throbber
Case 3:21-cv-16800-MAS-LHG Document 1 Filed 09/13/21 Page 1 of 16 PageID: 1
`
`
`
`J. Mark Pohl
`PHARMACEUTICAL PATENT ATTORNEYS, LLC
`55 Madison Avenue, 4th floor
`Morristown, NJ 07960
`(973) 984-6159
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`
`:
`------------------------------------------------------
`:
`HP Ingredients Corp.
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`Plaintiff
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`vs
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`Sabinsa Corporation
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`Defendant
`
`
`-------------------------------------------------------- :
`
`
`Civil Action No. 21-______
`
`Electronically Filed
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`OVERVIEW
`
`1. This is a Complaint for trademark infringement, unfair competition and
`
`tortious interference with economic advantage.
`
`2. Plaintiff sells herbal extracts. Plaintiff’s products include PARACTIN®
`
`brand Andrographis paniculata standardized herbal extract.
`
`3. Plaintiff has been using the PARACTIN® brand name for its Andrographis
`
`extract for sixteen years. Due to its long period of exclusive use of this
`
`trademark in commerce, Plaintiff has acquired the exclusive right to use
`
`this trademark under common law.
`
`4. In addition to its common-law rights, The United States Patent &
`
`Trademark Office has registered PARACTIN® as a registered trademark.
`
`See Exhibit A. Plaintiff has used this trademark for so long that The
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-16800-MAS-LHG Document 1 Filed 09/13/21 Page 2 of 16 PageID: 2
`
`
`
`United States Patent & Trademark Office has declared the registration
`
`“incontestable.” See Exhibit B.
`
`5. Earlier this year, Defendant began marketing its own Andrographis
`
`paniculata standardized herbal extract, calling it “PANICIN.”
`
`6. The term “PANICIN,” however, is confusingly similar to PARACTIN®.
`
`Indeed, given the similarity of the parties’ products, and their identical
`
`intended end-uses, marketing channels and customers, one can virtually
`
`guarantee that buyers will conflate PANICIN and PARACTIN®. Indeed,
`
`one can infer that Defendant selected its confusingly-similar brand name
`
`specifically to deceive purchasers into thinking that Defendant’s product is
`
`PARACTIN®.
`
`7. Defendant uses a confusingly-similar tradename. In addition, Defendant
`
`falsely advertises PANICIN as functionally equivalent to PARACTIN®.
`
`8. Plaintiff respectfully asks the Court to enjoin Defendant from (a) using the
`
`term PANICIN in connection with Andrographis extract, and (b)
`
`advertising alleged health effects for its Andrographis extract without
`
`having first evaluated its product in clinical testing and obtained results
`
`that support the alleged benefits of Defendant’s product.
`
`
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`9. Plaintiff is an Illinois corporation with a place of business at 707 24th Ave.
`
`West, Bradenton, FL 34205.
`
`10. Defendant is a New Jersey corporation with a place of business at 20
`
`Lake Drive, East Windsor NJ 08520.1
`
`
`1 Muhammed Majeed is an individual and the principal of Defendant.
`On information and belief, he is a resident of the State of New Jersey. This
`Complaint does not name him as a defendant in his personal capacity.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-16800-MAS-LHG Document 1 Filed 09/13/21 Page 3 of 16 PageID: 3
`
`
`
`
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`11. On August 2, 2004 Plaintiff applied to register the trademark
`
`PARACTIN™ for herbal supplements. See Exhibit A. At least as early as
`
`October 6, 2005 Plaintiff began using the PARACTIN™ trademark in
`
`conjunction with its Andrographis paniculata standardized herbal extract.
`
`Id. On Jan. 10, 2006, the United States Patent & Trademark Office
`
`awarded Plaintiff Federal trademark registration No. 3042863 for
`
`PARACTIN®. Id. Plaintiff continues to own Federal registration No.
`
`3042863.
`
`12.
