Shark Tank Pretrial
-
Upload
eriq-gardner -
Category
Documents
-
view
255 -
download
0
Transcript of Shark Tank Pretrial
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Fort Lauderdale Division
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER
The CELLER LAW ORGANIZATION,
INC., a Florida corporation, d/b/a/ THE
CELLER ORGANIZATION, CELLER
LAW, P.A., a Florida Professional
Association, and CELLER
ENTERTAINMENT, INC., a Florida
corporation,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SONY PICTURES TELEVISION INC., a
foreign corporation,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
JOINT PRETRIAL
STIPULATION
SONY PICTURES TELEVISION INC., a
foreign corporation,
Counter-Claimant,
v.
The CELLER LAW ORGANIZATION,
INC., a Florida corporation, d/b/a/ THE
CELLER ORGANIZATION, CELLER
LAW, P.A., a Florida Professional
Association, CELLER ENTERTAINMENT,
INC., a Florida corporation, and BOBBIE
CELLER, an individual,
Counter-Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 1 of 51
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER
Page 2 of 51
Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants, The CELLER LAW ORGANIZATION, INC. d/b/a THE
CELLER ORGANIZATION, CELLER LAW, P.A., CELLER ENTERTAINMENT, INC. and
BOBBIE CELLER (collectively, “Celler”) (The Celler Law Organization, Inc. d/b/a Celler
Organization, Celler Law, P.A. and Celler Entertainment, Inc. shall sometimes be referred to
collectively herein as “Plaintiffs”), and Defendant/Counter-Claimant, SONY PICTURES
TELEVISION INC. (“SPT” or “Defendant”) (“Celler” and “SPT” shall sometimes be referred to
collectively herein as the “Parties”), by and through their respective undersigned counsel, and
pursuant to the Court’s Scheduling Order [ECF No. 20] and S.D. of Fla. L.R. 16.1(e), hereby file
this Joint Pre-Trial Stipulation:
1. SHORT CONCISE STATEMENT OF THE CASE
a. Plaintiffs’ Statement
In early 2013, Plaintiffs recognized an opportunity to further market Celler Law, P.A. and
increase its market share through a speaking tour of personalities known for their business success.
Plaintiffs decided to engage successful business personalities in order to attract as broad a base of
attendees as possible to the speaking tour.
The Celler parties initially contracted four individuals for purposes of conducting a live
tour known as “Shark Tour and Entrepreneur Expo Presented by Bobbie Celler” (“Shark Tour”).
Specifically, in mid June of 2013, Celler Parties contracted with Daymond John, Barbara
Corcoran, Robert Herjavec, and Kevin Harrington (collectively referred to as the “Sharks”) for
their live appearances at the Shark Tour scheduled to take place on November 2, 2013, at the
Orlando Convention Center. Daymond John, Barbara Corcoran, and Robert Herjavec are current
members of the A.B.C. Television Show Shark Tank. Kevin Harrington was a former participant
Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 2 of 51
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER
Page 3 of 51
on the show. However, a few weeks later, Daymond John and Robert Herjavec, without warning,
due to pressure from Sony, advised that they would not appear at Shark Tour.
The Celler Parties filed suit against Sony on or about July 25, 2013, alleging that Sony had
tortiously interfered with The Celler Parties’ respective business and/or contractual relationships
with the Sharks, thereby causing Plaintiff to incur damages. Shortly thereafter, Barbara Corcoran
also cancelled. In it’s Answer, Sony set forth Four Affirmative Defenses alleging: that its
communications with the Sharks were privileged and therefore justified; that The Celler Parties
cannot seek damages for contracts terminable at will; that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the
doctrine of unclean hands as well as estoppel due to the alleged usage of trademarks and
intellectual property.
Also in response to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Sony filed a six-count Counterclaim1
against The Celler Parties based upon its registered standard character service mark SHARK
TANK, and its purported ownership of an unregistered logo and unregistered Shark Tank Trade
Dress, which Sony claims to use in connection with a website and a reality television series
depicting people making requests for capital investments into their business. Sony asserts that its
unregistered logo consists of “the SHARK TANK mark written in all-capital letters and presented
in blue and black colors.” Sony contends that its unregistered trade dress consists of “a distinctive
blue and black color theme, the words SHARK TANK written in all-capital letters on the upper
left-had portion of the screen, menu options presented horizontally across the top of the screen in
gray, a depiction of the characters in the show immediately below the masthead, and depiction of
1 The various counts included in the Counterclaim are for: federal trademark infringement;
federal false designation and unfair competition, federal trademark dilution, Florida trademark
dilution, Florida unfair competition, and common law trademark infringement and unfair
competition. ECF No. 32.
Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 3 of 51
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER
Page 4 of 51
water in the background of the page,” which are displayed on a website located at
http://abc.go.com/shows/shark-tank. Sony alleges that The Celler Parties are infringing its
SHARK TANK mark, the Shark Tank logo, and the Shark Tank Trade Dress through the
advertisement and marketing of The Celler Parties’ SHARK TOUR & Entrepreneur Expo.
In defending against the Counterclaim, The Celler Parties are asserting that Sony’s
Counterclaim is a “shotgun” pleading presented in contravention of the Rules of Civil Procedure
because each Count incorporates, every prior allegation and claim set forth earlier in the
Counterclaim, which renders those Counts subject to dismissal. The Celler Parties also assert that
Sony’s Counterclaim is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands because Sony tortiously interfered
with The Celler Parties’ business relationships and efforts to complete the planning and
presentation of the Shark Tour & Entrepreneur Expo.
If Sony’s claims are not entirely barred or otherwise subject to dismissal, The Celler Parties
nevertheless contend that Sony fails to state a claim under 15 U.S.C. 1114 for infringement of its
Shark Tank logo and its Shark Tank trade dress because neither are registered on the USPTO’s
Principal Register. Additionally, The Celler Parties assert that the trade dress Sony is seeking to
enforce is not protectable. The Celler Parties further contend that their use of the SHARK TOUR
mark is in its primary, descriptive sense to describe The Celler Parties’ services, not Sony’s
television show.
The Celler Parties also contend that, even if Sony were to meet its burden to prove its
claims, Sony cannot recover it damages or The Celler Parties profits, if any, because Sony failed to
give notice of its registered rights in the SHARK TANK mark, or otherwise comply with 15
U.S.C. § 1111, by displaying with the words "Registered in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office" or
"Reg. U.S. Pat. & Tm. Off." or the letter R enclosed within a circle with its SHARK TANK mark,
Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 4 of 51
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER
Page 5 of 51
and The Celler Parties had no actual knowledge of Sony’s registration of the SHARK TANK mark
with the USPTO. Therefore, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1111, Sony may not receive an award of any
profits or damages
The Celler Parties contend that, even if Sony could recover damages in this action, Sony is
not entitled to any award of enhanced damages because The Celler Parties actions were not willful,
intentional or deliberate. Finally, The Celler Parties assert that, should Sony prevail on its
Lanham Act Counterclaims, Sony is not entitled to attorneys’ fees or costs under Section 35 of the
Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1117, because its claims, allegations and facts do not set forth an
exceptional case.
b. Defendant’s Statement
This litigation was filed by Plaintiffs after Defendant learned of Plaintiffs’ misuse and
exploitation of Defendant’s valuable trademark, trade dress and other intellectual property relating
to the hit television show Shark Tank in an effort to launch a copycat “Shark Tour” live event.
Plaintiffs repeatedly used SPT’s registered SHARK TANK trademark and the distinctive Shark
Tank logo and trade dress in promoting Plaintiffs’ proposed Shark Tour, and allege that they
entered into contracts with some of the talent (called “Sharks”) who appear or appeared on the
Shark Tank show to appear at the live Shark Tour event, all to create the appearance of an
affiliation between Plaintiffs’ event and SPT’s Shark Tank show. When the Sharks learned how
Plaintiffs were using the intellectual property of the Shark Tank show, some of them informed
Plaintiffs that they would not be appearing on the Shark Tour and returned their deposits.
Plaintiffs then canceled their proposed Shark Tour (having not sold a single ticket). Instead,
before Defendants could initiate a lawsuit against Plaintiffs for infringing their intellectual
Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 5 of 51
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER
Page 6 of 51
property, Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendant in Broward County Circuit Court and Defendant
promptly removed the case to this Court and filed its Counterclaims.
This lawsuit was filed preemptively by Plaintiffs (in advance of the deadline on their threat
to Defendant to “partner up or be sued”) to try to head off federal claims for trademark and trade
dress infringement. Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint asserts one count against Defendant for
Tortious Interference. The evidence at trial will confirm that Defendant did not wrongfully
interfere with Plaintiffs’ purported business or contractual relationships and that any
communications it had with regard to the subject of Plaintiffs were privileged and justifiable given
Plaintiffs’ intentional efforts to hijack Defendant’s well known brand, including its registered
trademark and distinctive logo and trade dress. Moreover, SPT will show that any actions it did
take were protected by its privileged right to compete and to protect its own financial and property
interests under Florida law. In any event, the evidence will make clear that Celler cannot
demonstrate any damages to a reasonable certainty, and that he is barred from seeking or obtaining
his claimed lost profit damages.
Defendant filed six Counterclaims against Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendant Bobbie Celler
for Federal Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin and Unfair Competition Under
Federal Law, Federal Trademark Dilution, Trademark Dilution Under Florida Law, Unfair
Competition Under Florida Law, and Common Law Infringement and Unfair Competition.
