throbber
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA1115385
`02/18/2021
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`Filing date:
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding
`
`92076438
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Defendant
`B & G Equipment Company, Inc.
`
`B & G EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC.
`135 REGION SOUTH DRIVE
`JACKSON, GA 30233
`UNITED STATES
`Primary Email: trademarkdocketchica@us.dlapiper.com
`No phone number provided.
`
`Motion to Suspend for Civil Action
`
`Michael Geller
`
`michael.geller@dlapiper.com, ch.tm@dlapiper.com
`
`/Michael Geller/
`
`02/18/2021
`
`Attachments
`
`Airofog v BandG - Motion for Suspension 891.pdf(5145277 bytes )
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Reg. No. 3,239,891
`
`In re:
`Sprayer Design
`Mark:
`August 28, 2006
`Filed:
`Registered: May 8, 2007
`
`AIROFOG USA, LLC,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`
`
` v.
`
`
`
`B&G EQUIPMENT COMPANY,
`
`
`
`Respondent.
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Cancellation No.: 92076438
`
`MOTION FOR SUSPENSION
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR § 2.117(a) and TBMP § 510.02(a), B&G Equipment Company
`
`(“B&G”), the owner of Registration No. 3,239,891 (the “Registration”), requests immediate
`
`suspension of the above-captioned proceeding (the “Cancellation”).
`
`On February 15, 2019, B&G filed a complaint in federal court in the Middle District of
`
`Florida against Petitioner, captioned B&G Equipment Company v. Airofog USA, LLC, Case No.
`
`8:19-cv-00403-CEH-AEP (the “Florida Litigation”). The Florida Litigation alleges claims for,
`
`inter alia, trademark infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition, violations of
`
`the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and unjust enrichment. B&G’s trademark
`
`infringement and unfair competition claims in the Florida Litigation center around Petitioner’s
`
`unauthorized use of the trademark/trade dress depicted in the Registration. Pursuant to TBMP §
`
`510.02(a), B&G attaches a copy of the file-stamped complaint in the Florida Litigation as
`
`Exhibit A.
`
`EAST\114747473. 1
`
`EAST\179437100.1
`
`1
`
`

`

`On March 19, 2019, Petitioner filed its Answer in the Florida Litigation, claiming that the
`
`Registration is invalid as “functional, generic, not inherently distinctive, ubiquitous, and [] not
`
`[having] acquired secondary meaning.” Answer and Counterclaim, B&G Equipment Company v.
`
`Airofog USA, LLC, Case No. 8:19-cv-00430-CEH-AEP, p. 13-14 (Mar. 19, 2019). A copy of
`
`Petitioner’s Answer and Counterclaim in the Litigation is attached as Exhibit B.
`
`The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) may suspend a proceeding when the
`
`parties “are involved in a civil action that may have a bearing on the Board case.” TBMP §
`
`510.02(a). The Board will suspend the proceeding absent “unusual circumstances” if the
`
`proceeding “may have a bearing on the issues before the board.” TBMP § 510.02(a). The Board
`
`policy is to favor suspension, even where the civil action involves matters outside the Board’s
`
`jurisdiction. TBMP § 510.02(a).
`
`The Florida Litigation involves Petitioner and B&G. In Florida Litigation, B&G alleges
`
`that Petitioner infringed the mark covered by the Registration, and Petitioner asserted a defense
`
`that the Registration is invalid. Thus, the Florida Litigation and issues in it bear directly and
`
`substantially on this cancellation action against the Registration.
`
`Therefore, B&G requests suspension of this cancellation action until a final determination
`
`of the Florida Litigation, as well as any and all appeals.
`
`//
`
`//
`
`//
`
`//
`
`//
`
`EAST\179437100.1
`
`2
`
`

`

`Dated: February 18, 2021
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`B&G EQUIPMENT COMPANY
`
`By:_/s/ Michael Geller
`Michael A. Geller
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`michael.geller@dlapiper.com
`444 West Lake Street, Suite 900
`Chicago, Illinois 60606-0089
`Telephone:
` 312.368.4000
`Facsimile:
` 312.251.2187
`
`Attorneys for B&G Equipment Co.