`
` Plaintiff has been marketing PARACTIN® brand Andrographis
`
`paniculata standardized herbal extract for at least 16 years. Based on
`
`this long term, exclusive use, Plaintiff has under common law acquired the
`
`exclusive right to use this trademark. Similarly, based on Plaintiff’s long
`
`tenure of use, on March 21, 2011 The United States Patent & Trademark
`
`Office declared Plaintiff’s trademark registration “incontestable.” See
`
`Exhibit B.
`
`13.
`
` For at least 16 years, Plaintiff has invested heavily in patents,
`
`trademarks, marketing and clinical research to build consumer awareness
`
`for its PARACTIN® brand. For example, Plaintiff’s United States patents
`
`on PARACTIN® and its uses include Composition of Labdane Diterpenes
`
`Extracted From Andrographis paniculata, Useful for the Treatment of
`
`Autoimmune Diseases …, United States Letters Patent No. 8084495;
`
`Combination Therapy With Interferon and Andrographolides for Multiple
`
`Sclerosis, United States Letters Patent No. 9060994; Andrographolide
`
`
`Plaintiff, however, reserves the right to amend the Complaint to do so if
`discovery shows that piercing the corporate veil is here justified.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-16800-MAS-LHG Document 1 Filed 09/13/21 Page 4 of 16 PageID: 4
`
`
`
`Treats Progressive Forms of Multiple Sclerosis, United States Letters
`
`Patent No. 10722492 and Treatment of Alzheimer’s and Cognitive
`
`Impairment with Andrographolides, United States Patent Publication No.
`
`2015/0352075.
`
`14. Similarly, Plaintiff has invested heavily in scientific research on its
`
`product. Plaintiff has sponsored perhaps 20 years of research and
`
`development on PARACTIN® Andrographis extract. See Exhibit H pp. 16,
`
`18, 20, 26-27, 38-40, 46, 66-67, 77-79 107-10, 125-30. Plaintiff’s research
`
`entails more than thirty (30) scientific studies, including studying the
`
`effects of PARACTIN® Andrographis extract in vitro (in cell cultures), in
`
`vivo in animal models and in several human clinical trials. Id.
`
`15. Plaintiff’s research on PARACTIN® Andrographis extract includes at
`
`least seven (9) human clinical trials. These include (a) A Double-Blind,
`
`Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study To Assess The Efficacy Of
`
`Andrographis Paniculata Standardized Extract (Paractin®) On Pain
`
`Reduction In Subjects With Knee Osteoarthritis; (b) Efficacy Study of
`
`Andrographis Paniculata Purified Standardized Extract (ApE) in Patients
`
`With Multiple Sclerosis; (c) To Assess the Effect of 336 Days Exposure of
`
`Paractin® on Pain & Disease Progression in Patients Suffering From
`
`Osteoarthritis of Knee Joint; (d) Efficacy Of An Andrographis Paniculata
`
`Composition For The Relief Of Rheumatoid Arthritis Symptoms: A
`
`Prospective Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial;
`
`(e) Andrographis
`
`Paniculata Decreases Fatigue In Patients With Relapsing-Remitting
`
`Multiple Sclerosis: A 12-Month Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Pilot
`
`Study; (f) Andrographolide: a New Potential Drug for the Long Term
`
`Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease;
`
`
`
`(g) Efficacy of
`
`Andrographolide
`
`in Not Active Progressive Multiple Sclerosis: A
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-16800-MAS-LHG Document 1 Filed 09/13/21 Page 5 of 16 PageID: 5
`
`
`
`Prospective Exploratory Double-Blind, Parallel-Group, Randomized,
`
`Placebo-Controlled Trial; (h) Double-Blind Preventive Phase II Clinical
`
`Trial To Evaluate The Prophylactic Effect Of Paractin® Capsules On The
`
`Incidence Of COVID Infection In Health Workers; and (i) A Double-Blind,
`
`Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Comparative Study for Assessing the
`
`Efficacy and Tolerability of Paractin®/MaquiCare™ in Individuals with
`
`Upper Respiratory Tract Infections (URTI) of Viral Etiology.
