ABC v. Diageo - Complaint

1

INTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTFORTHEWESTERNDISTRICTOFPENNSYLVANIA

AMERICANBEVERAGECORPORATION,andPOUCHPACINNOVATIONS,LLC

Plaintiffs, CaseNo.

v. JURYTRIALDEMANDED

DIAGEONORTHAMERICA, INC.,andDIAGEOAMERICASSUPPLY,INC.t/d/b/aCAPTAINMORGANCO.,

Defendants.

VERIFIEDCOMPLAINT

Plaintiffs,AmericanBeverageCorporation(“ABC”)andPouchPacInnovations,LLC

(“PPI”) (together,“Plaintiffs”),bytheircounsel,filethisVerifiedComplaintagainst

DefendantsDiageoNorthAmerica,Inc.andDiageoAmericasSupply,Inc.t/d/b/aCaptain

MorganCo.,andinsupportthereofaverasfollows.

PreliminaryStatement

ThiscaseinvolvesABC’sDaily’sCocktailsandtheinfringementofABC’sintellectual

propertyrightsthereinbytheDefendantsandtheiraptly-namedParrotBayCocktails.This

casearosebecausetheDefendants,seekingtocapitalizeonthecommercialsuccessof

ABC’sDaily’sCocktails,anddespiteamyriadofavailablealternatives,recentlylaunched

theirParrotBayCocktailspackagedinpouchesthat– truetotheirname– parrot boththe

patenteddesignandtradedressofABC’sDaily’sCocktails.TheDefendants’ParrotBay

CocktailsnotonlyinfringeABC’spatentpouchdesign,butare also sosimilarinappearance

toABC’sDaily’sCocktailsthatconsumerconfusionislikelytooccurandinfacthasalready

Case 2:12-cv-00601-JFC Document 1 Filed 05/07/12 Page 1 of 23

2

occurred,toABC’sdetriment.WhileABCwelcomesfaircompetition,theDefendants

conductinthiscasegoesfarbeyondthestandardsoffaircompetitionasrecognizedbythe

law.ABCbelievesthattheDefendantsareplanninganextensivenationwiderolloutoftheir

ParrotBayCocktailsfortheupcomingspringandsummermonths,whicharethemost

profitableseasonforfrozencocktailpouchsales.Unlessenjoined,theDefendantswillbe

abletoexploittheactualandinevitableconsumerconfusioncausedbytheirinfringing

productsduringthisprimebuyingseasonandtherebypoachpotentialcustomers,sales,

andmarketsharefromABC.OncetheDefendantshaveestablishedasubstantialshareof

thefrozencocktailpouchmarketthroughtheirinfringingactivities,thedamagetoABCwill

alreadyhavebeendone,asanymonetarydamagesorremedialactions(e.g.,redesignthe

pouchpackaging)imposedbythisCourtwouldbeinsufficienttoredresstheirreparable

harmsufferedbyABC.Giventheforegoing,Plaintiffs seeksthisCourt’sinterventionto

restrainandenjointheDefendants’infringingconduct.

TheParties

1. PlaintiffAmericanBeverageCorporation(“ABC”)isacorporationorganized

andexistingunderthelawsofDelaware,withaprincipalplaceofbusinessinVerona,

Pennsylvania.

2. PlaintiffPouchPacInnovations,LLC(“PPI”)isalimitedliabilitycompany

organizedandexistingunderthelawsofFlorida,withaprincipalplaceofbusinessin

Sarasota,Florida.

3. Uponinformationandbelief,DiageoNorthAmerica,Inc.isaConnecticut

corporationwithaprincipalplaceofbusinessinNorwalk,Connecticut.


3

4. Uponinformationandbelief,DiageoAmericasSupply,Inc.isaNewYork

corporationwithaprincipalplaceof businessinNorwalk,Connecticutandthattradesand

doesbusinessas“CaptainMorganCo.”

JurisdictionandVenue

5. ThisCourthasjurisdictionoverthesubjectmatterofthisactionpursuantto

15U.S.C.§1121(actionarisingundertheLanhamAct),28U.S.C.§1331(federalquestion),

28U.S.C.§1338(a)(anyActofCongressrelatingtopatentsortrademarks),28U.S.C.§

1338(b)(actionassertingclaimofunfaircompetitionjoinedwithasubstantialandrelated

claimunderthetrademarklaws),and28U.S.C.§1367(supplementaljurisdiction).

6. ThisCourthaspersonaljurisdictionovertheDefendantsbecausetheyhave

committedandcontinuetocommitactsofinfringementinviolationof35U.S.C.§271and

15U.S.C.§1125,andplaceinfringingproductsintothestreamofcommerce,withthe

knowledgeorunderstandingthatsuchproductsaresoldintheCommonwealthof

Pennsylvania,includinginthisdistrict.Uponinformationandbelief,theDefendantsderive

substantialrevenuefromthesaleofinfringing productswithinthisdistrict,expecttheir

actionstohaveconsequenceswithinthisdistrict,andderivesubstantialrevenuefrom

interstatecommerce.Thematterincontroversyexceedsthesumorvalueof$75,000

exclusiveofinterestandcosts.

7. Venueinthisdistrictisproperpursuantto28U.S.C.§§1391and1400

becausetheDefendantsaresubjecttojurisdictioninthisDistrict,transactbusinesswithin

thisdistrict,andofferforsaleinthisdistrictproductsthatinfringethePlaintiffs’

intellectualpropertyrights.


