Case 1:22-cv-09665 Document 1 Filed 11/11/22 Page 1 of 25
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`-----------------------------------------------------------------X
`NATURE’S ANSWER, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AROMA KING INC., HEALTHY RESULTS USA
`
`INC., and SHAYA ISKOWITZ,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`-----------------------------------------------------------------X
`
`Plaintiff NATURE’S ANSWER, INC. (“Nature’s Answer”), by and through its
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Civil Action No.: 22-cv-9665
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`-against-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`attorneys, RIVKIN RADLER LLP, as and for its Complaint against Defendants AROMA
`
`KING INC., HEALTHY RESULTS USA INC., and SHAYA ISKOWITZ (collectively,
`
`“Defendants”) alleges as follows:
`
`
`
`OVERVIEW
`
`1.
`
`This is an action seeking redress for Defendants’ egregious trademark
`
`counterfeiting.
`
`2.
`
`As underscored by the chart displayed below, this action is based upon the
`
`Defendants’ willful, unabashed, infringement of Nature’s Answer’s long-standing
`
`intellectual property rights in its federally registered trademarks by selling knock-off
`
`licorice root extract products - - a product used by millions to support and promote
`
`digestive health:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-09665 Document 1 Filed 11/11/22 Page 2 of 25
`
`Nature’s Answer’s Authentic Product
`
`Defendants’ Counterfeit Goods
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Specifically, Nature’s Answer is the owner of, among others, the following
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. trademark registrations1 (collectively, “the NA Marks”):
`
`Mark
`
`
`
`
`Goods
`Reg. No.
`6,373,581 Class 1: Plant extracts, namely, herbal extracts used as ingredients in
`the manufacture of pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, food supplements and
`vitamins with or without anti-aging properties.
`
`Class 3: Body wash; toothpastes; body lotion; hair conditioner; hair
`shampoo; non-medicated mouthwashes; skin lotion.
`
`Class 5: Weight management supplements, namely, weight control
`preparation comprising vegetables, herbs, spices and seaweed sold in
`powdered, liquid, tablet or capsule form, or as a medicated tea;
`botanical essences and extracts for use as food and dietary
`supplements.
`6,373,580 Class 1: Plant extracts, namely, herbal extracts used as ingredients in
`the manufacture of pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, food supplements and
`vitamins with or without anti-aging properties.
`
`Class 3: Body wash; toothpastes; body lotion; hair conditioner; hair
`shampoo; non-medicated mouthwashes; skin lotion.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 A copy of U.S. trademark registration number 6,373,581 is attached hereto as Exhibit “1” and a copy of U.S.
`trademark registration number 6,373,580 is attached hereto as Exhibit “2.”
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-09665 Document 1 Filed 11/11/22 Page 3 of 25
`
`Mark
`
`Reg. No.
`
`Goods
`Class 5: Weight management supplements, namely, weight control
`preparation comprising vegetables, herbs, spices and seaweed sold in
`powdered, liquid, tablet or capsule form, or as a medicated tea;
`botanical essences and extracts for use as food and dietary
`supplements; herbal extracts used as ingredients in the manufacture of
`pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, food supplements and vitamins with or
`without anti-aging properties.
`
`4.
`
`The Defendants’ blatant disregard for Nature’s Answer’s intellectual
`
`property rights - - rights which Nature’s Answer has cultivated through substantial
`
`investments of both human and financial capital over the course of four decades - - must
`
`cease.
`
`5.
`
`The Defendants’ continued unauthorized use of Nature’s Answer’s
`
`intellectual property rights through their sale of knock-off licorice root extract products
`
`will result in consumer confusion.
`
`6.
`
`Finally, it goes without saying that Nature’s Answer’s authentic licorice
`
`root extract products are subject to rigorous testing and quality control efforts. Such
`
`testing is mission critical to ensuring that the products sold by Nature’s Answer live-up to
`
`what the Nature’s Answer brand has come to represent.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`7.
`
`Nature’s Answer is a corporation incorporated in the State of New York
`
`having its principal place of business at 75 Commerce Drive, Hauppauge, New York
`
`11788 and is duly authorized to transact business in the State of New York.
`
`8.
