Case 2:22-cv-10128-SFC-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.1 Filed 01/21/22 Page 1 of 19
`
`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.
`GURMOH, INC.,
`a Washington corporation,
`ABW FOODS LLC,
`a Washington limited liability
`company,
`ATMA SINGH JASSAL,
`a Washington citizen,
`MOHAN JASSAL,
`a Washington citizen, and
`GURJEET JASSAL,
`a Washington citizen,
`Defendants.
`
`Case No.
`
`
`
`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 contractually required financial
`
`
`
`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.
`GURMOH, INC.,
`a Washington corporation,
`ABW FOODS LLC,
`a Washington limited liability
`company,
`ATMA SINGH JASSAL,
`a Washington citizen,
`MOHAN JASSAL,
`a Washington citizen, and
`GURJEET JASSAL,
`a Washington citizen,
`Defendants.
`
`Case No.
`
`
`
`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 contractually required financial
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-10128-SFC-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.2 Filed 01/21/22 Page 2 of 19
`
`statements to Little Caesar. Despite the termination, Defendants continue to hold
`
`themselves out as 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
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-10128-SFC-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.3 Filed 01/21/22 Page 3 of 19
`
`of the trademark, service mark, and trade name “LITTLE CAESARS,” and related
`
`marks. It licenses these marks to Plaintiff Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc., which in
`
`turn licenses them to LITTLE CAESARS franchisees.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant Gurmoh, Inc. is a Washington corporation with a principal
`
`place of business in Burien, Washington. Gurmoh owned five LITTLE CAESARS
`
`franchises located in and around Seattle, Washington (Store Nos. 1475-0001, 1475-
`
`0002, 1475-0003, 1475-0005, and 1475-0006), pursuant to Franchise Agreements
`
`with Little Caesar. It operated three of those franchises (Store Nos. 1475-0001,
`
`1475-0002, and 1475-0003). The owners of Gurmoh are Defendants Atma Singh
`
`Jassal and Mohan Jassal, each a citizen and resident of Washington.
`
`4.
`
`ABW Foods, LLC is a Washington limited liability company with a
`
`principal place of business in Lynnwood, Washington. ABW Foods operated two of
`
`Gurmoh’s LITTLE CAESARS franchises (Store Nos. 1475-0005 and 1475-0006).
`
`The members of ABW are Defendants Atma Singh Jassal and Mohan Jassal. No
`
`member of ABW is a citizen of the state of Michigan.
`
`5.
`
`Defendant Atma Singh Jassal is a natural person and a citizen and
`
`resident of the State of Washington. Atma Singh Jassal is an owner of Gurmoh and
`
`ABW and personally guaranteed their obligations under their Franchise Agreements
`
`with Little Caesar pursuant to executed personal guarantees.
`
`6.
`
`Defendant Mohan Jassal is a natural person and a citizen and resident
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-10128-SFC-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.4 Filed 01/21/22 Page 4 of 19
`
`of the State of Washington. Mohan Jassal is an owner of Gurmoh and ABW and
`
`personally guaranteed their obligations under their Franchise Agreements with Little
`
`Caesar pursuant to executed personal guarantees.
`
`7.
`
`Defendant Gurjeet Jassal is a natural person and a citizen and resident
`
`of the State of Washington. Gurjeet Jassal personally guaranteed the obligations of
`
`Gurmoh and ABW under their Franchise Agreements with Little Caesar pursuant to
`
`executed personal guarantees.
`
`8.
`
`Defendants Gurmoh, Inc., ABW Foods, LLC, Atma Singh Jassal,
`
`Mohan Jassal, and Gurjeet Jassal are collectively referred to as “Gurmoh.”
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`9.
`
`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.
`
`10. 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.
`
`11. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and the
`
`venue provision contained in the parties’ Franchise Agreements.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-10128-SFC-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.5 Filed 01/21/22 Page 5 of 19
`
`BACKGROUND FACTS
`
`Little Caesar
`
`12. Plaintiff Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. is the franchisor of the LITTLE
`
`CAESARS System.
