Mark Anthony International, S.R.L. v. Minges

Case 2:21-cv-05145 Document 1 Filed 06/24/21 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:1
1 Kevin R. Lussier (CA State Bar No. 143821), [email protected]

CRUSER, MITCHELL, NOVITZ, SANCHEZ, GASTON & ZIMET, LLP
2
800 Wilshire Boulevard 15th Floor
3 Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: (213) 689-8500
4
Fax: (213) 689-8501
5
Richard Lehv (pro hac vice application to be filed), [email protected]
6
Craig S. Mende (pro hac vice application to be filed), [email protected]
7 Shelby Rokito (pro hac vice application to be filed), [email protected]
FROSS ZELNICK LEHRMAN & ZISSU, P.C.
8
151 West 42nd Street, 17th Floor
9 New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 813-5900
10
Fax: (212) 813-5901
11
Attorneys for Plaintiff
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14
Case No.: 2:21-cv-5145
15
16 MARK ANTHONY COMPLAINT FOR:
INTERNATIONAL, S.r.l.,
17
(1) Federal Trademark Infringement,
18 Plaintiff, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1);
19 (2) Federal Unfair Competition,
v.
20 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a);
21 M. CAITLIN MINGES and (3) Federal Trademark Dilution, 15
FUN CLUB LLC, a California Limited
22 Liability Company, U.S.C. § 1125(c);
23 (4) California Unfair Competition,

Defendants. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200
24
25 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
26
27
28 -1-
COMPLAINT BY PLAINTIFF, MARK ANTHONY INTERNATIONAL, S.r.l.
1 Plaintiff, Mark Anthony International, S.r.l. (“Plaintiff”), for its complaint

2 against Defendants, M. Caitlin Minges and Fun Club LLC (“Defendants”), alleges
3 as follows:
4 Nature of the Action
5 1. All of the claims asserted herein arise out of and are based on
6 Defendants’ willful infringement of Plaintiff’s rights in its WHITE CLAW® and
7 WHITE CLAW HARD SELTZER® trademarks and the distinctive WHITE
8 CLAW® logo and trade dress (collectively, the “WHITE CLAW® Marks”).
9 2. Plaintiff launched the WHITE CLAW brand hard seltzer in 2016. Since
10 then, it has had enormous success. It is the leading brand of hard seltzer in the
11 United States, with over 50% market share in the calendar year 2020.
12 3. Through widespread use and commercial success, the WHITE
13 CLAW® Marks have become famous among purchasers and consumers of hard
14 seltzer and represent Plaintiff and its goods exclusively.
15 4. Plaintiff’s WHITE CLAW logo is this:
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 5. The trade dress of Plaintiff’s WHITE CLAW hard seltzer cans is this:
26
27
28
-2-
COMPLAINT BY PLAINTIFF MARK ANTHONY INTERNATIONAL, S.r.l.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 6. Plaintiff owns federal trademark registrations issued by the United
11 States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for its WHITE CLAW® Marks.
12 7. Recently, Defendants have started using Plaintiff’s WHITE CLAW
13 trademarks and trade dress on and in connection with “can candles.” Can candles are
14 made from Plaintiff’s WHITE CLAW hard seltzer cans (or copies of Plaintiff’s
15 cans). Defendants remove the top from the cans, insert wax and a wick in the empty
16 cans, and then sell the can candles.
17 8. Defendants’ can candles look like this:
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
1 9. Consumers will falsely believe Plaintiff manufactured, authorized,

