`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`TAMPA DIVISION
`
`PUBLIX ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY
`AND
`PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC.
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`v.
`
`PHARMAPACKS, LLC AND
`PACKABLE HOLDINGS, LLC
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO.: ______
`
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiffs Publix Asset Management Company and Publix Super Markets, Inc.
`
`(collectively, “Publix”) file this Original Complaint against Defendants Pharmapacks,
`
`LLC and Packable Holdings, LLC for trademark infringement, unfair competition,
`
`and trademark dilution. Publix owns the federally registered Publix family of Single-
`
`P Marks (as that term is defined below), which proximately feature the letter “P” in
`
`sans serif typeface. Defendants have been and continue to infringe on Publix’s
`
`trademarks through their use of a confusingly similar mark, as shown below:
`
`Publix’s Registered Trademark
`
`Defendants’ Infringing Mark
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-02404-MSS-TGW Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 2 of 24 PageID 2
`
`Publix files this Complaint against Defendants for trademark infringement,
`
`unfair competition, and trademark dilution. Publix seeks injunctive relief and
`
`damages.
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Publix Asset Management Company and Publix Super Markets, Inc. are
`
`corporations duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida. Their
`
`principal place of business is in Lakeland, Florida.
`
`2.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Pharmapacks, LLC is a New
`
`York company with an address of 1516 Motor Pkwy, Hauppauge, NY 11788.
`
`3.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Packable Holdings, LLC is a
`
`Delaware company with an address of 1516 Motor Pkwy, Hauppauge, NY 11788.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`This is a trademark infringement action brought pursuant to the
`
`trademark laws of the United States, known as the Lanham Act, Title 15, United States
`
`Code § 1051 et seq. with a supplemental state law claim
`
`5.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant
`
`to 15 U.S.C. § 1121, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338. Further, this Court has
`
`supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1338(b)
`
`and 1367.
`
`6.
`
`This Court has personal
`
`jurisdiction over Defendants because
`
`Defendants regularly transact and conduct business in the State of Florida and this
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-02404-MSS-TGW Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 3 of 24 PageID 3
`
`District and Defendants’ contacts with the State of Florida and this District have been
`
`continuous, systematic, and substantial.
`
`7.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants advertise and market their goods
`
`and services to those within the State of Florida and in this District.
`
`8.
`
`Furthermore, on information and belief, Defendants import, sell, and
`
`distribute their products in the State of Florida and in this District.
`
`9.
`
`This Court’s exercise of jurisdiction over Defendants does not offend
`
`traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
`
`10. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c), Defendants are deemed to reside within
`
`this District for purposes of venue.
`
`11. Venue is proper within this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)
`
`because Defendants reside and are doing business in this District. Defendants are using
`
`the infringing marks to advertise their goods and services to individuals and companies
`
`within this District, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims of this
`
`action occurred in this District. Venue is also proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c) because
`
`Defendants are corporate defendants that are subject to personal jurisdiction in this
`
`forum.
`
`PUBLIX AND ITS SINGLE-P TRADEMARKS
`
`12. Founded in 1930 in Winter Haven, Florida, Publix Super Markets, Inc.
`
`is the largest and fastest-growing employee-owned company in the United States.
`
`13. Publix has grown into a Fortune 500 company with more than 1,250
`
`stores, and has more than 225,000 employees.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-02404-MSS-TGW Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 4 of 24 PageID 4
`
`14. Publix has over 800 stores across Florida.
`
`15. Publix also has stores in Alabama (81 stores), Georgia (193 stores), North
`
`Carolina (49 stores), South Carolina (64 stores), Tennessee (50 stores), and Virginia
`
`(19 stores).
`
`16. Publix is currently planning to open new stores in Kentucky as well.
`
`17. Publix is one of the 10 largest-volume supermarket chains in the country
`
`with 2019 retail sales of over $38 billion.
`
`18. Publix Asset Management Company is related to Publix Super Markets,
`
`Inc. and owns and manages trademarks that are licensed to Publix Super Markets, Inc.
`
`19. Publix Asset Management Company owns the following design marks
`
`that prominently feature the letter “P” in sans serif type:
`
`Registration Nos.
