Case 1:22-cv-05559 Document 1 Filed 06/29/22 Page 1 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`-----------------------------------------------------------------------X
`POWERHOUSE BEVERAGE COMPANY, LLC,
`:
`LIVE LIFE SMART, INC. and
`
`
` : No. 22-CV-
`SPARKLING YOUR WORLD, INC.
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` :
`
`- against - : COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` :
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` :
`FRANK NAHOUM,
`
`
`
`
`:
`HENRY GIMENEZ,
`
`
`
`
`:
`JOEL KRINGEL,
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`BEHZAD PEIKARIAN, and
`
`
`
`:
`THOMAS STANZIALE, ESQ.
`
`
` : JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`: DEMANDED
`-----------------------------------------------------------------------X
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`The United States District Court has jurisdiction over this matter under the
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`trademark laws of the United States, Section 39 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1121, the
`
`RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, and under the Judicial Code of the United States, 28
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338. The United States District Court has jurisdiction over the state
`
`common law causes of action under 28 U.S.C. §1367 and the principles of supplemental
`
`jurisdiction.
`
`2.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over defendants because defendants have caused
`
`injury in the Southern District by causing plaintiff, Live Life Smart, Inc. to incur costs
`
`and attorneys fees as a direct result of defendants’ misconduct, causing plaintiff, Live
`
`Life Smart, Inc., to be forced into bankruptcy in the USBC, SDNY, and by causing
`
`plaintiffs to lose sales, profits, goodwill and other financial damages in the Southern
`
`District.
`
`3.
`
`Venue is proper in the Southern District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-05559 Document 1 Filed 06/29/22 Page 2 of 39
`
`substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in the Southern District.
`
`PARTIES AND THIRD-PARTIES
`
`Plaintiff is Powerhouse Beverage Company, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
`
`4.
`
`company, doing business at 480 Forest Avenue, Locust Valley, New York 11560.
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff is Live Life Smart, Inc., a corporation duly incorporated in New York,
`
`doing business at 480 Forest Avenue, Locust Valley, New York 11560.
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff is Sparkling Your World, Inc., a corporation duly incorporated in New
`
`York, doing business at 480 Forest Avenue, Locust Valley, New York 11560.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Defendant is Frank Nahoum, residing in the state of New York.
`
`Defendant is Henry Gimenez, with a last known residential address in Nassau
`
`County, New York.
`
`9.
`
`Defendant is Joel Kringel, residing in the state of New York.
`
`10.
`
`Defendant is Behzad Peikarian, residing in the state of New York.
`
`11.
`
`Defendant is Thomas Stanziale, Esq., residing in the state of New York.
`
`12.
`
`A third-party relevant for background information purposes is Daniel Ehrlich, an
`
`individual residing in the state of New York.
`
`13. A third-party relevant for background information purposes is Mel Ehrlich,
`
`Deceased, formerly residing in the state of New York.
`
`BACKGROUND FACTS
`
`Powerhouse Beverage Company, LLC
`
`14.
`
`Powerhouse Beverage Company, LLC is a foreign limited liability company that
`
`was formed in Delaware on December 7, 2012 and registered in New York on September
`
`19, 2014.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-05559 Document 1 Filed 06/29/22 Page 3 of 39
`
`15.
`
`The managing member of Powerhouse Beverage Company, LLC is Daniel
`
`Ehrlich.
`
`16.
`
`Powerhouse Beverage Company, LLC’s operating agreement, dated 28, 2014, at
`
`Section 5.3, provides that a super majority was necessary to pass resolutions. The
`
`operating agreement also provided for remedies in the event that a member breached his
`
`fiduciary duties.
`
`17.
`
`Powerhouse Beverage Company, LLC is in the business of distributing beverages.
`
`Powerhouse Brands, Inc.
`
`18.
`
`Powerhouse Brands, Inc. was assigned the trademarks, “IQ Juice” and “IQ Juice
`
`Drink”, by Powerhouse Beverage Company, LLC.
`
`19.
`
`Later, Powerhouse Brands, Inc. assigned said trademarks to plaintiff, Live Life
`
`Smart, Inc., the current owner of both trademarks.