2 sponsored, or endorsed Defendants’ can candles, or is otherwise associated with
3 them.
4 10. Moreover, if an improperly labeled, insufficiently insulated, poorly
5 designed, or defectively manufactured can candle bearing Plaintiff’s WHITE
6 CLAW® Marks without authorization were to burn a consumer – or, worse yet,
7 cause a house fire threatening the lives of its inhabitants – all of the hard-earned
8 goodwill built up by Plaintiff in its WHITE CLAW® Marks could be destroyed in
9 an instant.
10 11. In addition, Defendant M. Caitlin Minges has, without any
11 authorization, applied to register WHITE CLAW CANDLES as a trademark in the
12 USPTO.
13 12. Accordingly, to protect the goodwill built up in its WHITE CLAW®
14 Marks, and to protect others from Defendants’ deceptive and potentially dangerous
15 conduct, Plaintiff brings this action for infringement of federally-registered
16 trademarks under Section 32(1) of the Trademark Act of 1946 (the “Lanham Act”),
17 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1); false designation of origin and unfair competition under
18 Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); trademark dilution under the
19 Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c); and unfair competition in violation of California
20 State Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq. Plaintiff seeks both injunctive
21 and monetary relief.
22 The Parties
23 13. Plaintiff is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
24 Barbados, with an address at One Haggatt Hall, Saint Michael, Barbados 11059.
25 14. Upon information and belief, Defendant M. Caitlin Minges is a citizen
26 and resident of the State of California, who resides in Monrovia, California.
27 15. Upon information and belief, Defendant Fun Club LLC is a California
28 limited liability company located and doing business in Monrovia, California.
-4-
1 16. Upon information and belief, Defendant M. Caitlin Minges owns and
2 controls defendant Fun Club LLC and directly profits from its activities.
3 Jurisdiction and Venue
4 17. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims in this action
5 under Section 39(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1121(a), and under Sections
6 1331 and 1338(a) and (b) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a) & (b).
7 Supplemental jurisdiction exists over Plaintiff’s state law claims under Section
8 1367(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
9 18. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because
10 Defendants are citizens and residents of California and Plaintiff’s claims arise from
11 or relate to Defendants’ business activities in California.
12 19. Venue is proper under Section 1391(b) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.
13 § 1391(b), because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred
14 in and are directed to this District.
15 Facts Common to All Claims
16 A. Plaintiff and its WHITE CLAW® Marks
17 20. As noted above, Plaintiff launched the WHITE CLAW brand of hard
18 seltzer in 2016. Since then, it has had enormous success. It is the leading brand of
19 hard seltzer, with over 50% market share in the calendar year 2020.
20 21. Plaintiff’s WHITE CLAW logo consists of a circular stylized design of
21 three waves with two seagulls to the right of the middle wave. That design is
22 surrounded by the words “WHITE CLAW HARD SELTZER” in a circular layout,
23 with the words “WHITE CLAW” located on the top left and the words “HARD
24 SELTZER” located on the bottom right in smaller font. A solid line surrounds half
25 of the design in a semicircle around the words “HARD SELTZER.”
26 22. Plaintiff’s WHITE CLAW trade dress (that is, the label design on its
27 can) consists of the WHITE CLAW logo, described above, against a white
28 background. Beneath it is a brushstroke and the flavor of the beverage; the color of
-5-
1 the brushstroke matches the flavor. Beneath the brushstroke is a circular presentation
2 of calorie and alcohol content. Finally, the label states that the can contains “Spiked
3 Sparkling Water with a hint of [flavor].”
4 23. Through widespread use and commercial success, the WHITE
5 CLAW® Marks have become famous among purchasers and consumers of hard
6 seltzer and represent Plaintiff and its goods exclusively.
7 24. In addition to Plaintiff’s strong common law rights in the WHITE
8 CLAW® Marks built up through extensive use and promotion in the United States,
9 Plaintiff owns federal trademark registrations for the WHITE CLAW® Marks.
10 Specifically, Plaintiff owns Registration No. 5226007 for the mark WHITE CLAW,
11 issued on June 20, 2017 for “hard seltzer” as well as “Clothing, namely, shirts,
12 sweatshirts, jackets; headwear”; Registration No. 5253798 for the mark WHITE
13 CLAW HARD SELTZER and Design, issued on August 1, 2017 for “hard seltzer”
14 among other goods; and Registration No. 6199056, issued on November 17, 2020
15 for the mark WHITE CLAW HARD SELTZER and Design for “Footwear;
16 headwear; clothing, namely, shirts, sweatshirts, jackets.”
17 25. These registrations are valid, subsisting and in full effect, and serve as
18 prima facie proof of Plaintiff’s exclusive right to use the WHITE CLAW® Marks in
19 connection with the goods and services identified therein, as provided by Section
20 33(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1115(a). As a matter of law, these
21 registrations serve to place Defendants on constructive notice of Plaintiff’s rights in
22 the WHITE CLAW® Marks, under 15 U.S.C. § 1072. Printouts from the official
23 database of the USPTO showing status and title of Plaintiff’s registrations for the
24 WHITE CLAW® Marks are attached as Exhibit 1.
25 B. Defendants’ Infringing Activity
26 26. As noted above, Defendants are using Plaintiff’s WHITE CLAW
27 trademarks and trade dress on and in connection with “can candles.” Can candles are
28 made from Plaintiff’s WHITE CLAW hard seltzer cans (or copies of Plaintiff’s
-6-
1 cans). Defendants remove the top from the cans, insert wax and a wick in the empty
2 can, and then sell the can candles.
3 27. Defendants’ infringing candles are potentially hazardous flammable
4 products. It is unclear whether the candles, which are not subject to Plaintiff’s
5 quality control measures, have been manufactured in compliance with ASTM
6 International’s candle safety and labeling standards adopted by the National Candle
7 Association, or any other safety rules and regulations.
8 28. Upon information and belief, Defendants have been selling these
9 products to commercial customers at wholesale, in addition to selling them to their
10 own retail customers through their www.shopfunclub.com website.
11 29. Plaintiff sent Defendants a cease and desist letter dated May 17, 2021,
12 but Defendants refused to stop their infringing activities.
13 30. Instead, Defendant M. Caitlin Minges “doubled down” on her
14 infringement by applying on May 28, 2021, without any authorization, to register
15 the trademark WHITE CLAW CANDLES in the USPTO, under Application Ser.
16 No. 90742352, for “Candles; Candles and wicks for candles for lighting; Candles
17 comprised primarily of vintage cans of legally bought beverage cans, wax and
18 candle wicks; Candles for lighting; Perfumed candles; Scented candles; Tallow
19 candles; Tea light candles; Unity candles; Wicks for candles.”
20 31. Defendants are using Plaintiff’s WHITE CLAW® Marks in their
21 original form without any attempt to change or modify them. They are even using
22 the ® symbol, even though the marks are not registered for candles.
23 32. Defendants’ goods offered under the WHITE CLAW® Marks are
24 advertised, promoted, and offered to the same consumers as are Plaintiff’s goods.
25 33. Defendants are not associated or affiliated with Plaintiff and have never
26 been licensed or otherwise authorized by Plaintiff to use WHITE CLAW® Marks,
27 or any trade names or trademarks confusingly similar thereto, in connection with
28 any goods or services.
-7-
1 34. Upon information and belief, Defendants selected and have used
2 Plaintiff’s WHITE CLAW® Marks with actual and constructive knowledge of
3 Plaintiff’s ownership of and exclusive right to use WHITE CLAW® Marks and with
4 the intent to trade off of the significant goodwill symbolized by and the industry
5 recognition of the WHITE CLAW® Marks.
6 35. Defendants commenced use of the WHITE CLAW® Marks after
7 Plaintiff commenced use of the WHITE CLAW® Marks, after Plaintiff secured
8 federal trademark registrations for the WHITE CLAW® Marks, and after Plaintiff
9 developed substantial goodwill in the WHITE CLAW® Marks. Plaintiff therefore
10 has priority.
11 36. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ conduct is intentional, willful
12 and wanton.
13 C. Harm Caused by Defendants’ Infringing Conduct
14 37. The goodwill that Plaintiff has built up in the WHITE CLAW® Marks
15 is put at risk by Defendants’ appropriation and use of the identical and confusingly
16 similar marks. Defendants’ unauthorized acts unfairly and unlawfully wrest from
17 Plaintiff control over its WHITE CLAW® Marks and its reputation, particularly as
18 Plaintiff has no control over the quality of Defendants’ goods offered under the
19 WHITE CLAW® Marks. As a result, Plaintiff’s enormously valuable reputation is
20 being irreparably damaged. If Defendants’ conduct is not enjoined, it will continue
21 to injure the value of Plaintiff’s WHITE CLAW® Marks and the ability of those
22 marks to indicate goods emanating from a single source, namely, Plaintiff.
23 38. Moreover, Defendants’ infringing activities are likely to cause
24 economic harm, and may even cause physical harm and property damage, to
25 consumers, in addition to causing confusion, mistake and deception.
26 39. Defendants’ infringing activities have caused and will continue to cause
27 irreparable damage to the business and goodwill of Plaintiff unless permanently
28 restrained by this Court.
-8-
1 40. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.