`
`Defendant Aroma King Inc. (“Aroma King”) is a corporation incorporated
`
`in the State of New York having its principal place of business at 1 Carlton Road #213,
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-09665 Document 1 Filed 11/11/22 Page 4 of 25
`
`
`
`Monsey, New York 10952 and is duly authorized to transact business in the State of New
`
`York.
`
`9.
`
`Defendant Healthy Results USA Inc. (“Healthy Results”) is a corporation
`
`incorporated in the State of New York having its principal place of business at 20 Charles
`
`Lane, Spring Valley, New York 10977.
`
`10. Defendant Healthy Results filed a certificate of assumed name with the
`
`New York State Department of State to do business as Aroma King.
`
`11. Defendant Shaya Iskowitz (“Iskowitz”) is an individual that resides at 1
`
`Carlton Road, Apartment 213, Monsey, New York 10952.
`
`12. Upon information and belief, Iskowitz is the founder of Aroma King.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`13.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 15
`
`U.S.C. § 1121 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338 and 1367, as there are federal questions
`
`predicated upon the Lanham Act and claims under the laws of the State of New York for
`
`which this Court has supplemental jurisdiction.
`
`14. Venue is proper in the Southern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1391, as it is the judicial district in which the Defendants reside.
`
`NATURE’S ANSWER’S ESTABLISHED
`INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
`
`15. Nature’s Answer has developed a reputation as a leading manufacturer and
`
`supplier of high-quality extracts and nutritional products used in connection with
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-09665 Document 1 Filed 11/11/22 Page 5 of 25
`
`
`
`personal health care products, dietary supplements, nutraceuticals, and personal care
`
`products.
`
`16.
`
`To be sure, Nature’s Answer is recognized as an industry leader and
`
`innovator in pioneering advancements in the dietary supplements and nutraceuticals
`
`fields.
`
`17. Nature’s Answer has spent significant time, money, and effort to establish
`
`public recognition of the NA Marks as identifying Nature’s Answer as the source of,
`
`among other things, industry-leading goods in the botanical field, including, but not
`
`limited to, extracts.
`
`18.
`
`The NA Marks are some of Nature’s Answer’s most valuable assets.
`
`19. Nature’s Answer has used, and continues to use, the NA Marks in interstate
`
`commerce, among other places, on its website, letterhead, advertisements, signage,
`
`packaging, and other materials to identify, advertise, publicize, and market Nature’s
`
`Answer’s goods.
`
`20. By virtue thereof, the NA Marks identify the source of Nature’s Answer’s
`
`goods and distinguishes them from competitors.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ INFRINGING CONDUCT
`
`21. Upon information and belief, Defendants are engaged in the business of
`
`selling, among other things, counterfeit extracts and nutritional products.
`
`22. Nature’s Answer was recently advised by one of its customers that
`
`Defendants sold knock-off licorice root extract products bearing an exact replica of
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-09665 Document 1 Filed 11/11/22 Page 6 of 25
`
`
`
`Nature’s Answer’s label which displays the NA Marks (“Counterfeit Goods”) to an
`
`individual located in Saudi Arabia.
`
`23.
`
`Specifically, Defendants sold 13,000 units of the Counterfeit Goods, in the
`
`amount of $78,000, to this customer. A redacted screenshot of the invoice for the
`
`Counterfeit Goods is below:
`
`24. A comparison of Nature’s Answer’s authentic products to the Defendants’
`
`Counterfeit Goods follows below:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-09665 Document 1 Filed 11/11/22 Page 7 of 25
`
`Nature’s Answer’s Authentic Product
`
`Defendants’ Counterfeit Goods
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`25. A closer inspection of the Counterfeit Goods reveals that the UPC code
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`contained on the Counterfeit Goods is the same UPC code contained on Nature’s
`
`Answer’s authentic products:
`
`Nature’s Answer’s Authentic Product
`
`Defendants’ Counterfeit Goods
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-09665 Document 1 Filed 11/11/22 Page 8 of 25
`
`
`
`26. However, there are several indicia which indicate that these are counterfeit
`
`products.
`
`27.
`
`First, despite the fact that both the authentic products and the Counterfeit
`
`Goods contain the same UPC code, that UPC code does not correspond to the lot number
`
`stamped on the bottom of the bottles of the Counterfeit Goods.