`
`Mark
`
`1,794,016
`
`4,355,392
`4,844,271
`4,682,412
`4,685,090
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-02404-MSS-TGW Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 5 of 24 PageID 5
`
`Registration Nos.
`
`Mark
`
`4,509,543
`4,851,084
`5,027,224
`
`5,214,253
`
`5,548,835
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20. Copies of the registration certificates for these federally registered marks
`
`are attached as Exhibit A to this Complaint.
`
`21. Each of these registrations for these federally registered marks is and has
`
`been in full force and effect and is valid in all respects.
`
`22. Registration Nos. 1,794,016; 4,355,392; 4,844,271; 4,682,412; 4,685,090;
`
`4,509,543; and 4,851,084 are incontestable under 15 U.S.C. § 1065.
`
`23.
`
`In addition, Publix has common law rights in these and other marks
`
`featuring a single P in sans serif typeface (collectively, the “Single-P Marks”), such as
`
`the following:
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-02404-MSS-TGW Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 6 of 24 PageID 6
`
`
`
`24. Publix has used and uses the Single-P Marks extensively in connection
`
`with Publix’s goods and services.
`
`25. For example, Publix uses the Single-P Marks in connection with over-
`
`the-counter medicine, health products, vitamins, minerals, herbs, nutritional
`
`supplements, homeopathic remedies, foods and beverages, sundries, cosmetics, skin
`
`and hair products, toiletries, fragrances, personal care products, and medical supplies
`
`for personal use.
`
`26. Publix also uses the Single-P Marks in connection with its pharmacies
`
`and pharmacy-related services, including prescription pharmaceuticals, vaccinations,
`
`“body care specialists” to advise customers on health/wellness supplements, and walk-
`
`in-care.
`
`27. Products and services are offered under the Single-P Marks in more than
`
`1,250 retail grocery stores.
`
`28. Publix also uses the Single-P marks in connection with its ecommerce
`
`operations via its website and mobile apps, including offering home delivery of
`
`products under the Single-P Marks.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-02404-MSS-TGW Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 7 of 24 PageID 7
`
`29. The Single-P Marks are the subject of extensive marketing and
`
`advertising in print, television, online, and outdoor advertising and marketing
`
`materials
`
`30. Publix’s Single-P Marks are strong, especially in the states where Publix
`
`has stores. The first of the Single-P Marks was used at least as early as 1972.
`
`31. Publix’s Single-P Marks are registered for (among other things) retail
`
`pharmacy services and retail grocery store services.
`
`32. The products available through Publix’s retail pharmacy and retail
`
`grocery store services under the Single-P marks include over-the-counter medicines,
`
`health products, vitamins, minerals, herbs, nutritional supplements, homeopathic
`
`remedies, foods and beverages, sundries, cosmetics, skin and hair care products,
`
`toiletries, fragrances, personal care products and medical supplies for personal use.
`
`33. Customers are able to shop for these products online using Publix’s
`
`website (at www.publix.com), and home delivery of these products is available.
`
`34. Publix has devoted substantial time, money, and resources marketing,
`
`advertising, and promoting the Single-P Marks. As a result of these efforts and years
`
`of use, Publix has acquired extraordinary goodwill and customer recognition in the
`
`Single-P Marks in connection with Publix’s goods, including health and beauty
`
`products.
`
`35. Publix’s Single-P Marks are valuable financial assets to its business.
`
`Publix has consistently used the Single-P Marks and is entitled to broad and exclusive
`
`rights to use the marks nationwide, including in the State of Florida and this District.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-02404-MSS-TGW Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 8 of 24 PageID 8
`
`DEFENDANTS’ UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES
`
`36. Defendants describe themselves as an enablement platform and retail
`
`seller.
`
`37. Defendants own
`
`and operate
`
`an
`
`ecommerce website
`
`at
`
`www.pharmapacks.com where they offer health and beauty products to consumers.
`
`Below is an image of the home page of their website:
`
`38. Defendants, via their website at www.pharmapacks.com, market and sell
`
`goods directly to consumers, including Florida residents.
`
`39. Defendants are also a third-party seller of products through companies
`
`
`
`such as Amazon.
