IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFP1L,r,
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`In the Matter of Trademark Application
`Registration No. 2,490,999
`for the mark BONGOS CUBAN CAFE
`.........-_‘_--------_-----------------__-----__--___-______-___X
`
`ROBERTO NOBLE, an individual
`
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`ESTEFAN ENTERPRISES, INC.
`
`.
`
`:
`
`$5
`
`I
`
`;
`
`Cancellation No. 92,047,910
`
`:
`Registrant.
`_______________________________________________________________X
`
`ROBERTO NOBLE'S MOTION TO SUSPEND PROCEEDINGS PENDING THE
`DETERMINATION OF A*FEDERAL DISTRICT CIVIL ACTION
`
`Petitioner, ROBERTO NOBLE,
`
`("Noble"), by and through undersigned counsel,
`
`pursuant to TBMP §510.02(a), hereby requests the Board suspend this action pending the
`
`outcome of a federal district court proceeding, and states:
`
`1.
`
`Noble brings to the Board's attention the pendency of the action in the United
`
`States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, styled Marrero Enterprises of Palm
`
`Beach,
`
`Inc. v. Estefan Enterprises,
`
`Inc., Case No. 06-CIV—8l036- Ryskamp (the "Marrero
`
`action").
`
`2.
`
`On October 31, 2006,
`
`the undersigned attorney in this proceeding filed a
`
`Complaint for Declaratory Judgment on behalf of Marrero Enterprises of Palm Beach, Inc.
`
`("Marrero") against ESTEFAN ENTEPRISES, INC. (“EEI”) in West Palm Beach, Florida. The
`
`Marrero action involves a claim by Marrero for a declaration of non-infringement between
`
`COCO BONGO as a trademark and EEI’s BONGOS CUBAN CAFE trademark (see Complaint‘
`
`for Declaratory Relief attached hereto as Exhibit “A ”); a declaration that EEI’s mark is not
`
`lllllllllllllllll||||l|l|||lllllllllllllllllllllll
`
`U3-[5-2fllB
`
`U ‘3 Patent
`
`9;. Illflfc/Ill Hail Rip‘-. U’.
`
`1'34
`
`

`
`protectable in the bar, nightclub, and entertainment industries; and for Cancellation of EEI’_s U.S.
`
`Registration No. 2,490,999. EEI asserted an Amended Counterclaim for infringement of its
`
`BONGOS CUBAN CAFE mark (see Amended Counterclaim attached hereto as Exhibit “B”).
`
`Marrero also raises many of the same affirmative defenses as Noble has raised herein. On
`
`November 29“, 2007, the U.S. District Court in the Marrero action joined Noble as a necessary
`
`party to that action. Marrero and Noble have also recently filed a motion for leave to jointly file
`
`an Amended Complaint in the Marrero case.
`
`3.
`
`On September 19, 2006, Marrero assigned all right, title and interest in its COCO
`
`BONGO marks to Noble. Noble licensed to Marrero the right to use his COCO BONGO
`
`trademark.
`
`4.
`
`The final determination ofwtihe Marrero action may have a bearing on the issues
`
`before the Board, because both proceedings are between the same parties concerning the same
`
`trademark rights.
`
`5.
`
`In its Order dated January 29”‘, 2008, in a related Board proceeding involving EEI
`
`and Noble (Estefan Enterprises,
`
`Inc. v. Roberto Noble and Bongo SA de CV, consolidated
`
`proceeding Opposition No. 91121980), the Board suspended proceedings pending disposition of
`
`the civil litigation (Marrero action), and stated that “[i]n view of the relationship between
`
`Marrero and Noble, and the claims presented in the court case, a determination in the court case
`
`may have a bearing on this Board proceeding.”
`
`_Petitioner ROBERTO NOBLE hereby requests the Board suspend this proceeding
`
`pending disposition of the Marrero action.
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §2.120 (e), counsel for Petitioner has conferred with counsel for
`
`Registrant in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised in the herein Motion, who has
`
`objected to the relief sough.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing document was served on this 3”‘ day
`
`of March, 2008, by first class mail to Karen L. Stetson, Esq., P.O. Box 403023, Miami, Florida
`
`and TTAB.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`SANTUCCI, PRIORE & LONG, LLP
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`500 West Cypress Creek Road, Suite 500
`Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309
`(954) 3 51-7474/telephone
`(954) 3 5 1 -7475/facsimile
`
`By:
`
`/s/Michael I. Santucci
`Michael I. Santucci, Esq.
`Florida Bar Number: 0105260
`
`

`
`Ciase 9:O6—cv—81036—KLR Document 1
`
`Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2006
`
`Page 1 of 10
`
`_
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`
`WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION
`
`MARRERO ENTERPRISES OF
`
`PALM BEACH, INC.,
`a Florida corporation,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`VS.
`
`ESTEFAN ENTERPRISES, INC.
`aFlorida corporation,
`
`_z,;‘.'i_?
`.;r'~.»