`
`Live Life Smart, Inc.
`
`20.
`
`Live Life Smart, Inc. is a corporation that was formed in New York on July 10,
`
`2018.
`
`21.
`
`Live Life Smart, Inc. is located at 480 Forest Avenue, Locust Valley, New York
`
`11560.
`
`22.
`
`Live Life Smart, Inc. is in the business of producing and marketing beverages.
`
`23.
`
`Live Life Smart, Inc. owns the trademarks for “IQ Juice” and “IQ Juice Drink”.
`
`Sparkling Your World, Inc.
`
`24.
`
`Sparkling Your World, Inc. is a corporation that was formed in New York on July
`
`10, 2018.
`
`25.
`
`Sparkling Your World, Inc. has been licensed by Live Life Smart, Inc. to use the
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-05559 Document 1 Filed 06/29/22 Page 4 of 39
`
`trademark, IQ Juice, and to distribute IQ Juice products.
`
`Minority Members of Powerhouse Beverage Company, LLC
`
`26.
`
`Defendants, Frank Nahum, Henry Gimenez, Joel Kringel, and Behzad Peikarian,
`
`were members of Powerhouse Beverage Company, LLC from 2013 to 2014.
`
`27.
`
`In 2014, said defendants-members were suspended by management of the LLC on
`
`November 4, 2014 on the grounds of breach of fiduciary duty.
`
`28.
`
`The four defendants-members, as a voting bloc, were never a majority or had a
`
`super majority of the LLC as required under the LLC’s Operating Agreement.
`
`29.
`
`At all material times, defendants-members never owned the trademark.
`
`Thomas Stanziale, Esq.
`
`30.
`
`Defendant, Thomas Stanziale, is a licensed attorney in the state of New York with
`
`a business address of PO Box 1373, Port Washington, New York 11050-7373.
`
`31.
`
`Defendant, Thomas Stanziale, has represented the other defendants in certain
`
`litigation in Supreme Court and federal court, including both the Bankruptcy Court and
`
`the District Court.
`
`
`
`32.
`
`At all material times, defendant-lawyer was never the attorney for Powerhouse
`
`Beverage Company LLC, in either an outside, retained capacity or as general counsel, or
`
`in any other capacity.
`
`Mel Ehrlich, Deceased
`
`33. Mel Ehrlich, Deceased, was the Chief Executive Officer of Living Life Smart,
`
`Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-05559 Document 1 Filed 06/29/22 Page 5 of 39
`
`Daniel Ehrlich
`
`34.
`
`Daniel Ehrlich is the creator of IQ Juice, and on December 6, 2012 he licensed the
`
`IQ Juice trademark to the LLC. He founded Powerhouse Beverage Company, LLC.
`
`35.
`
`The managing member of Powerhouse Beverage Company, LLC is Daniel
`
`Ehrlich.
`
`Trademark Ownership
`
`36.
`
`The filing date for the trademark, “IQ Juice”, was August 29, 2013.
`
`37.
`
`The registration date for the trademark, “IQ Juice”, was July 7, 2015.
`
`38.
`
`The registrant under the trademark license for the trademark, “IQ Juice”, was
`
`Powerhouse Beverage Company, LLC.
`
`39.
`
`On or about January 1, 2016, Powerhouse Beverage Company, LLC assigned its
`
`entire interest in the trademark, “IQ Juice”, to Powerhouse Brands, Inc; the assignment
`
`was recorded with the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks on or about April 29,
`
`2016.
`
`40.
`
`On or about December 17, 2018, Powerhouse Brands, Inc. assigned its entire
`
`interest in the trademark, “IQ Juice”, to Live Life Smart, Inc.; the assignment was
`
`recorded with the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks on or about December 18,
`
`2018.
`
`41.
`
`The filing date for the trademark, “IQ Juice Drink” was October 26, 2012.
`
`42.
`
`The registration date for the trademark, “IQ Juice Drink”, was December 8, 2015.
`
`43.
`
`The owner (registrant) for the trademark, “IQ Juice Drink”, was Powerhouse
`
`Beverage Company, LLC.
`
`44.
