`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`---------------------------------------------------------------X
`MÖLNLYCKE HEALTH CARE AB
`
`:
`:
`:
`Plaintiff,
`:
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`:
`
`Defendant.
`---------------------------------------------------------------X
`
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`
`SZY HOLDINGS LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`AND JURY DEMAND
`Case No. 1:21-cv-05415
`
`Plaintiff, Mölnlycke Health Care AB (“Plaintiff” or “Mölnlycke”) by its undersigned
`
`attorneys, Duane Morris LLP, for its Complaint against SZY Holdings LLC (“Defendant” or
`
`“SZY”) alleges as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`This action is being brought by Plaintiff to stop Defendant’s wrongful marketing,
`
`promotion, advertising and sale of wound care products in the United States that violates
`
`Plaintiff’s trademark rights. This is an action for trademark infringement and unfair competition
`
`under Sections 32 and 43(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946 (the “Lanham Act”), 15 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1114, 1125(a), Deceptive Practices and False Advertising New York Gen. Bus. Law §§ 349-
`
`350 and for substantial and related claims of trademark infringement and unfair competition
`
`under the common law of the state of New York. Plaintiff brings this action based on
`
`Defendant’s promotion, marketing, advertising and sale of wound care products in connection
`
`with the name MEDITAC as well as the MEDITAC Logo,
`
` (collectively, the
`
`“Infringing Marks”). Defendant’s marketing, promotion, advertising and sale of wound care
`
`products, including bandages and adhesive tapes under the Infringing Marks violates Plaintiff’s
`
`longstanding rights in its MEPITAC trademark for wound dressings, medical and surgical
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-05415 Document 1 Filed 09/29/21 Page 2 of 16 PageID #: 2
`
`bandages and fixatives for bandages. Defendant’s conduct constitutes federal trademark
`
`infringement and federal unfair competition as well as trademark infringement and unfair
`
`competition under the common law of the state of New York, and is a flagrant violation of
`
`Plaintiff’s trademark rights.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`1.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1121, and under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1338(a) and 1338(b). The Court also has subject matter
`
`jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). This Court has personal jurisdiction because Defendant
`
`is organized under the laws of the State of New York, and resides in New York.
`
`2.
`
`Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c) because
`
`Defendant resides in this district and has its company headquarters here.
`
`PARTIES
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff, Mölnylcke Health Care AB, is a corporation organized under the laws of
`
`Sweden, with its principal place of business at Gamlestadvägen 3C, Göteborg, 40252 Sweden.
`
`Mölnlycke is the owner of the valuable MEPITAC® trademark.
`
`4.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant, Defendant, SZY Holdings LLC is a
`
`limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York.
`
`Defendant’s principal place of business is 300 Liberty Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11207.
`
`FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
`
`A. Mölnlycke’s Business and MEPITAC Trademark.
`
`5.
`
`Mölnlycke is a leading international medical solutions company headquartered in
`
`Sweden, with a U.S. headquarters near Atlanta, Georgia. For decades, Mölnlycke has
`
`manufactured and sold innovative medical products and devices, including wound care products,
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-05415 Document 1 Filed 09/29/21 Page 3 of 16 PageID #: 3
`
`gauzes, dressings, bandages, and adhesive medical tapes used by doctors, nurses, health care
`
`professionals, and the general public.
`
`6.
`
`Mölnlycke owns U.S. Registration No. 3,051,065 for its mark MEPITAC, which
`
`has a constructive date of first use of June 4, 2004, registered on January 24, 2006 and enjoys
`
`incontestability status. A copy of the registration certificate and U.S. Patent and Trademark
`
`Office (“USPTO”) TSDR printout is hereto attached as Exhibit A.
`
`7.
`
`Mölnlycke uses its MEPITAC trademark in connection with its wound, medical
`
`and surgical dressings, bandages and fixatives to market and sell its products for a variety of
`
`wound, medical and surgical applications, including adherence to a patient’s skin and fixing the
`
`products to tubes, drains, electrodes, intravenous lines, etc.
`
`8.
`
`Mölnlycke has marketed, advertised, and promoted its goods under the MEPITAC
`
`trademark in the United States continuously since at least as early as 2005, including in this
`
`district (collectively, the MEPITAC trademark and MEPITAC Reg. No. 3,051,065 herein
`
`referred to as the “MEPITAC Mark”).