`ran
`fir.
`9 3‘ @313.
`iii
`‘w.-__32 V-..;3
`
`‘''‘G‘'§"JVIqAC
`‘hf-,€7 E ‘g
`$2 w
`93: E .j
`C},
`I
`
`i
`
`Defendant.
`
`3
`
`‘-
`“:2:
`
`/
`
`_
`
`.‘..~_",','f_ 3 ;
`I-\-)
`'
`r'-..=
`«,2
`0°
`.
`
`.
`
`3
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`COMES NOW Plaintiff, MARRERO ENTERPRISES OF PALM BEACH, INC.
`
`and for their original Complaint for Declaratory Judgment against Defendant, ESTEFAN
`
`ENTERPRISES, INC. alleges as follows:
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff MARRERO ENTERPRISES OF PALM BEACH,
`
`INC.
`
`(hereinafter “Marrero”) is a corporation formed under the laws of the State of Florida and”
`
`maintains its principal place of business at 2677 Forest Hill Boulevard, #112-116, West
`
`Palm Beach, Florida 33406.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant ESTEFAN ENTERPRISES, INC. (hereinafter “Estefan”) is,
`
`upon information and belief, a corporation formed under the laws of Florida with its
`principal place ofbusiness at 420 Jefierson Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida, 33139. Upon
`
`i
`
`EXHIBIT “
`
`

`
`Case 9'06-cv-81036-KLR Document 1
`
`Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2006
`
`Page 2 of 10
`
`-
`
`information and belief, Estefan and/or its subsidiaries do business and make sales ‘to
`
`retailers and other entities in this federal judicial district and throughout the United
`
`States.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`This action arises under the under 28 U.S.C. §§220l and 2202 in that it is
`
`an action solely for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement.
`
`4.
`
`Subject matter jurisdiction of this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1338.
`
`5.
`
`At all times material hereto, the exercise of personal jurisdiction over
`
`Estefan is appropriate under the"cir;.c‘:L1mstances of this case as its principal place of
`business is located in Florida, more specifically, within the jurisdiction of the United
`
`States District Court, Southern District of Florida.
`
`6.
`
`Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. 1391(0) because Estefan
`
`has engaged in business in the Southern District of Florida and all of the facts and
`
`allegations of infringement and unfair competition occurred in West Palm Beach, Florida.
`
`Additionally, venue is proper in the West Palm Beach Division of the United States
`
`District Court of the Southern District of Florida because the Defendant's counsel sent a
`
`“cease-and-desist” letter to the Plaintiff in this District, threatening federal trademark
`
`infringement regarding Plaintiffs mark COCOBONGO for its" use of the ‘mark in
`
`connection with Plaintiff's West Palm Beach, Florida nightclub.
`
`
`
`

`
`' *
`
`Case 9:O6—cv-81036—KLR Document 1
`
`Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2006
`
`Page 3 of 10
`
`E
`
`
`7
`
`-Plaintiff is the owner of the COCOBONGO Nightclub located in West
`
`Palm Beach, Florida._
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff has used the mark COCOBONGO in Florida and in interstate
`
`commerce in connection with its nightclub lounge and bar services since at least as early
`
`as 2000.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff has expended considerable sums of money for advertising, has
`
`exerted every effort to maintain thehighest standards of service, and has created goodwill
`
`among restaurant and nightclub goers.
`
`I
`
`10. Defendant claims to be the owner of a restaurant called “BONGOS
`
`CUBAN CAFE” with locations in Miami and Orlando, Florida.
`
`11. Defendant has alleged that
`
`it owns a federally registered trademark
`
`(Registration No. 2,490,999) for the mark BONGOS CUBAN CAFE.
`
`12. Defendant’s mark for BONGOS CUBAN CAFE has been registered for less
`
`-
`
`than five (5) years.
`
`13. Defendant’s Registration No. 2,490,999 and Application Serial No.
`
`78/955,663 are two marks which Defendant claims to use in connection with restaurant,
`
`nightclub, music and entertainment related services in International Class 42.
`
`
`
`

`
`Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2006
`
`Page 4 of 10
`
`‘ C
`
`ase 9:06—cv-81036-KLR Document 1
`
`14.
`
`Defendant has alleged, in writing, that Plaintiffs mark COCOBONGO is
`
`confusingly similar to Defendant’s marks and, as a result, because it is allegedly injurious
`
`to the Defendant, that the Plaintiff has no right to use COCOBONGO as a trademark.
`
`15.
`
`Defendant has demanded that Plaintiff immediately cease and desist from
`
`L-
`
`using the mark COCOBONGO.
`
`16.
`
`On or about March 31, 2006, Estefan threatened litigation and demanded
`
`Marrero to cease and desist any use, display, or advertising of any mark containing the
`term BONGO and/or any other similar mark or name, and provide proofofthe demanded
`
`cessation. See, Exhibit “A” attached hereto.