`
`On or about February 17, 2014, Dan Ehrlich assigned his entire interest in the
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-05559 Document 1 Filed 06/29/22 Page 6 of 39
`
`trademark, “IQ Juice Drink”, to Powerhouse Beverage Company, LLC; the assignment
`
`was recorded with the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks on or about February 24,
`
`2015.
`
`45.
`
`On or about March 20, 2015, Dan Ehrlich corrected his assignment, described in
`
`the previous paragraph, to correct the assignee’s entity type; he confirmed the assignment
`
`of his entire interest.
`
`46.
`
`On or about January 1, 2016, Powerhouse Beverage Company, LLC assigned its
`
`entire interest in the trademark, “IQ Juice Drink”, to Powerhouse Brands, Inc; the
`
`assignment was recorded with the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks on or about
`
`April 29, 2016.
`
`47.
`
`On or about December 17, 2018, Powerhouse Brands, Inc. assigned its entire
`
`interest in the trademark, “IQ Juice Drink”, to Live Life Smart, Inc.; the assignment was
`
`recorded with the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks on or about December 18,
`
`2018.
`
`48.
`
`Accordingly, plaintiff, Live Life Smart, Inc., owns the exclusive right to the
`
`famous marks IQ Juice and IQ Juice Drink for juices, beverages, drinks, and other related
`
`products. These marks are famous, especially for nutritious beverage product lines. Over
`
`several years of extensive labor, effort, time, and expense, plaintiff has created two
`
`brands for clients throughout the United States in the product line of beverages, and in so
`
`doing, has earned an excellent reputation.
`
` 49.
`
`Plaintiff offers and provides its products throughout the United States of America,
`
`including New York, under the marks IQ Juice and IQ Juice Drink.
`
`50.
`
`Plaintiff has been providing its product line and creations under the IQ Juice and
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-05559 Document 1 Filed 06/29/22 Page 7 of 39
`
`IQ Juice Drink marks since at least 2018.
`
`51.
`
`Plaintiff’s IQ Juice and IQ Juice Drink’s products are offered and promoted
`
`online, over the Internet, in stores, in the mass media, in eating and drinking
`
`establishments, and by word-of-mouth.
`
`52.
`
`Plaintiff’s products have been promoted and made accessible to nationwide
`
`consumers through the web site located at https://iqjuice.com. Plaintiff’s web site at
`
`https://iqjuice.com receives numerous “hits” or inquiries each day.
`
`53.
`
` Plaintiff’s products are directed to broad consumer markets that include all
`
`consumers seeking thirst-quenching products, hydration products, nutrition, vitamins,
`
`dietary supplements, bodily-cleansing beverages, detoxification beverages, and delicious
`
`beverages, among other healthy types of beverages.
`
`54.
`
`Plaintiff has prominently and extensively advertised and promoted the IQ Juice
`
`and IQ Juice Drink products over the last seven years through the internet. As a result,
`
`plaintiff has developed substantial and valuable goodwill in connection with the IQ Juice
`
`and IQ Juice Drink trademarks.
`
`55.
`
`Plaintiff has expended significant amounts of money, time and effort in national
`
`advertising efforts for the IQ Juice and IQ Juice Drink trademarks in promoting
`
`plaintiff’s products. As a result of that advertising, product placement in stores,
`
`promotional campaigns, and of the visiting of plaintiff’s https://iqjuice.com web site by
`
`thousands of people, plaintiff has established the IQ Juice and IQ Juice Drink trademarks
`
`as famous and distinctive marks.
`
`56.