2 Count I: Federal Trademark Infringement
3 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)
4 41. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in
5 paragraphs 1 through 40 above as if fully set forth herein.
6 42. Plaintiff’s rights in the federally registered WHITE CLAW® Marks
7 developed prior to any use of those marks by Defendants.
8 43. Defendants’ marks are identical and confusingly similar to Plaintiff’s
9 registered WHITE CLAW® Marks in sight, sound, and commercial impression.
10 44. Defendants’ goods offered under the WHITE CLAW® Marks are
11 related to the goods offered by Plaintiff under Plaintiff’s WHITE CLAW® Marks
12 and are the type of goods consumers would expect to be licensed or otherwise
13 authorized by Plaintiff.
14 45. Defendants’ actions described above are likely to cause confusion and
15 mistake and to deceive potential customers and the general public as to the source,
16 origin and/or sponsorship of Defendants’ goods, and are likely to deceive the public
17 into believing that such goods are made, authorized, endorsed or sponsored by
18 Plaintiff, or otherwise associated with Plaintiff, thereby damaging Plaintiff’s
19 reputation, goodwill and sales.
20 46. Defendants’ actions described above are likely to cause consumers to
21 be deceived into believing that there is some association between Plaintiff and
22 Defendants.
23 47. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ conduct is willful, deliberate
24 and in bad faith, and undertaken with full knowledge that Defendants have no right,
25 license or authority to use Plaintiff’s registered WHITE CLAW® Marks or any
26 trade name or mark confusingly similar thereto.
27 48. Defendants’ unauthorized use of Defendants’ WHITE CLAW® Marks
28 is intended to reap the benefit of the goodwill that Plaintiff has developed in
-9-
1 Plaintiff’s registered WHITE CLAW® Marks and constitutes trademark

