Shashi v. Tsipilates
-
Upload
naim-islam -
Category
Documents
-
view
234 -
download
0
Transcript of Shashi v. Tsipilates
-
7/28/2019 Shashi v. Tsipilates
1/21
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.
SHASHI, LLC,a Florida )
limited liability company, ))
Plaintiff, ))
vs. ))
TSIPILATES, LLC, a Florida )limited liability company, )
))
Defendant. )___________________________________)
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Shashi, LLC (Plaintiff), hereby files it
Complaint against Defendant, Tsipilates, LLC (Defendant) and
alleges as follows:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.
This is an action for injunctive and other relief under
the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. 101, et seq., for
design patent infringement. This is also an action for injunctive
and other relief under the Federal Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. 1051,
et seq. (Lanham Act), particularly 15 U.S.C. 1114 and 1125(a),
for trade dress infringement, trademark infringement, false
designation of origin, false description or representation, and
unfair competition. Plaintiff also asserts claims in accordance
with common law rights, Fla. Stat. 495.161, for trade dress
infringement, trademark infringement and unfair competition and for
violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act,
-
7/28/2019 Shashi v. Tsipilates
2/21
2
Fla. Stat. 501. 201, et seq.
2. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to28 U.S.C. 1331, 1338(a) and 1338(b). This Court also has
jurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1121 and the doctrine of
supplemental jurisdiction, as set forth in 28 U.S.C. 1367.
3. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and 1391(c) inthat Defendant resides in the Southern District of Florida and/or
the wrongful acts committed by Defendant occurred in and originated
from the Southern District of Florida, and a substantial part of
the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred therein,
or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the
action is situated therein.
4. Upon information and belief, jurisdiction is proper inthat:
a. Defendant has operated, conducted, engaged in, or
carried on a business venture in this State, and the
Southern District of Florida, from which this action
arises, within the meaning of Fla. Stat. 48.193(1)(a);
or
b. Defendant has committed tortious acts within this
State, and the Southern District of Florida, includingthe infringement set forth herein, within the meaning of
Fla. Stat. 48.193(1)(b); or
c. Defendant has engaged in substantial and not isolated
-
7/28/2019 Shashi v. Tsipilates
3/21
3
activity within this state, and the Southern District of
Florida, within the meaning of Fla. Stat. 48.193(2).
THE PARTIES
5. Plaintiff is a limited liability corporation organizedand existing under the laws of the State of Florida, and having an
address at 6926 Royal Orchid Circle, Delray Beach, Florida 33446.
6. Upon information and belief, Defendant is a limitedliability company organized and existing under the laws of Florida
with an address of 571 Stonemont Drive, Weston, Florida 33326.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
7. Since approximately November, 2010, Plaintiff has been inthe business of designing, causing to be manufactured, marketing,
promoting, offering for sale, distributing and selling fitness
apparel, namely a proprietary line of fitness socks that are
particularly suited for use during Pilates, yoga, and barre
workouts sold under the registered trademark SHASHI.
8. The SHASHI socks have a unique mesh top panel and anovel arrangement of slip-resistant grip dots on the bottom of the
sock.
9. Plaintiff has invested considerable time, creativeeffort, and resources to create its exclusive and innovative socks,
and develop goodwill in the SHASHI mark.
PLAINTIFFS PATENT AND TRADE DRESS RIGHTS
10. Plaintiff is the owner of U.S. Design Patent No. D664,349
-
7/28/2019 Shashi v. Tsipilates
4/21
4
(the 349 Patent) which was duly and lawfully issued on or about
July 31, 2012, for the ornamental design for its innovative sock,
as shown and described therein (the patented design). See Exhibit
A hereto.
11. Plaintiffs unique patented design and appearance in andof the SHASHI socks is recognizable as the style and work and
trade dress of Plaintiff. Plaintiffs trade dress consists of an
overall look or commercial impression resulting from the arbitrary
selection and combination of certain non-functional features,
namely a sock that: (1) covers the toe, sides and bottom of the
foot; (2) has an ankle length; (3) has a cut-out disposed along the
top of the sock or foot along which a mesh panel which is secured
that rises slightly onto the ankle; (4) has a non-slip pattern
along the bottom surface or sole of the sock; and (5) has a logo
element on the upper elastic potion of the sock (all collectively
hereafter Plaintiffs Product Trade Dress). Examples of
Plaintiffs Product Trade Dress are shown in Exhibit B.