4

ABC’sDaily’sCocktails

8. ABCmakesandsellsalineofsingle-serveready-to-drinkfrozencocktails

packagedinpouchesunderitsDaily’sbrandname(the“Daily’sCocktails”).

9. Foralltimesrelevanthereto,ABChaspackageditsDaily’sCocktailsin

pouchesthatarethesubjectofthisaction.

10. ThedesignofthepouchinwhichABCpackagesitsDaily’sCocktailsisthe

subjectofU.S.DesignPatentNo.D571,672(the“672Patent”).Atrueandcorrectcopyof

thepatentisattachedheretoasExhibitA.

11. The672Patentcoverstheunique,novel,andnon-obviousornamentaldesign

andappearanceofABC’spouchpackaging.

12. PPIownsthe672PatentandlicenseditexclusivelytoABC,whichowns

substantiallyallrights,title,andintereststoandinthe672Patent,includingbutnot

limitedtotherighttobringsuit,aloneandinitsownname,forinfringementofthe672

Patent.Accordingly,ABChasstandingtoassertclaimsforinfringementofthe672Patent,

andPPIjoinsasco-plaintiffastheregisteredownerofthe672Patent.

13. ThepouchpackagingoftheDaily’sCocktailsembodies asingularand

inherentlydistinctivetradedresscharacterizedbyageneraloverallappearanceand

commercialimpressioncreatedthroughsize,shape,colorscheme,pictoralelements,

labeling,andlayout.TheseelementsincludethepatentedhourglassshapeofABC’spouch

packagingandthreehorizontallabelingpartitions,withthetop-mostportionconsistingof

aperforatedtear-awayflapwiththelanguage“FREEZEANDENJOY,”themiddleportion

containingtheDaily’sbrandname,acolorfuldepictionoftheparticularfrozencocktail


5

flavorandcorrespondingfruit imagery,andthebottomportionidentifyingthespecific

productandkeyinformation thereof.

Illustration 1:ADaily’scocktail.

14. TheelementsofABC’stradedressarenon-functional.

15. Continuouslysincethefallof2005,ABChasmadeandsoldininterstate

commerceitsDaily’sCocktailsinitstradedresstoidentifythesourceoftheDaily’s

Cocktailsandtodistinguishthemfromthosemadeandsoldbyothers.ABChas

prominentlydisplayeditstradedresstodistributors,retailers,andconsumersthrough

advertising,theinternet,industrypublications,andpoints-of-sale.

16. ABChasinvestedsubstantialtime,resources,andmoneyinmakingand

sellingitsDaily’sCocktailsintheirpouchpackagingtradedress.

17. AsaresultofABC’scommercialactivitiesassetforthherein,ABC’strade

dresshasdevelopedandnowhasasecondaryanddistinctivemeaningtoconsumersand

thealcoholicbeverageindustry.Specifically,ABC’stradedresshascometoindicatethat

the Daily’sCocktailscomefromororiginateonlywithABC.


6

18. ABC’susesandhasuseditstradedressonallflavorvarietiesoftheDaily’s

Cocktails,andthus,itstradedresshasarecognizableandconsistentoveralllook.

Illustration 2:TheconsistentoveralllookofABC’stradedress onitsDaily’sCocktails.

TheDefendants’ParrotBayCocktails

19. TheDefendantsmakeandsellalcoholicbeveragesundertheir“ParrotBay”

brandname.

20. Plaintiffs recentlydiscoveredthattheDefendantshavebeguntomakeand

sellininterstatecommercesingle-serveready-to-drinkfrozencocktailspackagedin

pouchesundertheirParrotBaybrandname (the“ParrotBayCocktails”).

21. TheDefendants’ParrotBayCocktailsarepackagedinpouchesindicatingthat

theyare“BREWEDANDBOTTLEDBYCAPTAINMORGANCO.,PLAINFIELDIL.”

22. Moreimportantly,theDefendants’ParrotBayCocktailsarepackagedin

pouchesthatinfringePlaintiffs’ patentedpouchdesignandembodyABC’stradedressand

socloselyimitateABC’stradedressthatconsumersarelikelytobeconfusedastothe

sourceororiginoftheDefendants’ParrotBayCocktails.


7

Illustration 3:ADaily’sCocktail(left)andaParrotBayCocktail(right).

23. TheDefendants’ParrotBayCocktailsarepackagedinpouchesthatare

identicalinoverallcommercialimpressiontothepouchesinwhichtheDaily’sCocktailsare

packaged,includingbutnotlimitedtosize,shape,colorscheme,pictoralelements,labeling,

andlayout.Specifically, theDefendantshaveparrotedthepatentedhourglassshapeof

ABC’spouchpackaging,aswellasthethreehorizontallabelingpartitions,withthetop-

mostportionconsistingofaperforatedtear-awayflapwiththelanguage“FREEZE&

SQUEEZE,”themiddleportioncontainingtheParrotBaybrandname,acolorfuldepiction

oftheparticularfrozencocktailflavorandcorrespondingfruitimagery,andthebottom

portionidentifyingthespecificproductandkeyinformationthereof.

24. TheDefendantshavecopiedtheconsistentoverallcommercialimpressionof

ABC’stradedressacrosstheDefendants’entireproductline.


8

Illustration 4:TheconsistentoveralllookoftheDefendants’ParrotBayCocktails.

25. Moreover,theDefendantshavecopiedthepatenteddesignandappearance

ofthe672PatentintheirParrotBayCocktailpouches.

Illustration 5:The672Patent(left)andaParrotBayCocktail(right).