`
`EAST\179437100.1
`
`3
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a copy of this MOTION FOR SUSPENSION is being sent via
`courier, addressed to the correspondent of record:
`
`SUSAN J LATHAM
`FELDMAN & LATHAM, LLP D/B/A TRAILBLAZER
`1200 BRICKELL AVENUE, PENTHOUSE 1900
`MIAMI, FL 33131
`UNITED STATES
`slatham@trailblazerlaw.com; jfeldman@trailblazerlaw.com;
`lnguyen@trailblazerlaw.com; icervantes@trailblazerlaw.com; tm@trailblazerlaw.com
`
`/s/ Michael Geller
`Signature
`
`Michael Geller
`Name
`
`February 18, 2021
`Date of Signature
`
`EAST\179437100.1
`
`4
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-00403-CEH-AEP Document 1 Filed 02/15/19 Page 1 of 29 PageID 1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`TAMPA DIVISION
`
`B&G EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`AIROFOG USA, LLC, a Florida limited
`liability company,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, INJUNCTIVE
`RELIEF AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiff B&G Equipment Company, Inc. (“B&G” or “Plaintiff”) seeks legal and
`
`equitable remedies for violations of the Trademark Laws of the United States, 15 U.S.C. § 1051
`
`et seq. (also referred to as the “Lanham Act”). This action also asserts related state claims under
`
`both the statutory law and common law of the State of Florida. Defendant AiroFog USA, LLC
`
`(“Defendant”) is promoting, selling and offering for sale goods which are confusingly similar
`
`imitations of Plaintiff’s trademark goods, and such actions by Defendant additionally violate the
`
`express terms of the parties’ Settlement Agreement. Plaintiff seeks preliminary and permanent
`
`injunctive relief, equitable relief, monetary damages, attorney’s fees, and other necessary relief.
`
`In support of the aforementioned claims, Plaintiff alleges as follows:
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`1.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over all causes of action set forth herein
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1338, and 1367, in that this is a civil action involving
`
`claims arising under the laws of the United States, and/or involving claims between parties with
`
`diversity of citizenship where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, wherein all other
`
`EAST\164222765.7
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-00403-CEH-AEP Document 1 Filed 02/15/19 Page 2 of 29 PageID 2
`
`state law claims are so related to claims within the Court’s original jurisdiction that they form
`
`part of the same case or controversy.
`
`2.
`
`This Court also has jurisdiction over the state law claims under the doctrine of
`
`supplemental jurisdiction, because the federal and state claims are based on the same operative
`
`facts, and judicial economy, convenience and fairness to the parties will result if this Court
`
`assumes and exercises jurisdiction over such state law claims.
`
`3.
`
`Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391, because, Defendant
`
`resides in this District, and because some or all of Defendant’s infringing activities set forth in
`
`this Complaint occurred within this District.
`
`PARTIES
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff, B&G Equipment Company, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “B&G”) is a
`
`Delaware corporation, having a principal place of business at 135 Region South Drive, Jackson,
`
`Georgia, 30233.
`
`5.
`
`B&G is a manufacturer and seller of various pest control products, such as
`
`sprayers and parts therefor, throughout the United States to both pest control specialists and the
`
`consuming public at large, and has been in the business of manufacturing and selling such
`
`products since 1949.
`
`6.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant is a Florida limited liability company
`
`with offices located at 15331 Flight Path Drive, Brooksville, Florida 34604.
`
`7.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant is a distributor of pest control products,
`
`including sprayers.
`
`8.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant distributes pest control products both
`
`within Florida and throughout the United States.
`
`EAST\164222765.7
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-00403-CEH-AEP Document 1 Filed 02/15/19 Page 3 of 29 PageID 3
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`B&G’s Trade Dress
`
`9.
`
`B&G has been manufacturing and selling pest control products for over sixty-
`
`seven (67) years.
`
`10.
`
`One of B&G’s longest-running and most popular products is the B&G ‘Sprayer’
`
`(hereinafter the “Sprayer”). An image of the Sprayer is shown below:
`
`11.