`
`16. Based on its investments in marketing and in research, PARACTIN® is,
`
`to Plaintiff’s knowledge, now the largest-selling brand of Andrographis
`
`paniculata extract in The United States.
`
`17.
`
` On March 16, 2021 Defendant sent a direct-marketing email
`
`advertising Defendant’s Andrographis herbal extract. See Exhibit D.
`
`Defendant also now includes its Andrographis herbal extract in its on-line
`
`catalog. See Exhibit E.
`
`18.
`
` Defendant’s email and catalog are problematic for two reasons.
`
`19. First, both refer to Defendant’s Andrographis herbal extract as
`
`“PANICIN.” See Exhibit D; Exhibit E. The terms “PANICIN” , however,
`
`is so similar to Plaintiff’s PARACTIN® trademark that customers are all
`
`but guaranteed to conflate the two. Indeed, it looks like Defendant
`
`specifically selected the term PANICIN to deceive purchasers into
`
`thinking that Defendant’s PANICIN is Plaintiff’s PARACTIN®.
`
`20. This likelihood of confusion is heightened by the fact that Defendant
`
`markets its product to the same purchasers, using the same marketing
`
`channels, as does Plaintiff. Plaintiff markets PARACTIN® to both retail
`
`and wholesale purchasers.
`
` See Exhibit H pp. 141-42
`
`(retail
`
`advertisement), 148-52 and 154-56 (retail product examples); 81-84
`
`(wholesale
`
`trade
`
`show announcement); 153
`
`(wholesale product
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-16800-MAS-LHG Document 1 Filed 09/13/21 Page 6 of 16 PageID: 6
`
`
`
`advertisement). Defendant targets the same purchasers. See Exhibit D,
`
`Exhibit E.
`
`21. Similarly, Plaintiff uses targeted emails to market PARACTIN®. So
`
`does Defendant. See Exhibit D.
`
`22. This likelihood of confusion is further heightened by the fact that
`
`Defendant markets its product for immune support - the same end-use
`
`that Plaintiff does. Compare Exhibit H pp. 141-42 (Plaintiff’s product) to
`
`Exhibit D and Exhibit E (Defendant’s product).
`
`23. Defendant’s decision to market its product as suitable for immune
`
`support increases the likelihood of purchaser confusion. It also constitutes
`
`deceptive advertising. On information and belief, Defendant has not
`
`published any research showing that its product is in fact effective for
`
`immune support. Defendant advertises its product as effective for
`
`immune support, yet apparently has not bothered to test its product to
`
`see if its advertising claim is true. Defenant’s advertising is thus false and
`
`deceptive.
`
`24.
`
` Defendant calls its Andrographis extract a confusingly-similar name.
`
`Further, Defendant markets it to the same buyers, using the same trade
`
`channels and for the same end-use as Plaintiff’s product. Defendant is
`
`trying to deceive purchasers into thinking that Defendant’s PANICIN
`
`Andrographis extract is Plaintiff’s PARACTIN® Andrographis extract.
`
`25. Further, Defendant advertises its product as effective for immune
`
`support. That advertising claim is, on information and belief, baseless.
`
`26.
`
` Defendants is trying to deceive purchasers. It also is trying to deceive
`
`The United States Patent & Trademark Office. Specifically, Defendant
`
`applied to register PANICIN as a Federal trademark. To competently
`
`examine that application, the Trademark Office must evaluate whether
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-16800-MAS-LHG Document 1 Filed 09/13/21 Page 7 of 16 PageID: 7
`
`
`
`Defendant’s proposed trademark as used commercially may confuse or
`
`deceive purchasers. The agency, however, has imperfect insight into who
`
`sells what, where, and to whom. The agency thus requires applicants to
`
`affirmatively disclose potentially-interfering prior third party trademark
`
`rights. In the instant case, Defendant is well aware that Plaintiff uses a
`
`near-identical trademark on a near-identical product marketed for an
`
`identical end-use, marketed in identical trade channels to the same
`
`buyers. Defendant, however, failed to apprise the agency of this. To the
`
`contrary, while Defendant is well aware of this commercial overlap,
`
`Defendant submitted to the agency a sworn Oath alleging the opposite -
`
`swearing that Defendant knows of no other person with any prior
`
`trademark “in such near resemblance as to be likely, when used on or in
`
`connection with the goods/services of such other persons, to cause
`
`confusion or mistake, or to deceive.”