`
`13. 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.
`
`14. 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.
`
`15. 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.
`
`16. The LITTLE CAESARS
`
`trade dress consists of arbitrary
`
`embellishments primarily adopted for the purpose of identification and individuality,
`
`and is nonfunctional.
`
`17. The LITTLE CAESARS trademarks and trade dress are utilized in
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-10128-SFC-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.6 Filed 01/21/22 Page 6 of 19
`
`interstate commerce.
`
`The Parties’ Rights And Obligations Under The Franchise Agreements
`
`18. Gurmoh 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.
`
`19. Among those terms was the obligation to comply with Little Caesar’s
`
`recordkeeping and reporting requirements, including but not limited to the
`
`obligations to:
`
`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,
`
`
`1 Because the 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 the most recent Franchise Agreement
`(the Franchise Agreement for Franchise No. 1475-0006).
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-10128-SFC-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.7 Filed 01/21/22 Page 7 of 19
`
`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
`
`request, on the forms and in the manner as are reasonably requested by Little Caesar.
`
`(Id. § 11.4.)
`
`20. Furthermore, Gurmoh agreed that Little Caesar had the right to audit
`
`the books and records of its LITTLE CAESARS franchises at any time. (Id. § 11.5.)
`
`21. Gurmoh 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 Gurmoh failed to cure a
`
`default within the time required under the Agreements. (Id. § 13.3.)
`
`22. Gurmoh agreed that under certain circumstances Little Caesar had the
`
`right to immediately terminate the Franchise Agreements without providing an
`
`opportunity to cure, including if Gurmoh:
`
`a.
`
`Refused to permit Little Caesar to inspect its books and records
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-10128-SFC-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.8 Filed 01/21/22 Page 8 of 19
`
`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).
`
`23.
`
`In addition, Gurmoh agreed that Little Caesar had the right to terminate
`
`any other Franchise Agreement between Gurmoh or any of its affiliates and Little
`
`Caesar in the event that a Franchise Agreement between Gurmoh or its affiliate and
`
`Little Caesar was terminated for a default under that agreement. (Id. §§ 13.2.21,
`
`13.4.)
`
`24. Furthermore, under the terms of the Franchise Agreements, Gurmoh
`
`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.)
`
`25.
`
`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.)
`
`26. Gurmoh was permitted to use Little Caesar’s proprietary marks only in
`
`accordance with the LITTLE CAESARS System and the related standards and
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-10128-SFC-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.9 Filed 01/21/22 Page 9 of 19
`
`specifications, which “underlie the goodwill associated with and symbolized by the
`
`[p]roprietary [m]arks.” (Id. § 7.1.3.)
`
`27. 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.)
`
`Gurmoh 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.)
`
`Defendants’ Post-Termination Obligations
`
`28. Gurmoh 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.)
`
`29.
`
`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.)
`
`30.
`
`It also agreed to return to Little Caesar all of Little Caesar’s confidential
`
`manuals and other confidential information. (Id. § 14.9.)
`
`31. Gurmoh agreed that, upon termination of the Franchise Agreements, it
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-10128-SFC-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.10 Filed 01/21/22 Page 10 of 19
`
`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.)
`
`32. 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.)
`
`33. Under
`
`the Franchise Agreements, Gurmoh agreed
`
`that, upon
`
`termination, 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.)
`
`34. Gurmoh 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
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-10128-SFC-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.11 Filed 01/21/22 Page 11 of 19
`
`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.) Gurmoh 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
`
`legal relief . . . .” (Id. § 15.4.)
`
`35.
`
`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 Gurmoh’s post-termination obligations. It also agreed to pay Little
`
`Caesar liquidated damages. (Id. §§ 14.6, 14.7, 14.8, 15.4, 23.9.)
`
`36. Pursuant to the personal guarantees attached as Exhibit A to the
`
`Franchise Agreements, Defendants Atma Singh Jassal, Mohan Jassal, and Gurjeet
`
`Jassal 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.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-10128-SFC-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.12 Filed 01/21/22 Page 12 of 19
`
`Defendants’ Defaults Under Their Franchise Agreements
`And The Termination Of Their Franchise Agreements
`
`37.