26. TheDefendantsarenotauthorizedtopracticethe672Patent.

27. TheDefendants’conductassetforthhereinisnotonlylikelytocause

consumerconfusion,buthasalreadycausedactualconsumerconfusion.ABChasreceived

correspondencesfromcustomersevidencingactualconfusionwiththeDefendants’Parrot

BayCocktails.


9

28. Forseveralreasons,furtherconsumerconfusionisnotjustlikely,but

inevitable.

29. TheDaily’sCocktailsdirectlycompetewiththeParrotBayCocktails.

30. TheParrotBayCocktailsareofferedinmanyofthesameflavorsasthe

Daily’sCocktails,includingforexample strawberry daiquiriandpiñacolada.

31. TheParrotBayCocktailsandtheDaily’sCocktails arerelativelylow-priced

items,bothcostingapproximately$2.00per unit.

32. TheParrotBayCocktailsandtheDaily’sCocktailsarebothsingle-serve

frozencocktailproductsthat,giventheirlowcost,areimpulsepurchasesforconsumers.

Assuch,consumersexhibitverylittlebrandloyaltyinconnectionwithfrozencocktail

pouchproducts,andarenotlikelytoexerciseagreatdealofcarebeforeselectingtheir

frozencocktailpouchproductsforpurchase,norinevaluatingthequalityofthefrozen

cocktailproductfollowingconsumption.

33. TheParrotBayCocktailsaresoldthroughmanyofthesametradechannels

astheDaily’sCocktails,suchasliquorstoresandretailchainsandsupermarketssuchas

WalmartandShaw’s.

Illustration 6:Daily’sCocktails(left)andParrotBayCocktails(right)ataWalmartstore.


10

34. Oftentimes,theproductsappearnexttoeachotheronracksattheends of

aisles,furtherexacerbatingtheriskofconfusion.

Illustration 7:Daily’sCocktails(left)andParrotBayCocktails(right).

35. Insomeinstances,thetwoproductsaremixedtogetheronnearbyshelves

andsometimesevenappearonthesameshelfrow.

Illustration 8:Arefrigerateddisplayunitcontainingthetwoproductsonthesameshelfrows.


11

36. Whentheproductsappearonthesameshelvesorrows,consumerconfusion

isunavoidablebecauseitisdifficulttodistinguishthetwoproducts.

Illustration 9:Arefrigerateddisplayunitcontainingthetwoproducts.Daily’sCocktails

exclusivelypopulatethetoptwoshelves,whileParrotBayCocktailsexclusivelypopulatethe

bottomshelf.Bothproductspopulatethethirdshelffromthetop.

Illustration 10:Aclose-upofFigure9 showinghowclosevisualinspectionisrequiredto

discoverthatthesameshelfcontainstwoproductsfromdifferentsources,withtheDaily’s

Cocktails(left)adjacenttotheParrotBayCocktails(right).


12

37. Storesalso stockthe two products inrefrigeratedshelvesbehindfoggyglass

doors,makingitevenmoredifficultforconsumerstonoticeandappreciatewhatever

minutedifferencestheremaybebetweenthepouchpackagingofthetwoproducts.

Illustration 11:ArefrigerateddisplayunitcontainingbothDaily’sCocktailsandParrotBay

Cocktails.Thefoggyglassdoorasseenbycustomersmakesitimpossibletodistinguishthe

twoproducts.


13

38. Thesearrangementscreatethevisualeffectoftheproducts“flowing”

together,implying toconsumersthattheyalloriginatefromthesamesource.

Illustration 12:Racks containingbothDaily’sCocktailsandParrotBayCocktailsshowinghow

twoproductsfromdifferentsourcesappearto“flow”together.

39. TheDefendants’conductassetforthhereinisallthemoreegregiouswhen

measuredagainstcompetingfrozencocktail pouch productsmadeandsoldbyother

beveragemanufacturers.Asurveyofthetradedressusedbyotherbeverage

manufacturersshowsthemultiplepouchpackagingoptionsavailabletocompaniessuchas

theDefendants.

Illustration 13:Otherfrozencocktailpackaging.


14

40. ThesimilarityoftheDefendants’ParrotBayCocktails totheDaily’sCocktails

isallthemorestrikingwhenviewedin lightofthisrangeofavailableoptions.

41. Uponinformationandbelief,theDefendantshaveenteredintoacontract

packingarrangementwithAdmiralBeverageCorporation,whichconvenientlysharesthe

sameinitialsasABC,tomakeanddistributetheDefendants’ParrotBayCocktails.Asa

resultofthisarrangement,theDefendantsareabletorepresenttodistributorsand

retailersanaffiliationwith“abc,”which,inconnectionwiththeDefendants’otherconduct

assetforthherein,makesitlikelythatcompanieswithinthealcoholicbeverageindustry–

includingbutnotlimitedtodistributorsandretailers– maybeconfusedastothesourceor

originoftheDefendants’ParrotBayCocktails,ormaycometobelievethattheyaredealing

withABCandtheDaily’sCocktails.

Notice

42. PPIwrotetoDiageoNorthAmerica,Inc.(“Diageo”) onDecember8,2011,

advisingDiageothatPPIbelievedthatDiageowasinfringingPlaintiffs’ rightsand

demandingthatDiageoceaseanddesistsuchinfringingconduct.AcopyofPPI’sletteris

attachedheretoasExhibitB.

43. Fromthatpoint,PPIandDiageoexchangedmultiplewritten

correspondencesduringDecemberof2011andupthroughandincludingMarchof2012.

