martelli v perio filed declaratory judgment complaint for trademark and trade dress invalidity and...
DESCRIPTION
Federal Declaratory Judgment Complaint by manufacturer of PRORASO shaving cream against the manufacturer of BARBASOL shaving cream.TRANSCRIPT
Case 1:14-cv-05622-VSB Document 1 Filed 07/23/14 Page 1 of 6
2
detailed Coexistence Agreement, under which Martelli would transition to new packaging. The
design of new packaging involved substantial expense on Martelli’s part.
4. In November 2013, Perio’s counsel represented in writing that “it appears that we
have reached mutually satisfactory terms” and circulated the agreement for signature. However,
upon viewing the new packaging, Perio nonetheless reversed course and refused to sign the
agreement, issuing more threats of baseless litigation.
5. It is clear from its conduct that Perio is employing aggressive and sophisticated
but unlawful tactics to try to commercially monopolize the generic diagonal stripes of the classic
“barber pole.”
6. Perio is claiming that such a pattern constitutes a legally recognized trademark
when used in connection with shaving-related products and threatening its competitors with
litigation.
7. However, such a design cannot – and should not – be commercially monopolized
under United States trademark law, and is currently used by numerous third parties.
8. Perio did not volunteer this information to the United States Patent and
Trademark Office when filing its trademark applications.
9. Therefore, Martelli seeks a Declaratory Judgment that any alleged trademark and
trade dresses asserted by Perio are invalid and unenforceable.
10. Perio’s unlawful threats and conduct have been directed toward Martelli and
would interfere with and harm its contractual relationship with its exclusive American
distributor, located in this Judicial District.
11. The unreasonable and baseless demands of Perio are and were intended to disrupt
Martelli’s lawful business, thereby requiring an adjudication of the rights of the parties in the
Case 1:14-cv-05622-VSB Document 1 Filed 07/23/14 Page 2 of 6
3
dispute identified herein, before Martelli suffers further damage.
12. Therefore, Martelli respectfully seeks a Declaratory Judgment that Martelli’s past,
current and new trade dresses and trademarks do not violate alleged trademark and trade dress
rights asserted against it by Defendant Perio, create no likelihood of consumer confusion, do not
constitute unfair competition and do not constitute actionable dilution of any claimed trademark
or claimed trade dress of Perio.
PARTIES AND JURISDICTION
13. PLAINTIFF MARTELLI E FIGLI, S.R.L. is a privately held Italian company,
with a principal place of business at Via Faentina 169/12, Località Caldine 50010 Fiesole,
Florence, Italy.
14. PLAINTIFF LUDOVICO MARTELLI, S.R.L. is a privately held Italian
company, with a principal place of business at Via Faentina 169/12, Località Caldine 50010
Fiesole, Florence, Italy. Ludovico Martelli, S.r.l. is the licensee of Martelli e Figli, S.r.l.’s
trademarks. Further, Ludovico Martelli entered into an exclusive United States distribution
agreement with third party Bigelow in 2002.
15. The Plaintiffs are small, family-owned companies that are engaged in the business
of manufacturing, selling, marketing and distributing shaving-related cosmetics and accessories,
such as shaving creams and gels, under the brand name PRORASO® in the United States, in New
York and this Judicial District.
16. DEFENDANT PERIO, INC. is a privately held Ohio corporation with a
principal place of business at 6156 Wilcox Road, Dublin, Ohio 43016. Upon information and
belief, Perio is engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling, marketing and distributing
Case 1:14-cv-05622-VSB Document 1 Filed 07/23/14 Page 3 of 6
4
shaving-related cosmetics and accessories, such as shaving creams and gels, under the brand
name BARBASOL® in the United States, in New York and this Judicial District.
17. This is an action for Declaratory Judgment arising under (i) the Trademark Laws
of the United States, namely, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq., and 15 U.S.C. § 1121 et seq.; (ii) the
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202; and (3) Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. Thus, this Court has original jurisdiction over the subject matter of this dispute
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338.
18. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant as it has regularly
transacted business in New York, regularly done or solicited business in New York, and supplied
products at issue to New York consumers. Further, the Defendant’s threatened conduct will
cause injury to the Plaintiffs in New York and this Judicial District. Venue in this District is,
therefore, proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 et seq.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Barber Pole
19. The “barber pole” is a generic design that has become widely associated with the
act of shaving since medieval times. See National Barber Museum and Hall of Fame website,
located at http://www.NationalBarberMuseum.org (visited July 21, 2014), printouts and
photographs attached as Exhibits 1 and 2; see also William Andrews, AT THE SIGN OF THE
BARBER’S POLE: STUDIES IN HIRSUTE HISTORY (J.R. Turtin 1904).