`
`40. Pharmapacks has stated that it is the largest third-party seller on Amazon.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-02404-MSS-TGW Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 9 of 24 PageID 9
`
`41. The Chief Strategy Officer of Pharmapacks describes Defendants as “a
`
`large marketplace seller.”1
`
`42. Via their website at www.pharmapacks.com, and via third-party websites
`
`such as Amazon, Defendants compete with Publix—marketing and selling many of
`
`the same goods to the same consumers.
`
`43. Defendants and Publix offer health and beauty products directly to
`
`consumers.
`
`44.
`
`In fact, Defendants offer many of the same goods to consumers that are
`
`sold in Publix stores.
`
`45. On information and belief, Defendants purchase health and beauty
`
`products wholesale, and then sell those products at a markup via various ecommerce
`
`channels, such as their own website, Amazon, Walmart, and others.
`
`46. Both Defendants and Publix sell their goods directly to consumers
`
`through online channels and provide home delivery.
`
`47. Not only do Defendants compete with Publix via their own website, but
`
`Defendants also compete with Publix by selling products directly to consumers via the
`
`website of Publix competitors, such as Walmart, Amazon, Target, and Kroger, as
`
`illustrated below from page 19 of Defendants’ investor presentation:2
`
`
`1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aT8_LpnNJqI
`2 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001828817/000114036121030752/brhc10028753_ex99-
`2.htm
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-02404-MSS-TGW Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 10 of 24 PageID 10
`
`48.
`
`In connection with its business, Defendants use a logo prominently
`
`featuring a single “P” in sans serif typeface within a circle (the “Infringing Marks”).
`
`49. For example, Defendants use at least the following Infringing Marks:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-02404-MSS-TGW Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 11 of 24 PageID 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`50. The Infringing Marks are used in connection with products such as over-
`
`the-counter medicine, health products, vitamins, minerals, herbs, nutritional
`
`supplements, homeopathic remedies, foods and beverages, sundries, cosmetics, skin
`
`and hair products, toiletries, fragrances, personal care products, and medical supplies
`
`for personal use.
`
`51. Defendants also use the Infringing Marks on their delivery boxes:
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-02404-MSS-TGW Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 12 of 24 PageID 12
`
`
`
`52. On information and belief, there has been actual confusion caused by
`
`Defendants’ use of the Infringing Marks.
`
`53. On information and belief, Publix and Defendants have received
`
`feedback from consumers commenting on how Defendants’ Infringing Marks are
`
`nearly identical to Publix’s Single-P Marks.
`
`54. Defendants are using the Infringing Marks in connection with the sale,
`
`offering for sale, distribution, and advertising of their goods and services, including
`
`goods and services covered by Publix many of the federal registrations for Publix’s
`
`Single-P Marks.
`
`55. Defendants use the Infringing Marks to market and sell health and beauty
`
`products to consumers, such via their storefront through Amazon’s website:
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-02404-MSS-TGW Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 13 of 24 PageID 13
`
`56. The Infringing Marks are confusingly similar to Publix’s Single-P Marks,
`
`which are well-established and are used to identify a variety of Publix’s goods and
`
`
`
`services.
`
`57.
`
`In November of 2019, Defendant Pharmapacks filed trademark
`
`application serial no. 88700985 for the following design mark featuring one of the
`
`Infringing Marks (“the ’985 Application”):
`
`
`
`58. While Defendants have filed other trademark applications, the ’985
`
`Application is the first to include a single P within a circle.
`
`59. The ’985 Application was filed in international class 35 for “[o]nline
`
`retail store services featuring over-the-counter medicine, health products, vitamins,
`
`minerals, herbs, nutritional supplements, homeopathic remedies, foods and beverages,
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-02404-MSS-TGW Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 14 of 24 PageID 14
`
`sundries, cosmetics, skin and hair care products,, toiletries, fragrances, personal care
`
`products and medical supplies for personal use.”
`
`60. Publix, using the Single-P Marks, was and continues to offer the same
`
`goods and services as identified in the ’985 Application, namely “online retail store
`
`services featuring over-the-counter medicine, health products, vitamins, minerals,
`
`herbs, nutritional supplements, homeopathic remedies, foods and beverages, sundries,
`
`cosmetics, skin and hair care products,, toiletries, fragrances, personal care products
`
`and medical supplies for personal use.”