`
`On or about April 26,“2(l;{)‘6, correspondence from Estefan to Marrero again
`17.
`alleged infringement and further threatened recourse with the Courts. See, Exhibit “B”
`
`attached hereto.
`
`18.
`
`Plaintiff has a reasonable apprehension of Defendant pursuing litigation
`
`due to the correspondence and actions of the Defendant.
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiff categorically denies that its use of its mark violates any federal or
`
`other rights Defendant claims to have in its name and mark COCOBONGO used in
`
`association with restaurants, nightclubs, music or entertainment related services.
`20.
`Plaintiff further asserts that Defendant’s Registration Number 2,490,999 is
`
`invalid as a matter of law because it is either a generic tenn or an admittedly descriptive
`
`term lacking secondary meaning and therefore is not entitled to any federal trademark
`
`registration or trademark protection.
`
`

`
`Case 9:06-cv—81036-KLR Document 1
`
`Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2006
`
`Page 5 of 10
`
`21.
`
`The Defendant’s mark BONGOS CUBAN CAFE is generic or merely
`
`descriptive of the services provided in connection therewith, and thus incapable of
`
`functioning as a mark.
`
`I
`
`22.
`
`The word itself “BONGO” is merely descriptive because it is the common
`
`English word for the drum used in the music performed and played at Estefan’s nightclub
`
`and restaurant.
`
`23.
`
`The designation of BONGOS CUBAN CAFE is not inherently distinctive
`
`and therefore, Defendant’s mark is weak at best.
`
`24.
`
`‘Defendant has admitted that the term “BONGO” is the common English
`
`term for a “dru.m customarily used in. and Latin music exhibited in their restaurants
`
`and nightclubs.”
`
`25.
`
`Defendant has also admitted that “BONGOS” [plural] simply means two
`
`such drums.
`
`26.
`
`The Defendant’s mark BONGOS CUBAN CAFE has become diluted, as a
`
`result of its admitted widespread use in the restaurant, music, nightclub, and
`
`entertainment industries. '
`
`27.
`
`The designation of BONGOS CUBAN CAFE has not acquired secondary‘
`
`meaning. Moreover, the public does not identify the designation of BONGOS CUBAN
`
`CAFE with the Defendant.
`
`28.
`
`The Defendant has abandoned any rights, if any, in the mark, by failing to
`
`police the same for several years.
`
`29.
`
`Defendant is barred from asserting trademark infringement of its mark
`
`

`
`Case 9:06-cv—81036-KLR Document 1
`
`Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2006
`
`Page 6 of 10
`
`‘
`
`BONGOS CUBAN CAFE due to collateral estoppel based on the opinion of the U.S.
`
`E
`
`District Court in and for the Southern District of Florida, in Caruso & Co., Inc. v. Estefan
`
`Enterprises, Inc., 994 F. Supp. 1454, 1458-1460 (S.D. Fla. 1998).
`
`30.
`
`The Defendant has acquiesced in enforcing its rights in the mark
`
`BONGOS CUBAN CAFE.
`
`31.
`
`Contrary to Defendant‘s allegations, there is no likelihood of confusion
`
`between Defendant’s mark and the Plaintiffs mark.
`
`32.
`All conditions precedent to the bringing of this action have been satisfied,
`have occurred, have been waived, or have been excused.
`
`As direct and proximate result of Defendants‘ actions complained of
`33.
`herein, Plaintiff was forced to retain the undersigned law firm and has agreed to pay it a
`
`reasonable fee for its services.
`
`A
`
`COUNT I — DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
`
`MARRERO incorporates and re-alleges paragraphs one (1) through thirty-three
`
`(33) of this Complaint as if set forth fully at length herein, and would allege still further:
`
`34.
`
`This action arises under the under 28 U.S.C. §§2201 and 2202 for a
`
`declaratoryjudgment.
`
`3
`
`35.
`
`Defendant claims that Plaintiff is infringing on its federally registered
`
`trademark and otherwise engaging in acts of unfair competition in violation of the federal
`
`Lanham Act, Title 15, U.S.C. in Palm Beach County, Florida.
`36.
`Defendant has sent notice to Plaintiff to cease and desist its use of the
`
`name COCOBONGO in the operation of its restaurant and nightclub in Palm Beach
`
`County, a copy of which is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit_“A”.
`
`

`
`Case 9:06-cv—81036-KLR Document 1
`
`Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2006
`
`Page 7 of 10
`
`37.
`
`Plaintiff will not agree to cease and desist from its use of the nan-ie
`
`COCOBONGO because Defendant has no protectable interest in its alleged marks; and
`
`because its use of the -name does not infringe upon, dilute or unfairly compete with, any
`
`of Defendant’s alleged marks.
`
`38.
`
`Based upon the threats and demands made by Defendant, Plaintiff
`
`possesses an objectively reasonable apprehension that Defendant will
`file suit for
`trademark infringement, dilution and/or unfair competition based on Plaintiffs use ofthe
`
`COCOBONGO mark.
