throbber
Case 0:24-cv-60908-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2024 Page 1 of 15
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION
`
`CASE NO.: 0:24-cv-60908
`
`
`
`
`
`VPR BRANDS, LP,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`RUFPUF LLC and ZAYDAN
`INNOVATIONS INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT, UNFAIR COMPETITION
`AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`(INJUNCTIVE RELIEF DEMANDED)
`
`Plaintiff VPR BRANDS, LP by and through its undersigned counsel, brings this
`
`Complaint against Defendants RUFPUF LLC and ZAYDAN INNOVATIONS INC., for
`
`damages and injunctive relief, and in support thereof states as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE LAWSUIT
`
`
`
`Plaintiff VPR BRANDS, LP (“VPR”) brings this action for trademark
`
`infringement and unfair competition arising under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114 and
`
`1125(a), and Florida common law, to enjoin and obtain damages resulting from the Defendants’
`
`unauthorized marketing, advertising, promotion, sale, and importation of e-cigarette products
`
`that infringe Plaintiff’s United States Trademark Registration No. 5,392,011 for RIPPER for
`
`electronic cigarettes and smokeless cigarette vaporizer pipe (“RIPPER Mark”).
`
`
`
`Plaintiff seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to prevent Defendants
`
`from continuing to infringe Plaintiff’s RIPPER Mark, and monetary damages resulting from
`
`Defendants’ past and ongoing infringement.
`
`SRIPLAW
`CALIFORNIA ♦ GEORGIA ♦ FLORIDA ♦ TENNESSEE ♦ NEW YORK
`
`

`

`Case 0:24-cv-60908-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2024 Page 2 of 15
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`
`
`This is an action arising under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114 and § 1125(a).
`
`
`
`
`
`This is also an action arising under the Patent Act.
`
`This Court has original and exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over this action
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims herein pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a).
`
`
`
`Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in Florida pursuant to Fla. Stat. §
`
`48.193 because Defendants market, advertise, distribute, and sell trademark infringing products
`
`in this judicial district to consumers in this judicial district, and Defendants’ trademark
`
`infringement and unfair competition caused injury to Plaintiff in this judicial district.
`
`
`
`Venue for Plaintiff’s Lanham Act claims is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1391(b) and (c) because the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this district,
`
`Defendants engaged in infringement in this district, and Defendants are subject to personal
`
`jurisdiction in this district.
`
`THE PLAINTIFF
`
`
`
`Plaintiff, VPR Brands, LP (“VPR”), is a Delaware limited partnership with its
`
`principal place of business in this judicial district, located at 3001 Griffin Road, Fort
`
`Lauderdale, FL 33312.
`
` VPR is a market leader and pioneer engaged in product development for the
`
`vaping market, including e-liquids, vaporizers, and electronic cigarettes (also known as e-
`
`cigarettes) which are devices that deliver nicotine and or cannabis through atomization or
`
`vaping, and without smoke and other chemical constituents typically found in traditional
`
`products.
`
`2
`SRIPLAW
`CALIFORNIA ♦ GEORGIA ♦ FLORIDA ♦ TENNESSEE ♦ NEW YORK♦ INDIANA
`
`