12. Plaintiff also has acquired trade dress rights in and toits distinctive packaging of its SHASHI socks which consists of an
overall look or commercial impression resulting from the arbitrary
selection and combination of certain non-functional features,namely: (1) a see-thru mesh bag; (2) with a decorative horizontal
ribbon in the upper portion of the bag; and (3) a header card
attached to the top of the mesh bag (all collectively hereafter
-
7/28/2019 Shashi v. Tsipilates
5/21
5
Plaintiffs Packaging Trade Dress). Examples of Plaintiffs
Packaging Trade Dress are shown in Exhibit C.
13. Prior to the acts of Defendant complained of herein,Plaintiff adopted and used in commerce its distinctive Product and
Packaging Trade Dress for its SHASHI socks. Such use has been
continuous since its inception.
14. Since prior to the infringing acts of Defendantcomplained of herein, Plaintiff has achieved significant commercial
success and substantial sales, advertising, and promotion of its
socks utilizing Plaintiffs Product and Packaging Trade Dress,
throughout the State of Florida and the United States, including
the Southern District of Florida.
15. By virtue of their unique style and continuous andwidespread use, and since prior to the infringing acts of Defendant
complained of herein, Plaintiffs Product and Packaging Trade Dress
has developed a secondary meaning and significance, and have been
readily recognizable by the public and the trade as identifying
Plaintiff as the exclusive source and distinguishing Plaintiffs
goods and packaging from the goods and packaging of others.
PLAINTIFFS TRADEMARK RIGHTS
16.Since long prior to the acts of Defendant complained of
herein, Plaintiff adopted and used the inherently distinctive
designation and trademark SHASHI for use in connection with socks
(Plaintiffs SHASHI Mark).
-
7/28/2019 Shashi v. Tsipilates
6/21
6
17. Since its adoption, Plaintiff has continuously used itsSHASHI Mark in interstate commerce for and in connection with such
goods and has not abandoned this mark.
18. Plaintiff has obtained U.S. Trademark Registration No.4,256,950 for its SHASHI Mark for use in connection with socks
in International Class 025 (Plaintiffs SHASHI Registration).
See Exhibit D hereto.
19. Since long prior to the acts of Defendant complained ofherein, Plaintiff has expended much money, time, and effort in
advertising, promoting, and marketing the goods sold under the
SHASHI Mark.
20. Since long prior to the acts of Defendant complained ofherein, the Plaintiffs SHASHI Mark has been readily recognizable
by the public as associated exclusively with Plaintiff and has
achieved a secondary meaning to the consuming public.
21. The Plaintiffs SHASHI Mark has been in continuous usein U.S. commerce since its adoption and first use in the U.S.
commerce.
DEFENDANTS INFRINGING ACTIVITY
22. Defendant was a regular customer of Plaintiff, who hadpurchased hundreds of pairs of SHASHI socks from Plaintiff
embodying the patented design, Plaintiffs Product Trade Dress, and
Plaintiffs Packaging Trade Dress, at both the retail and wholesale
level from December, 2010 through February, 2013.
-
7/28/2019 Shashi v. Tsipilates
7/21
7
23. After it began purchasing SHASHI socks from Plaintiff,upon information and belief, Defendant began manufacturing,
marketing, and selling competing and infringing socks under the
infringing mark SOXSI designed for the Pilates, yoga, and barre
industry.
24. Upon and information, Defendant began selling itsinfringing SOXSI socks in March, 2013 - one month after it
suddenly stopped purchasing SHASHI socks from Plaintiff.
25. Defendant is well aware and, since long prior to the actsof Defendant complained of herein, has been well aware of the
goodwill represented and symbolized by Plaintiffs Product and
Packaging Trade Dress and SHASHI Mark and that Plaintiffs Product
and Packaging Trade Dress and SHASHI Mark are widely recognized
and relied upon by the public and the trade as identifying
Plaintiff and its goods and distinguishing said goods from the
goods of others.