`
`9.
`
`Mölnlycke’s wound, medical and surgical care products, sold under the
`
`MEPITAC Mark, are sold to and used by hospitals, doctors, nurses, urgent care centers and other
`
`medical and health professionals, in addition to the general public.
`
`10.
`
`Indeed, numerous Mölnlycke products, including its MEPITAC product, are
`
`readily available at CVS pharmacy locations in this district and elsewhere in New York and the
`
`United States as a whole.
`
`11. Mölnlycke’s MEDITAC product is also available on Amazon.com.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-05415 Document 1 Filed 09/29/21 Page 4 of 16 PageID #: 4
`
`12. Mölnlycke spends in excess of $1 million dollars per year to advertise and market
`
`its products to consumers in the United States, including through its website at
`
`www.Mölnlycke.us.
`
`13. Mölnlycke’s marketing, and the quality of its innovative product offerings, have
`
`made its products widely used by medical and health professionals and the general public.
`
`14.
`
`As a result of Mölnlycke’s substantial investment of time, effort and financial
`
`resources in developing, marketing, advertising, and promoting its goods under the MEPITAC
`
`Mark, the MEPITAC Mark has acquired and maintained a highly regarded reputation and
`
`substantial goodwill. The MEPITAC Mark symbolizes the substantial and material goodwill that
`
`Mölnlycke has created throughout the United States.
`
`15.
`
`The MEPITAC Mark has become well known to the consuming public and trade
`
`as identifying Mölnlycke as the source of its innovative goods and as a result consumers are able
`
`to distinguishes Mölnlycke’s goods from those of its competitors.
`
`16. MEPITAC, which is a coined term, is a conceptually strong trademark.
`
`Moreover, by virtue of the substantial sales of products under the mark, the MEPITAC Mark is
`
`commercially strong as well.
`
`17.
`
`Accordingly, the MEPITAC Mark is strong and deserving of maximum protection
`
`under trademark law.
`
`B.
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`Defendant’s Violations of Mölnlycke’s Intellectual Property Rights and
`Defendant’s Acts of Unfair Competition
`
`Defendant SZY Holdings LLC sells products under the brand name MEDITAC.
`
`Defendant claims ownership of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,479,060 for
`
`the mark
`
`, which registered on February 4, 2014, for “military tote bags,
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-05415 Document 1 Filed 09/29/21 Page 5 of 16 PageID #: 5
`
`shoulder bags and backpacks” in Class 18 (the “MEDITAC Logo”). Until recently, Defendant’s
`
`MEDITAC Logo was used solely on military tote bags, backpacks, and other sorts of bags.
`
`20.
`
`The only specimens of use (i.e., photographic evidence that the mark was being
`
`used in commerce) ever submitted to the USPTO by Defendant for the MEDITAC Logo were of
`
`a “Tactical Backpack.” Defendant submitted the exact identical images, to prove continued use
`
`of the mark—two pictures of a black backpack with the MEDITAC Logo on the packaging—on
`
`October 29, 2013 and June 5, 2019.
`
`21.
`
`On February 12, 2019, Defendant filed a trademark application (Application
`
`Serial No. 88297676) at the USPTO for MEDITAC as a standard character mark (together with
`
`the MEDITAC Logo, the “Infringing Marks”). In addition to the goods described in the
`
`application for the MEDITAC Logo, Defendant sought registration for: “Adhesive bandages;
`
`First aid kits; Gauze; Medical adhesive tape; Adhesive wound closure strips; Burn dressings;
`
`Medical gear bags containing first aid kits; Backpacks containing first aid kits; Fanny packs
`
`containing first aid kits” in Class 5.
`
`22.
`
`The goods described in the application for the MEDITAC standard character
`
`mark would bring Defendant’s MEDITAC-branded goods into direct competition with
`
`Mölnlycke’s wound care products marketed under its MEPI- marks, including its MEPITAC
`
`Mark. Therefore, almost two (2) years ago, Mölnlycke partially opposed Defendant’s
`
`MEDITAC standard character application for the Class 5 goods. That proceeding is currently
`
`pending before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
`
`23.