2 infringement, in violation of Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1).
3 49. Defendants’ aforesaid conduct has caused and is causing irreparable
4 injury to Plaintiff, and, unless enjoined by this Court, will continue both to damage
5 Plaintiff and to deceive the public. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
6 Count II: Unfair Competition and False
Designation of Origin Under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A)
7
50. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in
8
paragraphs 1 through 49 above as if fully set forth herein.
9
51. Plaintiff’s rights in its WHITE CLAW® Marks developed long prior to
10
any use of those marks by Defendants.
11
52. Defendants’ alleged marks are identical and confusingly similar to
12
Plaintiff’s WHITE CLAW® Marks in sight, sound, and commercial impression.
13
53. Defendants’ goods offered under the WHITE CLAW® Marks are
14
related to the goods offered by Plaintiff under the WHITE CLAW® Marks and are
15
the type of goods consumers would expect to be licensed or otherwise authorized by
16
Plaintiff.
17
54. Defendants’ conduct is likely to cause confusion or to cause mistake or
18
to deceive consumers and the public as to the affiliation, connection or association
19
between Defendants and Plaintiff, and/or as to the origin, sponsorship or approval of
20
Defendants’ goods.
21
55. Defendants’ unauthorized use of the WHITE CLAW® Marks falsely
22
and misleadingly represents Defendants as being legitimately connected with and/or
23
authorized by Plaintiff, and places beyond Plaintiff’s control its own reputation and
24
goodwill.
25
56. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ conduct is willful, deliberate
26
and in bad faith, and undertaken with full knowledge that Defendants have no right,
27
28
-10-
1 license or authority to use any mark confusingly similar to Plaintiff’s WHITE