`
`After its introduction in 1962, the Sprayer quickly became the corporate image
`
`and brand for B&G, and continues to represent B&G’s corporate image and brand to this day.
`
`12.
`
`The Sprayer comes in a variety of volumetric sizes (e.g., ½ Gallon, 1 Gallon, 2
`
`Gallon, etc.), but each size shares a common product configuration unique to B&G, including
`
`the following elements: (1) a cylindrical barrel; (2) circumferential rings extending around the
`
`barrel; (3) a slightly conical top member for the barrel; (4) a handle configuration incorporating
`
`a tubular gripping portion and a semicircular support member connecting the gripping portion to
`
`EAST\164222765.7
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-00403-CEH-AEP Document 1 Filed 02/15/19 Page 4 of 29 PageID 4
`
`a pump portion of the barrel; (5) a sprayer wand with an obtusely angled tip portion; and (6) a
`
`diagonal mounting pocket for the sprayer wand affixed to the barrel.
`
`13.
`
`By 2007, B&G had obtained two (2) Trademark Registrations on the Sprayer: (1)
`
`U.S. Reg. No. 3,210,240 (for the Sprayer including the words “B&G” stamped thereon) and (2)
`
`U.S. Reg. No. 3,239,891 (for the Sprayer body alone) (collectively, the “Trademark
`
`Registrations”). Copies of the Trademark Registrations are attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`14.
`
`The Trademark Registrations became incontestable on April 18, 2012 and January
`
`2, 2013, respectively. Copies of the U.S. Trademark Office’s Acceptances of B&G’s
`
`Declarations of Incontestability are attached hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`15.
`
`In addition to B&G’s federally registered rights as set forth in the Trademark
`
`Registrations, B&G has common law trademark and trade dress rights in the combination of
`
`unique and ornamental features that comprise the Sprayer, including: (1) a cylindrical barrel; (2)
`
`circumferential rings extending around the barrel; (3) a slightly conical top member for the
`
`barrel; (4) a handle configuration incorporating a tubular gripping portion and a semicircular
`
`support member connecting the gripping portion to a pump portion of the barrel; (5) a sprayer
`
`wand with an obtusely angled tip portion; and (6) a diagonal mounting pocket for the sprayer
`
`wand affixed to the barrel, which holds the sprayer wand generally upright when mounted on
`
`the barrel (collectively, the “Sprayer Trade Dress”).
`
`16.
`
`The Sprayer Trade Dress is purely aesthetic, and non-functional.
`
`17.
`
`B&G first sold a sprayer including all the elements of the Sprayer Trade Dress in
`
`1962.
`
`18.
`
`Since 1962, B&G has continuously and actively marketed sprayers including the
`
`Sprayer Trade Dress in interstate commerce.
`
`EAST\164222765.7
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-00403-CEH-AEP Document 1 Filed 02/15/19 Page 5 of 29 PageID 5
`
`19.
`
`The Sprayer Trade Dress has acquired secondary meaning through over fifty (50)
`
`years of substantially continuous and exclusive use by B&G in the marketplace.
`
`20.
`
`Since B&G’s first sale in 1962, B&G has enjoyed the goodwill associated with
`
`the Sprayer Trade Dress, and greatly values such goodwill.
`
`21.
`
`Customers within the pest control industry associate the Sprayer Trade Dress
`
`exclusively with B&G.
`
`Defendant’s Copycat Products
`
`22.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant began selling a sprayer (hereinafter the
`
`“AF Sprayer”) with a design that blatantly copied the design of the B&G Sprayer at least as
`
`early as October 2014.
`
`23.
`
`Upon information and belief, prior to 2014, a Chinese company also called
`
`AiroFog (“AiroFog China”) had been trying to sell a sprayer similar in design to the AF Sprayer
`
`through various distribution channels in the United States.
`
`24.
`
`Upon information and belief, after failing to gain traction in the United States
`
`through standard distribution channels in the pest control industry, AiroFog China decided to set
`
`up its own U.S. distributor, namely, Defendant.
`
`25.
`
`Shown below are images of the B&G Sprayer (right) and the AF Sprayer (left)
`
`from 2016, arranged side-by-side.
