`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`Southern Division – Detroit
`
`LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES,
`INC.,
`a Michigan corporation, and
`
`LC TRADEMARKS, INC.,
`a Michigan corporation,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`GULL 5, INC.,
`an Illinois limited liability company,
`
`SAIRH5, LLC,
`an Illinois limited liability company,
`
`SAIR ALI,
`an Illinois citizen, and
`
`UMBREEN JAYED,
`an Illinois citizen,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-12532
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiffs Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. and LC Trademarks, Inc.
`
`(collectively, “Little Caesar”) bring this action for breach of contract, trademark
`
`infringement, unfair competition, and trade dress infringement. Little Caesar has
`
`terminated its Franchise Agreements with Defendants based on Defendants’ breach
`
`of those Agreements by failing to provide multiple financial statements to Little
`
`Caesar. Despite the terminations, Defendants continue to hold themselves out as
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-12532-DML-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.2 Filed 10/28/21 Page 2 of 18
`
`LITTLE CAESARS franchisees.
`
`Defendants’ continued, unauthorized use and enjoyment of Little Caesar’s
`
`confidential business system and the LITTLE CAESARS trademarks, trade name,
`
`and trade dress breaches the Franchise Agreements and violates the Lanham Act, 15
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1114, et seq. Little Caesar seeks injunctive, monetary, and other relief
`
`against Defendants for the reasons set forth below.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. is a Michigan corporation with
`
`its principal place of business in Detroit, Michigan. It is engaged in the business of
`
`franchising independent businesspersons to operate LITTLE CAESARS restaurants
`
`throughout the United States. Little Caesar’s franchisees are licensed to use the
`
`LITTLE CAESARS trade name, trademarks, and service marks and to operate under
`
`the LITTLE CAESARS System, which involves the production, merchandising, and
`
`sale of pizza, chicken wings, and related products utilizing special equipment,
`
`equipment layouts, interior and exterior accessories, identification schemes,
`
`products, management programs, standards, specifications, proprietary marks, and
`
`information.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff LC Trademarks, Inc. is a Michigan corporation with its
`
`principal place of business in Detroit, Michigan. LC Trademarks, Inc. is the owner
`
`of the trademark, service mark, and trade name “LITTLE CAESARS,” and related
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-12532-DML-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.3 Filed 10/28/21 Page 3 of 18
`
`marks. It licenses these marks to Plaintiff Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc., which in
`
`turn licenses them to LITTLE CAESARS franchisees.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant Gull 5, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with a principal place
`
`of business in Harvard, Illinois. Gull 5 owned and operated one LITTLE CAESARS
`
`franchise located in Harvard (Store Nos. 1948-0001), pursuant to a Franchise
`
`Agreement with Little Caesar. The owner of Gull 5 is Defendant Sair Ali, a citizen
`
`and resident of Illinois.
`
`4.
`
`Defendant SAIRH5, LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with
`
`a principal place of business in Marengo, Illinois. SAIRH5 owned and operated one
`
`LITTLE CAESARS franchise located in Marengo (Store Nos. 1948-0002), pursuant
`
`to a Franchise Agreement with Little Caesar. The sole member of SAIRH5 is
`
`Defendant Sair Ali, a citizen and resident of Illinois.
`
`5.
`
`Defendant Sair Ali is a natural person and a citizen and resident of the
`
`State of Illinois. He is the owner of Gull 5 and SAIRH5 and personally guaranteed
`
`their obligations under their Franchise Agreements with Little Caesar pursuant to
`
`executed personal guarantees.
`
`6.
`
`Defendant Umbreen Jayed is a natural person and a citizen and resident
`
`of the State of Illinois. Umbreen Jayed personally guaranteed the obligations of Gull
`
`5 and SAIRH5 under their Franchise Agreements with Little Caesar pursuant to
`
`executed personal guarantees.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-12532-DML-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.4 Filed 10/28/21 Page 4 of 18
`
`7.
`
`Defendants Gull 5, Inc., SAIRH5, LLC, Sair Ali, and Umbreen Jayed
`
`are collectively referred to as “Gull 5.”