20. “Barber-surgeons” were medical practitioners who provided a wide-range of
services during the medieval and early modern periods of history. See id. and Roderick McGrew,
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF MEDICAL HISTORY 30-31 (McGraw Hill 1985).
21. Traditionally, they were trained through apprenticeships, which could last as long
Case 1:14-cv-05622-VSB Document 1 Filed 07/23/14 Page 4 of 6
5
as seven years.
22. Many barber-surgeons had no formal education, and some were even illiterate.
23. Barber-surgeons provided a variety of medical services for their communities.
24. Moreover, because of their varying social backgrounds and relatively cheap prices,
they also appealed to a greater number of people in medieval and early modern England.
25. As a result, a person was more likely to visit a barber-surgeon than a physician
during his or her lifetime.
26. The barber-surgeon’s tasks ranged from trimming and shaving beards to cutting
hair to bloodletting.
27. Shaving and bloodletting are the origins of the elements contained within the
generic barber’s pole.
28. The original barber’s pole had a brass ball at its top, representing the vessel in
which leeches were kept and/or the basin that received the patient’s blood.
29. The pole itself represents the rod that the patient held tightly during the
bloodletting procedure to show the barber where the veins were located.
30. The red and white stripes represents the bloodied and clean bandages used during
the procedure.
31. Afterwards, these bandages were washed and hung to dry on the rod outside the
shop.
32. The blowing wind would twist the bandages together, forming the familiar spiral
pattern we see on barber poles today.
33. Barber-surgeons and medical surgeons existed separately in England until 1540,
when King Henry VIII integrated the two through the establishment of the Barber-Surgeons
Case 1:14-cv-05622-VSB Document 1 Filed 07/23/14 Page 5 of 6
6
Company. See Charles E. Bagwell, M.D., Respectful Image: Revenge of the Barber Surgeon,
ANNALS OF SURGERY 876 (June 2005).
34. After the establishment of the Barber-Surgeons Company in 1540, a statute was
passed that required barbers and surgeons to distinguish their services by the colors of their pole.
35. From that point forward, barbers used blue and white poles, while surgeons used
red and white poles.
36. Although united as a profession, tensions between the barber-surgeons and
surgeons persisted until the two professions eventually split in 1745.
37. Today, red, white and blue barber poles are often found in the United States,
although this may have to do with the colors of the nation’s flag.
38. The traditional interpretation posits that the color red represents arterial blood, the
blue represents venous blood and the white represents the bandages. See, e.g., Brian Bakst,
Barbers, Stylists Disagree on Who Can Display a Barber Pole, USA TODAY, March 14, 2012
(Exhibit 3); see also History of the Barber Pole, Tennessee State Board of Barber Examiners,
http://www.tn.gov/regboards/barber/bpolehis.shtml (website printout attached as Exhibit 4); 3
ENCYCLOPEDIA AMERICANA (Scholastic 2006) (attached as Exhibit 5) (“The traditional barber’s
pole of red and white stripes symbolizes the bloodletting and bandages formerly associated with
barbers.”).
39. Spinning barber poles are intended to move in a downward angled, diagonal
direction that makes the red (arterial blood) appear as if it were flowing downwards, as it does in
the body.
40. There are tens of thousands of examples of such barber poles widely in use today,
in connection with barbershops, many of which offer premium shaving services.
Case 1:14-cv-05622-VSB Document 1 Filed 07/23/14 Page 6 of 6
7
41. The symbol has become a generic business sign for barbershops and the related
act of shaving. See DK ILLUSTRATED DICTIONARY (Dorling Kindersley/Oxford 1998) (Exhibit
6)(“barber pole n., a spirally painted striped red and white pole hung outside barbers’ shops as a
business sign”); WEBSTER’S NEW WORLD COLLEGE DICTIONARY (Wiley 2010) (Exhibit 7)
(“barber pole a pole with spiral stripes of red and white, used as a symbol of the barber’s
trade”).