`
`39.
`
`Therefore an actual and justiciable controversy exists between Plaintiff
`
`the federal Lanham Act, Title 15, Plaintiff is
`and Defendant as to whether,
`infringing upon, diluting or mifairlywcompeting with Defendant’s federally registered
`
`trademark directed to BONGOS CUBAN CAFE.
`
`40.
`
`Plaintiff is in need of a judicial resolution and declaration of the rights of
`
`the respective parties in order to plan for the future of its business.
`
`41.
`
`Plaintiff seeks to resolve that dispute in this Court.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`For these reasons, Plaintiff asks for judgment against Defendant for the following:
`
`a. Declaring that Plaintiffs COCOBONGO mark does not infringe upon any
`of Defendant’s alleged marks,
`including without
`limitation, BONGOS
`CUBAN CAFE, and the marks which are the subjects of Registration No.
`2490999 and US. Application Serial No. 78/955,663.
`
`b. Declaring that Plaintiff's COCOBONGO mark does not cause the dilution
`of any of Defendant’s alleged marks,
`including without
`limitation,
`BONGOS CUBAN CAFE, and the marks which are the subjects of
`Registration No. 2490999 and U.S. Application Serial No. 78/955,663.
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 9'06-cv-81036-KLR Document 1
`
`Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2006
`
`Page 8 Of 10
`
`—
`
`c. Declaring that Plaintiffs use of its COCOBONGO mark does not unfairly/
`compete with any of Defendant’s alleged marks,
`including without
`limitation, BONGOS CUBAN CAFE, and the marks which are the subjects
`of Registration No. 2490999 and U.S. Application Serial No. 78/955,663.
`
`including without limitation,
`d. Declaring that Defendant’s alleged marks,
`BONGOS CUBAN CAFE, and the marks which are the subjects of
`Registration No. 2490999 and U.S. Application Serial No. 78/955,663 are
`merely descriptive or generic.
`.
`
`e. Declaring that Defendant has abandoned its alleged marks or caused the
`dilution of same, including without limitation, the mark BONGOS CUBAN
`CAFE, and the marks which are the subjects of Registration No. 2490999
`and U.S. Application Serial No. 78/955,663 are merely descriptive or generic
`through its own actions and acquiescence.
`
`including without limitation,
`f. Declaring that Defendant’s alleged marks,
`BONGOS CUBAN CAFE, and the marks which are the subjects of
`Registration No. 2490999 and U.S. Application Serial No. 78/955,663 have
`not acquired secondary meaning.
`
`g.
`
`. Declaring that no likelihood of confusion exists between Plaintiffs mark
`and any of Defendant’s alleged marks,
`including without
`limitation,
`BONGOS CUBAN CAFE, and the marks which are the subjects of
`Registration No. 2490999 and U.S. Application Serial No. 78/955,663.
`
`h. Declaring that Defendant has no right to enforce their trademark registration
`directed to the name BONGOS CUBAN CAFE against Plaintiff.
`
`i.
`
`Reasonable attorneys’ fees.
`
`j. Costs of court.
`
`k. All other relief this Honorable Court deems appropriate.
`
`

`
`Case 9:06—cv-81036-KLR Document 1
`
`Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2006
`
`Page 9 of 10
`
`.
`
`.
`
`DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
`
`Plaintiff demands trial by jury in the West Palm Beach Division of the U.S.
`
`District Court in and for the Southern District of Florida on all issues so triable as a
`
`matter of right.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff:
`
`SILVERMAN SANTUCCI, LLP
`Michael I. Santucci, Esq.
`500 West Cypress Creek Road
`Suite 500
`
`Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309
`(954) 35 1-7474/telephone
`
`BY:
`
`

`
`
`
`
`siOaaie«.§t/636-cv-81036-KLR Documgrpvim Cfgtofig £39 000 6 __
`
`9/20
`
`1
`
`6
`
`-‘~ ‘Ll’
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`in s orother apers as re uired by law, except as provided
`The IS 44 civil cover sheet and the tnfomtation contained herein neither re lace norsugplement the filing and service ofp
`by local rules ofcourt. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference 0 the United ratesin Seo
`bet: l97;_4_.js_ [eQl.ll_fE_(_lAfQl:_ o use,oft ‘e Cletkof oun for_the purpose of initiating
`the civil docket sheet.
`(SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE or THE roam.)
`NOHCE Attorneys MUST tndjejat '_l3j’ 'f,il,é,d_..(J’iax‘e’.«'i }3el_t':__‘vv
`-li».
`,3
`op ‘
`.___
`-,— ., in
`DEFENDANTS .
`ESTEFAN ENTERPRI ES, mc.,‘"e Florida éénpoiation
`‘V A .
`.i.. .*_r‘:‘:
`N
`County of Residence of First Listed Defendant‘
`'
`(IN u.s. PLAINTIFF CASES," _ Lv_); .;_~.;e',{s£3
`NOTE:
`IN LAND CONDEMNATION cAsEs, USE THE LOCATION or Tl-IE TRACT
`LAND INVOLVED.