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`8.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to §§ 34(a) and 39 of the Lanham
`
`Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1116 & 1121; and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1338, & 1367(a). The
`
`amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and no
`
`defendant shares a state of citizenship with any plaintiff.
`
`9.
`
`This Court has in personam jurisdiction over Defendants because they
`
`conduct business in this district and the events giving rise to Little Caesar’s claims
`
`occurred in this district.
`
`10. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and the
`
`venue provision contained in the parties’ Franchise Agreements.
`
`BACKGROUND FACTS
`
`Little Caesar
`
`11. Plaintiff Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. is the franchisor of the LITTLE
`
`CAESARS System.
`
`12. Plaintiff LC Trademarks, Inc. owns numerous federal registrations for
`
`the mark “LITTLE CAESARS” and related marks. Among those registrations are
`
`Registration Nos. 2036763, 2028607, 2259637, 3904450, 3925216, and others. Each
`
`of these registrations is in full force and effect.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-12532-DML-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.5 Filed 10/28/21 Page 5 of 18
`
`13. Plaintiff Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. has the exclusive license to use
`
`and to license others to use the LITTLE CAESARS marks and trade name and has
`
`used them at all times relevant to this action to identify its restaurants and the pizza
`
`and other products associated with those restaurants.
`
`14. The trade dress of LITTLE CAESARS restaurants includes the signage,
`
`lettering style, color scheme, exterior appearance, floor plans, and décor (including,
`
`without limitation, menu boards, display racks, and servers’ uniforms) that are
`
`featured at the restaurants operated by LITTLE CAESARS franchisees.
`
`15. The LITTLE CAESARS
`
`trade dress consists of arbitrary
`
`embellishments primarily adopted for the purpose of identification and individuality,
`
`and is nonfunctional.
`
`16. The LITTLE CAESARS trademarks and trade dress are utilized in
`
`interstate commerce.
`
`The Parties’ Rights And Obligations Under The Franchise Agreements
`
`17. Gull 5 was formerly licensed to use the LITTLE CAESARS
`
`trademarks, trade name, trade dress, and business system in accordance with the
`
`terms of its Franchise Agreements with Little Caesar.
`
`18. Among those terms was the obligation to comply with Little Caesar’s
`
`recordkeeping and reporting requirements, including but not limited to the
`
`obligations to:
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-12532-DML-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.6 Filed 10/28/21 Page 6 of 18
`
`a.
`
`Prepare and preserve for at least four years, complete and
`
`accurate books, records, and accounts in accordance with generally accepted
`
`accounting principles and in the form and manner prescribed by Little Caesar.
`
`(Franchise Agreement § 11.1.)1
`
`b.
`
`Provide Little Caesar with copies of financial statements
`
`showing the results of the operations of its LITTLE CAESARS franchises, within
`
`sixty days of the end of each fiscal year of the restaurants, in addition to state and
`
`federal tax returns related to its operation of its LITTLE CAESARS franchises,
`
`within five days of their filing. (Id. § 11.2.)
`
`c.
`
`Provide Little Caesar, on forms and in the manner prescribed by
`
`Little Caesar: (i) weekly reports of gross sales; (ii) financial statements on a quarterly
`
`basis, within thirty days after the end of each quarter; and (iii) such other data and
`
`information regarding the operation of its LITTLE CAESARS franchises as Little
`
`Caesar may require, within the time frames established by Little Caesar. (Id. § 11.3.)
`
`d.
`
`Provide Little Caesar, for review or auditing, such additional
`
`forms, sales reports, records, information, and data as Little Caesar may reasonably
`
`
`1 Because Gull 5’s Franchise Agreements were executed in different years, the
`wording of and/or the section numbers for the provisions cited in this Complaint
`may vary from one Franchise Agreement to the other; however, the provisions are
`materially the same for the purposes of the Complaint. For ease of reference, the
`citations contained in this Complaint can be found in Gull 5’s most recent Franchise
`Agreement (the Franchise Agreement for Franchise No. 1948-0002).