`
`27.
`
` As of this writing, Defendant’s application remains pending at the
`
`agency. This because Defendant has to-date withheld the paperwork the
`
`agency needs to finalize the registration. Defendant withholds this
`
`paperwork because its is aware that were Defendant to obtain that
`
`trademark registration, Defendant’s use of its false and fraudulent Oath to
`
`obtain it would make Defendant financially liable. See 15 U.S.C. § 1120..
`
`Thus, as of this writing, Defendant has withheld the paperwork the
`
`agency needs to finalize the registration. If Defendant finalizes its
`
`application, however, Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this Complaint
`
`to add a Count for damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1120.
`
`28.
`
` Defendant here tries to deceive purchasers into thinking that
`
`Defendant is selling Plaintiff’s PARACTIN® Andrographis extract.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-16800-MAS-LHG Document 1 Filed 09/13/21 Page 8 of 16 PageID: 8
`
`
`
`29.
`
` To prevent such deception, Plaintiff asked Defendant to cease using
`
`the term PANICIN. Exhibit F.
`
`30. Defendant flatly refuses. Exhibit G. Defendant’s catalog thus
`
`continues to market “PANICIN” brand Andrographis herbal extracts.
`
`Exhibit E.
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION & VENUE
`
`31.
`
` This Court enjoys subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §
`
`1121, which affords jurisdiction over any action arising under the Federal
`
`Lanham Act; 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1), relating to the colorable imitation of a
`
`registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution,
`
`or advertising of goods; 15 U.S.C. Section 1125(a), relating to the use of
`
`false designations of origin and/or sponsorship tending falsely to describe
`
`or designate the source, and/or sponsorship of goods affecting commerce,
`
`and relating to false advertising and trade dress infringement and
`
`dilution; 15 U.S.C., §§1125(c), relating to dilution; 28 U.S.C. § 1338(b),
`
`relating to claims of unfair competition “joined with a substantial and
`
`related claim under the ... trademark laws”; and 28 U.S.C. § 1331, relating
`
`to federal question jurisdiction.
`
`32.
`
` Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial part
`
`of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this District and because
`
`Defendants may be found here.
`
`
`
`COUNT I
`
`FEDERAL TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT, 15 U.S.C. § 1114
`
`33.
`
` Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein the allegations above.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-16800-MAS-LHG Document 1 Filed 09/13/21 Page 9 of 16 PageID: 9
`
`
`
`34.
`
` Defendant’s actions
`
`constitute
`
`trademark
`
`counterfeiting and
`
`infringement of Plaintiff’s exclusive rights in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114.
`
`35.
`
` Defendant’s use of a confusingly-similar variation of Plaintiff’s
`
`common-law and registered trademark.
`
` Defendant has been and
`
`continues to do this with the intent to deceive purchasers regarding the
`
`source and/or sponsorship of Defendant’s products. Accordingly, this is an
`
`“exceptional” case within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a).
`
`36.
`
` As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct,
`
`Plaintiffs are entitled to the equitable remedy of an accounting for, and a
`
`disgorgement of, all revenues and/or profits wrongfully derived by
`
`Defendants from their infringing and diluting use of Plaintiff’s trademark
`
`pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117.
`
`37.
`
` Alternatively, Plaintiffs are entitled to statutory damages pursuant to
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1117(c) of up to $2,000,000 per mark per type of goods sold,
`
`offered for sale, or distributed.
`
`
`
`COUNT II
`
`FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN OR SPONSORSHIP
`
`AND FALSE ADVERTISING, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
`
`38. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein the allegations above.
`
`39.