26. Notwithstanding Defendants knowledge of PlaintiffsProduct and Packaging Trade Dress, SHASHI Mark, and/or the 349
Patent, and indeed by reason of such knowledge, Defendant has
engaged in, and it is believed will continue to engage in a
deliberate and willful scheme to trade upon and to misappropriatefor itself the vast goodwill represented and symbolized by the
Plaintiffs Product and Packaging Trade Dress and SHASHI Mark and
to infringe upon and utilize the design shown in the 349 Patent,
-
7/28/2019 Shashi v. Tsipilates
8/21
8
all without Plaintiffs consent thereof.
27. The acts of Defendant complained of herein constitutewillful and intentional infringement of Plaintiffs Product and
Packaging Trade Dress and SHASHI Mark and rights in and to the
349 Patent, and are in total disregard of Plaintiffs rights, and
were commenced and it is believed will continue in spite of the
Defendants knowledge that its use of the infringing design was and
is in direct contravention of Plaintiffs rights.
28. Upon information and belief, subsequent to the issuanceof the 349 Patent, and the original sales of goods by or on behalf
of Plaintiff embodying Plaintiffs patented design, Defendant
commenced and has continued making, importing, using, selling,
and/or offering for sale, within the Southern District of Florida
and elsewhere, unauthorized socks utilizing and embodying the
patented design described and claimed in the 349 Patent (the
Infringing Socks). Sample photographs of the Infringing Socks are
attached as Composite Exhibit E.
29. These Infringing Socks further incorporate a copy orcolorable imitation of Plaintiffs Product Trade Dress.
30. In addition, Defendant is selling, advertising and/oroffering for sale, within the Southern District of Florida andelsewhere, competing socks under the infringing SOXSI mark (the
Infringing Mark).
31. Upon information and belief, subsequent to the original
-
7/28/2019 Shashi v. Tsipilates
9/21
9
sales of goods by or on behalf of Plaintiff of its SHASHI socks in
packaging embodying Plaintiffs Packaging Trade Dress, Defendant
commenced and has continued using, selling, and/or offering for
sale, within the Southern District of Florida and elsewhere,
unauthorized socks utilizing Plaintiffs Packaging Trade Dress (the
Infringing Packaging). A photograph of the Infringing Packaging
is attached as Exhibit F.
32. Defendants unauthorized sales of the Infringing Socksutilizing the Infringing Mark and Infringing Packaging and related
marketing activities commenced long after substantial and sales in
commerce of authorized goods by Plaintiff embodying Plaintiffs
patented design, Plaintiffs Product and Packaging Trade Dress, and
Plaintiffs SHASHI Mark and subsequent to the acquisition of
rights and secondary meaning in Plaintiffs Product and Packaging
Trade Dress and Plaintiffs SHASHI Mark accruing to Plaintiff.
33. Defendants aforesaid use of the Infringing Socks,Infringing Packaging and Infringing Mark is designed and is
calculated and is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, and
to deceive customers and prospective customers as to the origin or
sponsorship of Defendants goods and to falsely cause the consuming
public to believe that Defendants goods are the goods of
Plaintiff, or are sponsored, licensed, authorized, or approved by
Plaintiff, all to the detriment of Plaintiff, the trade, and the
public.
-
7/28/2019 Shashi v. Tsipilates
10/21
10
34. Defendant has and continues to market and sell theInfringing Socks utilizing the Infringing Mark and Infringing
Packaging to the Pilates, yoga and barre industry, including
directly to Plaintiffs customers.
35. Specifically, Defendant has directly solicitedPlaintiffs authorized retailers that are listed on Plaintiffs
website and has sent them unsolicited, complementary pairs of its
Infringing Socks utilizing the Infringing Mark and Infringing
Packaging. Attached as Exhibit G is an example of a postcard
advertising the Infringing Socks that Defendant sent to one of
Plaintiffs authorized retailers along with a complementary pair of
Infringing Socks.
36. Defendant commenced its infringing activities describedherein without the consent of Plaintiff, in deliberate, knowing,
and wanton disregard of the rights of Plaintiff and to Plaintiffs
irreparable damage, unless restrained by this Court.
COUNT I DESIGN PATENT INFRINGEMENT
37. Plaintiff incorporates herein each and every allegationset forth in Paragraphs 1 through 36 as if fully set forth herein.