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-12532-DML-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.7 Filed 10/28/21 Page 7 of 18
`
`request, on the forms and in the manner as are reasonably requested by Little Caesar.
`
`(Id. § 11.4.)
`
`19. Furthermore, Gull 5 agreed that Little Caesar had the right to audit the
`
`books and records of its LITTLE CAESARS franchises at any time. (Id. § 11.5.)
`
`20. Gull 5 agreed that the failure to comply with the terms of the Franchise
`
`Agreements would constitute a default under the Agreements and that Little Caesar
`
`had the right to terminate the Agreements if Gull 5 failed to cure a default within the
`
`time required under the Agreements. (Id. § 13.3.)
`
`21. Gull 5 agreed that under certain circumstances Little Caesar had the
`
`right to immediately terminate the Franchise Agreements without providing an
`
`opportunity to cure, including if Gull 5:
`
`a.
`
`Refused to permit Little Caesar to inspect its books and records
`
`pursuant to Little Caesar’s right to do so under the Franchise Agreements (id.
`
`§ 13.2.19); or
`
`b.
`
`Breached any material term of the Franchise Agreements that
`
`was not by its nature curable, or that went to the essence of the Agreements (id.
`
`§ 13.2.22).
`
`22.
`
`In addition, Gull 5 agreed that Little Caesar had the right to terminate
`
`any other Franchise Agreement between Gull 5 or any of its affiliates and Little
`
`Caesar in the event that a Franchise Agreement between Gull 5 or its affiliate and
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-12532-DML-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.8 Filed 10/28/21 Page 8 of 18
`
`Little Caesar was terminated for a default under that agreement. (Id. §§ 13.2.21,
`
`13.4.)
`
`23. Furthermore, under the terms of the Franchise Agreements, Gull 5
`
`agreed that its right to use Little Caesar’s proprietary marks was limited to uses
`
`authorized by the Franchise Agreements, and that “any unauthorized use thereof
`
`shall constitute an infringement.” (Id. § 7.2.5.)
`
`24.
`
`It agreed that it would use Little Caesar’s proprietary marks, including
`
`but not limited to Little Caesar’s trademarks, trade names, service marks, logos,
`
`emblems, trade dress, and other indicia of origin, “only in the manner authorized and
`
`permitted by Little Caesar.” (Id. § 7.2.1.)
`
`25. Gull 5 was permitted to use Little Caesar’s proprietary marks only in
`
`accordance with the LITTLE CAESARS System and the related standards and
`
`specifications, which “underlie the goodwill associated with and symbolized by the
`
`[p]roprietary [m]arks.” (Id. § 7.1.3.)
`
`26. And it agreed that, during the term of the Franchise Agreements and
`
`after termination, it would not take any action “which may tend to derogate or
`
`jeopardize Little Caesar’s interest” in Little Caesar’s proprietary marks. (Id. § 7.3.2.)
`
`Gull 5 also covenanted not to “do or perform any other act injurious or prejudicial
`
`to the goodwill associated with the [p]roprietary [m]arks” and the LITTLE
`
`CAESARS System. (Id. § 15.2.1.)
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-12532-DML-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.9 Filed 10/28/21 Page 9 of 18
`
`Defendants’ Post-Termination Obligations
`
`27. Gull 5 agreed that, in the event that its Franchise Agreements were
`
`terminated, it would “immediately cease to operate” the restaurants and would not
`
`thereafter, directly or indirectly, “represent to the public or hold itself out as a present
`
`or former franchisee of Little Caesar.” (Franchise Agreement § 14.1.)
`
`28.
`
`In addition, it agreed that it would immediately and permanently cease
`
`to use, in any manner whatsoever, any products, ingredients, trade secrets,
`
`confidential methods, procedures, and techniques associated with the LITTLE
`
`CAESARS System and/or proprietary marks. (Id. § 14.2.)
`
`29.
`
`It also agreed to return to Little Caesar all of Little Caesar’s confidential
`
`manuals and other confidential information. (Id. § 14.9.)
