throbber
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA333047
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`02/19/2010
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91193740
`Defendant
`Pandora Jewelry, LLC
`Plaintiff
`Pandora Jewelers 1995, Inc.
`
`Proceeding.
`Applicant
`
`Other Party
`
`Motion for Suspension in View of Civil Proceeding With Consent
`
`The parties are engaged in a civil action which may have a bearing on this proceeding. Accordingly, Pandora
`Jewelry, LLC hereby requests suspension of this proceeding pending a final determination of the civil action.
`Trademark Rule 2.117.
`Pandora Jewelry, LLC has secured the express consent of all other parties to this proceeding for the
`suspension and resetting of dates requested herein.
`Pandora Jewelry, LLC has provided an e-mail address herewith for itself and for the opposing party so that
`any order on this motion may be issued electronically by the Board.
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of this paper has been served upon all parties, at their address
`record by Facsimile or email (by agreement only) on this date.
`Respectfully submitted,
`/Thomas H. Curtin/
`Thomas H. Curtin
`tcurtin@lathropgage.com, whansen@lathropgage.com
`cf@mhdpatents.com
`02/19/2010
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL} AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __x
`Pandora Jewelers 1995, Inc.,
`'
`; Opposition No. 91193740
`Serial No. 77690744
`Mark: PANDORA
`
`Opposer,
`
`-
`
`Applicant.
`
`vs.
`Pandora Jewelry, LLC,
`
`_
`
`-g
`
`_ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ X
`
`MOTION TO SUSPEND OPPOSITIONPROCEEDING
`
`Applicant, Pandora Jewelry, LLC, hereby moves before the Trademark Trial and Appeal
`Board (“the Board”) for an order suspending the 'above—captioned opposition proceeding.
`
`I
`pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 2.117; T.B.M.P. 510.02(a).
`Opposer commenced a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
`
`Florida against the Applicant alleging, ‘inter alia, claims of unfair competition under Section
`
`43(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946, as amended, trademark infringement under Florida State
`common law and seeking cancellation of Applicant’s federal trademark registrations. The civil
`
`action was filed on September 18., 2009 and was assigned Civil Action No. 09-61490. A copy of
`
`the Complaint filed in the civil action is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`In paragraph C of the Prayer for Relief in the Complaint, Opposer requests from the
`District Court that Applicant’s federal trademark registrations that include the mark PANDORA
`be cancelled and that all pending applications of Applicant that include the mark PANDORA be
`
`abandoned. As the resolution of the issues in the civil action would have a bearing upon, if not
`
`be dispositive of, the issues in the instant opposition proceeding, Applicant respectfully requests
`
`
`
`

`
`that the aboVe—capti_oned opposition proceeding be suspended by the Board pending final
`
`determination and/or resolution of the civil action.
`
`Catherine Ferguson, Esq., attorney for Opposer, has indicated Op.poser’s consent to this
`
`motion to suspend. A copy of this motion is being served electronically upon Ms. Ferguson as
`
`_ the attorneys for Opposer Pandora Jewelers 1995, Inc. on the date indicated below.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`LATHROP & GAGE LLP
`
`Attorneys for Applicant
`Pandora Jewelry, LLC
`
`By:
`
` Dated: New York, New York
`
`February 19, 2010
`
`Thomas H. Curtin
`
`
`
`230 Park Avenue, Suite 1847
`New York, New York 10169
`(212) 850-6220
`
`

`
`
`
` EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT A
`
`

`
`Case 0:09-cv—61,490—MGC Document 1
`
`Entered on FLSD Docket 09/18/2009 Page 1 of 30
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`
`Pandora Jewelers 1995, lnc.,
`a Florida corporation
`Plaintiff,
`
`S v.
`
`Pandora Jewelry, LLC
`A Maryland limited liability company
`
`)
`)
`)
`
`>
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`09-CV-61490-Cooke-Bandstra
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO.
`
`'
`
`09" 61 490
`
`-
`
`.
`
`.
`
`—-—————--————————~
`VT £10‘
`
`Sept. 13, 2009
`
`STEVEN M. LARIMORE
`CLERK U.S. DIST. GT.
`S.D. OF FLA. - MIAMF
`
`Defendant
`
`3
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintifi", PANDORA JEWBLERS 1995,
`
`INC.
`
`(“Pandora Inc”). by and through its
`
`undersigned counsel, hereby files this Complaint fortrademarlc infringement, unfair competition,
`
`tortious interference with a business relationship, and cancellation of a federal registration
`
`against Defendant PANDORA JEWELRY, LLC (“Pandora LLC”) and alleges as follows:
`
`I
`
`NATURE OF THIS ACTION
`
`1.
`
`Pandora Inc brings this action because Pandora LLC is currently and attempting
`
`to further use Pandora 1nc’s trademark in commerce. In addition, Pandora LLC wrongfully
`
`interfered with Pandora lnc’s ‘business relationship with Google, Inc. Finally, Pandora LLC
`
`fraudulently filed federal trademark applications and procured federal trademark registrations for
`
`the trademark PANDORA for jewelry and related goods and services. As a result, Pandora Inc is
`
`requesting both injunctive and monetary relief.
`
`PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff, Pandora Jewelers 1995, Inc. is a Florida corporation having itsprincipal
`
`place of business in Broward County, Florida.
`
`101119
`
`ij_.____.____.__.____._______.......__..._-,...
`
`._.__.,__,__T._n..r_...,____________________...
`
`.
`
`. ..
`
`,7,
`
`