`
`a
`
`{£3 3»
`
`
`
`,
`
`_
`
`;b__
`
`
`
`"
`
`I. (a) PLAINTIFFS
`MARRERO ENTERPRISES or PALM BEACH. INc.. a Florida
`corporation
`(b) County of Residence ofFirst Listed Plaintiff Palm Beach
`(EXCEPT IN u.s. PLAINTIFF CASES)
`(c) Attorney’; (nm. N.,,.,_ Adam“, “.1 Tglgphong N...,,i,.,)
`_
`_
`Michael I. Santucci, Esq., 500 W. Cypress Creek Rd, Ste 500, Fort
`Lauderdale, FL 33309, Tel: 954-351-7474
`
`(d) Check County Where Action Arose: ClMlAMl- DADE
`
`9300//0 ,, . .‘ »éei/
`
`Cl MONROE O BROWARD 2| PALM BEACH Cl MARTIN 0 ST. LUCIE I INDIAN RIVER O OKEECHOBEE
`HIGHLANDS
`
`Attorneys (If Known)
`
`DEF
`D l
`
`
`
`Citizen ofThis State
`
`Citizen ofAnother State
`
`0
`
`:1
`
`
`
`2
`
`Cl
`
`2
`
`5
`
`6
`
`o 5
`
`0 5
`
`.3
`“E1
`
`
`
`Cl
`
`II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an "x" in One Box Only)
`-
`Federal Question
`('U.S. Government Not-a Party)
`
`1 U.S. Government
`Plaintiff
`
`all 3
`
`C! 2 u.s. Government
`°°""“‘“‘
`
`0 4 Diversiry
`(Indicate Citizenship ofParties in ltem lll)
`
`
`
`~ It 40%.: Ittapponioninent
`-n
`D 4|
`ntitrudt
`fl -
`43a'i3nlrs and Banking
`0 450 Commerce
`D
`ortalion
`Cl 47
`ketcerlnfluenced and
`Corrupt Organizations
`O 480 Consumer Credit
`Cl 490 Cable/Sat TV
`Cl 810 Selective Service
`D 850 SecuritieslCommodiries'
`Exchange
`O 875 Customer Challenge
`l2 USC 3410
`D 890 Other Statutory Actions
`CI
`891 Agricultural Acts
`0 392 Economic Stabilization Act
`0 893 Environmental Matters
`D 894 Energy Allocation Act
`0 895 Freedom of Information
`.
`Act
`Cl 900Appeal of Fee Determination
`Under Equal Acces
`to Justice
`0 950 Constitutionality of
`State Statutes‘-
`
`
`
`
`
`d f
`f
`1-
`(Place an “X“ in One Box Only)
`AP ‘fig? Dlsmct
`V. ORIGIN
`4 §€ifiS!31iil°|’
`Cl
`0 2 Removed from
`D 3 Re-filed-
`Cl 5 .,fZ',‘h‘_.§'§fsm-3” Cl 6 gtlltidlsfrlct D 7
`figiggtmzn
`lg 1 Original
`
`
`Jud
`State Court
`(specify)
`Proceeding
`(see VI below)
`eopene
`
`a) Re-filed Case Cl YES 6 NO
`JUDGE
`§i‘:S3‘.i:2?i?“‘
`Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and Write a Brief Statement
`
`diversity):
`28 u.s.c. § 2201; 2202 Declaratory Judgment Action
`
`
`
`Vl. RELATED/RE-FILED
`CASE(S).
`
`
`
`V“ CAUSE OF
`ACTION
`
`itigation
`
`
`
`b) Related Cases 0 YES WNO
`ggggg;
`of Cause (Do not clte jurisdictional statutes unless
`
`
`
`DEMAND 8
`
`LENGTH OF TRIAL via _7___ days estimated (for both sides to try entire case)
`
`
`; CHECK IF THIS is A CLASS ACTION
`VIII. REQUESTED IN
`CHECK YES only ifdemandcd in comI>|ain'=
`UNDER I-‘.R.C.P. 23
`CoMpLA[N'f;
`JURY DEMAND:
`[EYes Q No .
`ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE & CORRECT TO
`THE EEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OF RECORD
`
`SIGN
`
`
`F0
`'
`m-
`
`~
`R up: owl.
`RECEIPT L}
`
`
`AMOUNT
`
`III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES(I>Iace in «x-- in One Box forPlaintiff
`(For Diversity Cases Only)
`and One Box for Defendant)
`PTF
`P112‘
`ngp
`I
`1 4
`‘all:
`lncorporatedar Principal Place
`of Business In This State X r‘
`Incomntegénitifnncipafifice
`°' '3“’'“C, l5.'="“°""""_§_-Q‘
`0 3
`3
`ci
`Citizen oi Subject ofa
`C-L
`Foreign Nnt"E;t}L.