`
`EAST\164222765.7
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-00403-CEH-AEP Document 1 Filed 02/15/19 Page 6 of 29 PageID 6
`
`26.
`
`As shown above, the design of the AF Sprayer was substantially identical to that
`
`of the B&G Sprayer in 2016.
`
`27.
`
`At the time the AF Sprayer was first introduced (2014), the B&G Sprayer had
`
`been on sale for over fifty (50) years, and B&G had accumulated substantial goodwill in the
`
`design of the Sprayer.
`
`28.
`
`The AF Sprayer includes all the features shown in the Trademark Registrations,
`
`with the exception of the word “B&G” on the barrel (which has been replaced with the word
`
`“AiroFog”).
`
`29.
`
`The AF Sprayer includes all the elements of the Sprayer Trade Dress.
`
`30.
`
`B&G and Defendant share the same channels of trade with respect to their
`
`products.
`
`31.
`
`B&G and Defendant have attended the same trade shows in the past.
`
`32.
`
`B&G and Defendant target the same end customers, namely, Pest Control
`
`Operators (PCOs).
`
`EAST\164222765.7
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-00403-CEH-AEP Document 1 Filed 02/15/19 Page 7 of 29 PageID 7
`
`33.
`
`Defendant is infringing, and will continue to infringe, B&G’s intellectual property
`
`rights in the Trademark Registrations, and in the Sprayer Trade Dress, unless enjoined by this
`
`Court.
`
`34.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant will continue to willfully infringe B&G’s
`
`intellectual property rights in the Trademark Registrations and Sprayer Trade Dress, unless
`
`enjoined.
`
`35. Many alternative ornamental designs exist in the marketplace for pest control
`
`products, such that Defendant did not need to copy the designs for B&G’s Sprayer in order to
`
`compete.
`
`36.
`
`Defendant’s copying of the design for B&G’s Sprayer permitted Defendant to
`
`make virtually no investment in product design and development with respect to the AF
`
`Sprayer, and also allowed Defendant to benefit from the substantial goodwill B&G has
`
`accumulated in the marketplace.
`
`37.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant introduced the AF Sprayer with an
`
`intention to trade off B&G’s long-standing goodwill, in order to cause confusion in the
`
`marketplace for pest control products, and to lead customers to believe that Defendant’s
`
`products are sponsored by, or affiliated with, B&G.
`
`The 2016 Litigation And Settlement
`
`38.
`
`In 2016, B&G brought claims against Defendant in this judicial district for, inter
`
`alia, trademark infringement and unfair competition. See B&G Equipment Co., Inc. v. AiroFog
`
`USA LLC, Case No. 8:16-cv-03432-CEH-MAP (the “2016 Litigation”).
`
`EAST\164222765.7
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-00403-CEH-AEP Document 1 Filed 02/15/19 Page 8 of 29 PageID 8
`
`39.
`
`The Court (Honorable Charlene Edwards Honeywell) dismissed the 2016
`
`Litigation on December 5, 2017 pursuant to a settlement between the parties. See ECF No. 33,
`
`2016 Litigation.
`
`40.
`
`The parties settlement of the 2016 Litigation was set forth in a written Settlement
`
`Agreement dated November 15, 2017 (the “Settlement Agreement”), attached hereto as Exhibit
`
`C.
`
`41.
`
`The Defendant expressly agreed to make material changes to specific ones of its
`
`products in the Settlement Agreement, including the AF Sprayer.
`
`42. With respect to the AF Sprayer, the Defendant agreed to mark the AF Sprayer as
`
`“Made In China” with vinyl, destructible labels.
`
`43.
`
`Section 3.3(a) of the Settlement Agreement specifically states:
`
`All stickers comprise vinyl, destructible labels, or some equivalent
`type of label which is tamper resistant, or which is made in such a
`manner so as not to be easily removable from the respective
`Products without destruction of the label itself. B&G agrees that the
`following types of labels are appropriate for use in connection with
`this sub-section: (i) Brady Defender™ destructible labels made by
`Brady (http://www.bradybrandprotection.com/), (ii) CAMCODE®
`destructible
`labels
`made
`by
`Horizons
`Inc.