`

`Case 0:24-cv-60908-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2024 Page 3 of 15
`
` VPR is in the business of creating, designing, and distributing innovative
`
`electronic cigarette technologies and other related technologies. VPR is also in the business of
`
`creating valuable e-cigarette brands.
`
` VPR has been successful in building valuable intellectual property due, at least in
`
`part, to the extensive experience of CEO Kevin Frija’s extensive experience in the e-cigarette
`
`industry. Frija began working in the e-cigarette business in 2008. In 2009, Frija became the
`
`President and Chief Executive Officer of Vapor Corp., one of the first U.S. importers and first
`
`publicly traded electronic cigarette companies. Frija helped grow Vapor Corp. into one of the
`
`largest and most recognized electronic cigarette companies at the time.
`
`THE PLAINTIFF’S RIPPER TRADEMARK
`
` As early as August 9, 2017, VPR first used the mark RIPPER in commerce in
`
`relation with electronic cigarettes.
`
` On January 30, 2018, VPR obtained the United States Trademark Registration
`
`No. 5,392,011 for RIPPER in International Class 34 for use in connection with “Electronic
`
`cigarettes; Smokeless cigarette vaporizer pipe.” (the “RIPPER Mark” or “’011 Registration”).
`
`Exhibit 1 annexed hereto is a true and correct copy of the RIPPER registration.
`
` VPR’s RIPPER Mark is entitled to a presumption of validity. 15 U.S.C. §
`
`1057(b); 15 U.S.C. § 1115(a); see also Welding Servs., Inc. v. Forman, 509 F.3d 1351, 1357 n.3
`
`(11th Cir. 2007) (“Registration establishes a rebuttable presumption that the marks are
`
`protectable or ‘distinctive.’”).
`
` RIPPER is an arbitrary mark that had no significance in the electronic cigarette
`
`business prior to VPR’s usage of the mark.
`
` Because the RIPPER Mark is an arbitrary mark it deserves greater trademark
`
`protection.
`
`3
`SRIPLAW
`CALIFORNIA ♦ GEORGIA ♦ FLORIDA ♦ TENNESSEE ♦ NEW YORK♦ INDIANA
`
`

`

`Case 0:24-cv-60908-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2024 Page 4 of 15
`
` VPR currently markets its wax power vaporizer and essential oil vape under the
`
`RIPPER brand. The RIPPER Essential Oil & Wax Vaporizer is a reusable (non-disposable) e-
`
`cigarette that is designed to be disguised as a lighter. The product features a high capacity 1300
`
`mAh rechargeable battery, micro USB port, replaceable oil vape tank with ceramic heater, dual
`
`quartz wax vape tank, a flip open top for concealment and cleanliness, and a textured grip for
`
`durability. An example of VPR’s RIPPER-branded hand-held vaporizing device is shown
`
`below.
`
` VPR’s RIPPER Mark is highly distinctive, and the purchasing public equates the
`
`
`
`RIPPER Mark with Plaintiff’s high-quality goods and services.
`
` VPR markets and sells its RIPPER devices on its publicly available website
`
`https://www.vapehoneystick.com/.
`
` VPR also sells its RIPPER e-cigarette products and e-cigarette accessory products
`
`through retailers nationwide.
`
` VPR was the first to use the mark RIPPER in connection with RIPPER e-cigarette
`
`products and e-cigarette accessory products. Prior to VPR’s use of the RIPPER mark, no other
`
`e-cigarette brand used the RIPPER mark for e-cigarettes or accessories.
`
`4
`SRIPLAW
`CALIFORNIA ♦ GEORGIA ♦ FLORIDA ♦ TENNESSEE ♦ NEW YORK♦ INDIANA
`
`

`

`Case 0:24-cv-60908-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2024 Page 5 of 15
`
` RIPPER is an arbitrary mark that had no significance in the electronic cigarette
`
`industry.
`
` VPR chose the arbitrary and unique RIPPER mark to signify to its consumers its
`
`RIPPER e-cigarette products and e-cigarette accessory products from other devices on the
`
`market.
`
` VPR continually and exclusively used the RIPPER mark for RIPPER e-cigarette
`
`products and e-cigarette accessory products to date. VPR has continuously used the RIPPER
`
`Mark in commerce to distinguish its e-cigarette products and e-cigarette accessory products
`
`since 2017.
`
` VPR has never licensed the use of the RIPPER Mark to anyone for use with e-
`
`cigarette products or e-cigarette accessory products.
`
` VPR’s RIPPER mark is distinctive, and the purchasing public equates Plaintiff’s
`
`Mark with Plaintiff’s high-quality goods and services.
`
` VPR expended significant resources to market RIPPER e-cigarette products and
`
`e-cigarette accessory products to consumers.
`
` VPR’s RIPPER mark is widely recognized by consumers of e-cigarette products
`
`and e-cigarette accessory products.
`
` VPR’s RIPPER mark is well known by national distributors of e-cigarette
`
`products and e-cigarette accessory products.
`
` VPR’s RIPPER mark signifies the highest industry standards for e-cigarette
`
`products and e-cigarette accessory products.
`
` VPR’s RIPPER mark serves as an indication of origin, source, and quality for
`
`consumers and distributors of e-cigarette products and e-cigarette accessory products.
`
`5
`SRIPLAW
`CALIFORNIA ♦ GEORGIA ♦ FLORIDA ♦ TENNESSEE ♦ NEW YORK♦ INDIANA
`
`