38. Defendants aforesaid acts, including the unauthorizedmanufacture, import, use, sales, and/or offering for sale of goods
embodying the design shown in the 349 Patent, constitute
infringement of and/or inducement to infringe the 349 Patent,
directly and/or under the doctrine of equivalents.
-
7/28/2019 Shashi v. Tsipilates
11/21
11
39. Defendants aforesaid acts have deprived Plaintiff ofsales that Plaintiff otherwise would have made.
40. Defendants aforesaid acts have caused and will causegreat and irreparable injury to Plaintiff, and unless said acts are
restrained by this Court, they will be continued and Plaintiff will
continue to suffer great and irreparable injury.
41. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.COUNT II - FALSE DESIGNATION, DESCRIPTION, AND REPRESENTATION
UNDER THE LANHAM ACT, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)- PRODUCT TRADE DRESS
42. Plaintiff incorporates herein each and every allegationset forth in Paragraphs 1 through 36 as if fully set forth herein.
43. Subsequent to Plaintiffs establishment of its rights inPlaintiffs Product Trade Dress, Defendant intentionally commenced
to use in commerce, and upon information and belief, will continue
to use in commerce the Infringing Socks which are a reproduction,
copy, and colorable imitation of the Plaintiffs Product Trade
Dress, despite Plaintiffs prior use thereof and the public
recognition thereof, constituting use in commerce of a word, term,
name, symbol, or device, or combination thereof, or a false
designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or
a false or misleading representation of fact that is likely to
cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to
affiliation, connection, or association with Plaintiff, or origin,
sponsorship, or approval of Defendants goods by Plaintiff.
-
7/28/2019 Shashi v. Tsipilates
12/21
12
44. Defendants aforesaid acts constitute unfair competition,false designation of origin, and/or false description or
representation in violation of 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.
1125(a).
45. Defendants aforesaid acts have harmed Plaintiffsreputation, severely damaged Plaintiffs goodwill, and upon
information and belief, have diverted sales from Plaintiff.
46. Defendants aforesaid acts have caused and will continueto cause great and irreparable injury to Plaintiff, and unless said
acts are restrained by this Court, they will be continued and
Plaintiff will continue to suffer great and irreparable injury.
47. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.COUNT III - FALSE DESIGNATION, DESCRIPTION, AND REPRESENTATION
UNDER THE LANHAM ACT, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)- PACKAGING TRADE DRESS
48. Plaintiff incorporates herein each and every allegationset forth in Paragraphs 1 through 36 as if fully set forth herein.
49. Subsequent to Plaintiffs establishment of its rights inPlaintiffs Packaging Trade Dress, Defendant intentionally
commenced to use in commerce, and upon information and belief, will
continue to use in commerce the Infringing Packaging for its
Infringing Socks which is a reproduction, copy, and colorable
imitation of the Plaintiffs Packaging Trade Dress, despite
Plaintiffs prior use thereof and the public recognition thereof,
constituting use in commerce of a word, term, name, symbol, or
-
7/28/2019 Shashi v. Tsipilates
13/21
13
device, or combination thereof, or a false designation of origin,
false or misleading description of fact, or a false or misleading
representation of fact that is likely to cause confusion, or to
cause mistake, or to deceive as to affiliation, connection, or
association with Plaintiff, or origin, sponsorship, or approval of
Defendants goods by Plaintiff.
50. Defendants aforesaid acts constitute unfair competition,false designation of origin, and/or false description or
representation in violation of 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.
1125(a).
51. Defendants aforesaid acts have harmed Plaintiffsreputation, severely damaged Plaintiffs goodwill, and upon
information and belief, have diverted sales from Plaintiff.
52. Defendants aforesaid acts have caused and will continueto cause great and irreparable injury to Plaintiff, and unless said
acts are restrained by this Court, they will be continued and
Plaintiff will continue to suffer great and irreparable injury.
53. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.COUNT IV
FEDERAL TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT, 15 U.S.C. 1114(1)
54. Plaintiff incorporates herein each and every allegationset forth in Paragraphs 1 through 36 as if fully set forth herein.
55. With full knowledge and awareness of Plaintiff'sownership and prior use of Plaintiffs SHASHI Mark and
-
7/28/2019 Shashi v. Tsipilates
14/21
14
Registration, Defendant has willfully used, is using, and will
continue to use the Infringing Mark on identical or highly related
goods for which Plaintiffs SHASHI Registration issued, in a
manner that is likely to cause confusion, reverse confusion, or to
cause mistake, or to deceive.