`(https://www.camcode.com/), or (iii) NADCO® destructible vinyl
`labels [Material 7613] made by Nadco Tapes & Labels, Inc.
`(http://www.nadco-inc.com/index.html).
`
`44.
`
`The Defendant additionally expressly agreed to make the lengths of the wands for
`
`the AF Sprayer either 7 ½ or 17 ½ inches exactly.
`
`45.
`
`Section 3.4(a) of the Settlement Agreement specifically states:
`
`The lengths of the wands for the AF Sprayer shall be only 7 ½
`inches or 17 ½ inches, and shall not be interchangeable with wands
`for the current B&G Sprayer; The hose, trigger valve, and filter for
`the AF Sprayer shall not be interchangeable with the current B&G
`Sprayer; No parts for the AF Sprayer shall be interchangeable with
`
`EAST\164222765.7
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-00403-CEH-AEP Document 1 Filed 02/15/19 Page 9 of 29 PageID 9
`
`the B&G Sprayer, except for the parts shown in Exhibit C attached
`hereto…
`
`46.
`
`As shown above, the Defendant also expressly agreed to make the wands not
`
`interchangeable with the wands for the B&G Sprayer.
`
`47.
`
`Defendant also expressly agreed to make the hose, trigger valve, and filter for the
`
`AF Sprayer not interchangeable with the B&G Sprayer.
`
`48.
`
`Finally, Defendant expressly agreed in the Settlement Agreement to make no
`
`parts for the AF Sprayer that would be interchangeable with the B&G Sprayer, except for a few
`
`limited parts listed in the Settlement Agreement which are not at issue in this case.
`
`Defendant’s Recent Actions
`
`49.
`
`Defendant has failed to adhere to the promises it made in the Settlement
`
`Agreement.
`
`50.
`
`Plaintiff recently learned that Defendant has breached the Settlement Agreement
`
`in several material ways, including but not limited to:
`
`a. using “Made in China” labels that are easily removable without destruction of the
`
`label;
`
`b. using wands for the AF Sprayer that are not exactly 7 ½ inches nor exactly 17 ½
`
`inches; and
`
`c. using parts for the AF Sprayer that are interchangeable with parts for the B&G
`
`Sprayer, including but not limited to the wands.
`
`EAST\164222765.7
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-00403-CEH-AEP Document 1 Filed 02/15/19 Page 10 of 29 PageID 10
`
`51.
`
`Below is an image of the “Made In China” label on an AF Sprayer; the label is
`
`already peeling off, and does not appear to be destructible in any manner:
`
`52.
`
`Below is an image of the wand of the AF Sprayer (top) compared to the wand of
`
`the current B&G Sprayer (bottom); the wands have identical lengths of 8 ½ inches:
`
`EAST\164222765.7
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-00403-CEH-AEP Document 1 Filed 02/15/19 Page 11 of 29 PageID 11
`
`53.
`
`Below is an image of the wand of the AF Sprayer disassembled; the parts shown
`
`are attachable to the B&G Sprayer, and thus interchangeable with the B&G Sprayer:
`
`54.
`
`In accordance with the notice provisions of Section 5.1 of the Settlement
`
`Agreement, Plaintiff notified Defendant in writing of the identified material breaches on
`
`December 14, 2018 and provided Defendant the thirty (30) days specified in the agreement to
`
`cure (the “Notice Letter”). A true and correct copy of the Notice Letter is attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit D.
`
`55.
`
`Defendant did not cure the material breaches referenced above by January 14,
`
`2019.
`
`56.
`
`In fact, Plaintiff heard nothing from Defendant in response to the Notice Letter
`
`until midday on January 14, 2019, when Defendant’s counsel contacted Plaintiff’s counsel to
`
`request an extension of time to address the issues raised in the Notice Letter.
`
`EAST\164222765.7
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-00403-CEH-AEP Document 1 Filed 02/15/19 Page 12 of 29 PageID 12
`
`57.
`
`The months of November through February are the peak sales time for pest
`
`control products.