`

`Case 0:24-cv-60908-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2024 Page 6 of 15
`
` VPR carefully monitors and controls the use of the RIPPER mark to ensure that
`
`only the highest quality e-cigarette products and e-cigarette accessory products carry the
`
`RIPPER brand.
`
` At all times relevant, VPR was the senior user of the RIPPER Mark in the United
`
`States.
`
`DEFENDANTS
`
` Defendant Rufpuf LLC (“Rufpuf”) is an Illinois limited liability company with its
`
`principal place of business at 4320 Winfield Road, Suite 200, Warrenville, IL 60555 and can be
`
`served by serving its registered agent, Nida Shahid at 1121 W. Ogden Ave Apt. 356, Naperville,
`
`IL 60563.
`
` Defendant Zaydan Innovations Inc. (“Zaydan”) is a Canadian corporation based
`
`in Alberta, Canada.
`
` Zaydan is the manufacturer and supplier of RIPPER electronic cigarettes.
`
`Examples of the RIPPER electronic cigarette products sold by defendants are shown below:
`
`
`
`6
`SRIPLAW
`CALIFORNIA ♦ GEORGIA ♦ FLORIDA ♦ TENNESSEE ♦ NEW YORK♦ INDIANA
`
`

`

`Case 0:24-cv-60908-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2024 Page 7 of 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Defendants distributed, advertised and sold RIPPER electronic cigarette products
`
`throughout this district to consumers in this jurisdiction.
`
` Defendants used the registered RIPPER Mark in interstate commerce without the
`
`consent, authorization, license or permission of VPR.
`
` Defendants are the junior users of the RIPPER Mark for electronic cigarettes in
`
`this district.
`
` Defendants advertised, marketed, promoted, offered for sale, distributed, and sold
`
`hand-held electronic cigarette products under the RIPPER name in this judicial district.
`
` Defendants’ RIPPER name is confusingly similar to Plaintiff’s RIPPER Mark as
`
`applied to e-cigarette products, and is likely to cause confusion among consumers, retailers and
`
`distributors in the United States.
`
` The RIPPER name is confusingly similar to Plaintiff’s registered RIPPER mark
`
`as applied to e-cigarette products.
`
` The RIPPER name is causing actual confusion among consumers, retailers and
`
`distributors of e-cigarettes in this district.
`
`7
`SRIPLAW
`CALIFORNIA ♦ GEORGIA ♦ FLORIDA ♦ TENNESSEE ♦ NEW YORK♦ INDIANA
`
`