`
`Since the opposition was filed, Defendant has expanded its use of the Infringing
`
`Marks. By way of example, Defendant has expanded its product offerings to a variety of medical
`
`goods, including gauze, bandages, adhesive tapes, tourniquets, and other wound dressings.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-05415 Document 1 Filed 09/29/21 Page 6 of 16 PageID #: 6
`
`24.
`
`Likewise, Defendant is marketing its wound care products in the same trade
`
`channels and to the same consumers to whom Mölnlycke markets and sells. Defendant’s
`
`redesigned website advertises its products to, among others, “First Responders,” “Healthcare”
`
`workers, including “Doctor[s], Nurse[s], [and] Dentist[s],” and “Individuals”:
`
`
`
`25. Mölnlycke sells its products to the same classes of consumers as Defendant. The
`
`products sold under the MEPITAC Mark are not expensive, which further increases the
`
`likelihood of consumer confusion.
`
`26.
`
`In addition, Defendant recently created a dedicated Amazon.com storefront page,
`
`where it sells numerous MEDITAC-branded products. Among Defendant’s products branded
`
`with the Infringing Marks are high-pressure bandages, adhesive tape, and tourniquets, as shown
`
`below:
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-05415 Document 1 Filed 09/29/21 Page 7 of 16 PageID #: 7
`
`
`
`27.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant currently markets, promotes, advertises
`
`and sells these and other products in connection with the Infringing Marks.
`
`28.
`
`These products, among others sold by Defendant, compete directly with
`
`Mölnlycke’s wound care products, including the goods sold under the MEPITAC Mark.
`
`29.
`
`Defendant’s activities are clearly intended to create consumer confusion as to the
`
`source of Defendant’s bandages, tapes, and wound dressings offered under the Infringing Marks
`
`and create a false association between Defendant’s infringing medical products and Mölnlycke’s
`
`medical products in the minds of the consuming public.
`
`30.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant’s use of the Infringing Marks is intended
`
`to trade upon the extensive goodwill built up by Mölnlycke in its MEPITAC Mark and its other
`
`MEPI- Marks and to reap the benefits of the years of effort invested by Mölnlycke to create
`
`public recognition of its marks and the goods sold thereunder.
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-05415 Document 1 Filed 09/29/21 Page 8 of 16 PageID #: 8
`
`31.
`
`Defendant’s deliberate and willful infringement is designed to misappropriate
`
`Mölnlycke’s MEPITAC Mark, confuse consumers as to the source of Defendant’s goods and
`
`trade upon Mölnlycke’s valuable intellectual property, good will and reputation.
`
`32.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant has and/or intends to pass off its products
`
`as Mölnlycke’s products in a manner calculated to deceive Mölnlycke’s customers and members
`
`of the general public.
`
`33.
`
`Indeed, Defendant sells its products under the Infringing Marks through precisely
`
`the same sales channels to precisely the same classes of consumers that Mölnlycke does.
`
`Specifically, Defendant markets its products to both medical and healthcare professionals and to
`
`the general public, including over the internet at its website and through its Amazon store.
`
`34.
`
`By virtue of its registration and longstanding use of the MEPITAC Mark in the
`
`United States, Mölnlycke’s rights in its MEPITAC Mark precedes Defendant’s use of the
`
`Infringing Marks or any other date upon which Defendant can rely on for purposes of priority.
`
`Mölnlycke has superior rights to Defendant in the MEPITAC Mark.
`
`35.
`
`Defendant’s MEDITAC Mark is extremely similar in appearance, in fact, virtually
`
`identical, to Mölnlycke’s MEPITAC Mark. Indeed, the MEDITAC Mark changes only a single
`
`letter from the MEPITAC Mark. Moreover, the MEPITAC Logo cuts off the upper part of the
`
`lowercase ‘d’, making the logo even harder to distinguish from the word mark MEPITAC.
`
`36.
`
`Defendant’s acts of trademark infringement are particularly egregious in light of
`
`the fact that Defendant has expanded and developed its willfully infringing products and
`
`marketing after being put on notice of Mölnlycke’s rights in the MEDITAC Mark through the
`
`pending opposition proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-05415 Document 1 Filed 09/29/21 Page 9 of 16 PageID #: 9
`
`37.