`
`58.
`
`Despite this peak sales time, Plaintiff agreed to a limited extension of time of
`
`fourteen (14) days for Defendant to respond to the Notice Letter, in hopes that Defendant would
`
`cure the referenced material breaches, and that litigation would not be necessary.
`
`59.
`
`Defendant failed to cure the material breaches of the Settlement Agreement by
`
`January 28, 2019, and thus this litigation became necessary.
`
`60.
`
`Defendant continues to advertise and sell the AF Sprayer to this day, while
`
`touting the interchangeability of parts with the B&G Sprayer, and wand lengths greater than 7 ½
`
`and 17 ½ inches. Attached hereto as Exhibit E are pages from the website of distributor (Pest
`
`Management Supply) selling Defendant’s products. These pages advertise wand lengths of 8
`
`inches and 18 inches for the AF Sprayer, and also advertise AF Sprayer parts that “fit[] [both]
`
`AiroFog and B&G tanksprayers.”
`
`61.
`
`To protect its trademarks and other valuable intellectual property from further
`
`infringement by Defendant, and to seek relief for the ongoing irreparable harm caused by
`
`Defendant, Plaintiff has filed the present action.
`
`Trademark Infringement Under Section 32 of the Lanham Act
`
`COUNT I
`
`62.
`
`B&G restates and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 to 61 above, as if set
`
`forth fully in this Count.
`
`63.
`
`B&G owns all right, title and interest in and to the Trademark Registrations.
`
`64.
`
`Defendant is improperly and willfully infringing the Trademark Registrations in
`
`interstate commerce through the advertising, promotion, sale and distribution of the AF Sprayer.
`
`65.
`
`The AF Sprayer is a counterfeit copy of B&G’s genuine Sprayer.
`
`EAST\164222765.7
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-00403-CEH-AEP Document 1 Filed 02/15/19 Page 13 of 29 PageID 13
`
`66.
`
`Defendant’s use in interstate commerce of the product designs that are virtually
`
`identical to the product configuration described in the Trademark Registrations is likely to cause
`
`confusion or deception of consumers as to the source, origin, or sponsorship of the products in
`
`violation of Section 32 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1114). Particularly, customers are
`
`likely to purchase Defendant’s sprayer products believing them to be those of B&G, thereby
`
`resulting in a loss of goodwill and sales to B&G.
`
`67.
`
`Defendant’s conduct constitutes trademark infringement in violation of Section 32
`
`of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114.
`
`68.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, B&G has been, and is
`
`likely to be, substantially injured in its business including harm to its goodwill and reputation
`
`and the loss of revenues and profits.
`
`69.
`
`B&G has no adequate remedy at law, and unless enjoined by this Court,
`
`Defendant will continue to engage in such acts of trademark infringement, to the irreparable
`
`damage and injury of B&G.
`
`70.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant has engaged in the above-referenced acts
`
`of trademark infringement with full knowledge of B&G’s exclusive rights in the Trademark
`
`Registrations, and Defendant continues in such acts of intentional infringement, thus making
`
`this case exceptional and entitling B&G to an award of treble its actual damages, plus attorneys’
`
`fees in bringing and maintaining this action.
`
`EAST\164222765.7
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-00403-CEH-AEP Document 1 Filed 02/15/19 Page 14 of 29 PageID 14
`
`COUNT II
`
`Unfair Competition by False Designation of Origin Under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act
`
`71.
`
`B&G restates and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 to 61 above, as if set
`
`forth fully in this Count.
`
`72.
`
`The designs reflected in the Trademark Registrations acts as indicators of source
`
`and/or origin, and have acquired distinctiveness via secondary meaning.
`
`73.
`
`The Trademark Registrations are valid and subsisting, and incontestable.
`
`74.
`
`The designs reflected in the Trademark Registrations are non-functional and
`
`distinctive in the minds of the relevant purchasers of B&G’s goods and services as being
`
`associated exclusively with B&G.
`
`75.
`
`The Sprayer Trade Dress collectively operates as an indicator of source and/or
`
`origin, and has acquired distinctiveness via secondary meaning.