`
`61. Because registration of the mark at issue in the ’985 Application is likely
`
`to harm Publix by causing consumer confusion, Publix opposed registration of the ’985
`
`Application in the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, Proceeding No. 91264177
`
`(“the Opposition”).
`
`62.
`
`In connection with the Opposition, Publix commissioned a consumer
`
`survey to measure the amount of potential consumer confusion between one of the
`
`Infringing Marks and one of the Publix Single-P Marks.
`
`63.
`
`Specifically, the survey conducted in connection with the Opposition
`
`asked participants questions about the following two logos:
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-02404-MSS-TGW Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 15 of 24 PageID 15
`
`
`
`64. This survey showed that almost half of the survey participants that were
`
`exposed to these two logos (over 45%) were likely to confuse the Pharmapacks logo
`
`with the Publix Single-P Mark, even though the Pharmapacks logo included the
`
`Pharmapacks name and tag line.
`
`65. When asked why they believed that these two logos were of the same
`
`company, survey participants provided the following explanations:
`
`“They are the same.”
`
`“The p looks similar”
`
`“Because the ‘P’ is the same on both logos”
`
`“While different the logos are basically the same.”
`
`“They both have the P logo”
`
`“They are both publix”
`
`“The ‘P’ is similar”
`
`“The ‘P’ was the same. Just different color”
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-02404-MSS-TGW Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 16 of 24 PageID 16
`
`“they both look like Publix”
`
`“The P is representative of Publix chain and the second logo simulated
`
`that”
`
`66. On information and belief, Defendants have not conducted their own
`
`consumer survey regarding any of their Infringing Marks as compared to any of
`
`Publix’s Single-P Marks.
`
`67. On information and belief, Defendant Pharmapacks was aware of
`
`Publix’s Single-P Marks before they adopted and began using their Infringing Marks.
`
`68. Defendants are not endorsed by, sponsored by, or affiliated with Publix
`
`any way.
`
`69. Defendants do not have Publix’s permission to use any of the Single-P
`
`Marks.
`
`70. Defendants’ continued unauthorized use of marks that are confusingly
`
`similar to the Single-P Marks is willful and intentional.
`
`71.
`
`In 2021, Defendants have expanded their use of the Infringing Marks by
`
`deciding to continue using a confusingly similar P logo with their new brand name
`
`Packable.
`
`72. As a result of Defendants’ unauthorized use of the Infringing Marks, and
`
`their refusal to cease use, Publix has suffered and will continue to suffer damages and
`
`irreparable harm to its goodwill and reputation, as well as its ability to distinguish its
`
`products and services from those of Defendants in the minds of consumers.
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-02404-MSS-TGW Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 17 of 24 PageID 17
`
`COUNT I
`FEDERAL TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT UNDER THE LANHAM ACT
`
`73. Publix incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through
`
`72.
`
`74. Defendants’ use of the Infringing Marks in connection with their business
`
`is likely to cause confusion, deception, and mistake by creating the false and
`
`misleading impression that Defendants’ goods are made by or distributed by Publix,
`
`or that Defendants’ are associated or connected with Publix, or Defendants’ have the
`
`sponsorship, endorsement, or approval of Publix.
`
`75. Defendants’ unauthorized use in commerce of the Infringing Marks
`
`violates Section 32 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1114).
`
`76. Defendants’ activities of marketing, distributing, and selling products
`
`and/or services in connecting with the Infringing Marks are causing and, unless
`
`enjoined by this Court, will continue to cause a likelihood of confusion and deception
`
`of members of the trade and public, and, additionally, injury to Publix’s goodwill and
`
`reputation as symbolized by Publix’s Single-P Marks, for which Publix has no
`
`adequate remedy at law.
`
`77. Defendants’ actions demonstrate an intentional, willful, and malicious
`
`intent to cause confusion and/or trade on the goodwill associated with Publix’s Single-
`
`P Marks.
`
`78. Defendants’ infringement is causing and will continue to cause great and
`
`irreparable harm to Publix.
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-02404-MSS-TGW Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 18 of 24 PageID 18
`
`79. Defendants caused and are likely to continue causing substantial injury
`
`to the public and to Publix.