`
`As set forth in the license agreement, plaintiff, Powerhouse Beverage Company,
`
`LLC obtained federal registration for its IQ Juice and IQ Juice Drink trademarks for
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-05559 Document 1 Filed 06/29/22 Page 8 of 39
`
`juices, drinks, beverages and other related products. After assignment of the trademarks
`
`to plaintiff, Live Life Smart, Inc., plaintiff, Live Life Smart, Inc., became the owner of
`
`the following federal registrations:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`57.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mark Registration Registration Goods and Services
`
` Number Date
`
`IQ JUICE 4766809 07/07/2015 Juices, Drinks, Beverages, etc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IQ JUICE 4865174 12/08/2015 Fruit Beverages
`DRINK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Each of the above registrations is presently owned by plaintiff, Live Life Smart,
`
`
`
`Inc., was duly and legally issued, and is valid and subsisting. Both registrations are
`
`incontestable. True, correct, and accurate copies of these registrations are attached as
`
`Exhibits “1” and “2”. Said registrations were obvious to the world, and defendants
`
`knew, or should have known, of said registrations by routine, quick due-diligence,
`
`including internet research. These trademark registrations are verifiable on the internet, in
`
`seconds. True, correct, and accurate copies of the trademark assignments are attached as
`
`Exhibits “3” and “4”. Said assignments were obvious to the world, and defendants
`
`knew, or should have known, of said assignments by routine, quick due-diligence,
`
`including internet research. These trademark assignments are verifiable on the internet, in
`
`seconds.
`
`58.
`
`Plaintiff has continuously used the IQ Juice and IQ Juice Drink trademarks in
`
`interstate commerce for the sale and purchase of products since their respective dates of
`
`ownership, and the registrant, Powerhouse Beverage Company, LLC, has continuously
`
`used the marks in interstate commerce for the sale and purchase of products since their
`
`respective dates of adoption, until ownership changed.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-05559 Document 1 Filed 06/29/22 Page 9 of 39
`
`49.
`
`The designations IQ Juice and IQ Juice Drink used for plaintiff’s products are
`
`arbitrary and unique marks.
`
`60.
`
`Plaintiff has vigilantly protected its trademarks for the last eight years. Plaintiff
`
`has defended vigorously any actions regarding ownership, such as those filed by
`
`defendants, and also has initiated its own litigation to protect the marks.
`
`Litigation Involving the Parties and Third-Parties
`
`A.
`
`Supreme Court, Nassau County, Index No. 601910/2017
`
`61. These defendants, Frank Nahoum, Henry Gimenez, Joel Kringel, and Behzed
`
`Peikarhian, are being sued by the LLC for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, in Supreme
`
`Court, Nassau County, at Index Number 601910/2017 and represented by their
`
`attorney Thomas Stanziale, Esq. Defendant, Thomas Stanziale, Esq., answered the
`
`complaint stating that he represents at most these defendants, four former members of the
`
`LLC.
`
`62. Daniel Ehrlich and Powerhouse Beverage Company, LLC filed suit seeking money
`
`damages and dissolution for breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with contract,
`
`and fraudulent inducement.
`
`B.
`
`Supreme Court, Nassau County, Index No. 606684/2017
`
`63.
`
`Frank Nahoum, Henry Gimenez, Joel Kringel, Behzad Peikarian, each
`
`individually and derivatively as partners in and on behalf of the Partnership, Powerhouse
`
`Beverage Company, LLC sued Daniel Ehrlich and others.
`
`64.
`
`The four individuals claimed to be a majority of the plaintiff LLC.
`
`65.
`
`The four individuals sought money damages and an accounting for breach of
`
`contract and breach of fiduciary duties.
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-05559 Document 1 Filed 06/29/22 Page 10 of 39
`
`C.
`
`Supreme Court, Nassau County, Index No. 615646/2019
`
`66.
`
`Powerhouse Beverage Company, LLC falsely sued Live Life Smart, Inc. and Mel
`
`Ehrlich, with the four former members and their attorney pretending to be management
`
`and attorney for the LLC. They made false claims and used forged documents.
`
`67.
`
`Numerous causes of action were set forth, including conversion, fraud,
`
`accounting, conspiracy, punitive damages, unjust enrichment, and piecing the veil. The
`
`four former members and their attorney sought to have a receiver appointed.
`
`68.
`
`Live Life Smart, Inc. was forced into bankruptcy, staying the action.
`
`D.
`
`Supreme Court, Nassau County, Index No. 613705/2020
`
`69. On November 24, 2020, defendants, four former members of Powerhouse
`
`Beverage Company, LLC, Frank Nahoum, Henry Gimenez, Joel Kringel, and Behzed
`
`Peikarhian a.k.a Benny Peikarhian, and their attorney, Thomas Stanziale, Esq., filed a
`
`frivolous complaint in Nassau Supreme Court, Index Number 613705/2020, with
`
`Powerhouse Beverage Company, LLC, as plaintiffs, versus Sparkling Your World, Inc.