`'
`Forei Coun
`
`
`
`on
`" --
`
`IV. NATURE OF SUIT Place an "x" in One Box oni
`
` F I RFEITURFJPENALTY
`'
`rEnsoNAL~INrtinv 0 610 Agriculture
`0 lI0 Insurance
`PERSONAL INJURY
`
`
`Cl 620 Other Food & Drug
`0 I20 Marina
`0 310 Airplane
`D 362 Personal lnjtgy -
`if] 625 Drug Related Seizure
`0 I30 Miller Act
`Cl 315 Airplane Product
`Med. Malpractice
`
`
`0 I40 Negotiable Instrument
`Liability
`Cl
`365 Personal Injury -
`of Property 21 USC 881
`
`
`0 I50 Recovery of Overpayment D 320 Assault. Lll)¢l &
`Product Liability
`Cl 630 Liquor Laws
`
`
`368 Asbestos Personal 0 640 Ml. & Tniclr
`& Enforcement ofludgment
`Slander
`Cl 650 Airline Regs.
`0 ls l Medicare Act
`0 330 Federal Employers‘
`Injury Product
`
`
`Cl 660 Occupational
`0 I52 Recovery of Defaulted
`Liability
`Liability
`PERSONAL PROPERTY
`' Student Loans
`CI 340 Marine
`Safety/Health
`
`
`
`. 0
`(Excl. Veterans)
`O 345 Marine Product
`0 370 Other Fraud
`0 I53 Recovery of Overpayment
`Liability
`0 371 Truth in Lending
`
`0 861 HIA (l395fi)
`0 H0 Fair Labor Standards
`of Veteran's Benefits
`D 350 Motor Vehicle
`Cl
`380 Other Personal
`
`
`
`Cl 862 Black Lung (923)
`Cl 160 Stockholders‘ Suits
`0 355 Motor Vehicle
`Property Damage
`Act
`
`0 863 DIWCIDIWW (405(g))
`385 Property Damage 0 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations
`Cl
`I90 Other Contract
`Product Liability
`
`
`0 730 Labor/Mgmt.Reporting D 864 SSID Title XVI
`D I95 Contract Product Liability
`Cl 360 Other Personal
`Product Liability
`
`
`0 865 R81 405 )
`0 I96 Franchise
`In'u
`& Disclosure Act
`
`0 740 Railway Labor Act
`
`0 210 Land Condemnation
`U 441 Voting
`790 Other Labor Litigation
`0 870 Taxes (US. Plaintiff
`
`
`
`Cl 442 Employment
`Sentence
`0 220 Foreclosure
`Cl
`791 Empl. Ret. Inc
`or Defendant)
`D 443 Housing/
`Habeas Corpus:
`0 230 Rent Lease & Ejectmcnt
`Security Act
`Cl 87l IRS-—Third Party
`
`Cl 240 Torts to Land
`Accommodations
`O 530 General
`26 USC 7609
`O 245 Tort Product Liability
`0 444 Welfare
`0 535 Death Penalty
`O 290 All Other Real Property
`0 445 Amer. w/Disabilities -
`Cl
`540 Mandamus & Other
`0 550 Civil Rights
`Employment
`
`555 Prison Condition
`0 446 Amer. w/Disabilities -
`cum
`
`O 440 Other Civil Rights
`
`
`Cl
`
`Cl
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BANK ‘ UPTC
`
`O 423 Withdrawal
`28 USC I57
`
`
`
`Cl 820 Copyrights
`
`D 830 Patent
`G 840 Trademark
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 9:O6—cv—81036—KLR Document 182
`
`Entered on FLSD Docket 12/13/2007
`
`Page 1 of 15
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION
`CASE NO. 06-81036-CIV-RYSKAMP
`
`MARRERO ENTERPRISES OF
`PALM BEACH, 1NC., a Florida corporation,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ESTEFAN ENTERPRISES, INC.,
`a Florida corporation,
`
`Defendant/Counterplaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`MARRERO ENTERPRISES OF‘3‘::.
`‘ PALM BEACH, INC., a Florida corporation,
`and ROBERTO NOBLE, SR.,
`
`Counterdefendants.
`
`Defendant/Counterplaintiff, Estefan Enterprises, Inc. (“EEI”), by and through its
`undersigned, hereby files its Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim
`
`as follows: '
`
`ANSWER
`
`1.
`
`EEI is without sufficient knowledge as to the truth ofthe allegations of
`
`Paragraph 1 of Marrero’s Complaint and, therefore, denies same.
`
`__________________
`
`ffirmative Defenses and Counterclaim pursuant to the
`r, inasmuch as Marrero has not joined Noble as a
`the Court’s Order granting EEI’s Motion to Join Noble, EEI reserves
`plaintiff to the declaratory action perr amend upon the tiling of such amended complaint for declaratory
`the right to further supplement and/o
`relief.