`
`In early 2020, Gurmoh failed to submit its financial statements for the
`
`final quarter of 2019 to Little Caesar within thirty days after the end of the quarter,
`
`as required by the Franchise Agreements. Gurmoh then failed to submit any
`
`quarterly financial statements for 2020.
`
`38. As a result, on April 13, 2021, Little Caesar sent Gurmoh a Notice of
`
`Default and Notice to cure notifying Gurmoh 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.
`
`39. Gurmoh failed to produce any of the quarterly financial statements.
`
`Accordingly, by Notice of Default and Notice of Franchise Agreement Termination
`
`dated June 7, 2021, Little Caesar terminated Gurmoh’s Franchise Agreements
`
`effective immediately upon Gurmoh’s receipt of the notice.
`
`40. The June 7 Notice informed Gurmoh that Little Caesar would not
`
`enforce the termination by itself, but instead would submit the matter to a court for
`
`judicial enforcement.
`
`41. Gurmoh elected to continue to operate its franchises pending judicial
`
`enforcement of the termination, but—consistent with its past nonperformance—
`
`failed to produce any financial statements for the first three quarters of 2021.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-10128-SFC-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.13 Filed 01/21/22 Page 13 of 19
`
`42. Accordingly, by Supplemental Notice of Default and Notice of
`
`Franchise Agreement Termination dated December 8, 2021, Little Caesar informed
`
`Gurmoh that its new defaults provided additional grounds for the Franchise
`
`Agreements’ termination.
`
`43.
`
` The notice further stated that if Gurmoh contested any of the prior
`
`grounds for termination, it had 30 days from its receipt of the notice to cure its
`
`defaults by providing financial statements for 2020-2021, or its Franchise
`
`Agreements would be terminated.
`
`44. Gurmoh did not provide any of the outstanding financial statements.
`
`Further, Gurmoh continues to operate its LITTLE CAESARS franchises, in violation
`
`of its post-termination obligations.
`
`45. Gurmoh’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.
`
`COUNT I
`Breach of Contract
`46. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 45 are hereby incorporated by
`
`reference.
`
`47. The conduct described in this Complaint constitutes material breaches
`
`of the contractual provisions of the Franchise Agreements cited herein, including the
`
`post-termination obligations.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-10128-SFC-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.14 Filed 01/21/22 Page 14 of 19
`
`48. These breaches constitute good cause for terminating the Franchise
`
`Agreements.
`
`49. 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
`50. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 49 are hereby incorporated by
`
`reference.
`
`51. 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
`
`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.
`
`52. The acts of the Defendants were and are being done knowingly and
`
`intentionally to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.
`
`53. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ actions, Little
`
`Caesar has suffered and is continuing to suffer irreparable injury, and has incurred
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-10128-SFC-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.15 Filed 01/21/22 Page 15 of 19
`
`and is continuing to incur monetary damages in an amount that has yet to be
`
`determined.
`
`COUNT III
`Unfair Competition
`54. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 53 are hereby incorporated by
`
`reference.
`
`55. 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.
`
`56. The acts of the Defendants were and are being done knowingly and
`
`intentionally to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.
`
`57. 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-10128-SFC-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.16 Filed 01/21/22 Page 16 of 19
`
`COUNT IV
`Trade Dress Infringement
`58. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 57 are hereby incorporated by
`
`reference.
`
`59. 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.
`
`60. 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.
`
`61. The Defendants’ acts were and are being done knowingly and
`
`intentionally to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.
`
`62. 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.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-10128-SFC-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.17 Filed 01/21/22 Page 17 of 19
`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-10128-SFC-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.18 Filed 01/21/22 Page 18 of 19
`
`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
`
`just and proper.
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-10128-SFC-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.19 Filed 01/21/22 Page 19 of 19
`
`Dated: January 21, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/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
`
`19
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