`
`Case O:09—cv—61490—MGC Document 1
`
`Entered on F LSD Docket 0911812009 Page 2 of 30
`
`3.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant, Pandora Jewelry is a Maryland iirnited
`
`liability company having its principal place of business in Howard County, Maryland. On
`
`information and belief, Defendant Pandora Jewelry, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of
`Pandora MS, a limited liability company organized under the laws ofDenmark.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`This action arises under the Lanham Act and Florida state law.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§l33l(a), 1338(b), 1367, and 15 U.S.C. §l121. As the Plaintiff and Defendant are citizens of
`
`different states, and as the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of seventy-five
`
`thousand dollars ($75,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs, this Court. also has jurisdiction
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332.
`
`6.
`Venue is proper in the Southern District of Florida under 28 U.S.C. §l39l(b) and
`l391(c) because is doing business here and a substantial
`of Defendanfsuwrongful and
`infringing conduct occurred here.
`I
`7'.
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant, and venue is proper in
`
`the Southern District of Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §l39l(b) as Defendant is doing business in
`
`this District. Additionally, the Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant, and venue is
`
`proper in the Southern District of Florida because, the Defendant has advertised and continues to
`
`advertise its trademark and sell jewelry through dealers in this District; and Defendant filed a
`
`trademark complaint against Plaintiff through Google, Inc. resulting in the loss of Plaintiffs
`
`right to use its trademark in Google, Inc.’s key words and advertising resulting in Plaintiff’ s loss
`
`.of customers.
`
`' 2ol115
`
`

`
`Case 0:09-cv-61490—MGC Document 1
`
`Entered on FLSD Docket 09/18/2009 Page 3 of 30
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff is in the business of selling and marketing jewelry on the retail level both
`
`at its place of business in Deerfield Beach, Florida to customers in Florida and in other states and
`
`on the Internet through a website at the following URL www._PANDORAJEWELERS.COM.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff has continuously used the trade name and service mark PANDORA to
`
`sell, consign, appraise, clean, and repair jewelryat its retail store servicing customers specifically
`
`in Broward, Palm Beach, and Miami~Dade counties, and generally customers from throughout
`
`the state of Florida and from other states since 1976. Please see attached evidence of trademark
`
`usage including: consignment receipts (Exhibit A), newspaper ads (Exhibit B), appraisal receipts
`
`(Exhibit C), flyers, (Exhibit D), brochures (Exhibit E), product packaging (Exhibit F), store
`
`signage (Exhibit G), and bench ads (Exhibit H).
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff has used the domain name “PANDORA.IEWELERS.COM” in interstate
`
`commerce in association with the sale, consignment, appraisal, cleaning, and repair ofjewelry on
`
`the intemet since 1999. Select website pages are attached hereto as Exhibit “I”.
`
`11.
`Plaintiff has expended considerable sums in advertising its retail store jewelry
`services and using said domain name; and has exerted every effort to maintain the highest
`standard of quality for said services and has created goodwill under the servicemark PANDORA
`
`and the domain name PANDORAJEWELERS among the purchasing public. Plaintiff‘ s
`
`customers have come to trust Plaintiff for its fair and honest dealings in the sale, consignment,
`
`appraisal, cleaning and repair of high end jewelry under the trademark PANDORA.
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff has enjoyed considerable success and is well known as the source of
`
`origin of retail jewelry services, including the sale, consignment, appraisal,'cleaning, and repair
`
`301119
`
`