`
`76.
`
`The Sprayer Trade Dress is valid and subsisting, and has been in continuous and
`
`exclusive use throughout the United States, by B&G, since at least as early as 1962.
`
`77.
`
`The Sprayer Trade Dress is non-functional and distinctive in the minds of the
`
`relevant purchasers of B&G’s goods and services as being associated exclusively with B&G.
`
`78.
`
`Defendant, through their use, display and copying of the designs of B&G’s unique
`
`products (including the Sprayer), has without authorization, in connection with their goods
`
`and/or services in commerce, made or contributed to the making of false designations of origin,
`
`false or misleading descriptions of fact, and/or false or misleading representations of fact, which
`
`are likely to cause confusion, mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection or
`
`association of Defendant with B&G, and/or as to the origin, sponsorship or approval of
`
`Defendant’s goods and/or services, in violation of Section 43(a)(1)(A) of the Lanham Act (15
`
`U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A)).
`
`EAST\164222765.7
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-00403-CEH-AEP Document 1 Filed 02/15/19 Page 15 of 29 PageID 15
`
`79.
`
`Consumers are likely to purchase pest control products such as AF Sprayer from
`
`Defendant believing that Defendant is affiliated, connected or associated with B&G, resulting in
`
`a loss of goodwill to B&G.
`
`80.
`
`Defendant’s acts as set forth herein constitute unfair competition, and/or induce or
`
`contribute to acts of unfair competition.
`
`81.
`
`Defendant’s unfair acts have been committed in bad faith and with the intent to
`
`cause confusion, mistake and/or to deceive.
`
`82.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, B&G has been, and is
`
`likely to be, substantially injured in its business including harm to its goodwill and reputation
`
`and the loss of revenues and profits.
`
`83.
`
`B&G has no adequate remedy at law because the designs reflected in the
`
`Trademark Registrations and in the Sprayer Trade Dress are unique and represent to the public
`
`B&G’s identity, reputation, and goodwill, such that damages alone cannot fully compensate
`
`B&G for Defendant’s misconduct.
`
`84.
`
`Unless enjoined by this Court, Defendant and those acting in concert with them
`
`will continue to infringe B&G’s intellectual property rights, to B&G’s irreparable injury. This
`
`threat of future injury to B&G’s business identity, goodwill, and reputation requires injunctive
`
`relief to prevent Defendant’s continued use of the designs reflected in the Trademark
`
`Registrations and in the Sprayer Trade Dress, and/or product configurations confusingly similar
`
`thereto, and to ameliorate and mitigate B&G’s injuries.
`
`85.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant has engaged in the above-referenced acts
`
`of unfair competition with knowledge of B&G’s exclusive rights, and Defendant will continue
`
`in such acts unless enjoined by this Court.
`
`EAST\164222765.7
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-00403-CEH-AEP Document 1 Filed 02/15/19 Page 16 of 29 PageID 16
`
`COUNT III
`
`Unfair Competition (Florida Common Law)
`
`86.
`
`B&G restates and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 61 above, as if
`
`set forth fully in this Count.
`
`87.
`
`B&G owns and enjoys common law trademark rights in the shape and design of
`
`its products (including those designs reflected in the Trademark Registrations, and in the
`
`Sprayer Trade Dress) in the State of Florida and throughout the United States.
`
`88.
`
`The designs reflected in the Trademark Registrations, and in the Sprayer Trade
`
`Dress operate as indicators of source and/or origin, particularly when used in interstate
`
`commerce. Moreover, these designs have acquired distinctiveness via secondary meaning.
`
`89.
`
`Defendant, through their use, display and copying of the designs reflected in the
`
`Trademark Registrations, and in the Sprayer Trade Dress, has without authorization, in
`
`connection with their goods and/or services in commerce, made or contributed to the making of
`
`false designations of origin, false or misleading descriptions of fact, and/or false or misleading
`
`representations of fact, which are likely to cause confusion, mistake, or to deceive as to the
`
`affiliation, connection or association of Defendant with B&G, and/or as to the origin,
`
`sponsorship or approval of Defendant’s goods and services in violation of the common law of
`
`the State of Florida.