`
`80. Publix is entitled to injunctive relief and to recover Defendants’ profits,
`
`actual damages, enhanced profits and damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees
`
`under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1116, and 1117.
`
`COUNT II
`FEDERAL UNFAIR COMPETITION
`
`81. Publix incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through
`
`72.
`
`82. Defendants’ unauthorized use in commerce of the Infringing Marks as
`
`alleged herein is likely to deceive consumers as to the origin, source, sponsorship, or
`
`affiliation of Defendants’ goods and/or services, and is likely to cause consumers to
`
`believe, contrary to facts, that Defendants’ goods and/or services are sold, authorized,
`
`endorsed, or sponsored by Publix, or that Defendants are in some way affiliated with
`
`or sponsored by Publix.
`
`83. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ conduct is willful and is
`
`intended to and is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception as to the affiliation,
`
`connection, or association of Defendants with Publix.
`
`84. Defendants’ conduct as alleged herein constitutes unfair competition in
`
`violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
`
`85. Defendants’ activities have caused and, unless enjoined by this Court,
`
`will continue to cause a likelihood of confusion and deception of members of the trade
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-02404-MSS-TGW Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 19 of 24 PageID 19
`
`and public, and, additionally, injury to Publix’s goodwill and reputation as symbolized
`
`by Publix’s Single-P Marks, for which Publix has no adequate remedy at law.
`
`86. Publix is entitled to injunctive relief and to recover Defendants’ profits,
`
`actual damages, enhanced profits and damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees
`
`under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1125(a), 1116, and 1117.
`
`COUNT III
`COMMON-LAW TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
`
`87. Publix incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through
`
`72.
`
`88. Publix owns all rights (including all common-law rights), title, and
`
`interest in and to the Single-P Marks.
`
`89. Defendants’ use of the Infringing Marks in connection with its goods and
`
`services in Florida and elsewhere creates a likelihood of confusion and has caused or
`
`will cause actual confusion in the minds of the consuming public as to the source of
`
`the goods and/or services.
`
`90. Defendants’ use of the Infringing marks is likely to deceive consumers as
`
`to the origin, source, sponsorship, or affiliation of Defendants’ goods and/or services,
`
`and is likely to cause consumers to believe, contrary to facts, that Defendants’ goods
`
`and/or services are sold, authorized, endorsed, or sponsored by Publix, or that
`
`Defendants are in some way affiliated with or sponsored by Publix.
`
`91. Defendants’ acts constitute trademark infringement in violation of the
`
`common law of the State of Florida.
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-02404-MSS-TGW Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 20 of 24 PageID 20
`
`92. Defendants’ actions demonstrate an intentional, willful, and malicious
`
`intent to trade on the goodwill associated with Publix’s Single-P Marks.
`
`93. On information and belief, Defendants intend to continue and expand
`
`their infringing actions, unless restrained by this Court. The actual and/or likely
`
`confusion resulting from Defendants’ use of the Infringing Marks in connection with
`
`Defendants’ goods and services causes irreparable harm to Publix that cannot be
`
`adequately compensated with damages. Publix is therefore entitled to preliminary and
`
`permanent injunctive relief as requested herein.
`
`94. Publix has sustained damage as a direct and proximate result of
`
`Defendants’ infringement in an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`COUNT IV
`DILUTION UNDER SECTION 43(C)THE LANHAM ACT
`
`95. Publix incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through
`
`72.
`
`96. Based at least on the distinctiveness of Publix’s Single-P Marks, the
`
`duration and extent of use of the Single-P Marks, the duration and extent of advertising
`
`featuring the Single-P Marks, the geographic area in which Publix advertises and offers
`
`its goods and services under the Single-P Marks, the nature of the trade channels used
`
`to market the Publix’s goods and services under the Single-P Marks compared to the
`
`trade channels through which Defendants’ sell, intend to sell, and are likely to sell their
`
`products and services, the degree of public recognition of the Single-P Marks, and
`
`Publix’s numerous federal registrations for the Single-P Marks, the Single-P Marks
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-02404-MSS-TGW Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 21 of 24 PageID 21
`
`have become famous, as that term is used in Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act, and
`
`have been famous for years.