`
`Case 0:09-'cv—61490-MGC Document 1
`
`Entered on FLSD Docket 09/18/2009 Page 4 of 30
`
`of jewelry in South Florida servicing customers throughout the United States under the trade
`
`name and trademark PANDORA for over thirty years.
`
`13.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant manufactures and sells jewelry wholesale
`
`and in retail outlets under the name PANDORA, identified herein as its “charm line,” through
`
`dealers throughout the United States including Miami, Broward, and Palm Beach counties and
`
`also advertises its charm line jewelry through a website on the Internet under the mark
`
`“PANDORA-JEWELRY.COM” since late 2004. Typical product brochures and select website
`
`pages are attached hereto as Exhibit “J” and “K”.
`
`14.
`The Defendant, Pandora
`Jewelry, LLC has
`several Federal Trademark
`Registrations for
`the trademark PANDORA for jewelry and related services including:
`
`Registration No. 3,065,374 registered on July 3, 2006 for jewelry (attached as Exhibit “L”);
`
`Registration No. 3,640,357 registered on June 16, 2009 for jewelry and printed publications
`
`(attached as Exhibit “M”); Registration No. 3,613,181 registered on April 28, 2009 for jewelry
`
`and printed publications
`
`(attached as Exhibit “N”); ‘ several pending federal
`
`trademark
`
`applications for variations of the PANDORA trademark for jewelry and related services
`
`including: serial no. 77/690,744 filed on March 13, 2009 based on an intent to use for retail store
`
`services (Attached as Exhibit “O”); and serial no. 79/069,628 filed on May 14, 2009 for goods in
`
`precious metals, ailoys, gems, jewelers work and jewelry and related goods based on a foreign
`
`trademark application (attached as Exhibit “P”).
`
`'
`
`15.
`
`In early 2004 Defendant’s Director. of Sales of Florida, Knud Hostrup,
`
`approached the Plaintiff asking Plaintiff to sell Defendant’s charm line under the trademark
`
`PANDORA in Plaintiffs store. Plaintiff declined.
`
`

`
`Case 0:09—cv—6’l490—iVlGC Document 1
`
`Entered on FLSD Docket 0911812009 Page 5 of 30
`
`16.
`
`In late 2004 Defendant’s representative again approached Plaintiff about selling
`
`Defendant’s charm line under the PANDORA trademark and this time Plaintiff’ s President,
`Robert Wasson agreed.
`I
`
`17.
`
`In the winter of 2005 Plaintiff began displaying Defendant’s charm line in its
`
`store and by the summer of 2005 was also selling Defendant’s charm line on Plaintiffs website.
`
`18.
`On information and belief, over the years Defendant expanded its manufacture
`and wholesale sale of its charm line and business and began selling through an increasing
`
`number of independent retail vendors in South Florida. Defendant expanded throughout in the
`
`United States, including South Florida, and began advertising aggressively under the PANDORA
`
`trademark through numerous media including newspapers, magazines (attached as Exhibit“Q”),
`
`billboards (attached as Exhibit “R”), and the Internet. This is evidenced by Defendant’s brochure
`
`detailing Defendant’s rapid expansion and aggressive advertising campaign in the United States
`
`A
`
`in the last few years (attached as Exhibit “S").
`
`19.
`
`Beginning in 2008, Plaintiff began to observe Plaintiffs prospective and regular
`
`customers experience an increasing amount of COI'lfi,1Sl0l'l as to the source of Plaintiffs goods and
`
`services due to Defendant’s expanded advertising efforts of Defendant’s PANDORA trademark
`
`is
`
`l
`
`
`
`-
`
`on Defendant’s expanded charm line in South Florida.
`
`20.
`In Januaryof 2009, Plaintiff‘ s use of its PANDORA trademark for Google, Inc.’s '
`(“Google”) pay per click advertising was proscribed by Google. Plaintiff contacted Google and
`discovered that Defendant had filed a trademark complaint against Plaintiff through Google to
`
`4
`
`'
`
`prevent the Plaintiff from using Plaintiffs PANDORA trademark in advertising with Google.
`
`Subsequently, Plaintiffs sales decreased and prospective customers searching for the term
`
`

