Case 1:20-cv-00283 Document 1 Filed 02/24/20 Page 1 of 10
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
`
`GREAT NEW HAMPSHIRE
`RESTAURANTS, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`DOORDASH, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`The plaintiff Great New Hampshire Restaurants, LLC ("Plaintiff' or "GNHR"), by its
`
`undersigned attorneys Rath, Young, and Pignatelli P.C., for its complaint against the defendant
`
`Doordash, Inc. ("Doordash" or "Defendant") alleges as follows:
`
`NATURE OF CASE
`
`1.
`
`This is an action of willful trademark infringement, unfair competition, injury to
`
`business reputation, and false and deceptive business practices, all in violation of the laws of the
`
`United States and the state of New Hampshire. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction, damages,
`
`including the profits of Doordash, trebled under the law, punitive damages, and related relief as
`
`more fully described herein.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff is a limited liability company operating under the laws of New
`
`Hampshire having its principal place of 12 Aspen Lane, Bedford, New Hampshire 03031.
`
`3.
`
`Upon information and belief, Doordash is a California company with a principle
`
`place of business at 4 70 Olive Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00283 Document 1 Filed 02/24/20 Page 2 of 10
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under section 39 of the Lanham Act, 15
`
`U.S.C. § 1121, sections 1332(a), 1338(a) and 1338(6) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a)
`
`and§ 1338(b). This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the non-federal claims asserted
`
`herein pursuant to section 1367 of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), which provides
`
`supplemental jurisdiction.
`
`5.
`
`Personal jurisdiction over Doordash is proper because Doordash is conducting
`
`business in this judicial district and committing torts in this state, including without limitation
`
`Doordash's trademark infringement, unfair competition, and deceptive trade practices, which
`
`cause harm in this state and in this judicial district.
`
`6.
`
`Venue properly lies in the judicial district under sections 1391(b) and (c) of the
`
`Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(6) and (d), because a substantial portion of the events at issue
`
`have arisen and/or will arise in this judicial district and because this Court has personal
`
`jurisdiction over Doordash. In a trademark infringement lawsuit, a substantial part of the events
`
`giving rise to the claim occurs in any district in which consumers are likely to be confused by the
`
`infringing goods or services, whether that occurs in one district or many districts.
`
`FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
`
`A.
`
`Plaintifrs Business and Trademarks
`
`7.
`
`GNHR operates a number of popular restaurants in New Hampshire under the
`
`following trademarks: COPPER DOOR®, CHEF NICOLE'S® (the "Registered GNHR
`
`Marks"), CJ'S™, T-BONES™, and CACTUS JACK'S™ (the "Unregistered GNHR Marks" and
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00283 Document 1 Filed 02/24/20 Page 3 of 10
`
`together with the Registered GNHR Marks, collectively, the "GNHR Marks").
`
`8.
`
`GNHR has been using the GNHR Marks continuously for many years in
`
`connection with restaurant services and has invested considerable time, money and other
`
`resources in connection with the sale and advertising of its restaurant services in connection with
`
`the GNHR Marks.
`
`9.
`
`The GNHR Marks each serve as unique signifiers of the quality, reputation and
`
`goodwill of GNHR in the marketplace.
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff uses its GNHR Marks by displaying them on menus, signage,
`
`promotional materials, advertising materials, and websites.
`
`11 .
`
`Over the years, Plaintiff has invested millions of dollars in the promotion and
`
`advertising of goods and services sold under the GNHR Marks in New Hampshire and its
`
`surrounding states to create a strong association between Plaintiffs products and services, its
`
`goodwill among consumers and the GNHR Marks.
`
`12.
`
`The care and skill exercised by Plaintiff in conducting its business has resulted in
`
`the high quality of the products and services offered under its GNHR Marks.
`
`13.
`
`As a result of the extensive advertising, sale and promotion of Plaintiffs products
`
`and services, its GNHR Marks have acquired secondary meaning throughout the area whereby
`
`the GNHR Marks are widely recognized by the general consuming public in New Hampshire and
`
`its surrounding states as signifying Plaintiff as the unique source of the goods and services sold
`
`in connection with the GNHR Marks.
`
`14.
`
`The GNHR Marks are strong and warrant broad protection in both related and
`
`unrelated product and/or service classes.
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00283 Document 1 Filed 02/24/20 Page 4 of 10
`
`B.
`
`Doordash's Infringing Conduct
`
`15.
`
`Upon information and belief, Doordash is a food delivery business that promises
`
`its customers speedy delivery from different restaurants located throughout New Hampshire and
`
`surrounding states, including GNHR restaurants.
`
`16.
`
`GNHR is in no way affiliated with Doordash but, upon information and belief,
`
`Doordash causes customers to falsely believe that Doordash has a relationship with GNHR
`
`because the GNHR menus and the GNHR Marks appear on Doordash's website and app.
`
`1 7.
`
`In addition, Doordash represents on its website its states "Be a Partner
`
`Restaurant," thus implying that every restaurant listed on its website, GNHR included, is a
`
`"partner restaurant."