Defendant’s Counterclaims arise from Plaintiffs’ deliberate theft of intellectual property that
Defendant spent years and many millions of dollars developing and exploiting in connection with
its Shark Tank show. Defendant not only obtained a federal registration for its SHARK TANK
mark, but it also spent (and continues to spend) significant time and effort strengthening that mark
– along with the distinctive logo and trade dress it developed. Moreover, Defendant had
Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 6 of 51
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER
Page 7 of 51
participated in discussions with ABC and the Sharks about doing their own live Shark Tank tour to
further promote their brand – something Plaintiffs’ efforts attempted to derail, dilute, or otherwise
capture.
Defendant seeks primarily injunctive relief on its Counterclaims, and will ask the Court to
also award appropriate attorneys’ fees at the conclusion of the case.
2. BASIS OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION
The Parties agree that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1367, and 1338.
Defendant states that the Court also has jurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1116,
1121, and 1125(a). SPT’s Counterclaims assert state statutory and common law claims for
common law unfair competition, trademark infringement, dilution, and deceptive and unfair trade
practices which are joined with substantial and related claims under the federal trademark laws,
and this Court has jurisdiction as to such claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(b).
3. PLEADINGS RAISING THE ISSUES
a. The Celler Parties’ Amended Complaint [ECF NO. 23];
b. Defendant Sony Pictures Television Inc.’s Answer, Affirmative Defenses and
Counterclaims [ECF NO. 32]; and
c. The Celler Parties’ Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Defendant’s Counterclaim
[ECF NO. 41].
4. LIST OF ALL UNDISPOSED OF MOTIONS OR OTHER MATTERS
REQUIRING ACTION BY THE COURT
a. The Celler Parties’ Motion In Limine to Preclude Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff
Sony Pictures Television from Presenting Evidence, Testimony or Argument as to any Definition
Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 7 of 51
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER
Page 8 of 51
or Description of its Trade Dress Other than the Definition It Alleged in the Counterclaim [ECF
NO. 51];
b. The Celler Parties’ Motion In Limine to Exclude the Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff
Sony Pictures Television from Presenting Evidence, Testimony or Argument as to any Allegedly
Infringing Conduct that is not the Subject Matter of this Action [ECF NO. 52];
c. The Celler Parties’ Motion In Limine to Exclude the Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff
Sony Pictures Television from Presenting Evidence, Testimony or Argument Regarding any
Purported Marketplace Examples of Television Shows and Tours that do not Contain a Shark Tank
or Shark Tour Trademark [ECF NO. 53];
d. The Celler Parties’ Motion In Limine to Exclude the Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff
Sony Pictures Television from Presenting Evidence, Opinion or Argument in Violation of the
Rules Relating to Expert Opinion and this Court’s Scheduling Order [ECF NO. 54];
e. The Celler Parties’ Motion In Limine to Strike Previously Undisclosed Documents
and Other Exhibits from Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Sony Pictures Television’s Exhibit List and
Exclude their Use at Trial [ECF NO. 55];
f. The Celler Parties’ Motion In Limine to Strike Previously Undisclosed Witnesses
from Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Sony Pictures Television’s Witness List and Exclude Their
Testimony at Trial [ECF NO. 57];
g. Defendant/Counter-Claimant Sony Pictures Television Inc.’s Motion In Limine to
Exclude Evidence Regarding Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants’ Purported Lost Profit Damages and
Incorporated Memorandum of Law [ECF NO. 49];
Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 8 of 51
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER
Page 9 of 51
h. Defendant/Counter-Claimant Sony Pictures Television Inc.’s Motion In Limine to
Exclude Evidence Regarding Irrelevant Alleged Third-Party Uses of “Shark” and Incorporated
Memorandum of Law [ECF NO. 50];
i. Defendant/Counter-Claimant Sony Pictures Television, Inc.’s Cross Motion In
Limine to Strike Plaintiffs’ Previously Undisclosed Documents and Other Exhibits from Plaintiffs’
Exhibit List and Incorporated Memorandum of Law [ECF NO. 59];
j. Joint Stipulation for Entry of Agreed Protective Order [ECH NO. 60]; and
k. Joint Motion for Permission to Bring Electronic Equipment into the Courthouse
During the Trial Period [ECF NO. 62].
5. CONCISE STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS WHICH WILL
REQUIRE NO PROOF AT TRIAL
General Facts1
a. Bobbie Celler is a personal injury attorney licensed in Florida, with his principal
places of business in Coral Springs and Boca Raton, Florida;
b. The Celler Law Organization, d/b/a The Celler Organization, now known as The
Celler Organization, Inc., is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business located in
Boca Raton, Florida;
c. The Celler Organization was incorporated on February 19, 2013;
d. Celler Law, P.A., is a Florida Professional Association, with its principal place of
business located in Boca Raton, Florida;
e. Celler Entertainment, Inc., is a Florida corporation, with its principal place of
business located in Boca Raton, Florida;
1
The Parties were unable to reach agreement as to some of the facts listed herein, although a
number of them are undisputed. Both parties reserve the right to object to the facts listed herein.
Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 9 of 51
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER
Page 10 of 51
f. Celler Entertainment, Inc. was incorporated on April 1, 2013;
g. Bobbie Celler is the founder, president and Chief Executive Officer of The Celler
Organization, Inc. and is its registered agent;
h. Bobbie Celler is the founder, director and registered agent for Celler Law, P.A.;
i. Bobbie Celler is the founder and registered agent for Celler Entertainment, Inc.;
j. SPT is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business in Culver City,
California;
k. Daymond John, Barbara Corcoran, Robert Herjavec and Kevin Harrington
(collectively, the “Sharks”) are (John, Corcoran and Herjavec) or were (Harrington) entrepreneur
cast members of the Shark Tank show;
l. The Shark Tank show features business pitches from aspiring entrepreneurs to a
panel of potential investors who are called the “Sharks” on the show;
m. SPT filed an intent-to-use trademark application for SHARK TANK in the United
States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) on September 18, 2008 under Section 1(b) of the
Lanham Act;
n. In response to inquiry by the PTO, SPT stated that the SHARK TANK mark had no
significance in the relevant trade or industry or as applied to entertainment services in the nature of
an ongoing reality television series, nor did it have any geographical significance;
o. Celler is in no way affiliated with the Shark Tank show, SPT or ABC;
p. The Shark Tour was scheduled to take place on November 2, 2013 at the Orange
County Convention Center in Orlando, Florida;
q. Bobbie Celler was aware of the television show Shark Tank prior to Celler’s
creation of the Shark Tour mark and event;
Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 10 of 51
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER
Page 11 of 51
r. The Shark Tour website was launched on or about July 16, 2013;
s. On July 3, 2013, pursuant to Section 1(b) of the Lanham Act, The Celler
Organization submitted a trademark application for registration of SHARK TOUR (serial no.
86001456) seeking to register SHARK TOUR in standard characters for use in connection with the
following services: Arranging, organizing, conducting, and hosting social entertainment events;
Education services, namely, providing live and on-line classes, courses, seminars, videos, special
events and workshops in the field of business and entrepreneurship in International Class 41;
t. On August 2, 2013, counsel for SPT sent a letter to Bobbie Celler and The Celler
Organization demanding that they cease from using, and take down from the Shark Tour website
any of SPT’s intellectual property and that they withdraw the application for registration of
SHARK TOUR;
u. The Celler Parties have not conducted, hosted or presented any event under the
SHARK TOUR mark;
v. Neither SPT nor ABC has yet conducted, hosted or presented a live exposition or
touring version of the Shark Tank show
w. Celler has not produced and distributed an ongoing reality television series.
ISSUES OF FACT REMAINING TO BE LITIGATED AT TRIAL2
Disputed Facts that the Celler Parties intend to litigate at trial
a) Whether the Celler Parties, during the time period of early June through late July, 2013,
were organizing an event known as “Shark Tour and Entrepreneur Expo Presented by
Bobbie Celler” (“Shark Tour”).
2 By jointly signing this document, the Parties do not concede that all facts contained herein are
appropriate to be considered at the trial, and do not waive any objections or any other rights they
have.
Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 11 of 51
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER
Page 12 of 51
b) Whether the Celler Parties intended for The Shark Tour to take place on November 2,
2013, at the Orlando Convention Center.
c) Whether the Celler Parties intended to conduct, host and present a live exposition or
touring event featuring the presentation of business concepts to some of the Sharks from
the Shark Tank show;
d) Whether the Celler Parties contracted with Daymond John on or about June 17, 2013 for
his appearance at Shark Tour.
e) Whether the Celler Parties contracted with Barbara Corcoran on or about June 17, 2013 for
her appearance at the Shark Tour.
f) Whether the Celler Parties contracted with Kevin Harrington on or about June 26, 2013 for
his appearance at the Shark Tour.
g) Whether the Celler Parties contracted with Robert Herjavec on or about June 20, 2013 for
his appearance at the Shark Tour.
h) Whether Bobbie Celler visited Sony’s production studios in Las Angeles, CA, on or around
July 10, 2013.
i) Whether during this visit, Bobbie Celler met with and interviewed Barbara Corcoran and
Robert Herjavec while at Sony’s Production Studios for purposes of creating a promotional
video for the Shark Tour.
j) Whether between July 21-24, 2013, Sony visited the Shark Tour website seventeen (17)
times.
k) Whether Sony informed the Sharks that it believed Celler was improperly using its
intellectual property regarding the show Shark Tank.
Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 12 of 51
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER
Page 13 of 51
l) Whether on or about July 24, 2013, representatives of Daymond John and Robert Herjavec,
informed The Celler Parties the two sharks would not participate in Shark Tour due to the
actions of Sony.
m) Whether on or about August 8, 2013, a representative of Barbara Corcoran informed The
Celler Parties that she would not be participating in Shark Tour due to a scheduling
conflict.
n) Whether the Celler Parties were developing a website, at the domain name
sharktour2013.com, which was to be a promotional tool and the an outlet through which
tickets would have beenbe sold for Shark Tour and the Celler Parties when the ticket sale
effort was to be activated.;
o) Whether, as a result of the engaged Sharks cancelling their contracts, the Celler Parties
cancelled the Shark Tour in 2013, and never offered for sale nor sold any tickets.;
p) Whether the Orlando Convention Center had been leased for the November 2, 2013 Shark
Tour event. Celler incurred the expnse even though the event was cancelled. Celler also
incurred other out of pocket expenses in the Shark Tour endeavor.
q) Whether Shark Tour was cancelled after the Sharks informed Celler they would not be
participating in Shark Tour.
r) Whether or not Sony unjustifiably interfered with the Sharks participation in Shark Tour
s) Whether or not SPT unjustifiably interfered with the Sharks participation in Shark Tour;
t) Whether Sony does not have exclusive rights in John, Corcoran, Herjavec, or Harrington’s
name or likeness.
u) John, Corcoran and Herjavec are permitted to engage in employment outside the Shark
Tank television series.
Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 13 of 51
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER
Page 14 of 51
v) Whether SPT intends to conduct, host and present a live exposition or touring version of
the Shark Tank show;
w) Whether or not the Celler Parties suffered damages proximately caused by Sony
x) Whether SPT was granted a federal trademark registration for the standard character
SHARK TANK word mark on November 24, 2009 (reg. no. 3716584) for use in
connection with entertainment services in the nature of an ongoing reality television series,
involving presentation of business concepts; in International Class 41;
y) The SHARK TANK mark is used by the American Broadcasting Company (“ABC”)
through its televising of the Shark Tank television show and its production and display of a
website, located on the Internet at abc.go.com/shows/shark-tank, promoting the television
show;
z) SPT also promotes and advertises the Shark Tank show through a variety of means;
aa) Whether Sony does not have a trademark registration for the word “Shark” alone.
bb) Whether Sony is not the owner of any copyrighted photograph that has been displayed on
the website located at sharktour2013.com, and Sony has not asserted a copyright
infringement claim in this action.
cc) The SHARK TANK mark is used by the American Broadcasting Company (ABC) through
its televising of the SHARK TANK television show and its production and display of a
website, located on the Internet at abc.go.com/shows/shark-tank, promoting the television
show.
dd) Neither the SHARK TANK television nor ABC’s SHARK TANK website display the
words "Registered in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office" or "Reg. U.S. Pat. & Tm. Off." or
the letter R enclosed within a circle with the SHARK TANK trademark.
Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 14 of 51
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER
Page 15 of 51
ee) Bobbie Celler is the creator and presenter of Shark Tour, which was promoted by Celler as
featuring some of the Sharks seen on the Shark Tank show;
ff) Whether Sony’s Shark Tank service mark describes the services SPT offers thereunder, or
any ingredient or characteristic thereof.;
gg) Whether the Shark Tank television or ABC’s SHARK TANK website display the words
"Registered in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office" or "Reg. U.S. Pat. & Tm. Off." or the
letter R enclosed within a circle with the SHARK TANK trademark;
hh) Whether SPT’s SHARK TANK mark, logo, and trade dress have acquired secondary
meaning among the consuming public;
ii) Whether the Shark Tank logo and trade dress are non-functional;
jj) Whether SPT’s SHARK TANK mark, logo, and trade dress are distinctive;
kk) Whether SPT’s SHARK TANK service mark is strong or weak.;
ll) Whether SPT popularized the term ‘Shark’ to refer to a successful entrepreneur.;
mm) Whether the term ‘shark’ was commonly used to describe tough entrepreneurs prior
to SPT’s incorporation of that term into its SHARK TANK mark.;
nn) Whether SPT has a USPTO registration for the logo consisting of the SHARK TANK mark
written in all-capital letters and presented in blue and black colors (the “Shark Tank
Logo”).;
oo) Whether SPT has a USPTO registration for the alleged Shark Tank trade dress.;
pp) Whether SPT authorized Celler to use the SHARK TANK mark, logo, and/or trade dress;
qq) Whether Bobbie Celler had actual notice and knowledge of SPT’s ownership and
registration of the SHARK TANK mark, logo, and trade dress prior to Celler’s promotion
of its Shark Tour;
Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 15 of 51
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER
Page 16 of 51
rr) Whether Celler’s use of the terms SHARK and TOUR has been in their primary,
descriptive sense to describe the Celler’s goods or services, not SPT’s.;
ss) The Celler Parties had a bona fide intention to use the SHARK TOUR service mark in
connection with selling tickets to, hosting, and presenting the Expo on November 2, 2013
and other future events.
tt) If Sony has any enforceable rights in the SHARK TANK service mark, whether purchasers
or prospective purchasers of The Celler Parties’ social entertainment services and/or
education services are likely to believe that: (1) any such services come from the same
source as SPT’s ongoing reality television series offered under the asserted mark; or (2)
any services offered by The Celler Parties are related to or associated with the source of
SPT’s ongoing reality television series offered under the asserted mark.;
uu) Whether the Shark Tour mark is similar to the SHARK TANK mark.;
vv) Whether the parties offer similar services under the SHARK TANK mark at issue.;
ww) Whether the parties use similar retail outlets to offer their services.;
xx) Whether the prospective purchasers of the parties’ respective services are similar.;
yy) Whether the parties use similar advertising media to market their services to consumers;
zz) Whether The Celler Parties intended to confuse consumers into believing the Tour came
from the same source as the Shark Tank television show.
aaa) Whether any consumers interested in purchasing tickets to The Celler Parties’ Expo
were actually confused as to whether it was sponsored, affiliated or approved by the same
entity that produces the Shark Tank television show.;
Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 16 of 51
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER
Page 17 of 51
bbb) If SPT has any enforceable service mark rights and if consumers are likely to
experience confusion, whether SPT has suffered any actual damages and, if so, the dollar
amount of such actual damages.;
ccc) If SPT has any enforceable service mark and if consumers are likely to experience
confusion, whether The Celler Parties earned any profit arising out of the mark at issue,
from the date that such became protectable to the presaent date. And, if The Celler Parties
are determined to have infringed SPT’s mark, logo or trade dress, the amount of such
profits that may be subject to disgorgement, if any, as a possible damages recovery.;
ddd) Whether or not The Celler Parties acted willfully
eee) Whether SPT produces and distributes television shows;
fff) Whether SPT is the producer and owner of the television show Shark Tank, featured on
ABC;
ggg) Whether Shark Tank premiered on ABC in August 2009, and is now in its fifth
season on ABC, running consistently during ABC’s prime time television programing
schedule;
hhh) The extent to which Shark Tank has been advertised and promoted since it
premiered five (5) years ago;
iii) Whether SPT has been using the SHARK TANK trademark continuously since August
2009 in the field of entertainment services involving the presentation and valuation of
business concepts;
jjj) Whether, as of 2012, the Shark Tank show averaged seven million viewers an episode, and
was the most watched program on Friday nights in the 18-49 year old demographic;
Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 17 of 51
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER
Page 18 of 51
kkk) Whether the Shark Tank show averaged over eight million viewers an episode in
2013;
lll) Whether, in 2012 and 2013, Shark Tank received Emmy nominations for Outstanding
Reality Program, in 2012 received a nomination for a Critics’ Choice Television Award for
Best Reality Series, and in 2013, received a nomination for a Producers Guild Award;
mmm) Whether the official Shark Tank show website, located at
abc.go.com/shows/shark-tank (“Shark Tank Website”), featured during the relevant time
period a distinctive trade dress, or “look and feel,” that included, among other things, a blue
and black color theme with varying shades of blue, the words SHARK TANK written in
all-capital letters on the upper left-hand portion of the screen and presented in blue and
black, menu options presented horizontally across the top of the screen in gray, the
SHARK TANK Logo (the SHARK TANK mark written in all capital letters with teeth
marks in the “K” of “TANK”), a depiction of the characters in the show immediately below
the masthead, a depiction of water in the background of the page, and a depiction of
circling sharks;
nnn) Whether elements of SPT’s trade dress appear on the Shark Tank show, and in
advertisements and promotional materials for the show;
ooo) Whether television commercials for the Shark Tank show depict sharks swimming
in dark blue water, circling around the Shark Tank Logo;
ppp) Whether, as a result of SPT’s nearly five years of continuous use and exhibition of
its SHARK TANK mark, Logo, and trade dress, SPT has acquired substantial goodwill,
and the SHARK TANK mark, Logo, and Shark Tank trade dress have become clearly
associated with SPT’s hit show;
Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 18 of 51
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER
Page 19 of 51
qqq) Whether, through its adoption and prior use in interstate commerce, SPT owns
common law trademark and trade dress rights throughout the United States in connection
with the Shark Tank show;
rrr) Whether the Shark Tank Logo and trade dress have been displayed throughout the United
States via numerous media outlets;
sss) The audience for SPT’s services relating to Shark Tank.