`
`28. And that UPC code does not correspond to the lot number stamped on the
`
`bottom of the bottles of the Counterfeit Goods, because the lot number stamped on the
`
`bottom of the bottles of the Counterfeit Goods is a fabricated lot number - - it does not
`
`exist.
`
`29.
`
`To be sure, the lot number stamped on the bottles of the Counterfeit Goods
`
`- - 209695 - - does not match any of Nature’s Answer’s lot numbers for its authentic
`
`licorice root extract products.
`
`30. Moreover, Nature’s Answer stamps lot numbers on its authentic licorice
`
`root extract bottles using a blue font only. But the lot numbers stamped on the bottles of
`
`the Counterfeit Goods was not done so in blue - - it was done in a yellow font:
`
`Nature’s Answer’s Authentic Product
`
`
`Defendants’ Counterfeit Goods
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-09665 Document 1 Filed 11/11/22 Page 9 of 25
`
`
`
`31.
`
`Second, when Defendants sold the Counterfeit Goods to their customer, the
`
`packaging used to ship the Counterfeit Goods was not the same as the packaging that
`
`Nature’s Answer uses to ship its authentic goods:
`
` Authentic Product Packaging
`
`Counterfeit Packaging
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`32.
`
`The packaging used for shipping the Nature’s Answer’s authentic products
`
`clearly contains the lot number, along with the expiration date. This is different from the
`
`packaging for the Counterfeit Goods which does not contain the lot number or the
`
`expiration date but does reproduce the NA Marks.
`
`33. Upon information and belief, the customer who purchased the Counterfeit
`
`Goods from the Defendants approached the Defendants upon learning that they were not
`
`authentic goods.
`
`34. Upon information and belief, in an attempt to deceive the customer into
`
`believing that the Counterfeit Goods were authenticate, the Defendants provided a
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-09665 Document 1 Filed 11/11/22 Page 10 of 25
`
`
`
`doctored invoice to the customer. And when compared to an authentic Nature’s Answer
`
`invoice, it is clear that the invoice provided by the Defendants to their customer are
`
`markedly different.
`
`35. As displayed below, an authentic Nature’s Answer’s invoice contains
`
`additional information, including, but not limited to, a customer ID, Customer PO,
`
`payment terms, Sales Rep ID, Ship No., Shipping Date, and a Nature’s Answer’s stamp,
`
`all of which are not contained on the doctored invoice:
`
` Nature’s Answer’s Authentic Invoice (Redacted)
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-09665 Document 1 Filed 11/11/22 Page 11 of 25
`
`Defendants’ Doctored Invoice
`
`
`
`36.
`
`The customer then sought to return the Counterfeit Goods because the
`
`
`
`Counterfeit Goods were different than Nature’s Answer’s authentic products and the
`
`Counterfeit Goods were “not original.” An excerpt of an email conversation between the
`
`customer and Iskowitz is contained below:
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-09665 Document 1 Filed 11/11/22 Page 12 of 25
`
`
`
`
`In response to the request to return the Counterfeit Goods, Iskowitz stated
`
`37.
`
`that Defendants did not wish to accept a return of the Counterfeit Goods because he did
`
`not want to run the risk of the Counterfeit Goods not making it through customs.
`
`Critically, Iskowitz was concerned that any return would give the appearance that
`
`Defendants were importing “fake stuff” back into the United States. An excerpt of this
`
`email conversation is contained below:
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-09665 Document 1 Filed 11/11/22 Page 13 of 25
`
`
`
`38. Upon information and belief, instead of accepting a return, Iskowitz
`
`suggested that the customer should sell the Counterfeit Goods for “very cheap” because
`
`people always want cheap stuff and would be willing to purchase fake product. An
`
`excerpt of this email conversation is contained below:
`
`
`39. As outlined in the below e-mail excerpt, Iskowitz also advised that: (i) he
`
`spoke with someone at Nature’s Answer and that Iskowitz could purchase Nature’s
`
`Answer’s authentic product to sell to the customer; (ii) that the authentic product
`
`purchased from Nature’s Answer would “contain the blue ink;” and (iii) the price of the
`
`product received from Nature’s Answer would be more expensive than the price of the
`
`Counterfeit Goods:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-09665 Document 1 Filed 11/11/22 Page 14 of 25
`
`
`
`40. As evidenced by the above exchanges, Defendants, spearheaded by the
`
`efforts of Iskowitz, engaged in conduct that included knowingly selling the Counterfeit
`
`Goods bearing the NA Marks.
