.C.§

1117orasotherwisepermittedbylaw;

9. Foranawardofpre-judgmentandpost-judgmentinterestatthemaximum

rateallowedbylaw;

10. Forthecostsandexpensesofthesuitherein;and

11. ForsuchadditionalandfurtherreliefasthisCourtmaydeemjustand

proper.


22

Respectfullysubmitted,

By: /s/StevenW.ZofferDickie,McCamey&Chilcote,P.C.StevenW.Zoffer,EsquirePAI.D.#[email protected],EsquirePAI.D.#[email protected],Suite400Pittsburgh,PA15222-5402Telephone:(412)281-7272Facsimile:(412)392-5367

Ference&AssociatesLLCStanelyD.Ference,III,EsquirePAI.D.#[email protected],PA15143Telephone:(412)741-8400Facsimile:(412)741-9292

CounselforPlaintiffs


in the united states district court for the western ... beverage... · case arose because the...

Documents