`
`18.
`
`Upon information and belief, GNHR customers see GNHR marks and menus at
`
`the Doordash website or app and then provide a debit or credit card to Doordash for payment of
`
`GNHR goods and services.
`
`19.
`
`Upon information and belief, customers pay Doordash directly for GNHR's
`
`products and services whereupon Doordash then orders the same products and services from
`
`GNHR and pays GNHR when it picks up the food for delivery to customers. However, upon
`
`information and belief, the GNHR menus used by Doordash do not always match the menus
`
`currently in use at GNHR.
`
`20.
`
`Upon information and belief, Doordash does not notify GNHR when delivery
`
`drivers employed by Doordash order food from GHNR restaurants. They do not to use the name
`
`"Doordash" when picking up orders from GNHR.
`
`21.
`
`Upon information and belief, Doordash's use of the GNHR Marks has and is
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00283 Document 1 Filed 02/24/20 Page 5 of 10
`
`likely to continue to confuse and mislead consumers into believing that Doordash' s services are
`
`sponsored by, licensed from or otherwise affiliated with GNHR and Doordash's products and
`
`services adhere to the high standards expected from GNHR.
`
`22.
`
`Upon information and belief, Doordash's products and services do not adhere to
`
`the high standards expected from GNHR, putting GNHR at risk for claims by customers relating
`
`to the quality of its food products.
`
`23.
`
`GNHR cannot control how Doordash cares for its food products during the
`
`delivery process by Doordash. It has no control over the time Doordash spends to make a
`
`delivery nor whether Doordash regularly complies with the applicable health and sanitary codes.
`
`24.
`
`Doordash places GNHR at risk for customer complaints, which would
`
`substantially damage GNHR's business reputation, and would result in irreparable damages and
`
`financial loss.
`
`25.
`
`Indeed, as a result of Doordash's use of the certain GNHR Marks, the T-
`
`BONES® and CJ' S® marks most recently, GNHR has received a number of customer
`
`complaints regarding Doordash's services under the mistaken belief the GNHR is responsible for
`
`the poor service provided by Doordash.
`
`26.
`
`Accordingly, GNHR has on more than one occasion asked Doordash to remove
`
`GNHR restaurants from Doordash's website and app.
`
`27. While representatives at Doordash represented that Doordash would cease
`
`advertising on its website that it delivered from GNHR restaurants, the problem has been
`
`recurring.
`
`28.
`
`Upon information and belief, Doordash's use of the GNHR Marks is intentionally
`
`and willfully meant to confuse and mislead consumers as to Doordash's affiliation with GNHR
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00283 Document 1 Filed 02/24/20 Page 6 of 10
`
`restaurants.
`
`COUNTI
`FEDERAL TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
`(violation of 15 U.S.C. §1114)
`
`29.
`
`GNHR incorporates the above paragraphs of the complaint as if separately set
`
`forth herein.
`
`30.
`
`The Registered GNHR Marks, which are registered with the United States Patent
`
`and Trademark Office, are valid and enforceable trademarks exclusively own and continuously
`
`used by GNHR.
`
`31.
`
`Long after GNHR' s first use of the Registered GNHR Marks, Doordash began
`
`use of the Registered GNHR Marks in connection with the advertising and promotion of
`
`Doordash's restaurant services.
`
`32.
`
`GNHR did not authorize Doordash to use the Registered GNHR Marks in
`
`connection with the advertising and promotion of Doordash's restaurant services.
`
`33.
`
`Upon information and belief, Doordash's unauthorized use of the Registered
`
`GNHR Marks will likely cause confusion, mistake, or deception in the relevant consumer market
`
`unless Doordash is permanently enjoined.
`
`34.
`
`Upon information and belief, Doordash's unauthorized use of the Registered
`
`Marks constitutes Trademark Infringement is in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§1114 and 1117.
`
`35.
`
`Doordash has acted in bad faith in willfully using the Registered Marks in
`
`connection with restaurant services business.
`
`36.
`
`Doordash's infringing acts have caused and will continue to cause GNHR to
`
`suffer irreparable injuries to its reputation and goodwill. Plaintiff does not have an adequate
`
`remedy at law to recover for this harm and is therefore entitled to injunctive relief.
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00283 Document 1 Filed 02/24/20 Page 7 of 10
`
`COUNT II
`FEDERAL UNFAIR COMPETITION
`(violation of 15 U.S.C. §1125(a))
`
`3 7.
`
`GNHR incorporates the above paragraphs of the complaint as if separately set
`
`forth herein.
`
`38.
`
`Upon information and belief, Doordash's unauthorized use of the Unregistered
`
`GNHR Marks in connection with its food delivery services constitutes a false designation of
`
`origin, a false or misleading description of fact, and/or false or misleading representation of fact,
`
`and has caused and is likely to cause confusion, mistake, and/or deception as to the affiliation,
`
`connection or association of GNHR with Doordash, the origin, sponsorship or approval of
`
`Doordash's use of the Unregistered GNHR Marks, and the nature, characteristics, or qualities of
`
`services offered by Doordash.