ttt) The strength and fame of SPT’s SHARK TANK trademark, Logo, and trade dress;
uuu) Whether the Shark Tank Logo and trade dress are well known and have come to be
associated exclusively with SPT’s Shark Tank show;
vvv) Whether SPT’s SHARK TANK mark, Logo, and trade dress have acquired
secondary meaning among the consuming public;
www) Whether the Shark Tank Logo and trade dress are non-functional;
xxx) Whether SPT’s SHARK TANK mark, Logo, and trade dress are distinctive;
yyy) Whether the Shark Tank Logo and trade dress were distinctive before Celler began
offering its goods and services for Shark Tour for sale;
zzz) Whether Celler used SPT’s SHARK TANK mark, Logo, and trade dress, and also
ABC’s trademark and/or logo, in the advertisement, marketing, sale, and offering for sale
of goods and services in connection with Shark Tour;
aaaa) Whether Celler is using/has used a mark that infringes upon SPT’s registered
SHARK TANK trademark by using the trademark in connection with the sale or offer to
sell goods or services; using the trademark in commerce; and, using the trademark in a
manner that is likely to: cause confusion, mistake, or deception as to the source, origin,
affiliation, approval, or sponsorship of Celler’s goods or services;
Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 19 of 51
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER
Page 20 of 51
bbbb) Whether, in determining the significance of third-party uses, courts must consider
the entire name a third-party uses, as well as the kind of business in which the user is
engaged;
cccc) Whether trade dress protection is appropriate to protect websites;
dddd) Whether SPT’s SHARK TANK trademark, Logo, and Trade Dress are famous and
distinctive, either inherently or through acquired distinctiveness;
eeee) Whether Celler’s use of its purported Shark Tour trademark and trade dress began
after SPT’s SHARK TANK trademark, Logo, and Trade Dress became famous;
ffff) Whether Celler’s use of its purported Shark Tour trademark and trade dress is likely
to cause dilution by blurring and/or dilution by tarnishment of SPT’s famous SHARK
TANK trademark, Logo, and Trade Dress;
gggg) Whether Celler’s purported Shark Tour trademark and trade dress was first used
after October 6, 2006;
hhhh) Whether Celler made changes to the Shark Tour website in response to SPT’s
August 2, 2013 demand letter;
iiii) Whether Celler used SPT’s SHARK TANK mark, Logo, and/or trade dress without SPT’s
authorization;
jjjj) Whether Celler either had actual notice and knowledge and/or had constructive notice, of
SPT’s ownership and registration of the SHARK TANK mark, as well as the SHARK
TANK Logo, and trade dress, prior to Celler’s adoption and use of SPT’s SHARK TANK
mark, Logo, and trade dress in promoting its Shark Tour;
kkkk) Whether Celler’s use of Shark Tour, the SHARK TANK trademark, SHARK
TANK Logo and ABC logo, the Sharks, and the putative trade dress of Celler’s
Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 20 of 51
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER
Page 21 of 51
promotional materials create a likelihood of confusion with SPT’s SHARK TANK
trademark, Logo, and trade dress;
llll) Whether Celler’s promotional materials suggest to consumers that Celler’s goods and
services are in some manner connected with, sponsored by, affiliated with, or related to
SPT, SPT’s business, and/or SPT’s goods and services;
mmmm) Whether Celler’s conduct in using SPT’s SHARK TANK mark, Logo, and trade
dress was willful and intentional;
nnnn) Celler’s intent to copy the SHARK TANK mark, Logo, and trade dress creates a
presumption of likelihood of confusion;
oooo) Whether Celler’s use of SPT’s SHARK TANK mark, Logo, and trade dress, and
his additional and unauthorized use of ABC’s trademark and logo, are likely to cause
confusion or to deceive customers as to the affiliation, association or connection of Celler’s
Shark Tour with SPT’s Shark Tank; and
pppp) Whether Celler’s use of SPT’s SHARK TANK mark, Logo, and trade dress, unless
enjoined, threatens to dilute, blur, or tarnish the distinctive quality of SPT’s SHARK
TANK mark, Logo, and trade dress;
qqqq) Whether Shark Tour is a logical expansion of SPT’s trademark rights given that
“tour” is frequently used by other entertainment properties and has been considered by SPT
to describe live tours following on the heels of successful television and other
entertainment shows (e.g. “Idol Tour” to describe the live tour promoting the valuable
American Idol trademark and television show);
rrrr) Whether Plaintiffs’ continued use of their proposed Shark Tour trademark and
other infringing trade dress threatens to confuse the public about the origin or source of the
Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 21 of 51
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER
Page 22 of 51
Shark Tour, dilute SPT’s valuable intellectual property and should be enjoined to prevent
irreparable harm;
ssss) Whether SPT has proved and can recover any damages on any of the state or federal
Counterclaims;
tttt) Whether SPT intentionally and without justification interfered with any of Plaintiffs’
contracts relating to their proposed Shark Tour event;
uuuu) Whether SPT’s communications relating to Plaintiffs and their Shark Tour event
were at least in part privileged attempts to protect SPT’s property and financial interests;
vvvv) Whether SPT’s alleged conduct proximately caused any legally cognizable injury
to Plaintiffs, or any of them;
wwww) Whether Plaintiffs can prove any alleged damages to a reasonable certainty and, if
so, what damages can it prove; and
xxxx) Whether the Celler Parties acted in a manner in relation to SPT’s intellectual
property that they should be barred from pursuing their tortious interference claim based on
the doctrine of unclean hands
yyyy) On August 19, 2013, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)
issued an Office Action (Official Letter) about The Celler Organization’s Application
Serial No. 86001456 for registration of SHARK TOUR, wherein it stated that: “The
trademark examining attorney has searched the Office’s database of registered and pending
marks and has found no conflicting marks that would bar registration under Trademark Act
Section 2(d). TMEP §704.02; see 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).”
zzzz) In February 2013, Sony submitted a Letter of Protest to the USPTO seeking to have
the USPTO refuse to register The Celler Organization’s SHARK TOUR service mark.
Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 22 of 51
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER
Page 23 of 51
aaaaa) On March 19, 2014, the USPTO issued a Notice of Publication, which states that:
“The mark of the application identified appears to be entitled to registration. The mark will,
in accordance with Section 12(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946, as amended, be published
in the Official Gazette on the date indicated above for the purpose of opposition by any
person who believes he will be damaged by the registration of the mark. If no opposition is
filed within the time specified by Section 13(a) of the Statute or by rules 2.101 or 2.102 of
the Trademark Rules, the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks may issue a notice of
allowance pursuant to section 13(b) of the Statute.”
bbbbb) As a result of the engaged Sharks cancelling their contracts, the Celler Parties
cancelled the Shark Tour and never offered for sale nor sold any tickets.
ccccc) Despite their bona fide intention to use the SHARK TOUR service mark, after the
Celler Organization filed the application to register SHARK TOUR, The Celler Parties did
not conduct, host and present the Shark Tour on November 2, 2013 because the celebrities
that the Celler Organization had contracted to speak at the Shark Tour refused to attend and
participate.
ddddd) The extent of SPT’s rights in the Shark Tank Logo identified in Paragraph 21 of its
Counterclaim.
eeeee) Whether the Shark Tank Logo has acquired secondary meaning among consumers
and/or is otherwise subject to protection under the Lanham Act;
fffff) Whether the official Shark Tank show website, located at
abc.go.com/shows/shark-tank (“Shark Tank Website”), featured during the relevant time
period protectable trade dress, or “look and feel,” that included, among other things, a blue
and black color theme, the words SHARK TANK written in all-capital letters on the upper
Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 23 of 51
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER
Page 24 of 51
left-hand portion of the screen, menu options presented horizontally across the top of the
screen in gray, a depiction of the characters in the show immediately below the masthead,
and a depiction of water in the background of the page;
ggggg) Whether the Shark Tank website is a product or service separate apart from the
Shark Tank television show.;
hhhhh) Whether SPT has rights in the trade dress of the official Shark Tank show website
located at abc.go.com/shows/shark-tank.
iiiii) Whether SPT owns common law rights throughout the United States in connection
with the Shark Tank trademark and trade dress;
jjjjj) Whether the Shark Tank trade dress is functional.
kkkkk) Whether the Shark Tank trade dress has acquired secondary meaning among
consumers and/or is otherwise subject to protection under the Lanham Act.
lllll) Whether, SPT has acquired substantial goodwill in the SHARK TANK mark, logo,
and trade dress;
mmmmm) Whether, the SHARK TANK logo and trade dress were distinctive before Celler
began offering its goods and services for sale;
nnnnn) Whether the parties or their respective services compete against each other.;
ooooo) If SPT has any enforceable rights in the Shark Tank Logo and/or the Shark Tank
trade dress, whether purchasers or prospective purchasers of The Celler Parties’ social
entertainment services and/or education services are likely to believe that: (1) any such
services come from the same source as SPT’s ongoing reality television series offered
under the asserted logo and/or trade dress; or (2) any services offered by The Celler Parties
Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 24 of 51
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER
Page 25 of 51
are related to or associated with the source of SPT’s ongoing reality television series
offered under the asserted logo and/or trade dress.
ppppp) Whether there is any trade dress associated with Celler’s Shark Tour;
qqqqq) Whether the Internet website located at sharktour2013.com is similar to the Shark
Tank Trade Dress.
rrrrr) Whether the Shark Tour logo is similar to the Shark Tank logo;
sssss) Whether the parties offer similar services under the Shark Tank logo and/or trade
dress at issue;
ttttt) Whether the parties use similar retail outlets to offer their services;
uuuuu) Whether the prospective purchasers of the parties’ respective services are similar.
vvvvv) Whether The Celler Parties used the Shark Tank logo on the website located at
sharktour2013.com to suggest affiliation, sponsorship or source, or whether it was used as
a truthful representation of biographical information of the celebrities who The Celler
Organization had contracted to appear at the Shark Tour;
wwwww) If SPT has any enforceable rights in the logo and/or trade dress and if consumers
are likely to experience confusion, whether Sony has suffered any actual damages and, if
so, the dollar amount of such actual damages.;
xxxxx) If SPT has any enforceable logo and/or trade dress rights and if consumers are
likely to experience confusion, whether The Celler Parties earned any profit arising out of
the logo and/or trade dress at issue, from the date that such became protectable to the
present date. And, if The Celler Parties are determined to have infringed SPT’s mark,
logo or trade dress, the amount of such profits that may be subject to disgorgement, if any,
as a possible damages recovery.
Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 25 of 51
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER
Page 26 of 51
yyyyy) Whether or not The Celler Parties acted willfully
zzzzz) Sony has not asserted a claim in this action for cyberpiracy under 15 U.S.C.
§1125(d) with regard to the domain name sharktour2013.com or any other domain name.
aaaaaa) The extent to which SPT is engaging in substantially exclusive use of the Shark
Tank mark, logo and/or trade dress;
bbbbbb) The nature and extent of use of the same or similar mark by third parties;
cccccc) Whether the registered Shark Tank service mark is famous among the general
consuming public of the United States, and if so, when it became famous;
dddddd) Whether the registered Shark Tank service mark is famous in Florida, and if so,
when it became famous in Florida;
eeeeee) Separate and apart from any fame the registered SHARK TANK service mark
might have, whether the Shark Tank Trade Dress is famous among the general consuming
public of the United States, and if so, when it became famous;
ffffff) Separate and apart from any fame the registered SHARK TANK service mark
might have, whether the Shark Tank trade dress is famous in Florida, and if so, when it
became famous in Florida;
gggggg) Whether the Shark Tank Logo is famous among the general consuming public of
the United States, and if so, when it became famous;
hhhhhh) Whether the Shark Tank Logo is famous in Florida, and if so, when it became
famous in Florida;
iiiiii) Whether the parties offer dissimilar services under the mark, logo and/or trade
dress at issue;
Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 26 of 51
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER
Page 27 of 51
jjjjjj) If SPT’s service mark is distinctive and famous, whether such distinctiveness has
been impaired as a consequence of Celler’s use of any mark on dissimilar services;
kkkkkk) If SPT’s logo is distinctive and famous, whether such distinctiveness has been
impaired as a consequence of Celler’s use of any logo on dissimilar services;
llllll) If SPT’s trade dress is distinctive and famous, whether such distinctiveness has
been impaired as a consequence of Celler’s use of any trade dress on dissimilar services;
mmmmmm) Whether Celler’s marketing of the SHARK TOUR, unless enjoined,
threatens to dilute the distinctive quality, if any, of SPT’s SHARK TANK mark, logo, or
trade dress;
nnnnnn) If any distinctiveness of SPT’s mark has been impaired, whether SPT has any
suffered actual damages as a result thereof and, if so, the dollar amount of such actual
damages;
oooooo) Whether SPT has ever conducted, hosted or presented a live SHARK TANK
exposition or tour;
pppppp) Whether The Celler Parties compete with or have competed with SPT with regard
to any offering of services in the nature of an ongoing reality television series;
qqqqqq) Whether Celler’s acts involved a consumer transaction;
rrrrrr) Whether Celler’s conduct was unconscionable;
ssssss) If Sony has any enforceable rights in the Shark Tank mark, logo and/or trade dress,
whether purchasers or prospective purchasers of The Celler Parties’ services are likely to
believe that: (1) any such services come from the same source as SPT’s ongoing reality
television series offered under the asserted logo and/or trade dress; or (2) any services
Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 27 of 51
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER
Page 28 of 51
offered by The Celler Parties are sponsored or approved by the source of SPT’s ongoing
reality television series offered under the asserted logo and/or trade dress;
tttttt) If Celler has committed unconscionable acts through a consumer transaction,
whether SPT has any suffered actual damages as a result thereof and, if so, the dollar
amount of such actual damages;
uuuuuu) Whether Celler used the SHARK TANK mark, logo, and trade dress in in
connection with promoting Shark Tour;
vvvvvv) Whether Celler’s marketing of Shark Tour led consumers to believe that Celler’s
goods and services are in some manner sponsored by, affiliated with, or authorized by SPT,
SPT’s business, and/or SPT’s goods and services; and
wwwwww) Whether Celler’s conduct was willful and intentional;
Disputed Facts that SPT intends to litigate at trial
a. SPT produces television shows.
b. Daymond John, Robert Herjavec, Barbara Corcoran, and Kevin Harrington appear
or appeared from time to time on the SPT-produced television show Shark Tank that has aired on
ABC television since 2009;
c. Daymond John, Barbara Corcoran, Robert Herjavec and Kevin Harrington
(collectively, the “Sharks”) are (John, Corcoran and Herjavec) or were (Harrington) entrepreneur
cast members of the Shark Tank show;
d. The Celler Parties developed a website, at the domain name sharktour2013.com,
which was to be a promotional tool and an outlet through which tickets would be sold for Shark
Tour;
Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 28 of 51
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER
Page 29 of 51
e. The Celler Parties cancelled the Shark Tour in 2013, and never sold any tickets;
f. SPT’s Shark Tank show features business pitches from aspiring entrepreneurs to a
panel of potential investors who are called the “Sharks” on the show;
g. SPT filed an intent-to-use trademark application for SHARK TANK in the United
States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) on September 18, 2008 under Section 1(b) of the
Lanham Act;
h. In response to inquiry by the PTO, SPT stated that the SHARK TANK mark had no
significance in the relevant trade or industry or as applied to entertainment services in the nature of
an ongoing reality television series, nor did it have any geographical significance;
i. SPT was granted a federal trademark registration for the standard character
SHARK TANK word mark on November 24, 2009 (reg. no. 3716584) for use in connection with
entertainment services in the nature of an ongoing reality television series, involving presentation
of business concepts in International Class 41; The SHARK TANK mark is used by the American
Broadcasting Company (“ABC”) through its televising of the Shark Tank television show and its
production and display of a website, located on the Internet at abc.go.com/shows/shark-tank,
promoting the television show. SPT also promotes and advertises the Shark Tank show through a
variety of means;
j. Celler is in no way affiliated with the Shark Tank show, SPT or ABC;
k. The Shark Tour was scheduled to take place on November 2, 2013 at the Orange
County Convention Center in Orlando, Florida – which was the only date and venue ever booked
for the Shark Tour;
Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 29 of 51
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER
Page 30 of 51
l. Daymond John, Barbara Corcoran, Robert Herjavec and Kevin Harrington
(collectively, the “Sharks”) are (John, Corcoran and Herjavec) or were (Harrington)
entrepreneurs and investor cast members of the Shark Tank show;
m. Bobbie Celler was aware of SPT’s Shark Tank show prior to Celler’s creation and
marketing of the Shark Tour mark and event;
n. The Shark Tour website was launched on or about July 16, 2013;
o. On July 3, 2013, The Celler Organization submitted a trademark application for
registration of SHARK TOUR (serial no. 86001456) seeking to register SHARK TOUR in
standard characters for use in connection with the following services: Arranging, organizing,
conducting, and hosting social entertainment events; Education services, namely, providing live
and on-line classes, courses, seminars, videos, special events and workshops in the field of
business and entrepreneurship in International Class 41;
p. On August 2, 2013, counsel for SPT sent a letter to Bobbie Celler and The Celler
Organization demanding that they cease from using, and take down from the Shark Tour website
any of SPT’s intellectual property and that they withdraw the application for registration of
SHARK TOUR;
q. The Celler Parties have not conducted, hosted or presented any event under the
SHARK TOUR mark;
r. The Celler Parties intended to conduct, host and present a live exposition or touring
event featuring the presentation of business concepts to some of the Sharks from the Shark Tank
show;
s. Neither SPT nor ABC has yet conducted, hosted or presented a live exposition or
touring version of the Shark Tank show;
Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 30 of 51
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER
Page 31 of 51
t. SPT intends to conduct, host and present a live exposition or touring version of the
Shark Tank show; and
u. Celler has not produced and distributed an ongoing reality television series.