`
` Defendant’s use of a mark confusingly-similar to Plaintiff’s trademark
`
`is likely to confuse, mislead or deceive customers, purchasers, and
`
`members of the general public as to the origin, source sponsorship, or
`
`affiliation of Defendant’s products, and is likely to cause such people to
`
`believe in error that Defendant’s products have been manufactured by
`
`Plaintiff or that Defendant’s product is in some way affiliated with
`
`Plaintiff.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-16800-MAS-LHG Document 1 Filed 09/13/21 Page 10 of 16 PageID: 10
`
`
`
`40. Defendant’s marketing of its product as effective for immune support,
`
`without having bothered to test its product to confirm whether it is in fact
`
`so effective, is likely to deceive purchasers.
`
`41.
`
` Defendant’s acts constitute false or misleading descriptions, false
`
`advertising, and false designations of the origin and/or sponsorship of
`
`Defendant’s goods in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
`
`42.
`
` As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct,
`
`Plaintiff is entitled to the equitable remedy of an accounting for, and a
`
`disgorgement of, all revenues and/or profits wrongfully derived by
`
`Defendants from their infringing and diluting use of Plaintiff’s trademark
`
`and scientific research pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117.
`
`43. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct,
`
`Plaintiff is entitled to the equitable remedy of a preliminary injunction, a
`
`permanent injunction, an accounting for, and a disgorgement of, all
`
`revenues and/or profits derived by Defendant from its infringing and
`
`diluting use of Plaintiff’s trademark pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117.
`
`44.
`
` Defendant’s use of a confusingly-similar variation of Plaintiff’s
`
`registered trademark has been and continues to be done with the intent to
`
`deceive purchasers regarding the source and/or sponsorship of Defendant’s
`
`products. Accordingly, this is an “exceptional” case within the meaning of
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1117(a).
`
`
`
`COUNT III
`
`TRADEMARK DILUTION UNDER 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)
`
`45. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein the allegations above.
`
`46.
`
` Plaintiff’s product has gained a reputation for superior quality and
`
`performance. Plaintiff’s trademark has gained substantial renown.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-16800-MAS-LHG Document 1 Filed 09/13/21 Page 11 of 16 PageID: 11
`
`
`
`Defendant’s use of a confusingly-similar variation of PARACTIN® has
`
`caused and continues to cause irreparable injury to and actual and/or
`
`likelihood of dilution of Plaintiff’s trademark’s distinctive quality in
`
`violation of Plaintiff’s rights under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c). Defendant’s
`
`wrongful use of PANICIN, and Defendant’s baseless marketing claim as
`
`effective for immune support, dilutes, blurs, tarnishes, and whittles away
`
`the distinctiveness of PARACTIN®.
`
`47.
`
` As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct,
`
`Plaintiff is entitled to the equitable remedy of an accounting for, and a
`
`disgorgement of, all revenues and/or profits wrongfully derived by
`
`Defendant from its infringing and diluting use of Plaintiff’s trademark
`
`pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117.
`
`48.
`
` Defendant’s use of a confusingly-similar variation of Plaintiff’s
`
`registered trademark has been and continues to be done with the intent to
`
`deceive purchasers regarding the source and/or sponsorship of Defendant’s
`
`products. Accordingly, this is an “exceptional” case within the meaning of
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1117(a).
`
`
`
`49.
`
`50.
`
`COUNT IV
`
`UNFAIR COMPETITION UNDER 15 U.S.C.A. § 45(a)(1)
`
` Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein the allegations above.
`
` Defendant’s attempted adoption of a confusingly-similar trademark,
`
`and adoption of baseless yet confusingly-similar advertising claims,
`
`constitute an unfair method of competition in or affecting interstate
`
`commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting
`
`interstate commerce. Defendant’s misconduct therefore violates 15
`
`U.S.C.A. § 45(a)(1).
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-16800-MAS-LHG Document 1 Filed 09/13/21 Page 12 of 16 PageID: 12
`
`
`
`
`
`COUNT V
`
`TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT UNDER N.J.S.A. 56:4-1
`
`51. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein the allegations above.
`
`52.