`
`COUNT I
`TRADEMARK COUNTERFEITING
`15 U.S.C. § 1114
`
`41. Nature’s Answer repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation
`
`contained in the paragraphs numbered “1” through “40” with the same force and effect as
`
`if set forth at length herein.
`
`42. Nature’s Answer is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in the NA
`
`Marks
`
`43. Nature’s Answer has continuously used the NA Marks in interstate
`
`commerce since on or before the date of first use shown in the federal registration
`
`certificates attached hereto as Exhibits “1” and “2.”
`
`44. Without Nature’s Answer’s consent, and with knowledge of Nature’s
`
`Answer’s priority rights in the NA Marks, Defendants intentionally reproduced,
`
`counterfeited, copied, and colorably imitated the NA Marks, or used spurious
`
`designations that are identical with, or substantially indistinguishable from, the NA
`
`Marks.
`
`45. Defendants applied such counterfeit marks to labels, packaging, wrappers,
`
`and advertisements intended to be used in commerce in connection with the manufacture,
`
`import, export, advertisement, marketing, promotion, distribution, display, sale, and
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-09665 Document 1 Filed 11/11/22 Page 15 of 25
`
`
`
`offering for sale of goods in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion,
`
`or to cause mistake, or to deceive.
`
`46. Defendants have manufactured, imported, exported, advertised, marketed,
`
`promoted, distributed, displayed, sold, and/or offered for sale their Counterfeit Goods to
`
`the purchasing public in direct competition with Nature’s Answer.
`
`47. Defendants’ use of the NA Marks without Nature’s Answer’s authorization
`
`or approval in connection with the Counterfeit Goods was done with full knowledge that
`
`such use was not authorized by Nature’s Answer to unfairly benefit from the goodwill
`
`associated with the NA Marks.
`
`48. Defendants’ actions constitute willful counterfeiting of the NA Marks.
`
`49. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ illegal actions alleged
`
`herein, Defendants have caused substantial monetary loss and irreparable injury and
`
`damage to Nature’s Answer and its intellectual property in an unknown amount to be
`
`determined at trial for which Nature’s Answer has no adequate remedy at law.
`
`COUNT II
`TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
`15 U.S.C. § 1114
`
`50. Nature’s Answer repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation
`
`contained in the paragraphs numbered “1” through “49” with the same force and effect as
`
`if set forth at length herein.
`
`51. Nature’s Answer is the owner of the valid and legally protectible NA
`
`Marks.
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-09665 Document 1 Filed 11/11/22 Page 16 of 25
`
`
`
`52.
`
`Specifically, Nature’s Answer is the owner of U.S. trademark registration
`
`numbers 6,373,581 and 6,373,580.
`
`53. Nature’s Answer uses the NA Marks to identify, advertise, promote,
`
`publicize, and market its goods.
`
`54.
`
`The Defendants are using the identical NA Marks to identify, advertise,
`
`promote, publicize, and market Defendants’ goods.
`
`55.
`
`The Defendants have used, and continue to use, identical marks to advance,
`
`grow, and develop Defendants’ business and to harm and interfere with Nature’s
`
`Answer’s business.
`
`56.
`
`The Defendants’ use of identical marks is designed to cause, and will likely
`
`cause, consumer confusion, mistake, or deception as to the origin, sponsorship or
`
`approval of the Defendants’ goods, given the related nature of the goods provided by
`
`Nature’s Answer.
`
`57.
`
`The Defendants’ aforesaid conduct constitutes trademark infringement and
`
`such conduct is and has been willful, malicious, and in conscious disregard of Nature’s
`
`Answer’s rights as the owner of the NA Marks.
`
`58. As a result of the Defendants’ conduct, Nature’s Answer has been injured
`
`in the manner of lost sales and loss of goodwill associated with its own goods and
`
`branding.