`
`and Dan Ehrlich, defendants, falsely claiming to be management of the LLC and attorney
`
`for the LLC. In this complaint they filed forged documents claiming that they are
`
`majority owners of the LLC when they were four former members being sued by the
`
`LLC, and knowingly submitting false information, including claiming to be management
`
`of the LLC and attorney for the LLC, a knowingly false address for the LLC, and
`
`claiming to have registered a trademark prior to the formation of the LLC.
`
`E.
`
`United States Bankruptcy Court, SDNY, No. 20-22825
`
`70.
`
`Plaintiff, Live Life Smart, Inc., filed for a Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
`
`71.
`
`The case was dismissed on May 10, 2022.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-05559 Document 1 Filed 06/29/22 Page 11 of 39
`
`F.
`
`United States Bankruptcy Court, SDNY, No. 20-7017
`
`72.
`
`Plaintiff, Live Life Smart, Inc., filed an adversarial claim against Powerhouse
`
`Beverage Company, LLC. The four former members and their attorney answered the
`
`complaint again falsely claiming to be management and attorney for the LLC, using a
`
`false address for the LLC and demanding all documents in the case go to Stanziale’s
`
`personal PO Box.
`
`73.
`
`The case was dismissed on May 10, 2022.
`
`G.
`
`United States Bankruptcy Court, SDNY, No. 20-7000
`
`74.
`
`Plaintiff, Live Life Smart, Inc., filed an adversarial claim against Frank Nahoum
`
`et al.
`
`75.
`
`The case was dismissed on May 10, 2022.
`
`H.
`
`United States District Court, SDNY, No. 22-cv-00029
`
`76.
`
`The parties to this action are the same parties herein, in the same capacities, other
`
`than the fact that Powerhouse Beverage Company, LLC was not a plaintiff.
`
`77.
`
`Declaratory and injunctive relief were sought.
`
`78.
`
`This action was administratively closed on January 4, 2022.
`
`I.
`
`Arbitration
`
`79.
`
`In 2015, defendant Stanziale filed an AAA arbitration claim, representing four
`
`individual members of Powerhouse Beverage Company, LLC, Frank Nahoum, Henry
`
`Gimenez, Joel Kringel, and Behzad Peikarian, using a forged agreement dated December
`
`10, 2012 and claiming that his clients formed the LLC.
`
`80.
`
`The true and correct attorney for the LLC moved for a dismissal with the AAA,
`
`which was granted.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-05559 Document 1 Filed 06/29/22 Page 12 of 39
`
`J.
`
`Summary of Defendants’ Litigation Misconduct
`
`81.
`
`Defendant-Attorney, Stanziale, falsely claimed to be attorney for the LLC in the
`
`Supreme Court lawsuits in November 2019 and October 2020.
`
`82.
`
`Defendant-Attorney, Stanziale, falsely claimed to be the attorney for the LLC in
`
`the adversary proceedings, and answered an adversary proceeding complaint, claiming to
`
`be the attorney for the LLC. In October 2021 the defendants answered an adversary
`
`proceeding complaint filed by the plaintiff, Live Life Smart, Inc., again falsely claiming
`
`to be management of the LLC and claiming under penalty of perjury that Thomas
`
`Stanziale is attorney for the LLC, when he represented at most four former members of
`
`the LLC. Additionally, when the defendants answered the adversary proceeding
`
`complaint, they gave a knowingly false address for the LLC and they demanded that all
`
`correspondence in the case be sent to defendant Stanziale’s personal PO Box 1373 Port
`
`Washington, NY 11501.
`
`83.
`
`In the complaints for the above litigation, the defendant-attorney, Stanziale, and
`
`defendants-clients gave knowingly false information in the complaints and affidavits.
`
`84.
`
`In the complaints for the above litigation, the defendant-attorney, Stanziale, and
`
`defendants-clients forged documents in an attempt to steal Live Life Smart, Inc.’s
`
`federally registered trademark.