`
`Case 0:09p-cv—6‘l490—MGC Document 1
`
`Entered on F LSD Docket 09/1812009 Page 6 of 30
`
`PANDORA would not find Plaintiff through a Google pay per click advertisement. The Google,
`
`Inc. complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit “T”.
`
`21.
`
`As a direct result of Defendant’s interference with Plaintiffs relationship with
`
`Google, Plaintiff is no longer able to use its trademark PANDORA in Google pay per click
`
`advertising, resulting in a loss of sales to the Plaintiff.
`I
`I
`22.
`Plaintiff has recently learned that Defendant is planning to use the PANDORA
`
`trademark to operate retail jewelry stores in South Florida.
`
`23.
`
`In May of 2009, Plaintiff formally ended Plaintiffs sales of the Defendanfs
`
`expanded charm line due to Defendant’s interference with Plaintiffs relationship with Google,
`
`increased customer confusion as to the source of Plaintiffs goods and the source of Defendanfs
`
`goods, and Defendanfs plan to operate retail stores in South Florida.
`
`24.
`
`The infringement by Defendant has been willful and deliberate, designed
`
`specifically to trade upon the goodwill associated with Plaintiffs trademark.
`
`25.
`
`Defendant’s first use of its trademark PANDORA in the United States for the sale
`
`of jewelry was ‘over thirty years after Plaintiff began continuously providing retail jewelry
`
`services including selling, consignment, appraisal, cleaning, and repairing jewelry using the
`
`PANDORA mark to customers located throughout the United States.
`
`26.
`
`in September of 2004, Defendant applied for a trademark for
`
`the term
`
`PANDORA for jewelry with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Defendant had actual
`
`knowledge of Plaintiff’ s prior use and superior rights when Defendant executed a declaration in
`
`support of this application averring that Defendant had no actual knowledge of any prior use and
`
`superior rights in the term PANDORA forjewelry.
`
`

`
`Case 0:09-cv~6t490-MGC Document 1
`
`Entered on" FLSD Docket 09/18/2009 Page 7 of 30
`
`27.
`Defendant has subsequently applied for additional
`trademarks for the term
`PANDORA. Defendant has executed additional declarations in support of these applications
`
`averring that Defendant had no actual knowledge of any prior use and superior rights in the term
`
`PANDORA.
`
`_ 28.
`
`The goodwill of Plaintiffs retail jewelry services acquired over the last thirty
`
`years under its PANDORA trademark is of significant value in the jewelry business, and harm to
`
`such goodwill is irreparable.
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`_Defcndant’s actions will continue unless enjoined by this Court.
`
`Plaintiff has retained the law firm of Malin, Haley, DiMaggio, Bowen, and Lhota,
`
`P.A. to represent its interest in these proceeding and is obligated to pay the firm a reasonable
`
`attomey’s fee and court costs, which fees and costs are recoverable from defendant under federal
`
`and state law.
`
`COUNT I
`UNFAIR COMPETITION UNDER SECTION 431211
`OF THE LANHAM ACT §1S U.S.C. 1125§a}1
`
`31.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1
`
`through 30.
`
`32.
`
`Plaintiff adopted theptrade name of PANDORA in 1976. Since that time, Plaintiff
`
`has continuously used this trade name in connection with the marketing of Plaintiffs retail
`
`jewelry services, such as ‘the sale, cleaning, and repairofjewelry.
`
`33.
`
`34.
`
`The word PANDORA is arbitrary as applied to the retail jewelry business.
`
`Plaintiff markets its retail jewelry services in Florida and to its customers located
`
`throughout the United States. Plaintiff uses its trade name “PANDORA” in interstate commerce.
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 0:09-cv—61490—MGC Document 1
`
`Entered on FLSD Docket 09/18/2009 Page 8 of 30
`
`35.
`
`In using the name PANDORA, Defendant has adopted a trade name and
`
`trademark that is the same as that of Plaintiffs trade name and trademark. Defendant’s use of I
`
`PANDORA has caused actual customer confusion as to the source of Plaintiffs retail jewelry
`
`services and Defendant’s goods and is likely to cause further confusion.
`
`36.
`
`Plaintiff and Defendant are both involved in the sale of jewelry. The use by
`
`Defendant of Plaintiffs trademark PANDORA in its trademark and domain name has caused
`
`and is likely to cause confusion, mistake, and deception as to affiliation, connection, association,
`
`origin, sponsorship, and approval of Plaintiff and the services offered by Plaintiff, and constitutes
`
`false designation of origin in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§
`
`ll25(a).
`
`37.
`
`' Upon information and belief, Defendant has commenced the process of opening
`
`one or more retail jewelry outlets in South Florida using the tradename and trademark
`
`PANDORA.
`
`38.
`
`- Plaintiff owns rights in Florida and throughout the United States in and to the
`
`trademark PANDORA for retail jewelry sales, include the sale, cleaning and repair of jewelry
`
`which are superior to any rights which Defendant may claim in and to said trademark in any
`
`form or style with respect to the sale ofjewelry and jewelry related services.
`
`39.
`
`The use of the trademark PANDORA in connection with the manufacture and sale '
`
`of Defendant’s expanded product line and retail store services. in the state of Florida and
`
`throughout the United States is likely to cause reverse confusion as to the source of Defendant’s
`
`products and retail store services in that purchasers thereof will be likely to associate or have
`
`associated such‘ products and services with and as originating with Plaintiff, all to the detriment
`
`of Plaintiff under 15 U.S.C. ll25(a). Defendant’s unauthorized use of Plaintiffs PANDORA
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 0:09—cv-61490-MGC Document 1
`
`Entered on FLSD Docket 09/18/2009 Page 9 of 30
`
`marks that Defendant has used and is using in commerce is likely to cause confusion or to-cause
`
`a mistake or deceive by creating false and misleading impression that Plaintiffs retail jewelry
`
`services are associated or connected with Defendants’ products and/or services or that such
`
`product have sponsorship endorsement or approval. Such use is likely to cause confusion or to .
`
`cause a mistake or deceive and unless enjoined by this Court will continue to cause a likelihood
`of confusion and deception of members of the consuming public and will additionally continue
`
`to injure the good will and reputation of Plaintiff and Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
`
`40.
`
`Defendant’s action will continue unless enjoined by this Court.
`
`WI-IEREFORE Plaintiff demands judgment as set forth in Plaintiffs Prayer for Relief.
`
`FLORIDA COMMON LAW UNFAIR COMPETITION
`
`COUNT II
`
`41.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1
`
`through 30.
`
`42.
`
`Defendant’s use of Plaintiffs tradename and trademark PANDORA is likely to
`
`deceive customers and prospective customers in believing that Defendant’s proposed expanded
`line of products and retail stores is that of Plaintiffor in same way is affiliated with Plaintiff and,
`
`as a consequence, will likely divert customers away from Plaintiff.
`
`43.
`
`011 information and belief, Defendant has begun or is about to provide retail store
`
`services throughout South Florida, including Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties, under
`
`the Plaintiffs PANDORA tradename and trademark.
`
`44.
`
`Plaintiff has no control over the nature and quality of the expanded line of
`
`products manufactured and sold by Defendant, or Defendant’s quality of retail store services.
`
`Any failure, neglect, default, or unfair dealings by Defendant in providing such goods and
`
`services will reflect adversely on Plaintiff as the believed source of origin thereof, hampering
`
`-9-
`
`