2 CLAW® Marks.
3 57. As a result of the foregoing, Defendants have falsely designated the
4 origin of their services offered under the WHITE CLAW® Marks and have engaged
5 in unfair competition in violation of Section 43(a)(1)(A) of the Lanham Act, 15
6 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A).
8 injury to Plaintiff and the public, and, unless enjoined by this Court, will continue
9 both to damage Plaintiff and to deceive the public. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy
10 at law.
11 Count III: Trademark Dilution
Under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)
12
13 59. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in
14 paragraphs 1 through 58 above as if fully set forth herein.
15 60. Plaintiff’s WHITE CLAW® Marks are famous and distinctive,
16 inherently or through acquired distinctiveness.
17 61. After Plaintiff’s WHITE CLAW® Marks became famous, Defendants
18 commenced use of the exact same marks in commerce.
19 62. Defendants’ use of the WHITE CLAW® Marks is likely to cause
20 dilution by blurring and/or dilution by tarnishment of Plaintiff’s famous marks.
21 63. Upon information and belief, Defendants willfully intended to trade on
22 the recognition of Plaintiff’s famous marks.
23 64. Upon information and belief, Defendants willfully intended to harm the
24 reputation of Plaintiff’s famous marks.
26 injury to Plaintiff and the public, and, unless enjoined by this Court, will continue
27 both to damage Plaintiff and to deceive the public. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy
28 at law.
-11-
1 Count III: California Unfair Competition

Under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.
2
66. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in
3
paragraphs 1 through 65 above as if fully set forth herein.
4
67. The aforesaid conduct of Defendants—trademark infringement and
5
false designation of origin—constitutes unfair competition in violation of Cal. Bus.
6
& Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.
7
68. Defendants’ conduct is causing immediate and irreparable injury to
8
Plaintiff and will continue both to damage Plaintiff and deceive the public unless
9
enjoined by this Court. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
10
11 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment as follows:
12 1. Entering judgment for Plaintiff on each of its claims.
13 2. Directing that Defendants, their officers, directors, agents,
14 representatives, successors or assigns, and all persons acting in concert or in
15 participation with them, be immediately and permanently enjoined from:
16 (a) infringing Plaintiff’s WHITE CLAW® Marks;
17 (b) falsely designating the origin, sponsorship, or affiliation of its
18 business or goods;
19 (c) using Plaintiff’s WHITE CLAW® Marks or any derivation or
20 colorable imitation thereof, or any name or mark that is confusingly
21 similar thereto (collectively, “Prohibited Marks”), in connection with
22 the promotion, marketing, and offering of any goods or services;
23 (d) seeking to register any of the Prohibited Marks or any derivation or
24 colorable imitation thereof, or any name or mark that is confusingly
25 similar thereto, and be directed to withdraw Application Ser. No.
26 90742352 with prejudice;
27
28
-12-
1 (e) Purchasing, acquiring, or using any domain name, social media

2 handle, internet advertising keyword, internet address, or other online
3 designation, address, or identifier that incorporates any of the
4 Prohibited Marks or any derivation or colorable imitation thereof, or
5 any name or mark that is confusingly similar thereto;
6 (f) making or employing any other commercial use of any of the
7 Prohibited Marks;
8 (g) making or displaying any statement or representation that is likely
9 to lead the public or the trade to believe that Defendants’ goods or
10 services are in any manner associated or affiliated with or approved,
11 endorsed, licensed, sponsored, or authorized by or otherwise
12 connected with Plaintiff;
13 (h) using any other false designation of origin or any other thing
14 calculated or likely to cause confusion or mistake in the mind of the
15 trade or public or to deceive the trade or public into believing that
16 Defendants’ business or goods or services are in any way sponsored,
17 licensed, endorsed or authorized by, or affiliated or connected with
18 Plaintiff;
19 (i) doing any other acts or things calculated or likely to cause
20 confusion or mistake in the mind of the public or to lead purchasers,
21 consumers, investors or government institutions into believing that
22 the goods promoted or offered by Defendants emanate from or
23 originate with Plaintiff, or are somehow sponsored, licensed,
24 endorsed or authorized by or affiliated or connected with Plaintiff;
25 (j) engaging in any other activity constituting unfair competition with
26 Plaintiff or trademark dilution; and
27 (k) aiding, assisting or abetting any other party in doing any act
28 prohibited by sub-paragraphs (a) through (j) above.
-13-
1 3. Directing that Defendants deliver up to Plaintiff’s attorneys for