`
`Prior to filing this Complaint, Mölnlycke sent a cease and desist letter to
`
`Defendant, advising Defendant that its expanded use of the Infringing Marks violated
`
`Mölnlycke’s rights in its MEPITAC Mark.
`
`38.
`
`Defendant has neither ceased its illegal marketing, promotion, advertising and/or
`
`provision of goods, nor agreed to abandon the illegal marketing, advertising, promoting, and/or
`
`provision of its goods under the Infringing Marks.
`
`39.
`
`To date, Defendant continues to promote and foster consumer confusion, and
`
`unfairly compete with Mölnlycke by marketing, promoting, advertising and providing its
`
`medical products under the Infringing Marks.
`
`40.
`
`41.
`
`Defendant’s conduct is intentionally malicious, willful and wanton.
`
`Defendant’s acts of imitation will be committed with knowledge that such
`
`imitation is intended to be used to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive.
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`FEDERAL TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT (15 U.S.C. § 1114(1))
`
`42.
`
`Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 41 above and incorporates them by
`
`reference as if fully set forth herein.
`
`43.
`
`Defendant’s use of a copy, variation, simulation or colorable imitation of
`
`Plaintiffs’ registered MEPITAC Mark in connection with medical products, and specifically
`
`bandages, tapes, and wound dressings, infringes Mölnlycke’s exclusive rights in its federally
`
`registered MEPITAC Mark, and is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception, and
`
`constitutes trademark infringement, in violation of Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.
`
`§1114(1).
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-05415 Document 1 Filed 09/29/21 Page 10 of 16 PageID #: 10
`
`44.
`
`Defendant uses a copy, variation, simulation or colorable imitation of
`
`Mölnlycke’s MEPITAC Mark with full knowledge of the long and extensive prior use of the
`
`MEPITAC Mark by Mölnlycke.
`
`45.
`
`Defendant’s conduct is causing immediate and irreparable injury to Mölnlycke,
`
`and to its goodwill and reputation, and will continue both to damage Mölnlycke and to confuse
`
`the public unless enjoined by this Court. Mölnlycke has no adequate remedy at law.
`
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`FEDERAL UNFAIR COMPETITION (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a))
`
`Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 45 above and incorporates them by
`
`46.
`
`reference as if fully set forth herein.
`
`47. Mölnlycke is the valid owner of the distinctive MEPITAC Mark, which is entitled
`
`to full recognition and protection under federal trademark law.
`
`48.
`
`Defendant’s unauthorized actions, as described herein, constitute false designation
`
`of origin and have caused and/or are likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception among the
`
`consuming public.
`
`49.
`
`Defendant’s actions have been undertaken with full knowledge of Mölnlycke’s
`
`longstanding and extensive prior use of the MEPITAC Mark in connection with medical
`
`products, and specifically bandages, tapes, and wound dressings.
`
`50.
`
`Defendant’s acts are in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1125(a).
`
`51.
`
`Defendant’s conduct will cause irreparable injury to Mölnlycke unless enjoined
`
`by this Court. Mölnlycke has no adequate remedy at law.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-05415 Document 1 Filed 09/29/21 Page 11 of 16 PageID #: 11
`
`THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`COMMON LAW UNFAIR COMPETITION
`
`Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 51 above and incorporates them by
`
`52.
`
`reference as if fully set forth herein.
`
`53.
`
`Defendant is aware of Mölnlycke’s prior use of its MEPITAC Mark, at least
`
`because of the ongoing opposition proceeding filed almost two (2) years ago against Defendant’s
`
`application for the MEDITAC standard character mark, and continues to undertake the actions
`
`described herein in disregard of Mölnlycke’s rights in the MEPITAC Mark in connection with
`
`bandages, fixatives for bandages, wound dressings, and tapes. Upon information and belief, the
`
`aforementioned conduct of Defendant will result in the misappropriation of and trading upon
`
`Mölnlycke’s goodwill and business reputation at Mölnlycke’s expense and at no expense to
`
`Defendant. The effect of Defendant’s misappropriation of the goodwill symbolized by
`
`Mölnlycke’s MEPITAC Mark is to unjustly enrich Defendant, damage Mölnlycke and confuse
`
`and/or deceive the public.