`
`85.
`
`The defendants have been involved in a conspiracy to attempt to steal the
`
`trademarks owned by the plaintiff, Live Life Smart, Inc.
`
`86.
`
`The defendants abused the legal process by filing false claims, pretending to be
`
`management and the attorney for the LLC, made numerous knowingly false statements,
`
`and used forged documents to attempt to seek a judgment against the plaintiff.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-05559 Document 1 Filed 06/29/22 Page 13 of 39
`
`87.
`
`The claims set forth in this complaint have never been adjudicated to a full and
`
`final resolution.
`
`88.
`
`The material claims (trademark) set forth in this litigation are not currently being
`
`litigated in any pending case.
`
`89.
`
`There is no automatic bankruptcy stay applicable to this action.
`
`90.
`
`The doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel are not applicable, material
`
`or relevant to this action.
`
`Chronology of Defendants’ Material Frauds, Misrepresentations, and Misconduct
`
`91. August 15, 2014, a cease and desist letter was sent from four minority members of
`
`the LLC by their attorney, Thomas Stanziale on behalf of his clients, Nahoum, Gimenez,
`
`Kringel and Peikarian, to Powerhouse Beverage Company, LLC, claiming his clients
`
`have 51% voting units when they and he knew they had 125 voting units or 50% voting
`
`units, but that 167 voting units were required for taking any actions on behalf of the
`
`LLC. In the cease-and-desist letter, Stanziale demanded that the LLC turn over control to
`
`his clients. In fact, in #6 of his demands, it states that "we will decide by Super
`
`Majority.” Accordingly, it is clear that Stanziale knew that his clients needed a super
`
`majority of 66% voting units, and that having 50% voting units was not enough.
`
`92. On August 18, 2014, another cease-and-desist letter was sent from Stanziale on
`
`behalf of his clients, claiming that his clients have a 51% majority when he knew that
`
`merely they had 50% voting units, and that 66% voting units were required to have a
`
`super majority.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-05559 Document 1 Filed 06/29/22 Page 14 of 39
`
`93. On August 20, 2014, Powerhouse Beverage Company, LLC, retained attorney
`
`Wes Paul who sent Stanziale an email putting him on notice that his clients do not have
`
`the authority to oust management.
`
`94. On November 4, 2014, Wes Paul, Powerhouse Beverage Company, LLC-reatined
`
`attorney, sent a letter to each of the dissenting members declaring that due to their
`
`collective actions, they have breached their fiduciary duty to the LLC and are hereby
`
`suspended under Article XII, as stated in the LLC operating agreement.
`
`95. On July 20, 2015, Stanziale filed the AAA arbitration representing the four
`
`individual members of Powerhouse Beverage Company, LLC, Frank Nahoum, Henry
`
`Gimenez, Joel Kringel, and Behzad Peikarian, using a forged agreement dated December
`
`10, 2012 and claiming that his clients formed the LLC on December 10, 2012, when in
`
`fact, the LLC was formed on December 6, 2012. His clients did not become members
`
`until 2013.
`
`96. On July 25, 2015, Wes Paul, Esq. sent a letter to the AAA, confirming that he,
`
`Wes Paul, was attorney of record for Powerhouse Beverage Company, LLC, and refuting
`
`the valid5ity of the AAA action.
`
`97. On October 5, 2015, a mediation was held to settle the purchase of the suspended
`
`members units under Article XII. No settlement was reached.
`
`98.
`
`In or about November, 2015, Wes Paul, the Powerhouse Beverage Company,
`
`LLC-retained attorney, filed a TRO motion to stay the AAA arbitration.
`
`99. On December 1, 2015, the trademark licensed to the LLC was cancelled for
`
`breach. All LLC members were notified.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-05559 Document 1 Filed 06/29/22 Page 15 of 39
`
`100. On April 16, 2016, Wes Paul, as attorney for the LLC, and Thomas Stanziale
`
`attorney for the four individuals/suspended members, appeared in New York Supreme
`
`Court. Stanziale again filed the forged December 10, 2012 agreement. Wes Paul refutes
`
`that it as a valid agreement
`
` 101. In July 2016, Edward Odesser, Esq. is formally retained by Powerhouse Beverage
`
`Company, LLC in the actions filed by Stanziale and his four individual clients. Mr.