`
` Defendant’s use of a confusingly-similar name, and use of baseless yet
`
`confusingly-similar advertising claims, mis-appropriates Plaintiff’s name,
`
`brand, trade-mark, reputation and goodwill. Defendant’s use of a
`
`confusingly-similar name and confusingly-similar advertising claim
`
`therefore violates N.J.S.A. 56:4-1.
`
`
`
`COUNT VI
`
`TORTUOUS INTERFERENCE WITH ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE
`
`UNDER NEW JERSEY COMMON LAW
`
`53. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein the allegations above.
`
`54.
`
` Plaintiff’s customers purchase its PARACTIN® brand Andrographis
`
`extract expecting a certain level of quality. That is a protectable right.
`
`Defendant’s use of a confusingly-similar mark interferes with that
`
`relationship. Defendant’s advertising of an identical effectiveness, despite
`
`having no evidence supporting that advertising claim, also interferes with
`
`that relationship. Defendant’s interference is done intentionally and with
`
`malice. Defendant’s interference caused or threatens to cause Plaintiff the
`
`loss of the prospective gain. That injury caused damage to, or threatens to
`
`damage, Plaintiff. Defendant thus wrongfully interferes with Plaintiff’s
`
`right to pursue its business free from undue influence or molestation.
`
`Defendant’s use of a deceptively similar mark threatens to lure away, by a
`
`devious,
`
`improper and unrighteous means, Plaintiff’s customers.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-16800-MAS-LHG Document 1 Filed 09/13/21 Page 13 of 16 PageID: 13
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant’s wrongful conduct therefore constitutes a tortuous interference
`
`with Plaintiff’s economic advantage.
`
`COUNT VII
`
`UNFAIR COMPETITION UNDER NEW JERSEY COMMON LAW
`
`55. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein the allegations above.
`
`56.
`
` Defendant’s use of a deceptively-similar trademark, and use of an
`
`identical yet baseless claim of therapeutic effectiveness, constitute a
`
`misappropriation of Plaintiff’s valuable trademark rights. Defendant’s
`
`actual awareness of Plaintiff’s prior common-law trademark rights, prior
`
`trademark registration and published research on Plaintiff’s product
`
`indicate that Defendant’s copying of Plaintiff’s trademark and scientific
`
`testing results are in bad faith, or malicious, or both. Defendant’s conduct
`
`thus constitutes unfair competition under New Jersey common law.
`
`
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant as follows:
`
`1. Under all claims for relief, that a preliminary and permanent injunction
`
`be issued enjoining Defendant, its employees, agents, attorneys,
`
`successors and assigns, and all those in active concert and participation
`
`with Defendant, and each of them who receives notice directly or
`
`otherwise of such injunctions, from:
`
`(a) imitating, copying, or making unauthorized use of the trademark
`
`PARACTIN® or any confusingly similar variation thereof;
`
`(b) importing, manufacturing, producing, distributing, circulating,
`
`selling, offering for sale, advertising, promoting or displaying any
`
`service or product using any simulation, reproduction, counterfeit, copy,
`
`or any confusingly similar variation of PARACTIN®;
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-16800-MAS-LHG Document 1 Filed 09/13/21 Page 14 of 16 PageID: 14
`
`(c) using any simulation, reproduction, counterfeit, copy or confusingly
`
`similar variation of PARACTIN® in connection with the promotion,
`
`advertisement, display, sale, offering for sale, manufacture, production,
`
`circulation or distribution of any herbal supplement or similar product;
`
`(d) using any false designation of origin or false description, including
`
`without limitation, any letters or symbols similar to PARACTIN®, or
`
`performing any act which can or is likely to lead members of the trade
`
`or public to believe that Defendant and/or any service or product
`
`manufactured, distributed or sold by Defendant is in any manner
`
`associated or connected with Plaintiff, or is sold, manufactured,
`
`licensed, sponsored, approved or authorized by Plaintiffs;
`
`(e) transferring, consigning, selling, shipping or otherwise moving any
`
`goods, packaging or other materials in Defendant’s possession, custody
`
`or control bearing a design or mark substantially similar to
`
`PARACTIN®;
`
`(f) Marketing or advertising its Andrographis extract as having any
`
`human health benefit which Defendant has not in fact supported with
`
`reliable scientific research on Defendant’s extract;
`
`(g) engaging in any other activity constituting unfair competition with
`
`Plaintiff with respect to Andrographis extract, or constituting an
`
`infringement of its trademarks, or of Plaintiff’s exclusive rights in, or to
`
`use or exploit, its research on Plaintiff’s product; and
`
`(h) instructing, assisting, aiding or abetting any other person or
`
`business entity in engaging in or performing any of the activities
`
`referred to in subparagraphs (a) through (g) above.