`
`54.
`
`Defendant’s conduct constitutes unfair competition with Mölnlycke, all of which
`
`will cause irreparable injury to Mölnlycke’s goodwill and reputation unless enjoined by this
`
`Court. Mölnlycke has no adequate remedy at law.
`
`FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`COMMON LAW TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 54 above and incorporates them by
`
`55.
`
`reference as if fully set forth herein.
`
`56.
`
`Defendant’s use of the Infringing Marks is likely to cause confusion or mistake,
`
`or to deceive consumers as to the affiliation, connection, or association of Defendant with
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-05415 Document 1 Filed 09/29/21 Page 12 of 16 PageID #: 12
`
`Mölnlycke, or to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive consumers as to the origin,
`
`sponsorship or approval of Defendant’s goods with Mölnlycke’s goods.
`
`57.
`
`The unauthorized, intentional, willful and bad faith acts and practices of
`
`Defendant set forth above will constitute trademark infringement in violation of common law.
`
`58. Mölnlycke is likely to be damaged by Defendant’s infringing and unlawful acts.
`
`59.
`
`The acts and practices of Defendant complained of herein are likely to cause
`
`Mölnlycke to suffer irreparable harm.
`
`60. Mölnlycke has no adequate remedy at law and is entitled to and seeks injunctive
`
`relief as a result thereof.
`
`FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`VIOLATION OF NEW YORK DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT
`
`61.
`
`Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 60 above and incorporates them by
`
`reference as if fully set forth herein.
`
`62.
`
`Defendant has used and will continue to use the Infringing Marks to sell its goods
`
`to consumers in this district and in the State of New York.
`
`63.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant’s marketing efforts, including the design
`
`of its website and Amazon store, are directed from its headquarters in the State of New York.
`
`64.
`
`Defendant’s use of the Infringing Marks is directed to consumers, and is designed
`
`to convince consumers to purchase Defendant’s medical products, including bandages, wound
`
`dressings, and medical tapes.
`
`65.
`
`Unless Defendant’s conduct is enjoined, consumers will be misled and deceived
`
`into purchasing Defendant’s substandard medical products instead of Mölnlycke’s high-quality
`
`products, and harm consumers and the general public.
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-05415 Document 1 Filed 09/29/21 Page 13 of 16 PageID #: 13
`
`66. Moreover, Defendant’s use of the Infringing Marks will confuse and deceive
`
`consumers, who will wrongly believe that Mölnlycke has approved or sponsored Defendant’s
`
`products, or that Mölnlycke otherwise is affiliated with Defendant.
`
`67. Mölnlycke is likely to be damaged by Defendant’s unlawful acts.
`
`68.
`
`The acts and practices of Defendant complained of herein are likely to cause
`
`Mölnlycke to suffer irreparable harm.
`
`69. Mölnlycke has no adequate remedy at law and is entitled to and seeks injunctive
`
`relief as a result thereof.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Mölnlycke demands judgment as follows:
`
`1. Preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendant, its employees, agents,
`
`officers, directors, attorneys, successors, affiliates, subsidiaries and assigns, and all those in
`
`active concert and participation with Defendant from:
`
`
`
`(a)
`
`using or authorizing any third party to use as a trademark, service mark,
`
`domain name, business name, trade name or symbol of origin: the
`
`Infringing Marks and any name or mark incorporating MEPITAC, and/or
`
`any other counterfeit, copy, simulation, confusingly similar variation, or
`
`colorable imitation of Mölnlycke’s MEPITAC Mark in any manner or
`
`form, on or in connection with bandages, first aid kits, medical tapes,
`
`wound closure strips, burn dressings, or wound dressings, or in the
`
`marketing, advertising and promotion of the same;
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-05415 Document 1 Filed 09/29/21 Page 14 of 16 PageID #: 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(b)
`
`imitating, copying or making any unauthorized use of Mölnlycke’s
`
`MEPITAC Mark and/or any copy, simulation, variation or imitation
`
`thereof;
`
`(c)
`
`making or displaying any statement or representation that is likely to lead
`