2 destruction all products, labels, signs, stationery, prints, packages, promotional and
3 marketing materials, advertisements, and other materials currently in their
4 possession or under their control incorporating, featuring or bearing the Prohibited
5 Marks or any other simulation, reproduction, copy, or colorable imitation thereof.
6 4. Directing that Defendants transfer or cause to be transferred to Plaintiff
7 any domain names owned by Defendants that incorporate any of the Prohibited
8 Marks, and execute all necessary documents to effectuate such transfer(s).
9 5. Directing that Defendants file with the Court and serve upon Plaintiff’s
10 counsel within thirty (30) days after entry of judgment a report in writing under
11 oath, setting forth in detail the manner and form in which it has complied with the
12 above.
13 6. Awarding Plaintiff such damages it has sustained or will sustain by
14 reason of Defendants’ acts of trademark infringement, unfair competition, and
15 trademark dilution, and that such sums be trebled pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117.
16 7. Awarding Plaintiff all damages, including Defendants’ profits, that are
17 recoverable under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.
18 8. Awarding Plaintiff all other recoverable gains, profits, property, and
19 advantages derived by Defendants from their unlawful conduct.
20 9. Awarding to Plaintiff its costs and disbursements incurred in this
21 action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1117(a).
22 10. Awarding Plaintiff interest, including pre-judgment interest on the
23 foregoing sums.
24 11. Awarding to Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court may
25 deem just and proper.
26
27
28
-14-
1 Dated: June 24, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

2
3 By: /s/ Kevin R. Lussier
Kevin R. Lussier
4
([email protected])
5 CRUSER, MITCHELL, NOVITZ,
6 SANCHEZ, GASTON & ZIMET, LLP
8 Telephone: (213) 689-8500
-and-
9 Richard Z. Lehv
10 (pro hac vice application to be filed)
Craig S. Mende
12 Shelby Rokito
(pro hac vice application to be filed)
13 FROSS ZELNICK
14 LEHRMAN & ZISSU, P.C.
151 West 42nd Street, 17th Floor
15 New York, NY 10036
16 Tel: (212) 813-5900
Attorneys for Plaintiff
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-15-
1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2 Plaintiff MARK ANTHONY INTERNATIONAL, S.r.l. hereby demands trial
3 by jury in this action.
4
5
6 Dated: June 24, 2021 Respectfully submitted,
7
8 By: /s/ Kevin R. Lussier
Kevin R. Lussier
9
([email protected])
10 CRUSER, MITCHELL, NOVITZ,
11 SANCHEZ, GASTON & ZIMET, LLP
13 Telephone: (213) 689-8500
Facsimile: (213) 689-8501
14 -and-
15
Richard Z. Lehv
17 Craig S. Mende
(pro hac vice application to be filed)
18 Shelby Rokito
FROSS ZELNICK
20 LEHRMAN & ZISSU, P.C.
21 151 West 42nd Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10036
22 Tel: (212) 813-5900
23 Fax: (212) 813-5901
24 Attorneys for Plaintiff

25
26
27
28
-16-

Mark Anthony International, S.R.L. v. Minges

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mark Anthony International, S.R.L. v. Minges

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mark Anthony International, S.R.L. v. Minges

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:21-cv-05145 Document 1 Filed 06/24/21 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:1

1 Kevin R. Lussier (CA State Bar No. 143821), [email protected]

23 (4) California Unfair Competition,

1 Plaintiff, Mark Anthony International, S.r.l. (“Plaintiff”), for its complaint

1 9. Consumers will falsely believe Plaintiff manufactured, authorized,

1 40. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.

1 Plaintiff’s registered WHITE CLAW® Marks and constitutes trademark

1 license or authority to use any mark confusingly similar to Plaintiff’s WHITE

1 Count III: California Unfair Competition

1 (e) Purchasing, acquiring, or using any domain name, social media

1 3. Directing that Defendants deliver up to Plaintiff’s attorneys for

1 Dated: June 24, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

24 Attorneys for Plaintiff

You might also like