`
`97. Defendants’ actions described above, all occurring after the Single-P
`
`Marks became famous, including Defendants’ proposed rebranding and expansion of
`
`use of the Infringing Marks, are likely to cause dilution of the famous Single-P Marks
`
`in violation of Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1125(c).
`
`98. Publix has sustained damage as a direct and proximate result of
`
`Defendants’ dilution in an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`99. Publix demands a jury trial of all issues so triable.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Publix respectfully requests that this Court enter an order
`
`awarding Publix the following relief:
`
`a.
`
`A judgment that Defendants’ along with their officers, agents, servants,
`
`affiliates, employees, related companies, attorneys, and those in privity
`
`or acting in concert with Defendants, be preliminarily and permanently
`
`enjoined from the following:
`
`1.
`
`Using the Infringing marks and any confusing and deceptively
`
`similar mark to the Single-P Marks alone or in combination with
`
`any words, names, or symbols, to offer products and/or services
`
`similar to those provided by Publix;
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-02404-MSS-TGW Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 22 of 24 PageID 22
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Using any confusingly similar mark or engaging in any other
`
`conduct that is likely to cause confusion, cause mistake, deceive,
`
`or otherwise mislead the public into believing that Defendants or
`
`their products or services are in some way connected to Publix;
`
`Engaging in any activity that infringes Publix’s rights in its Single-
`
`P Marks;
`
`Engaging in any activity that further dilutes Publix’s rights in its
`
`Single-P Marks; and
`
`Engaging in any activity constituting unfair competition with
`
`Publix;
`
`b.
`
`That pursuant to the powers granted this Court under 15 U.S.C. § 1118,
`
`the Court issue an order directing Defendants to cease all use of the
`
`Infringing Marks, including by removing all Infringing Marks from all
`
`websites, social media accounts, and also destroying all products,
`
`promotional
`
`items, clothing, displays,
`
`labels,
`
`signs, circulars,
`
`packages/packaging, wrappers, advertisements, signs, catalogs, and
`
`other materials in Defendants’ possession, custody, or control that
`
`display or use the Infringing Marks;
`
`c.
`
`That Publix recovers
`
`its damages resulting
`
`from Defendants’
`
`infringement, unfair competition, and other wrongful conduct described
`
`herein;
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-02404-MSS-TGW Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 23 of 24 PageID 23
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`That Publix recovers its damages for injury to the Single-P Marks
`
`resulting from Defendants’ use of the Infringing Marks;
`
`That Publix recovers Defendants’ wrongful profits, if any, from
`
`Defendants’ infringement, unfair competition, and other wrongful
`
`conduct described herein;
`
`That Defendants be directed to file with this Court within thirty (30) days
`
`after the entry of any injunction in this cause a written statement under
`
`oath setting forth in detail the manner in which Defendants have
`
`complied with the injunction;
`
`That, pursuant to the provisions of 15 U.S.C. §1117, reasonable
`
`attorneys’ fees be awarded to Publix.
`
`That Publix recovers its costs in this action as well as pre- and post-
`
`judgment interest; and
`
`That Publix recovers such other and further relief as the Court may deem
`
`appropriate.
`
`
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-02404-MSS-TGW Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 24 of 24 PageID 24
`
`
`
`
`
`October 13, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
`
` /s/ Anthony J. Palermo
`Justin S. Cohen
` PHV application forthcoming
` State Bar No. 24078356
` Justin.Cohen@hklaw.com
`Lead Counsel (per Local Rule 2.02)
`Dina W. McKenney
` PHV application forthcoming
` State Bar No. 24092809
`Dina.McKenney@hklaw.com
`HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
`One Arts Plaza
`1722 Routh St., Suite 1500
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`214.969.1700
`214.969.1751 (Fax)
`
`
`Anthony J. Palermo
`Florida Bar No. 98716
`anthony.palermo@hklaw.com
`HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
`100 North Tampa Street, Suite 4100
`Tampa, FL 33602
`Telephone: (813) 227-8500
`Facsimile: (813) 229-0134
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
`PUBLIX ASSET MANAGEMENT
`COMPANY AND PUBLIX SUPER
`MARKETS, INC.
`
`
`24
`
`