`the public or the trade to believe that Defendant’s goods sold under the
`
`Infringing Marks are in any manner associated or affiliated with or
`
`approved, endorsed, licensed, sponsored, authorized or franchised by or
`
`are otherwise connected with Mölnlycke;
`
`(d)
`
`using or authorizing any third party to use in connection with the
`
`rendering, offering, advertising, or promotion of any goods, any false
`
`description, false representation, or false designation of origin, or any
`
`marks, names, words, symbols, devices, or trade dress which falsely
`
`associate such goods or services with Mölnlycke or tend to do so;
`
`diluting the distinctive quality of Mölnlycke’s MEPITAC Mark;
`
`registering or applying to register as a trademark, service mark, domain
`
`name, trade name or other source identifier or symbol of origin, the
`
`Infringing Marks in connection with bandages, first aid kits, medical
`
`(e)
`
`(f)
`
`tapes, wound closure strips, burn dressings, or wound dressings, whether
`
`alone or in combination with any other words or designs, or any other
`
`mark, trade dress or name that infringes on or is likely to be confused with
`
`Mölnlycke’s MEPITAC Mark;
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-05415 Document 1 Filed 09/29/21 Page 15 of 16 PageID #: 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(g)
`
`engaging in any other activity constituting unfair competition with
`
`Mölnlycke, or constituting an infringement of Mölnlycke’s MEPITAC
`
`Mark, or confusingly similar variation or Mölnlycke’s rights therein; and
`
`(h)
`
`aiding, assisting or abetting any other party in doing any act prohibited by
`
`sub-paragraphs (a) through (g).
`
`2. Directing that Defendant deliver for destruction any products, advertisements, or
`
`other materials in its possession, or under its control, incorporating the Infringing Marks in
`
`connection with bandages, first aid kits, medical tapes, wound closure strips, burn dressings, or
`
`wound dressings, or bearing simulations, variations or colorable imitations thereof, whether used
`
`alone or in combination with other words and/or designs.
`
`3. Directing such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate to prevent the trade
`
`and public from deriving the erroneous impression that any product or service sold, distributed,
`
`licensed or otherwise offered, circulated or promoted by Defendant is authorized by Mölnlycke
`
`or related in any way to Mölnlycke’s goods or services offered under the MEPITAC Mark.
`
`4. Directing that Defendant file with the Court and serve upon Mölnlycke’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 Defendant has complied therewith.
`
`5. Awarding Mölnlycke such damages as it has sustained or will sustain by reason of
`
`Defendant’s trademark infringement and unfair competition.
`
`6. Awarding Mölnlycke all gains, profits, property and advantages derived by
`
`Defendant from such conduct; and pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117, awarding Mölnlycke an amount
`
`up to three times the amount of the actual damages sustained as a result of Defendant’s violation
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-05415 Document 1 Filed 09/29/21 Page 16 of 16 PageID #: 16
`
`of the Lanham Act and of the New York Deceptive Trade Practices Act, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law.
`
`§ 349.
`
`7. Awarding Mölnlycke exemplary and punitive damages to deter any future willful
`
`infringement as the Court finds appropriate.
`
`8. Awarding Mölnlycke its costs and disbursements incurred in this action, including
`
`its reasonable attorneys’ fees.
`
`9. Awarding Mölnlycke’s interest, including pre-judgment interest, on the foregoing
`
`sums.
`
`
`
`Mölnlycke hereby demands a trial by jury pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Dated: September 29, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DUANE MORRIS LLP
`
`By: s/ Ralph Carter
`
` Ralph Carter
`1540 Broadway
`New York, New York 10036-4086
`Tel: (212) 692-1000
`Fax: (212) 692-1020
`Email: rcarter@duanemorris.com
`- and -
`Nicole K. McLaughlin (pro hac vice forthcoming)
`nkmclaughlin@duanemorris.com
`Tyler Marandola (pro hac vice forthcoming)
`tmarandola@duanemorris.com
`Lauren C. Matturri (E.D.N.Y. Bar No. 5650635)
`Duane Morris, LLP
`30 South 17th Street
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`Tel: 215-979-1000
`Fax: 215-979-1020
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff, Mölnlycke Health Care AB
`
`
`
`16
`
`