`

`Case 0:24-cv-60908-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2024 Page 8 of 15
`
` The RIPPER name is causing confusion among consumers, retailers and
`
`distributors of e-cigarettes in the United States.
`
` VPR has been harmed.
`
` The harm to VPR is irreparable.
`
`THE PLAINTIFF’S PATENT
`
` VPR owns all right, title and interests in, and/or has standing to sue for
`
`infringement of United States Patent Number 8,205,622 (the “‘622 Patent”) entitled “Electronic
`
`Cigarette.” A copy of the ‘622 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
`
`49.
`
`The ‘622 Patent discloses an electronic cigarette consisting of an electronic
`
`inhaler and an electronic atomizer.
`
`50.
`
`The electronic inhaler contains a rechargeable or non-rechargeable power source
`
`such as a battery, which supplies electric power to the electronic inhaler. In addition to the power
`
`source, the inhaler also includes an electric airflow sensor to detect air movement generated by a
`
`user's inhaling or puffing act. The sensor's role is to collect an airflow signal that triggers the
`
`electronic cigarette to supply electric power to the inhaler and atomizer connected through an
`
`electric connector.
`
`51.
`
`Inside the electronic atomizer are an electric connector, electric heating wire,
`
`liquid container, and atomizer cap with an air-puffing hole. The user inhales through the air
`
`puffing hole at an end of the electronic cigarette to create an air inflow, which triggers the
`
`atomization process that converts a solution to a gas emulating the smoking process.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
` Defendants make, use, import, offer for sale, distribute and sell one or more
`
`electronic cigarette products that practice all the steps of at least one claim of the ‘622 Patent.
`
`8
`SRIPLAW
`CALIFORNIA ♦ GEORGIA ♦ FLORIDA ♦ TENNESSEE ♦ NEW YORK♦ INDIANA
`
`

`

`Case 0:24-cv-60908-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2024 Page 9 of 15
`
` The electronic cigarette products that infringe the ‘622 Patent are branded as
`
`RIPPER.
`
`54.
`
`RIPPER products are electronic cigarettes that contain a rechargeable battery that
`
`functions as a power source which supplies electric power to an electronic inhaler. In addition to
`
`the power source, the inhaler also includes an electric airflow sensor to detect air movement
`
`generated by a user's inhaling or puffing act.
`
`55.
`
`RIPPER products also contain an electronic atomizer with an electric connector,
`
`electric heating wire, liquid container, and atomizer cap with an air-puffing hole.
`
`56.
`
`The user inhales through the air puffing hole at an end of the RIPPER to create an
`
`air inflow, which triggers the atomization process that converts a solution to a gas emulating the
`
`smoking process.
`
`57.
`
`The electronic cigarette products that Defendants make, use, import, offer for
`
`sale, distribute and sell under the RIPPER brand name infringe one or more claims of the ‘622
`
`Patent.
`
`58.
`
`At all times during which Defendants imported, made, used, offered to sell and
`
`sold electronic cigarette products that infringe one or more claims of the ‘622 Patent, Defendants
`
`had knowledge of the ‘622 Patent.
`
`59.
`
`Plaintiff has been irreparably harmed by Defendants’ infringement of VPR’s
`
`valuable patent rights.
`
`60.
`
`Defendants’ unauthorized, infringing use of VPR’s patented electronic cigarette
`
`has threatened the value of VPR’s intellectual property because Defendants’ conduct results in
`
`VPR’s loss of its lawful patent rights to exclude others from importing, making, using, selling,
`
`offering to sell and/or importing the patented inventions.
`
`9
`SRIPLAW
`CALIFORNIA ♦ GEORGIA ♦ FLORIDA ♦ TENNESSEE ♦ NEW YORK♦ INDIANA
`
`