AtnotimedidDiageo indicatethatitwouldcomplywithPPI’sdemand.

44. OnApril25,2012,ABCwrotetotheDefendants,advisingtheDefendantsthat

ABCbelievedthattheywasinfringingABC’sintellectualpropertyrightsassetforthherein

anddemandingthattheyceaseanddesisttheirconduct.AcopyofABC’sletterisattached

heretoasExhibitC.


15

45. TheDefendantshavenotcomplied withABC’sdemands.

46. Accordingly,Plaintiffs havenochoicebuttoproceedwiththeinstantaction.

The ConsequencesoftheDefendants’InfringingConduct

47. TheDefendants’conductassetforthhereiniswrongful,malicious,

fraudulent,deliberate,willful,and/orintentionalandhascausedandwillcontinuetoharm

thePlaintiffs.

48. Unlessrestrained,theDefendants’conducthascausedandwillcontinueto

causeirreparableharmtoPlaintiffsforwhichtheyhavenoadequateremedyatlaw.

49. Uponinformationandbelief,theDefendantsareplanningforanationalroll-

outoftheirParrotBayCocktailsinpreparationforthesummermonths.

50. Thesummermonthsrepresenttheprimeseasonforsalesoffrozencocktails.

51. IftheDefendantsarepermittedtorollouttheirParrotBayCocktailsand

floodthemarketwiththeirinfringingproductsduringtheprimesellingseason,the

Defendantswillbeabletoexploittheactualandinevitableconsumerconfusiontopoach

potentialcustomers,sales,andsharesofthefrozencocktailmarketfromABC.Consumers

mayalsocometomistakenlyattributeinferiorqualitiesoftheDefendants’ParrotBay

CocktailstoABC,causingABCtosufferalossofitsreputation,trade,andgoodwill.

52. TheDefendants’conductalsothreatenstherightofthepublictobefreefrom

confusionanddeception.

53. Uponinformationandbelief,theDefendantsarepreparingtolaunchasingle-

servefrozencocktailpouchproductundertheDefendants’“Smirnoff”brandnamein

packagingthat,insofarasitutilizesthesamepouchpackaginganddesignasthe

Defendants’ParrotBayCocktails,infringesthePlaintiffs’rightsassetforthherein.


16

54. Giventheforegoing,thePlaintiffsareentitledtoapreliminaryinjunctionto

bemadepermanentuponentryofafinaljudgment,preventingtheDefendantsfrom

continuingtheactscomplainedofherein.

COUNTI:PatentInfringement

55. ThePlaintiffsincorporatebyreferencetheallegationsinthepreceding

paragraphsasifsetforthherein.

56. Byengagingintheconductsetforthherein,theDefendantshaveinfringed

andcontinuetoinfringethe672Patent,literallyand/orunderthedoctrineofequivalents,

byusing,selling,and/orofferingtosell,intheUnitedstatesand/orimportingintothe

UnitedStates,theirParrotBayCocktailsinpouchpackagingthatinfringesthe672Patentin

violationof35U.S.C.§271.

57. Atall timesrelevanthereto,theDefendants’conducthasinvolvedandtaken

placewithininterstatecommerce.



thePlaintiffs.



60. ThePlaintiffsareentitledtoapreliminaryinjunctiontobemadepermanent

uponentryofafinaljudgment,preventingtheDefendantsfromcontinuingtheacts

complainedofherein.

COUNTII:TradeDressInfringementandUnfairCompetition


17

61. ThePlaintiffsincorporatebyreferencetheallegationsinthepreceding


62. TheDefendantshavemadeandsoldininterstatecommercetheirParrotBay

CocktailspackagedinpouchesthatembodyABC’stradedress.

63. AsaresultoftheDefendants’conductassetforthherein,consumerscouldbe

confusedandinducedtopurchasetheDefendants’ParrotBayCocktails,mistakenly

believingthemtobeDaily’sCocktails,thusdeprivingABCoftheprofitsofsale.

64. TheParrotBayCocktailsareofinferiorqualitytotheDaily’sCocktails,and

uponinformationandbelief,theDefendants’pouchesaresusceptibletoleaks.Asaresult

oftheDefendants’conductassetforthherein,consumersmaycometoattributethe

inferiorqualitiesoftheDefendants’ParrotBayCocktailstotheDaily’sCocktails,toABC’s

detriment.

65. Byengagingintheconductsetforthherein,theDefendantsarepassingoff

theirParrotBayCocktailsasABC’sDaily’sCocktails,tradingoffandexploitingABC’s

reputationandgoodwill,toABC’sdetriment.

66. Byengagingintheconductsetforthherein,theDefendantshaveinfringed

andcontinuetoinfringeABC’srightsinitstradedress,inviolationof§43(a)oftheLanham

Act,15U.S.C.§ 1125(a).TheDefendants’conductislikelytocauseconfusion– initially,

post-sale,andotherwise– mistake,anddeceptionamongconsumersastotheaffiliation,

connection,orassociationoftheDefendantswithABCandastotheorigin,sponsorship,

andapprovaloftheDefendants’ParrotBayCocktailsandcommercialactivitiesbyABC.

SuchconductalsointerfereswithABC’srighttouseitstradedresstoidentifyABCasthe

singlesourceoftheDaily’sCocktails.TheDefendants’conductassetforthhereinalso


18

constitutesfalsedesignationoforigin,unfaircompetition,andfalseadvertisinginviolation

of§43(a)oftheLanhamAct,15U.S.C.§1125(a).


fraudulent,deliberate,willful,and/orintentional.



thePlaintiffs.





complainedofherein.