56. Defendants acts constitute infringement, use of aconfusingly similar mark, and use of a spurious mark which is
identical with, or substantially indistinguishable from,
Plaintiffs SHASHI Mark, in violation of and pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
1114.
57. Defendants acts have harmed Plaintiffs reputation,severely damaged Plaintiffs goodwill, and upon information and
belief, have and will continue to divert sales from Plaintiff, and
create the impression that Plaintiff is an infringer when in fact
Defendant is the infringer.
58. Defendants aforesaid acts have caused and will causegreat and irreparable injury to Plaintiff, and unless said acts are
restrained by this Court, they will be continued and Plaintiff will
continue to suffer great and irreparable injury.
59. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.COUNT V - UNFAIR COMPETITION/COMMON LAW TRADE
DRESS INFRINGEMENT OF PRODUCT TRADE DRESS
60. Plaintiff incorporates herein each and every allegationset forth in Paragraphs 1 through 36 as if fully set forth herein.
-
7/28/2019 Shashi v. Tsipilates
15/21
15
61. Defendants aforesaid acts constitute infringement,misappropriation, and misuse of Plaintiffs Product Trade Dress,
unfair competition, palming-off and passing-off against Plaintiff,
and unjust enrichment of Defendant, all in violation of Plaintiffs
rights at common law and under the law of the State of Florida in
accordance with Fla. Stat. 495.161.
62. Defendants acts have harmed Plaintiffs reputation,severely damaged Plaintiffs goodwill, and upon information and
belief, have diverted sales from Plaintiff.
63. Defendants aforesaid acts have caused and will continueto cause great and irreparable injury to Plaintiff, and unless said
acts are restrained by this Court, they will be continued and
Plaintiff will continue to suffer great and irreparable injury.
64. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.COUNT VI - UNFAIR COMPETITION/COMMON LAW TRADE
DRESS INFRINGEMENT OF PACKAGING TRADE DRESS
65. Plaintiff incorporates herein each and every allegationset forth in Paragraphs 1 through 36 as if fully set forth herein.
66. Defendants aforesaid acts constitute infringement,misappropriation, and misuse of Plaintiffs Packaging Trade Dress,
unfair competition, palming-off and passing-off against Plaintiff,
and unjust enrichment of Defendant, all in violation of Plaintiffs
rights at common law and under the law of the State of Florida in
accordance with Fla. Stat. 495.161.
-
7/28/2019 Shashi v. Tsipilates
16/21
16
67. Defendants acts have harmed Plaintiffs reputation,severely damaged Plaintiffs goodwill, and upon information and
belief, have diverted sales from Plaintiff.
68. Defendants aforesaid acts have caused and will continueto cause great and irreparable injury to Plaintiff, and unless said
acts are restrained by this Court, they will be continued and
Plaintiff will continue to suffer great and irreparable injury.
69. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.COUNT VII
COMMON LAW TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
70. Plaintiff incorporates herein each and every allegationset forth in Paragraphs 1 through 36, as if fully set forth herein.
71. Defendants aforesaid acts constitute falsedesignation(s) of origin, false or misleading description(s) of
fact, or false or misleading representation(s) of fact, which are
likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to
affiliation, connection, or association with Plaintiff, or origin,
sponsorship, or approval of Defendants goods by Plaintiff.
72. Defendants aforesaid acts have caused and will continueto cause substantial and irreparable injury to Plaintiff unless
such acts are restrained by this Court.
73. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
-
7/28/2019 Shashi v. Tsipilates
17/21
17
COUNT VIII- VIOLATION OF FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE
PRACTICES (FLA. STAT. 501.201, ET SEQ.)
74. Plaintiff incorporates herein each and every allegationset forth in Paragraphs 1 through 36, as if fully set forth herein.
75. Defendants aforesaid acts constitute unfair methods ofcompetition, unconscionable acts or practices and unfair or
deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade in commerce in
violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices, Fla.
Stat. 501.201, et seq.