`
`59. As a result of the Defendants’ conduct, Nature’s Answer is entitled to
`
`receive an accounting of, and receive compensation from the Defendants in the form of,
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-09665 Document 1 Filed 11/11/22 Page 17 of 25
`
`
`
`all of the Defendants’ profits from the unauthorized use of Nature’s Answer’s intellectual
`
`property.
`
`60. As a result of the Defendant’s conduct, Nature’s Answer has suffered and
`
`will continue to suffer irreparable injury that cannot be adequately compensated by
`
`money damages, and which gives rise to injunctive relief to the type sought herein.
`
`61. As a result of the Defendant’s conduct, Nature’s Answer has sustained
`
`actual and consequential damages that will be established at trial, and Nature’s Answer is
`
`entitled to an award of punitive damages, the exact amount of which to be determined at
`
`trial.
`
`COUNT III
`FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN
`15 U.S.C. § 1125
`
`62. Nature’s Answer repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation
`
`contained in the paragraphs numbered “1” through “61” with the same force and effect as
`
`if set forth at length herein.
`
`63. Nature’s Answer is the owner of the valid and legally protectible NA
`
`Marks.
`
`64. Nature’s Answer uses the NA Marks to identify, advertise, promote,
`
`publicize, and market its goods.
`
`65.
`
`The Defendants are using the identical NA Marks to identify, advertise,
`
`promote, publicize, and market Defendants’ goods.
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-09665 Document 1 Filed 11/11/22 Page 18 of 25
`
`
`
`66.
`
`The Defendants have used, and continue to use, identical marks to advance,
`
`grow, and develop Defendants’ business and to harm and interfere with Nature’s
`
`Answer’s business.
`
`67.
`
`The Defendants’ use of identical marks is designed to cause, and will likely
`
`cause, consumer confusion, mistake or deception as to the origin, sponsorship or approval
`
`of the Defendants’ goods, given the nature of the goods provided by Nature’s Answer.
`
`68.
`
`The Defendants’ aforesaid conduct constitutes false designation of origin
`
`and unfair competition and such conduct is and has been willful, malicious and in
`
`conscious disregard of Nature’s Answer’s rights as the owner of the NA Marks.
`
`69. As a result of the Defendants’ conduct, Nature’s Answer has been injured
`
`in the manner of lost sales and loss of goodwill associated with its own goods and
`
`branding.
`
`70. As a result of the Defendants’ conduct, Nature’s Answer is entitled to
`
`receive an accounting of, and receive compensation from the Defendant in the form of,
`
`all of the Defendants’ profits from the unauthorized use of Nature’s Answer’s intellectual
`
`property.
`
`71. As a result of the Defendants’ conduct, Nature’s Answer has suffered and
`
`will continue to suffer irreparable injury that cannot be adequately compensated by
`
`money damages, and which gives rise to injunctive relief to the type sought herein.
`
`72. As a result of the Defendants’ conduct, Nature’s Answer has sustained
`
`actual and consequential damages that will be established at trial, and Nature’s Answer is
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-09665 Document 1 Filed 11/11/22 Page 19 of 25
`
`
`
`entitled to an award of punitive damages, the exact amount of which to be determined at
`
`trial.
`
`COUNT IV
`TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AND UNFAIR COMPETITION
`COMMON LAW
`
`73. Nature’s Answer repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation
`
`contained in the paragraphs numbered “1” through “72” with the same force and effect as
`
`if set forth at length herein.
`
`74. Nature’s Answer is the owner of the valid and legally protectable NA
`
`Marks.
`
`75.
`
`The Defendants have used, and continue to use, the identical NA Marks as
`
`a means to identify the Defendants as the source of goods that are related to those offered
`
`by Nature’s Answer.
`
`76.
`
`The Defendants’ unauthorized use of the NA Marks is designed to cause,
`
`and will likely cause, consumer confusion with Nature’s Answer and its goods and such
`
`use infringes on the NA Marks.
`
`77.
`
`The Defendants’ unauthorized use of the NA Marks is designed to cause,
`
`and will likely cause, consumers to mistakenly purchase Defendants’ goods believing that
`
`Nature’s Answer is the source of, or otherwise endorses, such goods.
`
`78.