`
`Odesser files an appeal to stay the AAA action.
`
`102.
`
`In July 2016, Stanziale submitted affidavits from his clients with knowingly false
`
`statements including, claiming that the December 10, 2012 entity formation was
`
`valid. The AAA arbitration claim is dismissed.
`
`103. On March 7, 2017, the LLC filed a complaint by its attorney, Edward Odesser, in
`
`Supreme Court, Nassau County, at Index Number 601910/2017 against Frank Nahoum,
`
`Henry Gimenez, Joel Kringel, and Behzad Peikarian. The defendants were represented by
`
`Thomas Stanziale who answered the complaint.
`
`104. On July 7, 2017, Stanziale filed a complaint in Supreme Court, Nassau County, at
`
`Index Number 606684/2017, with a caption that indicates Frank Nahoum, Henry
`
`Gimenez, Joel Kringel, and Behzad Peikarian as individual plaintiffs. The 601910/2017
`
`case is consolidated with this case.
`
`105. On December 2017, Mark Greenfest, Esq. is retained by Powerhouse Beverage
`
`Company, LLC for the Nassau County action.
`
`106. In April 2018, Stanziale amended his complaint as a derivative action and names
`
`LLC member, Reynolds & Company, as additional defendants.
`
`107. In April 2019, Stanziale agreed to release Reynolds & Company from the case.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-05559 Document 1 Filed 06/29/22 Page 16 of 39
`
`108. In July 2019, discovery demands are made on Stanziale and he claims that his
`
`brother had a heart attack and delays turning over discovery.
`
`109.
`
`In September 2019, Stanziale produced discovery. However, there were missing
`
`documents and no evidence to support any of his claims.
`
`110.
`
`In November 8, 2019, defendants falsely appointed themselves as management
`
`and attorney for the LLC, and filed an action against Live Life Smart, Inc. and Mel
`
`Ehrlich at Index Number 615646/2019, to attempt to steal the trademark.
`
`111.
`
`In June 2020, Live Life Smart, Inc. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
`
`112.
`
`In October 2020, defendants filed another complaint in Supreme Court, Nassau
`
`County, at Index Number 613705/2020 against Sparkling Your World, Inc. again falsely
`
`claiming to represent the LLC.
`
`113. In November 2020, an adversarial proceeding is commenced against the LLC and
`
`Stanziale claimed in this action to represent the LLC, which he did not, and never did.
`
`114. On August 24, 2021, Stanziale amended his complaint in Supreme Court from
`
`representing the LLC to a derivative action representing four individuals, Frank Nahoum,
`
`Henry Gimenez, Joel Kringel, and Behzad Peikarian.
`
`115. Stanziale stalled on the discovery in the adversary action and again claimed that
`
`his brother had a heart attack.
`
`116.
`
` In November 2021, Stanziale filed an OTSC in Supreme Court, representing four
`
`individuals in a non-authorized derivative action to attempt to circumvent the bankruptcy
`
`stay and attempt to steal the trademark.
`
`Damages
`
`117. As a direct result, of defendants’ conduct and misconduct, the plaintiffs have been
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-05559 Document 1 Filed 06/29/22 Page 17 of 39
`
`damaged and caused to hire attorneys at their great expense, to defend themselves in
`
`frivolous, malicious litigation, and to protect their trademark.
`
`118. As a direct result, of defendants’ conduct and misconduct, the plaintiff, …., has
`
`been damaged and caused to file for bankruptcy protection as a direct result of
`
`defendants’ frivolous, malicious litigation.
`
`119. As a direct result, of defendants’ conduct and misconduct, the plaintiffs have been
`
`damaged, by losing sales, profits, good will and sustaining other financial losses, as a
`
`direct result of defendants’ frivolous, malicious litigation.
`
`120. Defendants knew and should have known that they do not own the trademark, and
`
`never owned the trademark, and therefore, that they were acting illegally by suing
`
`plaintiffs.
`
`COUNT I: TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT UNDER LANHAM ACT §§ 32, 43
`
`121. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the above paragraphs of this complaint,
`
`as if set forth at length.