COUNTIII:CommonLawUnfairCompetition

71. ThePlaintiffsincorporatebyreference theallegationsinthepreceding


72. TheDefendants’conductassetforthhereinislikelytocauseconsumer

confusion,tocausemistake,andtodeceiveastotheaffiliation,connection,orassociation

oftheDefendantswithABCandastotheorigin,sponsorship,andapprovalofthe

Defendants’ParrotBayCocktailsandcommercialactivitiesbyABC.Suchconductalso

interfereswithABC’srighttouseitstradedresstoidentifyABCasthesinglesourceofthe

Daily’sCocktails.

73. TheDefendants’conductassetforthhereinconstitutesunfaircompetition

andpalmingoff.


19


fraudulent,deliberate,willful,and/orintentional.



thePlaintiffs.


causeirreparableharmtoPlaintiffs forwhichtheyhavenoadequateremedyatlaw.



complainedofherein.

PRAYERFORRELIEF

WHEREFORE,thePlaintiffsdemandjudgmentagainsttheDefendantsasfollows:

1. AjudgmentdeclaringthattheDefendantshaveinfringedthe672Patentand

haveinfringedABC’stradedress,havecompetedunfairlywithABC,haveinjuredABC’s

businessreputationbytheunauthorizeduseofABC’stradedress,andhavewillfully

violatedtheapplicablelawsoftheUnitedStatesandofthestateswheretheDefendants’

goodshavebeensold,alltothedetrimentofPlaintiffs;

2. ThattheDefendants,theirofficers,agents,servants,employees,attorneys,

successorsandassigns,andallotherpersonsinactiveconcertwithorparticipationwith

thembepreliminarilyandpermanentlyenjoinedandrestrainedfrom:

(a) Infringingorinducinginfringementofthe672Patent;

(b) Infringingor inducinginfringementofABC’stradedress;


20

(c) UsingABC’stradedress,aloneorincombinationwithanyotherelements,to

advertiseoridentifytheDefendants’goodsorservices;

(d) UnfairlycompetingwithABCinanymannerwhatsoever;

(e) Causinglikelihoodofconfusion;

(f) Engaginginanyactsoractivitiesdirectlyorindirectlycalculatedtotrade

uponABC’stradedressorthereputationorgoodwillofABC,orinanywayto

competeunfairlywithABC;

3. ForpreliminaryandpermanentinjunctivereliefdirectingDefendantsto

recallfromdistributionanddestroyallproductsthatinfringethe672Patentorinfringeor

embodyABC’stradedressoranycolorableimitationthereof,butwhichdonotemanate

fromABC;

4. ForajudgmentagainstDefendantsawardingthePlaintiffsdamagesandlost

profits,including:

(a) AlldamagessustainedbythePlaintiffsasaresultoftheDefendants’unlawful

infringementofthe672Patent,togetherwithinterestonsuchdamagesand

thatsuchdamagesbetrebled,pursuantto35U.S.C.§284and35U.S.C.§289;

(b) AlldamagessustainedbyABCasaresultoftheDefendants’unlawful

infringementofABC’stradedress,togetherwithinterestonsuchdamages

andthatsuchdamagesbetrebled;

(c) AllprofitsderivedbytheDefendantsfromthesaleofgoodsbythedirector

indirectuseofABC’stradedressorcolorableimitationsthereof,andthat

suchprofitsbetrebled;


21

(d) AlldamagessustainedbyPlaintiffs onaccountofpatentinfringement,trade

dressinfringement,unfaircompetition,andanyotherdamagessufferedby

Plaintiffs asaresultoftheDefendants’conductassetforthherein,andthat

suchdamagesbetrebled;

5. ForanaccountingofallDefendants’profitsfromtheconductcomplainedof

herein;

6. ForanorderdirectingtheDefendantstopaypunitivedamages;

7. ForanorderdirectingtheDefendantstopayrestitution;

8. Foranawardofattorneys’feespursuantto35U.S.C.§285and15U.S.C.§

1117orasotherwisepermittedbylaw;

9. Foranawardofpre-judgmentandpost-judgmentinterestatthemaximum

rateallowedbylaw;

10. Forthecostsandexpensesofthesuitherein;and

11. ForsuchadditionalandfurtherreliefasthisCourtmaydeemjustand

proper.


22

Respectfullysubmitted,

By: /s/StevenW.ZofferDickie,McCamey&Chilcote,P.C.StevenW.Zoffer,EsquirePAI.D.#[email protected],EsquirePAI.D.#[email protected],Suite400Pittsburgh,PA15222-5402Telephone:(412)281-7272Facsimile:(412)392-5367

Ference&AssociatesLLCStanelyD.Ference,III,EsquirePAI.D.#[email protected],PA15143Telephone:(412)741-8400Facsimile:(412)741-9292

CounselforPlaintiffs



VERIFICATION

I, Tim Barr, Vice President of Marketing and Strategy of American Beverage

Corporation, hereby verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing VERIFIED COMPLAINT are

true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of

18 Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.