42. Just a few examples of photographs of generic barber pole stripes are included
below and attached at Exhibits 1 and 2:
FIG. 1
Case 1:14-cv-05622-VSB Document 1-1 Filed 07/23/14 Page 1 of 1
8
FIG. 2
FIG. 3
Case 1:14-cv-05622-VSB Document 1-2 Filed 07/23/14 Page 1 of 1
9
FIG. 4
FIG. 5
Case 1:14-cv-05622-VSB Document 1-3 Filed 07/23/14 Page 1 of 1
10
Third Party Uses of the Generic Barber Pole Theme
43. Many third parties sell shaving products and related accessories utilizing this
generic “barber pole” theme (see Exhibit 8). Just a few examples include:
FIG. 6 FIG. 7
FIG. 8 FIG. 9
Case 1:14-cv-05622-VSB Document 1-4 Filed 07/23/14 Page 1 of 10
11
FIG. 10 FIG. 11
Martelli and Its High-End PRORASO® Shaving Products
44. Martelli sells high-end shaving supplies, including shaving creams and shaving
foam, under the brand name PRORASO® throughout the world, including to consumers in New
York and this Judicial District.
45. In 1948, Piero Martelli invented the PRORASO Pre-Shave Cream.
46. Since then, PRORASO products have been a staple of high-end barbershops
throughout the world, including in the United States, New York and this Judicial District.
47. Third party C.O. Bigelow Chemists, Inc., with a principal place of business
located at 414 Sixth Avenue, New York, NY 10011, in this Judicial District, is the exclusive
distributor of Martelli’s PRORASO products in the United States.
48. Many barber shops and shaving centers display and offer Martelli’s PRORASO
products for sale in New York and this Judicial District.
49. Furthermore, many online stores sell PRORASO products directly to consumers.
Case 1:14-cv-05622-VSB Document 1-4 Filed 07/23/14 Page 2 of 10
12
50. Retail prices for PRORASO’s shaving products vary, but can reach prices up to
$16.00 for aftershave lotion and $10.00 for shaving foam and cream.
51. For years, Martelli’s PRORASO products have made use a diagonal design and
color scheme that incorporates elements of the generic “barber pole” stripe.
Defendant Perio’s Conduct
BARBASOL® Products
52. Upon information and belief, third party Pfizer Inc., primarily a pharmaceutical
company that had owned the BARBASOL brand since the 1960’s, sought to sell the brand by the
late 1990’s.
53. Upon information and belief, in the 1990s, BARBASOL products’ brand equity
had diminished and sales had slowed.
54. Upon information and belief, Perio acquired the BARBASOL® brand from third
party Pfizer Inc. in or about 2001.
55. The Defendant’s BARBASOL products make use of a diagonal striped design,
importing elements of the barber pole, which it calls the “barber pole trade dress”:
Case 1:14-cv-05622-VSB Document 1-4 Filed 07/23/14 Page 3 of 10
13
FIG. 12
56. Ten ounce BARBASOL cans of shaving cream sell for as little as ninety-nine
cents ($0.99) in retail stores, a fraction of the retail price of PRORASO’s products.
57. Unlike PRORASO products, BARBASOL products are typically sold through
mass-market retailers, such as Wal-Mart, as well as most major drug store chains and
supermarkets.
58. Upon information and belief, Perio has been attempting to “revitalize” its brand
image and expand BARBASOL’s market share using a variety of means.
59. Upon information and belief, beginning in approximately 2010, Perio began a
campaign to dramatically try to further expand its commercial footprint and intellectual property
Case 1:14-cv-05622-VSB Document 1-4 Filed 07/23/14 Page 4 of 10
14
rights in the United States, using several different sophisticated law firms and marketing
agencies.
60. For example, according to The New York Times: “Perio spent $3.7 million to
advertise Barbasol in major media in 2011, according to the Kantar Media unit of WPP,
compared with $2.7 million in 2010 and $2.9 million in 2009. The total for the first nine months
of last year was $2 million.” See Stuart Elliot, Across the Generations: A Proper Shave, THE
NEW YORK TIMES, January 27, 2013, at B5.
61. Since that time, Perio has also filed for (and in some cases received) U.S.
trademark registrations claiming rights to the generic “barber pole” elements in the class of
shaving-related accouterments, using several different law firms. Collectively, Perio’s issued
and pending U.S. Trademark Registration rights shall be referred to as “Perio’s Trademarks”.