`
`30. Gull 5 agreed that, upon termination of the Franchise Agreements, it
`
`would not use “any designation of origin or description or representation which
`
`falsely suggests or represents an association or connection with Little Caesar.” (Id
`
`§ 14.5.)
`
`31. And it agreed to take any actions necessary to cancel any assumed name
`
`or equivalent registration that contains the LITTLE CAESARS Proprietary Marks,
`
`as the term is defined in the Franchise Agreements, and to furnish evidence of
`
`compliance within thirty days after the termination of the Agreements. (Id. § 14.3.)
`
`32. Under the Franchise Agreements, Gull 5 agreed that, upon termination,
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-12532-DML-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.10 Filed 10/28/21 Page 10 of 18
`
`Little Caesar would have the option to purchase any or all of the furnishings,
`
`equipment, signs, fixtures, or supplies related to the operation of its franchised
`
`restaurants. In addition, it agreed to assign to Little Caesar, at its request, any
`
`interests it had in any lease for the restaurant premises. (Id. §§ 14.4, 14.10.)
`
`33. Gull 5 also agreed to a reasonable post-termination covenant against
`
`competition, which states that it may not, directly or indirectly, for itself or through,
`
`on behalf of, or in conjunction with any person, persons, or legal entity “own,
`
`maintain, advise, operate, engage in, be employed by, make loans to, or have any
`
`interest in or relationship or association with a business which is a quick or fast
`
`service restaurant engaged in the sale of pizza, pasta, sandwiches, chicken wings,
`
`and/or related products,” for a continuous uninterrupted period of one year following
`
`the termination of the Franchise Agreements (or a final court order regarding the
`
`same), in any Designated Market Area of any LITTLE CAESARS restaurant, and
`
`for a continuous uninterrupted period of two years following the termination of the
`
`Franchise Agreements (or a final court order regarding the same), in the Designated
`
`Market Area(s) in which its former LITTLE CAESARS restaurants are located. (Id.
`
`§ 15.3.) Gull 5 further agreed that breaching this and any other covenants in the
`
`Franchise Agreements would cause Little Caesar irreparable injury for “which no
`
`adequate remedy at law may be available, and agree[d] to pay all court costs and
`
`attorneys’ fees incurred by Little Caesar in obtaining injunctive or other equitable
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-12532-DML-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.11 Filed 10/28/21 Page 11 of 18
`
`legal relief . . . .” (Id. § 15.4.)
`
`34.
`
`It agreed that it would pay to Little Caesar and its affiliates all sums
`
`owed, and Little Caesar’s costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred
`
`by reason of any default or termination of the Franchise Agreements, or the
`
`enforcement of Gull 5’s post-termination obligations. It also agreed to pay Little
`
`Caesar liquidated damages. (Id. §§ 14.6, 14.7, 14.8, 15.4, 23.9.)
`
`35. Pursuant to the personal guarantees attached as Exhibit A to the
`
`Franchise Agreements, Defendants Sair Ali and Umbreen Jayed agreed to be
`
`personally bound by the covenants and obligations of the Franchise Agreements,
`
`including the obligation to pay Little Caesar and its affiliates and the obligation to
`
`comply with the post-termination covenant against competition.
`
`Defendants’ Defaults Under Their Franchise Agreements
`And The Termination Of Their Franchise Agreements
`
`36. Over the course of 2020, Gull 5 failed to submit its quarterly financial
`
`statements within thirty days after the end of the quarter as required by its Franchise
`
`Agreements. By early 2021, Gull 5 had failed to submit financial statements for the
`
`fourth quarter of 2019 and all of 2020.
`
`37. As a result, on April 12, 2021 notified Gull 5 that it was in default of
`
`its Franchise Agreements and that its Franchise Agreements would be terminated
`
`unless it produced its fourth-quarter 2019 and all 2020 quarterly financial statements
`
`within thirty days.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-12532-DML-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.12 Filed 10/28/21 Page 12 of 18
`
`38. Gull 5 did not produce its fourth-quarter 2019 financial statements, nor
`
`did it produce any of its 2020 quarterly financial statements, within 30 days of the
`
`April 12 Notice. Accordingly, by Notice of Default and Notice of Franchise
`
`Agreements Termination dated June 7, 2021, Little Caesar terminated Gull 5’s
`
`Franchise Agreements effective immediately upon Gull 5’s receipt of the June 7
`
`notice.