76. Defendants aforesaid acts have caused and will continueto cause great and irreparable injury to Plaintiff, and unless
restrained by this Court, they will be continued and Plaintiff will
continue to suffer great and irreparable injury.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays:
A. That this Court will adjudge that the `349 Patent is
valid, enforceable, and has been infringed as a direct and
proximate result of the acts and/or inducement of Defendant as set
forth herein, in violation of Plaintiffs rights under 35 U.S.C.
101, et seq.
B. That Plaintiffs Product and Packaging Trade Dress has
been infringed as a direct and proximate result of the acts of
Defendant as set forth herein, in violation of Plaintiff's rights
under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq., and the common law
and under the law of the State of Florida in accordance with Fla.
-
7/28/2019 Shashi v. Tsipilates
18/21
18
Stat. 495.161.
C. That this Court will adjudge that Plaintiffs SHASHI
Mark and Registration has been infringed as a direct and proximate
result of the acts of Defendant as set forth in this Complaint, in
violation of Plaintiffs rights under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.
1051 et seq., and the common law.
D. That this Court will adjudge that Defendant has competed
unfairly with Plaintiff as set forth in this Complaint, in
violation of Plaintiffs rights under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.
1125(a), and the common law.
E. That Defendant, and all officers, directors, agents,
servants, employees, attorneys, successors, and assigns, and all
persons in active concert or participation therewith, be
permanently enjoined and restrained from further infringing
manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale and import of the Infringing
Socks, and all other infringements of the 349 Patent.
F. That Defendant, and all officers, directors, agents,
servants, employees, attorneys, successors, and assigns, and all
persons in active concert or participation therewith, be
permanently enjoined and restrained from further infringing
manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale and import of the InfringingSocks and Infringing Packaging, and all other designs and packaging
likely to be confused with or infringe Plaintiffs Product and
Packaging Trade Dress described herein.
-
7/28/2019 Shashi v. Tsipilates
19/21
19
G. That Defendant be required to deliver up for destruction
all Infringing Socks, Infringing Packaging and other written or
printed material in the possession or control of Defendant which
embody or bear the Infringing Socks and/or Infringing Packaging,
and all plates, molds, matrices, and other means from making the
aforesaid items.
H. That Defendant be directed to file with this Court and to
serve upon Plaintiff within ten (10) days after service of the
injunction issued in this action, a written report, under oath,
setting forth in detail the manner of compliance with the above.
I. That Plaintiff recover damages adequate to compensate for
the Defendants patent infringement, but in no event less than a
reasonable royalty for the use made of the patented design by
Defendant, and in addition to the amount of actual damages found,
such sums shall be in an amount three (3) times the amount of the
actual damages found.
J. That in addition thereto, Plaintiff have and recover the
profits of Defendant derived from the use of the infringing designs
under the 349 Patent.
K. That Plaintiff recover the Defendants profits and the
damages of Plaintiff arising from Defendants acts of trade dress
infringement, trademark infringement and unfair competition, and
that the Court, pursuant to 35 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1117,
enter judgment, and that said sums be treble as authorized pursuant
-
7/28/2019 Shashi v. Tsipilates
20/21
20
to 15 U.S.C. 1117(b).
L. That Plaintiff have and recover, pursuant to the laws of
the State of Florida, and common law, in addition to its actual
damages, punitive damages in an amount which the Court deems just
and proper.
M. That Plaintiff have and recover both pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest on each and every damage award.
N. That Plaintiff have and recover its reasonable attorney
fees incurred in this action, pursuant to 35 of the Lanham Act, 15
U.S.C. 1117, 35 U.S.C. 285, and Florida Statutes 501.2105, and
as otherwise authorized.
O. That Plaintiff have and recover its taxable costs and
disbursements herein, pursuant to 35 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.
1117, and as otherwise authorized.
P. That Plaintiff have and recover such further relief as
the Court may deem just and proper.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff demands a trial by jury as to all issues triable of
right by a jury.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: June 12, 2013 By:s/Meredith Frank MendezMiami, Florida John Cyril Malloy, IIIFlorida Bar No. 964,[email protected] Frank MendezFlorida Bar No. 502,[email protected]
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected] -
7/28/2019 Shashi v. Tsipilates
21/21
21
MALLOY & MALLOY, P.L.
2800 S.W. Third AvenueMiami, Florida 33129
Telephone (305) 858-8000Facsimile (305) 858-0008
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
Shashi, LLC