62. For example, in 2008, Perio had sought and received U.S. Trademark Reg. No.
3,505,879 (Exhibit 9) for the following design used in connection with shaving cream, shaving
gel and after shave balms:
FIG. 13
63. Apparently not satisfied with this scope of trademark protection, thereafter, in
2013, Perio filed U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 85,173,104, which matured into U.S.
Trademark Reg. No. 4,277,946 (Exhibit 10) for the following design for “aftershave”:
Case 1:14-cv-05622-VSB Document 1-4 Filed 07/23/14 Page 5 of 10
15
FIG. 14
64. Subsequently, Perio also filed U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 86,152,402
(Exhibit 11) for the following design used in connection with shaving preparations, shaving
cream, shaving gel, shaving foam and razors:
FIG. 15
65. In late 2013, Perio further filed U.S. Trademark Application Serial No.
86,152,418 (Exhibit 12) for the following design used in connection with shaving preparations,
shaving cream, shaving gel, shaving foam, aftershave, aftershave balm and pre-shave wash:
FIG. 16
Case 1:14-cv-05622-VSB Document 1-4 Filed 07/23/14 Page 6 of 10
16
66. In late 2013, Perio further filed U.S. Trademark Application Serial No.
86,152,397 (Exhibit 13) for the following design used in connection with shaving preparations,
shaving cream, shaving gel, and shaving foam:
FIG. 17
67. In late 2013, Perio also filed U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 86,152,389
(Exhibit 14) for the following design used in connection with shaving preparations, shaving
cream, shaving gel, shaving foam, aftershave, and aftershave balm:
FIG. 18
68. As demonstrated by this recent flurry of Perio’s trademark applications, Perio has
embarked on the task of monopolizing the generic diagonally striped barber pole element.
69. The method it is using is to systematically and incrementally file trademark
application after trademark application. This approach seeks to own each and every aspect of the
diagonal stripe barber pole theme, without disclosing the generic nature of this trade dress to the
United States Patent and Trademark Office.
70. In many of these applications, Perio has claimed that it has a bona fide intent to
use these trademarks in commerce, but has not yet demonstrated that it has actually done so.
Case 1:14-cv-05622-VSB Document 1-4 Filed 07/23/14 Page 7 of 10
17
71. The cumulative effect of this strategy is that Perio would monopolize generic
barber pole elements that have been used in connection with shaving-related products for over
500 years, and unlawfully use baseless threats of litigation to stifle legitimate competition so that
it could expand its market footprint and “revitalize” its flagging brand.
72. There is a significant cost and competitive harm to companies such as the
Plaintiffs from this strategy, which simply cannot afford to perpetually battle with the Defendant
over generic elements.
73. Perio has unabashedly stated its broad legal goal (see Exhibit 17):
Perio claims rights in stripes on shaving-related goods that create a barber pole impression. 74. However, when seeking to register its various trademarks, Perio’s attorneys did
not disclose the generic nature of the barber pole design to the United States Patent and
Trademark Office.
75. The Defendant’s strategy to aggressively enforce its claimed rights against
“infringers” to advance its own commercial interests was not an idle threat.
76. In 2010, the Defendant sued a chain of “99 Cent” retail stores in Los Angeles,
California for infringing upon its claimed trade dress, by its sale of cans of shaving cream that
contained these generic elements. See Perio, Inc. v. 99 Cent Only Stores, 2:10-cv-680-ODW-
RC (C.D. Cal. 2010).
77. In that case, the U.S. District Court Judge entered an Order to Show Cause sua
sponte against Perio, demanding to know why the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office was not
given notice of the suit. Id. at Docket 5.
78. Perio responded, circumventing the requirement, by informing the Court that “this
litigation does not involve a registered trademark.” Id. at Docket 6.
Case 1:14-cv-05622-VSB Document 1-4 Filed 07/23/14 Page 8 of 10
18
79. Perio later dismissed all of its claims against the defendant with prejudice after
reaching a settlement with the defendant. Id. at Docket 12.
80. Thus, by doing so, Perio was able to avoid judicial scrutiny of its claimed “trade
dress” rights, was not required to demonstrate that its unregistered trade dress was distinctive,
nor prove how that defendant’s use of striped would likely cause consumer confusion, as it had
claimed.
Perio’s Relentless and Baseless Threats Against Martelli
81. On January 10, 2013, Perio’s counsel sent a formal cease and desist letter to
Plaintiff Martelli e Figli, S.r.l, in Italy. See attached Exhibit 15.
82. Perio accused Martelli of using a trade dress that is likely to cause confusion
among consumers. Id.
83. Perio demanded that Martelli “modify its packaging” and “remove any prominent
stripes.” Id.
84. However, Martelli reasonably believed that consumers would not be confused
into believing that its high-end shaving products originated from or were sponsored by Perio,
simply because they use stripes.
85. In fact, Martelli has been using a diagonal striped theme for many years. See,
e.g., Exhibit 16.
86. Martelli’s shaving products are not typically available through the same channels
of trade as Perio’s shaving products.
87. Further, Martelli’s products are typically sold at retail prices that are much higher
than Perio’s products.
88. Perio has not identified any instances of actual consumer confusion occurring
Case 1:14-cv-05622-VSB Document 1-4 Filed 07/23/14 Page 9 of 10
19
between the two brands.
89. Furthermore, Martelli is unaware of any instances of actual consumer confusion
occurring between the two brands.
90. Martelli respectfully articulated its position to Perio through its Italian counsel on
February 11, 2013, and pointed out that Perio’s claimed “barber pole” trade dress was based on
generic elements that have been used in connection with shaving for centuries, and actually,
incorporated elements that were used first in Italy by Martelli. See attached Exhibit 16.
91. Further, Martelli explained that it simply did not believe that consumer confusion
was likely. Id.
92. But Perio simply would not relent.
93. Over the course of a year, Perio continued to insist that Martelli must cease
selling and distributing products prominently displaying stripes in the United States, or else
Martelli would be liable for past damages and an injunction against further use in the United
States, based on alleged trademark and trade dress infringement, as well as unfair competition.
See attached Exhibits 15-22.
94. As Perio would receive another trademark registration on the barber pole stripe
theme, it would renew and amplify its threats.
95. Ultimately, in a good faith effort and solely to avoid the time and expense of
defending against the never-ending torrent of threats of litigation, Martelli sought to enter into a
formal arrangement by which it could transition to new packaging by July 30, 2014.
96. At great expense, between the end of 2013 and the beginning of 2014, Martelli
invested in designing new packaging solely to avoid a costly dispute with Perio.
Case 1:14-cv-05622-VSB Document 1-4 Filed 07/23/14 Page 10 of 10
20
97. Perio’s counsel represented in writing that “it appears that we have reached
mutually satisfactory terms” and circulated the agreement for signature. However, upon viewing
the new packaging, Perio nonetheless reversed course and refused to sign the agreement, issuing
more threats of litigation.
98. Ultimately, at the eleventh hour, Perio refused to sign the coexistence agreement,
and continued to threaten Martelli with legal action by frivolously not approving the Redesigned
Trade Dress, which is depicted below:
FIG. 19
Case 1:14-cv-05622-VSB Document 1-5 Filed 07/23/14 Page 1 of 6
21
99. It is obvious to any casual observer that Martelli’s Redesigned Trade Dress
simply will not likely cause consumer confusion with Perio or its BARBASOL products.
100. Perio also threatened Martelli with litigation in the United States over its
website’s use of barber pole stripes. See Exhibit 22.
101. The Redesigned Trade Dress utilizes a theme that could not possibly be viewed as
likely to confuse consumers with Perio or BARBASOL products.
102. Further, Martelli’s original trade dresses and website design did not cause, and
will not cause consumer confusion with Perio or its BARBASOL products.
103. Nonetheless, Perio has still refused to sign a coexistence agreement, and
continues to refuse to permit Perio to use its existing or the Redesigned Trade Dress without
constant threats of litigation.
104. Furthermore, Martelli was unaware that Perio was filing the aforementioned
trademark applications in the United States, and did not formally oppose them.
105. Ultimately, Martelli has been left with no choice but to commence this lawsuit, to
bring a halt to Perio’s ongoing baseless threats and threatened tortious interference, and to seek
to cancel its trademark registrations and pending applications.
106. Finally, Martelli has also been forced to commence litigation against Perio in Italy
under that nation’s laws, to seek damages and to protect its rights there.
Case 1:14-cv-05622-VSB Document 1-5 Filed 07/23/14 Page 2 of 6
22
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT AND UNENFORCEABILITY
107. Martelli reinstates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 106 inclusive, as if fully set
forth herein.
108. Defendant Perio has clearly and repeatedly alleged that the use and sale by
Martelli of its past, current and proposed trade dresses and trademarks on its products and in its
advertising, would be and is an infringement of Perio’s claimed trademark and trade dress rights.
109. Infringement of a registered trademark is actionable under the Lanham Act, 15
U.S.C. § 1114(1), which permits a registrant to commence a civil action in U.S. District Court to
obtain, inter alia, injunctive relief to prevent violation of any such rights, 15 U.S.C. § 1116; and
monetary relief including profits attributable to the infringement, Id. at § 1117. Allegations of
unregistered trade dress infringement and unfair competition are actionable under the Lanham
Act, with the same relief available. Id.
110. The demand letters from Perio’s counsel constitute a clear, unambiguous claim
that Martelli’s sale of its past, current and proposed trade dress is an infringement of Perio’s
claimed trade dress, trademark and common law rights, and that Martelli must meet Perio’s
demands immediately or be faced with litigation against it and its distributors.
111. Martelli has denied that its good faith sale of items incorporating its trade dresses
and trademarks does, or will create any likelihood of confusion with Perio or its products.
112. Perio’s counsel represented in writing that “it appears that we have reached
mutually satisfactory terms” and circulated the agreement for signature. However, upon viewing
the new packaging, Perio nonetheless reversed course and refused to sign the agreement, issuing
more threats of litigation.
Case 1:14-cv-05622-VSB Document 1-5 Filed 07/23/14 Page 3 of 6
23
113. The unreasonable demands of Perio are intended to disrupt Martelli’s lawful
business, thereby requiring an adjudication of the rights of the parties in the dispute identified
herein, before Martelli suffers further damage.
114. An actual case or controversy therefore exists within the Court’s jurisdiction,
concerning the validity of Perio’s claimed trademark and trade dress rights, and the respective
rights of the parties. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202; FED. R. CIV. P. 57.
115. Martelli’s past, current and proposed trademarks and trade dresses will not cause
consumer confusion, do not infringe upon any registered trademark or unregistered claimed trade
dress rights owned by Perio, do not constitute unfair competition and do not dilute any famous
trademarks or trade dresses owned by Perio.
116. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and therefore seek declaratory relief as
set forth herein.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF TRADEMARK AND TRADE DRESS INVALIDITY
AND CANCELLATION OF TRADEMARKS PURSUANT TO 15 U.S.C. § 1064 and § 1119
117. Martelli reinstates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 116 inclusive, as if fully set
forth herein.
118. Perio’s Trademarks and unregistered claimed trade dresses are generic, and/or
lack necessary distinctiveness to legally function as source identifiers under applicable United
States law.
119. Perio’s conduct and threats as complained of herein have caused, and will
continue to cause, injury to Martelli.
120. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1064 and § 1119, Perio’s Trademarks should therefore be
Case 1:14-cv-05622-VSB Document 1-5 Filed 07/23/14 Page 4 of 6
24
declared invalid and ordered cancelled, as they are generic, and/or lack necessary distinctiveness
to legally function as trademarks under applicable United States law.
121. Perio’s unregistered claimed trade dress(es) should also be declared invalid as
they are generic and/or lack necessary distinctiveness to legally function as trademarks under
applicable United States law.
122. An actual case or controversy therefore exists within the Court’s jurisdiction,
concerning the validity of Perio’s claimed trademark and trade dress rights, and the respective
rights of the parties. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202; FED. R. CIV. P. 57.
123. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and therefore seek declaratory relief
against the Defendant Perio as set forth herein.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs request relief as follows:
A. A Declaration of Martelli’s lawful rights to sell its existing and proposed products
without complaint or further interference from Perio;
B. A Declaration that Martelli’s past, current and proposed trademarks and trade dresses
do not infringe upon Perio’s Trademarks or claimed unregistered trade dress rights of
Perio;
C. A Declaration that Martelli’s sale of its current and proposed products does not create
a likelihood of consumer confusion with Perio’s Trademarks or with any common law
rights of Perio in the unregistered trade dress of its products;
D. An Order pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1119 to rectify the Principal Register of the United
States Patent and Trademark Office canceling each of Perio’s Trademarks, and such
order shall be certified to the Director, who shall make appropriate entry upon the
Case 1:14-cv-05622-VSB Document 1-5 Filed 07/23/14 Page 5 of 6
Case 1:14-cv-05622-VSB Document 1-5 Filed 07/23/14 Page 6 of 6