`
`Case 0:09-cv-61490—MGC Document 1
`
`Entered on FLSD Docket 09/18/2009 Page 10 of 30
`
`efforts by Plaintiff to continue to protect its Outstanding reputation for high quality, trustworthy
`
`service, resulting in the loss of sales thereof and the considerable expenditures to promote its
`
`n products and services under the mark, all to the irreparable harm of the Plaintiff. Defendant’s
`
`unauthorized use of Plaintiffs PANDORA tradename and trademark that Defendant has used
`
`and is using in commerce is likely to cause consumer confusion about the source of sponsorship
`
`of the goods. Unless Defendanfs actions are enjoined by this Court, Defendant’s actions will
`
`injure the goodwill and reputation of Plaintiff and Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
`
`45.
`
`Defendanfs actions will continue unless enjoined by this Court.
`
`WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands judgment as set forth in Plaintiffs Prayer for Relief.
`
`.
`COUNT 111'
`FLORIDA COMMON LAW TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
`
`46.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1
`
`through 30.
`
`47.
`
`" Plaintiff has used the PANDORA tradename and trademark in Florida for retail
`
`jewelry services long before Defendant’s first use of the mark in Florida.
`
`48.
`
`Defendant’s
`
`imitation, copying and unauthorized use ‘of the ‘PANDORA
`
`tradename and trademark in the State of Florida is likely to cause, and has caused, confusion,
`
`‘deception, and mistake among the consuming public and trade in Florida by creating the
`
`erroneous impression that the goods and services sold, offered for sale, distributed or advertised
`
`by Defendant have been manufactured, approved, sponsored, endorsed or guaranteed by, or are
`
`in some way affiliated with Plaintiff.
`
`49.
`
`Plaintiff and Defendant offer competitive goods and services for jewelry
`
`customers.
`
`E
`
`
`
`