23

Case 2:12-cv-00601-JFC Document 1-1 Filed 05/07/12 Page 1 of 5

(12) United States Design PatentMurray

(10) Patent No.:(45) Date of Patent:

US D571,672 S** Jun. 24, 2008

(54) FLEXIBLE POUCH

(21) App!. No.: 29n98,054

(73) Assignee: Pouch Pac Innovations, LLC, Sarasota,FL (US)

(75) Inventor: R. Charles Murray, Lakewood Ranch,FL (US)

3/2001 Laudenberg et al.512001 Fuqucn 0917078/2001 Croft et al. 09/6%7/2002 Thomas912002 Garcia 09/696212005 Bennan 091708912005 Snyder 09/5438/2006 lJeda D917028/2006 lJeda 091702912006 lJeda 091702912007 Berman 091708

1012007 Bennan 09170812/2007 Murray 091708

112008 Bennan 091708

6.199.601 nlD442,078 S •0446,445 S *6,422,753 BI0463,275 S •

D502.092 S •D509.144 S *0526,573 S ..0527,278 S ..0528.0II S *0551,568 S *D553,008 S ..D557,614 S ..D558.596 S *Nov. 28, 2007

14 Years(**) Term:

(22) Filed:

The ornamental design for a flexible pouch, as shown anddescribed.

* cited by examiner

Primary Examiner-Caron D. VeynarAssistant Examiner..-Abraham Bahia(74) AI/orney, Agent, or Pirm--Gifford,Anderson & Citkowski, P.C

(51 )(52)(58)

(56)

LOC (8) Cl. 09-05U.S. CI. . D9nlOField of Classification Search D91702-714.

D9/601, 607, 611, 719,522,434-435.696;206/822; 383/61.1,81,104,80,901,63.

383/103,203; 2221107See application file for complete search history.

References Cited

U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS

(57) CLAIM

Krass, Sprinkle,

733,449 A2,189,174 A2,703,671 A3,286,005 A3,304,977 A3.924,008 A4,078.717 A4,326,568 A4,361,235 A4,498,591 A4.717,046 A4.848,421 A4,999,978 A5,222,535 A5,267,591 A5,433.526 A5,485,714 AD435,440 S *

711903 Willsie211940 Hohl3/1955 Kinds.:th

1111966 Cook211967 Hanunons

1211975 Fordetal.3/1978 Stearley4/1982 Burton et al.

11/1982 Gautier et al.211985 Smith, 11111988 nrogli et a!.711989 Froese et a!.311991 Kohlbach et al.6/1 993 Roders

121 I993 Wakabayashi et a!.7/1995 Wild et al.II I996 Montalvo

1212000 Croft et al. 09/696

DESCRIPTION

FIG. 1 is a front side elevational vit.'W of a flexible pouchshowing my new design;

FIG. 2 is a side elevational view thereof;

FIG. 3 is a rear side elevational view thereof;

FIG. 4 is a bottom plan view thereof;

riG. 5 is a front side elevational view ofa second embodimentof the flexible pouch;

FIG. 6, a side elevational view thereof;

FIG. 7 is a rear side elevational view thereof; and,

FIG. 8 is a bottom plan view thereof.

1 Claim, 4 Drawing Sheets

o

o o EXHIBrr


u.s. Patent Jun. 24,2008 Sheet 1 of 4

F16-1

l1B-2

US D571,672 S


U.S. Patent Jun. 24, 2008 Sheet 2 of 4 US D571,672 S

"11-4

FIIl-3


u.s. Patent Jun. 24, 2008 Sheet 3 of 4 US D571,672 S

116-6

116-5


u.s. Patent Jun. 24, 2008 Sheet 4 of 4 us I>S71,672 S

FIB· 1

F16·8


ERNEST l. GIFFORD /IIALLEN M. KRASSDOUOLAS W. Sl'IUNltl.1!THOMAS E. ANDERSON IIIRONALD W. CITKOWSKIJULIE A. GREENBERGDOUGLAS J. McEVOYJOHN O. POSADOUGLASL.WATHENMARK D. SCHNEIDERKEVIN S. MAcKENZIEJULIE K. STAPLE. 1'11.0.MARTI>~ S. BANCROFT, pu.D. f2J

MARK A. HARPER, PH.D.

JOHN CHAUCESARE A. SCLAFANIERIN B. KLUGWESTON ll. OOULD. PlI.D. U)

(1) ALSO ADU'TTI!O IN fLOIUDA

()) ALAe ADMITTliD IH ~n; .... YOIlK.

(1) Ot4LY AculTTUJ Itt CONN'ICTJI:UT

Mr. Evan GourvitzDirector & Senior CounselDiageo North America, Inc.801 Main AvenueNorwalk, Connecticut 06851

.-.( "

"'GIFFORD,KRASS.SPRINKLE.ANDERSON &

C====~y-__ CITKOWSKI. PC.PATENT, TRAOEMAJ\l< & COl'YRIGHT PRACTICE

December 8,2011

MAtN OFFICE2701 TROY CENTER DRIVE

SUITE 330P.O. BOX 7021

TROY, MICHIGAN 48007· 7021TELEPHONE (248) 647·6000

FAX (248) 647·$110

ANN ".BOl OFFICE303 DETROIT STREET

SUITE 300ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48104-1144

TELEPHONE (134) 91J·9300FAX (134) 913·6007

fLORIDA OFFICESEABOARD OFFICE PARK

312 EAST VENICE AVENUESUITE 201

VENICE. FLORIDA 34285TELEPHONE (941) 488-4245

INFO@PA TLA W. COMWWW.PATLAW.COM

Re: Parrot Bay PackagingOur Reference: PPJ-27981/08

Dear Mr. Gourvitz:

We represent PPi Technologies Inc. in its intellectual property matters. Thiscorrespondence relates to packaging for the Parrot Bay beverage produced by Diageo.