`
`39. The June 7 Notice of Default and Notice of Franchise Termination
`
`informed Gull 5 that Little Caesar would not enforce the termination by itself, but
`
`instead would submit the matter to a court for judicial enforcement. Gull 5 elected
`
`to continue to operate its franchises pending judicial enforcement of the termination.
`
`40. Gull 5 continues to operate its LITTLE CAESARS franchises, in
`
`violation of its post-termination obligations.
`
`41. Gull 5 has also committed additional defaults of its Franchise
`
`Agreements, by failing to provide quarterly financial statements for the first two
`
`quarters of 2021.
`
`42. Gull 5’s actions have caused and continue to cause monetary damage
`
`and irreparable harm to Little Caesar, including harm to Little Caesar’s reputation
`
`
`
`and goodwill.
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-12532-DML-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.13 Filed 10/28/21 Page 13 of 18
`
`COUNT I
`Breach of Contract
`
`43. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 42 are hereby incorporated by
`
`reference.
`
`44. The conduct described in this Complaint constitutes material breaches
`
`of the contractual provisions of the Franchise Agreements cited herein, including the
`
`post-termination obligations.
`
`45. These breaches constitute good cause for terminating the Franchise
`
`Agreements.
`
`46. As a direct and proximate result of these actions, Little Caesar has
`
`suffered and is continuing to suffer irreparable injury, and has incurred and is
`
`continuing to incur monetary damages in an amount that has yet to be determined.
`
`COUNT II
`Trademark Infringement
`
`47. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 46 are hereby incorporated by
`
`reference.
`
`48. The use in commerce of Little Caesar’s trademarks and trade names by
`
`the Defendants outside the scope of the Franchise Agreements and without Little
`
`Caesar’s consent is likely to confuse or deceive the public into believing, contrary
`
`to fact, that the unauthorized activities of the Defendants are licensed, franchised,
`
`sponsored, authorized, or otherwise approved by Little Caesar. Such unauthorized
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-12532-DML-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.14 Filed 10/28/21 Page 14 of 18
`
`use of Little Caesar’s trademarks and trade names infringes its exclusive rights in its
`
`trademarks under § 32 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114, and applicable state
`
`law.
`
`49. The acts of the Defendants were and are being done knowingly and
`
`intentionally to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.
`
`50. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ actions, Little
`
`Caesar has suffered and is continuing to suffer irreparable injury, and has incurred
`
`and is continuing to incur monetary damages in an amount that has yet to be
`
`determined.
`
`COUNT III
`Unfair Competition
`
`51. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 50 are hereby incorporated by
`
`reference.
`
`52. The use in commerce of Little Caesar’s trademarks, trade names, and
`
`trade dress by the Defendants outside the scope of the Franchise Agreements and
`
`without the consent of Little Caesar is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake,
`
`or to deceive as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of their goods, services, or
`
`commercial activities. Such unauthorized use of Little Caesar’s trademarks and trade
`
`names violates § 43 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and applicable state
`
`law.
`
`
`
`53. The acts of the Defendants were and are being done knowingly and
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-12532-DML-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.15 Filed 10/28/21 Page 15 of 18
`
`intentionally to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.
`
`54. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ actions, Little
`
`Caesar has suffered and is continuing to suffer irreparable injury, and has incurred
`
`and is continuing to incur monetary damages in an amount that has yet to be
`
`determined.
`
`COUNT IV
`Trade Dress Infringement
`
`55. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 54 are hereby incorporated by
`
`reference.
`
`56. The Defendants’ restaurants are
`
`identified by signs, exterior
`
`appearance, packaging, containers, and other items on which the LITTLE
`
`CAESARS proprietary marks appear in the same distinctive style and color scheme
`
`as Little Caesar uses for the pizza restaurants operated by Little Caesar’s licensees.