`
`90.
`
`Consumers are likely to purchase pest control products from Defendant believing
`
`that Defendant is affiliated, connected or associated with B&G, resulting in a loss of goodwill to
`
`B&G.
`
`91.
`
`Defendant’s acts as set forth herein constitute unfair competition, and/or induce or
`
`contribute to acts of unfair competition.
`
`EAST\164222765.7
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-00403-CEH-AEP Document 1 Filed 02/15/19 Page 17 of 29 PageID 17
`
`92.
`
`Defendant’s unfair acts have been committed in bad faith and with the intent to
`
`cause confusion, mistake and/or to deceive.
`
`93.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, B&G has been, and is
`
`likely to be, substantially injured in its business including harm to its goodwill and reputation
`
`and the loss of revenues and profits.
`
`94.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant’s acts of unfair competition are, and have
`
`been, oppressive, fraudulent and malicious, thus entitling B&G to punitive damages.
`
`95.
`
`B&G has no adequate remedy at law because the designs reflected in the
`
`Trademark Registrations, and in the Sprayer Trade Dress, are unique and represent to the public
`
`B&G’s identity, reputation, and goodwill, such that damages alone cannot fully compensate
`
`B&G for Defendant’s misconduct.
`
`96.
`
`Unless enjoined by this Court, Defendant and those acting in concert with them
`
`will continue to infringe B&G’s intellectual property rights, to B&G’s irreparable injury. This
`
`threat of future injury to B&G’s business identity, goodwill, and reputation requires injunctive
`
`relief to prevent Defendant’s continued use of the designs reflected in the Trademark
`
`Registrations, and the Sprayer Trade Dress, and/or product configurations confusingly similar
`
`thereto, and to ameliorate and mitigate B&G’s injuries.
`
`97.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant has engaged in the above-referenced acts
`
`of unfair competition with knowledge of B&G’s exclusive intellectual property rights, and
`
`Defendant will continue in such acts unless enjoined by this Court.
`
`Violation Of Florida Deceptive And Unfair Trade Practices Act
`
`COUNT IV
`
`98.
`
`B&G restates and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 61 above, as if
`
`set forth fully in this Count.
`
`EAST\164222765.7
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-00403-CEH-AEP Document 1 Filed 02/15/19 Page 18 of 29 PageID 18
`
`99.
`
`Defendant’s use of the designs reflected in the Trademark Registrations, and the
`
`Sprayer Trade Dress, or colorable imitations thereof, constitute deceptive and unfair practices
`
`under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (F.S.A. § 501.201 et seq.).
`
`100.
`
`Specifically, Defendant’s use of the designs reflected in the Trademark
`
`Registrations, and the Sprayer Trade Dress, and attempt to profit from the sale of the Infringing
`
`Products to third parties go against public policy and are immoral, unethical, oppressive,
`
`unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers.
`
`101. As a direct result of Defendant’s deceptive and unfair practices, B&G has been,
`
`and continues to be, damaged by Defendant’s use of the designs reflected in the Trademark
`
`Registrations, and the Sprayer Trade Dress, and attempts to profit from the sale of the Infringing
`
`Products.
`
`COUNT V
`
`Unjust Enrichment
`
`102. B&G restates and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 61 above, as if
`
`set forth fully in this Count.
`
`103. B&G has invested substantial time, labor and money in the design and production
`
`of the B&G Sprayer.
`
`104. Defendant has wrongfully misappropriated the unique features of the B&G
`
`Sprayer (as reflected in the Trademark Registrations, and the Sprayer Trade Dress), and has
`
`profited from and received certain other benefits as a result of such wrongful misappropriation.
`
`105. Defendant has been unjustly enriched at B&G’s expense.
`
`106.
`
`It would be inequitable to allow Defendant to retain the profits and other benefits
`
`it acquired through its wrongful actions.
`
`EAST\164222765.7
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-00403-CEH-AEP Document 1 Filed 02/15/19 Page 19 of 29 PageID 19
`
`COUNT VI
`
`Unfair Competition by False Advertising Under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act
`
`107.

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