`
`Case O:O9—cv—61490-MGC Document 1
`
`Entered on FLSD Docket 09118/2009 Page 11 of 30
`
`50.
`
`Defendant’s unlawful conduct will continue to damage Plaintiff unless enjoined
`
`by this Court, and Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
`
`WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands judgment as set forth in Plaintiffs Prayer for Relief.
`
`COUNT IV '
`CANCELLATION OF DEFENDANT’S IMPROPER FEDERAL REGISTRATION
`
`PURSUANT TO 15 U.S.C. § 1119 ‘
`
`51.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1
`
`through 30.
`
`52.
`
`The Defendan_t’s federal trademark registration and applications, as identified in
`
`Paragraph 14, were procured fraudulently in that Defendant in its trademark applications failed
`
`I to truthfully declare to the U.S. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that Defendant was aware and
`
`had knowledge that Plaintiff had superior rights to the PANDORA trademark for identical goods
`
`and services.
`
`53.
`
`By reason foregoing, Defendant has committed and is continuing to commit fraud
`
`upon the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office by continuing to fraudulently complete and sign
`
`these declarations asserting that Defendant is unaware and without knowledge of any superior
`
`rights. Consequently, Defendant’s registration must be cancelled and Defendant’s applications
`
`must be held abandoned by this Court.
`
`54.
`
`Defendant’s unlawful conduct before the U.S. trademark office will continue to
`
`damage Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s procurement of a federal trademark registration for the trademark
`
`PANDORA unless so ordered by this Court, and Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
`
`WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands judgment as set forth in Plaintiffs Prayer for Relief.
`
`-11-
`
`

`
`Case 0:09-cv—61490-MGC Document 1
`
`Entered on F LSD Docket 09/18/2009 Page ‘I2 of 30
`
`COUNT v
`TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH AN ADVANTAGEOUS
`BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP
`'
`
`55.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1
`
`through 30.
`
`56.
`
`Plaintiff has had an ongoing business relationship with Google for several years.
`
`57.
`As evidenced by Defendant’s filing of a complaint with Google in regards to
`Google’s relationship with Plaintiff, Defendant had knowledge of Plaintiffs relationship with
`
`Googie. Defendant filed a complaint with Google in which Defendant falsely accused Plaintiff of
`
`abusing Defendant’s brandby selling counterfeit products (Google Complaint attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit M). Defendant falsely accused Plaintiff of illegal acts by placing Plaintiffs website on a
`“blacklist” Defendant provided to Google, in an effort to persuade Google to end business
`
`relations with Plaintiff, specifically, Plaintiffs ability to use its trademark PANDORA for
`
`jewelry in its key words and ads on the Internet.
`
`I
`
`58.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s complaint and other allegations, Google terminated
`
`Plaintiffs ability to advertise with Google using Plaintiffs trademark PANDORA.
`
`Google terminating Plaintiff‘S ability: to advertise with Google using Plaintiffs
`59.
`trademark PANDORA has caused‘Plaintiff to be unable to effectively use its trademark in
`
`keyword searches and advertisements on Google. The ability to use a trademark in keyword
`
`searches and advertisements on Google is an important way to allow potential or current
`
`customers to find an entity’s website or information about the entity when searching for the
`
`entity by a word the customer identifies with the entity, such as a trademark.
`
`60.
`
`Defendant’s actions resulted in damage to Plaintiff in that Plaintiff has lost sales
`
`and sales opportunities from being unable to effectively use its trademark in keyword searche_s
`
`-12-
`
`1
`
`I
`
`l
`
`i
`
`"i
`
`
`
`

`
`.E
`
`Case 0:O9~cv—61490—MGC Document 1
`
`Entered on F-"LSD Docket 09/18/2009 Page 13 of 30
`
`and advertisements because the ability of potential or current customers to find Plaintiffs
`
`website or information about Plaintiff when searching for PANDORA on Google has been
`
`greatly restricted.
`
`WHEREFORB Plaintiff demands judgment as set forth in Plaintiffs Prayer for Relief.
`
`.
`
`'
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands the following:
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF .
`
`A.
`
`That a preliminary and permanent injunction issue restraining Defendant,
`
`its
`
`agents, servants, employees, successors and assigns and all others in concert and privity with
`
`them from infringement of Plaintiffs trademark, from injuring Plaintiffs business reputation,
`
`from unfairly competing with Plaintiff, and from engaging in unfair and deceptive trade practices
`
`and inferring with Plaintiffs use of its trademark on the internet and as keywords and advertising
`
`through Google; all of the foregoing in Plaintiffs trademark territory of Palm Beach'County,
`
`Dade County, and Broward County, Florida the state of Florida and the United States;
`
`B."
`
`That Defendant withdraw its complaint against Piaintiff with Google enabling
`
`Plaintiff to resume its contract with Google and its use of its PANDORA trademark in its Google
`
`keywords and advertisements;
`
`C.
`
`That Defendant’s US. Federal Trademark applications, identified in Paragraph 14
`
`herein, be abandoned and Defendant’s U.S. Trademark Registrations, identified in Paragraph 14
`
`herein, be cancelled;
`
`D.
`
`.
`That Defendant provide an accounting to Plaintiff for Defendanfs profits, and a
`
`judgment for the actual damages suffered by Plaintiff as a result of Defendant’s acts of
`
`r
`
`E
`
`i
`
`-13-
`
`