`
`1
`
`A
`
`EXHIBIT “ B ”
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 9:06-cv-81036-KLR Document 182
`
`Entered on FLSD Docket 12/13/2007
`
`Page 2 of 15
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`EEI admits the allegations of Paragraph 2 of Marrero’s Complaint.
`
`EEI admits that this case purports to arise under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and
`
`2202 and that it is action solely for declaratory of non-infringement.
`
`4.
`
`See EEI’s Motions to Dismiss and the Court’s Orders regarding the
`
`Court’s subject matterjurisdiction over this declaratory action.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`EEI does not contest personal jurisdiction.
`
`EEI does not contest venue.
`
`EEI admits that from March 2000 until approximately September 13,
`
`2007, Plaintiff was the owner ofthef‘|COCOBONGO” nightclub located in West Palm
`Beach, Florida, but denies that Plai‘n‘fi‘ff_is currently the owner of a “COCOBONGO”
`
`Nightclub as alleged.
`8.
`EEI admits that from March 2000 until approximately September 13,
`2007, Plaintiffused the mark COCOBONGO in Florida in connection with its nightclub
`and bar, but is without sufficient knowledge regarding the remaining allegations and
`
`therefore denies same.
`9.
`EEI is without sufficient knowledge as to the truth ofthe allegations of ‘
`
`Paragraph 9 of Marrero’s Complaint and, therefore, denies same.
`10.
`EEI denies the allegations of Paragraph 10 of Marrero’s Complaint.
`
`11.
`
`EEI admits that it owns a federally registered trademark (Registration No.
`
`2,490,999) for the mark BONGOS CUBAN CAFE.
`12.
`EEI denies the allegations of Paragraph 12 of Marrero’s Complaint.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`EEI denies the allegations of Paragraph 13 of Marrero’s Complaint.
`
`EEI denies the allegations of Paragraph 14 of Marrero’s Complaint.
`
`

`
`Case 9:06—cv-81036-KLR Document 182
`
`Entered on FLSD Docket 12/13/2007
`
`Page 3 of 15
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`EEI denies the allegations of Paragraph 15 of Marrero’s Complaint.
`
`EEI admits that the correspondence dated March 31, 2006 was sent to
`
`Marrero and states that the terms of the letter speak for itself.
`
`17.
`
`EEI admits that the correspondence dated April 26, 2006 was sent to
`
`Marrero and states that the terms of the letter speak for itself.
`18.
`Denied as ofthe time of filing the instant Declaratory Judgment action.2
`
`19.
`
`EEI denies that Marrero’s past use (prior to September 13, 2007) of its
`
`mark did not violate EEI’s rights and denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 19 of
`
`Marrero’s Complaint.
`20.
`EEI denies the allegations of Paragraph 20 of Marrero’s Complaint.
`
`EEI denies the allegations of Paragraphi21 of Marrero’s Complaint.
`
`p EEI denies the allegations of Paragraph 22 of Marrero’s Complaint.
`EEI denies the allegations of Paragraph 23 of Marrero’s Complaint.
`
`EEI denies the allegations of Paragraph 24 of Marrero’s Complaint as
`
`21.
`
`22.
`23.
`
`24.
`
`worded.
`
`25.
`
`EEI denies the allegations of Paragraph 25 of Marrero’s Complaint as
`
`worded.
`
`26.
`27.
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`EEI denies the allegations of Paragraph 26 of Marrero’s Complaint.
`EEI denies the allegations of Paragraph 27 of Marrero’s Complaint.
`
`EEI denies the allegations of Paragraph 28 of Marrero’s Complaint.
`
`EEI denies the allegations of Paragraph 29 of Marrero’s Complaint.
`
`__€__._______—.
`
`rder D.E. # 5 and D.E. # 31. By this answer, EEI desires to
`2 See Motion to Dismiss and Court 0
`w of these issues be deemed appropriate at a later date.
`avoid any claim of waiver should further revie
`
`

`
`Case 9:06—cv-81036-KLR, Document 182
`
`Entered on FLSD Docket 12/13/2007
`
`Page 4 of 15
`
`30.
`
`31.
`
`EEI denies the allegations of Paragraph 30 of Marrero’s Complaint.
`
`EEI denies that from March 2000 until approximately September 13,
`
`2007, there was no likelihood confusion between EEI’s mark and Plaintiffs mark. EEI
`
`admits that there is currently no likelihood of confusion due to Plaintiff’ s name change
`
`from Coco Bongo nightclub to Club Ibiza on or about September 14, 2007 and that
`
`Plaintiffs current alleged use ofthe Coco Bongo mark to advertise a “Coco Bongo
`
`Cancun Thursday Night” event at its nightclub Club Ibiza is not likely to cause customer
`
`confusion in the marketplace as to the source of its nightclub services.
`
`32.
`
`EEI denies the allegations of Paragraph 32 of Marrero’s Complaint.
`
`EEI is without sufficient knowledge as to the truth ofthe allegations of
`33.
`Paragraph 33 ofMarrero’s Complainthand, therefore, denies same.
`34.