`
`2. Under all claims for relief, for an order enjoining Defendants from
`
`selling, distributing, discarding, giving away or otherwise disposing of
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-16800-MAS-LHG Document 1 Filed 09/13/21 Page 15 of 16 PageID: 15
`
`Defendant’s goods bearing markings confusingly-similar to PARACTIN®,
`
`and requiring Defendant to sequester said goods in a separate and safe
`
`location at Defendant’s place or places of business, as well as all business
`
`records related thereto, including any computers or other digital media
`
`containing such business records to be made available for Plaintiffs and
`
`their representatives to examine, photograph, and/or copy any such goods
`
`and information;
`
`3. For an order directing Defendant to deliver to Plaintiff and its counsel
`
`for destruction all products, labels, tags, signs, prints, packages, videos,
`
`and advertisements in their possession or under their control, bearing or
`
`using any confusingly similar variation of PARACTIN®, and all plates,
`
`molds, matrices and other means of making the same, pursuant to 15
`
`U.S.C. § 1118.
`
`4. For an order directing such other relief as the Court may deem
`
`appropriate to prevent purchasers and the public in general from deriving
`
`the erroneous impression that any service or product manufactured, sold
`
`or otherwise circulated or promoted by Defendant is authorized by
`
`Plaintiff or related in any way to Plaintiff’s products or services.
`
`5. For an order directing Defendant to file with the Court and serve upon
`
`Plaintiff’s counsel within thirty (30) days after entry of such judgment, a
`
`report in writing under oath, setting forth in detail the manner and form
`
`in which Defendants have complied with the above.
`
`6. For an order permitting Plaintiffs, and/or auditors for Plaintiffs, to
`
`audit and inspect the books and records of Defendants for a period of six
`
`months after entry of final relief in this matter to determine the scope of
`
`Defendant’s past use of, including all revenues and sales related to
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-16800-MAS-LHG Document 1 Filed 09/13/21 Page 16 of 16 PageID: 16
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant’s use of Plaintiff’s Marks, as well as Defendant’s compliance
`
`with orders of this Court.
`
`7. For an award of Plaintiff’s costs and disbursements incurred in this
`
`action, including Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a).
`
`8. For an order requiring Defendants to file with the Court and provide to
`
`Plaintiffs an accounting of all sales and profits realized through
`
`Defendant’s sale of Andrographis extracts.
`
`9. For judgment pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(b) in an amount equivalent
`
`to three times Defendant’s profits and reasonable attorneys’ fees because
`
`of Defendant’s intentional, willful and knowing use of a deceptively-
`
`similar mark.
`
`10. Alternatively, for an award of statutory damages pursuant to 15
`
`U.S.C. § 1117(c) of up to $2,000,000 per deceptively-similar mark per type
`
`of goods sold, offered for sale, or distributed.
`
`11. For an award of interest, including pre-judgment interest on the
`
`foregoing sums.
`
`12. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and
`
`proper.
`
`Dated September 10, 2021
`Morristown, New Jersey
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ J. Mark Pohl, Esq.
`PHARMACEUTICAL PATENT ATTORNEYS, LLC
`55 Madison Avenue, 4th floor
`Morristown, NJ 07960
` (973) 984-6159 x304
` Mark.Pohl@LicensingLaw.Net
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

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