`

`Case 0:24-cv-60908-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2024 Page 10 of 15
`
`61.
`
`Defendants’ disregard for VPR’s property rights similarly threatens VPR’s
`
`relationships with potential licensees of this intellectual property.
`
`62.
`
`Defendants will derive a competitive advantage from using VPR’s patented
`
`technology without paying compensation for such use.
`
`63.
`
`Unless and until Defendants’ continued acts of infringement are enjoined, VPR
`
`will suffer further irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law.
`
`COUNT I - TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT UNDER SECTION 32(a) OF THE
`LANHAM ACT, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(a)
`
` Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 63
`
`as if set forth fully herein.
`
` VPR registered the RIPPER Mark, in International Class 34 for use in connection
`
`with electronic cigarettes, with the USPTO on January 30, 2018 and was assigned the
`
`registration number 5,392,011.
`
` At all relevant times VPR was the owner of the RIPPER Mark at issue in this
`
`case.
`
` Defendants’ use of the mark RIPPER in connection with electronic cigarettes is
`
`likely to cause confusion in the marketplace.
`
` Defendants’ infringement of Plaintiff’s RIPPER Mark is willful and done with
`
`knowledge that their use of RIPPER is likely to cause confusion in the marketplace.
`
` Defendants’ activities alleged in this Count have been without license,
`
`permission, or authorization from VPR.
`
` The activities of Defendants as set forth in this Count have been to the injury,
`
`detriment and irreparable harm to VPR.
`
`10
`SRIPLAW
`CALIFORNIA ♦ GEORGIA ♦ FLORIDA ♦ TENNESSEE ♦ NEW YORK♦ INDIANA
`
`

`

`Case 0:24-cv-60908-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2024 Page 11 of 15
`
` Unless enjoined, Defendants’ infringement will continue to harm VPR’s valuable
`
`registered trademark rights.
`
`COUNT II - FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN, AND UNFAIR COMPETITION
`UNDER SECTION 43(a) OF THE LANHAM ACT, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
`
` Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 63
`
`as if set forth fully herein.
`
` At all relevant times VPR was the owner of the RIPPER Mark at issue in this
`
`case.
`
` Defendants used plaintiff’s RIPPER mark to promote the sale of electronic
`
`cigarette products in interstate commerce under the name RIPPER.
`
` Defendants’ use of plaintiff’s RIPPER mark is a false designation of origin, false
`
`or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, because
`
`Defendants have never been licensed or otherwise authorized to use Plaintiff’s RIPPER Mark
`
`for any purpose.
`
` Defendants’ use of plaintiff’s RIPPER mark is a false designation of origin, false
`
`or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact that is likely to
`
`cause confusion, mistake, or deceive consumers as to the affiliation, connection, or association
`
`of VPR with the Defendants.
`
` Defendants’ use of plaintiff’s RIPPER mark is a false designation of origin, false
`
`or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact that is likely to
`
`cause confusion, mistake, or deceive as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval by VPR of
`
`Defendants’ goods.
`
` Defendants’ use of plaintiff’s RIPPER mark is a false designation of origin, false
`
`or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact that Defendants’
`
`11
`SRIPLAW
`CALIFORNIA ♦ GEORGIA ♦ FLORIDA ♦ TENNESSEE ♦ NEW YORK♦ INDIANA
`
`

`

`Case 0:24-cv-60908-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2024 Page 12 of 15
`
`use in commercial advertising or promotion misrepresents the nature, characteristics, or
`
`qualities of Defendants’ RIPPER products.
`
` The activities of Defendants as set forth in this Count have been to the injury,
`
`detriment and irreparable harm to VPR.
`
` Unless enjoined, Defendants’ unfair competition will continue to deceive the
`
`public and injure competition.
`
`COUNT III – COMMON LAW UNFAIR COMPETITION
`
` VPR incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 63 as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`case.
`
` At all relevant times VPR was the owner of the RIPPER Mark at issue in this
`
` Defendants used plaintiff’s RIPPER mark to promote the sale of electronic
`
`cigarette products under the name RIPPER.
`
` Defendants’ use of the RIPPER mark is unfair and injures competition.
`
` Defendants’ activities alleged in this Count have been without license,
`
`permission, or authorization from VPR.
`
` Defendants’ activities alleged herein constitute unfair methods of competition in
`
`violation of the common law of the state of Florida.
`
` As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unfair competition, VPR has
`
`suffered and will continue to suffer loss of reputation among its purchasers and potential
`
`purchasers, and Defendants will continue to unfairly acquire income, profits, and goodwill.
`
` VPR has been damaged.
`
` The damage to VPR is irreparable.
`
`12
`SRIPLAW
`CALIFORNIA ♦ GEORGIA ♦ FLORIDA ♦ TENNESSEE ♦ NEW YORK♦ INDIANA
`
`

`

`Case 0:24-cv-60908-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2024 Page 13 of 15
`
` Unless enjoined, Defendants’ unfair competition will continue to deceive the
`
`public and injure competition.
`
`COUNT IV- DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,205,622
`
` VPR incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 63 as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
` Within the six years preceding the filing of the original Complaint, Defendants
`
`directly infringed at least one claim of U.S. Patent No. 8,205,622 by the activities referred to in
`
`herein in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
` Without limiting the foregoing, Defendants infringed at least claim 13 of the ‘622
`
`Patent by making, using, distributing, importing, offering to sell and selling RIPPER branded
`
`electronic cigarettes.
`
`
`
`Defendants’ activities alleged in this Count have been without license,
`
`permission, or authorization from VPR.
`
`
`
`The activities of Defendants as set forth in this Count have been to the injury,
`
`detriment and irreparable harm to VPR.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff VPR Brands, LP prays for judgment against the Defendants
`
`Rufpuf LLC and Zaydan Innovations Inc. that:
`
`a.
`
`Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees, affiliated
`
`entities, and all of those in active concert with them, be preliminarily and permanently
`
`enjoined from committing the acts alleged herein in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114 and §
`
`1125;
`
`b.
`
`Defendants be required to pay Plaintiff its damages including lost sales
`
`and Defendants’ profits as provided in 15 U.S.C. § 1125;
`
`13
`SRIPLAW
`CALIFORNIA ♦ GEORGIA ♦ FLORIDA ♦ TENNESSEE ♦ NEW YORK♦ INDIANA
`
`

`

`Case 0:24-cv-60908-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2024 Page 14 of 15
`
`c.
`
`Enter a finding of willful patent infringement against Defendants under the
`
`patent asserted in this Complaint;
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`Permanently enjoin Defendants from committing patent infringement;
`
`Award in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants such damages as
`
`Plaintiff may have suffered but in no event less than a reasonable royalty pursuant to 35
`
`U.S.C. § 284;
`
`f.
`
`Award in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants an enhancement of
`
`damages;
`
`g.
`
`Award in favor of Plaintiff for treble damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §
`
`1117(a);
`
`h.
`
`Enter a preliminary injunction and permanently enjoining Defendants
`
`from using the RIPPER Mark in relation to selling and marketing electronic cigarettes;
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`Find that this is an exceptional case;
`
`Award Plaintiff its attorneys’ fees against Defendants under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`285 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a);
`
`k.
`
`l.
`
`Award Plaintiff its costs against Defendants,
`
`Plaintiff be awarded pre- and post-judgment interest; and
`
`m.
`
`Plaintiff be awarded such other and further relief as the Court deems just
`
`and proper.
`
`
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable.
`
`DATED: May 28, 2024
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`14
`SRIPLAW
`CALIFORNIA ♦ GEORGIA ♦ FLORIDA ♦ TENNESSEE ♦ NEW YORK♦ INDIANA
`
`

`

`Case 0:24-cv-60908-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2024 Page 15 of 15
`
`
`
`/s/ Joel B. Rothman
`JOEL B. ROTHMAN
`Florida Bar Number: 98220
`joel.rothman@sriplaw.com
`LAYLA T. NGUYEN
`Florida Bar Number: 1024723
`layla.nguyen@sriplaw.com
`
`SRIPLAW, P.A.
`21301 Powerline Road
`Suite 100
`Boca Raton, FL 33433
`561.404.4350 – Telephone
`561.404.4353 – Facsimile
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff VPR Brands LP
`
`15
`SRIPLAW
`CALIFORNIA ♦ GEORGIA ♦ FLORIDA ♦ TENNESSEE ♦ NEW YORK♦ INDIANA
`
`

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