`
`57. The Defendants’ use of trade dress that is identical or confusingly
`
`similar to the LITTLE CAESARS trade dress outside the scope of the Franchise
`
`Agreements constitutes a false designation of the origin of the Defendants’
`
`restaurants, which is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive the
`
`public as to the affiliation, connection, or association of their restaurants with the
`
`LITTLE CAESARS restaurants operated by Little Caesar’s licensees. Such adoption
`
`of Little Caesar’s trade dress violates § 43 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125,
`
`and the common law.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-12532-DML-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.16 Filed 10/28/21 Page 16 of 18
`
`58. The Defendants’ acts were and are being done knowingly and
`
`intentionally to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.
`
`59. As a result of the Defendants’ actions, Little Caesar has suffered and is
`
`continuing to suffer irreparable injury, and has incurred and is continuing to incur
`
`monetary damages in an amount that has yet to be determined.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Court:
`
`A.
`
`Enter a declaratory judgment holding that Defendants’ conduct violated
`
`the terms of the Franchise Agreements and constitutes good cause for terminating
`
`the Franchise Agreements;
`
`B.
`
`Enter an injunctive order ratifying and enforcing the termination of the
`
`Franchise Agreements as of the effective date of Little Caesar’s Notice of Franchise
`
`Agreement Termination, or as otherwise provided by applicable law;
`
`C.
`
`Enter an order enjoining Defendants, and all those acting by, through,
`
`or in concert with them, by preliminary and permanent injunction, from using the
`
`LITTLE CAESARS trademarks, trade names, and trade dress, and from otherwise
`
`engaging in unfair competition with Little Caesar;
`
`D.
`
`Enter an injunctive order directing Defendants, and all those acting by,
`
`through, or in concert with them, to comply with all applicable post-termination
`
`obligations as provided in the Franchise Agreements, including but not limited to
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-12532-DML-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.17 Filed 10/28/21 Page 17 of 18
`
`promptly paying all sums owed to Little Caesar and its affiliates, complying with the
`
`post-termination noncompete, complying with any request from Little Caesar to
`
`purchase any equipment or other assets of the franchise, and taking all steps to
`
`transfer their leasehold interests in the franchise to Little Caesar or its designee in
`
`the event that Little Caesar elects to exercise any rights it or any of its affiliates or
`
`subsidiaries might have in such interests;
`
`E. Award Plaintiffs judgment against Defendants for the damages
`
`Plaintiffs have sustained and the profits Defendants have derived as a result of their
`
`trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, and unfair competition, assessing
`
`such damages in a separate accounting procedure, and then trebling those damages
`
`in accordance with Section 35 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117;
`
`F.
`
`Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs for the damages they have
`
`suffered, including liquidated damages as provided for by the Franchise Agreements,
`
`as a result of Defendants’ conduct, plus prejudgment interest allowed by law;
`
`G. Award Plaintiffs their costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in connection
`
`with this action, pursuant to the Franchise Agreements and Section 35 of the Lanham
`
`Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117, including the costs incurred in conducting any and all
`
`necessary inspections; and
`
`H. Award Plaintiffs such other relief in its favor as this Court may deem
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-12532-DML-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.18 Filed 10/28/21 Page 18 of 18
`
`just and proper.
`
`Dated: October 28, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/Larry J. Saylor
`
`Larry J. Saylor (P28165)
`Kimberly A. Berger (P56165)
`MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK
` & STONE P.L.C.
`150 West Jefferson Avenue, Suite 2500
`Detroit, Michigan 48226
`Telephone: (313) 496-7986
`Facsimile: (313) 496-8454
`Saylor@millercanfield.com
`Berger@millercanfield.com
`
`Robert L. Zisk (admitted in E.D. Mich.)
`Justin L. Sallis (admitted in E.D. Mich.)
`LATHROP GPM LLP
`The Watergate
`600 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. – Suite 700
`Washington, D.C. 20037
`Telephone: (202) 295-2200
`Facsimile: (202) 295-2250
`robert.zisk@lathropgpm.com
`justin.sallis@lathropgpm.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`18
`
`