v. Whether SPT produces and distributes television shows;
w. Whether SPT is the producer and owner of the television show Shark Tank,
featured on ABC;
x. Whether Shark Tank premiered on ABC in August 2009, and is now in its fifth
season on ABC, running consistently during ABC’s prime time television programing schedule;
y. The extent to which Shark Tank has been advertised and promoted since it
premiered five (5) years ago;
z. Whether SPT has been using the SHARK TANK trademark continuously since
August 2009 in the field of entertainment services involving the presentation and valuation of
business concepts;
aa. Whether, as of 2012, the Shark Tank show averaged seven million viewers an
episode, and was the most watched program on Friday nights in the 18-49 year old demographic;
bb. Whether the Shark Tank show averaged over eight million viewers an episode in
2013;
cc. Whether, in 2012 and 2013, Shark Tank received Emmy nominations for
Outstanding Reality Program, in 2012 received a nomination for a Critics’ Choice Television
Award for Best Reality Series, and in 2013, received a nomination for a Producers Guild Award;
dd. Whether the official Shark Tank show website, located at
abc.go.com/shows/shark-tank (“Shark Tank Website”), featured during the relevant time period a
distinctive trade dress, or “look and feel,” that included, among other things, a blue and black color
Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 31 of 51
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER
Page 32 of 51
theme with varying shades of blue, the words SHARK TANK written in all-capital letters on the
upper left-hand portion of the screen and presented in blue and black, menu options presented
horizontally across the top of the screen in gray, the SHARK TANK Logo (the SHARK TANK
mark written in all capital letters with teeth marks in the “K” of “TANK”), a depiction of the
characters in the show immediately below the masthead, a depiction of water in the background of
the page, and a depiction of circling sharks;
ee. Whether elements of SPT’s trade dress appear on the Shark Tank show, and in
advertisements and promotional materials for the show;
ff. Whether television commercials for the Shark Tank show depict sharks swimming
in dark blue water, circling around the Shark Tank Logo;
gg. Whether, as a result of SPT’s nearly five years of continuous use and exhibition of
its SHARK TANK mark, Logo, and trade dress, SPT has acquired substantial goodwill, and the
SHARK TANK mark, Logo, and Shark Tank trade dress have become clearly associated with
SPT’s hit show;
hh. Whether, through its adoption and prior use in interstate commerce, SPT owns
common law trademark and trade dress rights throughout the United States in connection with the
Shark Tank show;
ii. Whether the Shark Tank Logo and trade dress have been displayed throughout the
United States via numerous media outlets;
jj. The audience for SPT’s services relating to Shark Tank;
kk. The strength and fame of SPT’s SHARK TANK trademark, Logo, and trade dress;
ll. Whether the Shark Tank Logo and trade dress are well known and have come to be
associated exclusively with SPT’s Shark Tank show;
Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 32 of 51
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER
Page 33 of 51
mm. Whether SPT’s SHARK TANK mark, Logo, and trade dress have acquired
secondary meaning among the consuming public;
nn. Whether the Shark Tank Logo and trade dress are non-functional;
oo. Whether SPT’s SHARK TANK mark, Logo, and trade dress are distinctive;
pp. Whether the Shark Tank Logo and trade dress were distinctive before Celler began
offering its goods and services for Shark Tour for sale;
qq. Whether Celler used SPT’s SHARK TANK mark, Logo, and trade dress, and also ABC’s
trademark and/or logo, in the advertisement, marketing, sale, and offering for sale of goods and
services in connection with Shark Tour;
rr. Whether Celler is using/has used a mark that infringes upon SPT’s registered SHARK
TANK trademark by using the trademark in connection with the sale or offer to sell goods or
services; using the trademark in commerce; and, using the trademark in a manner that is likely to:
cause confusion, mistake, or deception as to the source, origin, affiliation, approval, or
sponsorship of Celler’s goods or services;
ss. Whether, in determining the significance of third-party uses, courts must consider
the entire name a third-party uses, as well as the kind of business in which the user is engaged;
tt. Whether trade dress protection is appropriate to protect websites;
uu. Whether SPT’s SHARK TANK trademark, Logo, and Trade Dress are famous and
distinctive, either inherently or through acquired distinctiveness;
vv. Whether Celler’s use of its purported Shark Tour trademark and trade dress began after
SPT’s SHARK TANK trademark, Logo, and Trade Dress became famous;
ww. Whether Celler’s use of its purported Shark Tour trademark and trade dress is likely to
cause dilution by blurring and/or dilution by tarnishment of SPT’s famous SHARK TANK
Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 33 of 51
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER
Page 34 of 51
trademark, Logo, and Trade Dress;
xx. Whether Celler’s purported Shark Tour trademark and trade dress was first used
after October 6, 2006;
yy. Whether Celler made changes to the Shark Tour website in response to SPT’s
August 2, 2013 demand letter;
zz. Whether Celler used SPT’s SHARK TANK mark, Logo, and/or trade dress without
SPT’s authorization;
aaa. Whether Celler either had actual notice and knowledge and/or had constructive
notice, of SPT’s ownership and registration of the SHARK TANK mark, as well as the SHARK
TANK Logo, and trade dress, prior to Celler’s adoption and use of SPT’s SHARK TANK mark,
Logo, and trade dress in promoting its Shark Tour;
bbb. Whether Celler’s use of Shark Tour, the SHARK TANK trademark, SHARK
TANK Logo and ABC logo, the Sharks, and the putative trade dress of Celler’s promotional
materials create a likelihood of confusion with SPT’s SHARK TANK trademark, Logo, and trade
dress;
ccc. Whether Celler’s promotional materials suggest to consumers that Celler’s goods
and services are in some manner connected with, sponsored by, affiliated with, or related to SPT,
SPT’s business, and/or SPT’s goods and services;
ddd. Whether Celler’s conduct in using SPT’s SHARK TANK mark, Logo, and trade
dress was willful and intentional;
eee. Whether Celler’s intent to copy the SHARK TANK mark, Logo, and trade dress
creates a presumption of likelihood of confusion;
Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 34 of 51
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER
Page 35 of 51
fff. Whether Celler’s use of SPT’s SHARK TANK mark, Logo, and trade dress, and
his additional and unauthorized use of ABC’s trademark and logo, are likely to cause confusion or
to deceive customers as to the affiliation, association or connection of Celler’s Shark Tour with
SPT’s Shark Tank; and
ggg. Whether Celler’s use of SPT’s SHARK TANK mark, Logo, and trade dress, unless
enjoined, threatens to dilute, blur, or tarnish the distinctive quality of SPT’s SHARK TANK mark,
Logo, and trade dress;
hhh. Whether Shark Tour is a logical expansion of SPT’s trademark rights given that
“tour” is frequently used by other entertainment properties and has been considered by SPT to
describe live tours following on the heels of successful television and other entertainment shows
(e.g. “Idol Tour” to describe the live tour promoting the valuable American Idol trademark and
television show);
iii. Whether Plaintiffs’ continued use of their proposed Shark Tour trademark and
other infringing trade dress threatens to confuse the public about the origin or source of the Shark
Tour, dilute SPT’s valuable intellectual property and should be enjoined to prevent irreparable
harm;
jjj. Whether SPT has proved and can recover any damages on any of the state or federal
Counterclaims;
kkk. Whether SPT intentionally and without justification interfered with any of
Plaintiffs’ contracts relating to their proposed Shark Tour event;
lll. Whether SPT’s communications relating to Plaintiffs and their Shark Tour event
were at least in part privileged attempts to protect SPT’s property and financial interests;
Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 35 of 51
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER
Page 36 of 51
mmm. Whether SPT’s alleged conduct proximately caused any legally cognizable injury
to Plaintiffs, or any of them;
nnn. Whether Plaintiffs can prove any alleged damages to a reasonable certainty and, if
so, what damages can it prove; and
ooo. Whether the Celler Parties acted in a manner in relation to SPT’s intellectual
property that they should be barred from pursuing their tortious interference claim based on the
doctrine of unclean hands.
6. CONCISE STATEMENT OF ISSUES OF LAW ON WHICH THERE IS
AGREEMENT
a. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court;
b. Plaintiffs’ Tortious Interference claim is governed by Florida law;
c. Defendant’s First, Second, and Third Counterclaims are governed by Federal law;
d. Defendant’s Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Counterclaims are governed by Florida law;
e. Trademarks are classified into four categories: (1) generic marks, which suggest the
basic nature of the product or service; (2) descriptive marks, which identify a characteristic or
quality of the product or service; (3) suggestive marks, which suggest characteristics of the product
or service and require an effort of the imagination by the consumer in order to be understood as
descriptive; and (4) arbitrary or fanciful marks, which bear no relationship to the product or service
and, thus, are the strongest category of trademarks. Gift of Learning Foundation, Inc. v. TGC,
Inc., 329 F.3d 792, 798-99 (11th Cir. 2003);
f. A trademark must be used in United States commerce to be within the purview of
the Lanham Act. 15 U.S.C. §1051(a)-(c), §1053;
Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 36 of 51
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER
Page 37 of 51
g. A trademark must be registered to be enforceable under Section 32(1) of the
Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1114(1);
h. A trademark is “famous” if it is widely recognized by the general consuming public
of the United States as the designation of the source of the goods or services of the mark’s owner.
15 U.S.C. §1125(c)(2);
i. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1057(f), copies of any records, books, papers, or drawings
belonging to the United States Patent and Trademark Office relating to marks, and copies of
registrations, when authenticated by the seal of the United States Patent and Trademark Office and
certified by the Director, or in his name by an employee of the Office duly designated by the
Director, shall be evidence in all cases wherein the originals would be evidence;
j. A claim under 15 U.S.C. §1114 requires a USPTO registration of the mark that the
claimant is seeking to enforce;
k. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1127, the term “mark” includes any trademark, service
mark, collective mark, or certification mark; and
l. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1127, the term “use in commerce” means the bona fide use
of a mark in the ordinary course of trade, and not made merely to reserve a right in a mark, and a
mark shall be deemed to be in use in commerce on services when it is used or displayed in the sale
or advertising of services and the services are rendered in commerce, or the services are rendered
in more than one State or in the United States and a foreign country and the person rendering the
services is engaged in commerce in connection with the services.
Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 37 of 51
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER
Page 38 of 51
7. CONCISE STATEMENT OF ISSUES OF LAW WHICH REMAIN FOR
DETERMINATION BY THE COURT
Issues of law that SPT Believes Remain to be Determined by the Court
ppp. A federal registration means that the trademark is at least descriptive with
secondary meaning;
qqq. The challenger of a federally registered mark has the burden of proving by a
preponderance of the evidence that the trademark is invalid because it was descriptive but lacked
secondary meaning before it began using its mark;
rrr. A trademark must be used in United States commerce to be within the purview of
the Lanham Act. 15 U.S.C. §1051(a)-(c), §1053;
sss. A trademark must be registered to be enforceable under Section 32(1) of the
Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1114(1);
ttt. A trademark that is not federally registered, including trade dress, is protectable
under 15 U.S.C. §1125(a);
uuu. To prevail on a claim for likely dilution of a trademark under federal law, the
trademark owner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that its trademark was “famous”
at the time of the defendant's first use of its trademark. 15 U.S.C. §1125(c);
vvv. A claimed trademark is “famous” if it is widely recognized by the general
consuming public of the United States as the designation of the source of the owner's goods or
services. 15 U.S.C. §1125(c);
www. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1057(b), a certificate of registration of a mark upon the
Principal Register is, at least, prima facie evidence, of the validity of the registered mark and of the
registration of the mark, of the owner’s ownership of the mark, and of the owner’s exclusive right
to use the registered mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services specified in
Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 38 of 51
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER
Page 39 of 51
the certificate, subject to any conditions or limitations stated in the certificate. The effective date
of this presumption is the application's filing date. See Trademark Law Revision Act of 1988,
Pub. L. 100-667, § 128(b)(1), 102 Stat. 3944;
xxx. Where a trademark is registered on the Principal Register, the public is deemed to
have knowledge of the registration and of the rights claimed in the registration, or “constructive
notice.” As such, a challenging party cannot claim that it adopted its trademark without
knowledge of registered trademark. Nationwide constructive notice of rights dates back to the
filing date of the application. 15 U.S.C. § 1072 (2006);
yyy. The rights of the owner of a registered trademark are not limited to protection with
respect to the specific goods and services stated on the certificate, but extend to any goods or
services related in the minds of consumers in the sense that a single producer is likely to put out
both goods and services. E. Remy Martin & Co., S.A. v. Shaw-Ross International Imports, Inc.,
756 F.2d 1525, 1530 (11th Cir. 1985) (“the rights of the owner of a registered trademark are not
limited to protection with respect to the specific goods stated on the certificate -- for Remy Martin,
cognac and brandy -- but extend to any goods related in the minds of consumers in the sense that a
single producer is likely to put out both goods.”);
zzz. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1057(f), copies of any records, books, papers, or drawings
belonging to the United States Patent and Trademark Office relating to marks, and copies of
registrations, when authenticated by the seal of the United States Patent and Trademark Office and
certified by the Director, or in his name by an employee of the Office duly designated by the
Director, shall be evidence in all cases wherein the originals would be evidence;
aaaa. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1111, a registrant who has not given notice of registration
by displaying with the mark the words "Registered in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office" or "Reg.
Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 39 of 51
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER
Page 40 of 51
U.S. Pat. & Tm. Off." or the letter R enclosed within a circle (“®”) may nonetheless obtain an
injunction against infringing uses of its registered trademark; it can also recover profits and
damages if the defendant had actual notice of the registration;
bbbb. A claim under 15 U.S.C. §1114 requires a USPTO registration of the mark that the
claimant is seeking to enforce;
cccc. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1125(a)(3), for trade dress not registered on the Principal
Register, the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter
sought to be protected is not functional;
dddd. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1127, the term “mark” includes any trademark, service
mark, collective mark, or certification mark;
eeee. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1127, the term “use in commerce” means the bona fide use
of a mark in the ordinary course of trade, and not made merely to reserve a right in a mark, and a
mark shall be deemed to be in use in commerce on services when it is used or displayed in the sale
or advertising of services and the services are rendered in commerce, or the services are rendered
in more than one State or in the United States and a foreign country and the person rendering the
services is engaged in commerce in connection with the services;
ffff. Under Florida law, trademark infringement and unfair competition are unfair and
deceptive trade practices which violate Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
PepsiCo, Inc. v. Distribuidora La Matagalpa, Inc., 510 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1114 (S.D. Fla. 2007);
gggg. Whether Plaintiffs can prove their Tortious Interference claim by a preponderance
of the evidence;
hhhh. Whether Plaintiffs can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that SPT
intentionally interfered with Plaintiffs’ business/contractual relationships with the Sharks by
Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 40 of 51
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER
Page 41 of 51
inducing or otherwise causing the Sharks not to continue doing business with Celler and to
terminate their written contacts with Celler;
iiii. If Plaintiffs can prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that SPT interfered with
Plaintiffs’ business/contractual relationships with the Sharks, whether, Plaintiffs can prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that such interference was: (a) improper; (b) not justified; (c)
intentional; and (d) the proximate cause of any damages incurred by Plaintiffs;
jjjj. Whether Plaintiffs can prove the amount of their purported damages with a
reasonable certainty;
kkkk. Whether Plaintiffs’ Tortious Interference claim is barred by the doctrine of unclean
hands;
llll. Whether each of The Celler Parties may be held liable on SPT’s Counterclaims;
mmmm. Whether SPT can prove its Federal Trademark Infringement claim by a
preponderance of the evidence;
nnnn. Whether SPT can prove its Federal False Designation of Origin and Unfair
Competition claim by a preponderance of the evidence;
oooo. Whether SPT can prove its Federal Trademark Dilution by a preponderance of the
evidence;
pppp. Whether SPT can prove its Florida Trademark Dilution claim by a preponderance
of the evidence;
qqqq. Whether the Florida anti-dilution statute, Fla. Stat. §495.151, applies to the use of a
similar mark on similar goods;
rrrr. Whether SPT can prove its Florida Unfair Competition claim under Florida’s
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act by a preponderance of the evidence;
Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 41 of 51
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER
Page 42 of 51
ssss. Whether a private right of action for damages under the Florida’s Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act can be maintained regardless of whether the alleged unfair or deceptive
acts or practices complained of involve a consumer transaction;
tttt. Whether SPT can prove its Florida Common Law Infringement and Unfair
Competition claim by a preponderance of the evidence;
uuuu. To the extent Celler is liable on SPT’s Federal Trademark Infringement claim,
whether SPT is entitled to permanent injunctive relief or damages;
vvvv. To the extent Celler is liable on SPT’s Federal False Designation of Origin and
Unfair Competition claim, whether SPT is entitled to permanent injunctive relief or damages;
wwww. To the extent Celler is liable on SPT’s Federal Trademark Dilution claim,
whether SPT is entitled to permanent injunctive relief or damages;
xxxx. To the extent Celler is liable on SPT’s Florida Trademark Dilution claim, whether
SPT is entitled to permanent injunctive relief or damages;
yyyy. To the extent Celler is liable on SPT’s Florida Unfair Competition claim under
Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, whether Celler caused SPT to sustain actual
damages;
zzzz. To the extent Celler is liable on SPT’s Common Law Infringement and Unfair
Competition claim, whether SPT is entitled to permanent injunctive relief or damages;
aaaaa. Whether this is an exceptional case under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117; and
bbbbb. Whether the prevailing party on each of Defendant’s First, Second, Third, Fourth
and Fifth Counterclaims is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees, to be determined by the Court
post-trial, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117 and Fla. Stat. §§ 501.2105 and 501.211, respectively.
Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 42 of 51
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER
Page 43 of 51
Issues of law that the Celler Parties Believe Remain to be Determined by the Court
a. Whether Plaintiffs can prove their Tortious Interference claim by a preponderance
of the evidence;
b. If Plaintiffs can prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that SPT interfered with
Plaintiffs’ business/contractual relationships with the Sharks, whether, Defendants can prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that such interference was: (a) proper; and (b) justified;
c. Whether Plaintiffs can prove the amount of their purported damages with a
reasonable certainty;
d. Whether Sony can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Plaintiffs’
Tortious Interference claim is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands;
e. Whether Sony can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it had a privilege
to interfere with Celler’s contracts with the Shark celebrities;
f. A trademark that is not federally registered, including trade dress, is protectable
under 15 U.S.C. §1125(a);
g. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1057(b), a certificate of registration of a mark upon the
Principal Register is prima facie evidence, of the validity of the registered mark and of the
registration of the mark, of the owner’s ownership of the mark, and of the owner’s exclusive right
to use the registered mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services specified in
the certificate, subject to any conditions or limitations stated in the certificate. The effective date
of this presumption is the application's filing date. See Trademark Law Revision Act of 1988,
Pub. L. 100-667, § 128(b)(1), 102 Stat. 3944;
Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 43 of 51
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER
Page 44 of 51
h. To prevail on a claim for likely dilution of a trademark under federal law, the
trademark owner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that its trademark was “famous”
at the time of the defendant's first use of its trademark. 15 U.S.C. §1125(c);
i. Whether each of The Celler Parties may be held liable on SPT’s Counterclaims;
j. Whether SPT can prove its Federal Trademark Infringement claim by a
preponderance of the evidence;
h. Whether trade dress in a website is subject to protection under the Lanham Act
without a showing of secondary meaning among consumers;
k. A federal registration means that the trademark is at least descriptive with
secondary meaning;
l. The challenger of a federally registered mark has the burden of proving by a
preponderance of the evidence that the trademark is invalid because it was descriptive but lacked
secondary meaning before it began using its mark;
m. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1062, upon the filing of an application for registration and
payment of the prescribed fee, the Director shall refer the application to the examiner in charge of
the registration of marks, who shall cause an examination to be made and, if on such examination it
shall appear that the applicant is entitled to registration, or would be entitled to registration upon
the acceptance of the statement of use required by section 1051(d) of this title, the Director shall
cause the mark to be published in the Official Gazette of the Patent and Trademark Office;
n. Where a trademark is registered on the Principal Register, the public is deemed to
have knowledge of the registration and of the rights claimed in the registration, or “constructive
notice.” As such, a challenging party cannot claim that it adopted its trademark without
Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 44 of 51
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER
Page 45 of 51
knowledge of registered trademark. Nationwide constructive notice of rights dates back to the
filing date of the application. 15 U.S.C. § 1072 (2006);
o. The rights of the owner of a registered trademark are not limited to protection with
respect to the specific goods and services stated on the certificate, but extend to any goods or
services related in the minds of consumers in the sense that a single producer is likely to put out
both goods and services. E. Remy Martin & Co., S.A. v. Shaw-Ross International Imports, Inc.,
756 F.2d 1525, 1530 (11th Cir. 1985) (“the rights of the owner of a registered trademark are not
limited to protection with respect to the specific goods stated on the certificate -- for Remy Martin,
cognac and brandy -- but extend to any goods related in the minds of consumers in the sense that a
single producer is likely to put out both goods.”);
p. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1111, in any suit for infringement by a registrant who has
failed to give notice of registration by displaying with the mark the words "Registered in U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office" or "Reg. U.S. Pat. & Tm. Off." or the letter R enclosed within a
circle, thus ®, no profits and no damages shall be recovered under the provisions of this chapter
unless the defendant had actual notice of the registration;
q. Whether SPT can prove its Federal False Designation of Origin and Unfair
Competition claim by a preponderance of the evidence;
r. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1125(a)(3), for trade dress not registered on thePrincipal
Register, the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter
sought to be protected is not functional;
s. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1125(c)(4)(B), in an action for trade dress dilution, where
the trade dress is not registered with the USPTO but incorporates a mark that is registered on the
USPTO’s Principal Register, the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of
Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 45 of 51
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER
Page 46 of 51
proving that, the unregistered matter, taken as a whole, is famous separate and apart from any fame
of such registered marks.
t. Under Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125(c), any fair use, including
nominative or descriptive fair use, or facilitation of such fair use, of a famous mark by another
person other than as a designation of source for the person’s own goods or services, is not
actionable as dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment;
u. The Florida anti-dilution statute, Fla. Stat. §495.151, does not apply to the use of a
similar mark on similar goods. Monsanto Co. v. Campuzano, 206 F.Supp.2d 1270 (S.D. Fla.
2002);
v. A private right of action for damages under the Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act cannot be maintained unless the alleged unfair or deceptive acts or practices
complained of involves a consumer transaction. Hermosilla v. Octoscope Music, LLC, 2010 WL
5059559 *4 (S.D. Fla., Dec. 6, 2010); Monsanto Co. v. Campuzano, 206 F. Supp. 2d 1239, 1251
(S.D. Fla. 2002);
w. Whether SPT can prove its Federal Trademark Dilution by a preponderance of the
evidence;
x. Whether SPT can prove its Florida Trademark Dilution claim by a preponderance
of the evidence;
y. Whether the Florida anti-dilution statute, Fla. Stat. §495.151, applies to the use of a
similar mark on similar goods;
z. Whether SPT can prove its Florida Unfair Competition claim under Florida’s
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act by a preponderance of the evidence;
Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 46 of 51
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER
Page 47 of 51
aa. Whether a private right of action for damages under the Florida’s Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act can be maintained regardless of whether the alleged unfair or deceptive
acts or practices complained of involve a consumer transaction;
bb. Whether SPT can prove its Florida Common Law Infringement and Unfair
Competition claim by a preponderance of the evidence;
cc. To the extent Celler is liable on SPT’s Federal Trademark Infringement claim,
whether SPT is entitled to permanent injunctive relief or damages;
dd. To the extent Celler is liable on SPT’s Federal False Designation of Origin and
Unfair Competition claim, whether SPT is entitled to permanent injunctive relief or damages;
ee. To the extent Celler is liable on SPT’s Federal Trademark Dilution claim, whether
SPT is entitled to permanent injunctive relief or damages;
ff. To the extent Celler is liable on SPT’s Florida Trademark Dilution claim, whether
SPT is entitled to permanent injunctive relief or damages;
gg. To the extent Celler is liable on SPT’s Florida Unfair Competition claim under
Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, whether Celler caused SPT to sustain actual
damages;
hh. To the extent Celler is liable on SPT’s Common Law Infringement and Unfair
Competition claim, whether SPT is entitled to permanent injunctive relief or damages;
ii. Whether this is an exceptional case under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117; and
jj. Whether the prevailing party on each of Defendant’s First, Second, Third, Fourth
and Fifth Counterclaims is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees, to be determined by the Court
post-trial, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117 and Fla. Stat. §§ 501.2105 and 501.211, respectively;
Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 47 of 51
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER
Page 48 of 51
kk. Whether SPT’s Counterclaim is properly pled under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure; and
ll. Whether SPT’s Counterclaim fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.
8. TRIAL EXHIBITS
Defendant’s Trial Exhibit List, with Plaintiffs’ objections, is attached hereto as Composite
Exhibit “A”. Plaintiffs’ Trial Exhibit List, with Defendant’s objections, is attached hereto as
Composite Exhibit “B”.
9. TRIAL WITNESSES
Plaintiffs’ Trial Witness List is attached hereto as Exhibit “C”. Defendant’s Trial
Witness List is attached hereto as Exhibit “D”.
10. ESTIMATED TIME FOR TRIAL
The Parties estimate 4-5 days for trial.
11. ATTORNEYS’ FEES
Attorneys’ fees are not recoverable on Plaintiffs’ Tortious Interference claim. With
respect to Defendant’s Trademark Infringement (First Counterclaim), False Designation of
Unknown Origin and Unfair Competition Under Federal Law (Second Counterclaim), and
Trademark Dilution Under Federal Law (Third Counterclaim) claims, the Court may award
reasonable attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party “in exceptional cases” pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §
1117. Similarly, with respect to Defendant’s Dilution Under State Law claim (Fourth
Counterclaim), the Court may award reasonable attorneys’ fee to the prevailing party “according
to the circumstances of the case.” Further, with respect to Defendant’s Unfair Competition Under
State Law claim (Fifth Counterclaim), the Court may award reasonable attorneys’ fees to the
Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 48 of 51
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER
Page 49 of 51
prevailing party pursuant to Fla. Stat. §§ 495.141 and 501.2105/501.211. The parties will brief
the issue of entitlement to attorneys’ fees for the Court post-trial.
Dated: April 7, 2014
Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 49 of 51
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER
Page 50 of 51
Respectfully submitted,
BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY,
P.C./ FOWLER WHITE BOGGS, P.A.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants
1200 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Tel: (954) 703-3900
Fax: (954) 270-3939
/s/ Jesse H. Diner
JESSE H. DINER
Florida Bar No.
E-mail: [email protected]
KIMBERLY GESSNER
Florida Bar No.
JOSE FLOREZ
Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
FELDMAN GALE, P.A.
James Anthony Gale
Susan Joy Latham
One Biscayne Tower
2 South Biscayne Blvd., 30th Floor
Miami, FL 33131-2148
Telephone: (305) 358-5001
Facsimile: (305) 358-3309
Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
Attorneys for Defendant/Counter-Claimant
401 East Las Olas Boulevard
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 765-0500
Facsimile: (954) 765-1477
/s/ Glenn E. Goldstein
GLENN E. GOLDSTEIN
Florida Bar No. 435260
E-mail: [email protected]
KRISTINA L. CIAFFI
Florida Bar No. 0040596
E-mail: [email protected]
IAN M. ROSS
Florida Bar No. 091214
E-mail: [email protected]
333 Avenue of the Americas
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 579-0500
Facsimile: (305) 579-0717
JEFF E. SCOTT
(admitted pro hac vice)
E-mail: [email protected]
1840 Century Park East
Suite 1900
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 586-7700
Facsimile: (310) 586-7800
Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 50 of 51
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER
Page 51 of 51
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 7th day of April, 2014, I electronically filed the
foregoing document with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing
document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the attached Service List in
the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by
CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to
receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.
/s/ Ian M. Ross
IAN M. ROSS
SERVICE LIST
Jesse H. Diner, Esq.
Kimberly Gessner
FOWLER WHITE BOGGS, P.A.
1200 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Tel: (954) 703-3900
Fax: (954) 270-3939
Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
James Anthony Gale
Susan Joy Latham
FELDMAN GALE, P.A.
One Biscayne Tower
2 South Biscayne Blvd., 30th Floor
Miami, FL 33131-2148
Telephone: (305) 358-5001
Facsimile: (305) 358-3309
Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 51 of 51