PPi Technologies is the owner of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0247682and U.S. Design Patent No, D571 ,672, copies of which are enclosed. These patents are directedto a stand-up flexible pouch. PPi Technologies has licensed the technology covered by thepatent and application to American Beverage Corp. for its use in packaging Daily's frozenalcoholic beverages. It has corne to our attention that Diageo is marketing a frozen alcoholicbeverage in a flexible pouch under the Parrot Bay brand. We have compared the Parrot Baypouch with Design Patent No. D571,672. It is our opinion that the Parrot Bay pouch is aninfringement of the PPi Technologies' design patent. In fact, the Parrot Bay pouch is virtuallyidentical to the Daily's pouch. A copy of photographs taken of the pouches side by side isenclosed as Exhibit A. It is interesting to note that not only has Diageo copied the shape of thepouch but also has copied aspects of the Daily's branding.

As you are well aware, representatives of Diageo visited PPi Technologies and wereinfonned of PPi's patent rights in the pouch. Nevertheless, this will stand as formal notificationof PPi's patent rights. We remind Diageo that the penalties for willful infringement includetriple damages and attorneys fees. Diageo and its customers are infringing PPi's rights. PPidemands· that Diageo cease and desist from producing packaging currently used for the ParrotBay product.

EXHI8rT


GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON 8: CITKOWSKI, P.G.

Mr. Evan GourvitzDecember 8, 20]]Page 2

If you have any questions or wish to discuss the matter, please contact the undersigned.

Thomas E. Anderson

TEAJgsEnclosures


I 211l-\41 tille'

--------------

Dickie

Steven W. ZotterAttorney-at-LawAdmitted in PA. DC

April 25, 2012

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESSEvan GourvitzDirector and Senior CounselDiageo North America, Inc.801 Main AvenueNorwalk, CT 06851

RE: American Beverage Corporation GeneralParrot Bay PackagingOur File No.: 0004085.0267432

Dear Mr. Gourvitz:

Direct Dial: 412-392-5492Direct Fax: 412-392-5367

szoffer@dmclaw,com

This finn has been retained by American Beverage Corporation ("ABC") in connectionwith frozen cocktails sold by Diageo North America, Inc., and Diageo Americas Supply, Inc.CDiageo") under its Parrot Bay brand.

For several years, ABC has been making and selling frozen cocktails under its Daily'sbrand name. The Daily's cocktails are packaged in pouches that embody a unique trade dress,consisting of a distinctive shape, size, and overalI general appearance. ABC has expendedsubstantial time, resources, and money in connection with its trade dress, and as a result, theDaily's cocktails have become easily recognizable and popular due to ABC's trade dress. Asyou may also know, ABC's pouch is the subject of U.S. Design Patent No. 0571,672, which hasbeen licensed exclusively to ABC.

It has come to our attention that Diageo is making and selling frozen cocktails under itsParrot Bay brand in pouches that so closely embody and imitate ABC's pouches that consumerconfusion is likely to occur. In fact, ABC has already received reports of actual consumerconfusion caused by Diageo's conduct. A picture of the two products is enclosed as Exhibit A.The resemblance is undeniable.

ABC believes that Diageo is infringing ABC's trade dress and the aforementioned patent.Accordingly, ABC demands that Diageo cease and desist from making and selling its infringingParrot Bay cocktails. As you know, damages for willful infringement include treble damagesand attorney's fees. Please confirm in writing by May 1,2012 that Diageo will comply withABC's request to cease and desist. If we do not hear from you by that time, ABC will take

DICKIE. MlCAMEY &CHILCOTE, PC I ATTORNEYS AT lAWMAIN: 412·281·7272 FAX: 412·392-5367lWO PPG PlACE, sum: 400 I PlTTS8URGH, PA 15222·5402 I WWW.DMCLAW.COM

EXHIBITChorlotle, NC ICoIumbus,OH I Haddonfield, NJ I HOlrisburg, PA

Philadelphia, PA I Pitlsburgh, PA I Raleigh, NC I Steuben'<iUe,OHWashington, DC I VvreeIing, Wi IlMlminglon, DE


Evan C;ourvitzDIrector and Senior CounselDiageo North America, Inc.April ,2012Page 2

whatever action it deems appropriate including, but not limited to, proceeding to enforce itsrights, should that become necessary, in the United States District Court for the Western Districtof Pennsylvania. Nothing herein constitutes a waiver of any of ABC's rights or remedies, al! ofwhich are expressly reserved.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and please do not hesitate to contact us at theabove address or phone if you have any questions or would like to discuss.

Very truly

~\.j'UI1""" for American Beverage Corporation

SWZlpfhAttachmentcc: American Beverage Corporation (w/attachment)

Nathan A. Kostelnik, Esquire (w/o attachment)


Case 2:12-cv-00601-JFC Document 1-4 Filed 05/07/12 Page 1 of 1-".;S 44 (Rev, 12/07) CIVIL COVER SHEETThe JS 44 civil cover sheet and the intormatinn contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or olher papers as required by law, except as providedby local rules of court. This fonl1, approved by Ihe Judicial Conference ot the United Slates in September 1974. is required for the usc of the Clerk ofCourt for the purpose of1l1itiatingthe civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIO~S ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS

AMERICAN BEVERAGE CORPORATION and

POUCH PAC INNOVATIONS, LLC

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Alle~heny

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

DEFENDANTS DIAGEO NORTH AMERICA, INC. and

IAGEO AMERICAS SUPPLY, INC. t/d/b/a CAPTAIN

ORGAN CO.