`
`Case 0:09—cv«81490-MGC Document 1
`
`Entered on FLSD Docket 09f18/2009 Page 14 of 30
`
`infringement, unfair competition, and tortious interference together with interests and cost; and
`
`pay for corrective advertising;
`E.
`That Defendanfs be compelled to pat! Plaintiff’s attorneys fees, together with all
`
`costs of this suit; and
`
`F.
`
`For such other and further relief as may be just and equitable.
`
`Onthis
`
`.
`
`41,
`
`day of
`
`,2o09.
`
`
`
`at No. 23,351)
`aley, Esq (Fla.
`Barry L.
`Catherine Ferguson, Esq. (Fla. Bar No. 20055)
`
`MALIN HALEY DiMAGGIO
`
`BOWEN & LHOTA, RA.
`1936 South Andrews Ave.
`Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
`Telephone: (954) 763-3303
`Facsimile: (954) 522-6507
`Counselfor Plaintifl’
`‘
`
`_
`T
`I:\l ]000\l I 165\Litigali0n\PLEAD1'NGS\3902.001.Complaint.doc
`
`

`
`C.@.e_5J.$_1133£@f34f§U—f0i®iB PfDdiHLIm=.€Pmt.E1Y afiormcfimon FL$@x%.°“§s‘49?éé1.§*!?°°9 Page 1? “Kg?”
`
`I, Robert Wesson deciare as foliowsz I
`
`‘
`
`VEEI E 1_(_IAT[.ON
`
`I am the President of Pandora Jewelers 1995, Inc., the Plaintiff in this action.
`
`I have read
`
`the foregoing Complaint and know the ctmteuts. thereof and ihe sauna are true based upon my
`
`personal knowledge except as "to such matters therein suited to be on informafion and belief, and
`
`as to those matters I believe to be true, Pursuant to the provisidns of 28 1.1.8.0. § 1746. I declare
`
`undar penalty of pesjury that the foregoing is true and comes: and 'fiJ.rth.er that these statements
`
`and the like so made are punishable by fine or i11’1_p1'iSOI1m611t, or bo,th, under Section 1001 of
`
`Title 18 of the Uxfitcd States Code.
`
`Exacutec11his__/fidayof / ,2009.
`
`/
`
`

`
`Case 0:09-cv-61490~i\/IGC Document 1
`
`Entered on FLSD Docket 09/18/2009 Page 16 of 30
`
`....... ...-,_....\. .....
`
`—..—.-ax.-..-ox-\.‘-Poi
`
`Exhibit A
`
`

`
`Case 0:09-CV-61490-MGC Document 1
`
`Entered on FLSD Docket O9/1812009 Page 17 of 30
`
`\.
`
`
`
`='e_w7 .r'y
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 0:09«cv-61490-MGC Document 1
`
`Entered on FLSD Docket 09/18/2009 Page 18 of 30
`
`Exhibit B
`
`

`
`as 0:094:
`
`v—61490—l\/IG D
`
`P‘?
`
`.
`In gum
`.1lteraE|.
`are
`Em”
`
`.
`
`.
`
`-
`
`«A A
`
`1
`
`-
`
`.
`
`4
`'
`-
`--
`«,1 1 "“’11"i1fi {W
`‘lxmfi fll-'3:-3:1 fémezil {Wm
`'"
`flaaafi fiflus
`
`'*
`
`-
`
`'
`
`W;-,-»“.;r;-1*‘*T
`MID <5‘
`‘