`
`39.
`
`Doordash's conduct as alleged herein constitutes unfair competition and false
`
`designation of origin in violation of section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § l 125(a).
`
`40.
`
`Doordash's violation of section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) is
`
`willful and done in bad faith.
`
`41.
`
`GNHR has no adequate remedy at law. IfDoordash is not enjoined from further
`
`use of the Unregistered GNHR Marks, GNHR will suffer substantial and irreparable injury to its
`
`business reputation and the goodwill associated with the Unregistered GNHR Marks.
`
`COUNTIII
`DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES
`(violation of RSA 358-A)
`
`42.
`
`GNHR incorporates the above paragraphs of the complaint as if separately set
`
`forth herein.
`
`43.
`
`Doordash's actions in passing off their services for GNHR's services through the
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00283 Document 1 Filed 02/24/20 Page 8 of 10
`
`use of deception constitutes an unfair and deceptive trade practice as defined in RSA 358-A:2, 1-
`
`111, V.
`
`44.
`
`Doordash's actions intentionally misinforms consumer in the New Hampshire
`
`marketplace.
`
`45.
`
`Such actions are, in addition, sufficiently rascalous to constitute unfair and
`
`deceptive acts, notwithstanding the categories in RSA 358-A:2.
`
`46.
`
`47.
`
`Doordash's deceptive actions are willful and knowing.
`
`Pursuant to RSA 358-A:10, GNHR is entitled to injunctive relief and to the
`
`amount of actual damages. Doordash's actions under this statute were willful allowing for
`
`Plaintiff to receive up to 3 times, but not less than 2 times, the amount of actual damages and
`
`recovery of costs and attorney fees.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE Plaintiff prays for the following relief.
`
`A.
`
`For judgment that:
`
`l.
`
`2.
`
`Doordash has engaged in infringement in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1114;
`
`Doordash has engaged in unfair competition in violation of 15 U.S.C. l 125(a);
`
`and
`
`3.
`
`Doordash has engaged in deception trade practices in violation of RSA 358-A.
`
`B.
`
`For a permanent injunction enjoining Doordash, and any successors or assigns, and its
`
`principals, officers, partners, agents, subcontractors, servants, employees, attorneys, affiliates, licensees,
`
`subsidiaries and related companies or entities, and all others acting in active concert or participation with
`
`it who receive actual notice of the Court's order by personal service or otherwise, from:
`
`1.
`
`Using the GNHR Marks, or any simulation, reproduction, copy, colorable
`
`imitation or confusingly similar variation of the GNHR Marks in or as part of a
`
`design, logo, domain name, or trademark; using any such mark in connection
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00283 Document 1 Filed 02/24/20 Page 9 of 10
`
`with the promotion, advertisement, sale, offering for sale, manufacture,
`
`production, or distribution of any business, product, or service; and from using
`
`any such mark on or as feature of any product;
`
`2.
`
`Passing off, inducing, or enabling others to pass off, sell, offer, distribute,
`
`disseminate, or otherwise provide any product that bears the GNHR Marks, or
`
`any mark that is a simulation, reproduction, copy, colorable imitation, or
`
`confusingly similar variation thereof; and
`
`3.
`
`Otherwise competing unfairly with GNHR in any manner.
`
`C.
`
`For an order that: 1) Defendant account for and pay over to GNHR the amount of any
`
`profits realized by Doordash by reason of Defendant's unlawful and willful acts as alleged herein; 2)
`
`GNHR be awarded actual damages suffered by reason of Doordash's unlawful and willful acts as alleged
`
`herein, including profits realized by Doordash, to be increased by a sum equal to three times the amount
`
`thereof as provided by law; 3) GNHR be awarded interest, including prejudgment interest, on all
`
`damages sums; 4) GNHR be awarded its costs and reasonable attorney's fees and have such other and
`
`further relief as the Court may deem equitable, including, but not limited to, any relief set forth under 15
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1116-1118; and GNHR be awarded actual and punitive damages as provided for under
`
`applicable federal and state law.
`
`D.
`
`For an order directing, the destruction of all packaging and any printed material,
`
`including advertising materials and point-of-sale displays, bearing the GNHR Marks in Defendant's
`
`possession or control; and publicly acknowledging the wrongful activities alleged herein.
`
`E.
`
`For an order directing Doordash to file with the Court and serve upon GNHR within
`
`thirty (30) days after service of the injunction upon Doordash, a report in writing and under oath setting
`
`forth in detail the manner and form in which Doordash has complied with the injunction.
`
`F.
`
`For such other and further relief as the Court shall deem appropriate.
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00283 Document 1 Filed 02/24/20 Page 10 of 10
`
`GNHR hereby demands a trial by jury pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Procedure.
`
`Dated: February 24, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: Isl R. TerrvParker
`RATH, YOUNG AND PIGNATELLI P.C.
`R. Terry Parker, Esq.
`One Capital Plaza
`Concord, New Hampshire
`Tel.: (603) 226-2600
`Email: rtp@rathlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Great New Hampshire Restaurants, Inc.
`
`