`
`The Defendants’ unauthorized use of the NA Marks is willful, malicious,
`
`and in bad-faith and in conscious disregard of Nature’s Answer’s rights and has caused,
`
`and is likely to cause, consumer confusion between Nature’s Answer and its goods and
`
`Defendants and their goods.
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-09665 Document 1 Filed 11/11/22 Page 20 of 25
`
`
`
`79.
`
`The Defendants’ activities as stated herein constitute infringement of
`
`Nature’s Answer’s rights in the NA Marks and unfair competition in violation of New
`
`York common law.
`
`80. As a result of the Defendants’ conduct, Nature’s Answer has been injured
`
`in the manner of lost sales and loss of goodwill associated with its own goods and
`
`branding.
`
`81. As a result of the Defendants’ conduct, Nature’s Answer is entitled to
`
`receive an accounting of, and receive compensation from the Defendants in the form of,
`
`all of the Defendants’ profits from the unauthorized use of Nature’s Answer’s intellectual
`
`property.
`
`82. As a result of the Defendants’ conduct, Nature’s Answer has suffered and
`
`will continue to suffer irreparable injury that cannot be adequately compensated by
`
`money damages, and which gives rise to injunctive relief.
`
`83. As a result of the Defendants’ conduct, Nature’s Answer has sustained
`
`actual and consequential damages that will be established at trial, and Nature’s Answer is
`
`entitled to an award of punitive damages, the exact amount of which to be determined at
`
`trial.
`
`COUNT V
`TRADEMARK DILUTION
`NEW YORK GENERAL BUSINESS LAW § 360-l
`
`
`84. Nature’s Answer repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation
`
`contained in the paragraphs numbered “1” through “83” with the same force and effect as
`
`if set forth at length herein.
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-09665 Document 1 Filed 11/11/22 Page 21 of 25
`
`
`
`85. Nature’s Answer is the owner of the valid and legally protectable NA
`
`Marks.
`
`86. Nature’s Answer uses the NA Marks to identify, advertise, promote,
`
`publicize, and market Nature’s Answer and its goods.
`
`87.
`
`The NA Marks are distinctive or have otherwise developed secondary
`
`meaning based on Nature’s Answer’s continuous and long-standing exclusive use of the
`
`NA Marks.
`
`88. Nature’s Answer has spent a significant amount of money in connection
`
`with advertising and promoting the NA Marks as the source of Nature’s Answer’s goods.
`
`89. As a result, Nature’s Answer has established not only substantial consumer
`
`recognition of the NA Marks, but also developed significant goodwill in connection with
`
`the NA Marks.
`
`90. Defendants’ unlawful use of the identical NA Marks in commerce has
`
`harmed the reputation of, and diluted the distinctive quality of, the NA Marks by
`
`lessening the capacity of the mark to identify and distinguish the goods provided by
`
`Nature’s Answer.
`
`91.
`
`The Defendants’ aforesaid conduct constitutes trademark dilution in
`
`violation of New York General Business Law § 360-l.
`
`92. As a result of the Defendants’ conduct, Nature’s Answer has suffered, and
`
`will continue to suffer, irreparable injury that cannot be adequately compensated by
`
`money damages, and which gives rise to injunctive relief.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-09665 Document 1 Filed 11/11/22 Page 22 of 25
`
`
`
`COUNT VI
`TRADEMARK DILUTION
`COMMON LAW
`
`93. Nature’s Answer repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation
`
`contained in the paragraphs numbered “1” through “92” with the same force and effect as
`
`if set forth at length herein.
`
`94. Nature’s Answer is the owner of the valid and legally protectable NA
`
`Marks.
`
`95. Nature’s Answer uses the NA Marks to identify, advertise, promote,
`
`publicize, and market Nature’s Answer and its goods.
`
`96.
`
`The NA Marks are distinctive or have otherwise developed secondary
`
`meaning based on Nature’s Answer’s continuous and long-standing exclusive use of the
`
`NA Marks.
`
`97. Nature’s Answer has spent a significant amount of money in connection
`
`with advertising and promoting the NA Marks as the source of Nature’s Answer’s goods.
`
`98. As a result, Nature’s Answer has established not only substantial consumer
`
`recognition of the NA Marks, but also developed significant goodwill in connection with
`
`the NA Marks.