`He|ax...I(eep yoursaniw...
`dim‘-andura meet
`ar?eedswiihUS1nniB¥‘:[¥fr
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`!
`
`J‘ 4
`
`.-.a?:.'n'.
`.¢ -
`fig
`‘i.
`a”*
`
`"“.*E"£"~‘"
`av
`
`a Apponranl
`Necessary
`
`;
`o Appoinrmt-nt
`NI.‘€l.'l5|1fy
`
`7
`
`"
`;
`
`'
`
`We Undcrsland.
`N0 I'\£3PGi'|'"‘1'rI'
`NU‘-I=‘H0"f
`
`,
`
`=
`
`imam
`No Appo
`N u.-nary
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 0:09—cv~61490-MGC. Document 1
`
`Entered on FLSD Docket 09/18/2009 Page 21 of 30
`
`
`
`n | r A "Centered
`-
`109_S;E;?-153! TBITEGG
`Daerfleld Beach, Florida 33441
`'
`(954)421-8343
`
`:
`
`‘
`
`-
`
`Prooonv or
`
`Renee: '
`‘
`T
`
`_
`
`'
`
`"T
`
`'
`
`Jewelry Appraisal
`
`nuanppruuuuu-nwariifodliy-Lcinii-oioeootn-wnhoicalyas-tuna.
`"....'°""""'.,...........'”"-'u."'.mu.a.'-"-i_yu..wmw»:Imamgamuyu.:m°J'q'
`
`T ..___-—.
`
`'
`'
`June 21, 1996
`DIII
`
`..
`
`
`
` Descflpiion 0! Article ' ' Estimated
`
`
`
`
`Replacement Value
`
`-
`
`‘
`
`0;
`
`
`
`One ladies 14K yellow gold diamond wedding band. The
`ring contains 22 square princess cut diamonds which
`have an actual total weight of approx. -1.50ct, channe
`set in two rows. The diamonds average approx. “S11”
`clarity and "H-1" color (using GIA grading terms). Th
`ring has a white gold ribbed design on both sides of '0
`the diamonds. The ring weighs approx. 5,5dwt.
`,
`
`$3,200.00
`
`
`
`* This avpraisal is to be used by Renee Dolan for insu ance‘
`purposes only.
`'
`'
`
`_
`fluwmuluhmunmhutunmhuudflumnnwnmnmnumu
`whou«Mmwnumnbnhwwwmwbommhuuhfinmmnnfim
`Mflivflflilfiflfflflfliiflfwronnclflnfliflilmbhflfllpoflhid
`°'-"'*rII*I*7"-v'°'W°"'-'°d-N**"‘°'°-
`'
`ununhuuwumnhqlflnmuumbnm wnuwnauub
`murumq:uncuu.u1truuiotrapuoumntvannr'n-yvuyrmnnm
`
`-Iomiur
`
`'
`-
`Michele Murray Tuchish G.G.
`wuduwbuumuufiouhnnmuwudumnuauuw
`amwuuumnmwnumdlnquuum
`flhapulhidnudtadhotlldahuuduhrflupnauuuor
`IIho1II0|nInIIIIlorIuIIh.u\dhptuv|dudIoIIly:Iu1Iofi1uhof
`-~
`"""°"""”""'°'""""”'°""'"""m"'"""”"°"
`AmOl'WuVnUIflI{_l'l_|IlIIEII![‘l'lIIl'IQI¢_b_I'Iy|IfiflI3il'lfl|II
`, muybotnlconulnltlloflllolntomuliaioonlitiudhlllla-'ipprnI|aL
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 0:O9—cv-61490-MGC Document 1
`
`Entered on FLSD Docket 09/18/2009 Page 22 of 30
`
` Exhibit D
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`% W% W
`
`
`
`STORE-WID‘E;STORE-WID‘E;
`
`
`
`SALE!SALE!
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 0:09-CV-61490—MCase 0:09-CV-61490—M
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`c
`
`$86
`
`o:o9— -61
`cv
`
`-
`490 MGC Documentl
`
`'
`'
`Entered on FLSD Docket09/'l8f2009 Page 24 of3O
`
`wvvw.pandorajewelerscom
`
`109 SE 15th Terrace
`since ,975
`1) DetarfielcJEJe '
`.Fl_ 33¢-'11
`In the Cove Sh-J|Jg,. no Center
`‘\77(~f’W/fife
`(954) 421-8343
`A “*""°"°" °*'“‘““‘
`
`50%; Off Store Wide Sale Until» December 24, 2008.
`lt‘s been over 30 years since Pandora Jewelers
`opened its doors and we wanted to give you
`a special reason to celebrate the holidays. Use
`this card until December 24, 2008 to receive
`50% off your holiday purchase of one item.
`Our services include Rolex Watch Repair,
`Custom Jewelry Design, Jewelry Appraisals,
`and Jewelry Repair. Shop our Pre—owned
`Rolexes, Exquisite Dia

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket