Case 3:22-cv-00684-VAB Document 1 Filed 05/20/22 Page 1 of 18
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
`
`ROSINA FOOD PRODUCTS, INC., and F&R IP
`INC.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`ROSINA’S MILL STREET LLC dba ROSINA’S
`RESTAURANT AND BAR,
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No.
`
`
`
`MAY 19, 2022
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiffs, Rosina Food Products, Inc. and F&R IP Inc. (“Plaintiffs”), by and through their
`
`attorneys, Barclay Damon LLP, as and for their Complaint against defendant Rosina’s Mill Street
`
`LLC dba Rosina’s Restaurant and Bar (“Defendant”), allege as follows:
`
`NATURE OF ACTION
`
`1. This is an action for (a) trademark infringement of federally-registered trademarks in
`
`violation of Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1); (b) unfair competition and
`
`false designation of origin in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a);
`
`(c) cybersquatting in violation of Section 43(d) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d); (d)
`
`trademark infringement under the common law of the State of Connecticut; (e) unfair competition
`
`under the common law of the State of Connecticut; and (f) unfair competition under the
`
`Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (“CUTPA”) (Gen. Stat. § 42-110(b)).
`
`PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`F&R IP Inc. (hereinafter, “F&R IP”), is a corporation organized and existing under
`
`the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 170 French Rd., Buffalo,
`
`24565894.1
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00684-VAB Document 1 Filed 05/20/22 Page 2 of 18
`
`New York 14227. F&R IP is the owner of trademark registrations and common law trademark
`
`rights for ROSINA-formative marks identified in detail below (and hereinafter known as the
`
`“Rosina Marks”).
`
`3.
`
`Rosina Food Products, Inc. (hereinafter “Rosina”), is a corporation organized and
`
`existing under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal place of business at 170 French
`
`Rd., Buffalo, New York 14227. Rosina is the beneficial owner and licensee of the Rosina Marks
`
`owned by F&R IP. Rosina is in the business of manufacturing, distributing, and selling a wide
`
`variety of Italian-style food products under various brand names and logos, including the Rosina
`
`Marks.
`
`4.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant is a limited liability company duly
`
`organized and existing under the laws of the State of Connecticut, with a place of business at 230
`
`Mill St., Greenwich, Connecticut 06830.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`5.
`
`This Complaint arises under §§ 32 and 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§
`
`1114(1) and 1125(a) and (d), as amended, and the common laws of the State of Connecticut.
`
`6.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §
`
`1121(a) (actions arising out of the Lanham Act); 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (actions arising under the laws
`
`of the United States), § 1338(b) (action asserting related claim for unfair competition), and § 1367
`
`(supplemental jurisdiction over related claims), and general principles of ancillary and pendent
`
`jurisdiction.
`
`7.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because it is domiciled in this
`
`District and has committed acts of trademark infringement and/or unfair competition within this
`
`District, and/or it regularly engages in extensive business transactions and solicitations in the State
`
`24565894.1
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00684-VAB Document 1 Filed 05/20/22 Page 3 of 18
`
`of Connecticut and within this District and has offered to contract, and/or contracted, to supply
`
`goods and/or services within this District, including, but not necessarily limited to, through the
`
`operation of its restaurant located at 230 Mill St., Greenwich, Connecticut.
`
`8.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a substantial
`
`part of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant occurred, and continue to
`
`occur, in this District.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Rosina brand was launched in 1963 as part of a family business in
`
`Buffalo, New York, servicing neighborhood meat markets, supermarkets, and restaurants.
`
`10.
`
`Since then, the Rosina brand has become known nationwide as signifying high
`
`quality food products that are consistently made with quality and fresh ingredients. The products
`
`include Italian meatballs, pasta, eggplant, appetizers, pizza toppings, sausage, and entrees.
`
`Products are sold through a variety of channels, and can be found in supermarkets, supercenters,
`
`military commissaries, wholesale clubs, and restaurants throughout the country.
`
`24565894.1
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00684-VAB Document 1 Filed 05/20/22 Page 4 of 18
`
`11.
`
`In 2013, Rosina was selected as “Frozen Food Supplier of the Year” by Reinhart
`
`Foodservice, one of the largest foodservice distributors in the United States.
`
`12.
`
`F&R IP is the owner of federal trademark registration, Reg. No. 1,584,904, which
`
`issued on February 27, 1990 on the principal register of the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office. This registration is for the
`
` mark and covers a range of goods, including, “Italian
`
`Foods – namely, Meatballs, Italian Sausage with Peppers and Onions in Sauce, and Beef or Pork
`
`Based Pizza Topping.” A true and correct copy of this registration is attached as Exhibit A. The
`
`right to use this trademark has become incontestable under the provisions of 15 U.S.C. § 1065.
`
`The registration is valid and subsisting and has never been cancelled.
`
`13.
`
`F&R IP is also the owner of federal trademark registration, Reg. No. 4,350,542,
`
`which issued on June 11, 2013 on the principal register of the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office. This registration is for the
`
` mark and covers a range of goods, including, “Food
`
`products, namely, frozen and packaged meats and vegetables; Frozen and packaged entrees
`
`consisting primarily of meat and/or vegetables.” A true and correct copy of this registration is
`
`attached as Exhibit B. The right to use this trademark has become incontestable under the
`
`24565894.1
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00684-VAB Document 1 Filed 05/20/22 Page 5 of 18
`
`provisions of 15 U.S.C. § 1065. The registration is valid and subsisting and has never been
`
`cancelled.
`
`14.
`
`F&R IP is also the owner of federal trademark registration, Reg. No. 6,123,358,
`
`which issued on August 11, 2020 on the principal register of the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office. This registration is for the ROSINA mark and covers a range of goods,
`
`including, “Meatballs; Beef meatballs; Swedish meatballs; Turkey meatballs; Veal meatballs;
`
`Chorizo meatballs; Eggplant parmigiana; Potato-based gnocchi; Food products, namely, frozen
`
`and packaged meats and vegetables; Frozen prepared meats; Frozen entrees consisting primarily
`
`of meat or vegetables; gluten-free meatballs; Food products, namely, beef and pork based pizza
`
`toppings in the nature of meatballs, and uncooked sausages.” A true and correct copy of this
`
`registration is attached as Exhibit C. The registration is valid and subsisting and has never been
`
`cancelled.
`
`15.
`
`In addition to being the owner of the active federal trademark registrations
`
`identified in Exhibits A through C for the Rosina Marks, F&R IP is also the owner of nationwide
`
`common law trademark rights for the Rosina Marks. Rosina is the beneficial owner and licensee
`
`of the Rosina Marks.
`
`16.
`
`The Rosina Marks have been used in commerce in the United States continuously
`
`since their inception, including through advertising, marketing, and distributing goods under the
`
`Rosina Marks in print, online, and through other media. In its marketing and advertising, Rosina
`
`uses the Rosina Marks to attract and maintain clientele.
`
`17.
`
`Rosina has invested substantial time, effort, and financial resources promoting the
`
`Rosina Marks in connection with the advertising, marketing, and sale of its goods in commerce.
`
`The Rosina Marks have become, through widespread and favorable public acceptance and
`
`24565894.1
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00684-VAB Document 1 Filed 05/20/22 Page 6 of 18
`
`recognition, an asset of substantial value as a symbol of Rosina, its quality goods, and its goodwill.
`
`The consuming public recognizes the Rosina Marks and associates them with Rosina.
`
`18.
`
`The Rosina Marks, by virtue of substantial use and promotion, as well as extensive
`
`advertising and marketing, have acquired great value as a source identifier of Rosina’s goods,
`
`distinguishing Rosina from other businesses and goods providers.
`
`19. Moreover, the Rosina Marks have become very well known throughout the United
`
`States and in the Italian food industry.
`
`20.
`
`Furthermore, the Rosina Marks have attained a high degree of awareness in the
`
`Connecticut market by virtue of significant sales in that region.
`
`21.
`
`The Rosina Marks are inherently distinctive as applied to Rosina’s goods that bear
`
`the mark.
`
`22.
`
`Notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ established rights in the Rosina Marks, and without
`
`Plaintiffs’ approval or consent, Defendant adopted and is using the highly similar and/or
`
`confusingly similar ROSINA’S and ROSINA’S RESTAURANT AND BAR marks (collectively,
`
`the “Infringing Marks”) in connection with at least its advertising, marketing, and providing of
`
`restaurant services, selling Italian food products at its Connecticut restaurant, and its use of a
`
`website with a domain name of www.rosinasrestaurant.com (“Defendant’s Website”), through
`
`which it, among other things, solicits online orders and purchases of gift cards (collectively, the
`
`“Infringing Conduct”).
`
`23.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant owns and operates Defendant’s Website,
`
`which it uses to solicit business for its goods through infringing use of the Infringing Marks, not
`
`only in the domain name, but also in its content. A true and correct copy of excerpts of Defendant’s
`
`Website as it existed on May 6, 2022 is attached as Exhibit D.
`
`24565894.1
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00684-VAB Document 1 Filed 05/20/22 Page 7 of 18
`
`24.
`
`The following screenshots from Defendant’s Website depict representative
`
`examples of Defendant’s use of the Infringing Marks as of May 6, 2022:
`
`24565894.1
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00684-VAB Document 1 Filed 05/20/22 Page 8 of 18
`
`(See Exhibit D.)
`
`25. Defendant’s adoption and first use of the Infringing Marks occurred after Plaintiffs’
`
`first use of the Rosina Marks. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ use of the Rosina Marks has been senior to
`
`that of Defendant.
`
`24565894.1
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00684-VAB Document 1 Filed 05/20/22 Page 9 of 18
`
`CLAIMS ARISING FROM DEFENDANT’S TRADEMARK USE
`
`FIRST COUNT
`
`FEDERAL TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
`(15 U.S.C. § 1114(1))
`
`26.
`
`The foregoing paragraphs in the preceding sections are hereby adopted by reference
`
`for the First Count as if fully set forth herein.
`
`27.
`
`As Plaintiffs’ first cause of action, Plaintiffs allege federal trademark infringement
`
`under Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1).
`
`28.
`
`The Infringing Marks are nearly identical and/or confusingly similar to the Rosina
`
`Marks.
`
`29. Without Plaintiffs’ authorization or consent, Defendant has used and continues to
`
`use the Infringing Marks to perform the Infringing Conduct.
`
`30.
`
`Defendant has engaged in the Infringing Conduct despite having constructive
`
`notice of Plaintiffs’ federally registered rights under 15 U.S.C. § 1072 and despite having actual
`
`knowledge of Plaintiffs’ use of the Rosina Marks and its federal registrations since on or before
`
`September 17, 2021, when Plaintiffs sent their first correspondence to Defendant requesting that
`
`it cease and desist its infringing conduct.
`
`31.
`
`Defendant’s use of the Infringing Marks in commerce is, or is likely to, confuse
`
`and/or mislead the public into concluding that Defendant’s goods and/or services originate with,
`
`or are authorized by, associated with, or related to, Plaintiffs. Such confusion does, or will, damage
`
`both Plaintiffs and the public.
`
`32.
`
`Plaintiffs have no control over the quality of goods and/or services sold by
`
`Defendant and because of the source confusion caused by Defendant, Plaintiffs have lost control
`
`over their valuable goodwill in the Rosina Marks.
`
`33.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant has advertised and offered its goods and/or
`
`24565894.1
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00684-VAB Document 1 Filed 05/20/22 Page 10 of 18
`
`services for sale using the Infringing Marks with the intention of misleading, deceiving, or
`
`confusing consumers as to the origin of its goods and/or services, and of trading on Plaintiffs’
`
`reputation and goodwill in its Rosina Marks. Defendant’s use of the Infringing Marks constitutes
`
`willful, deliberate, and intentional trademark infringement.
`
`34.
`
`Defendant’s unauthorized use of the Infringing Marks in commerce as described
`
`above constitutes trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1) and has caused, and is likely
`
`to continue to cause, consumer confusion, mistake, or deception.
`
`35.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s trademark infringement, Plaintiffs
`
`have suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable loss of income, profits, and goodwill, and
`
`Defendant has, and will continue to, unfairly acquire income, profits, and goodwill.
`
`36.
`
`Defendant’s acts of infringement will cause further irreparable injury to Plaintiffs
`
`if Defendant is not restrained by this Court from further violation of Plaintiffs’ rights.
`
`37.
`
`Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.
`
`SECOND COUNT
`
`FEDERAL UNFAIR COMPETITION AND FALSE
`DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a))
`
`38.
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs
`
`as though set forth fully herein.
`
`39.
`
`As Plaintiffs’ second cause of action, Plaintiffs allege federal unfair competition
`
`and false designation of origin under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
`
`40.
`
`Defendant’s Infringing Conduct constitutes the use of false designations of origin
`
`or false representations that wrongfully and falsely designate Defendant’s goods and/or services
`
`as originating from or being connected with Plaintiffs or the Rosina Marks. The actions of
`
`Defendant as alleged herein constitute intentional, willful, knowing, and deliberate unfair
`
`competition.
`
`24565894.1
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00684-VAB Document 1 Filed 05/20/22 Page 11 of 18
`
`41.
`
`Defendant’s actions constitute federal unfair competition and violate 15 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1125(a).
`
`42.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unfair competition, Plaintiffs have
`
`suffered, and will continue to suffer, irreparable loss of income, profits, and/or goodwill, and
`
`Defendant has and will continue to unfairly acquire income, profits, and/or goodwill.
`
`43.
`
`Defendant’s acts of unfair competition will cause further irreparable injury to
`
`Plaintiffs if Defendant is not restrained by this Court from further violation of Plaintiffs’ rights.
`
`44.
`
`Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.
`
`THIRD COUNT
`
`
`
`FEDERAL CYBERSQUATTING
`UNDER THE LANHAM ACT
`(15 U.S.C. § 1125(d))
`
`45.
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs
`
`as though set forth fully herein.
`
`46.
`
`As Plaintiffs’ third cause of action, Plaintiffs allege federal cyberpiracy and/or
`
`cybersquatting under Section 43(d) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d).
`
`47.
`
`The Defendants’ Website was registered on or around April 8, 2021. A true and
`
`correct copy of this website information according to ICANN is attached as Exhibit E.
`
`48.
`
`49.
`
`50.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant has trafficked in Defendant’s Website.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant has used Defendant’s Website.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Rosina Marks and website (www.rosina.com) were in use prior to
`
`Defendant’s registration, trafficking in, or use of Defendant’s Website.
`
`51.
`
`Plaintiffs’ domain name, www.rosina.com, was registered on or around May 29,
`
`1997. A true and correct copy of this website information according to ICANN is attached as
`
`Exhibit F.
`
`24565894.1
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00684-VAB Document 1 Filed 05/20/22 Page 12 of 18
`
`52.
`
`Plaintiffs’ obtained federal registrations to the Rosina Marks prior to Defendant’s
`
`registration, trafficking in, or use of Defendant’s Website.
`
`53.
`
`Plaintiff’s Rosina Marks were distinctive at the time of Defendant’s registration,
`
`trafficking in, or use of Defendant’s Website.
`
`54.
`
`The domain name for Defendant’s Website is at least confusingly similar to
`
`Plaintiffs’ Rosina Marks and its www.rosina.com domain.
`
`55.
`
`Upon information and belief, prior to registering, causing to be registered,
`
`trafficking in, or using Defendant’s Website, Defendant had knowledge of Plaintiffs’ prior use of
`
`the Rosina Marks and of its www.rosina.com domain.
`
`56.
`
`57.
`
`Defendant’s Website infringes upon Plaintiffs’ prior rights in the Rosina Marks.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant has, and has had, a bad faith intent to profit
`
`upon Plaintiffs’ prior rights in the Rosina Mark.
`
`58.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant has intended, and does intend, to divert
`
`customers from Plaintiffs’ own domain (www.rosina.com) to the infringing Defendant’s Website
`
`causing harm to Plaintiffs and the goodwill associated with the Rosina Marks.
`
`59.
`
`Continued use of Defendant’s Website is likely to cause confusion among
`
`consumers interested in engaging Plaintiffs’ goods and services in violation of 15 U.S.C. §
`
`1125(d).
`
`60.
`
`Defendant’s use of Defendant’s Website has caused and continues to cause harm
`
`to Plaintiffs’ goodwill and has created and continues to create a likelihood of confusion among
`
`consumers in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d).
`
`61.
`
`Defendant’s acts will cause further irreparable injury to Plaintiffs if Defendant is
`
`not restrained by this Court from further violation of Plaintiffs’ rights.
`
`24565894.1
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00684-VAB Document 1 Filed 05/20/22 Page 13 of 18
`
`62.
`
`Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.
`
`FOURTH COUNT
`
`
`
`COMMON LAW TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
`
`63.
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs
`
`as though set forth fully herein.
`
`64.
`
`As Plaintiffs’ fourth cause of action, Plaintiffs allege common law trademark
`
`infringement under Connecticut law.
`
`65.
`
`In violation of the common law of the State of Connecticut, Defendant engages,
`
`and has engaged, in its Infringing Conduct used the Infringing Marks, which are nearly identical
`
`in sight, sound, and meaning to the Rosina Marks. Accordingly, the public will be confused as to
`
`the identity and source of the goods and services offered and/or rendered by Defendant.
`
`66.
`
`In violation of the common law of the State of Connecticut, Defendant has willfully
`
`used and infringed the Rosina Marks in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or
`
`advertising of goods and/or services, including, but not limited to, through the use of Defendant’s
`
`restaurant and in connection with Defendant’s Website. Such use is likely to cause confusion, or
`
`to cause mistake, or to deceive consumers as to the origin of Defendants goods and/or services.
`
`67.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s trademark infringement of the
`
`Rosina Marks, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable loss of income,
`
`profits, and goodwill and Defendant has and will continue to unfairly acquire income, profits, and
`
`goodwill.
`
`68.
`
`Defendant’s acts as described above constitute trademark infringement in violation
`
`of Plaintiffs’ rights under common law of the State of Connecticut.
`
`69.
`
`Defendant’s acts of infringement will cause further irreparable injury to Plaintiffs
`
`if Defendant is not restrained from using the Infringing Marks by this Court and from further
`
`24565894.1
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00684-VAB Document 1 Filed 05/20/22 Page 14 of 18
`
`violating Plaintiffs’ rights in the Rosina Marks.
`
`70.
`
`Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.
`
`FIFTH COUNT
`
`
`
`COMMON LAW UNFAIR COMPETITION
`
`71.
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs
`
`as though set forth fully herein.
`
`72.
`
`As Plaintiffs’ fifth cause of action, Plaintiffs allege common law unfair competition
`
`under Connecticut law.
`
`73.
`
`In violation of the common law of the State of Connecticut, Defendant has engaged
`
`in unfair competition by using the Infringing Marks which are so similar in sight, sound, and
`
`meaning to that of the Rosina Marks that the public will be confused as to the identity and source
`
`of the goods and services offered and/or rendered.
`
`74.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant has acted in bad faith, without Plaintiffs’
`
`authorization or consent, and with full knowledge of Plaintiffs’ valid ownership of, and rights in,
`
`the Rosina Marks.
`
`75.
`
`Defendant’s acts as described above constitute unfair competition in violation of
`
`Plaintiffs’ rights under common law of the State of Connecticut.
`
`76.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s trademark infringement, Plaintiffs
`
`have suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable loss of income, profits, and goodwill and
`
`Defendant has, and will continue to, unfairly acquire income, profits, and goodwill.
`
`77.
`
`Defendant’s acts of infringement will cause further irreparable injury to Plaintiffs
`
`if Defendant is not restrained by this Court from further violation of Plaintiffs’ rights.
`
`78.
`
`Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.
`
`24565894.1
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00684-VAB Document 1 Filed 05/20/22 Page 15 of 18
`
`SIXTH COUNT
`
`
`
`UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES UNDER “CUTPA”
`(Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110(b))
`
`79.
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs
`
`as though set forth fully herein.
`
`80.
`
`As Plaintiffs’ sixth cause of action, Plaintiffs allege unfair trade practices under the
`
`Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (“CUTPA”), Gen. Stat. § 42-110(b).
`
`81.
`
`In violation of CUTPA, Defendant has engaged in unfair methods of competition
`
`and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of its trade by using the Infringing Marks
`
`which are so similar in sight, sound, and meaning to that of the Rosina Marks that the public will
`
`be confused as to the identity and source of the goods and services offered and/or rendered by
`
`Defendant and its Infringing Conduct. Defendant’s conduct was and is unfair and deceptive, in
`
`violation of Section 42-110b of the Connecticut General Statutes.
`
`82.
`
`The Defendant’s actions, as set forth above, were and are carried out in the conduct
`
`of “trade” and “commerce,” as defined in Section 42-110a(4) of the Connecticut General Statutes,
`
`and were done in the conduct of the Defendant’s principal trade or commerce.
`
`83.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant has acted in bad faith, without Plaintiffs’
`
`authorization or consent, and with full knowledge of Plaintiffs’ valid ownership of, and rights in,
`
`the Rosina Marks.
`
`84.
`
`The Defendant’s actions, as set forth herein, were and are unfair in violation of
`
`Section 42-110b of the Connecticut General Statutes in that they offend public policy as it has
`
`been established by statutes (as set forth above), the common law, or otherwise; were within at
`
`least the penumbra of some common-law, statutory or other established concept of unfairness;
`
`were immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous; and caused substantial injury to the
`
`Plaintiffs which the Plaintiffs could not reasonably have avoided and which were not outweighed
`
`24565894.1
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00684-VAB Document 1 Filed 05/20/22 Page 16 of 18
`
`by any countervailing benefits to consumers or competition.
`
`85.
`
`Defendant’s acts as described above constitute unfair trade practices in violation of
`
`Plaintiffs’ rights under CUTPA.
`
`86.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unfair trade practices, Plaintiffs
`
`have suffered and will continue to suffer ascertainable loss of money and property, including
`
`irreparable loss of income, profits, and goodwill and Defendant has, and will continue to, unfairly
`
`acquire income, profits, and goodwill.
`
`87.
`
`Defendant’s acts of infringement will cause further irreparable injury to Plaintiffs
`
`if Defendant is not restrained by this Court from further violation of Plaintiffs’ rights.
`
`88.
`
`Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs’ respectfully request that the Court grant the following relief:
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Entering a judgment that the Rosina Marks have been and continue to be infringed
`by Defendant in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1);
`Entering a judgment that Defendant’s use of the Infringing Marks constitutes
`federal unfair competition and false designation of origin in violation of 15 U.S.C.
`§ 1125(a);
`Entering a judgment that Defendant’s use of Defendant’s Website constitutes
`federal cybersquatting and/or cyberpiracy in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d);
`Entering a judgment that Defendant’s use of the Infringing Marks constitutes
`common law trademark infringement and common law and statutory unfair
`competition under Connecticut law;
`Permanently enjoining and restraining Defendant and each of its owners, managers,
`agents, representatives, employees, officers, attorneys, successors, assigns,
`affiliates, and any persons in privity or active concert or participation with any of
`them from using the Infringing Marks, with or without any other designation, alone
`or in combination with other words or symbols, as a trademark or trade name
`component or otherwise, to market, advertise, distribute, or identify Defendant’s
`goods and/or services where that designation would create a likelihood of
`confusion, mistake, or deception with the Rosina Marks;
`Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a), directing Defendant to file with the Court and
`serve on Plaintiffs within thirty (30) days after issuance of an injunction, a report
`
`24565894.1
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00684-VAB Document 1 Filed 05/20/22 Page 17 of 18
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`K.
`
`L.
`
`in writing and under oath setting forth in detail the manner and form in which
`Defendant has complied with the injunction;
`Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1118, requiring that Defendant and all others acting under
`Defendant’s authority, at their cost, be required to deliver up and destroy all
`devices, literature, advertising, labels, websites, and other material in their
`possession, custody, or control bearing the infringing designation;
`Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1119, enjoining the Director of the United States Patent
`and Trademark Office from issuing to Defendant any trademark registration for its
`Infringing Marks or any combination of words or symbols that would create a
`likelihood of confusion, mistake, or deception with the Rosina Marks;
`Directing Defendant to transfer ownership and control of Defendant’s Website
`domain to Plaintiffs;
`Awarding Plaintiffs all damages sustained as the result of Defendant’s acts of
`infringement and unfair competition, said amount to be trebled, together with
`prejudgment interest, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117;
`Awarding Plaintiffs all profits received by Defendant from sales and revenues of
`any kind made as a result of its willful and intentional infringing actions, said
`amount to be trebled, after an accounting, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117;
`Statutory punitive damages, pursuant to Section 42-110g(a) of the Connecticut
`General Statutes, with respect to Count 6;
`M. Awarding Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
`§ 1117 as well as Section 42-110g(d) of the Connecticut General Statutes; and
` Granting Plaintiffs such other and further relief as the Court may deem just.
`
`N.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
`
`PLAINTIFFS –
`ROSINA FOOD PRODUCTS, INC. and
`F&R IP INC.
`
`By: /s/ Daniel P. Elliott
`Daniel P. Elliott (ct28058)
`Barclay Damon LLP
`545 Long Wharf Drive, Ninth Floor
`New Haven, Connecticut 06511
`Telephone: (203) 672-2658
`Fax: (203) 654-3249
`delliott@barclaydamon.com
`Their Attorneys
`
`24565894.1
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00684-VAB Document 1 Filed 05/20/22 Page 18 of 18
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`John D. Cook
`Barclay Damon LLP
`Barclay Damon Tower
`125 East Jefferson Street
`Syracuse, New York 13202
`Telephone: (315) 425-2885
`jcook@barclaydamon.com
`
`-and-
`
`Jeffrey M. Koegel
`Barclay Damon LLP
`2000 Five Star Bank Plaza
`100 Chestnut Street
`Rochester, New York 14604
`Telephone: (585) 295-4464
`jkoegel@barclaydamon.com
`
`24565894.1
`
`- 18 -
`
`