`
`122.
`
`In or about 2011, Daniel Ehrlich designed, created, implemented, and identified
`
`two names, IQ Juice and IQ Juice Drink, with accompanying products for purchase.
`
`123. The trademarks, IQ Juice and IQ Juice Drink, may be registered under United
`
`States Trademark Law.
`
`124. On or about August 29, 2013, Powerhouse Beverage Company, Limited applied
`
`to the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks for registration of the words “IQ Juice”
`
`as a trademark.
`
`125. On or about July 7, 2015, Powerhouse Beverage Company, Limited received from
`
`the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks registration of the words “IQ Juice” as a
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-05559 Document 1 Filed 06/29/22 Page 18 of 39
`
`trademark.
`
`126. On October 26, 2012, Dan Ehrlich applied to the Commissioner of Patents and
`
`Trademarks for registration of the words “IQ Juice Drink” as a trademark. Dan Ehrlich
`
`and the LLC entered into a license agreement covering any product with “IQ”. Under the
`
`license agreement, the LLC applied for IQ Juice, but the USPTO would not grant two
`
`similar marks, and Ehrlich assigned the “IQ Juice Drink” mark to Powerhouse Beverage
`
`Company, LLC, with the license in full force and effect.
`
`127. On or about December 8, 2015, Powerhouse Beverage Company, Limited
`
`received from the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks registration of the words “IQ
`
`Juice Drink” as a trademark.
`
`128. As set forth hereinbefore, through several assignments, both trademarks, “IQ
`
`Juice” and “IQ Juice Drink”, were fully assigned to plaintiff, Live Life Smart, Inc.
`
`129. Therefore, plaintiff, Live Life Smart, Inc. owns the registered IQ Juice TM and IQ
`
`Juice Drink TM marks on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office.
`
`130. By virtue of its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office,
`
`the IQ Juice TM and IQ Juice Drink TM marks are entitled to protection under the
`
`Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051, et seq.
`
`131. Since 2018, when the trademarks were assigned to plaintiff, plaintiff has remained
`
`the sole owner of the trademarks.
`
`132. After the trademarks were assigned to plaintiff, the defendants engaged in the
`
`conduct mentioned hereinbefore, especially representing to the world, falsely, that they
`
`owned the trademark IQ Juice and IQ Juice Drink.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-05559 Document 1 Filed 06/29/22 Page 19 of 39
`
`133. Defendants have never been authorized by plaintiff to use the plaintiff’s marks, or
`
`designation, or any colorable imitation thereof, in any way. The acts of defendants
`
`constitute willful infringement of the registered IQ Juice TM and IQ Juice Drink TM
`
`mark in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114, constitute infringement of plaintiff’s trademarks,
`
`and constitute a violation of the federal trademark laws.
`
`134. The acts of defendants constitute willful infringement of the mark IQ Juice TM
`
`and IQ Juice Drink TM in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (a)(1)(A).
`
`135. Upon information and belief, the aforesaid acts, by which defendants profited
`
`were undertaken willfully and with the intention of causing consumer confusion, mistake
`
`or deception as to the source, sponsorship by plaintiff, or an affiliation between plaintiff
`
`and defendants.
`
`136. Defendants use of plaintiff’s trademarks is likely to cause confusion, mistake and
`
`deception to the public as to the identity and origin of plaintiff’s products, causing
`
`irreparable harm to plaintiff for which there is no adequate remedy at law.
`
`137. The plaintiff has notified the defendant in writing of the infringement, several
`
`times. In response, defendant refused to settle the matter amicably by ceasing and
`
`desisting, but, on the contrary, has pursued frivolous and malicious litigation and made
`
`false claims as to ownership, when the trademarks are readily verifiable on the USPTO
`
`web site in a matter of seconds.
`
`138. The defendants continue to infringe plaintiff’s trademarks by continuing to litigate
`
`under the pretext of ownership of IQ Juice and IQ Juice Drink, in violation of plaintiff’s
`
`rights and in violation of plaintiff’s trademarks, thus causing irreparable damage.
`
`139. The defendants will continue