`
`99. Defendants’ unlawful use of the identical NA Marks in commerce has
`
`harmed the reputation of, and diluted the distinctive quality of, the NA Marks by
`
`lessening the capacity of the marks to identify and distinguish the goods provided by
`
`Nature’s Answer.
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-09665 Document 1 Filed 11/11/22 Page 23 of 25
`
`
`
`100. The Defendants’ aforesaid conduct constitutes trademark dilution in
`
`violation of New York common law.
`
`101. As a result of the Defendants’ conduct, Nature’s Answer has been injured
`
`in the manner of lost sales and loss of goodwill associated with its own goods and
`
`branding.
`
`102. As a result of the Defendants’ conduct, Nature’s Answer is entitled to
`
`receive an accounting of, and receive compensation from the Defendants in the form of,
`
`all of the Defendants’ profits from the unauthorized use of Nature’s Answer’s intellectual
`
`property.
`
`103. As a result of the Defendants’ conduct, Nature’s Answer has suffered, and
`
`will continue to suffer, irreparable injury that cannot be adequately compensated by
`
`money damages, and which gives rise to injunctive relief.
`
`104. As a result of the Defendants’ conduct, Nature’s Answer has sustained
`
`actual and consequential damages that will be established at trial, and Nature’s Answer is
`
`entitled to an award of punitive damages, the exact amount of which to be determined at
`
`trial.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Nature’s Answer demands a trial by jury.
`
`WHEREFORE, Nature’s Answer requests that the Court enter judgment against
`
`Defendants Aroma King Inc., Healthy Results USA Inc., and Shaya Iskowitz, as follows:
`
`a. On Count I, (i) statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §
`1117(c) in the amount of $2,000,000 per counterfeit mark per
`type of good sold together with preliminary and permanent
`
`
`
`
`
`23
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-09665 Document 1 Filed 11/11/22 Page 24 of 25
`
`injunctive relief; or (ii) in the alternative: (a) actual and
`consequential damages that will be established at trial, (b) an
`award of punitive damages, the exact amount of which to be
`determined at trial, (c) an accounting and disgorgement of
`profits, (d) damages sufficient to conduct corrective
`advertising; and (e) preliminary and permanent injunctive
`relief;
`
`b. On Count II, (i) actual and consequential damages that will be
`established at trial, (ii) an award of punitive damages, the
`exact amount of which to be determined at trial, (iii) an
`accounting and disgorgement of profits, (iv) damages
`sufficient to conduct corrective advertising; and (v)
`preliminary and permanent injunctive relief;
`
`c. On Count III, (i) actual and consequential damages that will
`be established at trial, (ii) an award of punitive damages, the
`exact amount of which to be determined at trial, (iii) an
`accounting and disgorgement of profits, (iv) damages
`sufficient to conduct corrective advertising; and (v)
`preliminary and permanent injunctive relief;
`
`d. On Count IV, (i) actual and consequential damages that will
`be established at trial, (ii) an award of punitive damages, the
`exact amount of which to be determined at trial, (iii) an
`accounting and disgorgement of profits, (iv) damages
`sufficient to conduct corrective advertising; and (v)
`preliminary and permanent injunctive relief;
`
`e. On Count V, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief;
`
`f. On Count VI, (i) actual and consequential damages that will
`be established at trial, (ii) an award of punitive damages, the
`exact amount of which to be determined at trial, (iii) an
`accounting and disgorgement of profits, (iv) damages
`sufficient to conduct corrective advertising; and (v)
`preliminary and permanent injunctive relief; and
`
`
`
`g. An order awarding Plaintiff its reasonable attorneys’ fees and
`costs, together with such other and further relief as this Court
`may deem just, proper, and equitable.
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-09665 Document 1 Filed 11/11/22 Page 25 of 25
`
`
`
`Dated: Uniondale, New York
`
`November 11, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`RIVKIN RADLER LLP
`
`/s/ Frank Misiti
`Michael C. Cannata
`Frank Misiti
`926 RXR Plaza
`Uniondale, New York 11556-0926
`(516) 357-3000
`michael.cannata@rivkin.com
`frank.misiti@rivkin.com
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`NATURE’S ANSWER, INC.
`
`6065548.v1
`
`
`
`25
`
`