`EEI admits that this case purports to arise under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and
`
`2202 for a declaratory judgment.
`
`35.
`
`EEI admits that from March 2000 until approximately September 13,
`
`2007, Plaintiff was infringing on EEI’s federally registered trademark and otherwise
`engaged in acts of unfair competition, but denies that Plaintiff is currently infringing on
`EEI’s federally registered trademark and otherwise engaging in acts of unfair competition
`
`due to Plaintiffs name change of it Coco Bongo nightclub to Club Ibiza on or about
`
`September 14, 2007.
`36.
`EEI admits that Exhibit A is a true copy of the letter; denied as to the
`
`remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 36 of Marrero’s Complaint.
`
`37.
`
`EEI denies that Plaintiff will not agree to cease and desist from its use of
`
`

`
`Case 9:06—cv—81036—KLR Document 182
`
`Entered on FLSD Docket 12/13/2007
`
`Page 5 of 15
`
`the name COCOBONGO for its nightclub and bar, having changed the name of its
`nightclub on or about September 14, 2007. EEI denies the remaining allegations in
`
`Paragraph 37 of Marrero’s Complaint.
`38.
`Denied as of the time of filing the instant Declaratory Judgment action.3
`
`39.
`
`EEI denies that an actual and justiciable controversy currently exists
`
`between Plaintiff and EEI due to Plaintiff’s name change of it Coco Bongo nightclub to
`
`Club Ibiza on or about September 14, 2007.4
`
`40.
`
`41.
`
`EEI denies the allegations of Paragraph 40 of Marrero’s Complaint.
`
`EEI is without sufficient knowledge as to the truth of the allegations of
`
`Paragraph 41 of Marrero’s Complaintiand, therefore, denies same.
`«'};;!
`EEI’S FIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`of law.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`EEI’s BONGOS CUBAN CAFE mark is incontestable as a matter
`
`In the alternative, EEI’s BONGOS CUBAN CAFE mark has acquired
`
`secondary meaning and has attained a high level of goodwill and fame.
`
`constitutes primafacie evidence that its mark is valid.
`4.
`EEI has engaged in numerous enforcement efforts against unauthorized
`
`users of confusingly similar names.
`5.
`Marrero has failed to police its mark and has otherwise acquiesced in the
`
`use of its marks by others.
`
`_________.________._
`
`3 See footnote 2.
`
`D.E. # 134 and DB. 167. By this answer, EEI desires
`4 See Motion to Dismiss and Court Order.
`e issues be deemed appropriate at a later date.
`to avoid any claim of waiver should further review of thes
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 9:06-cv-81036-KLR Document 182
`
`Entered on FLSD Docket 12/13/2007
`
`Page 6 of 15
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Marrero lacks standing to maintain this action.5
`
`The Coco Bongo mark utilized by Marrero is of no legal force or effect in
`
`that it is an abandoned mark.
`
`COUNTERCLAIM
`
`Defendant/Counterplaintiff, Estefan Enterprises, Inc. (“EEI”) by and through its
`
`undersigned counsel, sues Plaintiff/counterdefendant, Marrero Enterprises of Palm
`
`Beach, Inc. (“Marrero”) and Roberto Noble, Sr. (“Noble”), and alleges:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`EEI is a corporation organized under the existingilaws. of the State of
`
`Florida and has its principal place ofbusiness in Miami, Florida.
`
`2.
`
`Marrero is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Florida
`
`and has its principal place of business in West Palm Beach, Florida.
`
`3.
`
`Noble is an individual residing in Cancun, Mexico.
`
`NATURE OF ACTION
`
`4.
`This is an action for trademark infringement and false designation of
`origin under the Trademark Act of 1946, as amended (The Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C..§
`1051 et seq.), unfair trade practices under the Florida Unfair Trade Practices Act, Florida
`
`Statutes § 501.204 and unfair competition under the common law of the State of Florida,
`
`based on Marrero’s adoption and use of “Coco Bongo” as a name for its bar and
`
`nightclub and including advertising and promotion of a bar and nightclub known as
`
`“Coco Bongo” from March 2000 until approximately August, 2006 and as Marrero and
`
`_._______._______
`5 The Court has already detennined that Marrero lacks standing as a bare licensee to maintain this
`action. However, Noble has not voluntarily joined as a plaintiffto the declaratory action and, therefore,
`EEI maintains this affirmative defense until such times as that occurs.
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case 9:06-cv-81036—KLR Document 182
`
`Entered on FLSD Docket 12/13/2007
`
`Page 7 of 15
`
`Noble’s use of
`
`“Coco Bongo” as a name for its bar and nightclub and
`
`including
`
`advertising and promotion of a bar and nightclub known as “Coco Bongo” from
`
`approximately August, 2006 until September 13, 2007 in violation of EEI’s established
`
`rights in BONGOS CUBAN CAFE as a registered trademark for restaurant and bar
`
`services (collectively referred to as the “past infringing conduct”).
`
`J