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant

(IN U,S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES. USE THE LOCATION OFTHE

LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Attorncy's (Finn Name. Address. and Telephone Number~teven w.Esquire, Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C.,

PPG Place, Suite 400, Pgh., PA 15222 (412)

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an ..x.. in One Box Only)

a I U.S. Government ~ 3 Federal QuestionPlaintiff (U,S. Government Not a Party)

Zoffer Attorneys (If Known)

Two281-72 2

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES(Plaee an "X" in One Box f"r Plaintiff(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)

PTF DEl' PTF DEl'Citi'en of This Stale a I a I Incorporated 01' Principal Place a 4 a 4

of Business In This State

a 2 U,S. GovernmentDefendant

a 4 Diversity

(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item Ill)

Citizen of Another State

Citizen or Subject of aForei n Count

a 2

a 3

a 2 Incorporated and Princtpal Placeof Business In Another State

o 3 F,,,eign Nation

a 5 a 5

a ~ 0 6

IV. NATURE OF SUIT tPlacean ..x .. in One Box flnl )(() Tit CT rmn. H RHlTl'IUJP.. R "RlWf( 11IFR. lU..

400 State Reapportionment4 I0 Antitrust430 Banks and Banking450 Commerce460 Deportation470 Raeketecr InJIuenced and

Corrupt Organizations480 Consumer Credit490 CablclSat TV810 Selective Service850 Securities/Commoditiesl

Exchange875 Customer Challenge

12 USC 3410890 Other Statutory Actions891 Agricultural Acts892 Economic Stabilization Act893 Environmental Matters894 Energy Allocation Act895 Freedom of Infonnation

Act900Appeal of Fcc Determination

Under Equal Accessto Justice

a 950 Constitutionality ofState Statutes

0aaaaa

00a0

0II

aaa0aa

a

a 422 Appeal 28 USC 158a 423 Withdrawal

28 USC 157

I I lie;: 10.

a 610 Agriculturca 620 Other Food & Druga 625 Drug Related Sciwre

of Property 21 USC 881a 630 Liquor Lawso 640 R.R. & Trucka 650 Airline Regs.a 660 Occupational

SafetylHcaltha 690 Other

'L 462 Naturaliz.ation Applicationa 463 Habeas Corpus -

Alk'11 Detaineea 465 Other Immigration

Actions

PRI, fit r .... mn

PF-RSONAL INJURYa 362 Personal Injury

Med. Malpracticea 365 Personal Injury

Product Liabilitya 368 Asbestos Personal

Injury ProductLiability

PERSONAL PROPERTYa 370 Other Frauda 371 Truth in Lendinga 380 Other Personal

Property Damagea 385 Property Damage

Product Liability

a 510 M"tions to VacateSentence

Habeas Corpus:530 Gencral535 Dcath Penalty540 Mandamus & Other550 Civil Rights555 Prison Condition

'1\ II RIC.II

PERSONAL INJURYo 3 I0 Airplanea 3 I5 Airplane Product

Liability320 Assault. Libel &

Slander330 Federal Employers

Liabilitya 340 Marineo 345 Marine Product

Liabilitya 350 Motor Vehieleo 355 Motor Vehicle

Product Liabilitya 360 Other Personal

Iniu

o 44 J Votinga 442 Employmenta 443 Housing!

Accommodations 0a 444 Welfare aa 445 Amer. wlDisabilities - a

Employment aa 44~ Amer. w/Disabilities - a

Othera 440 Other Civil Rights

Itl' l.I'ItOP.'KTYa 2 J0 Land Condemnationa 220 Foreclosurea 230 Rent Lease & Ejectmenta 240 Torts to Landa 245 Tort Product Liabilitya 290 All Other Real Property

a I 10 Insurancea 120 Marinea 130 Miller Acta 140 Negotiable Instrumenta 150 Recovery of Overpayment a

& Enforcement ofJudgmenta 15! Medicare Act aa 152 Recovery of Defaulted

Student Loans(Exel. Veterans)

a 153 Recovery of Overpaymentof Veteran's Benctits

a 160 Stockholders' Suitsa 190 Other Contracta 195 Contract Product Liabilitya 196 Franchise

V. ORIGIN

KJ I OriginalProceeding

(Place an ..x.. in One Box Only)

o 2 Removed from 0 3State Court

Remanded from 0 4 Reinstated or 0 5 Transferred from 0 6 MultidistrictAppellate Court Reopened another dlSlnCt Litigation

s eCl

o 7Appeal to DistrictJudge fromMagistrateJud ent

Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do Dot cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):35 USC 271 and 15

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION ~B~n':'"'e-:'f-:-de;";sc;;"n';'ip-:ti';;;on""o"';f:-c"';au:;;s:':'e:-=--=-"'---'''''''''''-''''''''''''''''''---------------------------

Patent infringement, trade dress infrin ement, and unfair com etition

VII. REQUESTED IN

COMPLAINT:

o CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:

UNDER F.R.C.P. 23 JURY DEMAND: 1{J Yes 0 No

VIII. RELATED CASE(S)

IF ANY(See instructions):

JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER

DATE 5/7 /12 SIGNATURE OF ATTORNE Y OF RECORD

lsi Steven W. Zoffer

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT---- ------- APPLYfNG IFP------ JUDGE----- MAG. JUDGE--------

Documents

ABC v. Diageo - Complaint